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
  #121  
Old 11-16-2011, 09:32 AM
Bob Kuykendall's Avatar
Bob Kuykendall Bob Kuykendall is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12A View Post
You'd have to ascertain why the rule was put into place at all. It seems that a lot of government regulations are in place to protect large corporations and to discourage competition. Is that a legitimate responsibility of government? A true "free market" would allow independent operators to be developed because there is apparently a market niche for them. The "free market" would deal harshly with those operators who do shoddy work or gouge the consumers...
Here's a good article about early air commerce regulation in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tics_Authority

Here's a good article about the early history of homebuilding in the US:

http://www.eaa.org/govt/building_rule.asp

My paraphrased short version of the early history of homebuilding:

WWI surplus Jennies in the hands of barnstormers crashed. A lot. People various thought that air commerce needed better rules and regulations in order to grow. The government, on behalf of the people they were trying to protect from falling Jennies, created agencies and rules for the licensing of both pilots and airplanes. Air commerce started to thrive. Its voice changed, and it claimed to shave twice a week.

Soon there were state-wide and then country-wide certification standards for private and commercial airplanes that threatened to cut a lot of bit players out of the aviation business. However, even though the byte was twenty years in the future, there was still room for the bit players to make airplanes for exhibition and racing like Lindbergh's (note the NX registration mark). In fact, there was plenty of room, since people were wild about air racing. However, there were restrictions on the operation of these airplanes that made them impractical for those $1 hamburger runs. And well there should have been; many of them had lousy handling and sometimes little stability and often negative stick force gradients. And some were just plain badly made. But, hey, that's racing!

And then there was WWII and nobody cared. Nobody here at least; anybody with a lick of aeronautical sense was swept up into the war machine. Anybody who could drive a rivet taught women how to drive rivets and then got out of the way; it turned out that the women by and large could do it better than them anyhow. Anybody with a license and decent eyesight became some sort of pilot; there was plenty of flying to go around.

When WWII ended, the guys came home, took over what jobs were available, and banished the women from the factories. They had fat GI BIll wallets and a taste for flying, and they made 1946 and 1947 huge production years for general aviation airplanes. Think Champ, Bonanza, and Swift. And don't forget the Navion, it had "that solid feel."

Even though everybody was tired from the war and wanted a beer and a cozy suburban home and a TV and another beer, even though America was settling into what became the Age of Conformity, there was still an undercurrent of change, uncertainty, and innovation in the arts, in culture, and in technology. The war had done terrible things to a terrible number of people, and it took a while to process it, to integrate it. Some people turned into sullen drunks, some went crazy, and some turned their hands to cars and airplanes. The Hot Rod went from icon of juvenile delinquence to respectable hobby. Popular Mechanics and similar magazines published plans for go-karts, boats, wheelbarrows, and patio decks. And people built them.

In this environment, people like Bogardus and Poberenzy petitioned the CAA in the late 1940s for an exception to the certification rules to allow routine operation of airplanes built by amateurs. By 1952 they succeeded, and by the way, created the EAA in the process.
__________________
Bob Kuykendall
HP-24 kit sailplane
EAA Technical Counselor

Last edited by Bob Kuykendall : 11-16-2011 at 06:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-16-2011, 09:58 AM
Ron Lee's Avatar
Ron Lee Ron Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12A View Post
Let's hope the FAA doesn't visit one of these commercial shops and do a strict accounting of who built what because I expect there would be great wailing afterwards...
Supposedly the Two Weeks to Taxi is acceptable to the FAA. I doubt that the "builder" does anymore than he might do with a hired gun. So where is the difference?
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-16-2011, 10:05 AM
Flyfalcons's Avatar
Flyfalcons Flyfalcons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bonney Lake, WA
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Lee View Post
Supposedly the Two Weeks to Taxi is acceptable to the FAA. I doubt that the "builder" does anymore than he might do with a hired gun. So where is the difference?
Is this a statement of someone educated about the program, or someone who is guessing?
__________________
Ryan Winslow
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-16-2011, 11:46 AM
jetjok's Avatar
jetjok jetjok is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sutter Creek, CA
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vic syracuse View Post
snip by jetjok
I won't get involved in licensing the aircraft I know are built from the ground up under contract. Sorry. There's this little ethics thing we sign when we get appointed as a DAR.
And whether we think so or not, it is affecting all of us, from insurance premiums to the continued perception that Experimental aviation is dangerous. Many companies I have worked for allow flying in Standard certificated aircraft, but not Experimentals. Quite honestly, I feel safer in my RV-10 than some certified aircraft because of the fact that I built it, am familiar with it, and can afford it. And I am getting tired of hearing from friends and family about another RV-10 that crashed or door that came off, when almost every single one could have been prevented. Just go down the list and there are some common themes: rushing to get completed, rushing to take-off, owner unfamiliarity, etc.
snip by jetjok
I am writing this because this segment of the aviation world which I dearly love is getting hard to watch any more.
So I ask all of us: When does it stop?
Vic
Since this thread now seems to be focusing on the topic of "hired guns", i wanted to repost a portion of Vic's original message, and ask some questions.
Let me start by stating that I believe that all of the issues that Vic puts forward in his initial post are worthy of debate. He makes some very valid points, and all of us would be wise to reflect accordingly.
On the topic of "owner assist", "hired guns" whatever you want to call it, the thoughts and opinions expressed in many of the previous 124 responses show that there is merit to the opinions on both sides of the fence.
The argument that a second crewmember is required to for calibration or flight safety is absolute "meadow muffins"! I do not have experience in calibrating EFIS in a homebuilt, but reading Jeremy Constant's posting confirms that it is possible to set up the systems so as to be completely safe for flight without having to have a First Officer. The subject of instrument calibration leads to another of Vic's concerns.
There have been multiple accidents/incidents caused by failures of components/systems that should not be failing early on in the life of an aircraft. This leads me to question if some DAR's are not giving the scrutiny that should be applied when inspecting a new plane. Just a few for example;

1. An RV-10 accident where the plane made it's first flight with clecos holding parts of the airframe together. The EFIS systems in this plane were never calibrated and gave continuos erroneous information and warnings. There were multiple other issues with this plane, many of which were completely beyond the control of ANY DAR, but somebody signed this plane off for flight with the above issues.
2. Multiple issues of doors leaving the airframe inflight on the RV-10. While not a -10 builder/owner, I am aware that there is a mod to the system. Are DAR's checking to make sure that this is done and rigged correctly?
3. Several incidents of fires erupting in new planes due to loose fuel lines.

There can be no doubt that Mel, Vic, and the highly skilled DAR's that we have in our midst do absolutely everything in their power to assure that a plane is safe for flight. However, just like any group that is tasked with a certain duty, there are always bad apples, and there can be no doubt that their lack of attention was causal to the accident/incident. There was a question of DAR accountability posed in a previous post, that was never answered. I will ask it from another position. When a new plane experiences a system failure or accident/incident, and it becomes apparent that a DAR was remiss in his/her duties, what do you guys do? Is there any "peer policing" in your group?
One can only imagine the difficulties that a DAR might encounter when performing an inspection. There can be no doubt that trying to balance the "is is safe" decision with the "that's not the way I would have done it" can be a real conundrum.
Anyway, I hope that I have not put a target on my back, but Vic's statements does open up this topic.
Lastly, if the builder is inexperienced enough to require a flight instructor to accompany him/her when flying the plane, that makes the flight instructor the proxy PIC, and the builder an illegal passenger. If one honestly believes that their instructor/mentor is a required crewmember because they don't yet have the skills to fly their RV, that is really twisted logic! Phase I is for proving the aircraft, not gaining the experience that the pilot should have had prior to ever leaving the ground for the initial flight!
Thanks
__________________
Mark Ohlau
RV-6 N506MM VAF #1410
2017 Donation Made

Last edited by jetjok : 11-16-2011 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-16-2011, 01:47 PM
Ron Lee's Avatar
Ron Lee Ron Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
Is this a statement of someone educated about the program, or someone who is guessing?
Ryan, reread my statement. Appropriate words included to show lack of knowledge and asking of a suitable question.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-16-2011, 01:59 PM
kentb's Avatar
kentb kentb is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canby, Oregon
Posts: 1,786
Default What is the DAR's duty.

When I had my plane inspected, it was with a very knowledgeable FAA inspector. He had built a number of RV's and I knew him for a number of years while I was building my plane.
I had 4 EAA tech advisor inspection as my work progressed.

Although my FAA guy did check my plane from some construction errors and made a couple of recommendations, he told me that his duty was to make sure that my plane was legal to be flown. He was not required to make sure the the systems were correct or construction was done to the ACS standards.

I was glad that he went beyond this.

I don't know what the FAA charges the DAR with as to their duty, but my guess is that they need to make sure the that plane is legal. Has the right paper work, right placards, has the correct equipment.

I don't think that they are required to make sure that you tightened all the fittings or calibrated any instruments. That is your responsibility as the test pilot to make sure that the plane is suitable to do the flight. Not only the first flight, but all flights.

Kent
__________________
Kent Byerley
RV9A N94KJ - IO320, CS, tipup
AFS 3500, TT AP, FLYING....
Canby, Or
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-16-2011, 02:39 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default Like Kent says......

MUCH of what Vic, myself, and many other conscientious DARs cover within our Airworthiness Inspection is voluntary.
We want to do our best to see that the aircraft is indeed in a condition for safe operation.

Actually that responsibility falls directly on the builder. Before we inspect it, the build has signed a statement that he has "inspected the aircraft, and it is in a condition for safe operation."

Our job, officially, is to confirm that the aircraft meets the rules and regulations.

We typically go way our of our way to assist the builder in finding problems before the aircraft gets into the air. Problems in the air are much bigger than in the hangar.
__________________
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
  #128  
Old 11-16-2011, 03:42 PM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,627
Default

Great questions about the DAR responsibilities, and Mel already said it. Our job is to make certain the aircraft is legal. At the end of the Day, that is the FAA's prime responsibility (safety of the public), and we are Designated Representatives. A number of us actually expose ourselves by going beyond our responsibilities and do what we can to insure a safe aircraft. While I can only speak for myself here, I know I am not the only DAR who does this because we care, and we have to live with ourselves at the end of the day. Most of the ones I have inspected REALLY want the extra set of eyes, and I do my best to make it an enjoyable experience. Those who only want the paperwork inspection end up with another DAR.
And no, I won't be involved with the commercial build shops, but you've probably already surmised that.

Vic
__________________
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
  #129  
Old 11-16-2011, 04:35 PM
jetjok's Avatar
jetjok jetjok is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sutter Creek, CA
Posts: 842
Default

Vic and Mel,
Thanks for the great replies. Once someone has been given DAR status, who keeps tabs on them? Is there any time where the FAA accompanies the DAR to oversee their inspection methodology and practices? Is there an annual refresher or time where you all try to gather to discuss what you are seeing? It seems to me that there should be a review of a DAR that signed off a plane that had obvious mechanical defects and has an accident/incident in Phase I. Let me ask my question a different way. If you became aware of an aircraft that has been signed off by a less than thorough, knowledgeable, or scrupulous DAR, what are your avenues for remedy, or are you just left to shake your head and walk away?
Please understand that I am in no way trying to back you guys in a corner in any way. You are two of the many folks on this forum that cannot be thanked enough for your contributions to keeping our passions (building, flying, or both!), as safe and enjoyable as possible!

The above having been said, I want to add something to Vic's "when is it going to stop" list....
When are we experienced builders (I am not) and pilots (I guess I sorta fall into the class) going to stop turning our eyes from things we see that are not right? Are we that afraid of hurting someone's feelings, or irritating them? I am not intending to advocate a "big brother" mentality, rather when we see something that can't be justified now matter which way you look at it. I am here to tell you that if you have any conscience at all, keeping your mouth shut to an obvious problem can haunt you for the rest of your life!
__________________
Mark Ohlau
RV-6 N506MM VAF #1410
2017 Donation Made
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-16-2011, 04:56 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

DARs must be "audited" on at least two inspections per year by their "FAA supervisor". We MUST attend a seminar at least every 3 years. (Most DARs attend every year because we want to be "up-to-date"). The seminar is conducted by the FAA and a test must be passed.
A DAR may have his/her designation revoked at any time for any or no reason. IT DOES HAPPEN! More often than you might think. I personally have known of several. I know of one DAR who issued an airworthiness certificate to an airplane that hadn't yet been covered. He is no longer a DAR.

Typically every FSDO/MIDO has at least an annual meeting where all DARs get together and discuss problems found in the field.

As to the question about "after the crash", I had issued the A/W on a Special Light-Sport aircraft that crashed killing both the student and instructor.
I had the pleasure of having a sit-down discussion with the NTSB. Even though the crash had nothing to do with what I did, they have to talk with everyone whose name is in the aircraft records.

Bottom line; we are not just issued a designation and left to ourselves. We are monitored regularly.
__________________
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>

Last edited by Mel : 11-16-2011 at 05:02 PM.
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 06:46 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.