What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"Say Type Experimental..."

NewbRVator

Well Known Member
RV's. Gotta love em.
So nice to hear ARTCC "Say Type Experimental..." after giving traffic alert and the little RV speeding up and avoiding their standard certificated brethren.
 
I was flying back into Tampa today IFR after a 2-day trip up in Alabama and for the first time ever I was given a speed reduction. But not once but twice— both times for 30 knots!!
 
Last edited:
I used to use 'Experimental RV-7 ...' and was once told to skip the 'Experimental' part and just use 'RV-7' as FAA actually has all the Vans models listed as A/C Type Designators per FAA Order 7360 ID, page C137.

Canada (per ICAO) has similar.
 
Indeed. Drop the "experimental" nonsense. Useless. Type is useful. Don't bother quoting the FARs about that first contact with ATC. They don't care either.

John Siebold
 
...and the little RV speeding up and avoiding their standard certificated brethren.
Isn't that a great feeling? Last week my little 140 HP Lancair had a 60 Kt overtake on a 160 HP C-172. Yup, I blew his doors off when I passed him!
 
Indeed. Drop the "experimental" nonsense. Useless. Type is useful. Don't bother quoting the FARs about that first contact with ATC. They don't care either.

John Siebold

Since my oplims state it, I always preface my call to a tower and only a tower with “experimental” and only on my initial call. There is no requirement to preface a call to any other ATC facility. In my experience flying IFR in the system, which I do regularly and on every cross country, using “RV 728TT” is more than adequate as ATC is generally well aware of the RV line’s performance (the RV-12 might be an exception).
 
Best one I heard was he is off your right side, about a hundred knots of closure; appr was talking to a small ga plane warning them about me on my way to my home field.
 
On my trip into the US last month, I think I only had one controller consistently include experimental when talking to me. It definitely wasn't the one at Billings vectoring me for arrival between an A319 and a B712. He kept on passing me as a Cirrus to the jets. Guess I was coming in a little fast. I corrected them on next contact, I don't want to be labelled as a Cirrus - such a downgrade.

Most places were happy to refer to me simply as an RV9.
 
except when...

the controller comes back to you confused as to what type of aircraft the "Army" is flying today.

"Romeo Victor" seems to confuse them just as much, at first.
 
Today at an undisclosed location; Experimental xxxx taxi via charlie bravo hotel to the ramp and park by the silver experimental :D

 
Since my oplims state it, I always preface my call to a tower and only a tower with ?experimental? and only on my initial call. There is no requirement to preface a call to any other ATC facility.
The exact reason my initial radio call to ATC is always with EXPERIMENTAL.

Indeed. Drop the "experimental" nonsense. Useless. Type is useful. Don't bother quoting the FARs about that first contact with ATC. They don't care either.
IMHO nobody gets to decide which rule(s) to follow and which ones to ignore. Proceed at your own risk but I will follow the rule(s).

:cool:
 
Which oplim?

The exact reason my initial radio call to ATC is always with EXPERIMENTAL.


IMHO nobody gets to decide which rule(s) to follow and which ones to ignore. Proceed at your own risk but I will follow the rule(s).

:cool:

Try as I might, in my op lims i cannot find where I need to use ?Experimental? except on flight plan filing forms. Which OpLim contains this requirement?

Thank you.
 
I just looked through the Ops Lims that were issued to me about a month and a half ago for my latest airplane, and it appears that the requirement to notify a Tower of the experimental nature of the aircraft has gone away - but you do need to note it on a flight plan.

However, my Ops Lims are for a turbojet, and there are a bunch of things you find on them that I don't see on my RV Ops lims, so better to confirm with a recently-issued RV set....

Paul
 
My previous RV-8's Ops Lims (Issued in 2001) has this proviso which applies to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 ops:

i-9dHVtJT-M.jpg


However, my current RV-8's Ops Lims (Issued in 2016) does not seem to have a similar proviso.

Maybe Mel or Joe Norris can shed some light on the change.

Mine (Aug 2015) has the exact same verbiage but in section 28.

8a66.jpg


:cool:
 
The ridiculous Ops limits strike again. My old ones said I had to tell ATC like the ones you guys have from older Ops Limits. The new one I got for my Gyro on November 2018 deleted that and now only says when I file IFR.

Of course it also says that to fly the Gyro I must have a Single Engine AIRPLANE certificate, which is 100% incorrect !!! That's how dumb these Ops Limits really are.

I have an appointment on Monday to get the new Ops Limits for my RV now with a new registration and I'm going to show them the Gyro to see what they say.
 
doesnt matter if its in your ops specs or not its in 91.319 (d) (3) nuf said.

bob burns
RV-4 n82RB
 
I enjoy saying experimental! I like everything about it. I like letting people know that I built this thing! I like the fact that it is never considered airworthy and I fly it all over the continent. As you probably know, an experimental aircraft is only suitable for safe operation and never considered airworthy.

That being said, if you say RV nowadays you are pretty much identifying the experimental nature of this airplane because RV's are so popular everybody already knows the experimental nature of these machines. Therefore, you are in compliance of the regulation, in my opinion anyways.

What I'm saying is the term RV and experimental are virtually synonymous.

I will never own another airplane that is more suitable for me than my RV. Kudos to Van for designing an incredible fleet of aircraft!

:) CJ
 
I enjoy saying experimental! I like everything about it. I like letting people know that I built this thing! I like the fact that it is never considered airworthy and I fly it all over the continent. As you probably know, an experimental aircraft is only suitable for safe operation and never considered airworthy.

Yup, that is why I do it. I already get people joking that RVs are just another C172 as they are everywhere and you can’t fly to any airport now that doesn’t have one or more on the field, like C172. I am proud it is experimental. I got it in my N number as well. That is the X in my N66AX.
 
Small point

The pilot in command is always required to determine if an aircraft is airworthy or not. The FAA doesn’t do it, your mechanic isn’t allowed to do it, but my wife bets her life that I do it before every flight.

However, I agree - status as an Experimental is a badge of honor! I built it, I tested it, and I fly it :)


I enjoy saying experimental! I like everything about it. I like letting people know that I built this thing! I like the fact that it is never considered airworthy and I fly it all over the continent. As you probably know, an experimental aircraft is only suitable for safe operation and never considered airworthy.

:) CJ
 
The pilot in command is always required to determine if an aircraft is airworthy or not. The FAA doesn?t do it, your mechanic isn?t allowed to do it, but my wife bets her life that I do it before every flight.

However, I agree - status as an Experimental is a badge of honor! I built it, I tested it, and I fly it :)

Just a nit, but it gets to Capt Johns comment. E-AB aircraft aren?t ?airworthy? by FAA definition as they don?t have a type certificate to conform to. That?s why our condition inspection log entries state they are in a safe condition to operate and we don?t use the term airworthy. However that doesn?t invalidate your point about the responsibility the PIC has in determining the airworthiness or safe condition of the aircraft, regardless of its certification.
 
The ridiculous Ops limits strike again. My old ones said I had to tell ATC like the ones you guys have from older Ops Limits. The new one I got for my Gyro on November 2018 deleted that and now only says when I file IFR.

Of course it also says that to fly the Gyro I must have a Single Engine AIRPLANE certificate, which is 100% incorrect !!! That's how dumb these Ops Limits really are.
Ridiculous or not (I am not going to argue that point) you still can't pick and choose which rule(s) to comply with.

:cool:
 
I enjoy saying experimental! I like everything about it. I like letting people know that I built this thing! I like the fact that it is never considered airworthy and I fly it all over the continent. As you probably know, an experimental aircraft is only suitable for safe operation and never considered airworthy.

That being said, if you say RV nowadays you are pretty much identifying the experimental nature of this airplane because RV's are so popular everybody already knows the experimental nature of these machines. Therefore, you are in compliance of the regulation, in my opinion anyways.

What I'm saying is the term RV and experimental are virtually synonymous.

I will never own another airplane that is more suitable for me than my RV. Kudos to Van for designing an incredible fleet of aircraft!

:) CJ

Yeppers. Had a random mobile QSO on 40 meters yesterday with a ham in New Hampshire. He happened to mention he was going to take some glider students up for soaring lessons tomorrow. We talked of our common flying interests; turns out he's flown in several types of RV's from his connections with Spruce Creek, knew the -10 was a four-place... and congratulated me on starting and sticking with "the fine lineage of experimentals that Dick Van Grunsven designed." Pretty perceptive for a glider guy :D
 
Ridiculous or not (I am not going to argue that point) you still can't pick and choose which rule(s) to comply with.

:cool:

I'm not saying that following the Ops Limits is ridiculous, I'm saying that the FAA sometimes includes things that are ridiculous and aren't even correct. You don't need a Single Engine Airplane certificate to fly a gyro, you need a Rotorcraft-Gyroplane certificate. I hope to have that finally removed from my Ops Limits tomorrow.

I also spent almost a year to get them to remove another incorrect limitation on my LODA, something that took opening an investigation and having one of the investigators from the "Quality Control & Investigation Branch, AFB-470" in Washington come visit the FSDO and also a couple of letters to my Senator ! Yep, even had to contact my Senator for him to call the FAA and get them to correct the LODA even though the FAA had told me they wrote the LODA wrong.

I follow all of the laws (never even had a traffic ticket my entire life), Regulations and Ops Limits, if not you would have fired me when you were my boss back in the Air Force :D:D:D:):):)
 
Last edited:
I follow all of the laws (never even had a traffic ticket my entire life), Regulations and Ops Limits, if not you would have fired me when you were my boss back in the Air Force :D:D:D:):):)

OMG, I laughed so hard I almost wet myself!!!

ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u2.png


Te quedo BIEN!!!
 
Last edited:
Funny but even the fine folks in the tower go back and forth. I notice sometimes they?ll correct my parlance and say ?Experimental? after I identified as RV-6 or likewise ?RV? after I say experimental.

Nice to know RV?s are so successful and universally accepted as airworthy at least by design specs that the controllers think of them as such.
 
AND...

Almost always when you hear another experimental on the frequency... it's an RV.

When I first decided to build, I didn't want an RV because everyone else had one. When I decided on the RV I bought it because everyone else had one. Know what I mean?

Sometimes they blend my call sign like this: Experimental RV7JS!

:D CJ
 
Refer to the AIM?

I realized yesterday after referring to the AIM, I've been doing this wrong.

Here is the excerpt:

3.Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer?s name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer?s name or model is stated, the prefix ?N? is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha. EXAMPLE−1.Bonanza Six Five Five Golf. 2.Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit ?Experimental? after initial contact).
 
I've also been an "Army" RVator

I try to make it clear, but people sometimes hear "Army."

I was once asked what I was flying by.... a "fellow" Army pilot!

A passenger once thought I called my Cherokee a "turkey," for what that's worth.... :D

Yep, flew all the way from FL to NC once and seemed to be getting extra helpful routing the whole time. Turns out they thought I was Army the whole time also.

Chris
 
Indeed. Drop the "experimental" nonsense. Useless. Type is useful. Don't bother quoting the FARs about that first contact with ATC. They don't care either.

John Siebold

Actually I asked the tower guys at my home airport if they would prefer me saying Van's or Van's RV-8 and they said NO....they want:

Experimental November 880 Bravo Charlie.

First time only.

After that it's zero bravo charlie

However when they are informing other aircraft of my presence they ALWAYS refer to me as an "experimental"....as in:

"Experimental to your right about 2 o'clock, 3 miles"
 
Last edited:
10,000 RVs flying. Controllers don't know what they are by now? I don't see the need for Experimental.

Around here (lots of RVs), we just say RV and so do the controllers. We never use Experimental, preceding type.
 
10,000 RVs flying. Controllers don't know what they are by now? I don't see the need for Experimental.

Around here (lots of RVs), we just say RV and so do the controllers. We never use Experimental, preceding type.

Other pilots may not know what they are. I didn't until 2015.
 
Other pilots may not know what they are. I didn't until 2015.

But they don't know what an "experimental" is either. At least in terms of using the name for visual identification purposes. When someone says experimental, it ranges from a classic warbird to a murphy moose to an RV.

I believe that when this rule was created, experimental aircraft were inherently more risky propositions (limited numbers, no kits, etc) and the FAA wanted the tower folks to be notified to deal with that increased risk. RV's don't really fall into that category of risk and likely why most controllers don't care that people call an RV an RV instead of experimental. The RV risk profile is on par with most certified aircraft.

Larry
 
Last edited:
But they don't know what an "experimental" is either. At least in terms of using the name for visual identification purposes. When someone says experimental, it ranges from a classic warbird to a murphy moose to an RV.

I believe that when this rule was created, experimental aircraft were inherently more risky propositions (limited numbers, no kits, etc) and the FAA wanted the tower folks to be notified to deal with that increased risk. RV's don't really fall into that category of risk and likely why most controllers don't care that people call an RV an RV instead of experimental. The RV risk profile is on par with most certified aircraft.

Larry

But they ARE alerted to look for something other than a typical spam can. They are put on a heightened alert. They now know the situation is a trifle bit different than if a cherokee was coming in.

It's really helpful.
 
RV

Around here it seems they prefer type as in RV. I?ve been saying RV 620RV on initial without question. Plus it lets them know our capabilities, so when they say RV 20RV cleared to land keep your speed up for #2 they know we can.
 
I use "experimental" because of what I believe is communication clarity because of my N number.

I call "experimental 72 Mike Echo" and it is clear what my call sign is.

Lets say I call "RV 72 Mike Echo" , what is my N number? 72ME or just 2ME because the aircraft type identifier is "RV7". Same applies if I tried to say "RV7....72ME." Am I 772ME?

Once they get it, sure, self referencing as RV is fine but the EXP call habits are d***ed hard to break.
 
But they ARE alerted to look for something other than a typical spam can. They are put on a heightened alert. They now know the situation is a trifle bit different than if a cherokee was coming in.

It's really helpful.

Different how? The warbird (under an experimental a/w cert) comes in very differently than the experimental cub clone, both of which are quite different than the typical spam can. I would argue that the RV-10 comes in just like the V35 in my neighbors hanger.

Experimental is so vague of a term, I argue that it doesn't really help other pilots. It is equally as vague as "another plane."

And what if the referenced pilot doesn't know what a hawker is (less common than an RV)? How does he prepare?

I would argue that most pilots will not have RV's at the bottom of their aircraft name recognition list. Many other uncommon aircraft name that brings the same risk as you define. If this was the FAA's concern, aircraft identification and naming would be on the private pilot exam.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Different how? The warbird (under an experimental a/w cert) comes in very differently than the experimental cub clone, both of which are quite different than the typical spam can. I would argue that the RV-10 comes in just like the V35 in my neighbors hanger.

Experimental is so vague of a term, I argue that it doesn't really help other pilots. It is equally as vague as "another plane."

And what if the referenced pilot doesn't know what a hawker is (less common than an RV)? How does he prepare?

I would argue that most pilots will not have RV's at the bottom of their aircraft name recognition list. Many other uncommon aircraft name that brings the same risk as you define. If this was the FAA's concern, aircraft identification and naming would be on the private pilot exam.

Larry

I explained how it was different.

And I would argue exactly the opposite....from personal experience both what I was aware of before 2015 and the fact that pilots who come up to me to look at the plane ask me what brand/kind of plane it is. They do not know.

We live in a world - the experimental world. Most pilots do not live in that world and it's easy to assume they are as knowledgeable about what an RV is as we are. I don't believe it, from, as I say, personal experience.
 
Isn't that a great feeling? Last week my little 140 HP Lancair had a 60 Kt overtake on a 160 HP C-172. Yup, I blew his doors off when I passed him!
It is! A coupla months ago over Blythe, CA headed east in an experimental I passed up a C-172 with an ATC indicated 100 knot overtake; sweet! But, I did have a wee horsepower advantage; a 1425 hp R-1820 bolted on the front of a T-28... is that cheating?? Nah. Fuel burn? You don?t wanna know...
 
That's funny John!

Last year I was heading to an airport northwest of Charlotte, NC when I see a plane on the ADS-B screen off to my right heading to the same place.

I'm thinking I don't want to get behind a Cessna and do a BIG pattern or God forbid land behind a Cirrus! So I push the throttle full forward and muster all 175 knots my -9 can do and proceed to watch that ADS-B symbol just March on by me.

When he checked in on unicorn.

It was the P51 from Triple Tree. That explains it!
 
Last edited:
I don?t bother saying my type since on initial call up I?m Canadian Gulf --Alfa Romeo Victor ,,,, not saying how many years I paid to hold that registration!
 
I never had any issues with ATC when I simply identified with "Experimental Eight Romeo Victor," except when I was approaching Cape Girardeau, MO, one day.

Me: "Cape Girardeau tower, Experimental Eight Romeo Victor, 10 miles north with Echo ?"

ATC: "Experimental Eight Romeo Victor, please say full callsign."

Me: "November Eight Romeo Victor."

ATC: "Please state model of Experimental."

Me: [sigh] "RV-8, sir."

ATC: "Oh. N8RV, welcome to Cape Girardeau. Report entering downwind for ?" :D
 
RV’s are easy guys - I’m trying to figure out the call sign for the new little Subsonex.

“Subsonex 958PD”? Nah...there are only ten flying - no one knows what they are!

“Experimental 958PD”? COudl be anything from a Breezy to a .... jet....not very informative!

“Mini-Jet 958PD”? Getting better - tells folks its tiny, and a jet...you can’t see it, but it needs some space!

“Experiemntal jet 958PD” ? Well that seems to be working OK....its just a mouthful.

The bottom lien is that the call for any airplane should actually give the listener some useful information that helps them know what is out there, speed and size wise. And if your Ops Lims say you have to say “Experiemntal” to a tower, then you have to do that....otherwise, be informative.

And to repeat, pretty much everyone knows what an RV is these days (so long as you speak it clearly enough becasue yeah - I’ve gotten the “army” thing too.....).

Paul
 
Never said Experimental

I have been owned my -10 now for over a year. I have flown it transcontinental twice, logged over 140 hours, at least 1/2 IFR and never uttered the phrase experimental. I have never been questioned by the FAA or ATC.

If IFR, the flight plan identifies the type, if VFR, ATC knows what an RV-10 is. I am not experimenting with anything and don’t feel a need to identify my plane as such despite the controller/pilot golassarie.
 
Coming out of Big Bear Saturday I asked for an IFR clearance to KLGB: "RV814 Romeo Victor say type RV, six, seven, nine, and suffix..."
My reply: RV ten, one zero slant golf."
His reply: "Ah..."

-Marc
 
Back
Top