What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Additional Pilot Program for Phase 1 testing- thoughts?

KatieB

KatieB

Well Known Member
Hey everyone! I'm still alive, mostly off the grid. :) I've been working on my PhD in Aviation (Aviation Safety) at Parks College (St. Louis University). One of my topics of interest for research is EAB Phase 1 flight testing safety, in particular, the Additional Pilot Program. I saw a thread from 2017 and 2018 on the subject, but thought I'd start a new one to gather your current thoughts on it.

How many of you have used it? Is it worthwhile? Are you aware of any accidents or incidents that have occurred with a Qualified Pilot on board (RV or other types)? What are your ideas on how to make it more effective?

Thanks!!
Katie
 
I used it after not flying much for the two years I was building and had no time in an RV, other than a little back seat flying in an -8 and a F1 Rocket. My safety pilot had many hours in an RV-8 and various other aircraft. Having him along was a big confidence boost and he helped me understand what to expect from the RV during the first take-off and landings.

Having flown mostly in a Cherokee 140, I applied too much right rudder on the first take-off and, though he didn't take the controls, he kept me from potentially ruining years of work and a fine RV-7A.

BTW, it was nice meeting you at the Garmin training last August. I now know how to pronounce Olathe (Ohlaythee) :)
 
Pilot

I think it is a beneficial program... assuming the additional pilot meets the appropriate qualifications as is NOT just along for the ride.

It should enhance safety as one pilot can devote 100% of their time to flying the aircraft while the other can watch all pertinent systems and indications...
 
I would have used it if it had been available at the time of my first flight. I was a Private Pilot with around 130 hours total time from 23 years earlier. I did a Flight review in a C-172 and did around 10 hours solo in that prior to getting another 7 hours of transition training in an RV-7A. Then my first flight in the RV-9A (I did have a chase plane, which managed most of the radio calls).
Thankfully my first flights were uneventful (other than having radio COMM issues). Having someone along with more experience would have been much less stress. I really don't see a downside to the program as long as the additional pilot meets the guidelines.
 
Pilot requirements

I recently read the pilot qualifications section for this program and disagree with one part. The credit given for completion of an accredited test pilot school is aircraft category specific. Having graduated from USNTPS rotary wing course I would argue we received significant training in fixed wing flight characteristics to include numerous flights in C12s, T6, Leer variable stability trainer, and T34 aircraft. I disagree that graduating from the RW track does not allow credit for FW flight test. If the intent is to get another individual in the aircraft who understands flight test and provides experience for those first few critical flights, then their is no reason that experience even in a different primary track shouldn’t be recognized. I would eliminate the restriction from the pilot qualification section to potentially increase the number of available pilots who qualify to assist other builders at this point in their project. Feel free to PM me if you would like additional detail.
 
Last edited:
Yes! I think it's a wonderful. Especially for first flights.

Having a set of "expert eyes and ears" with you really makes a difference.

Your in sensory overdrive listening for sounds and feeling the airplane and watching the numbers, it can be a bit overwhelming.

Having an expert in the second seat to monitor and offer advice really calms things down and lets you focus on flying your airplane. (Thanks again, Vic!)
 
It?s a beneficial program!

I used it on our Tundra program in order to get our inexperienced partner involved in the flight testing of the airplane he did so much work on. It was educational for him, no doubt!

I am not thrilled with the concept for first flights in our simple aircraft - the extra person really adds no value to the testing of the aircraft (for first flights), and it does risk an additional soul when there isn?t a real need - except emotional. Thaty?s my old NASA risk mitigation talking, of course.

But except for that, I believe in the AP, and the EAA might even have collected some statistics by now on if it is doing anything regarding accident rates.
 
I have worked with several builders to incorporate the additional pilot program into their flight test plan. I think it is a very worthwhile and valuable tool to use in testing a new amateur-built aircraft and I highly recommend it.
 
Sorry.

"...I am not thrilled with the concept for first flights in our simple aircraft - the extra person really adds no value to the testing of the aircraft..."

...except...

it allows the person who is FLYING, to concentrate on FLYING...

That, in itself, is a benefit for first flights...
 
I'm planning first flight soon and it will be with Vic Syracuse under the program. I pretty much agree 100% (prospectively) with Bill Kervaski - it will reduce the stress and increase the safety.

There's a good discussion on this topic on the recent EAA webinar discussing their flight test manual/cards.
 
Used it and can?t imagine it solo

I used it for flights four through eight. My safety and vastly more experienced (qualified under the program) safety pilot did the first three solo. We did some phase one work during flights four through eight, but mostly worked calibration and systems testing so one person could be menu-deep while the other aviated. Simultaniously I learned the sounds and feel of the aircraft. It?s not dual, but it?s a huge confidence builder. The rest of phase one I did solo.
 
Good to hear from you Katie! I used the program for my full gross weight test. I had 240 lbs of sand bags in the copilots seat and just did feel it was 100% safe. I had data to record and used a pilot. Side benefits were ease of loading and his inflight experience with oxygen.

I believe it was much more safe as executed, and avoided many possible issues with sand bags. Data gathering was a huge plus as it was hand work not systems data.
 
I used it. Worked great and highly recommend. I did all the flying but received great advice on setting up a stable approach. And I was able to focus on flying while my copilot focused on engine instruments.
https://youtu.be/HR-uVhojh28
 
Last edited:
rocketman1988 said:
"...I am not thrilled with the concept for first flights in our simple aircraft - the extra person really adds no value to the testing of the aircraft..."

...except...

it allows the person who is FLYING, to concentrate on FLYING...
Click to expand...

Then what is the other person doing there?
 
Uh...

Keeping an eye on the systems?

Fuel flow, egt, cht, etc...

If you prefer to go it alone, great. I prefer to have one person flying the airplane at all times and not be heads down looking at the numbers.

Personal preference...
 
I'm not a fan of the program.

We're not talking about engineering flight test here, but a simple verification of known flying qualities. For our small, single-pilot airplanes, a proficient pilot should be able to aviate, navigate, and communicate effectively at all times - even during a first flight. Someone unable to do that needs more transition training. A pilot unable or unwilling to achieve and maintain the required proficiency needs to find another hobby.

This program strikes me as the powers-that-be simply acceding to the widespread and ill-advised practice of rationalizing an additional person on test flights. Instead of cracking down on those unnecessarily risking a second individual on test flights of single-pilot aircraft, they've opted to create some rules and structure by way of evading their enforcement responsibilities.

If nothing else, the knowledge that another person is there to pick up the slack encourages pilots to accept less than complete proficiency from themselves and that is never a good thing.
 
As an experienced pilot

flight instructor, and RV tail wheel transition pilot,
I find a lot of value in the additional pilot program. I have accompanied several RV fliers on their first flight and without exception, all were glad that I was there (as well as their spouses). Heck, some of them had NEVER been in an RV before their first flight. I really think the additional pilot program has made a huge impact in reducing the number of accidents in the amateur-built aircraft community.

All the best,

Bill
 
I know of a lancair doing its first flight in upstate new York a few years ago that crashed and killed the pilot and passenger due to a fuel system issue.
 
...and

"...a proficient pilot should be able to aviate, navigate, and communicate effectively at all times..."

Ever hear of task saturation? It can happen to even the best of pilots. Just because you are "proficient" doesn't mean you cannot get task saturated...

Just saying'...it appears that there are quite a few "ace of the base" types here...

"...You figured it out yet?...Who's the best pilot?..."
 
Yes

I used it and think it is a good idea. I helped a low-time guy complete his 7A and then did the first flight for him, followed by several more. Then he joined me for the additional flights. It worked well and we actually had two additional pilots involved.
 
APP

I for one am glad the program is available. I used it for the the first 10 hours of phase 1. A friend of mine is a CFII with about 250 hr's of Rv10 time and I was glad to have him along. My only experience prior was C172's and 152's. It allowed on first flight for him to do the TO and then hand over the controls on climb out as he was then tasked with engine perimeters. After about an hour, he took the controls and landed. The following flights, I did the entire flight start to finish getting used to it while he again was tasked engine and instruments. This also allowed me to get very good transition training and a HP endorsement at the same time which saved me from flying XC to see Mike Seager.
 
Lancair

rvator9a said:
I know of a lancair doing its first flight in upstate new York a few years ago that crashed and killed the pilot and passenger due to a fuel system issue.
Click to expand...
Fuel system issue??? I would say that running out of fuel on takeoff on a first flight is definitely a fuel system issue. Unfortunately that is not what the accident report states. The pilot was VERY qualified.
The unfortunate aftermath of this is that some of the local EAA people are still dealing with this years later.
IIRC the accident report was generated by a FSDO inspector who had little or no accident investigation training, assisted by a local volunteer.
NTSB apparently accepted the report as written.
 
billgill said:
flight instructor, and RV tail wheel transition pilot,
I find a lot of value in the additional pilot program. I have accompanied several RV fliers on their first flight and without exception, all were glad that I was there (as well as their spouses). Heck, some of them had NEVER been in an RV before their first flight. I really think the additional pilot program has made a huge impact in reducing the number of accidents in the amateur-built aircraft community.

All the best,

Bill
Click to expand...

Bill did my first flight and as I said eariler it was awesome. I can't thank you enough! I'm an instrument, commerical rated pilot, who flies a lot and I'm more than capable of flying but having the extra expience in the right seat helped make a super exciting flight more relaxed. Seems only smart to set the ego aside and improve the odds at a somewhat risky moment. I think the FAA has done something great and those that want to can take advantage of the program. I'm glad I used it and recommend it to others.
Bob
 
Welcome back Katie!

I'm not adverse to having two aboard after the first flight or two.

We should encourage people to let someone more experienced to perform the first flights. There seems to be a lot of pressure for the builder to do that flight, which isn't a good thing.

After that, then bring someone to help configure EFIS's, etc. Data recording is done by the EFIS, so no need to have someone take notes.
 
jrs14855 said:
Fuel system issue??? I would say that running out of fuel on takeoff on a first flight is definitely a fuel system issue. Unfortunately that is not what the accident report states. The pilot was VERY qualified.
The unfortunate aftermath of this is that some of the local EAA people are still dealing with this years later.
IIRC the accident report was generated by a FSDO inspector who had little or no accident investigation training, assisted by a local volunteer.
NTSB apparently accepted the report as written.
Click to expand...

Do you have identifying information for this accident so I can look it up? Unfortunately this is the type of report I need to read. And if it's not correct, I'd like to know the real details. :(
 
See https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20070424X00449&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA

This happened not far from me - at an airport that I have frequently flown in and out of.

At the time, I remember the local consensus was that there was fuel starvation and there should have only been one person (pilot) aboard as the aircraft was still in Phase I.

Some also had the view that this was a "turnback" situation. I'm afraid that none of this can be absolutely supported by the NTSB report (although the information points in that direction) or anything generally available on line.

I can recall that just a few months later, my DAR doing my inspection, went through the importance of following the (then) rules regarding passengers aboard during Phase I, and cited this accident in the discussion.

Dan
 
KatieB said:
Do you have identifying information for this accident so I can look it up? Unfortunately this is the type of report I need to read. And if it's not correct, I'd like to know the real details. :(
Click to expand...

If memory is correct, this accident occurred years before the second pilot program was even talked about so it was technically an illegal flight.

Not that it matters really, but I am in full agreement with Paul (and others that may or may not comment). I am not in favor of the second pilot program for first flights... for numerous different reasons that I have written about previously.

The risk level with an amateur built aircraft is inversely exponential from the first flight. Because of this I think the program is great.... after a few initial flights have been made by a single qualified pilot.
 
Lancair

rvbuilder2002 said:
If memory is correct, this accident occurred years before the second pilot program was even talked about so it was technically an illegal flight.

Not that it matters really, but I am in full agreement with Paul (and others that may or may not comment). I am not in favor of the second pilot program for first flights... for numerous different reasons that I have written about previously.

The risk level with an amateur built aircraft is inversely exponential from the first flight. Because of this I think the program is great.... after a few initial flights have been made by a single qualified pilot.
Click to expand...

The builder turned the first flight event into a party so there were a lot of witnesses. This is one of the worst reports NTSB has ever put their name on.
A tremendous amount of expertise in the area, did not do any good. The FAA would not positively say fuel exhaustion because there were some trace amounts of fuel in the injection system.
The builder was asked as he was preparing to start if he had enough fuel. His answer was affirmative. Unfortunately he did not have a clue how much fuel he had. The airplane had been fueled one time. There was a fuel leak and lots of ground runs. A Continental 550 sucks a lot of fuel, even at relatively low power. Losses from the leak are an unknown. SOMEONE should have acted very decisively in stopping the illegal passenger. SOMEONE should have demanded details about fuel on board. And yes it was a turnback at a VERY low altitude.
This is one of the most flawed reports ever signed off by the NTSB. All qualified people involved know it was total fuel exhaustion.
The report is accurate regarding pilot experience. Ex military B52 pilot with extensive GA experience. Mooney owner and current flight instructor.
The sad part is that a few years later a pilot crashed fatally at the same airport on the second flight of his Wittman Tailwind. He was more than somewhat of a loner. As far as I know he had little if any advice from locals or the very active Tailwind community. I knew the pilot and his dad but moved out of the area years ago. Tailwind accident was engine failure in the traffic pattern. Hit a very tall tree which pitched the airplane into a near vertical descent.
 
Katie, I did a modified version. I had my friend, Tom Berge, who has built an RV-6A and a RV-7A and has over 2000 hours in RVs do the first two flights. Then Tom flew with me on the third flight, which was still very exciting for me but safer having a highly experienced RV pilot backing me up.
By the way, Tom gave me a thorough checkout in his RV-7A before I started my flight test program. From my experiences over 49 years of flying, a good checkout always makes for much safer flying.
 
Training

So here is a situation that I believe is common. My neighbor built a 7-A. It took him 15 yrs to complete. He did very little PIC in those 15 yrs and by the time his plane was ready for first flight, he was now not current. So what to do? There was nobody close to get transition training so it would cost a lot to get proper RV training. And how much training would a real rusty pilot need to feel comfortable making a first flight? (I think this is why this rule exists, to keep these guys from killing themselves) Anyways, I have about 600 hrs in my 7-A so I volunteered to do the first flight and about the first 5 hours or so until my neighbor came on board for the rest of the 40 hours (he got current in a C-150 first) During that time, not only did we do all testing and calibrating that needed to be done, but he got familiar with his new planes flight characteristics.

After we flew off the hours, he got an RV qualified CFI to train him in his plane.

I think this is a good program if used properly.
 
rvator9a said:
I know of a lancair doing its first flight in upstate new York a few years ago that crashed and killed the pilot and passenger due to a fuel system issue.
Click to expand...

Based on a recent presentation at our EAA meeting, by a personal friend of both occupants and an EAA Tech Advisor, the "safety pilot" did not meet the requirements for the program, and was not Lancair experienced. :(
 
I have peformed the first flights many times using the Additional Pilot Program. In fact, I will be doing it again on Tuesday for an RV-14 builder in Jacksonville, FL.

I'm a firm believer that done properly with a qualified Flight Instructor in the aircraft who also meets all of the requirements of the APP, there is an enhanced safety factor. Especially with someone who has done lots of first flights themselves, and has lots of hours in the test aircraft. It also allwos for more instruction after the flight to help the person understand how they can do some things differently so as to ease some of the stress. As an example, helping first-time RV-12 pilots understand that it doesn't require a fistful of stick to fly it. It is a light-touch airplane. That one usually takes constant reminders throughout the first flight before they really begin to understand it.

I have been on a few where the most often comment I made during the flight was "keep your head outside and fly the airplane." Its Soooo easy to get distracted with nuisance alarms that haven't been set up correctly. An experienced person can also very quickly identify an escalating problem before it gets out of hand.

Just my thoughts. :)

Vic
 
Safety Pilot.

AAflyer said:
Based on a recent presentation at our EAA meeting, by a personal friend of both occupants and an EAA Tech Advisor, the "safety pilot" did not meet the requirements for the program, and was not Lancair experienced. :(
Click to expand...
I have never seen the words safety pilot used in connection with the right seat occupant in that accident. The accident preceded the current second pilot protocol by several years. Did the owner have any transition training?
I avoided asking friends in the area about this accident. I only discuss it if someone volunteers. Many years ago at a different location this was my home EAA Chapter. I left the area almost 40 years ago and have had only limited contact with people from the area.
I know of other cases of two occupants on initial test flight that thankfully did not result in accidents.
If you are willing I would like to discuss this accident further off forum at [email protected]
 
the reason I did not provide much detail about this incident was because it was all second hand conversation. The accident took pace at a field that was very RV active with a really active EAA chapter. The pilot and passenger were very active members, the chapter has never really recovered and I think the accident is still very personal to many of the members.
I only mentioned the accident because of the OPs request, my opinion of the safety pilot program was changed because of this accident.
 
Lancair Accident

I just did a quick review of the final accident report.
Pilot in Command: Commercial Instrument Multi rated. Also flight instructor, not mentioned on report.
2768 hours total
Zero hours last 90 days
2 hours make and model
Second occupant listed as passenger, no pilot information.
Numerous damaged parts were replaced on the engine and the engine ran satisfactorily on a test stand with the replaced components.
Accident report goes into considerable detail about the lack of fuel in fuel system and fuel injection system components, but they do not say the magic words fuel exhaustion. They also make no mention of the alleged turnback maneuver and the fact that the passenger was not legally allowed to be on board.
 
vic syracuse said:
I have been on a few where the most often comment I made during the flight was "keep your head outside and fly the airplane." Its Soooo easy to get distracted with nuisance alarms that haven't been set up correctly. An experienced person can also very quickly identify an escalating problem before it gets out of hand.
Click to expand...

Hi Vic!

I'm glad you mentioned nuisance alarms. I talked to a lot of builders when I worked for GRT and Jabiru about this. People seem to get so eager to just fly it that they forego proper setup of many of the EIS parameters and alarms. I know setting this up is tedious, but everyone really need this stuff to work right before the airplane ever leaves the ground (and CHT needs to be working before taxi.) Flying without it is very dangerous because the first flight is probably THE flight where an airplane is most likely to have an engine or fuel issue. I was flabbergasted by the number of people who did not have all their EIS parameters set up before they flew. When that red light is blinking and they are conditioned to ignore it, they are more likely to ignore it when there is a real problem.

Katie
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for the great commentary. We share many of the same thoughts on the subject. As a production pilot/CFI for Jabiru USA, I flew many new aircraft with between 3-10 hours on them to break in the engine and test autopilot systems. I haven't flown any first flights, but my husband, his father, and one of my dear friends (RV-6A builder Possum) flew dozens of them as I worked ground crew/radio. We had a few cases where the plane flew perfectly "off the board" but most of them had minor rigging issues and one had a major control issue that would have likely ended badly had my husband not had many (a couple thousand) hours in-type and a flight test plan in mind. The two most important things I learned from all of that is 1. Know your aircraft and its systems intimately so that you know which "problems" require immediate action and which ones can wait; 2. Have a plan in place for engine failure or any other likely emergencies in all phases of the flight, especially engine failure on takeoff.

First flights are very interesting to me as a research subject because often pilot/builders place themselves into a perfect storm of risk combining inexperience with the type, an untested airframe/engine/avionics combination, and raw emotion associated with finishing the airplane. I think an experienced builder/pilot should always do a thorough inspection and the first flight or two, but I'm not sold yet on the idea of having the builder along for those first shake-down flights. I think the first few flights should be all about testing the aircraft, not the pilot.

Thanks for your input and I will definitely get back to some of you offline and talk more if I decide to pursue this as a dissertation topic... For now I have a "mini proposal" paper due and this helps me tremendously!

Katie
 
I am just completing my RV9A. I am a low time pilot with my only experience being in 172's. I am an engineer by profession so risk management is something I understand well, well we hope engineers do.

The one thing I am very sure of is I should not be the one to do those first 4 or so. That should be done solo by an qualified test pilot and minimize the risk of loss should something go wrong. Should there be rigging issue or a failure which is statistically high on early flights my experience vs that of a qualified test pilot is clear.

However after the first 4 flights or so my plan is to use the second qualified pilot. I want that direct experience in my plane with a person that in effect operating as my CFI. I also want the experience of this person to help understand and diagnose the operation of the airplane and teach me the finer points of flying the plane. After the first 4 flights or so the risk profile goes down, until you put me in the airplane and then I become the long pole on the risk profile. Things like flying on the edges of W&B is again just something I no experience nor most new PPLs with but I want to and need to learn this.

One the things I want in the qualified person is someone that understands the glass panel in my plane and teach me how to optimally use it. My only experience is steam with a 430W. I see were it typically takes a 100 hours of experience to really learn a modern glass panel. Being able to leverage someone with that experience is a big plus for me.

I am prepared to fly the full 40 hours off with the qualified pilot. After the time and money I spent building airplane it just seems l like a good investment and I want to learn everything I can. I am greatly thankful that they have this program that allows me to do this.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Not that it matters really, but I am in full agreement with Paul (and others that may or may not comment). I am not in favor of the second pilot program for first flights... for numerous different reasons that I have written about previously.

The risk level with an amateur built aircraft is inversely exponential from the first flight. Because of this I think the program is great.... after a few initial flights have been made by a single qualified pilot.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Not to flog a dead horse here, but Scott and Paul are spot on, IMHO. It is indeed a great program, but the first couple of flights should be solo. On the first two or three flights there's no real data acquisition or note taking happening anyway; it's really just fly the plane, check basic controllability, run laps over the field, let the engine break in. If a pilot can't handle that solo along with keeping half an eye on the gauges, then he really has no business being there in the first place.
 
Your Opinion...

"...If a pilot can't handle that solo along with keeping half an eye on the gauges, then he really has no business being there in the first place..."

I completely disagree with your opinion but thanks for supporting mine...

If the pilot is "keeping half an eye on the gauges" then that is "half an eye" on NOT FLYING THE PLANE.

Obviously, having someone just ride along is not a good plan, however, a qualified person in the other seat allows the PILOT to focus 100%, on flying and nothing else...
 
rocketman1988 said:
I completely disagree with your opinion but thanks for supporting mine...

If the pilot is "keeping half an eye on the gauges" then that is "half an eye" on NOT FLYING THE PLANE.

Obviously, having someone just ride along is not a good plan, however, a qualified person in the other seat allows the PILOT to focus 100%, on flying and nothing else...
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

“Half an eye”... semantics, figure of speech, whatever you want to call it, I’m not supporting your opinion at all. If a pilot can’t FLY THE PLANE and monitor the gauges at the same time, he shouldn’t be in the seat.

See? Opinions... everybody has one. And that’s all, I‘m out.
 
Last edited:
I used the program but only for my last flight (2.8 hours of my 40 hour program).

I found the initial 'expertise' requirements too restrictive. If your additional pilot didn't go through test pilot school or had never flown a Phase I flight they seem to be disqualified. The simple work around is allow that pilot to do a take off and landing solo and then they'll magically have the expertise required to function as a second pilot.

For me I would have liked to have an additional pilot with a few thousand hours and experience behind a full glass set up go with me. In the end I'm not even sure if I looked at my panels, outside of the EFIS very much during the first few flights.
 
ssturges said:
One the things I want in the qualified person is someone that understands the glass panel in my plane and teach me how to optimally use it. My only experience is steam with a 430W. I see were it typically takes a 100 hours of experience to really learn a modern glass panel. Being able to leverage someone with that experience is a big plus for me.

this.
Click to expand...

A moving airplane is a horrible environment for learning how to use your avionics. Much better to get a 12 volt power supply and learn on the ground. If you need help, that person could be, but need not be, your phase 1 pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top