Category and class certificates

His website cites the 61.31(L)(2)( iii)( B) basis for not needing a category/class rating rather than the solo endorsement.

Do I need a helicopter license to fly an experimental helicopter (XE, XE285 & XET)?
No, per 14CFR.61.31, as long as the helicopter is registered with an experimental certificate, you possess an unrestricted private pilot's certificate and have a current medical. There is a link to it under our LINKS page. Look under Section L, 2, iii, B.


Given that, one must assume that the aircraft involved have no pilot restrictions in the operating limitations, which I understand to be impossible to get these days.

The Operating Limitations for almost last 7 to 8 years have restricted flying to pilots rated in Category and Class so the helicopter must have been airworthied more than 8 years ago to even have a chance of being able to be flown by a private pilot SEL.
 
It is my understanding that there is an order from FAA to DARs that they must apply standard operating limitations that include this:

The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold an appropriate category/class rating. If required, the pilot in command also must hold a type rating in accordance with FAR 61, or a letter of authorization issued by an FAA Flight Standards Operations Inspector.

and that they don't have the discretion to deviate from it. Perhaps a DAR can assist us with a copy.

Unofficial sources are consistent:

https://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-operating-limitations.html
Wasp,
I'm not certain that the link you posted snags the latest revisions to the FAR'S, but here's a quote from your link. If a FSDO person is one of the type that tries to FIND A WAY TO HELP instead of trying to prevent, there's plenty of latitude in these words to write the Operations Limits in a way that allows a non-rated pilot to be allowed to fly a single seat, turbine, EAB helicopter, with only a solo endorsement. Number 13 says there MUST be a passenger warning decal that can be read from the passenger seat, but we all know that is not required in a single seat aircraft. Likewise, the word MUST, in the first sentence of 17 doesn't logically make sense since no danger to a passenger exists. Then in 17 & 18, "when deemed necessary" and "as appropriate" and "authorized instructor’s logbook endorsement" appear. It doesn't even say the endorsing instructor has to have given flight instruction in an aircraft like the one to which the endorsement applies. Then the NOTE has the most muscle by saying "applies to most EAB's as a Standard Op's Limit." I am certain my FSDO Vietnam era Army helicopter guy would endorse my logbook to fly my turbine Mosquito solo...if I had one...solely based on that endorsement and a fixed-wing license or no license at all.

13. This aircraft must contain the placards or markings, as required by FAR 91.9.
17. The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold an appropriate category/class rating. If required, the pilot in command also must hold a type rating in accordance with FAR 61, or a letter of authorization issued by an FAA Flight Standards Operations Inspector.
NOTE: This limitation applies to any turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, any aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds, or any other aircraft when deemed necessary.
18. The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold a pilot certificate or an authorized instructor’s logbook endorsement. The pilot in command also must meet the requirements of FAR 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), as appropriate.
NOTE: This operating limitation applies to most amateur-built aircraft as a standard operating limitation (reference FAR 61.31(k)).
 
Last edited:
If I understand you correctly...a pilot can most certainly take their flight review in a SEL Airplane if they have a fixed-wing rating, and then continue flying a Mosquito under the original solo endorsement, if the Operations Limitations letter does not include the "...must hold a category and class..." sentence.
If I may add what I’ve learned. Yes, your flight review is to be in completed in an aircraft type that you are rated for on your airman certificate. General flight reviews are not to review your handling of a particular experimental registered aircraft, AC 61-98A states that the flight review is “an instructional service designed to assess a pilot's knowledge and skills”.
It is my understanding that there is an order from FAA to DARs that they must apply standard operating limitations that include this:

The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold an appropriate category/class rating. If required, the pilot in command also must hold a type rating in accordance with FAR 61, or a letter of authorization issued by an FAA Flight Standards Operations Inspector.

and that they don't have the discretion to deviate from it. Perhaps a DAR can assist us with a copy.

Unofficial sources are consistent:

https://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-operating-limitations.html
Almost all DAR’s live by the rule of “CYA” and throw everything in unless you know them on a personal level. This is why I no longer use DAR’s and only use actual FAA reps through my local FSDO. They do have the discretion to deviate as applicable under the regulations.
Your copy and paste section is correct for generalization but there is more to it if you want to get specific.
My AC for my experimental registered helicopter does not have those exact words mentioned in it but it does have the words “The pilot in command must hold a minimum of an airplane category and single engine land class certificate or privilege”. And to goes on to back it up with “The pilot in command must hold all required ratings or authorizations and endorsements required by part 61.

AKA-14CFR61.31.L.2.iii.B

The trick is to find a FSDO that will actually read all of part 61 AND except it...

Since the aircraft is an experimental registered aircraft, as long as you hold an unrestricted private pilot certificate (minimum for non LSA compliant aircraft), no hover solo endorsement is required. That is usually required by the kit manufacturer for liability reasons. I’m not LSA so I’m not as familiar with those requirements.

Copies of the FAA AC checklists for experimental aircraft can be found online.

I‘m not so sure of the accuracy of the document in your link you provided as my Mosquito XET AC issued in 2019 also allows for Day/Night VFR.

Not to try and cause waves but the publication link is not from the FAA or any legal website representing the FAA. It is from a private company and not affiliated with the FAA. This is backed up by their disclaimer which is as follows.

Disclaimer​

Aviation Safety Bureau, Inc. provides the websites Aviation-Safety-Bureau.com and FAA-Aircraft-Certification.com as a service to the public.
While the information contained within these sites is periodically updated, no guarantee is given that the information provided on these websites is correct, complete, and/or up-to-date.
The materials contained on these websites are provided for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal or other professional advice on any subject matter.
 
Here is the original response from the FAA on Operating an Experimental Aircraft Certificate Requirement.
There is an issue of a typo throughout the letter! It is not 61.31 (k) as that pertains to “Additional training required for night vision goggles operations”. It should be 61.31(L) “Exceptions”…

Any chance that rep could reissue that letter with the corrections??? 😂
 

Attachments

  • Category and class certificates
    97EE6D38-F125-4637-96A4-392DD0E493D1.jpeg
    173.6 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Not to try and cause waves but the publication link is not from the FAA or any legal website representing the FAA. It is from a private company and not affiliated with the FAA. This is backed up by their disclaimer which is as follows.

Disclaimer​

Aviation Safety Bureau, Inc. provides the websites Aviation-Safety-Bureau.com and FAA-Aircraft-Certification.com as a service to the public.
While the information contained within these sites is periodically updated, no guarantee is given that the information provided on these websites is correct, complete, and/or up-to-date.
The materials contained on these websites are provided for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal or other professional advice on any subject matter.
If you had bothered to read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I explicitly called it an UNOFFICIAL source. I never suggested that it was authoritative, rather merely consistent with my understanding. Here's what I actually wrote:

I also asked for a DAR to provide the actual order.
 
Last edited:
If you had bothered to read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I explicitly called it an UNOFFICIAL source. I never suggested that it was authoritative, rather merely consistent with my understanding.
Now In all fairness J.R., I did read your post carefully and what you actually said was “Unofficial sources are consistent:” which this one was consistently incorrect as other have also mentioned. That is all I was saying.

Please drop the attitude towards me personally in your posts. I believe Mike Gaspard (Forum Administrator) has said to
“Keep your personal squabbles private” I know I’m not in your cliche but that is ok. We all have different experiences and we’re are here to learn across the board. Simply don’t hate someone you don’t know when misinformation is caught OR other information is presented…
 
.
Since the aircraft is an experimental registered aircraft, as long as you hold an unrestricted private pilot certificate (minimum for non LSA compliant aircraft), no hover solo endorsement is required. That is usually required by the kit manufacturer for liability reasons. I’m not LSA so I’m not as familiar with those requirements
This confuses me.

1. I have never heard of a restricted or unrestricted private pilot certificate and have no idea what you mean by those terms. The closest I can imagine is the provisions for night flight experience for Alaskans or long cross country flights from remote islands, none of which is pertinent.

2. Why would a Recreational or Sport certificate be insufficient? 61.31 L 2 iii says only "holder of a pilot certificate". I see nothing more in d(2) as well.

3. I have never heard of any requirement for a hover solo endorsement and can find nothing in the FARs about it. An instructor may choose to put limitations on an endorsement but I am aware of no such requirement anywhere in the law for any would-be pilot.

4. To my knowledge, there are no LSA helicopters permitted by law, so that matter seems irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
There is an issue of a typo throughout the letter! It is not 61.31 (k) as that pertains to “Additional training required for night vision goggles operations”. It should be 61.31(L) “Exceptions”…

Any chance that rep could reissue that letter with the corrections??? 😂
I should have added that was the response some 20 or so years ago. Things have changed since then since this is the topic of this thread.
 
Now In all fairness J.R., I did read your post carefully and what you actually said was “Unofficial sources are consistent:” which this one was consistently incorrect as other have also mentioned. That is all I was saying.

Please drop the attitude towards me personally in your posts. I believe Mike Gaspard (Forum Administrator) has said to
“Keep your personal squabbles private” I know I’m not in your cliche but that is ok. We all have different experiences and we’re are here to learn across the board. Simply don’t hate someone you don’t know when misinformation is caught OR other information is presented…
When you purport to teach me something that I had already explicitly stated, I find that annoying. Even so, I used no invective toward you.

Any expertise you demonstrate here will earn my respect. Sloppiness with terminology or technical matters will not contribute to that.
 
This confuses me.

1. I have never heard of a restricted or unrestricted private pilot certificate and have no idea what you mean by those terms. The closest I can imagine is the provisions for night flight experience for Alaskans or long cross country flights from remote islands, none of which is pertinent.

2. Why would a Recreational or Sport certificate be insufficient? 61.31 L 2 iii says only "holder of a pilot certificate". I see nothing more in d(2) as well.

3. I have never heard of any requirement for a hover solo endorsement and can find nothing in the FARs about it. An instructor may choose to put limitations on an endorsement but I am aware of no such requirement anywhere in the law for any would-be pilot.

4. To my knowledge, there are no LSA helicopters permitted by law, so that matter seems irrelevant.

There is no need to be confused J.R. I believe some of your confusion is mixing certified regs with experimental LSA regs with experimental aircraft regs that are not LSA compliant and the certificates to fly them.

1. I’ll put it in the words as it was first explained to me by an FAA rep. All sport pilot, glider, recreational, etc. certificates are restricted versions of the Private Pilot Certificate to which they are all based off of.
Look at Sport Pilot, it has restrictions from everything from airspace, day/night, power, speed, weight, stall, to number of passengers. A Sport Pilot has to receive additional certified training and receive endorsements to be able to increase these restrictions just to be more equal with the standards and privileges of a Private Pilot Certificate...
The only reason “restricted” or “unrestricted” pilot certificate comes up on my site and area’s of conversation is we have sport pilots say they have a private pilots license only to find out later that they actually don’t, they have a Light Sport Pilot Certificate to which according to the FAA is a restricted version of the Private Pilot Certificate and not eligible to fly experimental helicopters.

2. You have to be more familiar with the regulations. Since both me and my website was used as a reference, you have to look at the bigger picture and understand that on my website I deal with experimental aircraft that are not LSA compliant. Big difference! Since the FAA currently does not recognize ANY experimental helicopter eligible for Light Sport due to its complexity, a recreational or light sport certificate (restricted certificates) are not sufficient to fly any experimental helicopter OR any experimental aircraft that is not LSA compliant. So, the minimum certificate to hold to fly an experimental aircraft (in my case, helicopter) that is not LSA compliant is an unrestricted Private Pilot Certificate.
In your case of flying a LSA compliant gyroplane, a sport pilot certificate I guess may be used. I currently do not deal with any LSA aircraft so I am not versed as well in LSA regulations.

3. You may need to read the regulation out loud a view times maybe to get it. Per the regulation you’ve quoted 61.31.L.2.iii, it states that “the rating limitations of this sections do not apply”. If the rating limitations do not apply, neither does any endorsement towards that rating…
The only thing that I or my website talks about a hover solo endorsement is not for any FAA regulation, it is purely for liability reasons and clearly spelled out in the kit purchase agreement/contract.

4. You are correct, currently the FAA does not recognize any helicopter as Light Sport. But if you read the new proposed FAA MOSAIC, it does specifically open the door for some helicopters to be allowed as LSA with manufacturer compliance. Unfortunately that will still be a few years off.

Funny, you try to discredit me with terms of “sloppiness with terminology or technical matters” in one post but a few minutes prior you ask me questions of clarification in another.
Hmm. Funny how that works…
I apologies if I hurt your feelings when I brought other facts to the Osh-Midair discussion that you did not like or want to hear. But they were facts and now have been credited as so by others. This is how we all learn and I do not apologize for it. Nor do I try to discredit individuals that bring to a discussion things that I do not like, know or discomforts me. I have the freedom to not engage and read on. I do not dislike you as I do not even know you, but you need to stop with snippet remarks please. You’ll have a better opportunity to learn more and who knows, make a new friend/ally…
 
Big difference! Since the FAA currently does not recognize ANY experimental helicopter eligible for Light Sport due to its complexity, a recreational or light sport certificate (restricted certificates) are not sufficient to fly any experimental helicopter .............. So, the minimum certificate to hold to fly an experimental aircraft (in my case, helicopter) that is not LSA compliant is an unrestricted Private Pilot Certificate.
Hi Dave,

I recommend you re-read 61.98 (b)(2)

Jim
 
Hi Dave,

I recommend you re-read 61.98 (b)(2)

Jim
Thank Jim.
I’m actually aware of 61.98 (b)(2). I’m not sure if your asking a question or making a statement. 😆

But the reg 61.98 (b)(2) is ”For a helicopter rating” as it is written in the description.
61.98 also spells out in (a) that this regulation section is for “A person who applies for a recreational pilot certificate” which is a “restricted” version of the private pilot certificate and is isolated between:
“(1) For a single-engine airplane rating”
”(2) For a helicopter rating” and
”(3) For a gyroplane rating”

This is where I see a lot of confusion come in some that confuse the difference (or separation) of regulations and requirements for (A) ratings needed in certified aircraft/helicopters (aka R22, MD500, Bell Jetranger, etc. ) vs (B) experimental registered aircraft regulations that do not require class and type vs (C) airman ratings.

This has nothing to do with 61.31.L.2.iii.b.

I don’t know if that is easily understood or gets to your point.

Since a recreational pilot certification (RPC) is like a light sport pilot (LSPC) and both are a restricted version of the Private Pilot certificate (PPC), a RPC and LSPC can only fly the specific certified or non-certified aircraft that he/she is trained for and endorsed for. A PPC (aka unrestricted) can legally fly any aircraft in the category of certified and non-certified aircraft that he/she is trained in.
For instance. As a PPC, if I learn in a C172, I can go legally fly a C152, a piper archer, OR any certified single engine land aircraft as long as it is less than 12,500lbs and not turbine powered. Unless it is experimental registered.

Did I come close to what you were referring to?
 
There is no need to be confused J.R. I believe some of your confusion is mixing certified regs with experimental LSA regs with experimental aircraft regs that are not LSA compliant and the certificates to fly them.

1. I’ll put it in the words as it was first explained to me by an FAA rep. All sport pilot, glider, recreational, etc. certificates are restricted versions of the Private Pilot Certificate to which they are all based off of.
Look at Sport Pilot, it has restrictions from everything from airspace, day/night, power, speed, weight, stall, to number of passengers. A Sport Pilot has to receive additional certified training and receive endorsements to be able to increase these restrictions just to be more equal with the standards and privileges of a Private Pilot Certificate...
The only reason “restricted” or “unrestricted” pilot certificate comes up on my site and area’s of conversation is we have sport pilots say they have a private pilots license only to find out later that they actually don’t, they have a Light Sport Pilot Certificate to which according to the FAA is a restricted version of the Private Pilot Certificate and not eligible to fly experimental helicopters.

2. You have to be more familiar with the regulations. Since both me and my website was used as a reference, you have to look at the bigger picture and understand that on my website I deal with experimental aircraft that are not LSA compliant. Big difference! Since the FAA currently does not recognize ANY experimental helicopter eligible for Light Sport due to its complexity, a recreational or light sport certificate (restricted certificates) are not sufficient to fly any experimental helicopter OR any experimental aircraft that is not LSA compliant. So, the minimum certificate to hold to fly an experimental aircraft (in my case, helicopter) that is not LSA compliant is an unrestricted Private Pilot Certificate.
In your case of flying a LSA compliant gyroplane, a sport pilot certificate I guess may be used. I currently do not deal with any LSA aircraft so I am not versed as well in LSA regulations.

3. You may need to read the regulation out loud a view times maybe to get it. Per the regulation you’ve quoted 61.31.L.2.iii, it states that “the rating limitations of this sections do not apply”. If the rating limitations do not apply, neither does any endorsement towards that rating…
The only thing that I or my website talks about a hover solo endorsement is not for any FAA regulation, it is purely for liability reasons and clearly spelled out in the kit purchase agreement/contract.

4. You are correct, currently the FAA does not recognize any helicopter as Light Sport. But if you read the new proposed FAA MOSAIC, it does specifically open the door for some helicopters to be allowed as LSA with manufacturer compliance. Unfortunately that will still be a few years off.

Funny, you try to discredit me with terms of “sloppiness with terminology or technical matters” in one post but a few minutes prior you ask me questions of clarification in another.
Hmm. Funny how that works…
I apologies if I hurt your feelings when I brought other facts to the Osh-Midair discussion that you did not like or want to hear. But they were facts and now have been credited as so by others. This is how we all learn and I do not apologize for it. Nor do I try to discredit individuals that bring to a discussion things that I do not like, know or discomforts me. I have the freedom to not engage and read on. I do not dislike you as I do not even know you, but you need to stop with snippet remarks please. You’ll have a better opportunity to learn more and who knows, make a new friend/ally…
You really have it all garbled up. I will attempt to be concise.

The levels of pilot certificates are Student, Sport, Recreational, Private, Commercial, and Air Transport Pilot, as manifestly established by 14 CFR part 61. Glider (mentioned by you above) is not one of them, rather an aircraft category/class akin to Airplane Single Engine Land. Each of those levels offers more privileges as you progress along that spectrum, but none is "based off" the Private level. There is no mention anywhere in the FARs of a restricted or unrestricted Private certificate and such a term is legally meaningless . Indeed, just as additional training and endorsements are required to fully exploit a Sport Pilot certificate, the same is true of a Private certificate, Without such training, and with no more than an ASEL rating, you may not fly a tailwheel, or pressurized, or high performance airplane, or tow a glider, or fly IFR, or enter Class A airspace, or use NVGs, or a host of other things, yet nobody would say you have a restricted certificate if you lack one or more of those endorsements or privileges. Furthermore, nobody comes to you with a "Light Sport Pilot Certificate" because there is no such thing; you are improperly combining terms for aircraft with terms for pilots in your sloppy terminology.

There is nothing in the FARs that makes a Student, Sport, or Recreational pilot any less eligible to fly an experimental aircraft than you are. The language of 61.31 L 2 iii merely says "the holder of a pilot certificate" without specifying a minimum level for that certificate. Your particular operating limitations on your specific machine (not the FARs) may require more, but your operating limitations are already seen to be an anomaly in that they do not require a category and class rating. To state in general that a Private certificate is required for an experimental aircraft, based on your own helicopter operating limitations, is to invent a regulation. By the way, Recreational pilots have privileges and limitations that are set forth in 61.101, and have nothing whatsoever to do with experimental status or LSAs. A Recreational pilot may fly Standard Airworthiness or Experimental aircraft consistent with that regulation, which nowhere mentions the certification basis of the aircraft.

I am puzzled by this remark:
In your case of flying a LSA compliant gyroplane

Whose case? I do not fly such an aircraft, spending most of my recent flight time in Standard Airworthiness 1800 pound fully articulated rotor gyroplanes, Standard Airworthiness Bell and Sikorsky helicopters, and Standard Airworthiness sailplanes that far exceed the Vne limitations for light sport qualification. I hold a Commercial certificate with ratings for ASEL, ASES, Glider, rotorcraft gyroplane, rotorcraft helicopter, lighter than air balloon, instrument airplane, and instrument helicopter, with instructor privileges in gliders, gyroplanes, helicopters, balloons, and instrument helicopter flight, so I am not bound by LSA regulations.

As I asserted before, there has never been any regulatory basis for a hover endorsement. If one commits oneself to it by contract, for insurance or otherwise, it is irrelevant to the discussion of generally applicable regulations here.

I have not disputed any fact regarding the mid-air, although you seem to think I have (why, I can't imagine).

I also do not perceive that I need instruction from you on how to make friends here. I speak up in an attempt to unwind garbled information or apparent misunderstanding of the FARs.
 
Last edited:
Since a recreational pilot certification (RPC) is like a light sport pilot (LSPC) and both are a restricted version of the Private Pilot certificate (PPC), a RPC and LSPC can only fly the specific certified or non-certified aircraft that he/she is trained for and endorsed for. A PPC (aka unrestricted) can legally fly any aircraft in the category of certified and non-certified aircraft that he/she is trained in.
Wrong. Look at 61.101 and 61.315. There is no requirement for specific endorsements for each make/model for Sport or Recreational Pilots, so long as it is the same category/class (gyoplane, airplane, etc.) in which you were granted privileges.

P.S. I recommend differences training but it is not mandated by the FARs.
 
Last edited:
they have a Light Sport Pilot Certificate to which according to the FAA is a restricted version of the Private Pilot Certificate
Try as I might, I can find no FAA references that describe a SPC or a Recreational certificate as a restricted version of the Private Pilot Certificate. That would appear to me to be saying your ASEL is a restricted version of my ATP SMEL. They are different with different standards, privileges, and limitations.
a recreational or light sport certificate (restricted certificates) are not sufficient to fly any experimental helicopter OR any experimental aircraft that is not LSA compliant. So, the minimum certificate to hold to fly an experimental aircraft (in my case, helicopter) that is not LSA compliant is an unrestricted Private Pilot Certificate.
I also can't understand why a Recreational pilot can't fly an experimental aircraft or why a Sport Pilot can't fly an experimental aircraft that meets the Part 1 definition of a Light Sport Aircraft. I do understand that helicopters do not meet that definition, but I don't understand what that has to do with Recreational pilots.

It appears you may be conflating Recreational pilot privileges and limitations with Sport pilot P&L.

Jim
 
Let me speak to two people I consider to be friends. One I have met --Mr. Storey--, and one I have only interacted with on this forum --Waspair.

Both of you are decent fellas with a passion for flying. I enjoy talking with --and learning-- from you both. Waspair, as far as I know, flies only FAA Certificated gyros that have a rotor system with collective pitch and cyclic feathering much like a helicopter. I have never seen him talk about flying a gyro with a Benson-type rotor head. I think I remember that he is an attorney and when he posts something, I always look at his post with the belief that it was correct and well articulated. In short, he usually knows what he's talking about, if he speaks at all.
Mr. Storey is a helicopter enthusiast who just watched one of his close friends die with his own eyes, in a helicopter, in controlled airspace, in day/vfr weather. Because of this and how recently it happened, his posts are flavored with very raw emotion. Now that the preliminary NTSB report is released, I agree with Mr. Storey about the accident and what seems to have happened. There was no mention of any reason for the gyro to need more "spacing" from the aircraft in front of him. The attempted left 360 degree turn that caused the accident appears to be a choice the gyro pilot made for an unknown reason. He had no idea how far or if the black helicopter was behind him. He was only able to complete 270 degrees of the turn and then ran into the side of the helicopter.

Now let's talk about pilot's licenses. Nowhere in the FAR's, in the AIM, the PHAK, Advisory Circulars, or training materials, or FAA Written Tests, or in checkride PTS's, or FAA Orders for flight instructors, does it ever say or even imply that a Private License is a "restricted commercial license " nor that a commercial license is a "restricted version of an ATP License. Likewise, a Sport Pilot's License is not a "restricted" version of private license. Neither is a Recreational License. They are both stand-alone licenses and each even has its own written test and PTS. If the regs or your operating limits letter says "to fly this aircraft, the PIC must be a licensed pilot" then any license from Sport Pilot to ATP is good enough.

I'm quite sure that Mr. Storey had many discussions with the FSDO or GADO in getting his turbine helicopter registered and get his airworthiness certificate. FAA FSDO people can be terrible at explaining what is meant in the wording of the reg's. I'm guessing there were several verbal misfires in the communication that got Mr. Storey all tangled up into a mess. There is major confusion in how Mr. Storey understands the rights/privileges/requirements of different pilots licenses. My humble suggestion is that he visit an unfamiliar FSDO and speak to several people he has never spoken with before, and do a lot of listening and very little talking. Something needs to correct these misunderstandings before Mr. Storey plants the seeds with a virus, in the minds of potential customers.

I hope I'm not viewed as being rude. This just needs corrected.
 
Thanks for that contribution. We'll get it all sorted out eventually.

I am pleased to be considered a friend, and certainly reflect that back toward you.

You are correct that I don't currently fly Bensen derived gyros, although I did start with Steve Graves' Marchetti Avenger long ago.
 
What did you think of the Marchetti Avenger. I had a chance to pick one up for next to nothing but I turned it down. Compared to other gyros I thought it flew like a truck.
 
Thanks for that contribution. We'll get it all sorted out eventually.

I am pleased to be considered a friend, and certainly reflect that back toward you.

You are correct that I don't currently fly Bensen derived gyros, although I did start with Steve Graves' Marchetti Avenger long ago.
I took my gyro commercial add on in/on Steve's Marchetti and my CFI Gyro add in Don's 18A.

The Marchetti had a very complex envelope. Takeoff 45, cruise 45, Vno 45, Vh 45, Vne 45, approach and landing the same....45

Life was simpler in many ways

Jim
 
Top