Hey gang, random question for the braintrust: what are the day-to-day practicalities/functionalities of owning an E-E certified airplane? I'd prefer some experience of ownership in responses, please. Also assume that the limitations do not restrict passengers during ferry operations, only during exhibitions.

For example: if you want to travel somewhere with your family it seems you could easily set up an “event” on SocialFlight or some other medium as an exhibition to justify the cross-country. Maybe a flight demo, maybe even just a ground showing of your airplane. Not specifically just "checking a box," but actually trying to organize a little, but not large, something with the local flying scene. This would be outside of the annual events you submit to the FAA, which would probably include events like Oshkosh, etc. Is that considered outside the intent of the CofA? Is it a violation of the CofA?

In other words, is it practical for a family to own an E-E certified airplane as a family vehicle that also exhibits for a unique aspect of the build? Or does an E-E cert basically drop the plane into "expensive local toy and pre-planned events" status?

Thanks!

I've owned 2 gliders over the past 30 years which are "experimental" and have never been asked by any official of any capacity on the ramp or any other place what I've been doing with them (nor do I know of anyone else asked). Both have Exp A/W certs stating for Exhibition / Racing and both had a 300 mile radius limits stated in the operating limitations. And in the soaring community most European gliders are imported into the USA and certified as EXP because it's much easier (cheaper) than paying/certifying them as Standard air worthiness. All have most likely already been Certified by EASA already.

Honestly you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here that has been ramp checked or called by the FAA and asked if they've abided by the limitations.

disclaimer- all of my flights were for exhibition, racing or proficiency

Glidergeek wrote:I've owned 2 gliders over the past 30 years which are "experimental" and have never been asked by any official of any capacity on the ramp or any other place what I've been doing with them (nor do I know of anyone else asked). Both have Exp A/W certs stating for Exhibition / Racing and both had a 300 mile radius limits stated in the operating limitations. And in the soaring community most European gliders are imported into the USA and certified as EXP because it's much easier (cheaper) than paying/certifying them as Standard air worthiness. All have most likely already been Certified by EASA already.

Honestly you'll be hard pressed to find anyone here that has been ramp checked or called by the FAA and asked if they've abided by the limitations.

disclaimer- all of my flights were for exhibition, racing or proficiency

Yeah, that kind of fits what I was guessing is the case. This "fictional airplane" doesn't appear have a radius limit in the operating limitations, either.

Clearly all flights would only be for exhibition or proficiency, with potential family-transporting side benefits during ferry ops. I was just curious how tightly the definition of exhibition was defined/monitored.

I purchased my homebuilt from Canada and imported it to the US. During that process, the FSDO initially told me I would most likely have to certify it as Experimental-Exhibition because of a lack of build logs (Canadian requirements, although similar in the 51% rule, have slightly more relaxed requirements to meet the rule). The FSDO straight up told me they don't enforce the specific Exhibition requirements and in practice it makes no real difference. He said they simply do not have the manpower to devote to enforcing those rules. That being said, I was never too excited about the potential of one day in the future the FAA deciding to change their enforcement efforts. He also said the "training flights", which are allowed in exhibition, can be justified in pretty much any flight. If you need to fly XC for an actual exhibition, it doesn't sound unreasonable (and confirmed by the FAA to me) that you should be able to fly training XC flights when needed.
So in practice, FAA said it would not create any additional barriers to day-to-day operations. In the end, I was able to cobble together some build logs to satisfy the FAA and got a homebuilt AWC, which I'm glad just so I didn't have to worry about the future "what if they change their minds." My other consideration is while I had that conversation with the FAA, a potential future buyer did not and may also be weary of what they don't know, therefore hurting resale.

It's all fun and games until it isn't. The FAA doesn't have the time to enforce their rules until an accident or incident. Then it's all about the paper trail. More importantly check the insurance quotes on experimental and the limits of their coverage. If you are determined to be operating outside of any operation limitations the FAA and your insurance provider will both be a major concern.

Also as mentioned above resale will usually take a hit as most potential buyers wont want to deal with the hassles you are currently going through deciding if it is worth it or not if they do their due diligence. I also dealt with this in the glider regime when I owned two experimental racing exhibition gliders. While I actually did fly races and abided by my experimental ops limitations (to protect my day job), many owners didn't even know there was such a thing. It sounds like you've already read the ops limits attached to the airplane. They typically don't have to get changed unless you change something on the aircraft in a major alteration sort of way. Then the responsible FSDO may want to update them to the latest boilerplate template in the 8900. That may end up being more or less restrictive.

My experience with Experimental Exhibition planes is in warbirds. It's all about the "the letter" which I want to call the operating limitations but that can't be it. Any owner of an E-E aircraft will know what you're asking for.
Some are very restrictive and some are wide open, even on two airplanes of the same make, model and year. It depends on which FSDO/examiner issued the letter.

Obviously if you get a Mig 21 you can expect it to be very strict. In the case of a military plane it should be considered up front (make sure you see the letter yourself before you get your wallet out). The BT-13 and T-6/SNJ have standard airworthiness certificates and no "letter". A Harvard is not a certified aircraft, nor is a T-28. Yaks, Nanchangs, IARs and other affordable warbirds will all be E-E. If you're looking at a Stinson L-1, Vultee L-13, any of the various L and O birds from WW II and of course an O-1/L-19 Bird Dog or the turbine Marchetti variant - you need to dig.

I looked at two early Yaks last fall and the letters were different. One prohibited aerobatics, the other allowed aerobatics but required chutes at all times. Both were for day VFR only and no commercial purposes. Other than that, pretty much free to move about the country.

A guy in my local club had a T-28A previously owned by (I think) Paul Poberezny and basically had no restrictions. Someone else might have one that prohibits passengers, so YMMV.

The letter is durable and stays with the plane during a sale. In theory it is possible to renegotiate the restrictions, but you could end up losing ground instead of gaining it.

A warbird pilot at an airshow is way more likely to get "ramped" than someone with a hopped up Maule-ish looking plane on a dirt strip somewhere but I wouldn't discount the possibility.

Would have an E-E airplane be a deal breaker? Unless the restrictions were nuts, absolutely not. You can turn your own wrenches and the annual (condition inspection) can be performed by an A&P. No permission from the king is needed to run a different prop or tires.

Cam, hope you and the family are well.

aftCG pretty much covered it.

Insurance, getting ramped, and your lawyer trying to protect you when you do something stupid are about the only places it will effectively matter.

I've only flown in a couple of airshows. Got ramped once, sort of. But one of the other pilots had paperwork that was so screwed up that three of the four folks doing the ramp were focused on him. The fourth came over to me and we just chatted while she watched the other three. I kinda felt "cheated" (not really).

Always wondered why we have to announce "Experimental" in radio comms. It's not like they hide the children or anything. Actually I think back in the old days when experimentals were truly experimental they did things differently. Ironically the only time I've been met by crash trucks while landing I was flying the 185- and didn't need a crash truck, one even shot the water cannon at me- but those are different stories.

Cam, I would consider crash survivability in anything I put family in. Your Tri-Pacer has a good steel tubing structure for that event. I made the mistake of flying an Ultraflight Challenger II like a crop duster and messed myself up pretty good.

Team,

These are great responses and viewpoints - thanks for sharing with me!

It’s a pretty standard 4 seat TC airplane, just has a power plant change and has been flying in this config (with an E-E/AR cert) for 30+ years.

The owner shared the restrictions and his last program letter and it seems super easy and straightforward.

There will likely be resale issues on the backside, but the price reflects that in my opinion so I’m not too concerned with that.

I can’t keep both planes though and it’ll break my heart to sell the Racer. But the family isn’t getting any smaller and traveling any distance over 200nm is pretty tough with my current cruise speeds and payload. I’d like to keep/increase using aviation as a vehicle for family adventures and less as an expensive toy that takes me away from the wife and kids.

I’ve really enjoyed my E-AB freedom and would like to keep that, plus this plane I’m looking at is pretty slick and appears to be mechanically beautiful.

I don’t think the E-E certificate scares me yet, but I need to call my FSDO and see if their thoughts mirror the ones of the FSDO that currently have oversight on the airplane.

The only thing that would concern me about that classification:

Right now, the rules are fairly liberal and rarely enforced (of course, FAA types are working from home, so....).

The question I'd ask myself is this: Will they stay that way?

Consider the B-17 accident a while back....etc. Point is, every thing can be hunky dory now, and one ugly accident COULD result in either more restrictions and/or more enforcement.

Frankly, I can't imagine the FAA actually enforcing anything that requires them to go to an airport.....

But, then, there's the potential accident which started with a locked up brake, or....???

THAT's when the dance would start.

MTV

Barnstormer wrote:Cam, hope you and the family are well.

We're great, thanks for asking! I hope you're all doing great too! Still living the dream up north?

mtv wrote:The only thing that would concern me about that classification:

Right now, the rules are fairly liberal and rarely enforced (of course, FAA types are working from home, so....).

The question I'd ask myself is this: Will they stay that way?

Consider the B-17 accident a while back....etc. Point is, every thing can be hunky dory now, and one ugly accident COULD result in either more restrictions and/or more enforcement.

Frankly, I can't imagine the FAA actually enforcing anything that requires them to go to an airport.....

But, then, there's the potential accident which started with a locked up brake, or....???

THAT's when the dance would start.

MTV

Mike, great point. I think this is where I would do well to talk to my local FSDO about the program letter to make sure all my ops were above board. To include XC and IFR proficiency training in and around the US. It seems to me that if it's in the letter, then its in accordance with your program and I would imagine makes the paperwork trail leading to the scene of the accident investigation board move a lot more in the owners' favor in case of a mishap or incident. Unless you think I'm looking at it wrong, then let me know!

CamTom12 wrote:

Barnstormer wrote:Cam, hope you and the family are well.

We're great, thanks for asking! I hope you're all doing great too! Still living the dream up north?

mtv wrote:The only thing that would concern me about that classification:

Right now, the rules are fairly liberal and rarely enforced (of course, FAA types are working from home, so....).

The question I'd ask myself is this: Will they stay that way?

Consider the B-17 accident a while back....etc. Point is, every thing can be hunky dory now, and one ugly accident COULD result in either more restrictions and/or more enforcement.

Frankly, I can't imagine the FAA actually enforcing anything that requires them to go to an airport.....

But, then, there's the potential accident which started with a locked up brake, or....???

THAT's when the dance would start.

MTV

Mike, great point. I think this is where I would do well to talk to my local FSDO about the program letter to make sure all my ops were above board. To include XC and IFR proficiency training in and around the US. It seems to me that if it's in the letter, then its in accordance with your program and I would imagine makes the paperwork trail leading to the scene of the accident investigation board move a lot more in the owners' favor in case of a mishap or incident. Unless you think I'm looking at it wrong, then let me know!

I think, May be wrong, but think it's more then about just an accident that you may be involved in. But what if a different accident leads to clamping down or changing of rules that makes said airplane effectively useless? Hopefully that will never happen, but the FAA or TC has the ability to surprise...
That would be my biggest concern.

A1 quote:

I think, May be wrong, but think it's more then about just an accident that you may be involved in. But what if a different accident leads to clamping down or changing of rules that makes said airplane effectively useless? Hopefully that will never happen, but the FAA or TC has the ability to surprise...
That would be my biggest concern.

Skinner, do you foresee any abrupt changes on the horizon for an OM C of A. I'm hear we may soon; a year or two, be allowed south of the 49th.

With regards to who can do maintenance on the aircraft, I have seen E-E aircraft program letters that state work must still be completed by an A&P and that all maintenance must still be done per manufacturer documentation. One example I saw of this was on an An-2 (a plane that should have a standard airworthiness in this country, but apparently that’s never gonna happen…). So I think that can also be a variable.


I also have reservations about being in a situation where the FAA is just liberally interpreting, and largely not enforcing, key aspects of regulations that can make or break the utility of an E-E airplane for an owner.

Further, the trend right now to have certified airplanes in E-E for the purposes of further modifying them with lots of innovative but significant modifications is very cool, but it is bypassing a lot of traditional systems that were intended to keep things “safe”. It is imperative that those pursuing those sorts of uses of E-E’s continue to exercise good judgement and sound practices to assure we don’t see a rash of accidents and draw unnecessary attention to this modifications avenue. At the end of the day, Experimental-R&D is also a category that also allows innovative modifications…but with much more restrictive usage rules than E-E. If they crack down on this for some reason, it’ll be hard to revert many of these aircraft to conform to their Type Design and re-obtain standard airworthiness (and value).

I was involved in a warbird event in recent history in a part of the country that has not dealt with an E-E airplane in many years (Hawaii). Because the E-E planes were delivered to a Class B airfield, and some of their ops limits prohibited flight in Class B airspace, they became landlocked. Despite the importance of the historic events at hand for the state HI, the local FSDO was very apprehensive to allow any deviation from the regs. It took some political connections from much farther up the FAA food chain to make things right and allow the planes to escape the Class B airfield and operate over the rest of the island. So at times they do seem to enforce the rules…just depends where you are.

Flip side is, there’s a whole host of Nanchangs and Yaks based at KTOA (and other SoCal fields) which are all E-E and have a grand old time flying formation and other fun all over the SoCal region. Seem to do so safely and effectively (yes, there have been accidents, but life moves on). And the M-14P and derivative engines seem to have great support, so things are working smoothly without the regulatory burden of a certified airplane.

YMMV.

A1Skinner wrote:I think, May be wrong, but think it's more then about just an accident that you may be involved in. But what if a different accident leads to clamping down or changing of rules that makes said airplane effectively useless? Hopefully that will never happen, but the FAA or TC has the ability to surprise...
That would be my biggest concern.

Fair point, David. Definitely a fair point.

Fiddler wrote:With regards to who can do maintenance on the aircraft, I have seen E-E aircraft program letters that state work must still be completed by an A&P and that all maintenance must still be done per manufacturer documentation. One example I saw of this was on an An-2 (a plane that should have a standard airworthiness in this country, but apparently that’s never gonna happen…). So I think that can also be a variable.

True story, Dustin. This one in particular does follow the "E-AB maintenance model," which is a definite factor in my consideration.

Fiddler wrote:I also have reservations about being in a situation where the FAA is just liberally interpreting, and largely not enforcing, key aspects of regulations that can make or break the utility of an E-E airplane for an owner.

Agreed with this - I owe a call to my FSDO (going to try and do that today) to talk about the aircraft, what my program letter would look like and what that would authorize. The current owner is doing everything above board with his FSDO, but my operations would vary slightly from his in regards to XC and IFR proficiency flights. I want to make sure that would all be above board before I move any further.

Fiddler wrote:I was involved in a warbird event in recent history in a part of the country that has not dealt with an E-E airplane in many years (Hawaii). Because the E-E planes were delivered to a Class B airfield, and some of their ops limits prohibited flight in Class B airspace, they became landlocked. Despite the importance of the historic events at hand for the state HI, the local FSDO was very apprehensive to allow any deviation from the regs. It took some political connections from much farther up the FAA food chain to make things right and allow the planes to escape the Class B airfield and operate over the rest of the island. So at times they do seem to enforce the rules…just depends where you are.

I had no idea about that drama behind the scenes! That must've been an emotional rollercoaster for those owners/aircrews! I'm glad they figured it out, but I wish people weren't so quick to get to "no" when asked for deviations for pretty common-sense things.

Fiddler wrote:Flip side is, there’s a whole host of Nanchangs and Yaks based at KTOA (and other SoCal fields) which are all E-E and have a grand old time flying formation and other fun all over the SoCal region. Seem to do so safely and effectively (yes, there have been accidents, but life moves on). And the M-14P and derivative engines seem to have great support, so things are working smoothly without the regulatory burden of a certified airplane.

YMMV.

Yeah, I've never heard anyone that owned one mention any issues with E-E, I just have no direct experience in owning one. The good news is that this airplane is considered a "low-risk" configuration (it's dang near factory, and was apparently built to try to develop an STC - but that effort was abandoned 30+ years ago), and has a very permissive set of operating restrictions. Looks very similar to the ones for my current E-AB airplane.

Well, a call to my local FSDO has really reduced my desire to proceed any further on this particular airplane. He cautioned against the idea of XC proficiency flights with the fam onboard. I had thought that if that was outlined in the program letter it’d be above board, but he advised it’s still outside of the intent.

However, if I wanted to coordinate a pancake breakfast that coincided with a trip then that’s another matter.

Might be a pain to coordinate that many pancakes.

I appreciate the input! It’s too bad, this was a slick plane at a good price. I think I understand the price point now, though.

I'm curious as to how your Ruppe Racer is registered-- as an E-AB?

hotrod180 wrote:I'm curious as to how your Ruppe Racer is registered-- as an E-AB?

Yeah, it’s an E-AB. Built and certified up north when the interpretations were a little looser.

It was fully rebuilt from the ground up, so it’s a new airplane. And I think credit was given for fabrication on a number of replacement parts to fix bad original bits.

Did the airplane you were looking at have a TIO-541 in it by chance?

Cannon wrote:Did the airplane you were looking at have a TIO-541 in it by chance?

It does! Looks like a slick airplane from here.