Newbie homebuilding questions

[slin]

I've owned a certified airplane for about 15 years, and have lately just started thinking about building or buying an experimental (this is a long term process, so thinking several years down the line). Anyway, I have some questions about the general utility of an E-AB aircraft that I was hoping to get some advice on.

I guess the preface is that it sure seems to me that after the Phase I hours are flown off, most people I know with E-AB aircraft pretty much treat them the same as certified aircraft in terms of how they use them. But my specific questions are:

1) Currently I do a couple of charity flights per year where I donate a flight to my kids' schools' charity auction. I conduct these under FAR 91.146, which requires using a plane with a "standard" airworthiness certificate. So I assume I cannot do this with an E-AB, is that correct?

2) We do fly occasionally to the Bahamas and Canada, but from what I can see from Google/EAA/AOPA, it's relatively straightforward to get the paperwork in order to fly an E-AB aircraft to these countries. Is that right? Is the paperwork required on a per-flight/visit basis, or is it just a one-time thing?

3) I'm confused about the restrictions on "densely populated areas". The EAA website has a page here where they mention this restriction and have this to say (in part):

The operating limitations that are issued to a homebuilt aircraft as a part of its airworthiness certificate will usually contain the following or similarly worded limitations:“Except for takeoffs and landings, this aircraft may not be operated over densely populated areas or in congested airways.”
AND
“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 surface.”
Taken together, these operating limitations allow for flight over densely populated areas in most situations.

But that's a little confusing to me. Using normal English common sense plus the typical interpretation of confusing/overlapping FARs, when I see the first statement, I would interpret that to be pretty straightforward prohibition of flying over densely populated areas except for takeoffs and landings. Even if there is some OTHER restriction (i.e. ALSO can't operate over dense areas if not directed by ATC, or without sufficient altitude), I don't understand how that would lessen the first restriction. In other words, one logical interpretation of those two statements is that you can only fly over dense areas if (taking off or landing) AND ((directed by ATC) OR (sufficient altitude for safe emergency landing)), contrary to the EAA's opinion.

Certainly the E-AB owners I know seem to take the EAA's opinion, and I haven't ever heard of anyone getting busted (right?), but is there any fear in the community that some future FAA Administrator might interpret those rules differently? For example, has there ever been an official counsel's letter agreeing with the EAA opinion? I can only imagine if, God forbid, something like a Lancair Evolution (just picking a heavy, expensive, E-AB plane) crashes into some housing development or school or something, I could see the FAA taking a hard look at E-AB overflight of densely populated areas.

4) For the typical non-CFI aircraft owner (so, not trying to instruct in the aircraft, not trying to lease it back or rent it out), are there any other restrictions that an E-AB aircraft would present as opposed to a certified one? Looks like night/IFR are just fine as long as properly equipped and the operating limitations allow it. Anything else?

Thanks very much - as should be obvious, I don't know much about the E-AB landscape and am really just starting to think about these things...
Steve Lin

[Frank Giger]

1) Nope, can't do those in an E-AB. No Young Eagle flights, either.

2) AFAIK, they have no restrictions against E-AB - it's just a type of aircraft to them.

3) I really dug into this when learning to fly. What I finally figured out is that if you crash outside of a Mode C veil (think Atlanta, Seattle, etc), the NTSB will determine that based on what you hit. Engine out over the suburbs: You hit a house - densely populated. You land in a park, on a golf course, or a road - not densely populated.

4) They're aircraft. If the pilot and the plane are rated....

I know I'm going to sound very cavalier, but it seems the truth of the matter is the FAA doesn't give a hoot about what GA does so long as we stay out of restricted airspace, nobody gets hurt, we don't disrupt commercial traffic, or somebody complains and actually writes down the N number. That means we have to be even more self-policing and careful of what we do, as the skies are not full of FAA troopers looking for miscreants.

If one is a prudent pilot in a certified plane, they'll stay one in an E-AB. Once the pink slip is signed, follow the standard rules, keep up with maintenance, and don't do anything stupid.

[rleffler]

I agree with everything except the Young Eagles comment. You can fly Young Eagles, since there is no compensation involved. It's done all the time. Unfortunately, it really depends on the charity and the situation. You can't donate a plane ride to raffle as a fund raiser for your church or local school. That would be considered using an EAB for commercial activity. You can fly Pilot and Paws. Some Angel Flights allow properly equipped EABs, but a fair number don't. (Not a FAA limitation).

The FAA published a position paper a few years ago (which I don't have the reference handy) indicating what wasn't acceptable for flying with charities. If I remember correctly, they considered an IRS deduction as an activity requiring a commercial certificate. They also published a follow up clarification specific for Young Eagles.

1) Nope, can't do those in an E-AB. No Young Eagle flights, either.

2) AFAIK, they have no restrictions against E-AB - it's just a type of aircraft to them.

3) I really dug into this when learning to fly. What I finally figured out is that if you crash outside of a Mode C veil (think Atlanta, Seattle, etc), the NTSB will determine that based on what you hit. Engine out over the suburbs: You hit a house - densely populated. You land in a park, on a golf course, or a road - not densely populated.

4) They're aircraft. If the pilot and the plane are rated....

I know I'm going to sound very cavalier, but it seems the truth of the matter is the FAA doesn't give a hoot about what GA does so long as we stay out of restricted airspace, nobody gets hurt, we don't disrupt commercial traffic, or somebody complains and actually writes down the N number. That means we have to be even more self-policing and careful of what we do, as the skies are not full of FAA troopers looking for miscreants.

If one is a prudent pilot in a certified plane, they'll stay one in an E-AB. Once the pink slip is signed, follow the standard rules, keep up with maintenance, and don't do anything stupid.

[Tralika]

There are lots of GOTCHAS like this one in the FARs. I attended a safety seminar where an aviation attorney cited a case in which a pilot was violated for making an early turn out after take off from an airport and was violated under the 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes. The FAA alleged that the early turn out was not necessary for the purpose of take off or landing and the pilot flew over some houses at an altitude of a few hundred feet. The FAA described the area as Congested. That word is not in the definitions section of 14CFR. At the NTSB hearing the pilot presented evidence that showed that in the area the pilot overflew, there was one house per ten acres. The FAA presented no evidence to contradict this, they only stood by their opinion that the area was congested. The NTSB upheld the violation. In an appeal to the full Board the violation was again upheld. As it stands now, anyplace that has one house per ten acres is considered congested for the purposes of 119.19. I haven't looked, but I'll bet there is no definition of "densely populated areas" either. That means we're at the mercy of whatever "opinion" the FAA happens to have on any given day.

[Frank Giger]

I haven't looked, but I'll bet there is no definition of "densely populated areas" either. That means we're at the mercy of whatever "opinion" the FAA happens to have on any given day.

Yep. It's vague and the only opinion that matters is the FAA's.

[cub builder]

There are lots of GOTCHAS like this one in the FARs. I attended a safety seminar where an aviation attorney cited a case in which a pilot was violated for making an early turn out after take off from an airport and was violated under the 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes. The FAA alleged that the early turn out was not necessary for the purpose of take off or landing and the pilot flew over some houses at an altitude of a few hundred feet. The FAA described the area as Congested. That word is not in the definitions section of 14CFR. At the NTSB hearing the pilot presented evidence that showed that in the area the pilot overflew, there was one house per ten acres. The FAA presented no evidence to contradict this, they only stood by their opinion that the area was congested. The NTSB upheld the violation. In an appeal to the full Board the violation was again upheld. As it stands now, anyplace that has one house per ten acres is considered congested for the purposes of 119.19. I haven't looked, but I'll bet there is no definition of "densely populated areas" either. That means we're at the mercy of whatever "opinion" the FAA happens to have on any given day.

This only goes to prove that if the FAA wants to play games, you have probably violated some FAR with every flight and the "Safety Cronies" are going to back each other up at your expense. Fortunately, common sense rules most of the time.

As a friend of mine was told by the judge after presenting ample scientific evidence to support his case when fighting a dumb ticket by an overly aggressive cop, "That's the best losing argument I've heard."

-Cub Builder