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
  #31  
Old 09-30-2014, 04:00 AM
DanBaier's Avatar
DanBaier DanBaier is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 669
Default

I think "character assassination" is a little strong, but if that is how what I said is being interpreted I definitely owe someone an apology. That was not the intention.

Nevertheless, my opinion remains that this is not a workable document. In fact, my fear is that over time it will prove to backfire - it may turn out that it is not followed as intended yet people may point to it as the basis for carrying that extra person during the test flights.

If all the kinks were worked out so that a DAR could issue a letter incorporating this and someone came to me asking if this were a good idea, it would be my advice that they should instead invest in the appropriate transition training or find an appropriate pilot to do the initial flight testing. I think the key point that we can all agree with is that the statistics point to a significantly elevated risk to be managed.

Again, just an opinion, but that is my conclusion after reading the AC.

Dan
__________________
RV7A (N7101) - Flying 10/2008
CFI- SE/ME/Inst
A&P
KC2ZEL
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-30-2014, 12:12 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanBaier View Post
my fear is that over time it will prove to backfire - it may turn out that it is not followed as intended yet people may point to it as the basis for carrying that extra person during the test flights.

Dan
Dan, I agree with you on this point, and expressed my concerns to Mark.

I just want everyone to know that Mark is one of the good guys, genuinely interested in EAB (he is an RV owner), willing to listen to anyone who emails or calls, and trying to address a serious concern while working within the confines of a federal agency (I too dislike all the acronyms).
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-30-2014, 01:57 PM
Veetail88's Avatar
Veetail88 Veetail88 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hales Corners, WI
Posts: 981
Default

I for one find great merit in the circular. Having recently completed my RV-8, I plan to take advantage of it. I had a very qualified pilot perform the initial flight and additional flights while working out the bugs, and since, I?ve made a couple of flights in it as well. Regardless, I will feel more comfortable and likely increase my skills faster in the plane with a QP/coach along with me.

I fall right in that category of low time pilots (with a newly minted TW endorsement) with an airplane I built that desperately wants to fly it. I think this is a good alternate path to fly the test phase and build proficiency at the same time. Fact is, there just aren?t a whole lot of LODA holding transition trainers around. For folks like me with limited resources, flying airplanes is an extravagant hobby, and having to travel to another part of the country, staying in a hotel and paying for an instructor and his airplane for a week is a major expense that frankly I don?t have the money for.

For me, even though my airplane has about 4.5 hours on it, squawks have been fixed, I?ve flown an RV-6 for a few hours to transition and I?ve flown my new RV-8, I still see benefit of having a QP on board. Here?s a few of them.

1. Exploring aft and max gross weight limit corners of the WB envelope.
2. Exploring stall and slow flight characteristics.
3. Expanding my personal crosswind abilities in this particular aircraft. (as well as polishing landing technique)

The one area I don?t personally agree with is having two aboard for the initial flight. I understand the ?I built it and I?ll be da**d if I?m going to let anyone else make the first flight? attitude. (That being loosely akin to turning your new bride over to a more experienced guy on your wedding night?.) But it just doesn?t make any logical sense. Of course this hasn?t stopped many from sticking their necks out there and flying it themselves regardless of their capacity, and I hope this AC has a positive effect on those folks. I just would never be one of them.

So my plan moving forward is to take advantage of this Advisory Circular. While I will probably make solo flights as well, for the items listed above I will utilize a QP or OP as appropriate to conduct the full AIT and BPML. I believe this is a much better plan toward not becoming a statistic as compared with going it alone.

Also, I have no problem with the acronyms. After giving the document a serious read it?s just not an issue. Much easier to deal with than making the first landing in your new airplane.
__________________
Jesse Bentley
N229Z - RV-8 - Flying - Livin' the dream!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-30-2014, 02:43 PM
Tumper's Avatar
Tumper Tumper is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Aubrey, TX
Posts: 358
Default Me too

Jesse,

I second that comment. I am right where you are.

PS Thank you Mark for helping make this happen. Correctly applied and I think this will make transitions safer. Utilized incorrectly and...well I guess nothing will have changed any.
__________________
Dean Eiland
Aubrey, TX
Former Vice President EAA Chapter 1246
RV-9 (yes) N369RV
Mattituck IO-360, C/S Whirl Wind Prop, GRT, Digiflight II, Garmin SL30 & GTX 330 and Hotel Whisky Aux tanks, Bla Bla Bla
Flying

Last edited by Tumper : 09-30-2014 at 02:47 PM. Reason: add text
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-02-2014, 05:35 PM
Tumper's Avatar
Tumper Tumper is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Aubrey, TX
Posts: 358
Default Any news?

Just checking back on this. One of the post from earlier this week stated "At this point inspectors are not authorized to change operating limitations wording".

Are there any updates from inspectors?
__________________
Dean Eiland
Aubrey, TX
Former Vice President EAA Chapter 1246
RV-9 (yes) N369RV
Mattituck IO-360, C/S Whirl Wind Prop, GRT, Digiflight II, Garmin SL30 & GTX 330 and Hotel Whisky Aux tanks, Bla Bla Bla
Flying
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-02-2014, 05:57 PM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is online now
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,627
Default Not yet.

I know they are working on the Deviation. Should be soon.

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
  #37  
Old 10-03-2014, 07:19 AM
Veetail88's Avatar
Veetail88 Veetail88 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hales Corners, WI
Posts: 981
Default

Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but the local FSDO already gave me new ops limits with the language added. I'll wait for the deviation to be published before I exercise it though.
__________________
Jesse Bentley
N229Z - RV-8 - Flying - Livin' the dream!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-03-2014, 07:38 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veetail88 View Post
Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but the local FSDO already gave me new ops limits with the language added. I'll wait for the deviation to be published before I exercise it though.
Just as an FYI, the "local FSDO" does not have the authority to do this!
__________________
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
  #39  
Old 10-03-2014, 08:36 AM
MeGiron MeGiron is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 81
Default Deviation to Order Memo

Folks,

I am happy to announce that the deviation to Order 8130.2G has been signed. This document grants deviations to the order that issues the ops limitations for your aircraft to allow for use of the Additional Pilot Program AC 90-116. If you need a copy of this deviation memo, please let me know by email mark.e.giron<at>faa.gov

-Mark

Last edited by MeGiron : 10-03-2014 at 09:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-03-2014, 08:58 AM
Bill Dicus Bill Dicus is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Shorewood, WI (Milwaukee area)
Posts: 1,066
Default

Mark: I'm close to getting my airworthiness for an RV-8 and would like to have a copy to show my FAA inspector. Thanks in advance for offering this. Bill
__________________
Bill Dicus
Shorewood (Milwaukee) Wisconsin
RV-8 N9669D Flying 12/4/14!
Flying Pitts S-2A, Piper Lance
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.