Turning Certificated Acft into "Experimental"

[1600vw]

I use an A&P when I need to. For my Condition inspection. If I need something worked on and have no idea what I am doing who do you think I look up, My A&P. But just because he has bills to pay do not expect me to pay those bills from working on my little eab. I will not pay your mortgage or your 401K just because times are tight, but I wll give you a fair amount to help.

If you believe the way the rules are written everyone is in danger then petition to have the rules changed. But just because those with an Experimental do what is written in the regs does not make them a danger to others. It states right in the regs, anyone can work on a experimental without any sign off from anyone. If you do not like it petition to have these regs changed.

As for major changes a experimental plays by a different set of rules then those certified, again if you do not like it, start a petition to change it, but be ready for a fight.

Tony

[TedK]

Yes I see now.

I do not mean to piss in anyone's Wheaties. But Why not take this group of airplanes and just make them experimental for what is being proposed is an experimental type of certificate but with Certified type of regulations or rules.

Also by reading this I see the author does not understand the difference in the type certificates between a Certified airplane and a experimental airplane or the wording there of between the two.

Tony

Tony - in essence, these recommendations accomplish what you suggest with one significant difference that I think is an asset.

E-AB airplanes will always be Experimentals. No way to be born an Experimental but die aCertificated

The PNC proposal, let's you be born a Certificated airplane, play as an E-AB, then if you want, perhaps for better resale value, she'd the Mods and become a Certificated airplane again.

[1600vw]

TedK:
If you take a certified part and install it on an experimental you can not put this part back on a certified airplane not without a complete tear down and inspection. Lets say you have a certified engine and you stick it on an experimental. You can not then take this engine off the experimental and reinstall it back onto a certified airplane not without a complete tear down and inspection. Because of this I doubt this will ever pass what you are hoping for.

Tony

[TedK]

TedK:
If you take a certified part and install it on an experimental you can not put this part back on a certified airplane not without a complete tear down and inspection. Lets say you have a certified engine and you stick it on an experimental. You can not then take this engine off the experimental and reinstall it back onto a certified airplane not without a complete tear down and inspection. Because of this I doubt this will ever pass what you are hoping for.

Tony

Tony - the report drew a parallel between the Restricted category and the Standard category and noted that airplanes go back and forth all the time between those tow categories. Yes, and while the "Pickle Rule" (once you're a pickle you can never again be a cucumber) has been in effect for E-AB, there are other Experimental categories like R&D that I understand let you return to Standard after a compliance check.

The magic of breaking the pickle rule will be the compliance check. You have to keep your airplane safe and airworthy, you don't have to do ADs until you want to be Standard again.

But, and this is the beauty of semantics, your PNC will not be an experimental, so experimental rules don't apply. You can treat it sort of like an E-AB, but it won't be an E-AB but a PNC.

[1600vw]

The magic of breaking the pickle rule will be the compliance check. You have to keep your airplane safe and airworthy, you don't have to do ADs until you want to be Standard again.

But, and this is the beauty of semantics, your PNC will not be an experimental, so experimental rules don't apply. You can treat it sort of like an E-AB, but it won't be an E-AB but a PNC.

Thing about an experimental. The owner needs to keep it in safe operation. Nothing about an Experimental is airworthy.

Tony

[martymayes]

It's great they have included a pathway back to normal category in the proposal, however, the practicality of following that path won't be known for some time. While some planes do move from normal - restricted - normal without too much hassle, those planes are maintained IAW with Part 43 using authorized maintenance personnel regardless of category. Anyway, if insurance companies decided this PNC stuff is to risky to insure, it won't fly very far.

[WLIU]

"too risky to insure"

Most of us have families and mortgages and savings and insurance is not optional. I recently asked my wife about what age life insurance is no longer needed. Her answer was "you aren't old enough."

The number of insurance companies that cover aircraft with any type of airworthiness certificate that has a title that begins with the word "Experimental" is significantly smaller than the list of companies that cover the rest of the GA fleet. And the rates are different. You can find coverage. Each owner has to decide if what they can buy matches what they need.

Even if the US gets some sort of owner maintained category, how the insurance companies approach that market will have a big influence. I will hazard a guess looking around that the population of individuals who take advantage of this change will not be huge and the age demographic will be older. The young pilots seem to like flying behind the TV tubes in nice clean rental airplanes. The builder population is significantly graying. This trend does not suggest lower insurance rates.

Have to see what happens. But the FAA moves slowly and often reluctantly. Just because Congress gives the FAA a push does not mean the output matches what was wished for. The staff at Independence avenue can produce 1000 pages of documentation on how what the FAA produces is the best match for what Congress asked for.

As an aside, when I walked by the lobby at 800 Independence Ave, I saw that they still have a rag-wing Piper hanging in the lobby. But I understand that you might be able to count on your fingers the number of residents of that building who could actually fly it. Such is the state of the FAA.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[TedK]

Marty and Wes- Yep. FAA could give us everything in the ARC Recommendations and the Insurance companies could decide it's too risky. But look at CAMO, LSA and E-AB today. They are getting sufficiently affordable policies. The risk must be seen as manageable and profitable otherwise the Insurance companies wouldn't be underwriting them.

The report harps on the fact that the increases in safety that could be gained will greatly offset any risks.

[Mike Berg]

I don't know if insurance would be a big factor if I turned my plane from 'certified' into the 'experimental' category. I'm near 75 years old, fly a tail dragger Champ type plane (L16A) under light sport (no third class medical), something over 1000 hours and my insurance dropped by $30 this year. Seems like a personal (claim) record would be more of a factor than if I were maintaining my own plane. I have mine valued at $30,000 although I probably have a bit more than that in it and my insurance cost dropped from $688 to $658 for full coverage including hull. I know several that have fairly high value aircraft and have 'experimental' stickers in them and the insurance costs are quite reasonable considering they are valued over $100,000.

[raytoews]

My Cheetah is insured with EAA insurance, no change when I went OM.

Insurance companies and lawyers don't run the world, Smith and Wesson do.

Ray