My first flight in N509CT

[WmInce]

BTW, here's the wording in my Operating Limitations:

 

"This aircraft 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 ground."

 

Sounds a lot like FAR 91.119 for "Minimum Safe Altitudes - General". In part:

 

 

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, 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.

 

( Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

 

Thanks for digging that stuff up Eddie . . and posting it here.

[FlyingMonkey]

The congested airspace regs are not really an issue, even for E-AB aircraft. You just have to maintain flight such that "an emergency landing could be effected in the event of a power unit failure without presenting undue hazard to persons or property on the ground" as Eddie quoted. And descents and takeoffs to/from airports in congested airspace are excepted in the regs also.

 

Who defines "undue hazard"? The FAA of course. But I would think you would be in the clear on any particular flight if you can articulate a reasonable argument as to whay you thought you could affect a landing without undue hazard. At least that seems to be how the E-AB people play it from my Sonex building experience. Of course if you are going to be flying very low, doing aerobatics, or other shenanigans over congested areas then all bets would be off.

[Ed Cesnalis]

When I depart Van Nuys a power failure in the first 15-20 minutes would present a hazard.

 

Nevada has made moves to ban experimentals at North Las Vegas for this reason. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2009/February/19/AOPA-works-to-prevent-ban-on-experimental-aircraft-at-North-Las-Vegas.aspx

 

This is the kind of priviledge that can be removed as a result of 1 or several incidents.

[Roger Fane]

My airplane is making book speeds, so what I am more worried about is climb performance. 600fpm near gross seems low to me, I think the book climb at gross is over 900fpm. Granted it was hotter than a standard atmosphere...

 

Likely you were only turning 4,700 - 4,750 rpm in climb, due to the restricted WOT rpm. As Roger Lee stated, as you go up in density altitude max rpm will decrease, and you will eventually have a serious issue. My first trip to Page was a real eye opener on that, and I had the prop re-pitched right afterwards. Re-pitching the prop to achieve 5,600 rpm at 7,500' will increase both your climb and cruise performance.

[FlyingMonkey]

Thanks Roger F, that is definitely the plan.

[FastEddieB]

Mike Huffman, the DAR in Lawrenceville, GA, that handled my conversion to E-LSA, responded:

 

Eddie,

 

Experimentals can indeed fly over densely populated areas under certain

circumstances.  The current Operating Limitations documents for both EAB and

ELSA allow it in the following circumstances:

 

*During Phase I flight testing, for takeoffs and landings

 

*After Phase I flight testing is complete, for the following:

   *Takeoffs and landings

   *When directed by air traffic control to do so

   *When 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 ground

 

Regarding FAR 91.319, subparagraph C says, "Unless otherwise authorized by

the Administrator in special operating limitations, ..."  So, yes, EAB and

ELSA operating limitations trump FAR 91.319.

 

You are welcome to post this as you see fit.  Hope it helps!

 

Mike

 

G. Michael Huffman

Sport Aviation Specialties

[Doug G.]

Thanks for the clarification. I had wondered about that reg especially since I know of Experimental folks who fly in and out of our Class D airspace which in two directions takes them over the city. I figured either I didn't understand, or it was not really an issue (or both).

[Jim Meade]

Where is the substantiation that taking a CT E-LSA reduces value? I heard Carol Carpenter say this but when I asked her for examples she couldn't provide any. Also, no or very little increase in cost of insurance.

[sandpiper]

Jim,

 

I would say it depends on the plane and what you want to do with it. If you want to instruct, you need an SLSA unless FAA grants you a LODA.

 

Supposedly, a SLSA would be as built with only LOA changes, all professional maintenance. However, we have all seen "traditional" planes that were supposedly properly and professionally maintained that were a joke.

 

An ELSA, either built that way or converted could have had a lot of improper or questionable things done to it. But, so could a traditional plane even though theoretically that's not possible.

 

So, to me, the value of one over the other depends on the individual plane. If instruction is not your purpose, pick the best airplane.

[Doug G.]

I have no documentation, but I would think it makes sense since there may not be a way to tell what has been done to the plane or if it fits with all safety standards. Depending on the person buying, I think if you put two planes side by side and one was ELSA and the other SLSA, most would go with the SLSA.

Isn't there also a restriction on who can do the inspections, or does that only apply to home-built?

[sandpiper]

I have no documentation, but I would think it makes sense since there may not be a way to tell what has been done to the plane or if it fits with all safety standards. Depending on the person buying, I think if you put two planes side by side and one was ELSA and the other SLSA, most would go with the SLSA.

Isn't there also a restriction on who can do the inspections, or does that only apply to home-built?

 

Unless I wanted it for instruction, I would pick the better airplane. And, I would determine that not only by log books but by careful inspection. Just because it's an SLSA and the logs look good, does not tell the story. Are the log books factual? I have seen more than one case where the log books and the plane they were attached to seemed to be from different worlds

 

Just because it's a SLSA doesn't mean it has been properly maintained and that no illegal mods were made.

 

Just because it's a ELSA doesn't mean questionable mods were made or that the maintenance was shoddy.

 

Inspections:

 

1.E-AB only the builder or A&P/IA can do them

2. ELSA - anybody with the 16 hour course (only if they own the plane) or better

3.SLSA requires a LSRM-A (120 hour course) or better.

4. "traditional" plane requires A&P/IA

 

And, I may be a little off on the A&P. On a "traditional" plane only the IA can sign off the inspection. I don't know if that applies to the others.

[Doug G.]

I agree about the fact that logbook are not always accurate or complete. I also agree that I would probably look at the better plane, but I believe the number of pilots not seeing the Experimental label as a negative would be substantial - especially among those coming from the standard certification world. The possible lack of factory support (I don't believe FD would have any issues.) might cause questions in a pilots mind.

I am not certain I am correct. Maybe someone here has experience with such a sale? Of course there are advantages to converting to an