Are we ever going to be official with the FAA (identifiers)?

[hawgdrvr]

Between PA11 and PA18, it's all confusing. Filling out my FltPlan.com profile today not seeing but the XCub in the list CC19 I believe it is. I know Andy asked the question on this topic in this forum somewhere which I found earlier and can't find now. Can CubCrafters go the extra mile and get their types listed with the FAA? Thank you.

[Andy]

https://forum.cubcrafters.com/showth...ype-designator

[Narwhal747]

H-D: Our Tac Aero instructor, Kris and I agreed that it should be filed as a PA11. Doesn't mean we are necessarily correct, it just seems to be what's listed for CCX-2000 in the FAA type designator documents.

You're probably going to get called "Piper" on frequency by ATC, although I'd check in initially as "Cub" and see if they catch on. No different than when I check in as "Skylane 2683G" in my 182 and usually end up being called "Cessna 2683G". From ATC's standpoint the performance difference between a PA11 and FX3, while massive to us, isn't enough for them to notice or care about.

Edited to add: you probably already know all this, and yeah, I guess it would be nice to have our own designator or piggyback on Xcub.

[Andy]

Kris and I agreed that it should be filed as a PA11. Doesn't mean we are necessarily correct, it just seems to be what's listed for CCX-2000 in the FAA type designator documents.

It's unfortunate that this topic has been split into two threads but - Can you please provide a link to any FAA document that associates CCX-2000 with PA11. I found no FAA listing for CCX-2000 when I researched this for the other thread.

[Andy]

It's unfortunate that this topic has been split into two threads but - Can you please provide a link to any FAA document that associates CCX-2000 with PA11. I found no FAA listing for CCX-2000 when I researched this for the other thread.

Current FAA reference is here :
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...esignators.pdf

CCX does not exist in this document. PA11 associated types are as shown below:

FAA designator PA11.PNG

[Narwhal747]

Current FAA reference is here :
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...esignators.pdf

CCX does not exist in this document. PA11 associated types are as shown below:

FAA designator PA11.PNG

Yep, that's the same document I'm referencing. We presumed the 3rd line in the PA11 section "CUB CRAFTERS, CARBON CUB" would catch all of the EX/FX 1/2/3 carbon cubs including the CCX-2000 even though it does not explicitly state CCX-2000, my apologies if I erroneously inferred that in my previous post.

[Andy]

If one had to use a PAxx designator wouldn't PA18 be more appropriate?

There is, however, no need to re-invent this. Jon Delamarter proposed what the designators should be and AOPA flight planner adopted them. Jon left CubCrafters before the final step - notification of ICAO - was completed. It appears that no one else has taken over where Jon left off.

He is a screen shot of the email I received from the creator/owner of the AOPA flight panning tool:

AOPA planner email.PNG

[hawgdrvr]

I think our ADSB's (for FX-3 / CCX2000) are registered as PA11. If you use https://www.flightradar24.com to track a FX-3 such as N88NC it will show as a PA11 so it's registered somewhere. I agree I think if anything we should be PA18.

I would think if you create a product and are proud of it, you'd go the full length to be officially recognized in the system of aircraft and the customers would appreciate the same.