Sport Pilot Talk

I'm planning on using a builder-assist program to build an E-AB gyroplane. FAR 91.319 says in part:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway.

Since I live in Northern VA, densely populated is pretty much everywhere. How does this regulation translate to life in the real world of East-coast USA?

Also, do people really announce to the control tower that they are Experimental? I think, the tower is more interested in the plane's performance so something like Light Sport for a fixed-wing or Gyroplane for a Gyro, tells them all they need to know.

I trained in densely populated area ( Chicago subs ) at a towered airport and from my observations :

- experimental planes ( mostly RVs ) fly all over Chicago area
- they always announce as experimental

I suggest you comply with all FAR's, regardless of what someone else does.

See #9 on my Sky Arrow’s Operating Limitations:



Pretty sure that’s boilerplate for an S-LSA converted to E-LSA. Not sure about E-AB.

Reading mine, there seems to be virtually no functional difference between that and Minimum Safe Altitudes - General.

Thank you Warmi and Fast Eddie, very helpful information. Exactly what I was looking for. Before committing, I'll ask the kit manufacturer for samples of operating limitations for their recent builds.

Glad to help. Good on you for asking questions like this in advance.

Here's my #17 from my E-LSA operating limitations. Basically the same as Eddie's and sounds just like the "minimum safe altitude" rule.
Here in the greater Tampa/Clearwater area, which is certainly meets the definition of "CONGESTED", we have a flight path that Tampa approach will have you fly if you want to cross from east to west or visa-versa from Tampa over to Clearwater if you don't want to go around. The "bridge transition" as it's called, will take you right over downtown Tampa and through very busy Class B airspace directly over Tampa International Airport. You fly runway centerline for 10-28 anywhere between 2100 and 3500 feet, ATC will assign your altitude. This will have you fly right over the top of airlines landing below you at TPA. Quite a spectacular site.

This is done all the time in E-AB aircraft and also E-LSA aircraft and no one has ever been turned away because they said "experimental" when calling Tampa approach. Our local EAA chapter does this all the time.

Based on the FAR's you guys have posted, this is a non-issue. As far as getting cleared through class B, that probably has more to do with VFR vs IFR than being experimental. Atlanta will sometimes clear VFR directly over KATL and sometimes say, "Stay clear of class B." I've had it work both ways when VFR, but for clarification, I fly an SLSA.

Usually when I fly West through the JFK class B they have me fly the Kennedy VOR at 6500' if my course is going to take me near the airport. Otherwise I'm usually OK if I'm flying at 6500'.

It’s essentially a non-issue. Operate normally and with care, you should always have an eye on how to safely mKe an emergency landing in an engine failure, no matter what you fly.

I’m sure it’s happened, but I have never read of a pilot getting violated after an emergency landing just because they were flying an experimental, regardless of damage on the ground.

MrMorden wrote:It’s essentially a non-issue. Operate normally and with care, you should always have an eye on how to safely mKe an emergency landing in an engine failure, no matter what you fly.

I’m sure it’s happened, but I have never read of a pilot getting violated after an emergency landing just because they were flying an experimental, regardless of damage on the ground.

Exactly, I'd treat it as a non-issue and fly safely no matter what you fly.

One more point: IMO, the FAR should read “without undue hazard” and not “without hazard”. As it reads, it’s literally impossible to comply with. Every off-airport landing involves hazard. Land on an empty highway, and if you bend a stop sign or ding a guardrail, you are in violation. If a driver watching your landing rear-ends another vehicle, you are in violation.

Like the “careless or reckless” language, this is another case of the FAA writing an FAR so broadly that it serves as a “we can bust anybody we want, when we decide to” clause. And because the FARs fall under administrative law and nit criminal law, there is no presumption of innocence, you have to prove you are in compliance.

Just do your best to fly safely, and be aware that if the Federal Eye of Sauron falls upon you, there isn’t much you can do about it anyway.

Along with the privilege of flying airplanes comes the responsibility to do it without endangering others. That's exactly how it should be. I've been flying for 55 years without issue. If I thought is was over regulated or unduly restrictive, I wouldn't fly.

TimTaylor wrote:Along with the privilege of flying airplanes comes the responsibility to do it without endangering others. That's exactly how it should be. I've been flying for 55 years without issue. If I thought is was over regulated or unduly restrictive, I wouldn't fly.

Well, so I presume you only fly over unpopulated areas because sure as hell if you were to have an engine out and land on some road , or a parking lot , you would be by definition endangering others since you would have very limited control ...

If I lose an engine and land on a highway, I expect to get a violation. I should get a violation. Highways are not emergency landing strips for aircraft. If someone gets hurt or damaged as a result of my actions, I would expect to be sued. For the privilege of flying in our airspace, I accept this responsibility.