AVCANADA

"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)

(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).

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?

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'm going to exaggerate to make chuck'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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?