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
  #21  
Old 09-29-2014, 07:08 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twisted-wrench View Post
Mel, my impression is that an Advisory Circular has as much regulatory influence as the FAA Order as neither are regulation and both are interpretation and guidance.

Reality is ????
The FAA order IS regulatory for inspectors.
__________________
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
  #22  
Old 09-29-2014, 07:11 AM
Alan Carroll's Avatar
Alan Carroll Alan Carroll is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
I sent an email to FAA about this new "rule". Since this is an Advisory Circular, it is not regulatory. Our guidance comes from 8130.2 and that has not changed.
I asked if we are now authorized to change the operating limitations wording IAW the new AC.

The answer I received was; "We do not regulate by Advisory Circulars. Continue to follow current guidance contained in 8130.2G."

So if you wish to participate in the new program, do so at your own risk. At this point inspectors are not authorized to change operating limitations wording.
Mel,

Clearly the AC is meant to rationalize carrying a second person during Phase I. It would therefore seem to provide a formal protocol for establishing when a second person is "essential to to the purpose of the flight". If this is the case then it doesn't appear any change is actually needed to the operating limitations?
__________________
Alan Carroll
RV-8 N12AC
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-29-2014, 07:17 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Carroll View Post
Mel,

Clearly the AC is meant to rationalize carrying a second person during Phase I. It would therefore seem to provide a formal protocol for establishing when a second person is "essential to to the purpose of the flight". If this is the case then it doesn't appear any change is actually needed to the operating limitations?
I was referring to paragraph 15.a. of the AC which gives new wording for the op lims.
__________________
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
  #24  
Old 09-29-2014, 07:54 AM
Grumpy-Hodge Grumpy-Hodge is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Leonard, Texas
Posts: 33
Default I am actually interested in taking part in this...

Can I assume/propose that the website publish names and contacts of those "Additional Pilots" that meet the qualification in the AC and are available for such services?
__________________
Grumpy
RV-9A
Finish and Firewall
JLMTIK
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-29-2014, 08:25 AM
MeGiron MeGiron is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
Default

Just to be clear here with all of the information going back and forth. Here is the deal. In preparation for the release of the AC (AC 90-116), I had drafted a deviation to FAA Order 8130.2G. This deviation could not be published until the AC was published since, prior to publishing, the AC is not assigned a number. It was formerly known as AC 90-APP during draft. Once published and number assigned, the deviation draft was then updated with the newly assigned number with the wording for the new operating limitations. I was on vacation last thursday and friday and came back to find my AC hit the market...and VAF. Go figure. That being said, this morning, I authorized AIR to proceed with the deviation for signature.

Bottom line, the Order (8130.2G) will have a deviation published soon to authorize the use of the AC. Until then, there is NO "operate at your own risk". One is either authorized by their operating limitations, or they are not. Until the deviation is published AND your aircraft operating limitations are updated or issued with the contents of the deviation (as described in the AC), the only way to utilize the AC is via special coordination with the FAA to allow this on a case by case basis. However, I expect this deviation to be published very shortly.

So, from a regulatory standpoint.... an AC is not-regulatory on its own, and by its very nature. The coming deviation to the order will then make the AC available for use, and 'legal' for DAR issuance, and 14 CFR 91.9(a) will make it regulatory for those who choose to use it.

Here's the reg "bold" added for emphasis:

91.9(a)...Except as provided by paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certifiying authority of the country of registry.

I hope this helps clear things up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE 10/3/2014: FAA Order 8130.2G Deviations has been signed. The ops limitations are now able to be amended/issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by MeGiron : 10-03-2014 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Note that the deviation paperwork is now official
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-29-2014, 08:36 AM
MeGiron MeGiron is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer View Post
What a bunch of rigmarole. Could they have made it any more involved and convoluted?
Yes. Thinking back to the two years of discussions we had with pilots, test pilot professionals, manufacturers and type clubs who helped carve this AC by weighing complexity with safety goals, I guess we could have.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:00 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MeGiron View Post
J

Bottom line, the Order (8130.2G) will have a deviation published soon to authorize the use of the AC. Until then, there is NO "operate at your own risk". One is either authorized by their operating limitations, or they are not. Until the deviation is published AND your aircraft operating limitations are updated or issued with the contents of the deviation (as described in the AC), the only way to utilize the AC is via special coordination with the FAA to allow this on a case by case basis. However, I expect this deviation to be published very shortly.
My "operate at your own risk" was meant to state that whatever you do that is not covered in your op lims will be on YOU. It is not currently authorized by your operating limitations.
__________________
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
  #28  
Old 09-29-2014, 10:46 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,627
Default I checked as well

As DAR's we have to wait until the Order is changed or a deviation issued. Some of the MIDO's haven't even heard of it yet.

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
  #29  
Old 09-29-2014, 07:58 PM
DanBaier's Avatar
DanBaier DanBaier is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 669
Default

I hate to rain on the parade, but having tried to go through the AC twice - my impression is that it is virtually unworkable.

I know it's probably not the case, but it sure does look like a piece put together by someone who wouldn't know the front from the back of an airplane. Also, one has to wonder why the nutty use of all the abbreviations that seem to intentionally make it very difficult to understand? (Read - "...I give up...let's just do it the old way...." - now, there's some real progress!)

If you step back from the picture, the fact is that the statistics are sobering. After some reflection, I think it still makes the most sense for quality transition training or the use of an experienced pilot to do the first flight (if not well into the first few hours).

But, hey, in the final analysis, there's a positive response (at least in theory) to the NTSB recommendation!

Dan
__________________
RV7A (N7101) - Flying 10/2008
CFI- SE/ME/Inst
A&P
KC2ZEL
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-29-2014, 09:02 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

Dan,
I have personally spoken with Mark (the author) and can assure you that your character assasination of him is completely unwarranted. He has to conform to agency guidelines (look at the nonsense that the FSDOs cannot change operating limitations yet because a number could not be assigned to the ac until after it was approved....), and for sure there were lots of compromises necessary to achieve a consensus.
Yes, you need to copy down and decode all the abbreviations to read the ac; and yes, I have fears that pilots will deliberately ignore the qualification matrix, but it certainly is neither unworkable nor not understandable.

And if you do not like it, you are free to keep to the old rules.

Bob
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 06:37 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.