POH for EAB Aircraft

I have an experimental (EAB) version of an aircraft that is also sold as an LSA (Arion Lightning) - I am not the original builder. The POH provided with the aircraft looks like a copy of the one used for the LSA version. There are some limitations in the POH that do not match any limitations put on with the FAA aircraft certification letter. For example the POH states you cannot operate IFR, which is not a limitation imposed on the aircraft in its operating specs.

I'd like to rewrite the POH to more accurately document how the aircraft can be operated. My question for this group is how is the POH developed for an EAB and who can make changes/revisions. Thanks for any help or pointer to a FAR.

Gerry

The POH is developed by the builder.

Some kits no doubt have a spec list or maybe a suggested one, but it's on the builder to produce it - for mine I just "borrowed" liberally from several that fit the bill. Sounds like the guy who put your aircraft together just cut-and-pasted from the E-LSA one, or possibly wasn't aware that when he went pure EAB he wasn't required to use the E-LSA one.

The Operating Limitations from the FAA is the ruling authority here. Change the POH to match them. If you want to be really super honest, put a "change page" at the front describing what was changed and why.

For example, my Operating Limitations state Daytime VFR Only. I could put all manner of stuff in the POH about nighttime flying, but that won't make it legal to fly it at night. The flip side is that if the Operating Limitations allowed for flying at night and I wrote in my POH that it isn't, one could fly the plane at night and not get into dutch....though it would have to be straightened out and the POH fixed.

Don't worry about FAR's. It's an Experimental, and this is maintenance. You're fixing the POH.

Is a POH even required for an experimental? I don't have one for mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

Is a POH even required for an experimental? I don't have one for mine.

---

Not required. However, when the NTSB did its in-depth look at homebuilts three years ago, they did complain that many didn't have POHs. Not mandatory, though.

I put together a Word template for Fly Baby owners, others are welcome to use it and modify it to their own needs.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/POH.docx

For those who just want to look, here's the PDF version:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/POH.pdf

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks Frank for the reply - what you said is pretty much what I thought - good suggestion to think of this as maintenance.

I stole big chunks out of Ron's POH, as it's a goodun.

I think it's a really good idea to have an owner's manual to go with the aircraft, even though I don't anticipate ever selling it. Right now every bit of my plane is fresh in my head, but will it be in five years? It's a good reference document IMHO.

I thought the OL " Operating Limitaions " took place of the POH on an EAB. If you have any doubt on how your EAB should be flown one should look to their OL.

Tony

How much liability are you taking on when you furnish a POH with your plane when you sell it?:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

I thought the OL " Operating Limitaions " took place of the POH on an EAB. If you have any doubt on how your EAB should be flown one should look to their OL.

---

The OL's are part of the Airworthiness Certificate and are issued by the FAA. Which, almost by definition, knows just about nothing about the performance of the aircraft in question. A POH tells the pilot how to operate the aircraft safely - not what is legally allowed or how to sign off the condition inspection.

While a POH and the OL's may have a tiny bit of overlap (how to make the plane legal for night/IFR flight, as one possible example), for the most part, they don't. If there's a POH for an EAB aircraft, it's a good thing. The POH should have standard and emergency procedures as well as performance graphs and W&B info, none of which will be anywhere near the OL's. Read your OL's, then read your POH - see how much overlap of useful information there isn't.

With respect to liability, why would the POH add (or subtract) from any liability that might exist from selling the plane without one? Since no EAB personal builder has ever been successfully sued, I'd argue that the total liability in either case (POH or not) is essentially zero. With a standard BOS with liability disclaimers, I would have no compunction about selling my airplane with (or without, since a POH is downloadable online from a few places) a POH.

If one follows AC 90-89A on test flying we get:

The two goals for an amateur builder/ultralight owner should be as follows:
(1) At the end of the aircraft’s flight test phase, the aircraft will have been adequately tested and found airworthy and safe to operate within its established operational envelope.
(2) Incorporation of the flight test operational and performance data into the aircraft’s flight manual so the pilot can reference the data prior to each flight.

So I see it as the experimental builder's domain to write the POH.

"How much liability are you taking on when you furnish a POH with your plane when you sell it?" You would have more risk if you didn't have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vision401

"How much liability are you taking on when you furnish a POH with your plane when you sell it?" You would have more risk if you didn't have one.

---

Why would that be the case? The POH has no legal bearing whatsoever when it comes to describing the actual performance of an experimental aircraft. Matter of fact, many builders will state their POH is a cut-n-paste from one they found on the internet. But an aggressive attorney may indeed try to tie the builder to the POH as a guarantee of the aircraft's performance and operation.

Even if no builder has been "successfully sued", I don't want to even think about the expense and trauma involved in defending against a suit even if invalid.

When I sell an aircraft I have constructed, it is sold "As Is, no warranty or guarantee of airworthiness expressed or implied", and with no POH (even if I had one...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

Why would that be the case? ...

Even if no builder has been "successfully sued", I don't want to even think about the expense and trauma involved in defending against a suit even if invalid.

When I sell an aircraft I have constructed, it is sold "As Is, no warranty or guarantee of airworthiness expressed or implied", and with no POH (even if I had one...).

---

Sam,
I think you are arguing with cross purposes. Your "As Is.." would not prevent a lawsuit that you would have to spend money to defend with or without a POH.
I didn't say liability, I said risk. If you sell an EAB and you sell it with an Airworthiness Cert (not sure if that is what you meant by guarantee of airworthiness), but not a POH to tell them HOW to fly it. You are increasing the risk that the new owner would fly it improperly.

To reduce your liability, don't sell an aircraft with an Airworthiness Cert but As Parts Only, and giving up the registration as well. Of course that may influence the selling price. If you are selling an aircraft with the AC, then having a POH is good practice, if it sells without an AC, the POH wouldn't matter. I think you are fooling yourself if you think that the "As is..." is legal protection if you also sell with the AC and Registration intact. An there is no certainty that selling "parts only" will not get one sued as the lawyers do what they want in chasing the almighty $.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

How much liability are you taking on when you furnish a POH with your plane when you sell it?:eek:

---

Probably no more than having built or maintained the thing in the first place.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vision401

If one follows AC 90-89A on test flying we get:

---

(pssst - http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...cular/AC_90-89B.pdf)

"Flight Manual. It is imperative that a flight manual describing the anticipated performance of the aircraft be written by the aircraft builder/kit manufacturer. The manual will be revised several times during the flight-test phase until it accurately reports the aircraft’s performance, as well as limitations, normal and emergency procedures, and descriptions of those systems installed."

So. Revisions to the manual are expected. If you have one. Advisory circulars are advisory, not regulatory.

Your smileage may vary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vision401

Sam,
I think you are arguing with cross purposes. Your "As Is.." would not prevent a lawsuit that you would have to spend money to defend with or without a POH.
I didn't say liability, I said risk. If you sell an EAB and you sell it with an Airworthiness Cert (not sure if that is what you meant by guarantee of airworthiness), but not a POH to tell them HOW to fly it. You are increasing the risk that the new owner would fly it improperly.

To reduce your liability, don't sell an aircraft with an Airworthiness Cert but As Parts Only, and giving up the registration as well. Of course that may influence the selling price. If you are selling an aircraft with the AC, then having a POH is good practice, if it sells without an AC, the POH wouldn't matter. I think you are fooling yourself if you think that the "As is..." is legal protection if you also sell with the AC and Registration intact. An there is no certainty that selling "parts only" will not get one sued as the lawyers do what they want in chasing the almighty $.

---

There is no way to be assured a law suit will not occur regardless of how the sales agreement is worded or the sale is transacted. Take a look at the 40-page "liability release" that Ikon dropped on their prospective customers....but they will get sued by someone regardless. My use of "As Is" may have some value in clarifying the conditions of the sale but it won't prevent the seller or his estate from doing whatever they wish. This is a train of thought I ponder every time I sell an aircraft. Interestingly, as my tolerance for "risk and liability" has decreased with time, it is more likely my two present planes will not be sold intact.

I agree I did misread your use of "risk" instead of liability.

I posted my query concerning the inclusion of a POH with a sale merely to see what others thought. I agree it probably won't be much of a factor but I personally don't see any value in providing a POH, and there may be a downside if the buyer can't duplicate the performance stated in the POH. I haven't written one for any of my planes. :)