FAA not accepting E-AB applications

[Tom Charpentier]

Well, I can't speak to the FSDO's motivation but if you can get me the specifics in an email (tcharpe@eaa.org) I'll look into it right away. Again, there is no nationwide suspension, but there have been some teething issues with the new version of the Order, as it went through a fairly major formatting change. Policy-wise, we worked hard to make the status quo is maintained for homebuilts, in both inspections and ops limits.

[1600vw]

Tom we need more like you and Hal. I am just trying to keep it lite. A little humor never hurts anyone. I really don't believe they want to take the summer off. But we all dream of that. Just think a summer of nothing but flying and relaxing. Things dreams are made of.

Thanks again Tom.

Tony

[Tom Charpentier]

I know - my deadpanning doesn't come through easily in the written medium

[Rob Norris]

The 'problem' is with the wording of the operating limitations examples that are in 8130.2H. Some at least temporary resolution has been agreed upon between the DAR and FSDO, and the inspection suspension has been lifted. This issue may percolate to other regions in the country until a permanent fix (via change notice to the order) is in place.

[Marc Zeitlin]

The 'problem' is with the wording of the operating limitations examples that are in 8130.2H. Some at least temporary resolution has been agreed upon between the DAR and FSDO, and the inspection suspension has been lifted. This issue may percolate to other regions in the country until a permanent fix (via change notice to the order) is in place.

Just out of curiosity, what's the problem they have with the wording of the examples? I haven't studied the order in excruciating detail, but it actually looked pretty decent to me, and had some changes that were advantageous to E/AB aircraft, such as allowing multiple configurations, as long as they were ALL tested in Phase I. This is good, for example for Long-EZ's that have pods but want to be able to fly with them (legally) with the pods off if they don't need the space for a trip and want to pick up a free 7 KIAS.

[Rob Norris]

At least one specific problem is the wording for issuing phase II operating limitations that changed between rev G and rev H.

Rev G wording is in paragraph 4104 section (6), applicable to phase II operations: "This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over densely populated areas unless directed by air traffic control, or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the ground."

Rev H wording is in appendix C, number 46: "Flight over a densely populated area or in a congested airway is authorized for the purpose of takeoff or landing; or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to make a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the ground. (46)"

Rev H has removed the wording "unless directed by air traffic control" for operation over densely populated areas or in a congested airway.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Rev G wording is in paragraph 4104 section (6), applicable to phase II operations: "This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over densely populated areas unless directed by air traffic control, or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the ground."

Yep - I have that wording in my OL's.

Rev H wording is in appendix C, number 46: "Flight over a densely populated area or in a congested airway is authorized for the purpose of takeoff or landing; or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to make a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the ground. (46)"

I like that better - it's clearer, less restrictive, and not dependent upon ATC.

Rev H has removed the wording "unless directed by air traffic control" for operation over densely populated areas or in a congested airway.

So how is that a problem for the FSDO or the DAR? Seems OK to me, no?

[Tom Charpentier]

That was an inclusion made by the FAA Air Traffic Organization (against our explicit request that the language from G be carried over unaltered for the densely populated issue), but operationally is doesn't really change anything for E-AB and E-LSA. Limitation 46 is essentially a reiteration of FAR 91.119(a)

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Your ops limits can't contradict a FAR, and ATC can't authorize you to break a FAR except in case of an emergency. The only non-emergency exception to 91.119(a) is taking off or landing, which is already covered under Limitation 46. So ATC can send you over a densely populated area anytime it wants under the limitation, as long as you are taking off or landing or as long as you are following 91.119(a), which you'd need to follow in a 172 just the same as an RV-6.

All of that said please keep the feedback coming. If changes are needed we'll make sure the right steps are taken.

[Marc Zeitlin]

That was an inclusion made by the FAA Air Traffic Organization (against our explicit request that the language from G be carried over unaltered for the densely populated issue), but operationally is doesn't really change anything for E-AB and E-LSA.

Interesting - why did the EAA want to keep the language from "G", including the ATC reference?

Limitation 46 is essentially a reiteration of FAR 91.119(a)

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Agreed (which makes it kind of redundant, but not harmful, I would think). They could now leave it completely out, since we have to comply with 91.119 anyway.

Your ops limits can't contradict a FAR, and ATC can't authorize you to break a FAR except in case of an emergency. The only non-emergency exception to 91.119(a) is taking off or landing, which is already covered under Limitation 46.

But that's not an exception, since 91.119 explicitly says "except when necessary for takeoff or landing".

I feel like I'm missing something in the logic here, but can't tell what...

So ATC can send you over a densely populated area anytime it wants under the limitation, as long as you are taking off or landing or as long as you are following 91.119(a), which you'd need to follow in a 172 just the same as an RV-6.

Agreed again, but as you say, operationally, nothing has changed between "G" and "H" - it's just the the language is less restrictive, which I would think would be a good thing - it's essentially just saying "do what 91.119 already says, bud".

All of that said please keep the feedback coming. If changes are needed we'll make sure the right steps are taken.

Well, my view would be to leave well enough alone here :-).

[Tom Charpentier]

The limitation is a little redundant, but it needs to be there to give you relief from 91.319(c) which is a general prohibition on flight over densely populated areas for all experimentals unless otherwise authorized. Limitation 46 is that authorization, and for that same reason it needs to spell out the takeoff or landing bit. We asked for the entirety of the language on that in "G" to be ported over to "H" for the simple fact that it was working and we wanted to maintain business as usual. The original "G" language was "unless directed by ATC OR if sufficient altitude is maintained..." so it's functionally the same. The first draft of "H" DID NOT include ANY language allowing flight over densely populated areas, which was unintentional but obviously garnered our strongest objections until it was fixed (hence our request the "G" language be reinstated). The FAA, to their credit, corrected the issue promptly. Our comments to the first draft are found here: http://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/new...a-comments.pdf