donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Who said I was offended?
If you don’t like my opinion, that’s too bad… for you.
Last edited:
Pipistrel Panthera - The perfect airplane?
- Thread starter flyingcheesehead
- Start date
If you don’t like my opinion, that’s too bad… for you.
Ohh flight level 80
You do understand the aircraft is European? In Europe and for that matter much of the world the transition to flight levels starts as low as 3000 feet and nearly always is a flight level above 6000 feet.
FlyDozer
Filing Flight Plan
It's a factory built. By pipistrel. I believe in Italy.
Attachments
What type of certification will it have? Normal, Experimental Exhibition, etc?
When do they expect to deliver?
Pipistel’s factory is in Slovenia, I visited once, with a smaller facility just across the border in Italy.
TA is Europe is indeed low and inconsistent, due to the unavailability of in-flight altimeter data in many areas.
The Panthera is not certified anywhere, including in the US and there has been no movement in this for years. I would expect that after they sell more than a couple in the US with Experimental Exhibition paperwork, the story of them being non-production technology demonstrators would be hard to justify. How many have been N-registered, more than one or two?
TA is Europe is indeed low and inconsistent, due to the unavailability of in-flight altimeter data in many areas.
The Panthera is not certified anywhere, including in the US and there has been no movement in this for years. I would expect that after they sell more than a couple in the US with Experimental Exhibition paperwork, the story of them being non-production technology demonstrators would be hard to justify. How many have been N-registered, more than one or two?
Last edited:
The two airports I've been to in Slovenia, Ljubljana and Maribor both have a TA of 10500'. Higher than the norm in Europe, but as mentioned before, it varies quite a bit. Not very relevant to the performance numbers if they use 8000' or FL 80, right?
FlyDozer
Filing Flight Plan
I don't know yet. The plane is arriving in couple weeks. Will see
Yeah. Lots of balls committing to that transaction.
FlyDozer
Filing Flight Plan
I will let you guys know sometime in 2-3 weeks
There are no simple ways to get an an FAA type certificate for a factory built aircraft type that doesn't have one. There are likely ways to get an individual aircraft of that type N-registered as an Experimental, with operating limitations that vary but which can sometimes be pretty much wide open for types fitting into specific categories like aerobatic, glider, warbird, one-off and so on. However, N-registering a type that is similar to the Panthera in being a four seat IFR production aircraft that would compete with existing FAA-certified types is likely to attract severe FAA-specified operating limitations within Experimental Exhibition. It is remarkable to me that somebody might commit to buying one without understanding the FAA limitations applied to the particular aircraft.
Aircraft types that are European certified are sometimes FAA-certified under treaty, versus going through the FAA certification process. This is typically done by their manufacturer, although I can think of an example (A44EU if anybody cares) where it was done years ago by somebody in the US. In the case of the Panthera, it is not to the best of my knowledge certified anywhere and so this would not be relevant.
Last edited:
455 Bravo Uniform
Final Approach
If a non-N tail number flies to the US, how long can it stay and use our airspace without having to register here?
If the aircraft type is not certified in a ICAO-signatory country of registration, it cannot be legally flown in the US without a specific FAA permit that specifies a lot of details. Canadian homebuilts are an exception, covered by a separate US-Canadian treaty.
I believe non-FAA registered aircraft are supposed to be on a flight plan, but I've not seen that enforced. Certified types (meaning unlike the Panthera) on foreign registration could otherwise stay and fly as long as they like in the US, as long as all their maintenance and inspections are current and performed by mechanics licensed by the country of registration, not by FAA mechanics. This is the same ICAO treaty situation that results in many certified N-registered aircraft based all over the world, and many FAA certificated mechanics all over the world.
I believe non-FAA registered aircraft are supposed to be on a flight plan, but I've not seen that enforced. Certified types (meaning unlike the Panthera) on foreign registration could otherwise stay and fly as long as they like in the US, as long as all their maintenance and inspections are current and performed by mechanics licensed by the country of registration, not by FAA mechanics. This is the same ICAO treaty situation that results in many certified N-registered aircraft based all over the world, and many FAA certificated mechanics all over the world.
Last edited:
Part 91 Sub D give the rules with 91.711 relevant. The Panthera a former customer flew was N reg under Experimental Exhibition and he could have ordered same. If I recall the OpsLimits weren't restrictive but my client wanted a TC'd aircraft and the EASA certification schedule was not firm at the time he flew it. He ended going with a SR22 but I think if the Panthera were to obtain its TC he may look at it again as he thought it was a good aircraft. And just to add, its my understanding once an aircraft is issued its EASA CS-23 TC, the acceptance for a FAA Part 23 TC has been streamlined by the Part 23 rewrite 7 years ago. So it shouldn't take long for a Panthera to be issued a standard AWC. What will be interesting is how long or what method/cost it may take to convert those E/E flying Pantheras to a standard AWC.
Since the OpsLimits are part of the AWC its tough to know the exact limitations for that specific aircraft. However, sometimes when there is a model that is regularly operated under E/E you might get lucky and find an OpsLimit example posted online. In the case of the Panthera, I found this CASA E/E example which is somewhat similar to the FAA E/E limitations. Perhaps search operating limitations for the model you are looking at and see if you can find an example? Or if it is already under E/E ask the seller to send you a copy?
But for reference, the FAA guidance for E/E certification is Order 8130.2J with E/E under Chap 12, Program Letter examples under Appx C, and the master ops limitation listing in Appx D.
Yes on both accounts. IMO I don’t think Pipistrel will make the process difficult or costly except for perhaps the cost to fly the E/E to a location where the appropriate work will be accomplished. To me that would be bad business.
For example, I’ve gone through the same process on a number of helicopters that were built under license in countries outside the applicable type certificate bi-lateral agreements and brought them back into the fold under a FAA or EASA TCDS. It can take a lot of paperwork and inspection but usually no issues unless there were major alterations or repairs which resulted in excessive configuration problems. But it does require the participation of the TC holder and the issuing regulatory body or their approved representative to complete the process and issue the proper AWC.
I can't imagine dropping that kind of coin on a plane and not knowing how limited id be in flying the thing.
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
I have a feeling we're being trolled. The account was created in January and the first post was on this thread. I just can't believe that someone would drop that kind of money on an aircraft which has a rather foggy path to an airworthiness certificate.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Anyone who's ever put in a deposit for an aircraft to be certified in the future has done the same, and there have been many takers over the years.
At least in this case the taker will actually get to fly their airplane, instead of just see the dream go up in smoke.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
What type? I wasn't aware there were others that are similar.
pfarber
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 587
- Display Name
Display name:
pfarber
That $873,000+ freedom units is one reason its not a reasonable alternative for anyone.
Pick an RV and you can get close for 1/8th the price.
Maybe 1/3rd the price. Rv-10 is only one that’s really close.
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
This person didn’t say they put a deposit down. They said they “purchased” the aircraft.
And will they get to fly it? Are there any currently registered and flying in the US?
Max Trescott interviewed the US distributor a year or two ago. IIRC they are bringing them is an experimental exhibition and the only real restriction is the owner has to send the FAA a list of events they will attend with it. As long it is exhibited at an event or two they can do whatever else they want. Now, this was a while ago and I may be misremembering. I'm not going to bother listening to it again, but you can and tell me if I'm wrong: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...panthera-ga-news/id1223782070?i=1000503662760
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Oh, gotcha. I was thinking similar as in configuration, not a microlight.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sounds like what they were saying at Oshkosh last year too.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
There are 13 on the registry, with serial numbers between 6 and 31 so presumably they've sold at least that many in other countries too.
10 of the 13 have flown within the past month according to FlightAware.
2 of the 3 that have not flown in the past month are owned by the same company.
That is the standard situation for several sub-categories of Experimental Exhibition, covering special interest aircraft in particular FAA-defined categories with the intent of allowing them to be displayed to the public, not as a way to bypass certification of factory built, privately operated transportation aircraft. It is very surprising to me that FAA would allow thirteen or more production, factory built aircraft to be sold to retail consumers for family transportation within the same Experimental Exhibition limitations.
Ever wonder why there are so few Antonov AN-2s in the US, when they are/were available in volume for almost nothing overseas and would be very useful utility aircraft for people in e.g. Alaska? The reason is that FAA proactively put so many limitations on their operation in Experimental Exhibition that they are useless. As I recall FAA went as far as to create a new E-EX subcategory with extra tight limitations to make sure the AN-2 or similar aircraft would not be able to circumvent certification. This was to stop competition with manufacturers who obey the sprint of the law and certify aircraft before serial production for sale to the public. If the same situation of bypassing certification is being allowed by FAA now with the manufacturer using a friendly FSDO or DAR to get it done, I think it would be unprecedented.
Last edited:
just reporting on the podcast. Like I said I could've gotten it wrong. Also possible something changed since then. Looks like the podcast was clear back in 2020. I agree it seems like a pretty big loophole if that's what they're doing.What I find interesting is not whether you got it wrong, it’s my sneaking suspicion you’re right and that Pipistrel and now Textron is delivering uncertified aircraft to the public in serial production, with the help of some friendly DAR & FSDO, while the lame 2024-style FAA bureaucracy doesn’t know what’s going on, or the implications of what's being done. Maybe I’m wrong…
Last edited:
Here is the FAA basic take on E/E registration.
Exhibition: to exhibit an aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics for air shows, motion pictures, television, and similar productions, and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency.
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Is there any way to determine what type of airworthiness certificate they have.
N37RR - Experimental Exhibition
N567RR - Experimental Exhibition
N600ZK - Experimental Exhibition
N678PP - Experimental Exhibition
N97FS - Experimental Exhibition
N498LP - Experimental Market Survey
N219EA - Experimental Exhibition
N520LP - Experimental Market Survey, Exhibition
N86PP - "Unknown"
N920GP - Experimental Exhibition
N215CS - Experimental Exhibition
N466LP - Experimental Market Survey
N468LP - Experimental Market Survey
N567RR - Experimental Exhibition
N600ZK - Experimental Exhibition
N678PP - Experimental Exhibition
N97FS - Experimental Exhibition
N498LP - Experimental Market Survey
N219EA - Experimental Exhibition
N520LP - Experimental Market Survey, Exhibition
N86PP - "Unknown"
N920GP - Experimental Exhibition
N215CS - Experimental Exhibition
N466LP - Experimental Market Survey
N468LP - Experimental Market Survey
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
That's kind of limiting, isn't it? 21.191(d) states:
Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.
So unless you flying at, to or from an airshow, motion picture, television or similar productions, you're pretty much just maintaining currency. And if that's correct, can you carry passengers?
Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.
So unless you flying at, to or from an airshow, motion picture, television or similar productions, you're pretty much just maintaining currency. And if that's correct, can you carry passengers?
Experimental Exhibition is not necessarily limiting because in some cases (as previously mentioned, warbird, glider, aerobatic etc aircraft) the proficiency area (to "maintain currency") is the entire continental US, and the crew allowance can be liberal. The limitations applied are specific to a given plane, but are applied in accordance with FAA policy. In other cases where there is not perceived by FAA to be a strong driver to operate the plane instead of a certified plane instead, the limitations can be severe as per the AN-2 example. So the issue then becomes if thirteen of the same type of new serial production IFR 4-seat transportation planes are licensed within Experimental Exhibition with a large proficiency area and loose operating limitations, how would that be justified by FAA within the intent of the category?
I'm sure in the case of the AN-2, Textron themselves was involved with FAA shutting down any possibility of them being used for any practical purpose, as an initiative to protect the Cessna Caravan market. Now with Textron on the other side of the fence, things seem to be different. You would think regardless that Textron's lawyers might object to them selling uncertified production planes to the public.
Last edited:
455 Bravo Uniform
Final Approach
I could see FAA not allowing further import and certification at some point, but could they pull the existing certifications (ground the planes)? That would only seem to punish the owners, but if it was for some “legitimate” public safety reason, it seems possible, no? That would be a very expensive financial loss to owners.
Its my understanding the E/E category is more a catchall when an aircraft cannot meet the requirements of any other exp category which are very specific. Hence the reason you see so many different type aircraft under E/E and operating with minimal limitations like gliders and military aircraft. At least that’s been my experience for years. 15-20 years ago E/E was more restrictive with geographical restrictions, etc., but in order to meet the regulatory demand (as in other countries) a number of western countries expanded their use of E/E or a similar category. For example, it was how I found the Panthera CASA E/E docs above. There was talk at one time to develop a new exp category to cover aircraft like the Panthera but never heard anything else about it. Regardless I've seen more aircraft under the E/E category than the R&D/Show Comp/Train/Race/Market categories combined.
Interesting. Never really heard that take before as there’s really no comparison between an AN2 vs a C208 regulatory wise. Years ago a group tried to get several Russian helicopters under the US Restricted category where inquires were made with a previous group who tried the same route with the Polish built AN2s. But as we found with the helicopters it was a manufacture traceability issue at the core that sunk the use of Russian/East Bloc design/built aircraft in the US and other countries. Regardless, Canada did allow the use of the KA-32 but don't know if they expanded that to include the AN2 as well. Even today, Russian aircraft don’t meet the ICAO airworthiness standards but they are still trying like heck to meet them with several helicopters. Unfortunately no joy.
My understanding based on reading FAA documentation is that E/E is organized into groups, and the group a particular aircraft falls into is supposed to define the operating limitations. Aerobatic, glider, ex-military piston are the ‘easy’ groups, anything that would compete with widely available FAA certified aircraft is hard. I can’t find the definition of those groups today, but my imperfect memory has me believing it was an FAA memo. If you look at the planes that are imported and put into E/E it’s apparent that almost all of them fall into one of those ‘easy’ categories, but that the Panthera does not.
This was of interest to me because I was perversely interested in importing a Bölkow 207, a four seat civil aircraft that’s not FAA certified, and does the same job as a Cessna or Piper. The idea with the DAR was to put it in E/E and the case for that plane is that it’s a close derivative of the wartime Klemm Kl 107, therefore a derivative of a military aircraft and would be used for exhibition to the public on that basis. That would justify the same unrestrictive operating limitations applied to something like an ex-foreign military E/E Marchetti SF260.
Last edited:
You continue to make some statements that I don’t quite follow your context. So I’ll go through your last post and point out those items and we’ll see if we can figure out where you are going. And to add I’m very familiar with the Bölkow company.
The only entity that may have an influence on what type or brand of aircraft are imported would be at the Customs level which has zero to do with the FAA airworthiness process. There was a time decades ago that no aircraft could be imported into the US for commercial work unless 50% of its principal components were US made, however, that Customs rule went away in the 80s.
To add, the Klemm Kl 107 also has a LBA TCDS (LBA 704/SA) but it appears the EASA didn't pick that one up when they took over responsibility of the EU TCDS. Regardless, having the design basis for the BO-207 also type certified adds to the provenance and definitely separates the 207 from your basic "non-certified" E/E aircraft.
The use of "aircraft groups" has since been revised out of the E/E process a number of years ago. In general, the current process simply classifies aircraft regardless of type by operational purpose. And the issuance of the operating limitations are also selected by regulatory purpose, ie., Part 21-191(d) for E/E. However, there can be specific notes if one limitation applies to a specific model or type like “turbine engine.” Order 8130.2J, Appx D is the latest revision which shows this and is the document an ASI or DAR will use to select the applicable limitations. Usually its the status and history of the aircraft which dictates whether the process will be easy or hard.
As I mentioned earlier this is another point I’ve never encountered when working toward obtaining a special airworthiness certificate. As to FAA "certified" aircraft, is this the type certification or the airworthiness certification of the aircraft? Regardless, I can't recall running across any FAA process that requires addressing aircraft model competition as a basis for certification.
The only entity that may have an influence on what type or brand of aircraft are imported would be at the Customs level which has zero to do with the FAA airworthiness process. There was a time decades ago that no aircraft could be imported into the US for commercial work unless 50% of its principal components were US made, however, that Customs rule went away in the 80s.
A quick check shows the BO-207 has an EASA TCDS A.553 which is based on a previous LBA TCDS (LBA 643/SA). Bottomline is your BO-207 is a type certificated aircraft. IMO this is definitely a positive in the big picture. This also means your 207 is nowhere similar to the Panthera which is not type certificated. While I could not find an FAA TCDS for a BO-207 I did find a FAA TCDS (A27EU) for its sister model the Bölkow BO-209 which is currently eligible for import into the US. While the 207 and 209 are different models it can definitely set a precedent and open a potential “easier” path to import your 207.
To add, the Klemm Kl 107 also has a LBA TCDS (LBA 704/SA) but it appears the EASA didn't pick that one up when they took over responsibility of the EU TCDS. Regardless, having the design basis for the BO-207 also type certified adds to the provenance and definitely separates the 207 from your basic "non-certified" E/E aircraft.
Have you actually discussed this with a DAR? Was this a formal application or merely an informal inquiry? If so, how long ago was this?
Last edited:
I’d be interested in knowing the specifics of when the use of "aircraft groups" was revised out of the E/E process a number of years ago.
My experience was maybe 5 years ago and yes, it was discussed with a DAR. In the end I decided to stick with my current Bölkow 209, which is as you mentioned FAA type certified, apparently via an LBA/FAA treaty that was in place 50+ years ago. The 207 and 209 BTW have zero in common other than being made in the same plant, one is wood and derived from a 1940 Klemm, the other is all metal and was largely in-house designed 25 years later by different people in a different company. Bölkow also BTW made the first production composite aircraft in the same plant in Laupheim (the late 1950s Phönix sailplane) and as a result nowadays plastic interiors for Airbus are still made there under the Diehl banner. The helicopter stuff is done elsewhere and I’ve been to both places. But I digress
Whether an aircraft was type certified in another country does not to the best of my knowledge make a regulatory difference when applying for N-registration under FAA Experimental Exhibition, and I would not expect that a Bölkow 207 would get any other airworthiness certificate than E/E. The issue with manufacturing traceability also makes no difference when N-registering e.g. a Yak-52 in E/E. And apparently neither factor affected thirteen uncertified anywhere Pantheras sold in the US for personal transportation either, but I suppose these factors might make a qualitative difference when dealing with FAA people as an individual.
My experience was maybe 5 years ago and yes, it was discussed with a DAR. In the end I decided to stick with my current Bölkow 209, which is as you mentioned FAA type certified, apparently via an LBA/FAA treaty that was in place 50+ years ago. The 207 and 209 BTW have zero in common other than being made in the same plant, one is wood and derived from a 1940 Klemm, the other is all metal and was largely in-house designed 25 years later by different people in a different company. Bölkow also BTW made the first production composite aircraft in the same plant in Laupheim (the late 1950s Phönix sailplane) and as a result nowadays plastic interiors for Airbus are still made there under the Diehl banner. The helicopter stuff is done elsewhere and I’ve been to both places. But I digress
Whether an aircraft was type certified in another country does not to the best of my knowledge make a regulatory difference when applying for N-registration under FAA Experimental Exhibition, and I would not expect that a Bölkow 207 would get any other airworthiness certificate than E/E. The issue with manufacturing traceability also makes no difference when N-registering e.g. a Yak-52 in E/E. And apparently neither factor affected thirteen uncertified anywhere Pantheras sold in the US for personal transportation either, but I suppose these factors might make a qualitative difference when dealing with FAA people as an individual.
Last edited: