Instructing in a LSA Homebuilt

[FlySooner9]

First off wondering if anyone has any experience flying the Zenith 750. Second question is what is everyone's take on instructing someone in one that he built? He has a license but isn't confident in himself. The aircraft has been FAA certified but still makes me a little nervous flying In a homebuilt. I can deal with engine failures and such but don't want a wing falling off or something. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Thoughts?

 

[Phil Schuyler]

First off wondering if anyone has any experience flying the Zenith 750. Second question is what is everyone's take on instructing someone in one that he built? He has a license but isn't confident in himself. The aircraft has been FAA certified but still makes me a little nervous flying In a homebuilt. I can deal with engine failures and such but don't want a wing falling off or something. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Thoughts?

I guess the real question is, do you trust the FAA in such matters? You say the owner isn't confident in himself? As a pilot? Or as a homebuilder?

From my way of thinking, it's not out of line to request that the airplane be inspected by an A&P/IA that is knowledgeable about the type, or at least verify in the logbooks that the inspection has been done. If the owner is not willing to do that, I'd walk away.

 

[hook_dupin]

Additionally, request to fly a few hours yourself so you can feel how the type flies.

 

[FlySooner9]

Additionally, request to fly a few hours yourself so you can feel how the type flies.

Certainly plan on doing that.

Also to the other reply he's not confident in himself as a pilot not builder.

 

[tomokc]

Our shop had these criteria: Legal, airworthy & insured. Homebuilts are outliers and easy to decline. The LSA market never really picked up - those guys tend to approach shadetree CFIs who do their work in coffee shops.

If you're really thinking about it, drill into accident reports and try to locate other CFIs who have instructed in this particular model. If you can't get a body of information, perhaps its best to decline.

They aren't sexy or cool, but we liked Skyhawks for this main reason: Cessna has made them forever, every mechanic in the world knows how to work on one, parts are everywhere, and nothing is going to happen in one of ours that hasn't happened in a lot of the others. The opposite holds true for homebuilts.

 

[Phil Schuyler]

First off wondering if anyone has any experience flying the Zenith 750. Second question is what is everyone's take on instructing someone in one that he built? He has a license but isn't confident in himself. The aircraft has been FAA certified but still makes me a little nervous flying In a homebuilt. I can deal with engine failures and such but don't want a wing falling off or something. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Thoughts?

Since the guy is already certificated, it sounds like it would just a few hours of work. If it were me, I'd pass.

 

[FlySooner9]

Since the guy is already certificated, it sounds like it would just a few hours of work. If it were me, I'd pass.

It'd pretty much just be for fun.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

He would probably be better off going to the EAA to find a seasoned pilot with plenty of experience in the M&M instead of a generic CFI. If he's legally current, he doesn't need a CFI. What he really needs is someone who knows how to operate that particular airplane and can tell him how his product stacks up to the norm. If it were me, I'd refer him to the EAA flight adviser program.

 

[Itchy]

Run.

Give him instruction in a certified airplane.

 

[greg1016]

Don't be afraid of homebuilds. Due to the constraints of the LSA, they should have similar flying characteristics. That being said, I know the E-LSA airworthiness requirements are more lax than experimental-amateur build (E-AB). It makes me wonder how much flight testing was done and who did it if he is now seeking instruction. As someone advised earlier, if he is already a pilot, he does not require a CFI, and perhaps the person who flight-tested the aircraft would be better suited for this specific task.

However, I am a little disappointed in the homebuild hate that seems to be prevailing on this thread. Homebuilds have a major advantage over certified aircraft, cost of ownership, that puts airplane ownership within reach to many people who would not be able to afford a certified aircraft. I would be skeptical of an amateur designed plane, but anything from a major kit manufacturer I would have no qualms about flying in after it has finished with its initial flight testing phase (usually 40 hours or so for the E-AB category). Zenair is a major manufacturer.

 

[CFI A&P]

Surprisingly the leading cause for E-AB accidents is not structural or engine failures, it is pilot error and fuel exhaustion. The same reasons people crash normal category airplanes. Nothing new there.

Just research the type, get to know the pitfalls of the make and model. The FAA has published numerous advisory circulars on this subject. It's just an airplane, things like Bernoulli and thrust still apply.

 

[FlySooner9]

I flew with him a few hours last week. Very neat little airplane to fly. Doesn't handle that much differently then any other small light GA aircraft. Airplane has about 30 hours on it.

 

[Roger Roger]

Surprisingly the leading cause for E-AB accidents is not structural or engine failures, it is pilot error and fuel exhaustion. The same reasons people crash normal category airplanes. Nothing new there.

Just research the type, get to know the pitfalls of the make and model. The FAA has published numerous advisory circulars on this subject. It's just an airplane, things like Bernoulli and thrust still apply.

To be fair, it seems that on more than one occasion that I've read about hinky things that home builders did to their fuel systems had something to do with the fuel exhaustion. But by and large I agree.

 

[greg1016]

To be fair, it seems that on more than one occasion that I've read about hinky things that home builders did to their fuel systems had something to do with the fuel exhaustion. But by and large I agree.

Fuel system problems and improper rigging, which is why I say after the flight testing phase is complete. I read about one case where a builder modified the plans from a stick to a panel mounted yoke (why anyone would want to do that is beyond me) and when he taxied out for his first flight he realized his ailerons were rigged for reverse control. He was lucky, not everyone is.

To certify as an E-LSA the kit has to be approved for E-LSA by the manufacturer and the builder may not deviate from the plans at all.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

To certify as an E-LSA the kit has to be approved for E-LSA by the manufacturer and the builder may not deviate from the plans at all.

To be built as an E-LSA, you mean there has to be an S-LSA model. Sure, you have to build it per the plans, but the minute its done and certified, you can modify it all you want.

 

[JeppUpdater]

People also seem to think certified airplanes are the end all be all of the instructing fleet. Anyone who's picked up a new airplane from the factory knows how false that is. I've picked up a Skyhawk that was leaking fuel in Cessna's demo hangar, a 206 that would randomly pop circuit breakers during the demo flight, and had the pleasure of watching maintenance guys fish rivets out of a fuel tank of a Caravan that Cessna just left in there.

There's good and bad home builders just as there's good and bad line assemblers. Like anything else, maintenance is key.

 

[greg1016]

To be built as an E-LSA, you mean there has to be an S-LSA model. Sure, you have to build it per the plans, but the minute its done and certified, you can modify it all you want.

Not true, the RV-12 was an E-LSA first, but the kit needs ATSM approval that it conforms with LSA standards to be certified as an E-LSA. I really do not know the constraints once the aircraft is granted an airworthiness certificate as far as mods go, but I DO know that it legally must be operated in a manner consistent with LSA standards. If a builder were to make unapproved modifications during construction, the aircraft would have to be certified under E-AB or some other experimental category which would increase the length of flight testing and also brings the 51% rule back into effect (something E-LSAs do not have to conform to).

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Not true, the RV-12 was an E-LSA first, but the kit needs ATSM approval that it conforms with LSA standards to be certified as an E-LSA. I really do not know the constraints once the aircraft is granted an airworthiness certificate as far as mods go, but I DO know that it legally must be operated in a manner consistent with LSA standards. If a builder were to make unapproved modifications during construction, the aircraft would have to be certified under E-AB or some other experimental category which would increase the length of flight testing and also brings the 51% rule back into effect (something E-LSAs do not have to conform to).

Yes, to build the RV-12 as an E-LSA, they built 1 S-LSA, prior to the factory producing them now. You can't build E-LSA's without an S-LSA conformity model. And you are correct about modifications during construction. But once it's done, you can change it however you'd like (assuming its still LSA legal).