Let's be fair here. They do allow the EXABers to fly with impunity over our heads. The question that needs to be asked is why are those muppets given such allowance but us certified muppets are not?
They're certainly speaking out of both sides of their mouth if they dare cite that "certified safety" garbage argument; they wholesale abrogated the legitimacy of that position the second they allowed the EXABers to derive primary attitude information in IMC with a lower level of certification (thence cost) than we are forced to.
But EXABers are allowed to fly over my head on "less safe" stuff. The FAA is cool with that. So I wonder, which is it? Do they truly believe certified is safer, and if so why would they endanger my family by allowing EXABers fly over our heads for cheaper? Or, if they don't truly believe that, which is the position I'm inclined to believe by virtue of the fact EXABers are in fact allowed to fly over urban areas and controlled airspace, then can we really crucify the FAA entirely? They're obviously allowing it.
The FAA is all about "standard of care." If you think about it in terms of pilot certificates, a student pilot is only allowed to kill themselves. A recreational or sport pilot can kill themselves and one friend or family member. A private pilot can kill several friends and family members. A commercial pilot can kill unsuspecting paying passengers, and an airline transport pilot can kill at LOT of unsuspecting paying passengers.
That's why it's a helluva lot harder to get an ATP than a student pilot certificate. Every step you take up the ladder requires more experience, more training, more knowledge, tighter standards in your flying, and in enforcement proceedings there will be less leniency the farther up the ladder you go.
Now, the fact that an E-AB must be built by an amateur builder tends to naturally limit the size of the aircraft. I think the Epic turboprops are the biggest E-ABs that are out there.
Experimentals tend to be small and light, whether that's due to regulation or just difficulty. They're also required to fly 50 hours off to at least prove some semblance of airworthiness before they're allowed to function like the rest of us, and that is likely based on some statistics about when mechanical failures of newly built E-ABs tends to happen.
So, there's a risk profile there that, while it's more likely to result in a mechanical cause of an accident, is somewhat mitigated by the fly-off period when it comes to carrying passengers, informs those passengers of the higher risk via required signage in E-ABs so that they can better decide for themselves if they want to take that risk, and for John Q Public, the planes tend to be small and thus not cause much damage if they do fall on them. And that is what the FAA bases their standard of care on for the E-ABs.
So Occam's Razor. Who would have an inherent interest in
keeping a certified can otherwise owned and operated recreationally, under the draconian certification rules of a de facto "
revenue aviation" pricing structure? I can think of two at least: the OEMs, and the FAA. They [OEM] want legacy certified cans in the scrap yards right yesterday. They don't want them flying another 30 years. EXAB rules would allow the latter, and well we just can't have that now can we?
E-AB rules do NOT allow you to magically fly a normal category airplane longer. You can't just make a Cessna into an experimental (though this misconception seems to persist in some circles). It's not amateur built, so it's not E-AB. It's also not any of the other categories of experimental:
* R&D: Unless the design of the airplane has been modified, it's not R&D, and E-R&D airworthiness certificates expire after a year anyway.
* Flight Test: Unless you're in the process of applying for a type certificate or STC, this doesn't apply.
* Crew Training: Again, unless you're a manufacturer pursuing a new certification, this doesn't apply.
* Exhibition: Your spam can doesn't have the required "unusual characteristics" and there are generally additional restrictions on E-E planes.
* Air Racing: Have you modified your spam can for racing? No? Doesn't apply.
* Market Survey: Unless you're a manufacturer, you can't do this - And E-MS airworthiness certificates expire in a year.
* E-LSA: Nope.
Canada does have an Experimental - Owner Maintenance category. The US does not, no matter how much people wish for it. Even if we did, I don't think much would change. Most people don't do their own maintenance as it is, and if it allowed you to do more E-AB like things such as using experimental avionics so that ownership was cheaper, I don't think it would have any effect on new sales for the OEMs. Nobody who's maintaining their own 30-year-old airplane is also in the market for a brand-new one at today's prices. If the OEMs want to sell more airplanes, they're going to have to get the cost down so that they have a larger addressable market for their product.
I agree with you. Hence my feeling that their previous strict requirements were pointless and counter productive, and my thoughts that even their more "relaxed" process that produces a product with features disabled, for triple the price, is still moronic at best, and probably downright detrimental to safety.
Baby steps. We've gone from 10x to 3x. We just need to fly with this stuff for another decade and establish that it still hasn't had any detriment to the overall safety record, and they'll relax things even more. Sport Pilot came about in September 2004, and over time several thousand sport pilots were certified. In May of 2017, after realizing that medical certificates do not, in fact, factor into the lift equation, the FAA gave us BasicMed.
We just had the part 23 rewrite... Give it another 15 years, and maybe we'll be able to get things relaxed further.
However, once you have the hardware,document ...let’s say you have a hardware failure, can you replace with the experimental version and save yourself some maintenance costs?
I don't think so. I was reading some install manuals and they have "FAA-PMA" stamped on the certified ones. They likely have different software loaded when they come from the factory.
If it was all FAA how is dynon selling their system for same price as experimental + 2k for STC?
Because Dynon is the big player in the experimental market, and their experimental stuff costs more than Garmin's. For the comparison I did above (was that this thread? I dunno), the Garmin experimental stuff cost $7K and change, the Dynon experimental stuff would have been about double that.
Also, when I looked at Dynon's site, they were listing $4K for the STC now. Maybe certification is turning out to be harder than they thought.
Y'all should be angry at garmin for raping GA for all these years.
I don't think Garmin was raping GA. Garmin, as a company, was started because of GA, and is very encouraging of GA. Garmin offers ALL of their employees financial support toward flight training. From
https://careers.garmin.com/en-US/#benefits:
"
Pilot Certification
At Garmin, we want our associates to take flight — literally. We offer financial assistance for the costs associated with pilot certification and ground school. We also provide reimbursement for a portion of the hourly rental rate when using participating vendors and clubs."
Garmin, however, is a business, and a business is supposed to make money. Garmin likely knows that, like most businesses, their addressable market increases when their prices are lower. However, they can't get around the cost of certification when working in the certified market. So, they set their prices at a point where they are likely to recoup their costs of R&D and certification, and be able to make a modest profit.
The G3X Touch being certified is an example of the addressable market equation at work. It makes NO sense for them to undercut their own product (the G500 TXi) that just came out recently, unless they think that the lower price point will allow them to sell enough more units with the same absolute profit margin that it'll pay for the certification of both units, or at least pretty close to it (minus the expected sales of the TXi to date, and future sales to piston twin owners).
Come on, the KI-300 with the KA-310 will be available any day now*!
* Technically as long as they eventually ship, it meets the 'any day' criteria.
Every year at Oshkosh when you ask when it's shipping, they say "Q4." In 2017, I asked the BK rep, "Q4 of which year?" and he said "2018. I MEAN 2017!!!" Uh, no, you meant 2018. And it even slipped further than that. I guess they can theoretically say it's shipping, even though it's not going to sell at all until the KA-310 is out.