"Provided that the deceased pilot of the Glasair we are discussing filled out his maintenance release and had made no major modifications since his aircraft was inspected by the CASA delegate"
Wee Mary with 1 post to your name:
Your comment is a play on words:
"and HAD made no modifications" means that HAD he NOT made modifications, it would still be a legal aircraft.
I don't know the aircraft, but am saying that if it wasn't majorly modified after being inspected, then it's still legal.
THAT BEING SAID THOUGH -
Once registered and inspected to ensure that it complies with Experimental guidelines, major modifications not including the airframe ARE permitted, PROVIDED that the modifications are noted in the aircraft's maintenance logs. In the case of an additional fuel tank behind the seat, a weight and balance calculation must be carried out by the maintenance authority for the aircraft or a LAME with W&B approval.
Experimental aircraft can be NVFR and IFR too. Once inspected by the CASA delegate, the owner can self certify for NVFR and IFR, however if in IFR the owner needs to prove that he has completed the required annual/bi-annual checks required, such as transponder certification, etc. NVFR doesn't require certification of instruments. There are also other excemptions, such as dual power sources for Gyro's NOT being requried etc, etc.
SOUNDS LIKE THE HOLY GRAIL? Yes, that's because Experimental in all essences is.
The BUILDER of the aircraft IS the Maintenance Authority on the aircraft so he can largely do ANYTHING he wants to.
Experimental GA is even less regulated than the Ultralight regime. The onus is on the operator of the aircraft and he is accountable for the airworthiness of the aircraft.
For more info:
http://www.saaa.com/home.php?contentpage=experimental