Realistic Expectations - New Member

[OneLegJohn]

Hi everyone. I have been following BearHawk content and reading about this airplane for a while. I was wondering if it is reasonable to expect an experimental plane like this to be usable for work. I am in NE Ohio and have a desire to travel easily to and from Ohio and Vermont, as well as, to and from Ohio and Western Wisconsin.

Mostly for service calls and saving travel time by truck. Are these planes usable for regular 500 and 700 mile trips? Can these BH5 be used in less-than-optinal weather? The most important time for use would be early winter and late spring during maple season. Being able to fly technicians to remote operations for repairs would be great.

I have concerns about distance, heat for passengers, payload capacity (if we need tools or replacement parts).

These are thoughts I wanted to share to receive input. Is there a better safe option you could recommend? Or, is this exactly the solution for flying between locations to serve customers.

[jaredyates]

Welcome! I have lots of doubts about this being a good mission fit, which isn't to say it's impossible or that someone couldn't do it.

One problem is that homebuilt planes are restricted by regulations to "recreation and education" uses. This might be a barrier depending on how you do things, but if you are transporting people who are working for you, it's going to be hard to shoehorn that mission into the homebuilt regulatory intent. Carrying people and stuff from one point to another is not really what homebuilt airplanes are regulated for.

Are you already doing this type of flying in light airplanes? You've described a very challenging mission for light airplanes, especially in the winter. You'll have no ice protection other than pitot heat, which means you won't be flying in the clouds if the temperature is less than freezing. Are you wanting to land at small town municipal airports, or are you wanting to land off-airport?

The BH5 is huge by homebuilt light plane standards, but for people who aren't aviation enthusiasts, they are likely not going to love the idea of piling in for a 700 mile trip. The non-pilot public looks at a plane like a Caravan or even an ATR and thinks of it as a "tiny prop airplane" because they just don't have any idea what a tiny prop airplane really is.

[Battson]

I agree with and support these comments, very light personal aircraft are poorly suited to "must travel" working missions to provide services to customers on a timeline. Air travel on a timeline is only semi-reliable, even with large aircraft, with light aircraft it's downright risky.

[OneLegJohn]

I think my perception came from a recent trip to Alaska. I see these bush planes working. Moving people for big game and fishing trips, and also moving them back packed full of meat. Maybe this is a Grey area. I imagine the pilots and guides are part of commerce.

You opinion is valuable. And it has helped me reframe already. It would be interesting if someone had a suggestion for a plane better fit for the application.

[Untainted123]

Alaska pilots have had several lawsuits concerning whether flying hunters around is incidental to the business (guide services) or THE business (air taxis of hunters, piloted by a guide). All these gotchas and what-ifs are discussion fodder for the oral portion of the commercial pilots license, but in practice anywhere else besides a few unique places (Alaska, Grand Canyon, Hawaii maybe?) it just isn't worth the trouble to find out for sure, and even then the FAA can change their mind.

[Untainted123]

Welcome! I have lots of doubts about this being a good mission fit, which isn't to say it's impossible or that someone couldn't do it.

One problem is that homebuilt planes are restricted by regulations to "recreation and education" uses. This might be a barrier depending on how you do things, but if you are transporting people who are working for you, it's going to be hard to shoehorn that mission into the homebuilt regulatory intent. Carrying people and stuff from one point to another is not really what homebuilt airplanes are regulated for.

I think you are conflating two different things. When building, you must adhere to the "major portion rule", which requires that over 50% of the aircraft is built by the owner for their own education or recreation (the building is for that purpose, not what the flying will be for).

You can absolutely use an EAB for personal business purposes (flying to job sites, carrying your tools, etc), ie it can be used in the same way that your truck can be used to get to jobs sites. It cannot however be used for the BUSINESS of transporting people or property (ie like a taxi, or airliner). The FAA will quibble and always has the last word of course, but in general, if the airplane is incidental to the business being done, it can be used to get to job sites etc, even with people riding along. If you are hoping to have some techs hop in and you will drop them off and head back, that's starting to look like a taxi service... I will admit though that the FAA probably considers it a gray area and if too much attention is drawn might get you in trouble.

For all the other reasons mentioned, it probably isn't practical. It might work out for a fun ride every once in a while to the job site, and every once in a while might work great in a pinch, or getting you to a uniquely located job site, but I definitely would not want to depend on that for day to day travel. In addition to the airplane design itself, are you planning on equipping for such a mission (IFR gps/radios, floats, skis, etc?) and are you planning on staying qualified (IFR rating, proficiency, etc).

Having never been to AK, maybe I am unqualified to say, but everything I see and read about their kind of flying probably doesn't translate well to the lower 48, and indeed they even have their own carve out in the FAR's for their unique situation and their accident statistics are also outliers.

[jaredyates]

Excellent thoughts Stephen, thank you as always for your insight. I would also say be sure to check the Operating Limitations. The language varies a little depending on when they were issued, but mine says
"No person may operate this aircraft for other than recreation or education." It's an interesting discussion and I think of it this way, I would not want to have to defend using a homebuilt as a part 91 corporate plane carrying employees. Flying myself to a job feels less problematic. The standard of care for flying non-hobbyists gives me pause and I think it would be worth more research, maybe from real lawyers.
Isn't it pretty cool though that the homebuilt market finally has a plane where this discussion is not preempted by the airplane's capabilities?