Experimentals that aren't homebuilt

[StinkBug]

I've noticed that a lot of warbirds and foreign aircraft that aren't sold in the US get classified as "EXPERIMENTAL". I even saw a MIG taking off from CRQ a while back and was thinking to myself "I wonder how they call traffic on that?" and just moments later heard "Cessna 1234X traffic is an experimental Jet departing rwy 24"

So how does one go about getting one of these certified, and what are the rules? Do you still need to have an A&P do the maintenance, or can the owner do it? What kind of restrictions do these planes have?

 

[Tom-D]

See FAR 21.11

 

[Art VanDelay]

What you're describing sounds like "Experimental Exhibition".

 

[N801BH]

What you're describing sounds like "Experimental Exhibition".

Yup...

 

[oldShar]

So how does one go about getting one of these certified, and what are the rules? Do you still need to have an A&P do the maintenance, or can the owner do it? What kind of restrictions do these planes have?

FAR 21.191 and 21.193 (warbirds 21.191d)

 

[Geico266]

I believe the 747s that are Air Force One (when the pres is on board) is experimental due to all the mods.

You can register any airplane or helicopter experimental exhibition. The process is pretty straight forward. It is inspected and a special air worthness cert issued. It really is no big deal to have an airplane registered that way, but there are restrictions. You just have to let the local FSDO know when you are leaving the designated area via email, fax, or phone call. You don't have to wait for permission, just go. However, there are restrictions on carrying passengers that keep most airplane owners from registering their planes EE. They have to be "active crew members".

The owner can do the annuals and an A&P needs to do the sign off.

Negative comments to follow by the usual non-know it alls.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I believe the 747s that are Air Force One (when the pres is on board) is experimental due to all the mods.

You can register any airplane or helicopter experimental exhibition. The process is pretty straight forward. It is inspected and a special air worthness cert issued. It really is no big deal to have an airplane registered that way, but there are restrictions. You just have to let the local FSDO know when you are leaving the designated area via email, fax, or phone call. You don't have to wait for permission, just go. However, there are restrictions on carrying passengers that keep most airplane owners from registering their planes EE. They have to be "active crew members".

The owner can do the annuals and an A&P needs to do the sign off.

Negative comments to follow by the usual non-know it alls.

Air Force One is an Air Force aircraft, not civilian registered, therefore it doesn't have any airworthiness (civilian) requirements.

 

[Geico266]

Air Force One is an Air Force aircraft, not civilian registered, therefore it doesn't have any airworthiness (civilian) requirements.

That makes more sence to what I have heard then. So they can any mods they want? The FAA is not involved at all?

 

[jesse]

That makes more sence to what I have heard then. So they can any mods they want? The FAA is not involved at all?

Any government agency can do whatever they want with their airplanes and the FAA has no say in it. A Sherrifs department's aircraft are not regulated by the FAA and if they so chose to not use rated pilots and patrol behind Ford engines they could do so.

The FAA regulates civil aviation.

 

[Geico266]

Air Force One is an Air Force aircraft, not civilian registered, therefore it doesn't have any airworthiness (civilian) requirements.

Any government agency can do whatever they want with their airplanes and the FAA has no say in it. A Sherrifs department's aircraft are not regulated by the FAA and if they so chose to not use rated pilots and patrol behind Ford engines they could do so.

The FAA regulates civil aviation.

Hmmmm, I see a loop hole! I'm not a civilian, I am retired military.

Attention Ron L., The above statement is a joke (joke = humor) No need to quote which FARs I have / or intend to violate. Actually, I intend to violate as many as possible. Look at my states map. I like to be complete.

 

[FastEddieB]

Given the title of the thread...

...S-LSA's are another example of planes that can be converted to Experimental that aren't homebuilt, and have far fewer restrictions than Experimental - Exhibition.

 

[Everskyward]

Even factory-built aircraft which are still in the process of being built but are finished enough to be test-flown are experimental. I have a picture of myself standing next to the C-680 with an "Experimental" sticker on it.

 

[ClimbnSink]

A lot of the imported sailplanes are flown experimental exhibition. You get a program letter with operating limits usually for racing or practice only within a specific area flight outside that area requires notification not permission. Think you are supposed to fax or email the fsdo if you drag your glider across the country.

 

[wanttaja]

This shows the "structure" of the airworthiness categories:

Note that "Experimental" encompasses a number of different sub-categories, of which Amateur-Built ("Homebuilt") is one. There's also "Showing compliance with regulations," "Crew Training," etc.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Velocity173]

That makes more sence to what I have heard then. So they can any mods they want? The FAA is not involved at all?

FAA really wouldn't be needed anyway. The military has their own certification standards. Before a moded aircraft is allowed for regular units, it's been designed and tested on the ground by engineers. Then it's wrung out by test pilots in the air. A change is updated to the aircraft's flight manual and the aircraft enters service.

 

[Dav8or]

However, there are restrictions on carrying passengers that keep most airplane owners from registering their planes EE. They have to be "active crew members".

So, I guess the CAF and folks like them must get a special waiver when they give paying customers rides on a B-17? Rides for money are routinely given on warbirds of all kinds in the exhibition class. I don't know how that works.

 

[bullwinkle]

How are the EAA's B-17 and Ford Tri-motor registered? It can't be exhibition if that doesn't allow passengers, 'cause they takes scads of passengers...

 

[Geico266]

So, I guess the CAF and folks like them must get a special waiver when they give paying customers rides on a B-17? Rides for money are routinely given on warbirds of all kinds in the exhibition class. I don't know how that works.

They must have a waiver.

A friend of mine has an Huey that is experimental exhibition. He was giving rides and was told by the local FSDO he could not do that anymore due to EE.

You may have just come up with an answer to his problem! Thanks!

 

[FastEddieB]

This shows the "structure" of the airworthiness categories:

Thanks!

Filed away for future use.

 

[wanttaja]

How are the EAA's B-17 and Ford Tri-motor registered? It can't be exhibition if that doesn't allow passengers, 'cause they takes scads of passengers...

Nearly all B-17s on the US Registry have Limited certificates. The only exception is the Smithsonian's ("Special Flight Permit").

The EAA's Ford Trimotor is interesting. It's listed as "Multiple" categories....it has the code for "Standard," AND the code for "Restricted." With an additional entry for "Agriculture and Pest Control." Probably means it can operate as Standard category except when performing the Agriculture missions. Most other Ford Trimotors are listed as Standard Category in a couple of slight variations. One is the same as EAA's with "Forest" added.

One Trimotor (N9612) is listed as a Standard Category Glider. Paperwork glitch, obviously....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[dans2992]

They must have a waiver.

A friend of mine has an Huey that is experimental exhibition. He was giving rides and was told by the local FSDO he could not do that anymore due to EE.

You may have just come up with an answer to his problem! Thanks!

Was he charging for rides, or just having a friend go up with him now and then?

 

[TheTraveler]

This shows the "structure" of the airworthiness categories:

Ron Wanttaja

Thank you so much Ron, that is indeed a handy little picture!

 

[Dav8or]

Nearly all B-17s on the US Registry have Limited certificates. The only exception is the Smithsonian's ("Special Flight Permit").

The EAA's Ford Trimotor is interesting. It's listed as "Multiple" categories....it has the code for "Standard," AND the code for "Restricted." With an additional entry for "Agriculture and Pest Control." Probably means it can operate as Standard category except when performing the Agriculture missions. Most other Ford Trimotors are listed as Standard Category in a couple of slight variations. One is the same as EAA's with "Forest" added.

One Trimotor (N9612) is listed as a Standard Category Glider. Paperwork glitch, obviously....

Ron Wanttaja

I know it's the government, so maybe nobody can figure it out, but why under the "Special" certificates, do they have Experimental and then have Primary, Limited and Restricted (whatever those categories mean)??

It seems like a plane should fit under Certified, or Experimental. Why is a B-17 Limited, but a P-51 Experimental? I guess it must come from people asking for exemptions for their personal causes over the decades I suppose.

 

[JHW]

I know it's the government, so maybe nobody can figure it out, but why under the "Special" certificates, do they have Experimental and then have Primary, Limited and Restricted (whatever those categories mean)??

It seems like a plane should fit under Certified, or Experimental. Why is a B-17 Limited, but a P-51 Experimental? I guess it must come from people asking for exemptions for their personal causes over the decades I suppose.

there are several reasons. For example, ag planes are not "experimental" but they have their operation "restricted" in exchange for certain freedoms the operators enjoy. For example, for all intents and purposes you set your own gross weight. My pawnee is both. It's "standard" with no booms, and "restricted" when the booms are installed.

 

[wanttaja]

I know it's the government, so maybe nobody can figure it out, but why under the "Special" certificates, do they have Experimental and then have Primary, Limited and Restricted (whatever those categories mean)??

It seems like a plane should fit under Certified, or Experimental. Why is a B-17 Limited, but a P-51 Experimental? I guess it must come from people asking for exemptions for their personal causes over the decades I suppose.

If the FAA decided to come up with a certification scheme from scratch, it'd probably be a lot more logical. Instead, we're stuck with a system that has evolved over the past 80 years or so.

"Limited", for instance, is mainly to allow operating surplused ex-military aircraft in a civilian environment. This category probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for all the surplused aircraft after WWII. Boeing never received a type certificate for the B-17 (though the civilian version did receive one), but there were a lot of uses for a low-cost four-engine aircraft after WWII. Hence, the Limited category was used to allow these aircraft to be used in certain...limited....operations.

There are about 150 P-51 Mustangs on the US registry; only 15 of them are in Experimental category. Most (95) are in Limited. One is listed as Normal category.

"Restricted" exists primarily to support aircraft modified to support non-cargo non-passenger missions (ag applicators, etc.), Primary is a sort of pre-LSA category that the FAA tried out (only seven on the registry). Categories were apparently created whenever a situation arose that could not be easily handled under the existing categories.

The main difference between these and Experimental, I think, is that the FAA expects to keep a closer eye on Experimental aircraft. An Experimental certificate was never designed to be permanent; it has to be renewed every year. I suspect the Limited or Restricted aircraft might be subject to additional scrutiny, but their certificates don't expire annually.

"But Experimental Amateur-Built Certificates don't expire annually, either!"?

Perfectly true. But they did, originally. Used to be that homebuilts required an annual inspection *by the CAA/FAA*. They don't, anymore, as (probably) some other categories like Racing. Again, it reflects on how the certification scheme is a hodge-podge of definitions.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[ateamer]

Any government agency can do whatever they want with their airplanes and the FAA has no say in it. A Sherrifs department's aircraft are not regulated by the FAA and if they so chose to not use rated pilots and patrol behind Ford engines they could do so.



The FAA regulates civil aviation.

Government agencies may operate their aircraft as public use, but very few do. Most law enforcement agencies that fly OH-58s or other surplus helos have in their policy that they will operate and maintain according to Part 91, and require certified pilots - usually requiring commercial.

A few years ago a sheriff's helicopter back east crashed, and the investigation revealed that the pilot did not have a pilot certificate. The agency was shown as an example of what not to do.

 

[Dav8or]

If the FAA decided to come up with a certification scheme from scratch, it'd probably be a lot more logical. Instead, we're stuck with a system that has evolved over the past 80 years or so.

"Limited", for instance, is mainly to allow operating surplused ex-military aircraft in a civilian environment. This category probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for all the surplused aircraft after WWII. Boeing never received a type certificate for the B-17 (though the civilian version did receive one), but there were a lot of uses for a low-cost four-engine aircraft after WWII. Hence, the Limited category was used to allow these aircraft to be used in certain...limited....operations.

There are about 150 P-51 Mustangs on the US registry; only 15 of them are in Experimental category. Most (95) are in Limited. One is listed as Normal category.

"Restricted" exists primarily to support aircraft modified to support non-cargo non-passenger missions (ag applicators, etc.), Primary is a sort of pre-LSA category that the FAA tried out (only seven on the registry). Categories were apparently created whenever a situation arose that could not be easily handled under the existing categories.

The main difference between these and Experimental, I think, is that the FAA expects to keep a closer eye on Experimental aircraft. An Experimental certificate was never designed to be permanent; it has to be renewed every year. I suspect the Limited or Restricted aircraft might be subject to additional scrutiny, but their certificates don't expire annually.

"But Experimental Amateur-Built Certificates don't expire annually, either!"?

Perfectly true. But they did, originally. Used to be that homebuilts required an annual inspection *by the CAA/FAA*. They don't, anymore, as (probably) some other categories like Racing. Again, it reflects on how the certification scheme is a hodge-podge of definitions.

Ron Wanttaja

That's kinda what I figured. Special interest groups have come along over the years and cajoled the FAA into writing a special exemption for them. How about we do it again? Get them to write a new experimental factory built category. Many of us would be happy to add to the hodge podge.

 

[N801BH]

That's kinda what I figured. Special interest groups have come along over the years and cajoled the FAA into writing a special exemption for them. How about we do it again? Get them to write a new experimental factory built category. Many of us would be happy to add to the hodge podge.

That would be a viable , logical and productive move......

All the more reason the FAA and congress critters would nix it in the prelim stages......

 

[RotorAndWing]

That would be a viable , logical and productive move......

All the more reason the FAA and congress critters would nix it in the prelim stages......

Actually it's already there, the problem being the wording and intent. By that, remember every time any regulation comes out, there will be those who will do their damnedest to circumvent it or "reinterpret" what it is written.

This takes time to write, analyze, review data, etc. IIRC they are expecting a 2017 time frame.