|
-
POSTING RULES

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

07-08-2014, 02:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclark
I still think that good use of the EAA Technical Advisor and Flight Advisor Programs along with good transition training would go a long way if everyone would use them.
|
I totally agree with you.
Thanks, James, for taking the time to provide feedback.
I often see as an instructor the reluctance of a student pilot to do stalls solo, but they'll work the pattern all day. I think I see this trend in flight test as well. The reluctance to explore the aircraft's envelope solo, but perhaps with a very experienced person on board they feel more comfortable doing so. These are the maneuvers that lead to Loss of Control (LOC) and my hope is that pilots will do better in this area as a result. Those first 8 hours are the ones you really NEED TO FOCUS ON-- 65% of all phase one accidents occur in the first 8 hours. 35% occur in the remaining 32. That's why we wanted to get good help in and get them in early.
|

07-09-2014, 09:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: syracuse ny/venice fl
Posts: 623
|
|
I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?
|

07-09-2014, 09:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VETE76
I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
|
This is probably the most contested part of the new AC. I have been presented this scenario many times since we first started putting this idea into a usable document. Based on the hours and hours of discussion, debate, and conversation, my experience on this has shown the following.
1. Those who are very experienced pilots have no use for, or are strictly against having a second pilot in the aircraft during the first flight, and generally any flight thereafter.
2. Those who are inexperienced pilots have a strong desire to have a more experienced person to aid them in better understanding their aircraft. Most are willing to allow their experienced help to flight test the aircraft solo prior to hopping on board.
3. There is a concern that if those in group 2 are forced to solo the aircraft with success, they may never employ the help they really could use.
4. If you read and understand and talk through the program, you'll change your mind daily as to whether it's a good idea or not, but most of the concerns have been addressed through the program with statistics backing the decisions and a team of test pilots, aviation experts in the experimental homebuilt realm and public input guiding us to where we are today.
This AC, through the two matrices, ensures it is not about "taking your buddy flying". Your buddy would be very experienced in the test aircraft to the point that they would be considered a "Qualified Pilot", not just a passenger. The AC describes the need for crew resource management and determination of PIC.
Still, I see your point. The first thing I said when it all started was, "I can't see having two people in the aircraft on the first flight." I also fit squarely into #1 above. But I have spent two years working with everyone between #1 and #2. Now, I am comfortable with what is written, and the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VETE76
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?
|
I'm not aware of any that I can think of.
|

07-09-2014, 11:30 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 617
|
|
Low time pilots...
Yes, bad things can happen in an aircraft. First flight or tenth flight. What is the probability of two experienced high-time pilots making a bad judgement call vs. a qualified pilot and a low time pilot? If I was the pilot in that plane, I'd probably be hearing the co-pilot scream "DON'T TURN BACK! LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD!" because there is a clear chain of command. And he/she would not give a darn about trying to save the plane.
With these changes, you can still have a single pilot do the first flight. In my case, that will probably not be me. Instead, an experienced pilot who does not have a lot of buy in for the aircraft. Every high time pilot know the priority: Skin, Tin and Ticket. In that order.
CC
Quote:
Originally Posted by VETE76
I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?
|
__________________
--------------------------------------------------
David Boeshaar
RV-9A - N18TD (reserved) - Fuselage.
"My greatest fear: What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about?"
TDAircraft.com
-July-
--------------------------------------------------
|

07-09-2014, 11:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VETE76
I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?
|
I am sorry for your loss. But of course this was illegal then, and would still be illegal under this proposal.
The guy in the right seat is not supposed to be a passenger; he's supposed to be the more experienced pilot, who, with no emotional attachment to the airplane, would insist on not turning back without sufficient altitude.
This is a statistics game; the hope is that for every pair of pilots who die, three inexperienced solo pilots would be saved. Of course it will be very hard on the survivors of the unfortunate pair. Statistics and emotions don't mix well.
Mark, this post points out some real issues. One, people are willing to ignore the rules when they are black and white ("no passengers"). When the rules get complicated - and to some this a/c is complicated - they then feel they are free to do whatever they want. I predict you will see lots of second pilots on board who do not meet the listed qualifications, either because they don't understand them, or more likely because they are willing to bend, or totally ignore, the rules they do not like.
|

07-09-2014, 12:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
|
|
Would the new rules eventually create a new paragraph in the default Operating Limitations?
__________________
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
|

07-09-2014, 01:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
Would the new rules eventually create a new paragraph in the default Operating Limitations?
|
We will replace the current Op Limitation. We are working on a change to the Ops Limitations issued moving forward. It is going through FAA coordination right now as well. Here is the paragraph from the AC:
15. OPERATING LIMITATIONS.
a. Required Limitation. In order to utilize the APP, the operating limitations for the test aircraft need to reference this AC. The limitation that authorizes the use of the APP is worded as, or worded similarly to, the following:
Unless operating in accordance with Advisory Circular (AC) 90-APP, Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test, during Phase I flight testing, only the minimum crew necessary to fly the aircraft during normal operations may be on board. b. Adding the APP Limitation. Those wishing to use the program but missing the above limitation may schedule an appointment with the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or other qualified FAA representative (e.g., Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR)) and request to have the aircraft operating limitations updated to those found in the current edition of FAA Order 8130.2.
Here is the plain language explanation...
Once the change is made to FAA docs and approved, when the DAR issues you your limitations, you'll be issued this:
Unless operating in accordance with Advisory Circular (AC) 90-APP, Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test, during Phase I flight testing, only the minimum crew necessary to fly the aircraft during normal operations may be on board. If you already have your limitations, but want this one, you'll need to call the FSDO or DAR and have them ammend your limitations, which will then contain the above language.
This will allow you to operate under the program or "old school"...
|

07-09-2014, 01:59 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
You might note that not all DARs have the authority to "amend" operating limitations. To amend, a DAR must hold function code 33 plus the function code for the aircraft involved. i.e. function code 46 for E-AB and function code 47 for E-LSA.
__________________
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>
|

07-09-2014, 03:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lake Havasu City AZ
Posts: 2,393
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VETE76
I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?
|
The event described above goes far beyond that. The PIC was the Chapter President and also chapter safety officer. He was a lot more than a B52 Pilot. He held all CFI Certificates and owned and flew a high performance single engine aircraft.
The bad day started out with a circus like environment, a big party celebrating the first flight. At least one qualified person asked the PIC if he had adequate fuel. He responded affirmatively, but in fact the tanks were nearly empty.
Probably the worst part is that there were several highly qualified people who should have stopped the PIC from taking a passenger.
The one thing that I do not know for certain, but only suspect, is the lack of qualification/currency for the "copilot".
If the person(s) who asked about the fuel had simply said "slow down, I want you to prove to me you have adequate fuel", the accident never would have happened.
Also this accident proves that the tech counselors and flight advisors do not always get the job done.
|

07-09-2014, 10:40 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight
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.
|
I haven't taken the time to read all the posts/comments in the thread, but I feel that Paul hits it dead on with his.
I have very mixed emotions about this proposal... But I need to read it in detail before commenting further.
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.
Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
|
| 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.
|