Printable View
Hi All,
I am new to the world of homebuilts/experimentals. My question is, if I build a a homebuilt from kit, what are the requirements for it to be legal for IFR operations? Is it the same as a normal certificated aircraft? As in just equipment? Or are there some homebuilts that are not acceptable to the FAA for IFR ops no matter the installed equipment?
Thanks!
In most cases, the Operating Limitations (issued with the Airworthiness Certificate) for the aircraft will state something along the lines of:Quote:
Originally Posted by pa24-180
"Unless equipped for night and/or IFR flight per CFR 14, part 91.205, this aircraft is restricted to day VFR flight only".
So, basically, if you get the AC for the aircraft and then equip it per the requirements of 91.205, you're good to go. Some aircraft obviously make better IFR platforms than others, but the FAA is not cognizant of any of that information, generally.
If that is most cases, then in what kind of cases would one expect that the airworthiness certificate would not have that clause? Or is it the case that almost every AWC would have that clause except for very very rare circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin
If the OL's were written in a year when FAA Order 8130.2<Rev letter> had different wording in it. Some years, it had other rules. Right now, it says approximately what I stated, and I'd expect that to be the same in the future, but there are no guarantees.Quote:
Originally Posted by pa24-180
All of them written for EAB aircraft in the past 15 - 20 years say that, _IF_ the examiner (FAA or DAR) was paying attention to the order from which they were supposed to get the OL's. As with FSDO's, where each is their own fiefdom which seems to interpret FAA rules in their own way, examiners interpret the order in their own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by pa24-180
In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds".
Don't sweat the issue. If you build an airplane that's reasonable to use for IFR/IMC flight, you'll be able to make it legal to do so. It's not a big deal.
Thanks. That helps put my mind at ease for now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin
Just to pile on, in addition to the oplIms wording and 91.205 equipment requirements, you also have to comply with the 91.411 and 413 transponder and static system inspections.
IOW, outside of the OPLIM wording, the IFR part 91 requirements for E-AB aircraft are the same as for standard airworthiness certificated, factory built aircraft.
Yes - absolutely. Part 91 always applies. But the 91.413 transponder check is required for ALL flight with a transponder - IFR or VFR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburntsts
Not exactly -- currently a transponder is only required in airspace that requires it. You can do a lot of VFR flying in most of the country without one. And while technically it's not required for IFR flight, the practical limitions of tryung fly in the system without one basically make it a mandatory requirement.
Agreed - thanks for the correction. If you always stay out of airspace where a transponder is required, then you don't have to turn it on and you don't have to have a 91.413 check. Some subset of the flying population fits in that category, for sure. I mostly deal with folks that do fly in tranponder required airspace, so that's my reference point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburntsts
Thanks again for the clarification.
Not quite Marc. If you don't fly in the class A, B, C, or within the mode C VEIL, OR above 10,000' you don't need a transponder.
If you HAVE a transponder, you are required to have it on any time you are in any controlled airspace (which includes the blanket of class E that covers most of the lower 48).
That was what I thought for a long time too, until Todd's post made me go look up 91.215. 91.215(b) says that you need a transponder in in the airspaces you list above. So that's in agreement. I also thought that if you had a transponder, it had to be on, and of course if it was on, it had to meet the requirements of 91.413. But for the life of me right now I can't find the requirement that "if you have a transponder in the plane, it must be turned on". Where is that? Am I going senile? 91.215(c) says that ... Oh, Crap - there it is... the "or in all controlled airspace" clause in 91.215(c) - missed that the first time checking.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingRon
If you have a transponder, it must be on except in class G airspace, and if it's on, you need a 91.413 check.
Thanks for making me look again...
Sheesh.
And if you have an ADSB-out box, it must be on at all times, even Class G and when taxiing. (91.225(f))Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin
What about an easier IFR rating for private pilots? The european EIR (Enroute IFR Rules= T-O in VMC, fly in or above the clouds and land in VMC). Maybe not less intruments in the cockpit but less study and training. Who needs an IFR ticket when 80% of the time the IFR flights are done in VMC.
Transport Canada and COPA are studying the case. Andre.
How many threads are you going to post your inane question to? This is not how discussions work.
So if you have a transponder, but it hasn't been checked as required by 41.413, and you're flying in class E airspace where the transponder isn't required... the regs don't see to give an out, off or on, either way you're in violation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin
That's my interpretation of the regs. Now, as I tell my customers, there are no transponder police, so the chance of getting in trouble either because your transponder is off or because it hasn't been checked in 17 years is pretty small, but yeah - you'd be in violation. I've inspected airplanes in which the transponder had NEVER been checked in the 25 years since the plane was given an AC, and I've talked to folks who turn their transponder off when they feel like it for various unmentioned reasons - I've never talked to anyone that's ever been written up for either reason. Not a recommendation to do it - always recommend being in compliance with the regs, even if the chance of being violated is tiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana