High Performance licence for homebuilts?

[AEROBAT]

I was looking at Transport Canada's list of aircraft requiring a "High Performance" rating. Some of the planes there are not what I thought would be high performance. The BD-4 for one, the VNE and stall speed are below the minimums. The Quickie Q2 and the Cozy are listed as well. Anybody know why they are doing that?

[Aeros]

I don't have any numbers for those machines, but I would suspect that it's a wing loading issue.

CAR 401.01:

"high-performance aeroplane", with respect to a rating, means

(a) an aeroplane that is specified in the minimum flight crew document as requiring only one pilot and that has a maximum speed (Vne) of 250 KIAS or greater or a stall speed (Vso) of 80 KIAS or greater, or

(b) an amateur-built aeroplane that has a wing loading greater than that specified in section 549.103 of the Airworthiness Manual; (avion à hautes performances)

CAR549.103:

(a)

...

(2) High performance amateur-built aeroplanes are amateur-built aeroplanes having a wing loading exceeding the values given in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

Information Note: (Ref. AMA 549.103/1 and AMA 549.103/2)

...

(b)

....

(2) Except for high performance amateur-built aeroplanes, the wing loading M/S (W/S) shall not be greater than:

(i) For wings without flaps, M/S = 65 Kg/m2 (W/S=13.3 lb/ft2); or

(ii) For wings with flaps, the value calculated using the method of Appendix A of this Chapter, but not exceeding 100 Kg/m2 (20.4 lb/ft2).

[ahramin]

Depending on what year they were finished, some BD-4s did indeed have a wing loading higher than 20.4 lbs/ft2. Most of the ones in Canada have the long wing to avoid this but many in the US are running wing loadings of 23.5 lbs/ft2. Mine is 18.7 lbs/ft2.

[crazycanuck]

I was looking at Transport Canada's list of aircraft requiring a "High Performance" rating. Some of the planes there are not what I thought would be high performance. The BD-4 for one, the VNE and stall speed are below the minimums. The Quickie Q2 and the Cozy are listed as well. Anybody know why they are doing that?

I am building a Cozy so I am unfortunately dealing with this issue. There really isn't much clarity as to what is required before TC considers that you have knowledge of the aircraft. I guess building the aircraft with your own hands doesn't count.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The knowledge acquired building an aircraft has very little value that will transfeer over to flying it

Building and flying are two entirely different areas of skills.

Sort of like saying that a master tool maker can make a scaple and then have the knowledge to perform surgery with it.

[crazycanuck]

The knowledge acquired building an aircraft has very little value that will transfeer over to flying it

Building and flying are two entirely different areas of skills.

Sort of like saying that a master tool maker can make a scaple and then have the knowledge to perform surgery with it.

I don’t think I agree with that one. It is difficult to understand how having a detailed understanding of each system on the aircraft wouldn’t significantly contribute to ones ability fly it. . Yeager was chosen to fly the X1 because he was also a mechanic who “understood the systems”. When a person obsesses about every detail a particular model of aircraft for 10 years they tend to pick up information about its flying characteristics. Sure, flying also requires experience but that is no different from flying some spam can built by some unionized worker on an assembly line.

The problem is that there isn’t a road map; rather there is only a vague explanation of the “training” required. I have no problem with jumping through to hoops to acquire the appropriate training, but they don’t even tell you what that training is let alone how to get it.

It is so great to know that the Federal Government is looking out for my well being.

[Beefitarian]

I'm going to exaggerate to make .'s point a bit here.

Let's say I have 346 hours flying in "union made spam cans" but am highly skilled in crafting airplanes. I build an F-104. Do you think it would be safe to jump in it and go?

I see where you would have some theoretical knowledge of some of the differences but don't quite see how you are going to have the feel for what you need to be doing to stay ahead of the plane. The reason the rule came into effect was pilots we're having problems flying those types.

Don't feel like you're being treated unfairly. I was talking to a pilot I know that was flying 737 he bought a single and his insurance company asked him for a number of hours dual he said, "I felt insulted, then once I got out with an instructor, I was relieved he was there for the first few."

[crazycanuck]

I'm going to exaggerate to make .'s point a bit here.

Let's say I have 346 hours flying in "union made spam cans" but am highly skilled in crafting airplanes. I build an F-104. Do you think it would be safe to jump in it and go?

I see where you would have some theoretical knowledge of some of the differences but don't quite see how you are going to have the feel for what you need to be doing to stay ahead of the plane. The reason the rule came into effect was pilots we're having problems flying those types.

Don't feel like you're being treated unfairly. I was talking to a pilot I know that was flying 737 he bought a single and his insurance company asked him for a number of hours dual he said, "I felt insulted, then once I got out with an instructor, I was relieved he was there for the first few."

I get it that you can’t just jump in any old plane and fly it. The trouble is that the requirements are not articulated very clearly. I am happy to do whatever training is required. I’ll invest the time and money. So what is it? What is required? What is the process? TC says 200 hours in “airplanes” plus adequate training. What is the similar aircraft that I need to learn to fly? It would be a disaster to spend ten years of your life building something only to get jerked around by some bureaucrat who puts you into an impossible situation.

[Beefitarian]

I think the intent is actually good on this but agree if you get the wrong TC person things could get sticky.

The way I see that wording is if you and I both build one. You have a PPL with 200 hours, go out with an instructor and obviously can fly it. After 3 hours to make sure it was not luck or an illusion he stamps and signs you off as "safe on type."

I get out there with 732 hours multi jet F/O and it takes 15 hours before it looks like I kind of can handle the thing, it stops being about which one of us made a nicer airplane.

If they put a number on it like 9 hours on type now you're stuck paying for 6 more hours you don't need and the other instructor is feeling pressured because I'm whining at 11 hours about him taking too long.

[Beefitarian]

In other words, "Careful what you wish for." if TC puts a number on it, it's going to be high and the minimum.

[crazycanuck]

I think the intent is actually good on this but agree if you get the wrong TC person things could get sticky.

The way I see that wording is if you and I both build one. You have a PPL with 200 hours, go out with an instructor and obviously can fly it. After 3 hours to make sure it was not luck or an illusion he stamps and signs you off as "safe on type."

I get out there with 732 hours multi jet F/O and it takes 15 hours before it looks like I kind of can handle the thing, it stops being about which one of us made a nicer airplane.

If they put a number on it like 9 hours on type now you're stuck paying for 6 more hours you don't need and the other instructor is feeling pressured because I'm whining at 11 hours about him taking too long.

The problem isn’t the number of hours, it is on which aircraft. There are only a handful of Cozy’s registered in Canada so obviously you are not going to get any time in a Cozy. There are only 25 Long-Ez’s which is the most similar alternate aircraft, but it is still very unlikely one would get sufficient access to one. You can’t rent experimental aircraft in Canada either legally or logistically. Further, I doubt that someone is going to lend their pride and joy to practise on even if you can find an instructor willing to ride in an experimental aircraft along with you. There are no certified canard aircraft, at least not in that weight category. I have to spend the next 5 or so years building time so that I can flight test the aircraft when it is complete. So which certified aircraft should I use to build time?

[Beefitarian]

F-16 appearently.

"Flying my Cozy is as close to flying an F-16 as you can get."

Which does somewhat contradict.

Q. May I do aerobatics in a Mark IV?
A. No! The Mark IV is rated in the normal category. It was designed for economical, high-speed, cross- country flying. It does not stall and cannot do inverted maneuvers and picks up speed rapidly when pointed down. Aerobatics are not recommended.

[RenegadeAV8R]

I get it that you can’t just jump in any old plane and fly it. The trouble is that the requirements are not articulated very clearly. I am happy to do whatever training is required. I’ll invest the time and money. So what is it? What is required? What is the process? TC says 200 hours in “airplanes” plus adequate training. What is the similar aircraft that I need to learn to fly? It would be a disaster to spend ten years of your life building something only to get jerked around by some bureaucrat who puts you into an impossible situation.

I am aware of a case were the pilot/builder of a high performance homebuilt obtained his type rating after a TC inspector witnessed the pilot lands his aircraft... The TC inspector said something along the line of "I saw you land, therefore you know how to fly your aircraft". At the time, the pilot/builder had already accumulated of fair amount of flight time with his aircraft.

[Colonel Sanders]

The safety record of homebuilts is not as good as certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours

Over and over again, we see builders spend 5 or 10 years not flying after loggin maybe 100 hours in a docile certified trainer. At the end of the 5 to 10 years of building and not flying, builders are often not competent to fly even docile certified aircraft, let alone snaky homebuilts with high wing loadings and nasty, uncertifiable handling characteristics.

Then they insist on doing the first flight because "they know the aircraft". Yeah, they know how to crash their aircraft. Homebuilts have horrible safety records, and it's not hard to see why.

Pilots like the ones on this thread that know it all, die at OSH every year. Darwin at work. Just don't carry any passengers and try not to kill anyone on the ground, ok?

[Bede]

RenegadeAv8r is on the right track. I own a Smyth Sidewinder which depending on the GW is high performance. I plan on upping the GW to 1600 which it was designed for (up from 1350). I need to get a type rating in the aircraft which consists of doing a circuit with TC watching from the ground.

[crazycanuck]

Pilots like the ones on this thread that know it all, die at OSH every year. Darwin at work. Just don't carry any passengers and try not to kill anyone on the ground, ok?

Have you even been to Oshkosh?

[robertsailor1]

The safety stats like all stats are open to some interpretation. The original builders have a much better safety record than 2nd hand purchasers. Most of the home builts require better piloting skills than your typical dumbed down Cessna or Piper so don't expect to jump into one without some dual time in similar aircraft. Personally I'd go and get some 2 place Pitts time, if you can fly a Pitts well on pavement I think you will be up for most homebuilts.