VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-13-2011, 09:21 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright View Post
How many denials were issued last year because the DAR didn't think the aircraft met the 51% rule?
I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. There have been a few. Not very many for sure.
If an applicant receives commercial assistance, he/she must submit the checklist found in appendix 8 of AC20-27G showing that the 51% rule has been met.
__________________
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>
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-13-2011, 09:34 PM
RV8R999 RV8R999 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: na
Posts: 1,457
Default

It appears the first police action to be conducted should be within the DAR community...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-13-2011, 09:46 PM
erich weaver's Avatar
erich weaver erich weaver is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: santa barbara, CA
Posts: 1,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
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.
I'm gonna play devils advocate for a minute. Mel and other knowledgable folks have said many times that the test pilot and no one else should be aboard during phase 1, but the actual wording used in the operating limitations ("essential to the purpose of the flight") is simply far too vague in my mind. Reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret that text, when crystal clear directions on this matter would be so easy. The language used INVITES abuse.

While I am not advocating a 2nd person on aboard, and flight training on first flights is certainly out of the question, I think a reasonable argument could be made that a 2nd person was necessary for data collection. Those first flights are awfully busy, and data collection is certainly part of flight testing. Bottom line though, if FAA wants to be clear, they need clear language. How hard is it to say "no more than one person (the pilot) may be on board during phase 1 testing".

I'm just glad I have Mel et al to tell me what these rules really mean

Erich
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-13-2011, 10:05 PM
GusBiz's Avatar
GusBiz GusBiz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 211
Default Someone had to say it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8R999 View Post
It appears the first police action to be conducted should be within the DAR community...
Amen to that.

This is like the cops complaining that people commit crimes.

In Australia its pretty strict. I would have though its that way in the US as well.

We can talk about the 51% rule all you like. Its the Law, the rest is just conversation. DARs make the Law a reality. If it isn't being adheared to then we know who's responsibility it is to enforce it.

Personally my thoughts as far as two people in the cockpit goes. One person flying, one person making observations and recording information.

If the thing shouldn't be in the air then it shouldn't be in the air with ONE person.

but again.... the Law is the law and ALL of this is just conversation.
__________________
Gus Bisbal

RV7

Obsession only exists when someone else isn't doing it too.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-13-2011, 11:06 PM
aerhed aerhed is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Big Sandy, WY
Posts: 2,567
Default

Not all experimentals are RV's. A few actually have big ol' engines and a real flight engineer station. Some actually REQUIRE a crew to fly them safely. That's why the wording exists that way. Unless you mount your engine gages and a bunch of switches in the baggage area You're not gonna convince me you need two crew in an RV. You're not gonna get the FAA to buy it either. On the other hand, John Denver could have sure used someone to work the vise-grip fuel selector on his last piece of junk.
__________________
Actual repeat offender.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-14-2011, 06:51 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
Default What We Do

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Lee View Post
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.
There is no such thing as rule by consensus in this matter. Only the FAA is the authority to clearly define the meaning of any regulation and if they decline to do so, it becomes a matter of legal determination. As far as I know there has been no enforcement of this matter by the FAA. The expressed definition of the term here is a matter of opinion, not law.

For anyone to assert the "essential purpose" of the flight is solely flight testing is a personal opinion, not a matter of law. The essential purpose of any flight is FLIGHT SAFETY. If it can be shown another person will contribute to the safe conclusion of a flight, that person serves the essential purpose of that flight.

At least that would be my argument before a FAA law judge in this matter. Since the FAA is charged with promoting FLIGHT SAFETY, I wonder what their argument would be?
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-14-2011, 06:54 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

While I, and most DARs I know, do go out of our way to explain the FAAs interpretation of "necessary crew" to each applicant. We can only do so much. Once we are gone, the owner/pilot is on his/her own.
We are NOT policemen.
I would prefer wording similar to that in the light-sport op lims, but we can't change that wording on our own.

All the "excuses" have been discussed within our DAR seminars. Data can be taken with a recorder or radio conversations with persons on the ground. There is simply no reason to have a second person in our type of airplanes during phase I!

PS. I HAVE denied certificates for not complying with the 51% rule!
__________________
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>
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-14-2011, 06:55 AM
RV8R999 RV8R999 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: na
Posts: 1,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David-aviator View Post
There is no such thing as rule by consensus in this matter. Only the FAA is the authority to clearly define the meaning of any regulation and if they decline to do so, it becomes a matter of legal determination. As far as I know there has been no enforcement of this matter by the FAA. The expressed definition of the term here is a matter of opinion, not law.

For anyone to assert the "essential purpose" of the flight is solely flight testing is a personal opinion, not a matter of law. The essential purpose of any flight is FLIGHT SAFETY. If it can be shown another person will contribute to the safe conclusion of a flight, that person serves the essential purpose of that flight.

At least that would be my argument before a FAA law judge in this matter. Since the FAA is charged with promoting FLIGHT SAFETY, I wonder what their argument would be?
very well done
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-14-2011, 07:21 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,626
Default

First, thanks for all of the thoughtful discussion here. My private email is almost overwhelming as well!
A couple of points, which have been mentioned here....First, we can all try to convince ourselves about the safety of flight and why you might need 2 people. I will tell you that you are only kidding yourselves. It might be your license, but if something were to happen, it could be your survivors that find themselves in a very bad predicament. There is not any single-engine certified piston airplane in the US that I am aware of that requires a crew of 2. It would be very hard to convince anyone that our little RV's are so complex that they require a crew of 2. I certainly would hate to even try that argument against a whole cadre of Expert witnesses that could be brought forth to repudiate the need for 2 people because the aircraft does not require it.The pilot might, but that's a different story and they probably shouldn't be in the airplane to begin with.
Second, as a DAR we can not change one iota of the wording of the Order. We can add to it if we deem it necessary, such as clearly defining a test area in the interest of public safety.
The Order is written for everything from a single seat Experimental aircraft to the largest Commercial aircraft (Space Shuttle, too?) that absolutely require a crew of more than one, as the systems management alone can not be handled by one person.
__________________
Vic Syracuse

Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, Just Superstol, DAR, A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES
Kitplanes "Unairworthy" monthly feature
EAA Sport Aviation "Checkpoints" column
EAA Homebuilt Council Chair/member EAA BOD
Author "Pre-Buy Guide for Amateur-Built Aircraft"
www.Baselegaviation.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-14-2011, 07:43 AM
Phlyan Pan Phlyan Pan is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 174
Default

In my opinion, there are 2 separate types of issues here... one of which has to do with safety, and one of which has to do more with adherence to the letter of the law. I think both of these issues have the potential to be addressed in the same way, so please bear with me and I'll try to bring this rambling conglomerate of thoughts to what I think is actually a logical conclusion. Skip to the last 2 paragraphs if you just want to read my idea and skip the thought process.

The safety issue I think I have to agree that a second person is not required for flight testing of a single engine aircraft (at least not any of them that I'm aware of). So simply changing the wording of the regulation to say single engine airplane flight testing is pilot only without prior FAA approval would eliminate the ambiguity and allow for unique situations that might have a legitimate need.

As to the issue of professional builder's assistance, I wonder if this is a safety issue, or a case of adherence to the rule for adherence' sake. Do builders' shops increase or decrease safety? If the answer is that they increase, or at least don't decrease, then why are we fighting against this? Why not develop rules that make room for this type of flying?

In both of these cases, I think the assertion about the FAA is correct...the industry/community needs to police itself or the FAA will make up rules to police it for us. Since it seems that there is very little the industry/community can do to police those mavericks who will act and do as they please, then it seems almost inevitable that the FAA will regulate and the insurance industry will come down on this group known as Experimental Amateur Built.

It also occurs to me that it really seems that the way we currently are utilizing the EAB category is not quite the same as when the category was conceived. So maybe it's time for a new category that more appropriately addresses the kit built/proven design type market and allows for certain degrees of builder assistance in a controlled environment (maybe factory pre-approved build centers??)

So my idea is this...perhaps the community/industry needs to form some sort of working group to develop rules that more appropriately address this type of building/flying that we do and petition FAA to consider adopting them. I think this would best be done in two separate proposals. One proposal would be to address the current perceived safety loopholes in the existing EAB regulations (IE change the rule regarding flight testing to say something to the effect of "no occupant except the pilot for testing of single engine aircraft unless specifically approved by the FAA") The second section would be to adopt a new category of aircraft entirely. It could be called "experimental kit built" or "Standardized Kit Built" or "Amateur Kit Built" or whatever most appropriately addresses this type of aircraft. If the working group determines it appropriate, this category could include allowances for professional assistance by qualified individuals or shops, qualification standards for determining who they are, building by owners only, training standards, etc.

Obviously my inspiration for this thought is EAA and AOPA's recent successful interactions with the FAA regarding the creation of LSA and their more recent petitioning of FAA to reconsider the medical certification standards. It seems like this is something that would be proactive and could actually be undertaken, either with EAA/AOPA support, or not.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:46 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.