I own a Cessna 182 that was originally owned by the Washington State Police. While they owned it they added an automotive-style muffler (planes don't normally have mufflers) to use it for stealth surveillance. They tore that all out before they sold the plane.
Serious question from someone who knows very little about planes. Do they seriously still have new carbuereuted planes? I can understand if it's a Cessna from the 50's, 60's, 70's, but I'm surprised they haven't been converted to EFI just from an efficiency and reliability stand point. Does that have to do with all the certification required for aircraft? (ie, if you change the engine, the aircraft has to go through another inspection by the FAA or whomever?)
Haha, I looked into doing this for an avionics upgrade for a light aircraft I used to have a share in. Apparently the taxman actually has time to chase down people who fly their aircraft around for tax reasons.
To be clear, we wound up doing the upgrade in California where the aircraft was based.
However this FAA approval is apparently for the Gen1 fixed wing plane (which is quieter than a drone anyway). Their Gen2 "drone" design is barely audible.
That's for tampering with aircraft "used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce", which seems unlikely for a private GA plane, even if you stretch the definition of "interstate commerce" like courts like to do. Plus the section is really about other people's planes, not ones you own, otherwise anybody performing maintenance work "disabling" a plane just committed a felony.
The term "grandfathered" is used in FAA literature for both pre-date (literally) and the designed before a regulation came into being.
The reason it exists is otherwise the FAA could release a new requirement that would halt a pre-existing production line that didn't meet it.
> Because part 135 operators will have limited ETOPS operations, the FAA has decided to grandfather from today's rule all part 135 airplanes manufactured up to 8 years from the effective date of the rule. For purposes of airworthiness requirements, part 135 operators may use these airplanes in ETOPS without certification under § 25.1535. This is a change from the NPRM, which proposed grandfathering only those airplanes that were on an operator's operations specifications up to 8 years after the rule. Under the NPRM, they would then have had to remain on the operator's operations specifications to continue to operate ETOPS.
> b. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance to affected U.S. operators that operate aircraft outside the United States with aircraft that were never required to be noise certified. If you have such an aircraft, this AC outlines the noise certification requirement dates so you can confirm that your aircraft indeed pre-dates the requirements and should be considered acceptable. We use the term “grandfathered” for these aircraft. We strongly recommend operators of such aircraft to use the FAA form in Appendix 1 that includes a grandfather clause.
> These seats should provide adequate vision to the pilot's panel and forward windows in visual system models. "Grandfather rights" prevail on previously approved simulators; however, efforts should be made to improve surveillance visibility. These observer seats need not represent the aircraft seats.
So are you allowed to this to your own personal plane (engine swap with non standard engine)? Or do you still have to get FAA approval even for private use?
I guess I'm wondering if there's a grassroots community of people doing engine swaps on their planes?
Plus they did everything they could to get it grandfathered in, and not have to re-certify it. As a result there’s no pilot training on it as a distinct type, and as a result...
Thanks, this gives me something to look into. I've been too busy the past few years to fly my long range planes and need to catch up on what's changed.
One could argue that the EGT and other secondary engine items could be hidden on secondary tabs on something like a G3X. Unless they own their own aircraft, I don't think most GA pilots can do much with their eyes closed.
And they were in the air yesterday with flight paths along major freeways in the SF Bay Area: https://imgur.com/a/u5hbfAK
Does that mean conclusively they are doing speed checks? No, but they have the capability. Does the CHP have a lot of these planes? Not that I can find records of, probably few and far between for a state as populous as California... but the treat is real.
Most of these jets are registered as Experimental-Exhibition, which has (slightly) relaxed conformance rules vs other multi-engine turbine-powered aircraft.
Single engine turbine (or multi-engine piston) operated under Part 91 (approximately "not-for-hire") was already reasonably relaxed about "owner produced parts".
There's a pretty complete description of what they did in the Form 337 history: http://mike.laiosa.org/N6594E/Airworthiness.pdf - see in particular pages 27 and 55.
reply