Experimental using part 23 hull as starting point

[FrankBravo]

you beat me to it.
As I read through this topic just now I was asking myself why the restrictions?
I just can't get the logic slicing it form every which way I can think of....EXCEPT protecting the original builder....and the establishment of certified parts and the rest of it.
I'd have to think about it a bit more to be sure....BUT if I were King of the rules...I would seriously consider the idea that if a person was to disassemble a plane down to it's parts and reassemble it even pretty much as is I would not see that any different really that building a kit like a vans. At that point the builder would know every rivet and every wire splice ... nearly pretty much the same as a scratch builder would but they may not know the engineer and design as deeply...but then neither do kit builders.

It feels like it protects a brand more than the flying public, if it’s now designated as a “experimental” who cares?

If people want to take the value hit having a plane that now has many limitations compared to a certified plane that can also make money, just to innovate, that is something we should promote not punish

 

[Bell206]

if it’s now designated as a “experimental” who cares?

The other country signatories the US has signed treaties and aviation agreements with. While the FAA regulations manage aircraft within the US NAS, they also serve as compliance for other international requirements for ICAO, IPAs, BAAs, etc. If the US/FAA decide to identify different aircraft categories outside of those requirements then you can cause those aircraft to no longer be accepted under those agreements. This similar to the Canadian Owner Maintained category which only have "legal" status in Canada and no other country even though these aircraft started life as an internationally accepted type certificated aircraft. The FAA looked at a similar category called primary non-commercial but for various reasons it was dropped even after considerable support from the EAA and AOPA. Regardless, out of the whole group of international participants, the FAA is the least stringent of the lot.

 

[FrankBravo]

The other country signatories the US has signed treaties and aviation agreements with. While the FAA regulations manage aircraft within the US NAS, they also serve as compliance for other international requirements for ICAO, IPAs, BAAs, etc. If the US/FAA decide to identify different aircraft categories outside of those requirements then you can cause those aircraft to no longer be accepted under those agreements. This similar to the Canadian Owner Maintained category which only have "legal" status in Canada and no other country even though these aircraft started life as an internationally accepted type certificated aircraft. The FAA looked at a similar category called primary non-commercial but for various reasons it was dropped even after considerable support from the EAA and AOPA. Regardless, out of the whole group of international participants, the FAA is the least stringent of the lot.

The US leads the world in aviation, we should lead by example

If someone wants to innovate and sacrifice certified status, make them do the same proving as a Hummel bird or RV and call it a day

If we are too much of the Wild West for the rest of the world, maybe they should stop sending their pilot here to train and buying our aircraft and using US companies like FSI

 

[Bell206]

The US leads the world in aviation,

If that were the case, the rest of the world would have copied the FAA system. But they didn't. While at one time the US, UK, and France ran the global aviation community a lot has changed especially after 1960. At best the US is merely the largest aviation market.

maybe they should stop sending their pilot here to train and buying our aircraft and using US companies like FSI

They train here, buy here, and get STCs here because we are cheaper and faster than their native NAA systems and by virtue of ICAO and other agreements everything obtained in the US is accepted in their countries. It is what it is. But there's nothing that prevents the FAA from following Canada's route with Owner Maintained. You just need to get enough support to get it passed. Simple.

 

[FrankBravo]

If that were the case, the rest of the world would have copied the FAA system. But they didn't. While at one time the US, UK, and France ran the global aviation community a lot has changed especially after 1960. At best the US is merely the largest aviation market.

They train here, buy here, and get STCs here because we are cheaper and faster than their native NAA systems and by virtue of ICAO and other agreements everything obtained in the US is accepted in their countries. It is what it is. But there's nothing that prevents the FAA from following Canada's route with Owner Maintained. You just need to get enough support to get it passed. Simple.

We have a difference in opinion, I will leave it at that


Penn and Teller once had a skit, something about you always forget how great the US is until you travel abroad

 

[MauleSkinner]

Penn and Teller once had a skit, something about you always forget how great the US is until you travel abroad

Unfortunately “better” doesn’t always equate to “good”.

 

[Sundancer]

The rules do tend to, kinda, make sense. Usually there is some logic. Most of us don't have a reason to dig too deep. For example, I was surprised by an A/P telling me he installed a battery box an owner had fabricated (or paid someone to fabricate) - as he described it it's legit if the part is substantially the same as the OEM part - dimensions, material, etc. He said it happens sometimes if the OEM is long gone, or the part isn't available, or the ones that are available are used, ratty, etc. The restriction was on NOT fabricating and selling the parts to others - you can't start a cottage industry making parts for orphan airframes. Which, kinda, makes sense - if the fabrication (and A&P) are shaky, you've only put one airplane at risk.