|
-
POSTING RULES

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

07-19-2013, 05:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
|
|
Quote:
I agree with many that the first 25 of phase I should focus on the airframe and gathering all the pertinent flight data.
I think it would be nice to have a second pilot on board for certain phases of testing
|
This is precisely the line of thinking I used to develop what I will present. I, however, did not use time (25 hours, etc), I used something different...more "requirement-based"  . I don't want to let the cat out of the bag now, but I think the concept is sound. I'm really looking forward to what everyone has to say about this when I present it.
Bob, sorry to hear you won't be at the show, but congrats on the new salmon pink slip...low bidder wins, so I guess they cut back on red. Job well done, whatever the color.
|

07-19-2013, 07:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coffee Springs, Al
Posts: 124
|
|
Phase 1 second pilot
Hi all,
Sometimes the wording of the request makes all the difference. I think the original intent of the rule is to protect the innocent. In other words no passenger fatality during the phase one test period. But maybe we could allow a "qualified pilot" after perhaps five hours of solo to allow the builder to learn these new glass panels that we are all installing. I personally took transitioning training that I felt was invaluable. I would have loved to have a safety pilot along after the first five hours that would have allowed me to "play" with the advanced avionics. I eventually learned how to utilize the glass in my plane and now feel like im at home but early on a second set of eyes looking out and/or flying the plane while i explored the capabilities of my new panel would have been helpful. My two cents. Tim
__________________
Tim Pethel
Coffee Springs, Al
RV-8A SB Wings Done
Fuse done
Airworthiness cert issued.
Flying as of 08/12/12
Out of Phase 1
200 hours
|

07-19-2013, 08:20 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC25
Posts: 3,508
|
|
I like the regulations / OpLims the way they exist now. NO 2nd pilot in the cockpit while test flying. Only required crew on board. For RVs, the required crew is one.
One should not be looking at their panel trying to figure out how stuff works while flying an airplane. Figuring out how stuff in the panel works is something that should be done on the ground. The Test Phase it to explore and define the flight envelope of the aircraft. Systems need to be tested but not before the aircraft flight envelope is developed. Many systems can be tested on the ground without logging flight time or spending precious dollars on fuel. Once tested on the ground, they still need flight checked but flight check comes after everything checks out on the ground.
There are enough qualified RV pilots out there, we do not need to put two souls in the cockpit just so the builder can say he was in the airplane he built while it was being test flown. With 2,000+ hours RV hours, a commercial license, and 2nd class medical, I am just one of the many RV pilots qualified to test fly RVs.
IF we do away with the requirement to fly Phase I test hours and replace it with TASKS that need to be completed, then the new builder can get in his new airplane sooner with someone that knows how to fly it.
IF we change 8130.2G Change 1 to do PHASE I tasks that need to be accomplished and hours that need to be flown, a 2nd person not required for the test could be on the aircraft once the REQUIRED TASKS are completed but before the hours are completed.
I like the regulations and order 8130.2G Change 1 as it exists. YES it can be made better but putting two souls at risk test flying is not an improvement.
__________________
Gary A. Sobek
NC25 RV-6 Flying
3,400+ hours
Where is N157GS
Building RV-8 S/N: 80012
To most people, the sky is the limit.
To those who love aviation, the sky is home.
Last edited by RV6_flyer : 07-19-2013 at 08:21 PM.
Reason: spelling
|

07-20-2013, 07:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fl
Posts: 156
|
|
Proving Tasks
I agree with RV6-Flyer. For the initial test flying we need the most qualified pilot available with no distractions. Two people in the cockpit will become transition training at a time when the focus should be flying and testing the aircraft. I very much like the proving tasks testing plan to check the aircraft out ; then check the pilot out with the aircraft when it has passed the required tasks. I have done numerous first flights and initial testing and see no reason for another person in the aircraft at that time. I am an ATP, CFII and EAA Tech Advisor and what I hear alot, is builders who are not current flying wanting to be along on the first flights to "take notes". I believe this approach would not be in the interest of safety. Blue Skys
|

07-20-2013, 10:41 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
What Gary said! 100%
__________________
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>
|

07-20-2013, 12:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
I agree with the above posts, and this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV6_flyer
There are enough qualified RV pilots out there, we do not need to put two souls in the cockpit just so the builder can say he was in the airplane he built while it was being test
|
Except that it does not address human nature and pilot egos, e.g. Many builders want to make that first flight. Some are wise enough to know their limitations, but some are not. Who is going to define "qualified"? Currently it's being done by insurance companies. If the only choices were either a rusty pilot-builder, or a rusty pilot-builder plus a more current pilot, which is safer overall?
|

07-20-2013, 12:59 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,840
|
|
Nope
It definitely takes an experienced RV pilot for a first flight, IF BAD THINGS HAPPEN on that first flight, for a successful outcome with no distraction from the passenger, whether he's the builder or buyer.
I can recall several good saves on here, one, by Kahuna, when an RV-7 dumped all its oil (loose oil line at the governor) by the time he reached 1,000', pulled the mixture and safely landed.
If it ends up being a fatal, it'd be a shame for another to also be one.
My .02?
Best,
__________________
Pierre Smith
RV-10, 510 TT
RV6A (Sojourner) 180 HP, Catto 3 Bl (502Hrs), gone...and already missed
Air Tractor AT 502B PT 6-15 Sold
Air Tractor 402 PT-6-20 Sold
EAA Flight Advisor/CFI/Tech Counselor
Louisville, Ga
It's never skill or craftsmanship that completes airplanes, it's the will to do so,
Patrick Kenny, EAA 275132
Dues gladly paid!
|

07-20-2013, 01:32 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Townsend, Montana
Posts: 3,179
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
........ If the only choices were either a rusty pilot-builder, or a rusty pilot-builder plus a more current pilot, which is safer overall?
|
Safer overall, the answer is....A qualified Test pilot.
The rusty builder is of no value on a first flight.
__________________
Retired Dam guy. Life is good.
Brian, N155BKsold but bought back.
|

07-20-2013, 05:34 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 416
|
|
Can't be there
Any possibility that these meetings will be videoed and available on-line shortly afterward, with a means to provide feedback?
__________________
John Halcrow
Tustin, CA
RV-12 120682
Emp/TC done; Wings done; Fuse kit done
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." --Abba Eban
Paid up until Aug 2021
|

07-21-2013, 07:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Del Rio
Posts: 124
|
|
I like the idea of allowing a second pilot in the airplane. I cant make OSH this year, but here is what I would say...
First flight: Having two pilots in the airplane lends itself to having two fatalities if somethings goes wrong, BUT given the phase of flight, if two certified pilots hop in the airplane, especially if one of them has RV experience, the implication is that they were both ok with that level of risk. Does it have public image implications if two people die in a small experimental airplane? Perhaps, but I have never heard of public outcry in the name of private airplane safety.
First 40 hours: Here again, I like the idea of qualified pilots having the option to occupy both seats during the testing phase. For accidents that occur in the first 40 hrs, would having a second pilot on board help mitigate those accidents?
What is a qualified pilot? I would submit that a qualified pilot is anyone who is currently qualified to fly the airplane solo during the testing phase. I dont consider an "hourly flight experience" requirement valid due to the wide variety of "experience" encompassed in that term. If you attached a rating level such as commercial, instrument, etc, "flight experience" now has a level of qualification which is certified by the FAA. However, saying a guy needs to have 100 hrs or 200 hrs really has no bearing on his skill level.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
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 06:37 AM.
|