To be fair, they aren't aeronautical engineers. So as to whether it can fly is beyond their job description.

And they're just like DPE's. Everyone is different. Mine was pretty thorough. But then again, he had probably inspected dozens of Velocity's so he knew what to look for.

I've heard stories of some that hardly looked at the plane and others who spend a half day or even a whole day inspecting a plane.

I don't know that I would call yanking it off the runway at 87 kts like that controlled powered flight. Not much different than me riding my bike down the road at 20 mph and yanking the handlebars and jumping a little with my legs. I can clear an inch or two also but not flying.

Spruce Goose incarnate

So a serious question for the home building group - Peter got his AW feet in 2019. Since then there have been some pretty significant design changes (the control cables and stick redesign) that may appreciably affect flying characteristics etc. Does he need to get with the DAR or is he free to do anything he wants to the approved design as the owner builder ? Is he now working under his repairmans certificate?

Not really. If he changed engine, prop or a wing he would be required to start another phase I flight test. But since he hasn’t finished (much less begun) his initial phase I, he’s still good.

Maybe his strength is not posting video of his trip around the pattern.

Maybe his strength is not posting video of his trip around the pattern.

We will hopefully not read it on the news...
I wish him the best of luck, but nature does have some laws of physics that come with heavy costs when not respected...

Keep in mind, it is not the FAA nor their representatives job to determine if an experimental aircraft is airworthy or safe. That responsibility falls on the builder and especially the PIC.

Keep in mind, it is not the FAA nor their representatives job to determine if an experimental aircraft is airworthy or safe. That responsibility falls on the builder and especially the PIC.

1000 times this. The FAA is actually contrary to safety in this aspect.

1000 times this. The FAA is actually contrary to safety in this aspect.

I think the issue is not the autopilot, but designing the servo mounts and getting the proper cable tensions and servo torque values. When I got mine, they had to send some of the servo mount parts back to Garmin twice because they didn't fit properly, and that was after it was certified for F33As. To turn those loose to people to engineer for themselves would truly be an experiment, and a huge potential liability for Garmin.

But they're already doing that - Peter has a GFC in his mystery machine here, and it's in a gamut of other "unproven" experimental airframes without a problem for Garmin - it's purely an FAA paperwork problem at this point. And you had your issues with an already certified product, which also points to issues with the value of the certification process as well...

But somebody building an experimental aircraft would have a much harder time proving Garmin was the reason for the crash. When you put an autopilot in a certified airplane, that autopilot installation has already been tested and certified.