Thought I'd start a new thread.
Quote
hoche
Quote
johnhuebbe
Slightly off topic to bogus safety equipment, but...
More reading:
http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/samateur_built_operating.asp
Like you mentioned, FAR 91.319 has a few rules applicable to experimental aircraft. FAR 91.319c states that "
...no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway". Interestingly, many pilots remember this rule from 91.319,
but conveniently forget a similar rule applicable to ALL airplanes in FAR 91.119 that states that "
...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."
Really, the vast majority of commercial aircraft are operating into and out of airports in major cities where they couldn't make an emergency landing "
without undue hazard to persons or property"
The FAA's concern is with any action by a pilot that creates a hazard to innocent bystanders on the ground. In practice, this means that during "Phase 1" every new amateur-built experimental aircraft may not be operated over any congested area. After the 25 or 40 hour phase 1 testing, the plane "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."
Probably should start a new thread and move this to Off-Topic if we're going to keep gabbing about it, but...
That's interesting. I don't really keep up with experimental regs; I was under the impression that like light-sport they were pretty limited with where they could fly. Clearly it's less of a limitation than I thought. So, that leaves one remaining issue: can you get them instrument certified?
I fly out of Hayward, which is a Class C that's slammed right up next to and underneath Oakland, which is in turn a Class C that's underneath San Francisco. Right next door to the west is San Carlos's Class C. Getting out of there under VFR involves a lot of shenanigans, and sometimes it's just easier to file IFR and get clearances. Also, it's often fogged in in the morning, so an IFR clearance is often necessary if you want to get airborne before about 11am.
The other issue, of course, is that I have a perfectly good Cherokee 6 with a 600hr engine, and I like the thing. It hauls a lot and is a pretty mellow bird to fly. I need to upgrade the avionics a bit, but I keep spending money on this stupid racing nonsense instead.
For IFR:
Like all aircraft, an amateur-built experimental aircraft must be properly equipped before it can be operated under IFR rules [91.205]. This is confirmed in FAA Order 8130.2D Chg 1, paragraph 134, which states that:
"(7) [During "Phase 1" Flight Test Period] the aircraft is to be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day only. (8) After completion of phase I flight testing,
unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. ...(28) The pilot in command of this aircraft shall notify air traffic control of the experimental nature of this aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft shall be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
So, essentially, yes you can build an experimental aircraft for IFR operation. There are people who do it all the time. And
NONE of the instruments need to be TSO'd.
More reading:
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%20for%20IFR%20operations.html
