What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

OSH: Phase I flight test and Transition Training

Paul K said:
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.
Click to expand...

A practical observation is that everybody's situation is different. Not everyone has a Danny King to pitch in and lend a hand while building, or to volunteer to fly off the first hour or so to make sure that it handles correctly.

Despite the distance, I would have gladly paid Danny to visit for a long weekend after I'd flown Smokey for about 5-10 hours. With his vast experience and knowledge base (to say nothing of patience!), he could have done far more than just watch for traffic while I fussed with instruments.

The problem would be with those who don't have a Danny around and decide to take along a wife or airport kid to just watch for traffic -- and something goes wrong. Or, conversely, a builder/pilot who is totally unqualified to fly Phase I and basically wants to learn how to fly his new plane from an experienced pilot.

Like I said, this is indeed a conundrum with no one-size-fits-all solution. Good people will stand firmly on each side of the fence, unwilling to jump the fence. As long as we can agree to disagree and stay friends, all will be good.

I guess I would be one who sits on the fence on this topic for the very reason I stated above -- each situation is different. I can understand how having a qualified pilot along would be a benefit, and I can equally see how it could be a detriment. And, sadly, I can also envision the myriad ways that the system could be abused to the detriment of us all.
 
Don,

My situation is absolutely different than what most have! I have access to two very experienced RV pilots and an acro instructor! I also have GRT in my back yard! I would never pencil in the numbers to work the system and no way would I take a wife, friend, or non pilot with me. That's not exceptable conduct.

The point is, I didn't have any options. I understand the need for regulations, if we don't have them then it would become a free for all and sadly, carnidge would litter the ground! We definitely need regs!

Perhaps, the rules can be expanded to define well established kits etc? Or not. I can live with the existing rules, it just seemed frustrating at times and not the best use of time and resources. My .02 worth.
 
Hey Don,

The more I think about this the more unhappy I am with the way I think about it! Right after my last post, I sat back and thought about all of the different types and amazing home builts that are on our field. Everything from RV's to a restoration of a Camel! I can't invision how Mark is going to address so many different types! My thinking was stuck in RV mode. We really have it easy!
 
I consider that the first few hours should be with only the pilot on board, for all the reasons stated by many others. Adding a second pilot only doubles the potential consequences of an accident. The probability of an accident should be very similar with one or two pilots, IF the pilot is appropriately experienced.

But, after the aircraft has a few hours, the risk of an accident should have decreased substantially. There are many tasks to perform during the flight test phase that could greatly benefit from the assistance of a second pilot, or an experienced flight test engineer. Examples:

climb and glide testing - it takes considerable attention on the part of the flying pilot to accurately hold the target airspeed. This detracts from his ability to perform proper lookout for traffic. A second person would also be useful to record data.

AOA system calibration - many systems have complicated calibration routines that are much easier performed with the assistance of a second person.

Avionics and systems testing - many aircraft today are fitted with quite complex avionics installations that require considerable testing to confirm they function correctly. A second person could be very useful to read the test procedure, record results, help ensure proper lookout for traffic, etc.

The number of hours to be flown before sufficient reliability has been proven so a second person could be added almost certainly depends on the type of engine. If the aircraft has a type certificated engine or a clone thereof, I think 10 hours is more than sufficient. Five hours might even be enough. If the engine is an automotive conversion, experimental turbine, etc 50 hours of trouble-free operation might be closer to the right number.

The flight test phase should not be used for flight training. The pilot should get his conversion training by some other means.

I agree that the flight test phase should have a list of defined tasks that must be performed. Too many builders simply "fly off the hours" without doing proper flight testing. Then they remark later on VAF, after their first landing with someone in the back seat, how different the aircraft handles at aft CG. Rear CG/heavy weight handling should have been evaluated during the flight test program, using ballast to achieve the extremes of the desired weight/CG envelope.
 
While I can't tell you what Mark's current proposal looks like, I can say that I have seen some earlier drafts, and the direction was sound. We're not talking taking "passengers" on first flights (and in an RV, anyone other than the pilot on a first or second flight is a passenger, not a "flight test engineer" - there is simply no call for an extra person on early flights in these simple airplanes). If you read the comments here of many experienced folks, there is support for allowing an additional person after the aircraft's basic stability and control has been established, and I can agree with that.

If you look at it from a high level, one way to look at this is that we are effectively shortening the Phase 1 period. This is eminently reasonable for a kit plane (built to plans) with a long track record and a large number flying. Makes sense, right? But putting that simple principle into rules, or even guidelines, is extremely difficult.

Just so folks appreciate how hard Mark's task is, let's see what questions ned to be addressed:

1) What defines a "qualified" pilot? Once you define this, it is codified - it is hard to waiver exceptions!
2) What defines a "well known design"? Any arbitrary number you pick can be challenged. RV's sure - but what about a Lancair Legacy? How many are out there? Again - draw the line where you will, someone will want to challenge the line.
3) What defines "built to plans"? Very minor changes - even cosmetic ones - can have significant results. My uneventful but unplanned engine-out landing in our RV-3 was due to a cosmetic change (poorly executed) to the fuel valve HANDLE. Trivial...right? Not so much....
4) What tasks should be performed prior to allowing the second person onboard? I imagine a committee could spend a year hashing out the exact stability and control tests and still not agree - even if they were experts!

So remember this when you talk with Mark - his task is monumental, because whatever he writes will be THE RULES, and many of the lines will be arbitrary - just like they are now. I am all for a re-write, and I have my own ideas of where to draw the lines between absolute safety (which is a myth) and absolute freedom (also a myth, because we affect others no matter what choices we make.

I am 100% behind helping Mark make good choices, and will help in any way I can. Compromises will be required, and choices will have to be made. Be flexible and look at the big picture - that is what he is doing.

Paul
 
I really enjoyed Mark's presentation and discussion that he had in homebuilt camping last year. I also fully supported his initiative and embraced the idea of ending some of the nonsense of Phase I testing and the "required crewmember" exception.

That said, I found you probably don't want to make that position public around a gathering of RVers.
 
Thank you Mark, for jumping into the fray so openly.

My 2 cents worth is this. Over the years, first flight safety improved dramatically when EAA established tech and flight advisors. The diligent use of this service is most worthwhile and helpful. It could become a bit more formal - like an FAA requirement - at present I believe it is recommended, not required. A flight test program is required buy not the tech councilor inspections.

An extra pilot may be a comfort to some but it is no substitute for a sound flying machine. I prefer not having a second pilot, that person's safety is my responsibility and a distraction from performing the necessary tasks of phase one flying.

Perhaps the real fly-in-the-ointment of this subject is the legal presumption every builder of an experimental airplane is qualified to flight test it and under the rules perfectly legal to so designate himself, and do it. Its always been that way.

Has this situation been examined from a safety point of view? How many accident events are occurring during phase one flight testing attributable to the limited flying experience of the builder-test pilot as opposed to fuel or oil lines not being properly secured? How broke is the system?

Perhaps all this "lets change the rules" activity is not necessary. Maybe it's just a response to those complaining about flying by themselves - they'd rather have company. :)
 
Let me start off with another quick thanks to everyone in supplying this topic with worthy points of debate!

I want to take a few minutes to clarify a few things that will help in understanding the scope. First, my job is to write policy "recommendation" that will be reviewed by the senior management. If they like it, it rolls through the machine and eventually finds its way to the "street". If they don't, I provide the reasoning behind my recommendation, debate the best I can, and then a decision is made to keep, discard, or modify my recommendation. That being said, when I sit at the long table with my recommendation, it's best to have sound logic and reasoning behind EVERY SINGLE WORD in every single sentence. The difference between shall, may, can, will, minimum required crew, etc. can become dizzying!

Having this forum is one way to get more points to consider or backing on current recommendations. Most importantly, I want to make it clear that my current recommendation is NOT complete. There are places like 'what defines a "qualified" pilot that must still be completed. What about a set of maneuvers that, once completed, define a point where a "less-qualified" pilot could join in on board to put eyes on board while you're head-down working on the fancy gizmos? So, I don't have the recommendation all in place, but I do have blanks to fill in...and perhaps a few holes that need patched that I didn't find the first time. The other thing to keep in mind is how this pertains to those who don't have an RV?
 
Last edited:
As Mark said - he is a part of the machine - not necessarily the driver, but I am still really glad that we have him on our side!!

The one thing I forgot to mention in my post above is that once we (the community, the FAA, etc) start to define terms like "Qualified Pilot" and what tests need to be completed by a certain time, they become codified and essentially regulatory. So we need to be VERY CAREFUL what we do - additional rules will affect some more than others, but we'll all be responsible for abiding by them.
 
MeGiron said:
There are places like 'what defines a "qualified" pilot that must still be completed.
Click to expand...

Uh oh.

...define a point where a "less-qualified" pilot could join in on board to put eyes on board while you're head-down working on the fancy gizmos?
Click to expand...

Listen to David and Paul. The answer is "during Phase II". Why is everyone is such a hurry? Systems not necessary for flight can be calibrated later. Fill every seat with spotters if you like.

A great many government regulations are made based on a what-if need. Somebody imagines an "unsafe" situation that has never actually been a problem and shazzam, we get a regulation. Where are the statistics showing mid-air collisions are happening because EAB pilots are working with avionics in Phase 1? Can anyone cite a single such accident?

A great many more regulations get made by arguing a need palatable to the public, when the real goal is less palatable. We have something like that here. A new regulation may allow a second pilot for "flight test recording and adjustment", but human nature says what we'll really get is flight training in unproven airplanes, or just plain old joyriding mixed in with some "Hey, watch this."

BTW, think that 15 hours of simply boring holes had no value? In 15 hours at typical RPM you'll add about 4.5 million primary vibratory cycles (engine firing frequency and two blade prop frequency) to the engine, engine appliances, airframe, and all connections. Funny how things shake loose or crack given enough time.
 
David-aviator said:
My 2 cents worth is this. Over the years, first flight safety improved dramatically when EAA established tech and flight advisors. The diligent use of this service is most worthwhile and helpful. It could become a bit more formal - like an FAA requirement - at present I believe it is recommended, not required. A flight test program is required buy not the tech councilor inspections.
Click to expand...

David, while I agree wholehearted with your premise, the entire program would have to be reestablished.
Back in the day, FAA inspectors used to conduct "pre-cover" inspections. When they found that they didn't have the personnel or time, they asked EAA to come up with a program. EAA agreed to do it only with the limitation that the EAA Tech Counselor would not "sign" anything. If they did, then liability could fall back onto EAA.
Perhaps FAA could come up with a tech counselor program similar to the DAR
program and make it a requirement.
 
Soapbox mode ON

I see this interesting discussion having two parts.

1. What is the smartest way to keep aircraft damage and personal injury below a public outrage level during a valid phase one flight test sequence?

2. What regulatory or guidance changes are smart in supporting item 1.

Based on having "unalienable Rights, - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" I believe people who can build the aircraft they think they want should have wide latitude to establish their own risk tolerance.

A reference point on this is the "civilians" who have died in the space shuttle program. There was and is much sorrow, but the program lived on. They were not planning on disaster but their risk tolerance had to accept the possibility. Extraordinary people doing extraordinary things with can not be measured the same as certificated aircraft statistics.

It is way too easy to think of building and flying these experimental aircraft as ordinary. It is extraordinary and some who try, fail at various points in the process.

Hence, less regulation and more focus on guidance is the direction I would like. There is a ton of excellent guidance available that could be organized and presented better.

Soapbox mode now OFF. Good luck to all of us!
 
"Guidance" = L.O.D.A. which some builders refuse to use. It's been available for around ten years or more.

Best,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top