Unusual Attitude

And why would any rational person choose aircraft certified under FAR Part 23 over their Experimental amateur-built cousins? FAA policies make parts hard to find and expensive. Airworthiness directives are constant threats. An inspection authorization, as well as an airframe and powerplant mechanic certificate, is required for annual inspections. Modern, safety-enhancing, cutting-edge Experimental-category avionics are largely off limits. And improvements owners want to make to their airplanes require submitting to a cumbersome and time-consuming FAA approval process.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I’ll take an Experimental-category airplane that offers higher performance, better economy, and far lower costs. And I still get to file and fly IFR (with a normal 24-month pitot-static check).

Want Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)? I do. And AOPA’s Sweepstakes Van’s Aircraft RV–10 gets it at a lower price than Standard-category airplanes flying in the exact same airspace at the exact same time.

How about an autopilot? A state-of-the-art digital autopilot with a Level button and envelope protection sells for about $3,500 in the Experimental world. The same features cost many times that much for Standard-category airplanes, if you can get them.

Got electronic ignition? Actually, my former RV–8’s four-cylinder Lycoming has two of them, and it’s easier to start, more efficient, and more reliable as a result. Fuel consumption is down about 15 percent, the engine runs smoothly lean of peak at cooler cylinder head and exhaust gas temperatures, and it uses automotive spark plugs that cost about three bucks apiece and put out more powerful, longer-lasting sparks.

LEDs? Sure. They last forever, use less electricity, and don’t require an external power supply. And Experimental versions are far less expensive than certified ones.

How about a GoPro or VIRB? Attaching a point-of-view camera is no problem on an Experimental aircraft—you just need to take common-sense precautions to keep it from falling off or interfering with the flight controls, test it, and make a notation in the airframe logbook. The one time I got FAA approval to mount a tiny point-of-view camera on the tail tie-down of a Standard-category airplane, it required a Part 337 field approval. It took months and did nothing to improve actual safety.

What about an all-in-one attitude instrument? I had two Garmin G5s in my panel, and they provided triple-redundant attitude information. If the aircraft electrical system fails, the G5s have internal power. If a G5 attitude heading and reference system fails, the other one (which normally acts as a horizontal situation indicator) becomes an attitude indicator.

Of course, G5s (and similar Dynon D10As) can now be installed in many FAA-certified airplanes via supplemental type certificate, and that’s a tremendously welcome and seismic regulatory shift. But the STC version costs more and requires a certified ultra-precise GPS source that isn’t needed on the Experimental variety.

What about identical products? My ADS-B Out unit was made on the same assembly line as the more expensive certified product, yet the FAA treats them differently—and all the advantages go to the Experimental aircraft owner.

One of the most egregious examples is an Extra 330LT, an aerobatic super-plane built in a German factory that makes FAA- and EASA-approved aircraft. Yet even though the 330LT uses all approved parts and IFR-capable avionics, it’s not allowed to fly in the clouds—but an Experimental RV–10 made from a kit in a garage is.

The recently adopted Part 23 rewrite contains some forward-thinking and welcome changes for aircraft manufacturers. Hopefully, the FAA will follow through with recommendations to ease regulatory burdens and allow aircraft used for noncommercial purposes to be maintained much like today’s amateur-built Experimentals.

Until then, however, I’ll fly Experimental.