Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Phase 1, limited Airports to land?
- Thread starter ty1295
- Start date
- Status
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Does it explicitly say that in his op limits? Mine (from Vic 4 months ago) don’t have those limitations.
Thanks for clarifying Vic. Was just curious if something in particular caused it, or someone new just started to enforce and interpret something new in the regs.
And of course, there is some documented evidence to support this "it was always *supposed* to be this way" statement?
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Vic, was there any additional guidance provided on the size of the test area?
Desert Rat
Well Known Member
we should all stop talking about his before somebody at my local MIDO sees it and says "well, the guys down south did it this way..."
It's the gummint. They don't need supporting evidence.
This sums it up pretty well. I have scoured the Order, 8130-2G, and can't find any mention of limiting airports. Keep in mind they can add constraints, but can't "relax" anything in the Order, as can any DAR or Inspector.
I have involved government affairs at EAA. Let's see where we can take it.
Unfortunately, right now, The Atlanta MIDO is limiting it.
Truth be told, it's not really been much of a problem. I've been able to get 2-3 airports approved in addition to the primary airport. Justification is to move to less traffic areas and have the ability to do the crosswind testing, glide testing, etc.
As for the range of the test area, no problems there. I've been able to justify 100NM for the RV's, smaller areas for slower airplanes.
Vic
Last edited:
dmattmul
Well Known Member
Phase 1 limitations
2 weeks ago, FSDO gave me 75 NM around an airport just to my Southeast as I wanted to skew my area to slightly less populated areas with no airport restrictions. I received 50 NM for my first 2 experimentals and when I try to get one for the 10 will ask for 75 again. It's really safer (In my opinion) to be able to fly a pattern closer to airports as waypoints and with the need to keep power settings relatively high we really need a 75-mile radius. For the first 5 hours my goal was to stay within gliding distance of my home airport and for the next 15 hours stay within a 10 miles glide to alternate airports. If I would have had a 75-mile radius for the 14 this would have been much easier. I think (hope) the FAA will understand we are trying to mitigate risks and so far for me they were very cooperative.
2 weeks ago, FSDO gave me 75 NM around an airport just to my Southeast as I wanted to skew my area to slightly less populated areas with no airport restrictions. I received 50 NM for my first 2 experimentals and when I try to get one for the 10 will ask for 75 again. It's really safer (In my opinion) to be able to fly a pattern closer to airports as waypoints and with the need to keep power settings relatively high we really need a 75-mile radius. For the first 5 hours my goal was to stay within gliding distance of my home airport and for the next 15 hours stay within a 10 miles glide to alternate airports. If I would have had a 75-mile radius for the 14 this would have been much easier. I think (hope) the FAA will understand we are trying to mitigate risks and so far for me they were very cooperative.
Update
I've been working this issue. It turns out there is a known bug in the AWC platform that Inspectors and DAR's use. Limitation 42 is the Geographical description for the test area. It clearly says that all airports to be used in the test area must be included in the Ops Limits. The automated function of AWC has been leaving this last line off. Here, you can see it for yourself:
No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of meeting the requirements of § 91.319(b).
The pilot in command must comply with § 91.305 at all times.
This aircraft is to be operated under VMC, day only.
This aircraft must be operated for at least _____ hours with at least_____ takeoffs and landings in this geographical area: [ The area must be described by radius, coordinates, navigational aids, and/or landmarks. The size of the area and airports must be that required to safely conduct the anticipated maneuvers and tests.]
This aircraft may only operate from [identify name of airport(s)]. (42)
It is being worked, but may not get changed until the next Order release, or a Deviation to the Order is released. In the meantime, we may have to list the airports.
Yes, we all agree it's a safety issue, and that is the stand that is being taken.
Vic
I've been working this issue. It turns out there is a known bug in the AWC platform that Inspectors and DAR's use. Limitation 42 is the Geographical description for the test area. It clearly says that all airports to be used in the test area must be included in the Ops Limits. The automated function of AWC has been leaving this last line off. Here, you can see it for yourself:
No person may operate this aircraft for other than the purpose of meeting the requirements of § 91.319(b).
The pilot in command must comply with § 91.305 at all times.
This aircraft is to be operated under VMC, day only.
This aircraft must be operated for at least _____ hours with at least_____ takeoffs and landings in this geographical area: [ The area must be described by radius, coordinates, navigational aids, and/or landmarks. The size of the area and airports must be that required to safely conduct the anticipated maneuvers and tests.]
This aircraft may only operate from [identify name of airport(s)]. (42)
It is being worked, but may not get changed until the next Order release, or a Deviation to the Order is released. In the meantime, we may have to list the airports.
Yes, we all agree it's a safety issue, and that is the stand that is being taken.
Vic
cactusman
Well Known Member
Big issue in large metropolitan area.
Here's an example of safety being adversely affected - during my maiden flight, the winds at my construction airport increased substantially well above forecast resulting in a cross wind that I didn't feel comfortable with for my RV-12. I ended up diverting to a nearby airport (probably 5-6 existed with my 25 miles) - the winds were more favorably and straight down the runway. I ended up tieing the airplane down for the day until the evening and the winds died down enough to return to my hangar where I completed the aircraft 5 miles away.
Had I not been able to land at my alternate airport, I might have felt some additional pressure to attempt a high cross wind landing on my maiden flight with potentially disastrous results.
We have used this and many other examples in our pushback, such as
primary airport having a fouled runway?
Be patient. It will get worked out. In the meantime the DAR’S and inspectors can add a reasonable list of airports.
Vic
If the conditions at these limited locations were unfavorable for safe flight and I had done a proper briefing then I’d invoke 91.3 and land anywhere I need to. I wouldn’t give a second thought to the listed airports if forecast conditions changed and I had to land in a terrible crosswind etc. I’ll contact ATC, declare an emergency on the tapes (they will be dumbfound that your emergency is compliance with an ops limitation). When the paper trail starts and the MIDO is being asked why a pilot needed to declare an emergency, request ATC assistance, the bureaucracy wheels will start squeaking and turning.
Not everyone would do this, and may feel pressured to land at the listed airports in the ops limitations. Not safe! Im not advocating declaring emergency to bypass or loophole the ops limits, but I’m not wrecking an airplane to comply with ops limits either. Especially if I did my due diligence briefing and checking forecast conditions. Has the MIDO considered this?
Not everyone would do this, and may feel pressured to land at the listed airports in the ops limitations. Not safe! Im not advocating declaring emergency to bypass or loophole the ops limits, but I’m not wrecking an airplane to comply with ops limits either. Especially if I did my due diligence briefing and checking forecast conditions. Has the MIDO considered this?
OK. Let's not go over the top here. No one is going to question you for landing out somewhere due to some emergency, or rightful scenario. It would certainly be hard to explain an incident if you were out for a breakfast with your buddies. Let's be reasonable, get rid of the anti authority attitude, and move on. I already mentioned multiple times that the right people are working on it, and I doubt anyone is running around trying to violate anyone. No one is aware of any incident that has prompted this. It's been in the Order for a long time, and we all missed it.
EVERYONE is on the same page here---it's about safety, and that is the issue being held front and center so it can be addressed appropriately.
I will now close the thread.
Vic
- Status
