Experimental / LSA / Sport pilot

RockyMeLad

Curmudgeon-in-Training
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
1,175
Location
Las Cruces, NM
Aircraft
Desert Bee (Gyrobee)
Total Flight Time
320
OK guys,
The Desert Bee is a legal ultralight at 253lbs, but there isn't margin to put on things I want for safety/convenience: rotor brake, flashing beacon, brakes on the main wheels, and an altimeter. Not enough weight added to adversly impact flying characteristics but would bust Part 103. I have kept a building log to eventually go experimental or ELSA. Leaning toward experimental so I can do much of the maintenance (yes, I have Scottish ancestory, thank you).
So the quetion is: What is the most expedient sequence to get me a Sport Pilot Certificate and the Desert Bee an "N" number?

Tentatively:

1. Get flying the Desert Bee as UL. I'm registered with EAA for stick time to count toward Sport Pilot hours.
2. Finish ground school (King course) and any more dual time needed.
3. Take Bee and paperwork to DAR for Experimental Airworthiness Certificate to put "N" number on the tail.
4. Take "N" numbered Bee to do solo check-off with CFI. (This may not be needed if CFI can log that I'm ready to solo based on dual time????)
5. Take Bee to different CFI for check ride to get Sport Pilot Certificate.
6. Finish flying off the "40 hours" on experimental.

Comments / suggestions ...
 
Unless you can show you built it, it cannot be Amateur built. You don't have to build any of it for ELSA. To get the the repairman certificate for ELSA, you take a 16 hour class. This will be your shortest and best way.
Bob Stark
 
??? Bob, Rocky built his gyro. Do you think he didn't take a few pictures?
 
5. Take Bee to different CFI for check ride to get Sport Pilot Certificate.

Rocky, refresh my memory. Do you already have a PPL. If not then you will need to meet all the requirements for S/P. Plus an endorsement from a CFI(SP) for the flight check. Then a flight check with an S/P DE. Keep in mind there are only 4 S/P DE's for gyroplane at the present time.
 
Photos would do the trick, I was responding to what was in his message.
Bob Stark
 
Robert G. Stark said:
Unless you can show you built it, it cannot be Amateur built. You don't have to build any of it for ELSA. To get the the repairman certificate for ELSA, you take a 16 hour class. This will be your shortest and best way.
Bob Stark
Bob maybe you can clear something up for me. as you may have seen in other posts I have a air command I bought from the original builder. several have made comments I should replace the mast with a taller one. and this one has 3 hols where the 582 engine mount was.(now has a subaru engine) It is my understanding that since I am not the builder and do not hold the repairmans cert. and this gyro is experimantal with it's cert. of airworthyness.that I would not be legal to make such a modifcation. am I right on this? this gyro has over 100 hrs on it like it is. and personnaly I don't see what the big deal is about the empty holes. the mast is the 2 peice redundant mast. my veiw is the mast is no weaker with the holes empty,as even if it had a bolt in it,it is still a hole.engine mount or not. being a DAR what are your thoughts on this and the legal part of changeing the mast.personnaly I am not going to do a major mod to the airframe when I am not the builder. I will post a pic shortly of the holes in the mast so you can see what I am talking about. from what I understand only an A&P or the builder would be legal to do this airframe mod. am I correct?
 

Attachments

  • [RotaryForum.com] - Experimental / LSA / Sport pilot
    take off run.webp
    13.8 KB · Views: 0
  • [RotaryForum.com] - Experimental / LSA / Sport pilot
    IM004460.webp
    23.3 KB · Views: 0
  • [RotaryForum.com] - Experimental / LSA / Sport pilot
    IM004462.webp
    11.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Tim,

Anyone can perform maintenance on an Experimental aircraft.

You only need an A&P, or repairman's certificate, to sign off the annual Condition Inspection.
 
gyromike said:
Tim,

Anyone can perform maintenance on an Experimental aircraft.

You only need an A&P, or repairman's certificate, to sign off the annual Condition Inspection.
I don't think changeing a major part like the mast would fall under maintenance. I think changeing that is going to be a major job.
since everything bolts to the mast.
well be intresting to see what bob says. if i can do it legally i may go ahead and do it. but other wise i will sell it as is and let the new owner do it.
 
Shouldn't maintenance include replacing a bad part?
Now modifying a machine or a desing is a different thing . . .
Heron
 
Heron said:
Shouldn't maintenance include replacing a bad part?
Now modifying a machine or a desing is a different thing . . .
Heron
well thats what I want to find out from a DAR,would replaceing the mast fall under that,becouse it is a major part. but I am still not convinced it is a bad part since the holes are from the factory 582 mounts. now if the holes had just been drilled randomly or something like that,then I might think differntly.

but since this is a redundant mast and not the early single 2 x 2 box, I don't see it weakening it at all. it has flown over 100 hours with this mast after all. I just uploaded pics of these holes, 2 are 5/16" and 1 is 1/4"
 
Last edited:
animal said:
well thats what I want to find out from a DAR,would replaceing the mast fall under that,becouse it is a major part...

Here's the deal. You are probably thinking of normal cat TC'd aircraft where parts must be PMA'd and TSO'd, major mods must have an approved STC or Form 337, all work must be done under AI or Repair Station supervision, etc., etc..

For you -- no.ALL experimental aircraft are exempt from Part 43.

However, pull out your operating limitations that are part of your AC. They will say words about major changes requiring a notification to the FAA.

Don't put it on a 337 form, because that will just confuse them, but do the work yourself, and write a letter, enclosing documentation of what you did (replaced the rotor mast). why you did it (does the factory recommend it? Are you just looking for a greater safety level? Was this an oversight when the machine was CLT'd by a previous owner) and what documentation you have to work from (say, factory plans and drawings, telephone conferences with AC, whatever). Include your name, address, phone number and cert number. ONLY if this was done in the annual condition inspection do you need the cert number & signature of the A&P (need not be an A&P/AI) that signs off your work.

The FAA inspector may want to come see your work (especially if he or she likes gyros, or on the other hand, your photos are crummy). However, in most cases they will give you an OK and will issue an amended fly-off time and test area so that you can flight test the new mast (which you would have to do anyway).

Now, this is the way it is supposed to work. In fact, many modify their experimentals without the FAA ever knowing, but it can (and has) become a football if you have a mishap. A California LongEZ builder had an insurance claim denied because his EZ was not as described in the airworthiness when he smacked it. Not to mention, you are violating your own op lims and it could get ugly if you were ever ramped.

Also, just because this is the way the thing is supposed to go, doesn't mean your district FAA knows that. For a lot of inspectors, the law is whatever they feel like today. And they're human like the rest of us: wrong from time to time. The scary bit is, FAA policy is always to back up an inspector, no matter how far off base he or she is. So it would behoove you to take the problem in as a hypothetical and see how your FSDO wants it done -- and then do it their way, whether it's the law or not.

If they tell you, you don't need to notify them, get them to put it in writing and put the letter with your op lims in the airplane. If they don't put it in writing, notify them anyway and say you are doing it as a courtesy. CYA.

Finally, most FAAniks know diddly about gyros. So it will actually help the inspector if YOU draft your test plan and send it in with your letter. Chances are, the inspector will be relieved and rubber stamp your plan. Especially if it's clearly sensible.

cheers

-=K=-
 
Last edited:
One thing I would do now (you probably do it already) is inspect those holes carefully at preflight for cracks. Any sign of a crack forming there, ground yourself. Because the holes are round and are not near edges or bends or other stress risers, they shouldn't crack at all.

But one thing we know about the Fetters-era Air Commands is that there was no engineering analysis done on them, whatsoever. It would have been just like Dennis to drill the holes willy-nilly without checking stresses, or even deburring them. (They are deburred, right?)

At intervals (annual condition inspection, maybe at 50h or 100h if you fly a lot) I'd do a dye penetrant inspection on those holes to make sure there's nothing cracking there. You can get a kit for it, or your A&P has it already. Cheap life insurance...

cheers

-=K=-
 
Kevin I think all that you said is good and true if he modified the gyro in some way. Changing out the mast is not a modification, it is simple maintance in my opinion. No different than replacing a rusted muffler or worn out tire. I personally think it is perfectly legal for him to change out the mast and that be the end of it.

Should the mast be changed.....?....... Tim, what has Aircommand said about this? Did you email them and ask their opinion on it?
 
Folks, if your OLs say that you have to notify the FAA of a major mod, you're using outdated OLs and are supposed to get them updated through the mail, and get new OLs deleting that requirement. They have a form. The FAA does NOT want to be doing mod inspections on home-builts. You then do not have to notify the FAA of ANY changes or mods you make. You have to make a log entry that the mod did not appreciatively affect the flying characteristics and that you flew off 5 hours in a non-congested area....period. You will also be allowed to fly in congested airspace and airways.

They've made it as simple as possible, yet I still see these discussions about notifiying the FAA or filling out forms when you make a major alteration. No need to for the cost of a stamp.
 
If the replacement mast is an Air Command part, it is a simple replacement function and not a major modification by definition.

Your original mast was not a serial numbered component and won't appear on any documentation.

The newest Ops Limits say you have to make a records entry and notify the FAA of your test area for concurrence of it's suitability.
 
Forgot to mention not to forget that lengthening the mast will require a longer set of push rods and probably a new prerotator shaft if the Wunderlich style.
 
Can someone tell me who the PPL Gyroplane Designated Examiner's are? Off the top of my head I can only think of two, ie. Ron Menzies in Arkansas, and Jim Mayfield in Arizona. Is that correct, and are there any more? Thanks.

David Hill
 
I found this on the EAA website about operating limitations:
https://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/samateur_built_operating.asp

Thanks Ken, I didn't know about that.

Edit: oops, that's a "members only" page. Here's what it says (hope I'm not violating copyright by posting this):

(19) After incorporating a major change as described in § 21.93, the aircraft owner is required to re-establish compliance with § 91.319(b). All operations will be conducted VFR, day only, in a sparsely populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum of 5 hours. Persons non-essential to the flight shall not be carried. The aircraft owner shall make a detailed log book entry describing the change prior to the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the required number of flight hours in the flight test area, the pilot shall certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with § 91.319(b). Compliance with § 91.319(b) shall be recorded in the aircraft records with the following or a similarly worded statement: "I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The following

aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing: speeds Vso______, Vx______, and Vy______, and the weight______, and CG location______ at which they were obtained."

EAA Position: The FAA Administrator has made the experimental amateur-built aircraft major change issue easier for the owners of these aircraft. The key to this issue is - what do your current operating limitations say? The ones recently issued will have the above operating limitation - the FAA does not need to be notified that you are changing your aircraft. Use the builders log technique for recording the work and per the above limitation, when finished with the change, make a detailed logbook entry describing the change - before you tests flights. After making the logbook entry you must place your aircraft into a test flight phase (with the restrictions that go with it) to recertify the aircraft is safe to fly per FAR 91.319(b). The 5 hour test flight period mentioned in this limitation is the "minimum," so if you need more time - keep the aircraft in the test flight phase until the aircraft is safe to fly. After all test flights have been completed make another logbook entry per the above limitation.

Now comes the tricky part - you must comply with your current operating limitations. If they don't contain the above limitation, they'll probably say one of two things:

1. "Prior to starting a major change to the aircraft, you must receive written permission from the local FSDO." In 99% of the cases the FAA will just review your proposed change plans then issue you a written letter placing you into a test flight program. This limitation wording is generally not a problem, except the time it takes to work through the FAA procedures. Or

2. "Any major change will invalidate your experimental amateur-built airworthiness certificate." This one means that if you do a major change your experimental amateur-built aircraft airworthiness certificate is revoked and you will have to be recertified by either a full FAA or DAR inspection. If you see this limitation in your operating limitations, EAA strongly recommends you ask the FAA to amend your limitations to match the current FAA guidelines. See the EAA Government position paper web site for more information.
 
Last edited:
gyroplanes said:
If the replacement mast is an Air Command part, it is a simple replacement function and not a major modification by definition.

Ok now with that being said,if it is a replacement mast if the holes are drilled at the factory,then what good will it do to replace the mast on it? the holes thet Ron has made such a big deal about are the ones from the old 582 engine mounts,if it is drilled from the factory,will it not still have these same holes in the mast?
mine has been converted from a 582 to a subaru,the holes in the mast are from the old engine mounts. if the mast comes blank and undrilled,then thats another story. right now I don't have the money for a new mast anyway.
the way I am seeing it I will have to take half the gyro apart just to replace this mast sinces everything hangs from it now. I have my 4runner up for sale now,to buy another subaru wagon. so I should have some cash left from that to get the stuff to change out the mast I have not called air command yet to get the price.Or I may call dillsburg and see what they can sell me the materials for. I know I will the mast and new longer control rods. as long as I don't got to high,my pre rotor cable should be fine it looks like I have enough play in it to got a few inches higher.

Your original mast was not a serial numbered component and won't appear on any documentation.

The newest Ops Limits say you have to make a records entry and notify the FAA of your test area for concurrence of it's suitability

as far as test area, I am not planning to fly it. not risking crashing it since I have not been soloed yet.
 
Watch out for Dillsburg's al. extrusions. They are tops for steel tubing, but I got a really awful load of 2x2 6061-T6 from them one time. It wasn't marked with temper and alloy and WAS gouged and scratched.

Starbee Gyros will probably charge more per foot, but they know to protect the material from this kind of damage.
 
Back
Top