| Author |
Messages |
jb92563
Unregistered
|
      
 Posted Friday, May 1, 2009 @ 12:04 PM
I was wondering what the RF aircraft are registered as in Europe and in the US?
Is it a Standard cert in Europe?
If it is a Standard cert in Europe then I presume it must be an "Exhibition/Experimental" in the US?
If I were to get a fuselage, without wings from Europe and it is deregistered as required to bring into the US, then
I should be able to register the resulting rebuild as a pure Experimental and call it something other than a Fournier right?
As long as I can prove I built at least 51%?
Ray
|
Jorgen
Unregistered
|
Posted Friday, May 1, 2009 @ 04:49 PM
Hi Ray,
good question and as such hard to answer, in part because there are some differencies between countries and I guess category of registration can be more or less a random event. I can tell you about the Fourniers I know about: RF 5 b SE-UDI was imported to Sweden rom Germany and is registered in normal category as a motorglider, and in Sweden that means the Swedish gliding federation handles the register/certification. RF 4 SE-XST was registered at the PFA (Popular Flying Association, UK equivalent of EAA) when I bought it, which meant that it could not be registered in the normal category and automatically was registered as an experimental aircraft in Sweden. Maybe that was influenced by the fact that the late Anders Ljungberg (founder of EAA Sweden and good friend of Paul Poberezny, the founder of EAA) helped me register it and signed the papers.
The 51% build rule is as you know under debate but maybe you don´t have to go that way if you can find a Fournier that previously was experimental.
Take 5(b) just 4 fun/ Jörgen
|
SteveBeaver
Unregistered
|
Posted Friday, May 1, 2009 @ 09:16 PM
Perhaps I can shed some light on this.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "Pure Experimental" or "Plain Experimental". All US aircraft that have experimental certificates are in one or more sub categories. These include:
Experimental Amateur built
Experimental Racing
Experimental Exhibition
Experimental Sales and marketing
Experimental Research and Development
etc.
You have to be in one of these categories. Some aircraft are in more than one. A new factory Lancair model might be in Experimental R & D one day, and Experimental Sales and marketing the next. All it takes is a log book entry.
Further, there are sub-sub categories. Experimental Exhibition has underneath it Warbird, Turbojet, Acrobatic and "Other" each with slightly different restrictions and maintenance requirements. The one you really don't want to be in is "other". - Very limited.
Gliders are usually treated a little differently. An imported glider that has no US C of A is typically allocated Experimental Exhibition/Racing. - This recognizes the fact that gliders are used for long distance flights that are difficult to plan in advance and so has fewer geographical limitations. My RF4D is registered in this way. Experimental exhibition (acrobatic)/Racing. In practice, this is a very nonrestrictive certificate.
Frankly, it doesn't matter where you get your wings, fuselage or any other part of the aircraft from, its the data plate that matters. If you have an original data plate that says Serial number 5117 (for example) and that aircraft is to be registered in the USA for the first time, you must provide a certificate of de-registration from the airworthiness authority in the country where it was last registered. If the aircraft of that number was registered here already and you have a bill of sale proving the a/c is yours, you are in luck. It matters not what is done to the aircraft or by whom. All you need is an annual condition inspection and you can fly. The FAA also look kindly on the bill of sale from an imported aircraft. A US aircraft must have an official FAA bill of sale form, completed in triplicate. An imported a/c needs pretty much anything that looks like a receipt. No form necessary.
If you have no data plate, you may need to pursue the amateur built avenue. Of course you need to build 51% of the aircraft. Some receipts for raw materials helps as does sawdust under the finger nails. The one thing that typically raises flags with me is time. If I get a call from someone I don't know, have no knowledge of his project and no background information, I will require a LOT of evidence. On the other hand, if the builder took the time to tell me when he started the project, what his intentions are, and then sends me an update every few months with a picture or two, I will already have a file started, know what to expect and be looking forward to the inspection without the slightest suspicion in my mind.
If you do go the amateur route, be sure to keep your local FSDO in the loop as you start the project and as you proceed towards completion.
Good luck,
Steve
|
JamesB
Unregistered
|
Posted Thursday, May 7, 2009 @ 05:13 PM
When I bought my RF-5B in 2006, I spoke with a DAR who said that if I were bringing the glider in now, the U.S. honors European certification, so it would be a certificated aircraft. But at the time it was brought over, there were no reciprocal agreements in place, thus it was put in Experimental Exhibition.
Clearly, he could have been confusing his own hot air for fact--but it is vaguely possible that if one is imported now, and there are the reciprocal agreements in place that he claimed, then it might be considered a certificated aircraft.
I would assume that a first stop would be with a local FSDO.
James
(claiming no personal expertise/knowledge)
[Edit by JamesB on Thursday, May 7, 2009 @ 05:17 PM]
|
jb92563
Unregistered
|
Posted Friday, May 8, 2009 @ 12:49 PM
I don't see it being standard certified as a benefit.
Probably just make maintaining it a lot more fuss.
If you wanted to go the comercial route and charge for rides in an RF5 however it may be a good thing.
I think people just fly RF's for the fun of flying and tinkering anyway 
This has however lead to an interesting question.
If you are doing aerobatic shows and getting paid for your performance, do you need a commercial rating?
I guess the airplane itself being Experimental/Exhibition means its OK to fly it for exhibitions, but
the required pilots rating is not clear to me?
Ray
|
Bob Grimstead
Unregistered
|
Posted Friday, May 8, 2009 @ 02:43 PM
Hi Ray,
You have of course hit on an interesting legal point, and one into which we display pilots do not like to delve too deeply for fear of opeing Pandora's box.
I can only talk about Britain and Australia, but I would expect most other countries work the same way.
If you are a professional display pilot, earning your living from display flying, and perhaps with a sponsor's logo plastered all over your airplane, then you need to have at least a commercial pilot's license and your airplane needs to have a proper commercial C of A (called an Aerial Work C of A in Britain). That's how the Fournier-flying Skyhawks worked. These days you would probably also need an Air Operators' Certificate (AOC), just like an airline, with operations manuals, codes of conduct, risk asseessments and mitigations an all the expected BS.
However, if you are merely an individual who flys a few displays annually and claims the reimbursement of reasonable EXPENSES, then that's fine, you can operate on a PPL or similar and fly an airplane on a Private C of A, or on an Experimental (Exhibition) Certificate, or on a simple Permit to Fly. That's what I do.
To ensure I can justify the above to any nosy bureaucrat, I keep detailed accounts of just what it does cost to run, maintain, insure, hangar and modify my Fourniers. Believe me, with the paltry amounts display organisers are prepared to pay, there is no chance I shall ever make a profit. I can just about cover my direct costs -- fuel, oil, smokes, en-route landing fees, hotel rooms, taxis etc. sometimes I am able to include a small contribution towards the annual insurance and certification bills, but not often.
So there you go. To be certain, ask your local officious officials, but you could probably fly a few displays each year (a dozen or so, maybe) for reimbursed expenses, but if you want to make a living from it (hah!) then you have to do everything properly.
Yours, Bob
|
jb92563
Unregistered
|
Posted Monday, May 11, 2009 @ 04:07 PM
Yes, that clears it up alright.
Not planning on an aviation career so it was just out of curiousity that I ask.
Better to leave that one mostly in the dark.
The beauraecrats in the US would just love to make some more rules and I didn't get a Glider PPL
to spend my time dealing with all sorts of red tape.
Ray
|
eugenio
Unregistered
|
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 @ 12:43 PM
Ray, you should came in Europe, or better in Italy and live here just a few monts to be happy to live in the USA and to have the (relatively) light bureaucracy you've there.
Eugenio
|
jb92563
Unregistered
|
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 @ 02:06 PM
I had German parents and have been to Europe and know what you mean....
Even the US seems like a police state compared to Canada where I am originally from, although the
aircraft world in the US does seem to be a bit more lax than Canada.
Ray
|
Jorgen
Unregistered
|
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 @ 05:34 PM
Just to second Eugenio's comment- you could describe the European Union as a scheme where all bureaucrates on the continent gather in Belgium to write down all sorts of pranks to make life miserable for the rest of us, like the new EASA aviation rules beeing implemented right now. I just got of the phone with the Swedish Gliding federation's technical director who basically tried to chew my head off because I had faxed him the old maintenance form (L-1405-15 as you are most certainly aware of). When I asked him where to find the new forms he informed me they´re not ready yet.....
In general, my impression is that EAA is a sensible organisation to be registered with if you have the possibility to choose.
Take 5(b) just 4 fun/ Jörgen
|
eugenio
Unregistered
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 @ 04:41 PM
You have been in Germany, but not in Italy. As Jorgen says, EASA is brainstorming to invent new and more complicate regulations, but I can assure that while in some countries (like Germany) the NAA are trying to easy the whole thing, in countries like Italy our NAA is complicating even more the already complicate thing. This is why in the whole Europe and especially in Italy we have a growing world of ultralights (those that you fly in the US as LSA) that are much more free of bureaucracy.
cheers
Eugenio
|
Jorgen
Unregistered
|
Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 @ 05:58 PM
Affirmative Eugenio,
everyone is trying to get away from all the complicated rules. While we are under the headline RF registration questions I might as well tell you the continuation of my story. The Swedish Gliding federation has appointed three pilot projects to try and make up documents that adheres to the new EASA approved ARC-maintenance standard. Two new imported motorgliders and our RF 5 b "SE-UDI". The latter because silly me sent in the old form (you know, the L-1405-15) 5 days too late to get it done "the old way".
You´ve got to admit though that these Guys really improve air safety. There will be no crashes if you don´t fly, because of course nobody will be tempted to fly without a piece of paper saying that you´re allowed to. The good news is I´ll get help from Patrik, a good friend and glider pilot who is currently struggling to create ARC documents for 47 commercially leased airliners, and nobody knows how the documents should look for them either. As someone noted; the aeroplane capable of lifting the amount of paper necessary to keep it legally in the air is yet to be designed!
Take 5(b) just 4 fun/ Jörgen
|
eugenio
Unregistered
|
Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 @ 01:35 PM
Well if that can relieve you, I'm preparing all the documents, manuals, maintenance programs etc. for our CAMO, in order to be fully organized for all our gliders and motorgliders (and tugs too). I can assure you that is really incredible how much complication and bureaucracy can sort out by the brainstorming of the best european heads. I think Easa picked up the most idiots in the whole NAA world and outside. I'm sure no one of them never flown or maintained an aircraft, otherwise it's not comprehensible how they could think all that idiots things.
Sursum corda, sooner or later something will happen, probably when all that will settle down, things will be a little easier.
Actually the worste problem is that nobody knows exactly what to do, and every NAA is interpreting the rules in his own way.
ciao
Eugenio
|
|
