Add'l Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test

[greghughespdx]

Originally Posted by az_gila

Why make initial flights powerplant mechanically safer for two pilot occupancy over one pilot occupancy?

That's also what I was thinking. And then I thought, "People go out and fly a plane with a powerplant they haven't yet put through the paces test-wise?" In my mind, compression and fuel flow checks are part of knowing whether the engine is ready to go up in the air (or not).

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by greghughespdx

That's also what I was thinking. And then I thought, "People go out and fly a plane with a powerplant they haven't yet put through the paces test-wise?" In my mind, compression and fuel flow checks are part of knowing whether the engine is ready to go up in the air (or not).

It's great to hear that people think in terms of minimizing their first flight risks by doing the recommended ground tests of powerplant sna fuels systems. The FAA has advised these tests in AC 90-89A for years. Some folks do them some don't.
As much as I am a proponent of risk management, I am also a believer that those who practice it will, and those don't practice it are unlikely to do so - even if the regs require it.

I am not a fan of excessive regulation, and figure that there are some people you will simply never reach- so why put a burden on those who will do the right thing anyway?

The new Additional Pilot Program is voluntary - a good example of how we can reach a compromise between regulation and education.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by Ironflight

As much as I am a proponent of risk management, I am also a believer that those who practice it will, and those don't practice it are unlikely to do so - even if the regs require it.

I am not a fan of excessive regulation, and figure that there are some people you will simply never reach- so why put a burden on those who will do the right thing anyway?

n.

I feel sick. Last night I read the NTSB probable cause for N499RV's accident - an improperly installed fuel injector, that took 20 hours to show up. This is a textbook example of why the current rule exists; there should have been one life at risk. But in fact there were two serious injuries. What was the second pilot doing on board? "Familiarization training" he told the NTSB. He had zero E-AB experience. The report suggests that pilot #2 was clueless about the illegal nature of the flight. Sadly, this thread contains other examples.

Mark, I know you have worked hard on this proposal. But by changing a black and white rule ("one person on board") to something gray ("Well, sometimes a second person can be on board") this rule will encourage more 'bending' of the rules. There will be more accidents where the second person was really just a passenger, along for the ride, and the unintended consequence is that the overall casualty rate will go up, not down. Unless - and I really hate to say this, but I will - unless you find a way to put some enforcement teeth into the rules, and strongly 'encourage' pilots to stop making up their own rules, I fear these changes are doomed to fail at reducing the casualty rate.

[Mel]

I don't normally get into politics on the internet, but my feelings on this proposal is exactly in line with what Bob says.
I have no problem with the rules as they are now.

[Kyle Boatright]

Originally Posted by Mel

I don't normally get into politics on the internet, but my feelings on this proposal is exactly in line with what Bob says.
I have no problem with the rules as they are now.

Exactly right. There is nothing about 99% of the current homebuilt fleet that makes a second crew member advisable. For that other 1%, the DAR should have the latitude to grant the owner's request for a second pilot within very limited parameters and for specific tasks which cannot be accomplished with a single pilot.

[MeGiron]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

But by changing a black and white rule ("one person on board") to something gray ("Well, sometimes a second person can be on board") this rule will encourage more 'bending' of the rules. There will be more accidents where the second person was really just a passenger, along for the ride, and the unintended consequence is that the overall casualty rate will go up, not down. Unless - and I really hate to say this, but I will - unless you find a way to put some enforcement teeth into the rules, and strongly 'encourage' pilots to stop making up their own rules, I fear these changes are doomed to fail at reducing the casualty rate.

There was a lot of effort put into making sure there is no 'gray' area as you describe. Here's how:

Each "additional pilot" who decides to assist in Phase I is REQUIRED to:

• document via the provided worksheets

• attest via signature

• attach that worksheet into the test aircraft's airframe logbook PRIOR to flight.

This also holds true for the owner. In the early phases of flight test, the Qualified Pilot's completed scorecard is on the worksheet, attached and signed in the airframe logbook prior to flight attesting and showing that they meet the qualifications.

The hook here is 14 CFR ? 91.9, which says in pertinant part that no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry. (those being your operating limitations issued with your airworthiness certificate)

The argument for or against the program has been hashed out in fine detail for over a year and a half with many, many organizations, individuals and aviation professionals providing input, and ultimately encouraged by the end result. The program is NOT for everybody, and thus, why it is optional. However, I urge you all to keep in mind that the RV community is large and widespread. Training is available, though not as widespread as many would like. For the remainder of the amateur-built fleet, this is not the case. I believe we can all agree that Phase I flight test is serious business, and not to be taken lightly. With the majority of the accidents during all phases of flight being loss of control related, the pilots are not doing as well as they could. Lack of experience in aircraft with similar performance and handling is often to blame. This program provides the ability to construct a flight test plan with a trusted qualified individual to establish experience in the aircraft. Ideally it would begin with transition training in another aircraft prior to flight test. The key is to understand that these aircraft are not always being flown by professional test pilots, nor are they being flown by high time, high experience individuals. Those who meet the last statement will never see the need for this program. Keep in mind, even if the aircraft was flown by a hired pro test pilot for all of phase I, when the owner sits in the aircraft for the first time, they are still confronted with mitigating loss of control. The program requires that the maneuvers done on a typical private pilot checkride are those that must be conducted by the owner during phase I using the program. The idea being achieving a two-pronged outcome: good airplane, good pilot. The overarching idea is this: you should never have to solo any aircraft until you are confident and prepared to do so. The original phase I limitation never provided a means to achieve this.

Lastly, I really do appreciate every response. I want to make sure that we've considered all sides of the debate. To date, I can say that we have. I also hope, though brief, the responses help provide understanding.

[twisted-wrench]

Aside from the one pilot/two pilot question for Phase 1, I have some questions.

How many Phase 1 accidents are a result of structural failure or failure of a flight control system as opposed to loss of power, CFIT, stall/spin, etc. My guess is that structural failures or failures of a flight control system in any of the mainstream kits is very, very low.

I'm not sure that loss of power should equal injuries or fatalities in or out of Phase 1. Simplistically, I know, day, VFR, uncongested area, pick a spot for your glider and land. I personally only know of three loss of power accidents with no fatalities and only one with injuries.

CFIT and stall/spin are not Phase related issues but could be mitigated with another experienced pilot.

[MeGiron]

Here is an excellent study with a lot of charts and figures that can be skimmed and/or read to get a real feel for approximate numbers. The study was conducted by the NTSB back in 2011, and is the best hi-fi data we have to date. I looked at a data from 2001 to current day during our study, and found that it correlated very well...nearly identical in that data that was tracked.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/SS1201.pdf

[bhassel]

Our local guru Will Fox just posted an article on First flights that might be an interesting read. Will is our TC, FA and CFII.

http://eaa691.net/images/technotes/F...Aug%202014.pdf

Bob
EAA Chapter 691: http://eaa691.net FB: http://www.facebook.com/eaa691