OSH: Phase I flight test and Transition Training

Just wanted to put a separate note out there to all who will be at OSH this year. For those who don' t know yet know me, I work at the FAA HQ in Washington DC and write policy for Experimental-Amateur Built (E-AB) aircraft operations. I've also handled a whole slew of other things ranging from NextGen, ADS-B and HUDs to VFR safety over the Hudson. I also have an RV-6 and rely on all of you daily to help me overcome the hurdles encountered. I'm hoping I can rely on you all one more time. Here's how.

The focus this year is two-fold:
1. Looking at allowing two pilots on board during Phase I flight test, and
2. Transition training including obtaining a LODA.

I have a bunch of meetings with industry groups this year to discuss this stuff in detail. I also have a plan for what we are looking at proposing. I'm very close to a final product, but I NEED YOUR INPUT. I ask that you try to attend these two forums if you can:

MONDAY 1:00pm: EAA Welcome Center, First Flight & Transition - A panel discussion about the importance of first flight and transition training. Presented by: Charlie Precourt. Charlie and EAA have agreed to allow me time to conduct a "show of hands" survey on some critical issues involving FAA decisions on adding a second pilot. Questions like if, when, and who is qualified. Here's a chance to make a difference. EAA said they'd give me a brief amount of time to conduct the survey, so I won't have long. That's where the next forum comes in.

MONDAY 4:00-5:15PM: (Pavilion 8 NATCA) FAA proposal for two pilots on board during Phase I flight test, How to get an LODA, and what we're looking at changing with the LODA. I will share with everyone how we propose to do this, and new privileges to LODA holders and transition training seekers. This will be a much more open, back and forth, audience participation type forum. I want to hear what you have to say. Which brings me to this.

I will also be at the RV-Social and would like to hear from you all there. Please come over and talk it up with me. I'd like to get a broad base of what the 'users' think.

I know that these times are not perfect. We have almost no control over the times, nor the places. We get what we get. Please understand that. I know the frustrations encountered with the FAA, especially this year, with issues over paying for controllers. I will leave that conversation to those smarter and higher ranking than I. I am just fortunate enough to be one of two folks authorized to travel (on my own dime in my RV-6) to support the experimental crowd this year.
Thanks for your input in advance. I hope you all have a safe trip out and see you at Oshkosh!

Mark, great of you to post this, hope you get a lot of input at OSH, as well as here at VAF.

My $.02------a second pilot who is qualified in type is a big plus in the safety arena. As to LODA and transition training, big no brainer here------another big plus in safety.

With all the hats you wear at work, is there anything you can do to move the EAA/APOA proposal concerning the revision to the medical requirements along??

Thanks for being here on VAF----we need folks like you aboard.

Thanks, Mike!

a second pilot who is qualified in type is a big plus

Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head. That's one of the last things we're trying to define..."Qualified"

With all the hats you wear at work, is there anything you can do to move the EAA/APOA proposal concerning the revision to the medical requirements along??

Click to expand...

I'll answer with lyrics derived from MC Hammer... Can't touch this.

Insurance

Hi Mark,

We've talked before about this, I'll just say that nothing has changed in the last year: For the casual (5 - 20 hours per year dual given) transition trainer, the cost of insurance remains high. High enough, for me, that it does not make business sense.

Bob

I will try to make it! I just finished Phase One and would very much like to talk to you about the process.

I took transition training in a barrowed plane with a CFI who happened to have a lot of hours in that plane. That was very helpful for flying the new plane.

However, I built the most technologically advanced panel I have ever seen and I could have benefited from having a specialist fly with me for the last 25 hrs to try and adjust and calibrate everything. To be honest, most of the last 25 hrs was just buring gas to get the hours off. Almost every flight after that has been with another pilot or someone with special skill to finally get everything "fixed". Most of Phase One was a total waist of time that could have been very productive! I don't need to learn how to fly, I already know how to fly. What I desperately needed during Phase One was to learn how to run the panel and make everything play together and do it correctly!

I totall agree that the one person rule is totally unnecessary and in fact may be dangerous. I second set of experianced eyes and ears could really save the day in those first few hours!

Lets talk.

High enough, for me, that it does not make business sense.

Click to expand...

Bob, you're right. What if you had the authorization to do more "stuff" like endorsements, etc.?

Clearly the cost of insurance and the inability to sustain business leads to the need of another form of training. 2 on board during phase I, perhaps.

I could have benefited from having a specialist fly with me for the last 25 hrs to try and adjust and calibrate everything.

Click to expand...

Paul, if you can make only one, the 4pm session might just address every point you made.

Is there a way that those of us who are unable to attend, to raise our hand in support or opposition to these topics? or any other input method?

Is there a way that those of us who are unable to attend, to raise our hand in support or opposition to these topics?

Click to expand...

Great question. Yes. After OSH, I'll post some results and look at creating polls on VAF to finish off the study.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend OSH this year.

One topic I know that has been debated here extensively is whether or not a 2nd pilot should be used as a safety pilot during phase I to wring out a technically advanced panel.

I agree with many that the first 25 of phase I should focus on the airframe and gathering all the pertinent flight data.

I think it would be nice to have a second pilot on board for certain phases of testing

rleffler said:

I agree with many that the first 25 of phase I should focus on the airframe and gathering all the pertinent flight data.

I think it would be nice to have a second pilot on board for certain phases of testing

Click to expand...

Agree completely. There were several times it would have been very advantageous to have a second set of trained eyes in the cockpit with me.

I agree with many that the first 25 of phase I should focus on the airframe and gathering all the pertinent flight data.

I think it would be nice to have a second pilot on board for certain phases of testing

Click to expand...

This is precisely the line of thinking I used to develop what I will present. I, however, did not use time (25 hours, etc), I used something different...more "requirement-based". I don't want to let the cat out of the bag now, but I think the concept is sound. I'm really looking forward to what everyone has to say about this when I present it.

Bob, sorry to hear you won't be at the show, but congrats on the new salmon pink slip...low bidder wins, so I guess they cut back on red. Job well done, whatever the color.

Phase 1 second pilot

Hi all,
Sometimes the wording of the request makes all the difference. I think the original intent of the rule is to protect the innocent. In other words no passenger fatality during the phase one test period. But maybe we could allow a "qualified pilot" after perhaps five hours of solo to allow the builder to learn these new glass panels that we are all installing. I personally took transitioning training that I felt was invaluable. I would have loved to have a safety pilot along after the first five hours that would have allowed me to "play" with the advanced avionics. I eventually learned how to utilize the glass in my plane and now feel like im at home but early on a second set of eyes looking out and/or flying the plane while i explored the capabilities of my new panel would have been helpful. My two cents. Tim

I like the regulations / OpLims the way they exist now. NO 2nd pilot in the cockpit while test flying. Only required crew on board. For RVs, the required crew is one.

One should not be looking at their panel trying to figure out how stuff works while flying an airplane. Figuring out how stuff in the panel works is something that should be done on the ground. The Test Phase it to explore and define the flight envelope of the aircraft. Systems need to be tested but not before the aircraft flight envelope is developed. Many systems can be tested on the ground without logging flight time or spending precious dollars on fuel. Once tested on the ground, they still need flight checked but flight check comes after everything checks out on the ground.

There are enough qualified RV pilots out there, we do not need to put two souls in the cockpit just so the builder can say he was in the airplane he built while it was being test flown. With 2,000+ hours RV hours, a commercial license, and 2nd class medical, I am just one of the many RV pilots qualified to test fly RVs.

IF we do away with the requirement to fly Phase I test hours and replace it with TASKS that need to be completed, then the new builder can get in his new airplane sooner with someone that knows how to fly it.

IF we change 8130.2G Change 1 to do PHASE I tasks that need to be accomplished and hours that need to be flown, a 2nd person not required for the test could be on the aircraft once the REQUIRED TASKS are completed but before the hours are completed.

I like the regulations and order 8130.2G Change 1 as it exists. YES it can be made better but putting two souls at risk test flying is not an improvement.

Proving Tasks

I agree with RV6-Flyer. For the initial test flying we need the most qualified pilot available with no distractions. Two people in the cockpit will become transition training at a time when the focus should be flying and testing the aircraft. I very much like the proving tasks testing plan to check the aircraft out ; then check the pilot out with the aircraft when it has passed the required tasks. I have done numerous first flights and initial testing and see no reason for another person in the aircraft at that time. I am an ATP, CFII and EAA Tech Advisor and what I hear alot, is builders who are not current flying wanting to be along on the first flights to "take notes". I believe this approach would not be in the interest of safety. Blue Skys

I agree with the above posts, and this:

RV6_flyer said:

There are enough qualified RV pilots out there, we do not need to put two souls in the cockpit just so the builder can say he was in the airplane he built while it was being test

Click to expand...

Except that it does not address human nature and pilot egos, e.g. Many builders want to make that first flight. Some are wise enough to know their limitations, but some are not. Who is going to define "qualified"? Currently it's being done by insurance companies. If the only choices were either a rusty pilot-builder, or a rusty pilot-builder plus a more current pilot, which is safer overall?

Nope

It definitely takes an experienced RV pilot for a first flight, IF BAD THINGS HAPPEN on that first flight, for a successful outcome with no distraction from the passenger, whether he's the builder or buyer.

I can recall several good saves on here, one, by Kahuna, when an RV-7 dumped all its oil (loose oil line at the governor) by the time he reached 1,000', pulled the mixture and safely landed.

If it ends up being a fatal, it'd be a shame for another to also be one.

My .02?

Best,

BobTurner said:

........ If the only choices were either a rusty pilot-builder, or a rusty pilot-builder plus a more current pilot, which is safer overall?

Click to expand...

Safer overall, the answer is....A qualified Test pilot.

The rusty builder is of no value on a first flight.

Can't be there

Any possibility that these meetings will be videoed and available on-line shortly afterward, with a means to provide feedback?

I like the idea of allowing a second pilot in the airplane. I cant make OSH this year, but here is what I would say...

First flight: Having two pilots in the airplane lends itself to having two fatalities if somethings goes wrong, BUT given the phase of flight, if two certified pilots hop in the airplane, especially if one of them has RV experience, the implication is that they were both ok with that level of risk. Does it have public image implications if two people die in a small experimental airplane? Perhaps, but I have never heard of public outcry in the name of private airplane safety.

First 40 hours: Here again, I like the idea of qualified pilots having the option to occupy both seats during the testing phase. For accidents that occur in the first 40 hrs, would having a second pilot on board help mitigate those accidents?

What is a qualified pilot? I would submit that a qualified pilot is anyone who is currently qualified to fly the airplane solo during the testing phase. I dont consider an "hourly flight experience" requirement valid due to the wide variety of "experience" encompassed in that term. If you attached a rating level such as commercial, instrument, etc, "flight experience" now has a level of qualification which is certified by the FAA. However, saying a guy needs to have 100 hrs or 200 hrs really has no bearing on his skill level.

Add me to the list...

...of people that don't agree with the NTSB's recommendation of allowing a second pilot for first flights and early phase one testing (I might agree with later phase one if it was dealt with properly).

One of the major factors that could effect the safety of this policy is who is actually pilot in command. Not from a regulatory standpoint, but as it relates to safe decision making.

The airplane owner is going to (understandably) have a much higher tendancy to bias decisions towards saving the airplane. The second pilot is much more likely to bias decision making predominantly on saving his but*.

Who's decision wins, when you only have 2 seconds to decide?

I wont be at OSH this year... would have enjoyed being involved in the discussion.

Rupester said:

Agree completely. There were several times it would have been very advantageous to have a second set of trained eyes in the cockpit with me.

Click to expand...

5 years ago a friend of mine was doing his 1st flight on a lancair. he took one of his good friends with him. the plane crashed on take off, engine ran out of gas! both were killed in resulting crash. 100 yards off the end of the run way. so don't ask me what I think of a second pilot! 1 funeral was/is bad enough!
here's just one of the aftermaths one has to deal with.
Janet Calp has her camera back, complete with the final photos of her fiance, Bill Hodge.

Hodge was a passenger in Frank Romeo's homebuilt Lancair Legacy for its maiden flight April 14 from Oswego County Airport in Volney.

The plane crashed moments after take-off, killing Hodge and Romeo.

In the chaos immediately following the crash, town of Onondaga resident Calp got into a car with a man who had also witnessed the flight and run to the parking lot. He drove Calp to the crash scene.

When she got out of the car, Calp left behind the digital camera with which she had taken 16 photos of Hodge, Romeo and the airplane on what had been an overcast morning.

"It wasn't cloudy enough, unfortunately, that they had to stop the flight," Calp said Monday afternoon.

The camera had traveled to Penfield, east of Rochester, with the car's driver, Tom Lansing. Lansing brought the camera with him Friday when he attended the regular meeting of the local chapter of the Experimental Aircraft Association.

Lansing belongs to the EAA chapter that meets at the airport, the same chapter to which Romeo and Hodge belonged.

When Lansing arrived, chapter secretary Robert Lyman asked him if he knew about the missing camera. "He pulled it out of his pocket," Lyman said.

The next afternoon, Lyman drove to Great Northern Mall where he handed Calp the camera.

The camera is fine and the photos were good, said Calp. "Some were very good; painful but good," she said.

She put copies of the photos on a compact disc to give to Barbara Romeo, Frank Romeo's widow. They are, Calp said, the last photos of her husband as well.

Calp was grateful to have the camera back and the photos. "I'll treasure these," she said.

The plane, which Romeo had spent three years building, was destroyed in the crash. The wreckage had been stored at the EAA's hangar at the airport, but has since been taken away, said Lyman.

"It's been removed to a secure location," Lyman said.

romeo was a b52 pilot he was also our eaa chapter president. he was also a very nice person. I didn't know mr hodges. but I learned later that he was also a very nice person. NO SECOND PILOT!!!

Do I read this correctly? Your friend, who I am sure was a very nice person, took along a NON PILOT passenger on his first flight?
What does that have to do with this discussion?
A competent pilot would have looked in the fuel tanks, been watching engine readings while his friend took off, checked for proper tank selected, etc. Could he (a second, real pilot) have helped change the outcome? There is no way to know. But certainly a non-pilot had no business being there.

Go ahead and flame me, but it is my casual observation that personality types who are willing to violate the FARs in such a deliberate manner are also sometimes, how can I say it, lax about other rules intended to promote safety but which they think should not apply to them.

First off I think we can all agree that you can't cure stupid. With that I mean blatent disregard for the rules. No matter what is decided there will always be those out there with this affliction. Second, I think where Mark is going with this is not that there would be a second pilot on the first or even second flights but that after the initial airworthiness testing that a second "qualified" (yet to be defined) pilot would be allowed aboard to help the owner/builder/pilot get trained. We have it really easy in the world of RV's because there are so many of us but we are not the whole EAB community, only a part of it. There are many other scratch built and kits out there where the abiltiy to get transition training does not exist. When you look at the psycology of a builder/pilot there is a tremendous temptation to make that first flight even though they may not even be current to fly passengers let alone skills current. By allowing an instructor aboard to help them get that transition training in their own aircraft will take the pressure of having to make that first flight much less and encourage them to let a test pilot make that first and second flight to be sure the plane is air worthy and controllable. Again, stop thinking only RV's, there are lots of other EAB aircraft out there that typically don't have the engineering history behind them.

Mark and I are buddies (disclosure) and he has our best interests at heart. It was really disappointing last year that only a few RV'ers showed up to his informal meeting and I truely hope there is a huge crowd to greet him this year. Mark is interested in our safety and fun without onerous regulations that hamper us.

When you do meet Mark, be sure to ask him how the Tuna Trap is doing.

BobTurner said:

Do I read this correctly? Your friend, who I am sure was a very nice person, took along a NON PILOT passenger on his first flight?
What does that have to do with this discussion?
A competent pilot would have looked in the fuel tanks, been watching engine readings while his friend took off, checked for proper tank selected, etc. Could he (a second, real pilot) have helped change the outcome? There is no way to know. But certainly a non-pilot had no business being there.

Go ahead and flame me, but it is my casual observation that personality types who are willing to violate the FARs in such a deliberate manner are also sometimes, how can I say it, lax about other rules intended to promote safety but which they think should not apply to them.

Click to expand...

SORRY, HE WAS A PILOT. and he was acting as a second pilot. the owner never ran the engine wide open on the ground, so when he took off he gave it full throttle climbed 200-300', got 4000" down a 5000' run way and the engine quit. I was at the end of that runway, and he tried to turn back to the airport. fatal decision. now tell me what good was the 2nd pilot. if someone builds his own, he should be the only one flying it at least until the engine is determined to be reliable and he has done 30-40 landings.

Counterpoint

Capflyer said:

I think where Mark is going with this is not that there would be a second pilot on the first or even second flights but that after the initial airworthiness testing that a second "qualified" (yet to be defined) pilot would be allowed aboard to help the owner/builder/pilot get trained. We have it really easy in the world of RV's because there are so many of us but we are not the whole EAB community, only a part of it. There are many other scratch built and kits out there where the ability to get transition training does not exist.

Click to expand...

Quite true.

A friend built a Lancair 4, and had a factory guy (not sure if he was an employee or just recommended by the factory) do a very thorough preflight ----and fix a few issues before the first flight. The "factory guy" then did the first flight and put the first few hours on it. Then, he took my buddy up and taught him how to fly the plane. My buddy took over and finished up the phase 1 stuff, and has been flying safely ever since.

The Lancair crowd has been very vigilant about safety and training of new pilots and first flight safety-------but then they have in the past had a somewhat dismal record-----and something had to be done about it.

Food for thought.

Vete,

Thanks for the clarification. Curiously, the NTSB makes no mention of the passenger having a license.

In general I do not advocate 2 aboard. I do think having a second experienced pilot on board may help if the builder is not completely ready for the task, but insists on going. BUT it only works if the second pilot is acknowledged by the first to be PIC. If the engine quits and he says, "Go for the cornfield, do not turn back" then that's the call. The builder, understandably, will want to save the plane.

BobTurner said:

Vete,

Thanks for the clarification. Curiously, the NTSB makes no mention of the passenger having a license.

In general I do not advocate 2 aboard. I do think having a second experienced pilot on board may help if the builder is not completely ready for the task, but insists on going. BUT it only works if the second pilot is acknowledged by the first to be PIC. If the engine quits and he says, "Go for the cornfield, do not turn back" then that's the call. The builder, understandably, will want to save the plane.

Click to expand...

he had a Soneri we had to sell.

BobTurner said:

In general I do not advocate 2 aboard. I do think having a second experienced pilot on board may help if the builder is not completely ready for the task, but insists on going. BUT it only works if the second pilot is acknowledged by the first to be PIC. If the engine quits and he says, "Go for the cornfield, do not turn back" then that's the call. The builder, understandably, will want to save the plane.

Click to expand...

Those are some very big ifs. So big in fact that they negate the entire premise.

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I don't want to see the FAA in the business of determining who is qualified to be a 2nd pilot. Is it too much of a stretch that they might then start determining who is qualified to be the 1st/ only pilot? This would only serve to further erode the freedoms that we enjoy under the E-AB rules.

There is no reasonable need for a 2nd pilot during phase 1. All this regulatory reform effort would be better spent on real needs like LODA.

sprucemoose said:

Those are some very big ifs. So big in fact that they negate the entire premise.

Click to expand...

and my opinion is that it would work for some. Probably a minority.

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I don't want to see the FAA in the business of determining who is qualified to be a 2nd pilot. Is it too much of a stretch that they might then start determining who is qualified to be the 1st/ only pilot? This would only serve to further erode the freedoms that we enjoy under the E-AB rules.

Click to expand...

i think those freedoms are very much in jeopardy. Right or not, the NTSB has complained to the FAA about a perceived problem with E-AB safety. I think guys like Mark are making an honest effort to come up with ideas that are effective and inexpensive and easy to implement. If they don't I would not be surprised if you do see new regs about who can act as PIC in an E-AB aircraft.

All this regulatory reform effort would be better spent on real needs like LODA.

Click to expand...

Can you explain what you have in mind?

BobTurner said:

Can you explain what you have in mind?

Click to expand...

LODA Letter of Deviation Authority... Allows an owner of a E-AB aircraft that has operating limitations that wont allow operations for hire (charging for the use of the airplane while giving transition training), to do so.

Broader availability of transition training would help with first flight and test flying safety, but in a lot of areas around the country, the FAA has made it rather difficult for an instructor to obtain a LODA.

Standardizing the LODA application process, and getting all of the FSDO's on the same page, would be a big step towards helping people have a means of getting properly prepared for test flying.

LODA

I have had a LODA for the past year and a half. It did require some persistance on my part, but was not unduly difficult to obtain. The real issue is that unless you can generate a significant amount of business the cost of insurance for this activity makes it expensive. I passed my extra insurance costs on to the transition trainees, and they paid an average of $130 per hour for insurance! That's more than twice the cost of avgas!!

I do think the high cost discourages transition training.

One thing Mark mentioned was broadening LODAs (I am currently limited to transition training only - no flight reviews, no IPCs, not even high performance endorsements) to hopefully increase business opportunities and thereby bring the average cost of insurance down. I will have to think about this some more, to see if it makes sense for me.

BobTurner said:

Can you explain what you have in mind?

Click to expand...

Scott pretty well nailed it. As he said, the rules seem to be different around the country (as with so many other things) and just because it was reasonable in your area does not mean it is in the rest of the country. I think the availability of transition training is one of if not the single biggest factor in phase 1 flight safety. Granted, insurance is also an issue but that is not under the FAA's control. I can't help but believe that as the pool of qualified transition CFIs increases (assuming a good accident rate) that insurance costs will go down. Insurance companies like to see more rather than fewer participating in an activity. But I get the cost thing, it's one of the reasons I don't instruct anymore and let my CFI lapse.

This is really great discussion, and I thank you all for your comments so far to date. Keep them coming. I?ve read them all and continue to do so. I hope you?ll forgive me if I can?t reply to all of the incoming questions. I will take them all into account when I do my presentations and try to address the vast majority of comments and concerns. To date, I believe my presentation actually does this. One of the first things you?ll be asked in the ?show of hands? questions is whether a second pilot should be allowed on board the first flight. I?ll show some compelling information and statistics about Phase I. I have agreed at one time or another with almost everyone?s opinion. No second pilot. Second pilot. No second pilot. Second pilot. I will say that I have been working with pilot groups and alphabet organizations to drive to where we are. I have received quite a bit of support on the matter. I?m really excited about the opportunity to present this to you all this year, and I hope you will attend. Those who have been through Phase I have great experience to share. Those who are ready to start will have an opportunity to see what?s on the horizon. Those providing transition training will get to hear about where it?s headed, and those looking for training will learn of some valuable resources to utilize.

The sole purpose of phase I flight testing is just that! Flight testing of the aircraft. If the builder is not qualified to do the flight testing, then a qualified pilot should be brought on board. There is absolutely no reason to have another person on board the aircraft.

After a reasonable number of hours, I might be in favor of allowing another pilot on board, but certainly not on the first flight.

Another thing I might add here. There have been occasions where an FAA inspector has "OK'd" a second pilot during phase I. He does NOT have the authority to authorize a violation of the rules.

I've been signing off amateur-built aircraft and light-sport aircraft for 14 years and I emphasize this on reading the op lims every time.

Mel said:

After a reasonable number of hours, I might be in favor of allowing another pilot on board, but certainly not on the first flight.

Click to expand...

Yep, although I am in support of allowing a second pilot ----qualified pilot----on board when needed, I totally agree with Mel that the maiden flight is not the place for it. If the builder is not competent to do the first flight, hire someone who is.

Education please

Where is the FAR requirement for only one person in the aircraft during phase one?

twisted-wrench said:

Where is the FAR requirement for only one person in the aircraft during phase one?

Click to expand...

FAA Order 8130.2G, operating limitations for amateur-built aircraft, paragraph (10), "During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."

The purpose of flight during phase I is flight testing of the aircraft, period.

twisted-wrench said:

Where is the FAR requirement for only one person in the aircraft during phase one?

Click to expand...

It is indirect. FARs require you to adhere to all limitations placed on the airworthiness certificate. For EAB those come in the form of operating limitations. These virtually always define phase one and two, and restrict phase one to day vfr, certain geographical areas, and to 'necessary crew'. Both Vans and my DAR explicitly said that was one person.

Edit: I see Mel posted first with the official FAA words.

Mike S said:

Yep, although I am in support of allowing a second pilot ----qualified pilot----on board when needed,

Click to expand...

And when would a second pilot be "needed"?

Let's call it what it is....a desire for flight instruction. Flight instruction in a Phase 1 airplane isn't safe for anyone.

Qualified pilot

So, I see lots of posts saying "qualified pilot". I think the real question is, do we continue with the present system where each builder decides for himself what that means? I personally know of no phase one fatalities due to an unqualified pilot, but I have read, here, of some close calls. Worse, some forum members urged the pilot to just push on, rather than get training or hire someone else. Personally I would like to keep the present system, but that is not the history of the FAA. Remember, once upon a time a private certificate was all you needed for most aircraft. Then, the FAA decided a tail wheel endorsement was needed. Then, the fact that you had received training in a 182 was not sufficient to fly a 182RG; a complex endorsement was required.
You see where I think this may be headed.

Thanks so far - additional question

Is there regulation guidance on who gets the final authority for: essential to the purpose of the flight?

Not expressing opinion or making judgment on what is smart. Just learning.
========================
Both Vans and my DAR explicitly said that was one person.

This sounds like opinion to me.

twisted-wrench said:

Is there regulation guidance on who gets the final authority for: essential to the purpose of the flight?

Not expressing opinion or making judgment on what is smart. Just learning.
========================
Both Vans and my DAR explicitly said that was one person.

This sounds like opinion to me.

Click to expand...

Sure. You are asking a legal question now.
FARs empower the FAA to enforce the rules, as they interpret them. If you think they have misinterpreted them you can appeal to the NTSB, which will act as judge and jury. Good luck.

MeGiron said:

1. Looking at allowing two pilots on board during Phase I flight test, and
2. Transition training including obtaining a LODA.

Click to expand...

O.K., lets get back to basics here-----in this case, the basic I am referring to is what the OP stated above.

Or, to put it another way, this thread has drifted way off what Mark has asked for input on. Read his words above.

Mel said:

The sole purpose of phase I flight testing is just that!

There is absolutely no reason to have another person on board the aircraft.

Click to expand...

Mel said:

FAA Order 8130.2G, operating limitations for amateur-built aircraft, paragraph (10), "During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."

The purpose of flight during phase I is flight testing of the aircraft, period.

Click to expand...

Mel, you are restating the current policy-------Mark is looking for input to make a possible change to the current policy-----reread his quote above.

Mel said:

After a reasonable number of hours, I might be in favor of allowing another pilot on board, but certainly not on the first flight.

Click to expand...

Not exactly the same hard line as you have put forth before, see your quotes above.

BobTurner said:

For EAB those come in the form of operating limitations. These virtually always define phase one and two, and restrict phase one to day vfr, certain geographical areas, and to 'necessary crew'.

Click to expand...

DanH said:

And when would a second pilot be "needed"?

Let's call it what it is....a desire for flight instruction.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Thanks Dan.

Again, go back to the original post be Mark, and read what he is asking for comment on--------His item "B" is transition training. What better aircraft to do transition training in than the one you will actually be flying.

Forget about repeating the current status quo, and think about possible alterations to the rules to improve the situation, and the safety of our brother and sister pilots, and their aircraft.

Mark already knows what the current rules say, and he is looking of input to alter/amend/change those rules to enhance SAFETY. My guess is that he has a pretty good reason for going down this road--------

Mark, please jump in here and explain what has led to this concept of making these changes.

Mike S said:

Mel, you are restating the current policy-------Mark is looking for input to make a possible change to the current policy-----reread his quote above.

Click to expand...

My post #38 was in answer to post #37 which asked about current regulations and was quoted within that post.----------reread my post!

My opinion about the regs

Regardless of opinion on the advisability of more than one pilot in the aircraft during phase one, it is my opinion that the only thing the FAA would need to do to accept this is to define their position in advisory material.

I also suspect that in an aircraft with complex avionics or systems, the FAA would have a hard time taking action against pilots who decided that essential crew during phase one was more than one. I could easily be wrong on this!

It would be interesting, for the purposes if this discussion, to find out if the FAA has ever violated anyone on this. Maybe Mark (MeGiron) could help with this.

I don't see any regulation change needed.

Let me add some clarification to my previous comments.

In my particular case, I have a certified prop and a version of a certified engine, but it is technically an experimental. The difference appears to the lay person is the priced paid to Lycoming. There doesn't technically appear to be a difference in the actual engine.

So I got 40 hours, instead of 25 for Phase I.

I am not condoning minimizing the tasks required for flight testing. I'm in the process of documenting and finalizing all my flight test cards in preparation for starting Phase I. There are going to be a set of "X" number of tasks that each of us should perform as part of Phase I.

The debate seems to be whether of not to be measured in hours completing the task, or simply task completion. Some of us based upon our experience levels will complete the recommended tasks quicker than others. It shouldn't make a difference if an experienced test pilot completed the task in 15 hours, but it took me 22 hours because it's the first time for me in Phase I. The important thing is to complete the recommend tasks. I hesitate to say required tasks, but I think that may be where Mark is going if I'm reading between the lines.

Let's just say for the sake of arguement, that the recommended flight testing tasks can be performed in 25 hours. What should be done during the remaining 15 hours of testing?

For those folks that have technology advanced panels (RV-10s, Lancair, etc), it's not advisable to be head down in the screens testing the EFIS and various periphals while in a single pilot mode. It would be much safer to have a safety pilot looking out the window, while a second persons is wringing out the avionics. While not currently approved, I think there is potential for this to be a legitimate definition on when a second crewmember may be required.

The real debate is where to draw that line in the sand. 25 hrs? 40hrs? or some prefined list of tasks that have to be completed?

I would also think that the same may hold true for additional of advance transition traning. I agree that an inexperienced or rusty pilot should hire out initial flight testing and there should not be two crew members on board during flight testing. I think this is more fuzzy to me. Although I am in support of giving the instructers with LODA's more capabilities to perform more traditional CFI tasks in their aircraft. (endorsements, BFRs, etc), I'm not sure transition training should take place in Phase I.

The problem is that there is no effective method of auditing what is done. Today you have folks flying to $100 hamburger runs to burn time off Phase I. I'm sure if it was switched to a defined list of tasks, there will be people that will pencil whip those as well. Weare always going to have a few that will atempt to short circut the system.

I think we all agree on safety as a number one priority. What we disagree on is how to measure safety or how to enforce common sense.

RV6_flyer said:

... One should not be looking at their panel trying to figure out how stuff works while flying an airplane. Figuring out how stuff in the panel works is something that should be done on the ground. ...

Click to expand...

With all due respect, Gary, that's not entirely true. Not all settings for these glass gizmos can be done on the ground. Setting the AOA, for example -- arguably an important, if not essential, instrument in learning to fly a new plane if one is so trained -- MUST be done in flight, while performing a series of stalls in various configurations.

A lot of very knowledgeable people have chimed in here on this particular topic, and I would not presume to engage in a heated debate to contest their opinions. I don't have a dog in that particular fight anymore. However, looking back at my own Phase I regimen, it would have been a tremendous relief to have had another pair of eyes looking outside while I was taking notes on EGT/CHT readings at various power settings, calibrating instruments (like the AOA) and other chores that are part of a successful Phase I routine.

By NOT having a qualified pilot/passenger along for at least some part of Phase I, the pilot is required to engage in a lot of tasks that take attention away from safely flying the plane. What happens in many cases, I have to believe, is that the pilot/builder, nervous about having his head inside the cockpit too much recording data and missing conflicting traffic outside, simply gives up and just flies off his Phase I time, never really learning the aircraft's systems.

This is a conundrum without an easy answer. For every example of how having a safety pilot along would enhance safety, someone else will offer a tragedy that would have only claimed two lives instead of one.

Life is full of risk. Flying is inherently unforgiving of error, as we are all aware. Do we share that risk with a willing accomplice, or accept the increased risk of solo flight testing, knowing that we alone are facing peril?

Looking back on a very uneventful Phase I (after employing a test pilot for the first two flights), I know that I spent far too much time staring at my panel to assess engine health, instead of watching for traffic in a very big sky. Had I been allowed a qualified passenger during some part of that testing, I know that I would have explored the flight envelope more, emerged more knowledgeable about my airplane and its systems, would have compiled more valuable data about the plane's performance throughout the envelope, and would have progressed faster in building confidence in flying this new plane.

As long as nothing went wrong.

Regardless any changes, it's nice to see that the FAA in interested in getting input from those who actually build and fly our planes.

N8RV said:

Regardless any changes, it's nice to see that the FAA in interested in getting input from those who actually build and fly our planes.

Click to expand...

+1 on that!!!

Don,

I couldn't have said it better. In fact you nailed what I did! I ended up flying off the last 15 or so hours without gaining much except for a much better understanding of how the airframe flies. As soon as the 40 was done and signed off, I had qualified people fly with me to complete flight/panel adjustments and calibrations. Couldn't do this safely alone.

Finally, I totally agree that I could have learned far more about the aircraft performance if I had had a qualified CFI in the plane with me for the last 10 or 15 hrs. Could have done so much more! Would have been so much more willing to push it a little farther if I had an exprianced RV pilot with me.