What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

a DAR question

N

N787R

Active Member
I am building my RV7 in a hanger at KRHV.
KRHV is not a suitable airport for initial flite.

I plan to truck my craft to E16 and do initial flight and phase one operation there.

Question : Can I call DAR to inspect and issue AW while in KRHV? or do I have to wait until I take it to E16 ?

Thanks
 
That would be up to the DAR.

Personally I would want to wait and inspect the airplane at the airport where it will be flown. I don't want the airplane disassembled and reassembled after my inspection. This process would not allow me to inspect for correct assembly, rigging, safety wire and many other things necessary to determine if the airplane is "in a condition for safe operation".
 
Fly it out?

Maybe you could takeoff from RHV, circle for a few minutes and then fly it to E16 to fly off the rest of the test period. May not be the smartest thing to do but I have seen it done three times at my home airport.
 
Plus legally you can't do anything major to the airplane after it is inspected until you get your repairman certificate. So that might take a few weeks to get. Don
 
yakdriver said:
Plus legally you can't do anything major to the airplane after it is inspected until you get your repairman certificate. So that might take a few weeks to get. Don
Click to expand...
The repairman certificate has nothing to do with maintenance. It only allows you to do the annual condition inspection.
 
Mel, If he took the airplane apart and reassembled it after the airworthyness was issued and before he got the repairman certificate wouldn't he have to have an A&P sign it off? Don
 
Why is your airport not suitable? I see a lot of daily flights but I assume that there are days/times when traffic is low. Is it because of traffic into and out of San Jose?
 
OK....add a little to the fire. I have a very nice hangar at North Las Vegas (KVGT)...I've been told I CAN'T do my phase one there. Can the local airport authority (Clark County Department of Aviation) tell me I can't or can the DAR specify my phase one limitations? Does the FAA dictate or does the local authority have control?

Kinda twists my knickers since the local authority sucks almost $300 bucks a month outta me and my hangar partner just for the glorious dirt our facility sits on, plus $1100 a year personal property tax on our tin shed, well not really a shed...pretty nice hangar. You would think we could use the airport for FLYING...must think were gonna screw the pooch on our first 40 hours...very frustrating to finish a project then have to find a place to fly off the hours, or should I say a place to get the inspection then fly off the hours.
 
Rick S. said:
OK....add a little to the fire. I have a very nice hangar at North Las Vegas (KVGT)...I've been told I CAN'T do my phase one there. Can the local airport authority (Clark County Department of Aviation) tell me I can't or can the DAR specify my phase one limitations? Does the FAA dictate or does the local authority have control?

Kinda twists my knickers since the local authority sucks almost $300 bucks a month outta me and my hangar partner just for the glorious dirt our facility sits on, plus $1100 a year personal property tax on our tin shed, well not really a shed...pretty nice hangar. You would think we could use the airport for FLYING...must think were gonna screw the pooch on our first 40 hours...very frustrating to finish a project then have to find a place to fly off the hours, or should I say a place to get the inspection then fly off the hours.
Click to expand...

Rick,

NO. Clearly, KVGT is a Federally funded airport. If the local airport takes Federal monies for airport ANY improvement they cannot dictate what you can or cannot do there with aviation, as long as what you are doing is legal. They risk loosing all Federal funding (and having to pay back what they have received) if they bar you (or harass you) from the airport. Get ahold of the EAA legal people in OSH and they will give you FAA chapter & verse that you can lay on the airport board to settle them down. Be prepared for a fight. Politicians don't like to loose. You will be the target of harassment for a few years, which is also illegal. Don't back down from these power hungry mind midgets.
 
Last edited:
Check first...

Geico266 said:
Rick,

NO. Clearly, KVGT is a Federally funded airport. If the local airport takes Federal monies for airport ANY improvement they cannot dictate what you can or cannot do there with aviation, as long as what you are doing is legal. They risk loosing all Federal funding (and having to pay back what they have received) if they bar you (or harass you) from the airport. Get ahold of the EAA legal people in OSH and they will give you FAA chapter & verse that you can lay on the airport board to settle them down. Be prepared for a fight. Politicians don't like to loose. You will be the target of harassment for a few years, which is also illegal. Don't back down from these power hungry mind midgets.
Click to expand...

Larry... you are being a bit harsh here...some more facts may be needed.

This is what the EAA says on the matter... It may boil down to the suitablity of the airport in question.

From the EAA Hombuilders FAQs...

Test Area

With their airworthiness certificate builders will receive their operating limitations that assign them a flight test area. In other words, where they can fly their aircraft while they are completing their flight test program. This is another topic about which EAA headquarters receives a lot of calls, especially from members who live in populated areas.

Builders who live in rural areas don?t often have a problem getting a flight test area adjacent to their home airport. However, builders who live in a major metropolitan area often have a difficult time getting permission to perform their flight tests the local airport, and the headquarters staff works with the inspecting FSDO in an attempt to let members test fly their aircraft at the airport were they built it.

Not all airports are located in areas that are appropriate for test flying, but in some cases the builder and EAA disagree with the FAA inspector about the about the safety of conducting a test flights at a particular airport. The new FAA Order provides more guidance to the FSDO for determining what constitutes an acceptable, safe flight test area.

The new Order says: "In the case of the first flight of an aircraft from an airport surrounded by a densely populated area, but with at least one acceptable approach/departure route of flight, the FAA shall ensure that a route of flight is selected where the least number of persons and property may be subjected to possible hazards. In addition, upon leaving such an airport, the aircraft should be required to operate from an outlying airport until its controllability and safety are established, after which the aircraft may return to its base and use the established corridor for subsequent operations. NOTE: An acceptable approach/departure route of flight may be considered to exist when the route of flight provides reasonable opportunity(s) to execute an off-airport emergency landing that will not jeopardize other persons or property."

As an ex-Los Angeles resident, this ruled out (quite rightly, IMHO) the use of Hawthorne (HHR) and Santa Monica (SMO) amongst others.

Check things out carefully before you start a turf war with your landlord...:)

gil A

The EAA is referencing FAA Order 8130.2D, "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products" in the above text.
 
The decision is not up to the airport...

There are many airports that do not have a suitable corridor for flight testing phase I operations. We have one in Addison on the north side of Dallas. I have had to turn down requests to fly out of Addison because it is completely surrounded by congestion.
The final decision is up to the inspector, but I assure you that he will discuss the situation with the local FSDO before making that decision.

BTW, 8130.2D is quite obsolete. We are now up to 8130.2F(chg 3).
 
What has Rick upset is that it is not his DAR or FSDO that is restricting him, but that it is the local airport board. There is no question the DAR/FAA can impose flight restrictions, but does the airport authority have the authority to ban first flights?
 
yakdriver said:
Mel, If he took the airplane apart and reassembled it after the airworthiness was issued and before he got the repairman certificate wouldn't he have to have an A&P sign it off? Don
Click to expand...
Nope! Not unless the inspector included some kind of restriction in the operating limitations.

Again, the repairman certificate is ONLY for the purpose of performing the annual condition inspection. Anyone can perform maintenance on an Experimental Amateur-Built.
 
Last edited:
Only if they can show a safety problem

Jeff R said:
but does the airport authority have the authority to ban first flights?
Click to expand...
The airport can restrict first flights if they can show just cause that it will affect safety. This was brought out in the early '80s when airports were denying ultralights from using the airports. The FAA said that if the airport can justify their decision on a safety issue, then they CAN restrict activity.
 
Why is KRHV a bad choice?

RHV is sorrounded on approach and departure as well as right and left side with homes and buildings for miles. There really is not any area to make safe emergency landings. Runway is about 3,000 feet and not long enough for aborted takeoff.

But I think Mel answered my question : DARs do not like to issue AW if the airplane are dissassembled again.

So I will take to E16 before I call DAR.

Ben
 
The runway at E16 is only 100 feet longer. I do see your concern about development around the airport. Doing what improves your safety margin is wise.
 
There is a possibility that your DAR may give you a one flight exclusion to relocate your airplane to E16. Has been done before in the bay area.
Tom
 
I don't think that DAR exclusion for one flight is the issue. The OP does not feel that performing a first flight at RHV is safe for him. Can't fault him on that. Tis his decision. Now whether it makes more sense to relocate before the DAR inspection to E16 or have someone else make the first flight and land at E16 is something only the OP can determine.

You may be mixing up that issue with that of banning first flights at KVGT.
 
Ben, good decision. I've flown out of RHV on occasion with my Boredom Fighter and it always made me nervous (even with a couple hundred hours on plane). Departing to the north, there's just no good place to put it down if you loose an engine and departure to the south isn't much better.

I just went through that same decision here in the Seatle area with my RV. I have a hangar at Auburn (S50), which has the same lousy approach and departure risks for initial flights. I had a good conversation with our Flight Advisor and I ended up bumming some hangar space at Arlington for the initial flights, which is going to reduce the first flight risks somewhat.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top