Is your Experimental Airworthy? I am being told the EAA has it wrong.

[1600vw]

There are a few of us on another forum having this discussion. I posted a webinar the EAA put out on this and I am being told by these people that the EAA has it all wrong. If you listen to the first 4 mins of this webinar you will hear what they are telling me is wrong.

I told them the EAA would not put this out if the info was wrong.

http://eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2608772875001

[FlyingRon]

You're going to have to explain what the issue was. Other than absolutely horrid presentation technique, the only issue is that he kind of uses hyperbole talking about the operating limitations relationship to the condition inspection. There's only a couple of items in the specimen operating limitations that apply (which he actually enumerates).

The EAA is certainly no infallible. They've written completely inaccurate and unsafe things in Sport Aviation before (that magazine lost any semblance of editorship a long time ago).

[mikey]

ok, I listened to first 4 minutes.....did not hear anything incorrect. care to elaborate?

[martymayes]

So what's the big deal Tony? An E-A/B is not airworthy. Not sure why anyone that is not authorized to sign off a condition inspection should get all pedantic over it.

[1600vw]

I am being told experimental airplanes are airworthy. This is by a group of Homebuilders on another forum. Those members believe an experimental airplane is airworthy. I post this webinar and I was told by a few members the man doing this webinar don't know his..You get the idea.

So who believes an experimental airplane is airworthy? A couple of these people are members on this forum. I will not mention names.

Tony

[Byron J. Covey]

My E-AB is airworthy, as per the English language definition of the word.

My E-AB is not airworthy, as per the FAA's regulatory definition of the word, because it has not been certified by the FAA to meet any of their type-certification standards.

Not an issue. Just follow the operating limitations' required wording when entering the annual condition inspection statement into the log book.


BJC

[1600vw]

My E-AB is airworthy, as per the English language definition of the word.

My E-AB is not airworthy, as per the FAA's regulatory definition of the word, because it has not been certified by the FAA to meet any of their type-certification standards.

Not an issue. Just follow the operating limitations' required wording when entering the annual condition inspection statement into the log book.


BJC

You will be surprised how many do not know or understand this. I bet not one of these people make a comment here who told me this is wrong. Again I will not mention names.

[Auburntsts]

My E-AB is airworthy, as per the English language definition of the word.

My E-AB is not airworthy, as per the FAA's regulatory definition of the word, because it has not been certified by the FAA to meet any of their type-certification standards.

Not an issue. Just follow the operating limitations' required wording when entering the annual condition inspection statement into the log book.


BJC

I agree with this 100%. Per my OPLIMs my log entries state my E-AB aircraft is in a condition for safe operation, not that it's airworthy. However in lay terms that's what I equate it to even though technically it's not.

[martymayes]

I am being told experimental airplanes are airworthy. This is by a group of Homebuilders on another forum. Those members believe an experimental airplane is airworthy. I post this webinar and I was told by a few members the man doing this webinar don't know his..You get the idea.

So who believes an experimental airplane is airworthy? A couple of these people are members on this forum. I will not mention names.

Tony

What difference does it make? None of these folks will ever sign off a condition inspection so let them think what they want. You can't control what others think, do or say.

[FlyingRon]

Arguing "airworthy" vs "safe for flight" is like quibbling over people who say "annual" with regard to the condition inspection. It makes ZERO safety difference, and very small amounts of regulatory difference. If you want to get right down to it, the FAA can always find something that isn't airworthy on any aircraft.

What you do need to know, and the lecturer in this video does cover well, is what the standards for the CONDITION inspection is. At least in the parts I endured wasn't wrong.

This is a far cry from the SA telling people to punch test their dacron or giving improper information on how to talk to ATC in class C airspace.

[1600vw]

What difference does it make? None of these folks will ever sign off a condition inspection so let them think what they want. You can't control what others think, do or say.

This conversation came about on this other forum because we were discussing parts replacement. See how not knowing this little detail can open up a can of worms, when we talk about replacement parts.

[1600vw]

Arguing "airworthy" vs "safe for flight" is like quibbling over people who say "annual" with regard to the condition inspection. It makes ZERO safety difference, and very small amounts of regulatory difference. If you want to get right down to it, the FAA can always find something that isn't airworthy on any aircraft.

What you do need to know, and the lecturer in this video does cover well, is what the standards for the CONDITION inspection is. At least in the parts I endured wasn't wrong.

This is a far cry from the SA telling people to punch test their dacron or giving improper information on how to talk to ATC in class C airspace.

It has to do with parts or replacement parts. But also much deeper. But this was about parts.

[martymayes]

This conversation came about on this other forum because we were discussing parts replacement. See how not knowing this little detail can open up a can of worms, when we talk about replacement parts.

Again, don't see why it matters. Can't control what people think. If somebody insist on only airworthy replacement parts for their homebuilt-whatever turns their crank!

[martymayes]

I like when people call it a "conditional inspection"

[wyoranch]

I like when people call it a "conditional inspection"

I thought we all agreed that it was to be referred to as a "Giger"?

[Low Pass]

All I know is my E-AB was airworthy when I signed off it's last annual.

[1600vw]

During my last condition inspection my airplane was found to be in a condition for safe operation. Not in an airworthy condition.

[Dana]

I guess I'm one of the "no names" people. When I said on the other forum that my experimental is "airworthy" I meant it in the sense of BJC's first definition. Who cares what the FAA calls it, as long as I have an annual logbook entry saying it's in a condition for safe operation.

[Frank Giger]

One must perform an annual condition inspection to ensure the aircraft is safe to fly and airworthy in all respects.

Frank "I'm Famous!" Giger

[martymayes]

I thought we all agreed that it was to be referred to as a "Giger"?

Doesn't Frank's annual conditional inspection take the full 12 months?

[Frank Giger]

It is every day, my friend, it is every day!

There is always "one more thing" to do on the aircraft, and something that needs looked at.

[Byron J. Covey]

All I know is my E-AB was airworthy when I signed off it's last annual.

:)

[1600vw]

It is every day, my friend, it is every day!

There is always "one more thing" to do on the aircraft, and something that needs looked at.

So So true. Sounds like my airplane. Never finished.

[FlyingRon]

Well he had it right. Pretty much what you want to write in your log book is what it says in the operating limitations.

[Gary.Sobek]

FAA Definition of Airworthy can be found in 14 CFR 3.5 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/9C6DBA5E134BF637862575BB006D1CBD?OpenDocument). (follows is FAA Definition from the 14 CFR 3.5 link)
(a) Definitions. The following terms will have the stated meanings when used in this section:Airworthy means the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.

Because an Experimental Amateur Built aircraft does NOT have a type certificate (type design), the FAA will NEVER consider it to be airworthy according to their definition.

Most dictionaries (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/airworthy) will consider anything that is safe to fly airworthy.

Since everything I do in aviation is in accordance with FAA Regulations, Standards, Orders, and definitions; I will NEVER consider an Amateur Built Aircraft airworthy by the FAA definition but MAY consider it as in a condition for safe operation.

Please do not ask me to use my FAA A&P license to sign your log or testify in court stating that your Amateur Built aircraft is in an airworthy condition. I can understand someone that is NOT associated with the FAA saying it is airworthy because they are unfamiliar with the FAA definition.

[1600vw]

I wonder how many folks that fly two seat experimental's when they take another non aviation person for a ride, tell these people they are climbing into a Non-airworthy airplane by definition of the FAA? In my eye's this should be part of the preflight when taking a second person on a ride in an Experimental. To not tell them this little tidbit of info is not doing a complete preflight with this person. IMHO.
My son went for a flight or ride in a buddies two seat experimental. I explained all this to him before he ever climbed aboard. I wanted him to understand what it is he was climbing into. He had a blast on his ride.

Tony

[Mike M]

I wonder how many folks that fly two seat experimental's when they take another non aviation person for a ride, tell these people they are climbing into a Non-airworthy airplane by definition of the FAA? In my eye's this should be part of the preflight when taking a second person on a ride in an Experimental. To not tell them this little tidbit of info is not doing a complete preflight with this person. IMHO.
My son went for a flight or ride in a buddies two seat experimental. I explained all this to him before he ever climbed aboard. I wanted him to understand what it is he was climbing into. He had a blast on his ride.

Tony
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/graphics/09-33300.jpg

[FlyingRon]

This one was on a fairly large airplane I was aboard:
https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8162/7177465628_13969129ea.jpg

[1600vw]

Does an Experimental that carries a passenger or a two seat, by regs have to have that wordage in the cockpit in view of the passenger? I thought the only thing needed was one that says Experimental.

[Sam Buchanan]

Does an Experimental that carries a passenger or a two seat, by regs have to have that wordage in the cockpit in view of the passenger?

Yes.

[Frank Giger]

Hell, because it's a required placard, I have one in my single seat airplane.

It was easier to put it on the panel than argue.

[martymayes]

I wonder how many folks that fly two seat experimental's when they take another non aviation person for a ride, tell these people they are climbing into a Non-airworthy airplane by definition of the FAA? In my eye's this should be part of the preflight when taking a second person on a ride in an Experimental. To not tell them this little tidbit of info is not doing a complete preflight with this person. IMHO.

I don't think the FAR that covers operating an experimental aircraft says specifically that the passenger has to be told it's a "Non-airworthy airplane by definition of the FAA" rather they have to be advised of the experimental nature of the aircraft. Since it doesn't have to be a verbal advisory, a placard will suffice. Other FAA guidance covers the wording of the placard. Note they use the word "shall" meaning it's required.

§91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate shall—

(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the aircraft;

[FlyingRon]

It's usually in the op lims as well...the specimen limitations has this entry:

...the following placard must be displayed in the aircraft in full view of all occupants: “PASSENGERWARNING—THIS AIRCRAFT IS AN EXPERIMENTAL LIGHT-SPORT AIRCRAFT AND DOESNOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD AIRCRAFT.

However 8130.2H adds after that requirement the following

Note: This placard is not necessary for single-place aircraft.

[CarlOrton]

Both placards are required. The "Experimental" placard has to have a minimum letter size of 2" (I believe). It only has to be in a location that is visible to the passenger as they enter the aircraft.

The smaller "warning" placard has to be in plain view of the passenger while seated, after entry.

Heck - we (my employer) had a B737 that was modified enough that *it* was placarded as an Experimental.

[FlyingRon]

The photo I posted was just inside the main boarding door of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner prototype. The doors also have EXPERIMENTAL stenciled over them.

[1600vw]

I fly single seat and have never seen one of those place cards in any of the singles I have flown. Because its not required. I believe this is how we got to this point. The people I have been talking with all fly single seat. As mentioned single seat does not have to have this place card. Most of us who fly single seat never climb into a two seat. I don't anyway. In all these years I have taken one ride in a two seat EAB or experimental. But I do remember seeing that place card in that airplane.

[rwanttaja]

I fly single seat and have never seen one of those place cards in any of the singles I have flown. Because its not required. I believe this is how we got to this point. The people I have been talking with all fly single seat. As mentioned single seat does not have to have this place card. Most of us who fly single seat never climb into a two seat. I don't anyway. In all these years I have taken one ride in a two seat EAB or experimental. But I do remember seeing that place card in that airplane.

Not in mine, either, but I can understand Frank's point of view, in that sometimes it's easier to just go along.

Kinda like my Fly Baby's insurance carrier, which insists I carry $100,000 passenger liability coverage. I told them there wasn't a termite ALIVE that was worth 100 Gs.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I fly single seat and have never seen one of those place cards in any of the singles I have flown. Because its not required. I believe this is how we got to this point. The people I have been talking with all fly single seat. As mentioned single seat does not have to have this place card. Most of us who fly single seat never climb into a two seat. I don't anyway. In all these years I have taken one ride in a two seat EAB or experimental. But I do remember seeing that place card in that airplane.
OK, I've got us single-seat homebuilt pilots covered:
5708
Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

I'm thinking of coming up with a small passenger warning placard to put on the sides of the interplane struts:

THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT HAVE A PASSENGER SEAT. THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AVIATION STANDARDS AND THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN LAY ON THE WING AND HANG ON TIGHT TO THIS STRUT IS ILL CONSIDERED.

[Dana]

5709

[raytoews]

My airplane is airworthy because I say it is.

[Low Pass]

My airplane is airworthy because I say it is.5723

[L16 Pilot]

One of my Pet peeves is when you have an older aircraft and try to make it better (let's say put a better brake system on a Taylorcraft, etc.) it takes piles of paperwork and approvals (even if you happen to get it approved). Meanwhile Johnny Teenager can put oversize tires on his pickup, jack it up and make all kinds of 'modifications' with no paperwork or approval. There's something wrong with this picture.

[raytoews]

One of my Pet peeves is when you have an older aircraft and try to make it better (let's say put a better brake system on a Taylorcraft, etc.) it takes piles of paperwork and approvals (even if you happen to get it approved). Meanwhile Johnny Teenager can put oversize tires on his pickup, jack it up and make all kinds of 'modifications' with no paperwork or approval. There's something wrong with this picture.

I just love bragging about this😆

Move to Canada, we have a category called Owner Maintenance.

For all intents and purposes makes older out of production airplanes homebuilt.

With very few exceptions.

My Grumman Cheetah is OM and it sure ain't your daddies Cheetah any more.

Ray