Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
AirMaster Propeller
- Thread starter DonFromTX
- Start date
Ha! That's almost as good as the "Aerobatics Prohibited" sticker...
As with a lot of things.... it commonly depends on which FAA person you talk to.
I personally would want that in writing from someone pretty high up, since to qualify as an LSA the airplane has to have always complied as an LSA. If anywhere along the way, someone makes the call saying it does not qualify as an LSA, even changing the prop. back to a fixed pitch wont make it Sport Pilot qualified.
I know this is "tongue-in-cheek", but...
Good luck with that. An "FAA person" does not have the authority to override the regulations. If it come down to a court decision, guess who will win.
And BTW, if you do this, don't call me for your inspection!
You will learn what "letter of denial" means.
Good luck with that. An "FAA person" does not have the authority to override the regulations. If it come down to a court decision, guess who will win.
And BTW, if you do this, don't call me for your inspection!
You will learn what "letter of denial" means.
LifeofReiley
Well Known Member
Mel is right... and everyone needs to play by the rules.
Tandem46
Well Known Member
Hypocritcal
How is having a inflight adjustable propeller placarded to not be adjusted in flight any different from the Carbon Cub having a 180hp engine, limited to 80hp continuous so as not to exceed the 120kt max LSA speed? Same thing with the max gross weight of the CC EX when certifying it. If you certify it at 1,865lbs, it's not LSA, but if you certify the exact same plane at 1,320lbs, magically you're good to go. You can't tell me folks won't fly at greater than 80hp or load their aircraft more than 1,320lbs, but yet presumably you guys are ok with that. Why take a hard stance suddenly on a inflight adjustable prop if its placarded?
If someone from the FAA told Don that he could still license the plane as an LSA, then good for Don. Certainly Don is smart enough to do the homework to ensure that is actually the case before going forward.
How is having a inflight adjustable propeller placarded to not be adjusted in flight any different from the Carbon Cub having a 180hp engine, limited to 80hp continuous so as not to exceed the 120kt max LSA speed? Same thing with the max gross weight of the CC EX when certifying it. If you certify it at 1,865lbs, it's not LSA, but if you certify the exact same plane at 1,320lbs, magically you're good to go. You can't tell me folks won't fly at greater than 80hp or load their aircraft more than 1,320lbs, but yet presumably you guys are ok with that. Why take a hard stance suddenly on a inflight adjustable prop if its placarded?
If someone from the FAA told Don that he could still license the plane as an LSA, then good for Don. Certainly Don is smart enough to do the homework to ensure that is actually the case before going forward.
ScottSchmidt
Well Known Member
I would ask the same question.
I have to agree with this post. When I read that about the Carbon Cub I just laugh. I guess it comes down to a ramp check. If the LSA Carbon Cub is overloaded your busted. Not sure how they would check the adjustability of the prop.
I bet there could be a prop manufacturer that works with the FAA to make a ground adjustable prop from inside the cockpit as long as the airspeed was "0".
But, I don't see a huge need for one on the -12. For what it is, I love the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop.
I have to agree with this post. When I read that about the Carbon Cub I just laugh. I guess it comes down to a ramp check. If the LSA Carbon Cub is overloaded your busted. Not sure how they would check the adjustability of the prop.
I bet there could be a prop manufacturer that works with the FAA to make a ground adjustable prop from inside the cockpit as long as the airspeed was "0".
But, I don't see a huge need for one on the -12. For what it is, I love the simplicity of a fixed pitch prop.
Some DARs issue letters of denials often.
Personally I've issued very few.
And just to be clear, I'm NOT on board with the engine situation on the Carbon Cub. Someone convinced the FAA that it is acceptable.
As a DAR, I don't have to sign off anything I'm uncomfortable with, or anything that doesn't meet the rules.
There are other DARs out there. If you want to push the limits of the rules, call them.
Personally I've issued very few.
And just to be clear, I'm NOT on board with the engine situation on the Carbon Cub. Someone convinced the FAA that it is acceptable.
As a DAR, I don't have to sign off anything I'm uncomfortable with, or anything that doesn't meet the rules.
There are other DARs out there. If you want to push the limits of the rules, call them.
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
Mel,
What if someone built an LSA with the Aeromatic Prop?
Since the pilot can't adjust them in flight, would that be an issue?
What if someone built an LSA with the Aeromatic Prop?
Since the pilot can't adjust them in flight, would that be an issue?
Bill_H
Well Known Member
It would be interesting at some point to have a discussion of the nits that some will pick. But the are also reasons to not have that conversation! But while my suggestion may have sounded tongue in cheek, it is not. Mount the switch on the firewall. That is absolutely only ground adjustable. It is a heck of a lot more convenient to get right for climb (short strip) and cruise, compared to at least 45 minutes for each adjustment of the Sensenich. I can make a case that since I will be operating out of a 1260 foot grass strip, I might want full climb pitch at the start of a cross country, then be able to very easily change to cruise pitch, on the ground, at the 1st airport I pass. Without getting the wrenches and laser level and spending an hour. What's wrong with that?
Seems there is no question of that being within the rules as an LSA, by a common sense reading of the rules. Some may differ. So get it registered in that condition -EAB, qualifying as LSA. That is the only time the plane will ever see an FAA inspector or DAR. (Give your choice of DAR some thought, although would a plane in the condition I describe be appropriate to get a letter of denial?) Once it is signed off it is your baby. Do what you want. Its an "E." Maybe put the switch under the seat if you are worried about a ramp check from some bureaucratic busybody. Or some other place not inspectable within the guidelines of a ramp check without a search warrant. Make whatever you do easily reversible for when you sell it so there is no doubt it is an LSA. When you are in the plane it's your neck and no government nanny or designated nanny is going to save your butt!
Now, about a ramp check -for a plane isn't that constrained to whether it is airworthy and has the right papers on board? Nothing unairworthy about an EAB RV12 with a cs prop. Now MAYBE they could ramp check you as a pilot and cite YOU for climbing in with intent to fly and not having a medical certificate (if you did not) if there was a big cs prop control on the panel. Note-I mean VP -variable pitch- not CS constant speed...
Seems there is no question of that being within the rules as an LSA, by a common sense reading of the rules. Some may differ. So get it registered in that condition -EAB, qualifying as LSA. That is the only time the plane will ever see an FAA inspector or DAR. (Give your choice of DAR some thought, although would a plane in the condition I describe be appropriate to get a letter of denial?) Once it is signed off it is your baby. Do what you want. Its an "E." Maybe put the switch under the seat if you are worried about a ramp check from some bureaucratic busybody. Or some other place not inspectable within the guidelines of a ramp check without a search warrant. Make whatever you do easily reversible for when you sell it so there is no doubt it is an LSA. When you are in the plane it's your neck and no government nanny or designated nanny is going to save your butt!
Now, about a ramp check -for a plane isn't that constrained to whether it is airworthy and has the right papers on board? Nothing unairworthy about an EAB RV12 with a cs prop. Now MAYBE they could ramp check you as a pilot and cite YOU for climbing in with intent to fly and not having a medical certificate (if you did not) if there was a big cs prop control on the panel. Note-I mean VP -variable pitch- not CS constant speed...
Last edited:
I imagine my post is one that you are referring to so I will comment.
People can believe what ever they want, but my opinion is still that it is foolish to make a decision regarding something on an airplane, that requires an interpretation of the rules outside of what the obvious meaning is, based on a single comment from one FAA employee.
As Mel already alluded too...
If a person can find a DAR somewhere, that will sign it off, then you have solved most any problem, but it could still bite you in the future.
This forum is at times a very strange place. It is full of people that come here for information and advice from others that have more experience, but then when knowledge or opinions (based on experience) are presented, that go against what people want to believe, they get scolded for doing so.
And just for the record... I'm not taking a hard stance on an adjustable prop. but not on an engine RPM limit. I think the whole carbon cub deal is a black eye for the LSA industry. Everyone knows quite well what the basic intent of the LSA rules are, but (wink, wink) since the rules weren't written by lawyers (just a bunch of engineers) a few adjustments can take care of everything.
Van's Aircraft invested a bunch of extra time and money during the development of the RV-12, to make changes to the wing design because the original prototype came up a few knots short of the minimum stall speed requirement. This could have easily been corrected (wink, wink) with strategic placement of the static ports. It wasn't.
I think this will give you an understanding of why I am displeased with the ideas behind the carbon cub, or playing games with things on other airplanes.
When I was talking about "tongue-in-cheek", I was referring to the comment about limiting the prop operation by way of an instrument panel placard.
A switch mounted somewhere outside of the cockpit, and not in reach of the pilot would certainly be OK.
As a matter of fact, I certificated a "heavy" ultralight under 21.191(i)(1) during the grandfathering phase in 2008 with a controllable prop. The owner had removed the switch.
My point concerns people who want to interpret the rules to their point of view instead of accepting FAA's interpretation.
It's very similar to the 51% rule, where some people think that extra professional help is OK because it's "safer".
DARs attend seminars with the FAA annually. We discuss FAA's interpretation of the rules.
As far as modifying the aircraft after certification, that's fine. And if that modification "technically" takes the aircraft out side of LSA parameters, then you can also save money by not carrying insurance. Because in case of an accident, if the aircraft is found to not comply with the LSA and is being flown by a sport-pilot, they're not going to pay anyway.
Last edited:
joedallas
Well Known Member
All Pilots that Fly the RV12
Scott
I don't think Pilots should break the rules, however a ELSA Aircraft can be flown by a privet pilot who should be able to use the Prop feature, as he can also fly the at night.
The Pilot needs to follow the rules and be responsible for their actions
Pilots break rules not the aircraft / People break rules not guns
I think a placard that states "Do not adjust while in flight" and a way to disarm this feature should be considered by the FAA and a clear ruling should be Issued.
The RV12 is Great Aircraft and should be enjoyed be Light Sport Pilots, Privet Pilots and EAB Builders
My view
Scott
I don't think Pilots should break the rules, however a ELSA Aircraft can be flown by a privet pilot who should be able to use the Prop feature, as he can also fly the at night.
The Pilot needs to follow the rules and be responsible for their actions
Pilots break rules not the aircraft / People break rules not guns
I think a placard that states "Do not adjust while in flight" and a way to disarm this feature should be considered by the FAA and a clear ruling should be Issued.
The RV12 is Great Aircraft and should be enjoyed be Light Sport Pilots, Privet Pilots and EAB Builders
My view
An ELSA aircraft must meet LSA parameters continuously from original certification. It can NOT have an inflight adjustable prop! Period!
An RV-12 built as an EAB may have an inflight adjustable prop, but then it cannot be flown by a sport pilot.
Your proposal to the FAA has just about a "0" chance of happening.
KALEWIS
Well Known Member
There seems to be a reoccurring theme from some posters. Why try to bend the rules? Do I (or everyone) agree with all of them... No. I applaud Mel for being honest and factual in regards to the ELSA regs. There are lots of "FAA guys" or "this other DAR" that says its ok. It's no skin off their back IF something happens or the person gets caught. it is the home builder community that get's a bad rap. ELSA / LSA piloting is a somewhat confined box to play in...tht said, it is also a great liberty for some.
I am all for anyone to have their own prerogative for whatever engine/prop/avionics or whatever else they choose to change or modify. But let's all stay in the rule book and help keep home builders on the up and up and keep it around for a long time.
We have just over 14 hrs on our -12 and I see no need for an inflight adjustable prop. would it be nifty and cool, yes.... But big picture, not needed.
I am all for anyone to have their own prerogative for whatever engine/prop/avionics or whatever else they choose to change or modify. But let's all stay in the rule book and help keep home builders on the up and up and keep it around for a long time.
We have just over 14 hrs on our -12 and I see no need for an inflight adjustable prop. would it be nifty and cool, yes.... But big picture, not needed.
joedallas
Well Known Member
Time will Tell
Joe
I am sure you are right but I think it has about a 1% chance of happing.
A Pilot can get his aircraft Certified ELSA with a Fixed Pitch Prop then Change it to a Flight Adjustable Prop and fly it as a Privet Pilot, then remove the prop and install a Fixed Pitch Prop and a Light Sport Pilot can Fly it or he can sell it as a ELSA Aircraft.
I Had a lengthy conversation with the FAA at Sun-n Fun this summer on this subject with three of FAA personal. In that talk the mention of disarming the prop was discussed and the answer to the question was not clear. The interpolation (cry) of the rule will be handled at the time of the first occurrence, and this will be the time that the will be 100% clear.
My thinking that the rule should have a Disarming Feature will have no influence on their opinion, but is still my opinion that it sill meats the intent of the rule.
"If you stand still, you fall behind." Mark Twain quote modified
I also think that Politicians should be truthful Now this has 0% caance of happing, but is still my opinon. I'm Delusional (a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition)
Joe
I am sure you are right but I think it has about a 1% chance of happing.
A Pilot can get his aircraft Certified ELSA with a Fixed Pitch Prop then Change it to a Flight Adjustable Prop and fly it as a Privet Pilot, then remove the prop and install a Fixed Pitch Prop and a Light Sport Pilot can Fly it or he can sell it as a ELSA Aircraft.
I Had a lengthy conversation with the FAA at Sun-n Fun this summer on this subject with three of FAA personal. In that talk the mention of disarming the prop was discussed and the answer to the question was not clear. The interpolation (cry) of the rule will be handled at the time of the first occurrence, and this will be the time that the will be 100% clear.
My thinking that the rule should have a Disarming Feature will have no influence on their opinion, but is still my opinion that it sill meats the intent of the rule.
"If you stand still, you fall behind." Mark Twain quote modified
I also think that Politicians should be truthful Now this has 0% caance of happing, but is still my opinon. I'm Delusional (a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition)
Last edited:
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
Interesting discussion fellow builders. Isn't it interesting, the FAA is here to preach safety to us, yet there can be no question that a prop that can be adjusted for more safe short field use when needed, or better economy in cruise (think green) becomes "illegal" to use, and a more powerful engine to get out of tight spots safely becomes similarly "illegal". To my way of thinking, the whole LSA criteria limits safety for no really valid reason, by the 1320lb limit, Vans has to make strengths marginal to keep within the weight limits, we cannot carry enough fuel to be practical, etc. I am certain that there are no accident statistics that can prove that a constant speed prop or a 1325 lb plane is any less safe than a 1320 lb one with a fixed pitch prop. Looks like someone put the FAA in charge of "victim-less crimes" these days.
Captain Cowboy
Member
The E in ELSA stands for experimental. Without the opportunity to seek new knowledge, Man is doomed to perish. Thank goodness we ALL can have opinions and different ideas. Mine says we should be able to have an inflight adj. prop for those who have met the standards (read qualifications) for its use. Maybe we could have a new entity in the ELSA scheme of things, ie. ELSA-Simple and ELSA-Complex aircraft requiring additional building, performance, and training requirements that will satisfy those that choose complexity (read experimentation). Never say NEVER! I personally don't need one that adjusts in flight but in the name of CHANGE, I don't want to eliminate the potential for developing one that would work in the ELSA world. Pushing the envelope is a GOOD thing!
Many of the restrictions in the LSA parameters are based on having a minimum pilot "load" for sport pilots who are trained under rules less stringent than for private pilots.
If you don't like the rules, then by all means do what you can to get them changed. But, in the mean time, for all our sake, please abide by them.
If you don't like the rules, then by all means do what you can to get them changed. But, in the mean time, for all our sake, please abide by them.
DonFromTX
Well Known Member
You are correct of course, i am an old private pilot from way back who I don't think could pass a medical any longer, so to me the restrictions seem far too restrictive and actually for me makes flying less safe. With a decades of flying a simple Cherokee and others, now at 75 I am supposed to be "more safe" by learning how to fly something with different flight characteristics that is far lighter, instead of what had become second nature to me, and am barred from doing anything experimental. And I thought I spent a career making sure we have freedoms!
Again, this is a PUBLIC forum.
Read by at LEAST a half a dozen FAA fellows....most of them truly EAB aviators and builder like the rest of us. But you don't rob a bank in front of an off-duty policeman...it puts him in an awfully awkward bind!
KALEWIS
Well Known Member
"more safe". I don't see LSA flying as more safe, just restrictions based on training. I can operate with my PP/INST rating. The 12 is a different flying airplane than a piper or Cessna for sure. It is lighter, it is more agile, but forgiving in some situations like any other airplane. More safe?? No. Safety starts with the PIC of any aircraft no matter the category.
"Experimental". I think it's outdated on some levels. Maybe call it non-standard category these days. The RV-12 is as good as any entry level factory aircraft when built to the plans. The documentation VANS provides is as good
as any factory test program (for laymans terms). In home building there is not much "plane chopping" like
The RV-1 was, these modern kits that I'm guessing 90% of
Home builders choose are well engineered and tested. A good and quick way to lose freedom and liberty is to cheat and deceive because it's viewed as unfair for whatever reason. The rules are what they are. Don't
Mess it up for me and the 99% that aim to do the right thing.
You read my mind with this post!
I'm getting a little confused (no comments, please!)
The DAR is involved in the original issuance of the Airworthy Certificate. That airplane must be in conformity with Vans Plans, if it is to be registered as an E-LSA. An adjustable prop, or new engine, are obviously not in conformity. That hardware can only be installed if the original cert was as an E-AB, or if done to the E-LSA post-cert. I think we can all agree with that.
My concern - especially for Mel's dreaded Letter of Denial, involves the word "Conformity." It's a word I used daily for almost 50 years. I assert, and have previously, that not a single RV-12 currently flying is "in conformity." With the Plans, that is. They are probably in conformity with common sense and are safe and airworthy. But, if a nit-picking DAR or inspector (me), were to pull out his nit-picking handbook - game over. I know I could get 'ya.
I'm trying to build my airplane 100% in conformity with Vans Plans. The operative word is "trying." Unless I'm unique, every day I run into "situations" that require decision-making and good judgment.
Vans Plans are probably the best in the world - but they have "issues", some bigger than others. I like Joe Blank, and I guess I could call him every morning until he put a phone block on my number. And what if I demanded a disposition in writing to every discrep I came across? (Someone else on the list has published a rather lengthy list of those he encountered.) Every one of those represents a non-conformity. As a DAR, I could pick out a couple and ask the builder whether he complied with the Plans, and then ask how could he - since the Plans were in error.
Here's another situation - a rework or repair. Say I have a damaged fuel return line (I do.) It's a long line running through the guts of the airplane and removing and replacing it will be a major undertaking. Rather than do that, suppose I just cut out the damaged section and splice in a new section of line using a union? Suppose I substituted an Aeroquip flex line for the cut out damaged section?
My airplane would no longer be in conformity with the Plans. Or would it?
I assert it WOULD be in conformity, when the change was made totally in accordance with accepted industry aeronautical practices - say AC43-13 Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices. I wouldn't want to get into an arm-wrestling contest with a DAR who I want to certify my airplane, but I could trot out not only my own credentials, but a bevy of my Boeing pals who are long experienced liaison engineers as well as being DARs and DERs to support my position. Struc & Func in Boeing-ese. Structurally and Functionally satisfactory. No changes required.
Waddya think, Mel? Would you issue a Letter of Denial if you found an extra union or piece of flex line? Tomorrow, I'm gonna go one way or the other.
Bob Bogash
N737G
The DAR is involved in the original issuance of the Airworthy Certificate. That airplane must be in conformity with Vans Plans, if it is to be registered as an E-LSA. An adjustable prop, or new engine, are obviously not in conformity. That hardware can only be installed if the original cert was as an E-AB, or if done to the E-LSA post-cert. I think we can all agree with that.
My concern - especially for Mel's dreaded Letter of Denial, involves the word "Conformity." It's a word I used daily for almost 50 years. I assert, and have previously, that not a single RV-12 currently flying is "in conformity." With the Plans, that is. They are probably in conformity with common sense and are safe and airworthy. But, if a nit-picking DAR or inspector (me), were to pull out his nit-picking handbook - game over. I know I could get 'ya.
I'm trying to build my airplane 100% in conformity with Vans Plans. The operative word is "trying." Unless I'm unique, every day I run into "situations" that require decision-making and good judgment.
Vans Plans are probably the best in the world - but they have "issues", some bigger than others. I like Joe Blank, and I guess I could call him every morning until he put a phone block on my number. And what if I demanded a disposition in writing to every discrep I came across? (Someone else on the list has published a rather lengthy list of those he encountered.) Every one of those represents a non-conformity. As a DAR, I could pick out a couple and ask the builder whether he complied with the Plans, and then ask how could he - since the Plans were in error.
Here's another situation - a rework or repair. Say I have a damaged fuel return line (I do.) It's a long line running through the guts of the airplane and removing and replacing it will be a major undertaking. Rather than do that, suppose I just cut out the damaged section and splice in a new section of line using a union? Suppose I substituted an Aeroquip flex line for the cut out damaged section?
My airplane would no longer be in conformity with the Plans. Or would it?
I assert it WOULD be in conformity, when the change was made totally in accordance with accepted industry aeronautical practices - say AC43-13 Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices. I wouldn't want to get into an arm-wrestling contest with a DAR who I want to certify my airplane, but I could trot out not only my own credentials, but a bevy of my Boeing pals who are long experienced liaison engineers as well as being DARs and DERs to support my position. Struc & Func in Boeing-ese. Structurally and Functionally satisfactory. No changes required.
Waddya think, Mel? Would you issue a Letter of Denial if you found an extra union or piece of flex line? Tomorrow, I'm gonna go one way or the other.
Bob Bogash
N737G
Actually the rules state that the aircraft must exactly conform to the plans. Any deviation must be approved by the kit manufacturer. If you need to make a "repair" such as you mention, I'm sure that Van's would probably approve of such a repair. If they would NOT approve it, there may be a reason.
Concerning the "letter of denial", that is used only as a last resort. First, you will be allowed to correct any discrepancies found. If you refuse to comply, then it starts to get serious.
Concerning the "letter of denial", that is used only as a last resort. First, you will be allowed to correct any discrepancies found. If you refuse to comply, then it starts to get serious.
Last edited:
Bill_H
Well Known Member
Excellently put, Bob!
So if you fix your (theoretical) fuel line problem by putting in a (theoretical) union rather than spending a big bunch of (theoretical) hours replacing the line, or building a pile of (theoretical) approval documentation from Van's, the selection of a DAR seems to become very (theoretically) important.
So if you fix your (theoretical) fuel line problem by putting in a (theoretical) union rather than spending a big bunch of (theoretical) hours replacing the line, or building a pile of (theoretical) approval documentation from Van's, the selection of a DAR seems to become very (theoretically) important.
Last edited:
