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 Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-01-2014, 05:05 PM
Gary Baker Gary Baker is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Medina, OH
Posts: 203
Default Add'l Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test

The FAA has just opened the comment period for allowing a qualified second pilot in the cockpit during Phase I test flights. After more than a year of hard work, the final draft of the Additional Pilot Program, informally known as ?2nd Pilot,? is available for public comment. The program will be administered via an AC, with the working title AC 90-APP ?Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test.? You can find it on this page: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/afs_ac/ (direct link to the document: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_do...Coord_Copy.pdf).

There is some background info in the beginning of the AC as to why the second pilot (Qualified Pilot) must meet certain flight experience requirements to be in the aircraft during the first eight hours of flight time. Yes, this proposed AC will allow the Qualified Pilot to be onboard the aircraft for the first flight. After the first eight hours and specific flight tests have been completed, the strict requirements are lessened and the second pilot can be another private pilot (Observer Pilot).

As one of many people involved in helping to create this program, I can assure you that there was very intensive discussion so that there was value added to each flight, not just another body.

The comment period is open until July 29, and I am sure that the FAA will be holding some forums through too the week at Oshkosh.
__________________
_____________
Gary Baker
VAF 737
RV-6 Flying since 5/31/14!
N927MG
Medina, OH

EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor
Member-EAA Homebuilt Aircraft Council
Website: http://www.mykitlog.com/ggbaker
Photos: www.picasaweb.google.com/bakerfamilyenator
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2014, 06:52 PM
GLPalinkas's Avatar
GLPalinkas GLPalinkas is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Venice, Fl
Posts: 1,020
Default

Nice job Gary, and all contributors. Hopefully, the spirit of the AC won't be misconstrued or abused. The first flight cockpit, as we know, is a very busy place.
__________________
Gary Palinkas - Gman.... VAF #161
Venice, Fl
RV-6 "Sassy" Flying 400 hrs since Oct 2011
Lycoming 0-360 A1A, FP Sensenich Prop
SARL #19 .... Van's Calendar March 2015
Although exempt several ways, =VAF= Dues paid to support this awesome site/family
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2014, 08:58 AM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
Smile

Good Idea, but I wish the document would use the English language, rather than NASA-ese.

With 25 pages total, one extra page wouldn't harm anything and make it easier to read.

The ITP aligns the mitigations provided by a qualified additional pilot to the hazard level of early flight test. Once the AIT is accomplished, the advanced skill set for the additional pilot can be reduced for any BP who has personally performed, in the test aircraft, all items in the BPML, thus completing the ITP for that BP.

Becomes

The Initial Tests Package aligns the mitigations provided by a qualified additional pilot to the hazard level of the early flight tests. Once the Aircraft Initial Tests is accomplished, the advanced skill set for the additional pilot can be reduced by any Builder/Owner Pilot who has personally performed, in the test aircraft, all items in the Builder/Pilot Maneuvers List, thus completing the Initial Tests Package for that Builder/Owner Pilot.


If the new section with the acronyms spelled out doesn't read correctly (or easier), then it simply says a bit more editing is needed.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ

Last edited by az_gila : 07-02-2014 at 09:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2014, 09:01 AM
jclark jclark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 804
Default

Thanks Gary and all that are working on this.
The collaboration that this effort represents is more amazing than most will ever realize.

James
__________________
James E. Clark
Columbia, SC
RV6 Flying, RV6A Cowling
APRS
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-03-2014, 04:25 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jclark View Post
Thanks Gary and all that are working on this.
The collaboration that this effort represents is more amazing than most will ever realize.

James
I was really pleasantly surprised by how much effort Mark put into getting end-user input on this. I probably spent a good hour or more talking to him at Oshkosh last year, and even though I have nowhere near the flying experience that a lot of other guys do, he still listened sincerely to my concerns and ideas.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-07-2014, 10:29 AM
MeGiron MeGiron is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
Default Two on board during phase I...

Well folks, I take my first week of vacation in years, and they publish the draft of the AC I worked on while I'm away. Typical government operation, right? Read only a few comments from the folks here on VAF about the document. I'll try to provide responses to those who take the time to post to the best of my ability.

I'll be presenting this program at OSH this year on Monday from 11:30-12:45 in Forum 10. Charlie Precourt will be up there with me. If you haven't met Charlie or heard what he has to say, hearing him alone is worth attending.

This will be a great opportunity for anyone looking to begin or is in the midst of Phase I, and also for those who want to be that 'additional' pilot.

The format of ACs is not very flexible, and so it's not always as simple to write it to read like a book or manual as one would wish. However, if you use the worksheets in the back (Appendix1) for structure and reference the body of the AC to help answer any of the questions you have it becomes a bit easier to understand.

Gil fairly points out some of the inflexibility, but if you understand the roles of each person, or imagine who they might be, it's easier to understand.

BP - That's the person who owns the aircraft and wants to bring along another better pilot.
QP - That's the hot shot pilot or "Qualified Pilot" who's got enough experience to provide real deal good help.
OP - That's very similar to an IFR safety pilot role. Can fly if need be, but mostly there to keep you from bumping into somebody while you're busy head-down or otherwise.

ITP - Initial Tests Package. These are the flight maneuvers and tests that need to be conducted by the aircraft and the owner (BP). Until these are completed, the only person allowed on board with the owner is the hot shot. After completion, you can take the hot shot (QP) or the safety-pilot-like person (OP).

When you get multiple owners for a single aircraft, it gets more complicated in the wording, but not in the process.
1. The aircraft needs its stuff tested to show it's safe.
2. If there are multiple owners for the bird, an individual pilot needs to be able do the private pilot 101 stuff to show they can handle the aircraft safely. Then the hot shot (QP) requirement can go away for that owner. The other owners still need the hot shot until they conduct the private pilot 101 stuff so they have the benefit of the QP too.

The presentation at OSH should help this, and EAA is promising some webinars on this stuff as well.

Bottom line, if I had to sum up the program in a sentence, it would be this:
The program provides a means such that no pilot should have to solo their aircraft until they are comfortable to do so.

Curious to get your thoughts on all of this...

Last edited by MeGiron : 07-08-2014 at 06:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-08-2014, 08:50 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,256
Default Two Up

Mark Giron is one of the good guys at the FAA ? an RV-6 pilot lodged into a reasonably high-level position in the Washington HQ is a good thing to have! I have worked with Mark on the topic of two pilots in the cockpit for Phase 1 ever since he held a little meeting in Homebuilt Camping a couple of years ago, and we talked on the grass. Mark is a good listener, has a lot of aviation experience, and has enlisted the aid and counsel of a fair number of experts in flying and risk management in this effort. This is a solid piece of work, addresses some mighty complex issues, and is an indication that there are people in the FAA who actually DO want to work with the pilot community, not just dictate to it. If you pass up this opportunity to participate, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don?t like the outcome.

Now I will be blunt ? I think that having two people at risk where you only need one doesn?t pass the initial sniff test in any structured risk management program that I am aware of. However, the program laid out by this Advisory Circular is an attempt to address a directive from the NTSB, and to deal with an emotional (not a logical) l issue ? the desire of an inexperienced builder to be in the cockpit for the first flight of their homebuilt airplane. This is inherently not a logical problem, and therefore, pure logic won?t fully address it. There is a gray area between pure logic and emotion, because we are dealing with human beings. Statistically, there is a possibility that this program can reduce the total number of fatalities (which is not a big number to begin with) seen in Phase 1 testing by a small amount. Not as much as if the FAA dictated rigorous qualification standards for anyone that does test flying, but I don?t think very many people want them to resort to draconian restrictions.

I would advise folks who usually take things at surface appearances to delve very deeply into the Advisory Circular ? the program is not as simple as some might like. This is not a case of ?oh, the FAA is now allowing two people in the cockpit for Phase 1, let?s go fly!? It is much more rigorous that that ? there are requirements on what aircraft can be used, and on the experience levels of the ?Qualified Pilot?. There are also modifications to Ops Lims that will have to be made. This is STRUCTURED. Of course, those that have been violating the rules all along will violate these structures as well. This is a voluntary program ? if you want to continue doing things as they have always been, you can do that.

I?ll be honest - as a person who meets the standards of the ?Qualified Pilot? in most cases, I still doubt if I will ever serve in this capacity. As the old saying goes, ?Never say Never? ? but I will do everything I can to help a new builder/pilot understand that risk minimization dictates fewer people in the cockpit under almost all situations. I will educate, discuss, counsel and even pontificate ? I will do whatever I can to come up with the safest plan in a given situation for a given pilot. This AC is a wealth of information developed from many sources ? even if no one ever flies two-up in Phase 1, it is still a valuable resource for Flight Advisors looking for concrete information on risk management and what might be considered ?good qualifications? as a test pilot. Its good stuff.

I?d encourage everyone that I have talked with ? and those I haven?t ? on this topic to go to the web site and make your comments. This is our chance to influence the process. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we don?t.

Paul
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-08-2014, 10:51 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight View Post
This is a solid piece of work, addresses some mighty complex issues, and is an indication that there are people in the FAA who actually DO want to work with the pilot community, not just dictate to it. If you pass up this opportunity to participate, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don?t like the outcome...
I?d encourage everyone that I have talked with ? and those I haven?t ? on this topic to go to the web site and make your comments. This is our chance to influence the process. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we don?t.
QFT... it's rare that an opportunity to get "inside the circle" and talk directly to the rulemakers presents itself. Take advantage of it when you can.



Now, my thoughts on the proposal itself (Disclaimer: I'm a ground test engineer with only a PPL and ~150 RV/200 total time)

First, I don't believe that the first flight or three is the time to have a second person on board. If the builder isn't comfortable doing the flights themselves, they shouldn't be doing them, period. I also don't believe that early Phase I is the time to be doing transition training. You have an airplane that is largely unproven and you don't need to add learning a completely new and wildly different airplane to that mix.

On the other hand, a "checkride" for a builder who is generally qualified but would still rather have someone show them the ideosyncracies of that particular airplane is arguably a little different. At least speaking for myself, I might be hesitant to just jump into someone else's RV and go flying without a flight or two with its owner to learn the little quirks of that airplane--though perhaps the bigger part of that could be not wanting to bend "someone else's airplane"?. Maybe guys with thousands of hours in lots of different airplanes feel differently, but not all (or even most?) homebuilders have that level of experience, or the resources (time, money, test pilot buddies) to wait out a full 40 hours before getting any stick time. It seems the QP proposal addresses this, though I still don't think the very first flight or two is the place for it.

The observer pilot provisions seem more reasonable to me, though I'd consider a bit more in the way of time on the airframe and some more "envelope expansion" type flights first. I know some people will still object that nobody should ever be on board before 40 hours for any reason, but consider that the entire E-LSA Phase I period is only what, 5 hours? And then anyone can go along? Granted, an E-LSA must be built exactly to plans, whereas a regular E-AB can have a lot of variation... but if we look at what the proposed AC applies to (recognized kits running manufacturer-recommended engines, and getting engine/fuel tests before first flight) it seems we're most of the way there. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow, after 10-15 hours or so and certain tasks completed, that a second pilot (who is current and better informed than a non-pilot passenger) be allowed on board to assist with lower-risk testing like autopilot calibration and testing, nav equipment checks, time-to-climb and cruise performance determination, etc. Four-way airspeed runs and fuel flow checks in cruise at Hour 29 just isn't the same risk level as accelerated stalls with aft CG at Hour 7. Come to think of it, maybe the blanket "40 hours and all intended maneuvers" isn't really the best specification for a test program... but that's another discussion for another time.



I do have a concern (as do others I've talked to about it) that this proposal could serve as some kind of steppingstone for the FAA to start piling on flight-test pilot qualifications for everyone flying in Phase I, or to restrict innovation and new concepts in favor of more standardized kits. Something like that could flat-out kill the homebuilding industry as we know it. I know that's not happening under this proposal, and I know Mark isn't looking to go down that road at all, but I'm not as... how to say it... trusting?... of those higher up the food chain. We enjoy a whole lot of freedom in the homebuilt world, and I don't want us to lose that.
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-08-2014, 11:41 AM
MeGiron MeGiron is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
Default

Thanks for the initial responses. Keep them coming. I'll incorporate these concerns into my presentation at the forum Monday!

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt View Post
I do have a concern (as do others I've talked to about it) that this proposal could serve as some kind of steppingstone for the FAA to start piling on flight-test pilot qualifications for everyone flying in Phase I, or to restrict innovation and new concepts in favor of more standardized kits. Something like that could flat-out kill the homebuilding industry as we know it. I know that's not happening under this proposal, and I know Mark isn't looking to go down that road at all, but I'm not as... how to say it... trusting?... of those higher up the food chain. We enjoy a whole lot of freedom in the homebuilt world, and I don't want us to lose that.
No concerns here, and no plans lurking in the ivory tower. When I studied the phase I accidents and their causes, it was clear that the pilot (along with the aircraft) was being tested during phase I. I don't want to lose the freedom of experimental flight, nor the pilot. Some of the things the VAF crowd enjoy, such as available transition training, just isn't available for other kits. We're working on making the LODA more friendly, too. Perhaps it will open up the way to more providers of training for other kits too. Clearly, training is a great first step.

The thought process I have is something along this line...
1. Fix the LODA to create more training providers (I am pushing for the ability to do things like obtaining endorsements and such through these providers).
2. Provide a means by which one can, with good intention and good help, fly a respectable phase I and accomplish all tasks to obtain good numbers for performance and understand the handling of the aircraft. The AC gives the flexibility to move a qualified individual in and out of the aircraft when you feel it would provide you benefit. Not necessarily the first flight, but not prohibiting it either.
3. A good phase I, means a good test plan. A good test plan is not judged by hours, but by completed tasks. So one could make a leap that says, complete the tasks and thus complete phase I. A good test plan is something I'll be talking to kit mfr's this year about, and other groups as well.

I'll be at the social too to try and field some questions and get some other ideas from the braintrust.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-08-2014, 12:16 PM
BillL BillL is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,516
Default

I am reading this document to make an informed comment. It is extensive. I see that the application must be made by someone with "standing" on behalf of the aircraft, and that there are many details of qualification for the QP, but can not see if Phase I pilot qualifications change otherwise.

One question: does it place any additional restrictions or requirements on the pilot in phase I that do not already exist?


Thanks
__________________
Bill

RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Reply With Quote
Reply



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 06:37 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.