donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Who said I was offended?Why are you so offended by this? Who cares?
If you don’t like my opinion, that’s too bad… for you.
Last edited:
Who said I was offended?Why are you so offended by this? Who cares?
Ohh flight level 80![]()
What type of certification will it have? Normal, Experimental Exhibition, etc?It's a factory built. By pipistrel. I believe in Italy.
I don't know yet. The plane is arriving in couple weeks. Will seeWhat type of certification will it have? Normal, Experimental Exhibition, etc?
When do they expect to deliver?
Yeah. Lots of balls committing to that transaction.Please keep us posted here. I, for one, will be very interested to hear how they plan to get it certified and registered in the US.
FWIW, I'm interested in a similar plane model that is certified in Europe, but not in the US. I have been told that "there are ways" to get it certified....but I think it would be instructive to find out more about the process before breaking out a large bag of cash.
I will let you guys know sometime in 2-3 weeksPlease keep us posted here. I, for one, will be very interested to hear how they plan to get it certified and registered in the US.
FWIW, I'm interested in a similar plane model that is certified in Europe, but not in the US. I have been told that "there are ways" to get it certified....but I think it would be instructive to find out more about the process before breaking out a large bag of cash.
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.FWIW, I'm interested in a similar plane model that is certified in Europe, but not in the US. I have been told that "there are ways" to get it certified....but I think it would be instructive to find out more about the process before breaking out a large bag of cash.
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.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,
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?How could someone find out the details of the operating restrictions? There is a similar plane for sale right now that would be EE registered that otherwise looks like a great deal
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.Is it possible to convert after the fact, for a plane that was built prior to the TC being issued? Doesn't the TC list the covered serial number range?
I can't imagine dropping that kind of coin on a plane and not knowing how limited id be in flying the thing.I don't know yet. The plane is arriving in couple weeks. Will see
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.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.
What type? I wasn't aware there were others that are similar.FWIW, I'm interested in a similar plane model that is certified in Europe, but not in the US. I have been told that "there are ways" to get it certified....but I think it would be instructive to find out more about the process before breaking out a large bag of cash.
That $873,000+ freedom units is one reason its not a reasonable alternative for anyone.and the certified version to cost $800,000 euro
Maybe 1/3rd the price. Rv-10 is only one that’s really close.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.
This person didn’t say they put a deposit down. They said they “purchased” the aircraft.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.
Oh, gotcha. I was thinking similar as in configuration, not a microlight."Similar" in being euro-made and uncertified in the US, but clearly marketed to the US GA market. I'm thinking of the VL-3.
Sounds like what they were saying at Oshkosh last year too.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
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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. Maybe I’m wrong…
Is there any way to determine what type of airworthiness certificate they have.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.
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?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?
YesSo 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?
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.how would that be justified by FAA within the intent of the category?
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.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.
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.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.
If I may ask, how did you find this information?
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.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,
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.anything that would compete with widely available FAA certified aircraft is hard
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.This was of interest to me because I was perversely interested in importing a Bölkow 207,
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?The idea with the DAR was to put it in E/E