|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

11-13-2011, 08:08 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator
I know of a recent local first flight where a CFI accompanied the builder on the flight. Who is to say his presence was not "essential to the purpose of the flight"? From a safety and practical point of view most would agree it is OK.
|
David,
I strongly disagree with this statement.
I don't think most would agree it was ok.
I think most will say that if the builder needed a CFI in the plane to be safe, then a different test pilot needed to be making the first flight.
|

11-13-2011, 08:13 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 669
|
|
"... Here is one vote for moving Vic's post to Best of the Best...."
Plus 1
__________________
RV7A (N7101) - Flying 10/2008
CFI- SE/ME/Inst
A&P
KC2ZEL
|

11-13-2011, 08:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by vic syracuse
Well, I hope I won't be banned for starting this thread, but quite candidly I am getting very annoyed with the flagrant rules violations occuring in 2 specific areas of our piece of the aviation world: obvious building for hire and multiple people in the aircraft during Phase I fly-off period. Most recently we have had another accident with people seriously hurt during Phase I. This stuff is impacting all of us, and unless we start policing ourselves, we are going to get help that we don't want or need.
<much good stuff snipped>
Vic
|
The sentiment among the people who do these things is "Nobody has gotten busted yet and I'm betting I won't be the first.". Historically, that's been a pretty good bet.
They also rationalize that others have done it, so why shouldn't they?
It's a bad situation and the community needs to address it.
If the FAA carried out a few high profile crucifictions, that might put the brakes on the build-for-hire types. However, the FAA couldn't hold the line effectively with Epic, so are they really gonna go after a guy churning out RV's? From a airworthiness certificate standpoint, how often do DAR's walk away from projects with a questionable build history? Even if they do, the community knows the DAR's who are comfortable winking at the rules as long as the check doesn't bounce.
On the violations during the test period, would it be appropriate for aircraft within the test period to carry large vinyl markings signifying that the aircraft is in Phase 1 and no pax are allowed? That would raise the ante a bit for violators...
As you stated, we need to address these issues. Otherwise, the Fed's are going to create new burdens for those of us who follow the rules. It won't be a problem for the rule breakers - they will ignore the new rules too...
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

11-13-2011, 08:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator
Vic,
The problem lies within the rules governing what we do. It is not a clear black and white issue.
With regard to more than one person in the airplane during flight testing, my operating limitations state:
"During the flight-testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
|
I don't see that anyone can make a legitimate case that a second person is/was necessary on a first flight of a single engine piston aircraft. The airplane doesn't require it, and it will never pass a sniff test.
If the pilot is incapable of handling the job by him/herself, that can be addressed through training or by having a more capable pilot make the flight. There is really no excuse.
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

11-13-2011, 08:55 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright
From a airworthiness certificate standpoint, how often do DAR's walk away from projects with a questionable build history? Even if they do, the community knows the DAR's who are comfortable winking at the rules as long as the check doesn't bounce.
|
A DAR cannot legally "walk away". Once the application has been accepted, the DAR must either "issue or deny" the certificate. If the certificate is denied, an e-mail is immediately sent to all inspectors throughout the U.S. stating the reason for the denial. It would be up to the "next" inspector to determine whether the discrepancies are justified or corrected. It would be rare for another inspector to accept discrepancies that have already been denied on record.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

11-13-2011, 09:02 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 1,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator
Vic,
my operating limitations state:
"During the flight-testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
|
Mine says that as well.
Why does the DAR not just write the limitations to eliminate the second half of the statement? The DAR can make the determination that for that particular aircraft, only one crew is required for flight test. Therefore put
"During the flight-testing phase, no passenger may be carried in this aircraft during flight"
Of coarse someone will get around the rule and say they are not passengers but flight crew.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - 14+ years, 950+ hours
Based at 1H0 (Creve Coeur)
Paid dues yearly since 2007
|

11-13-2011, 09:02 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
The p
Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator
That leaves an awful lot of wiggle room on the issue. Has the FAA defined "essential to the purpose of the flight"? I don't think so.
|
The "purpose of the flight" is flight testing the aircraft, period! Not flight training or anything else.
This is NOT a gray area. The only time a second person is required for the purpose of the flight is when the AIRCRAFT requires a crew of 2 or more. None of our airplanes fall into this category.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

11-13-2011, 09:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,218
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
A DAR cannot legally "walk away". Once the application has been accepted, the DAR must either "issue or deny" the certificate. If the certificate is denied, an e-mail is immediately sent to all inspectors throughout the U.S. stating the reason for the denial. It would be up to the "next" inspector to determine whether the discrepancies are justified or corrected. It would be rare for another inspector to accept discrepancies that have already been denied on record.
|
How many denials were issued last year because the DAR didn't think the aircraft met the 51% rule?
__________________
Kyle Boatright
Marietta, GA
2001 RV-6 N46KB
2019(?) RV-10
|

11-13-2011, 09:09 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by plehrke
Why does the DAR not just write the limitations to eliminate the second half of the statement? The DAR can make the determination that for that particular aircraft, only one crew is required for flight test. Therefore put
"During the flight-testing phase, no passenger may be carried in this aircraft during flight"
Of coarse someone will get around the rule and say they are not passengers but flight crew.
|
Actually the wording HAS changed within the Light-Sport op lims. They state that the pilot will be the sole occupant of the aircraft.
For amateur-built aircraft, unfortunately DARs cannot change the original wording of the op lims. They must be stated exactly as laid out in 8130.2. We are allowed to add limitations as we see fit in the interest of safety, but we can remove nothing.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

11-13-2011, 09:11 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
The second person in an RV during Phase 1 has been discussed before and I believe the consensus is that two pilots are NOT required.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:46 AM.
|