snip by jetjok
I won't get involved in licensing the aircraft I know are built from the ground up under contract. Sorry. There's this little ethics thing we sign when we get appointed as a DAR.
And whether we think so or not, it is affecting all of us, from insurance premiums to the continued perception that Experimental aviation is dangerous. Many companies I have worked for allow flying in Standard certificated aircraft, but not Experimentals. Quite honestly, I feel safer in my RV-10 than some certified aircraft because of the fact that I built it, am familiar with it, and can afford it. And I am getting tired of hearing from friends and family about another RV-10 that crashed or door that came off, when almost every single one could have been prevented. Just go down the list and there are some common themes: rushing to get completed, rushing to take-off, owner unfamiliarity, etc.
snip by jetjok
I am writing this because this segment of the aviation world which I dearly love is getting hard to watch any more.
So I ask all of us: When does it stop?
Vic
Since this thread now seems to be focusing on the topic of "hired guns", i wanted to repost a portion of Vic's original message, and ask some questions.
Let me start by stating that I believe that all of the issues that Vic puts forward in his initial post are worthy of debate. He makes some very valid points, and all of us would be wise to reflect accordingly.
On the topic of "owner assist", "hired guns" whatever you want to call it, the thoughts and opinions expressed in many of the previous 124 responses show that there is merit to the opinions on both sides of the fence.
The argument that a second crewmember is required to for calibration or flight safety is absolute "meadow muffins"! I do not have experience in calibrating EFIS in a homebuilt, but reading Jeremy Constant's posting confirms that it is possible to set up the systems so as to be completely safe for flight without having to have a First Officer. The subject of instrument calibration leads to another of Vic's concerns.
There have been multiple accidents/incidents caused by failures of components/systems that should not be failing early on in the life of an aircraft. This leads me to question if some DAR's are not giving the scrutiny that should be applied when inspecting a new plane. Just a few for example;
1. An RV-10 accident where the plane made it's first flight with clecos holding parts of the airframe together. The EFIS systems in this plane were never calibrated and gave continuos erroneous information and warnings. There were multiple other issues with this plane, many of which were completely beyond the control of ANY DAR, but somebody signed this plane off for flight with the above issues.
2. Multiple issues of doors leaving the airframe inflight on the RV-10. While not a -10 builder/owner, I am aware that there is a mod to the system. Are DAR's checking to make sure that this is done and rigged correctly?
3. Several incidents of fires erupting in new planes due to loose fuel lines.
There can be no doubt that Mel, Vic, and the highly skilled DAR's that we have in our midst do absolutely everything in their power to assure that a plane is safe for flight. However, just like any group that is tasked with a certain duty, there are always bad apples, and there can be no doubt that their lack of attention was causal to the accident/incident. There was a question of DAR accountability posed in a previous post, that was never answered. I will ask it from another position. When a new plane experiences a system failure or accident/incident, and it becomes apparent that a DAR was remiss in his/her duties, what do you guys do? Is there any "peer policing" in your group?
One can only imagine the difficulties that a DAR might encounter when performing an inspection. There can be no doubt that trying to balance the "is is safe" decision with the "that's not the way I would have done it" can be a real conundrum.
Anyway, I hope that I have not put a target on my back, but Vic's statements does open up this topic.
Lastly, if the builder is inexperienced enough to require a flight instructor to accompany him/her when flying the plane, that makes the flight instructor the proxy PIC, and the builder an illegal passenger. If one honestly believes that their instructor/mentor is a required crewmember because they don't yet have the skills to fly their RV, that is really twisted logic! Phase I is for proving the aircraft, not gaining the experience that the pilot should have had prior to ever leaving the ground for the initial flight!
Thanks