Precisely. Pilots have been and will continue to be self-certifying on a daily basis; nothing about the new rules changes that.

(Written on 2017/01/13)(Permalink)

Well, clearly some connectors in this plane didn't function correctly, whether they were connectors between engines or between an engine and the airframe.

(Written on 2017/01/06)(Permalink)

Thanks for the clarification. This is a known issue we're working on now - when tracking an airline flight using the tail #, the photo thumbnail doesn't work as expected. We should have it fixed in the next day or so.

(Written on 2016/12/05)(Permalink)

Do you have a source for this? The official 2016 rulebook seems to be pretty clear: http://airrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2016-RENO-AIR-RACING-ASSOCIATION-INC-official.pdf (page 6, line 40) "OPERATIONAL transmit and receive VHF radios are required for all race classes qualifying and/or racing at Reno."

(Written on 2016/09/20)(Permalink)

Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one - unless the FAA either makes some serious changes to the TSOs, or provides some kind of alternate path for E-AB aircraft. However, this STC announcement, to me, is indicative of the FAA taking a positive approach to things like this. Hopefully this is a harbinger of things to come. I'm building an RV-8 right now, which I intend to make IFR-capable when it's done - which pretty much means stuffing a 430 or 650 or something like that into the panel. I intend to go with a Dynon Skyview EFIS system, and everything will be well-integrated...except whatever certified GPS I install. I'll have to maintain proficiency on that one piece of equipment just so I can fly IFR effectively. It would be a whole lot nicer if I could just use the Skyview GPS software for all navigation...

(Written on 2016/04/08)(Permalink)

I really need to get back to work on my -8.

(Written on 2016/03/04)(Permalink)

The original story was inaccurate. The accident aircraft lost control shortly after takeoff and came down atop another plane by the hangar. The student was able to extricate himself from the wreckage, but the instructor was not so fortunate.

(Written on 2016/02/02)(Permalink)

Regardless of whether or not your comment is farfetched, it couldn't possibly be any less relevant to a discussion about UAS registration.

(Written on 2015/12/14)(Permalink)

Thanks! If you're ever having difficulty sleeping at night, you can read through my build log: http://rv.squawk1200.net/

(Written on 2015/10/20)(Permalink)

After taking a cursory look at the lawsuit, I believe the claim against Van's Aircraft is pretty much baseless. The filing grossly misrepresents the nature of the experimental category. Essentially, they assert that the category exists to promote individual innovation, and that Van's is perverting the intent of the category by manufacturing easy-to-assemble kits that don't serve that innovation purpose. But the aircraft commonly known as "homebuilts" fall under the "experimental amateur-built" legal category, and the defining criteria for this category is that the aircraft is built by an amateur for "educational and recreational purposes." There is absolutely nothing calling out innovation as a criteria. There's no merit whatsoever to their assertion that Van's is exploiting a loophole. E-AB is about education and recreation, and the RV kits in no way subvert that purpose. You still have to fabricate and prepare parts, shoot rivets, plan and install engine and electrical systems,

(Written on 2015/10/20)(Permalink)