Thank you. That’s what I assumed, but we know how that usually turns out. Lol
Van's Air Force
The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!
Tracking thread for Op Lim updates and new Light sport certs
- Thread starter RNB
- Start date
Thank you. That’s what I assumed, but we know how that usually turns out. Lol
MidwestRV
Member
Figured I'd post my experience quick if anyone is stuck in limbo waiting like I was.
Took a couple months to get set up with an appointment for obtaining my lsrm after I completed the course. Phone tag. Email ultimately was the way to get that scheduled after a month of waiting on call backs and calling them back a few times. Once I got an appointment it went very smooth. Really nice guys.
I went to AWC portal and put in my application for amended cert to get the new oplims the same day the new guidance was issued. Yesterday I got a call from my fsdo where they were extremely apologetic and saying it'll be a couple months at the soonest before they could get to it after it had been waiting to get accepted for over a month. They said they do have the contact info for a DAR they knew who was also processing these if I wanted. I appreciate them calling and passing along that info but unfortunate they are so backed up, they have started to get swamped with requests it sounds like.
I called the local DAR up yesterday mid day and he said he'd call the FSDO to get himself on the application after we had a brief discussion and he verified some info from me. This morning I woke up to an email with my new AWC and oplims with logbook entry in the mail. Less than 24hrs turnaround was worth the small fee for me.
Took a couple months to get set up with an appointment for obtaining my lsrm after I completed the course. Phone tag. Email ultimately was the way to get that scheduled after a month of waiting on call backs and calling them back a few times. Once I got an appointment it went very smooth. Really nice guys.
I went to AWC portal and put in my application for amended cert to get the new oplims the same day the new guidance was issued. Yesterday I got a call from my fsdo where they were extremely apologetic and saying it'll be a couple months at the soonest before they could get to it after it had been waiting to get accepted for over a month. They said they do have the contact info for a DAR they knew who was also processing these if I wanted. I appreciate them calling and passing along that info but unfortunate they are so backed up, they have started to get swamped with requests it sounds like.
I called the local DAR up yesterday mid day and he said he'd call the FSDO to get himself on the application after we had a brief discussion and he verified some info from me. This morning I woke up to an email with my new AWC and oplims with logbook entry in the mail. Less than 24hrs turnaround was worth the small fee for me.
How much was the small fee?
The LSRI instructor who's also a DAR wants $700!
MidwestRV
Member
wow, for me it was less than filling my RV-4 up with gas for a cost comparison. I considered that fair and was all done remote. I had unrelated questions and he answered them all as well. I was quite pleased.
Might want his info if Tampa FSDO keeps dragging their feet.
I also had found a DAR that would handle all of this for someone for a fee. They asked me to not share public details, PM for info if you want.
I was told no by a handful of DARs, was surprised they would not name a price. The online process seems to take all of five minutes for an owner and maybe similarly for a DAR.
I was told no by a handful of DARs, was surprised they would not name a price. The online process seems to take all of five minutes for an owner and maybe similarly for a DAR.
Well, I suspect it may take more than 5 minutes to pick the points from table D-1, edit some of them (test area), submit it all to FAA. However, if a DAR is set up to do this, probably not more than an hour, especially of the owner has already entered his application with required docs on the FAA AWC portal.
You guys are correct that it isn’t a complex process… Most of the time, but it is probably a little bit more than you would imagine.
I don’t know that it’s universal for all DAR’s, but standard policy for the office my designation is issued from is that I must get a concurrence review of the operating limitations I intend to issue, from someone in that office. This sometimes involves some back-and-forth until this part of the process is completed.
The other variable, and the reason I said, most of the time, and the reason I believe some DAR‘s are hesitant to quote a specific price, is because the amount of effort required by the DAR is directly related to the capabilities of the applicant to use AWC and complete the entire application process along with submitting the necessary documents, without a lot of hand holding by someone else.
I have had instances where I have spent more time than the hour you are estimating, with emails and phone calls just to help get someone through the online application process, before I even start any of the work that I do.
Posts made by some of the forum participants here are good evidence of that.
I don’t know that it’s universal for all DAR’s, but standard policy for the office my designation is issued from is that I must get a concurrence review of the operating limitations I intend to issue, from someone in that office. This sometimes involves some back-and-forth until this part of the process is completed.
The other variable, and the reason I said, most of the time, and the reason I believe some DAR‘s are hesitant to quote a specific price, is because the amount of effort required by the DAR is directly related to the capabilities of the applicant to use AWC and complete the entire application process along with submitting the necessary documents, without a lot of hand holding by someone else.
I have had instances where I have spent more time than the hour you are estimating, with emails and phone calls just to help get someone through the online application process, before I even start any of the work that I do.
Posts made by some of the forum participants here are good evidence of that.
It would be awesome if the FAA told us what the required docs were. There seems to be some... disagreement in the field regarding this.
I personally think the AD Biweekly Report (published every second Tuesday) is a must, and you definitely need a new cover sheet on your TPS Report.
The FAA does actually provide info of what is required. In appendix B of order 8130.2L.It would be awesome if the FAA told us what the required docs were. There seems to be some... disagreement in the field regarding this.
I personally think the AD Biweekly Report (published every second Tuesday) is a must, and you definitely need a new cover sheet on your TPS Report.
Anything listed with R is required as part of the application file.
Anything that is listed A just has to be available to the inspector during the certification process.
It does require a little bit of reasoning, depending on the specific situation.
For example, an application for an amended certificate on an experimental amateur built won’t require a form 8130–12, eligibility statement, because the aircraft has already been previously certificated.
Then I should amend my earlier statement to say “it would be great if FAA personnel would all follow the FAA’s own directions.”
It took me about a 5 weeks to get my amended AWC and Ops Limitations after filling out the AWC. The local FSDO (GRR) was like most, all new to them so many different opinions in the office of what was required. The docs I uploaded were a simple Program letter. The FSDO person assigned to me was very helpful, I was the first person they started the process with. He did send me an email asking if a 35 miles radius from my home airport would be OK for the test period! He kind of laughed and said he knew there wouldn't be a need for it but according to the "rules" he needed to put something in.Then I should amend my earlier statement to say “it would be great if FAA personnel would all follow the FAA’s own directions.”
BTW... The FSDO wanted an email with a picture attached showing the original AWC with ("SUPERSEDED"written across the front of it.
It's behind me now so all good. The actual LSRI-A card showed up a couple of week ago, that was the easy part
Where do they come up with this stuff?!?
Amended AWC received. Largely by studying all the posts across a few threads discussing this topic, and boiling down the key information. Managed to get logged into the AWC splash web site, guessed on a couple of the questions, uploaded the pre-scanned information (based on distilling the posts), and waited to hear from FSDO. Was contacted by phone a few days later, by a very helpful FSDO individual. He recommended modification of the Phase 1 area to the current airport nexus, which I agreed. The program letter was then modified to include a request to modify the Phase 1 area aligning with the current airport nexus. This edited program letter was emailed to the FSDO representative. The FSDO representative then made the modifications to the Phase 1 area, and completed the amended AWC/OpLims. Notification of completion was received via an email sent from the AWC portal. The FSDO rep then conveyed that In order to receive the amended AWC/OpLims, the original materials had to have a diagonal line drawn, and the word "Superseded" written on the line, then scanned and emailed to FSDO rep. Once received, the amended AWC was email by the FSDO rep, and arrived in my email. All as expected, but no mention of logbook entry requirement, and no logbook entry provided. Otherwise, very smooth process, with very helpful FSDO representative, and about 5 days transpired from submission to receipt.
edited for clarity of details
edited for clarity of details
Last edited:
Order 8130.2LWhere do they come up with this stuff?!?
It is required that any amended airworthiness certificate be surrendered, and the issuer of the new certificate is required to add to the documentation packet showing that super seated has been written on the surrender document.
If the process is all done digitally via email, sending a photo of that done to the original certificate alleviates having to send it to the issue in the mail.
I sit corrected, and not for the first time…
Where is this in 8130.2L? I am in the process now and don’t want to mess it up.
FWIW, it's crickets here, and meanwhile I've been through 8130.2L again and I just don't see it.I sit corrected, and not for the first time…
There is indeed a procedure for surrendering an AWC, but that's entirely different from the procedure for amending one. And I see no requirement, when amending an AWC, that anyone surrender, deface, draw a line through, etc. the old AWC.
So I may be missing something, and I remain open to being corrected, but for now I'm going back to my original theory: somebody just flat-out made this "surrender" stuff up. I mean, how can you even "surrender" something by e-mail anyway?
Just thought I'd chime in here with my experience. The AWC site seemed a bit confusing, but I figured it out with help from posts on VAF. Got a call back from the Portland FSDO quite quickly. Mostly, everything was OK, but there was major confusion on my part with the program letter. I used a template provided on VAF... no dice. I provided one based on the template that the FSDO sent me..... no dice.
The confusion arose over needing to state the purpose of the "experiment", the duration of the "experiment", and the location of the "experiment". After talking with the very patient person at the FSDO, I sent in a revised program letter stating that the purpose was to operate the EAB, the duration would be 100 hours (approx hours per year), and the location would be the lower 48. Seems crazy for an aircraft that's been flying for 20 years, but there you have it. The person at the FSDO said it was all needed for the registry, but would never be looked at again.
Getting my pending LSRI-A was simply a matter of going to an appointment at the FSDO, showing ID and certificate of course completion, and smiling nicely.
I was out in under 10 minutes.
Cheers
Stephen
The confusion arose over needing to state the purpose of the "experiment", the duration of the "experiment", and the location of the "experiment". After talking with the very patient person at the FSDO, I sent in a revised program letter stating that the purpose was to operate the EAB, the duration would be 100 hours (approx hours per year), and the location would be the lower 48. Seems crazy for an aircraft that's been flying for 20 years, but there you have it. The person at the FSDO said it was all needed for the registry, but would never be looked at again.
Getting my pending LSRI-A was simply a matter of going to an appointment at the FSDO, showing ID and certificate of course completion, and smiling nicely.
I was out in under 10 minutes.
Cheers
Stephen
The ASI at the FSDO was simply following the requirements spelled out in FAR 21.193
Federal Register :: Request Access
www.ecfr.gov
Order 8130.2L 2-3(j)(2)FWIW, it's crickets here, and meanwhile I've been through 8130.2L again and I just don't see it.
There is indeed a procedure for surrendering an AWC, but that's entirely different from the procedure for amending one. And I see no requirement, when amending an AWC, that anyone surrender, deface, draw a line through, etc. the old AWC.
So I may be missing something, and I remain open to being corrected, but for now I'm going back to my original theory: somebody just flat-out made this "surrender" stuff up. I mean, how can you even "surrender" something by e-mail anyway?
And table B-2 (in appendix B)
I sit corrected once again! Except for one point - how can this possibly be accomplished by email? It doesn’t permit copies to be submitted. It says you have to submit the superseded AWC. Presumably the point is that they want the old document out of circulation, rather than merely possessing an image of a marked up copy (with the original possibly still unmarked). Or is there some other goal?
It is very unclear to me why you are so concerned about a process detail that is the responsibility of the person issuing the certificate??? Just follow their direction when you get to that point.
Yes, it is to get the previous one out of circulation.
Once superseded is written across the certificate, that has essentially been done. A scan or photo is what the issuer of the replacement uploads to the FAA file, so it makes no difference who physically produces that.
I’m not that concerned.
I do red tape for a living, basically, and the idea of surrendering something by email strikes me as bizarre. Except it hasn’t. Nothing is out of circulation. Again, not a huge deal, but the concept is quite silly.
After the scan or photo is done it is requested to be destroyed, but even if that doesn’t happen, what could someone do with it with SUPERSEDED written boldly across the front
A lot of the text still contained in the order is carry over from when everything was done on paper and documents were actually mailed to the FAA office in Oklahoma.
…you mean written boldly across the copy you made first.After the scan or photo is done it is requested to be destroyed, but even if that doesn’t happen, what could someone do with it with SUPERSEDED written boldly across the front
“Surrendering” any document electronically, or any easily copyable document by paper, makes zero sense. Again, I’m not saying this is important, just that it’s obviously silly. I think you’re right, definitely a relic of a bygone era.I totally get that now, but it was sure confusing at the time, especially as one of the program letter templates came directly from the ASI handling my case. It still wasn't what they wanted. Anyhow, all sorted now.The ASI at the FSDO was simply following the requirements spelled out in FAR 21.193
Federal Register :: Request Access
On another note, I specifically asked about a log book entry, and he specifically told me it wasn't required for the amended AWC or Op Limits.
Done! (No logbook entry received).
Last edited:
Radioflyer
Well Known Member
I submitted my application in the AWC portal just a little over a week ago. The application is still listed as "open" with no "approval generated" indication.
I have gotten an Email back from the Columbia FSDO, responding to my AWC request and he is asking for a copy of 8100.1 Conformity Inspection Report. I have not seen anyone talking bout such such a document and it makes no sense to me since it seems to be required for development projects for certified aircraft design. Has anyone else run into this
It is required, but it is for documenting the processes / steps that the issuer used to issue the certificate, so it is the issuers responsibility to produce, not the applicants.
Radioflyer
Well Known Member
So how long is reasonable time to wait for the AWC request for amended oplims to be processed? For me its been over 3 weeks and still no response of any kind. Is there something I can check or prompt?
I suggest you make a call to the FSDO office you directed the application to, and ask for an update.
May, 2026: The FAA is trying to change 8130.2L which will create more restrictive operating limitations. E-LSA aircraft will be unable to change the POH and placards that were issued in the original LSA certification of the aircraft. As an example, a Caron Cub E-LSA may not be able to increase the gross weight from 1320lbs (formal LSA restriction) to 1865lbs (design limit from Cub Crafters and compliant with MOSAIC) because the POH specifies the weight and balance. So, get your operating limits completed while 8130.2L is still the boiler plate for operating limitations.
I'm importing an RV from Canada, and I'm trying to get the ops limits changed on an E-LSA Carbon Cub. I've contacted four DAR's and they were all unaware that owners can now access AWC. They were also confused on how the ops limits can be changed on the LSA aircraft.
Fortunately, I received a phone call from EAA Government Advocay and they had a good understanding of what is going on and how to make my changes. However, they too were unaware that owners can now access AWC. EAA explained the issue with the upcoming change to 8130.2L and that they are challenging the restrictions of the newly proposed standard. They also stated that the best route is through a DAR, as many FSDO's have a basic understanding of MOSAIC and tend to push an issue into a lane in which they are comfortable, which is often going the wrong direction. Unfortunately, I worry that AWC is sending the information directly to the same FSDO personnel.
As to those advising, "Go to your FSDO;" you are fortunate that you have a FSDO that understands airplanes are still flying with propellers and internal combustion engines. I'm in the north Texas FSDO and the only language they speak is transport turbine, turbo-prop, and turbine helicopters. Gone are the days that you could fly into Alliance, park in front of the FSDO, have a cup of coffee with the FSDO personnel and walk out with resolution. During my last visit I had to actually explain what is an RV. My gut feeling is that a good DAR has the credibility to get the FSDO to agree to what is being proposed, where as an owner lacks that credibility and the FSDO tries to make it so complicated that you ultimately have to go to a DAR.
I'm importing an RV from Canada, and I'm trying to get the ops limits changed on an E-LSA Carbon Cub. I've contacted four DAR's and they were all unaware that owners can now access AWC. They were also confused on how the ops limits can be changed on the LSA aircraft.
Fortunately, I received a phone call from EAA Government Advocay and they had a good understanding of what is going on and how to make my changes. However, they too were unaware that owners can now access AWC. EAA explained the issue with the upcoming change to 8130.2L and that they are challenging the restrictions of the newly proposed standard. They also stated that the best route is through a DAR, as many FSDO's have a basic understanding of MOSAIC and tend to push an issue into a lane in which they are comfortable, which is often going the wrong direction. Unfortunately, I worry that AWC is sending the information directly to the same FSDO personnel.
As to those advising, "Go to your FSDO;" you are fortunate that you have a FSDO that understands airplanes are still flying with propellers and internal combustion engines. I'm in the north Texas FSDO and the only language they speak is transport turbine, turbo-prop, and turbine helicopters. Gone are the days that you could fly into Alliance, park in front of the FSDO, have a cup of coffee with the FSDO personnel and walk out with resolution. During my last visit I had to actually explain what is an RV. My gut feeling is that a good DAR has the credibility to get the FSDO to agree to what is being proposed, where as an owner lacks that credibility and the FSDO tries to make it so complicated that you ultimately have to go to a DAR.
I submitted mine on April 20th online to the Portland, OR FSDO. After several weeks of "open" it now shows "approval generated", so I'm guessing I'll get it soon. The inspector assigned to my case did reach out via email a little over a week ago to get clarification of what I was asking for. Despite submitting what I think was a pretty clearly worded program letter, they assumed I was the builder and didn't understand why I needed to update my ops limit to reflect my LSRI status. In addition to clarifying that, I also reiterated what I had already stated in my program letter, that I would like to change the Phase 1 testing area to my local area.
Interestingly, my buddy that I took the Rainbow LSRI class with got his amended ops limits in only 4 bussines days! That has got to be a record.
JP
varnoair838
I'm New Here
Keep a close eye on your local FSDO because the implementation speed for these new operating limitations is completely all over the place depending on the region. Getting the updated paperwork signed off for an existing airframe requires a clean transition plan that shows full compliance with the updated phase 1 evaluation parameters.
It as long been the plan to have 8130.2 Mike version go live in July at least according to the teachers of the class I attended
I think it’s a shame in the community of experimental Aviation that there’s not been a single DAR to step forward publicly charge a fee and help people through this complicated process.
I think it’s a shame in the community of experimental Aviation that there’s not been a single DAR to step forward publicly charge a fee and help people through this complicated process.
Not sure what "complicated process" you're referring to but I've been doing amended Op Lims ever since I got out of the hospital.
As far as time required, you would be shocked at all the corrections we have to make to incorrect paperwork that has been in effect for years.
Last edited:
Yes, but you did not want this known to anyone when I was doing mine.
You also don't do digital.
You haven't advertised this at all...
The complicated part is the FAA FSDO stuff. Talking to you and another DAR it seems like this could be done in 15 minutes via Zoom for anyone that needed their hand held.
The government is never going to make things less complicated. Mel and other DAR’s understand GA and Experimental Aviation, when that knowledge can be difficult to find in an FSDO. When a credible DAR sends in a request, the FSDO is more likely to approve it quickly because they know the DAR is trained and making a valid request. A request from an owner on AWC can generate more questions than answers. Money well spent!
Just out of curiosity,
Went to the LSRI-A class this weekend. Was a great experience.
After talking to my FSDO earlier today they have a person assigned to my request to get my op limits amended and issue my repairman certificate.
However they mentioned that the process is kind of new for them and they have a lot of requests coming in. The repairman certificate conversation seemed pretty straightforward forward but then they mentioned some type of aircraft inspection to occur.
Has anyone had to have them re-inspect an aircraft that already has an airworthiness certificate? Maybe I just misunderstood them.
V/R
Went to the LSRI-A class this weekend. Was a great experience.
After talking to my FSDO earlier today they have a person assigned to my request to get my op limits amended and issue my repairman certificate.
However they mentioned that the process is kind of new for them and they have a lot of requests coming in. The repairman certificate conversation seemed pretty straightforward forward but then they mentioned some type of aircraft inspection to occur.
Has anyone had to have them re-inspect an aircraft that already has an airworthiness certificate? Maybe I just misunderstood them.
V/R
The verbiage in the order for an amended certificate says “an inspection of the aircraft is not necessarily required“, or something pretty similar, I may have the wording off a little bit, but it basically leaves the answer somewhat open ended and I guess leaves it up to the discretion of the issue.
In my opinion, an amended certificate for this purpose would not justify an in person inspection.
In my opinion, an amended certificate for this purpose would not justify an in person inspection.
Thanks
I agree completely with Scott on the Ops Lims and AWC.
Of interest, however, I got a noe from a fellow whose Kitfox I inspected and certificated a month or two ago He is applying for his Repairman Certificate, adn the FSDO aid that they needed to come out and inspect the airplane again as part of the Repairman’s Certificat eprocess. I am not familiar with the guidance related to that, but had not heard of it before - maybe something has changed in their guidance… but this is from the same FSDO (Vegas) that keeps passing out my name as Nevada’s only DAR - but they are telling folks that I can issue all sorts of things that I don’t have the function codes for. Methinks there is some learning that needs to be done at the FSDO.
Of interest, however, I got a noe from a fellow whose Kitfox I inspected and certificated a month or two ago He is applying for his Repairman Certificate, adn the FSDO aid that they needed to come out and inspect the airplane again as part of the Repairman’s Certificat eprocess. I am not familiar with the guidance related to that, but had not heard of it before - maybe something has changed in their guidance… but this is from the same FSDO (Vegas) that keeps passing out my name as Nevada’s only DAR - but they are telling folks that I can issue all sorts of things that I don’t have the function codes for. Methinks there is some learning that needs to be done at the FSDO.
Why didn't he get the latest Ops two months ago?
He did - he is now applying for his Repairman’s Certificate (something DAR’s can’t give).
Interesting
It sounded like they would be handling the repairman’s certificate without any type of inspection.
It’s the op limits amending that seems to trigger the inspection in my case. I have owned the plane for about 3 years so not exactly sure what they inspect.
I guess I’ll find out soon enough.
Thanks again to all
WOW!
