CofA aircraft owners - what would it take to move you to a non-CofA type?

There’s a huge difference between the certified and experimental category.

In the number of accidents/incidents per annum, there might well be, though I’d still like to see figures rather than blanket cries.

In the number of accidents/incidents per annum per hours flown per category, things might look a good deal different. But again, where are the statistics? I have a gut feeling that the non-certified category flies lots of hours that never enter any statistics. Just like a lot of their incidents.

Above all, I’d like to see the figures for fatalities/serious injuries per hours flown for the various categories. This is the real “safety” argument. Serious accidents make the news anyhow, for any category. Lighter incidents, such as an engine failure followed by an out-landing, without an ambulance at the place, are non-events for the lighter planes. They do not get into the media, and they are not automatically subject to an official enquiry. Secure the plane, call up some fellow or other with a 4×4 and an appropriate trailer, by sunset no trace is left of the incident. Same story as for gliders.

As far as I learned from www. the Yaks in US are seen as sort of experimental class and nowhere near certified aircraft. The only type with Russian “certification” is the four seat Yak 18 T and that can have a standard CoA restricted to non -commercial use in Europe, no other restrictions. Contrary to most opinions about complete “freedom of flight” in the US , would someone with balls tell us what is required to fly from US to Canada or reverse with an experimental or Yaks or the like ??? I say a Permit to Fly for experimentals to go places throughout Europe is trivial in comparison. Vic

As far as I learned from www. the Yaks in US are seen as sort of experimental class and nowhere near certified aircraft.

Yaks in the US are operated with less regulatory impact than certified aircraft, and with geographic operating restrictions now lifted within the US Link, people are actually starting to look at Experimental Exhibition as a good place to be: Yaks, CJs, Chipmunks, non-standard Extras etc can be modified without FAA approval and annual inspections require only an A&P mechanic, not a mechanic with inspection authorization. No periodic renewal applies to the FAA Experimental Exhibition airworthiness certificate, so no ‘Permit to Fly’ renewal issues apply.

At my US base we have perhaps 20 local Yaks, and also regular “Yak Attacks” (Yak fly-ins) hosting visiting aircraft in which 10 or more Yaks can be seen flying in landing formation.

The ex-military aircraft have similar issues crossing international borders in America that they have in Europe. Experimental Amateur Built aircraft are different and in response to the question above, they can be flown between the US and Canada without any approval, after downloading a generic PDF and carrying it on board during the flight – its done every day. Link Link

Being not overly familiar with US regulations – but who can be that really – I still see the Yaks , Nanchangs etc. in the experimental/exhibition class required to have program letters on board for “events” , operations limitations and I guess some proof of Experimental/Exhibition Airworthiness/Maintenance Certificate and so on. Anyway it´s a different system there with several cathegories. The 300 mile radius may still be in ops limitations but can be removed. Nevertheless good luck with FAA ramp checks there which seem to be done a lot more than here. We never had that in 6 years operating the plane. Vic

Being not overly familiar with US regulations – but who can be that really – I still see the Yaks , Nanchangs etc. in the experimental/exhibition class required to have program letters on board for “events”

That is now incorrect for ex-military or ex-Soviet aircraft as the links provided clarify. The proficiency area that limited non-notified flights to a certain geographic area has been eliminated for those aircraft. If the limitations originally issued by FAA included a limited proficiency area, they can now be reissued upon request to eliminate that requirement – I have been peripherally involved in that process for an Aero L29. New Experimental Exhibition airworthiness certificates for that type of aircraft no longer contain the proficiency area limitation, from day one.

operations limitations and I guess some proof of Experimental/Exhibition Airworthiness/Maintenance Certificate and so on.

The original airworthiness certificate and a copy of the operating limitations are carried in all FAA licensed aircraft, regardless of standard or experimental airworthiness status. However, there is no such thing as a ‘maintenance certificate’ under FAA rules – the mechanic makes simple maintenance logbook entries to reflect maintenance and inspections, and the logbooks are not required to be on board the aircraft when it is operating. Usually the owner keeps them at home.

I do know one guy with an Experimental/Exhibition licensed Yak 52 who had a call from the local FSDO asking for an appointment to inspect his maintenance logs at his hangar. The owner asked our local DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative – a private individual designated by FAA) what he should do and was advised by the DAR to tell the FSDO guy to “go screw himself” because FAA ramp checks are legally limited to being just that: unscheduled checks conducted in public places. I’m not sure what the owner actually did, but nothing came of it. The FAA sometimes gets nervous because these aircraft are never routinely inspected by an FAA designee (e.g. A&P IA mechanic) at any time after their permanent airworthiness certificate is issued. Same thing with homebuilts, but the ex-military planes include Warsaw pact jets (L29 and L39 mainly) that for a while were regularly falling out of the sky.

Yes, that is what I found as well: Owners have to apply individually for new operations limitations in case these proficiency areas were still active in the old papers. Vic

But again, where are the statistics?

Here

A bit short the last post. In general experimental aircraft have a higher accident rate. This is NOT due to technical faults. What they found in that report was the higher accident rate was because the pilots were unfamiliar with the aircraft. In particular pilots that had not built the aircraft themselves, had a disproportional high accident rate during the first hours flown.

So, experimentals having more technical faults than certified, have no foundation in real life. It is not true. It also means that the whole certification system is meaningless with regard to added technical safety.

EASA has done similar studies regarding microlights (MTOW 450 kg). I have read some paper about it that indirectly refers to these findings. The results are the same. Higher accident rate due to technical errors of microlights (compared with certified GA) are nowhere to be found.

In my opinion the certification system makes no sense at all unless we are talking about commercial personnel carrying aircraft. But it is not about safety, it is simply the easiest and probably the only practical way to handle the legal implications IF an accident occur and IF that accident occurs due to technical error.

This is NOT due to technical faults

I’m not so sure you can conclude this from the linked report.

Fig 9 says that the top accident cause is a powerplant failure for E-AB aircraft, and collision with objects or terrain for non E-AB aircraft.

My takeaway from figures 9 and 10 is that E-AB aircraft have a higher rate of technical failures, while non E-AB aircraft are operated in worse weather, on average.

De could discuss the graphs indefinitely I guess, while including our own assumptions. The only thing that matter is the conclusion and recommendations from the NTSB.