What's new
Van's Air Force

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

So when is it going to stop?

vic syracuse

Well Known Member
Advertiser
Mentor
Well, I hope I won't be banned for starting this thread, but quite candidly I am getting very annoyed with the flagrant rules violations occuring in 2 specific areas of our piece of the aviation world: obvious building for hire and multiple people in the aircraft during Phase I fly-off period. Most recently we have had another accident with people seriously hurt during Phase I. This stuff is impacting all of us, and unless we start policing ourselves, we are going to get help that we don't want or need.
As a DAR I specifically go over the Limitations with every builder/owner. I can't tell you the number of times I left knowing nobody cared, and know for a fact of at least 3 aircraft that I licensed and they immediately put 2 people in the aircraft for the first and subsequent flights.
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.
I believe we have an obligation, and I know in our politically-correct world anymore it is getting more difficult to call out the violators. But some things are certainly obvious to a fifth grader. Why aren't they obvious to all of us?
I am not going to start calling out "violators." You know who you are, and the rest of us know who you are. During my 35 years of flying I have called out a number of risky aviators, and it wasn't fun. Most of them aren't with us anymore because they chose to continue with their antics. It's been hard to watch.
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
 
Never.

Because you can't fix stupid. Maybe Darwin's theory can limit it. When will drinking and driving stop? It's about personal responsibility. Yes it's hard to watch. I agree that we need regulations for the safety of others. We also need to help guide each other through dangerous situations such as building practices and first flights etc, but some will just not listen. I would hope that the feds see through human nature and not penalize all with a broad brush for the actions of a few. I may be dreaming here, but we are all still driving a whole lot of cars despite the actions of quite a few of us.

Bevan
RV7A not flying yet (getting ready to hang the engine)
Enjoying building (all 10 years of it), learning and will eventually fly putting everthing I learned to the test.
 
FAA ?

Vic,
I agree with some of what your saying but not all of it. We already have an agency in place that makes the rules for our community. They are the same agency that is responsible for enforcing the rules. They also know the people who are violating these policies, they do it in plain site. So if they dont care why should anyone else? In many cases the planes built for hire are of a better build quality then the average Joe builds. I dont think we need to be pointing fingers at one another for everything we dont agree with. I have my own personal guide lines that I follow and I dont have a problem sharing those with people in my flying community, but ratting one another out in my opinion is not the way to handle things.
Ryan
 
I agree with some of what your saying but not all of it. We already have an agency in place that makes the rules for our community. They are the same agency that is responsible for enforcing the rules. They also know the people who are violating these policies, they do it in plain site. So if they dont care why should anyone else? In many cases the planes built for hire are of a better build quality then the average Joe builds. I dont think we need to be pointing fingers at one another for everything we dont agree with. I have my own personal guide lines that I follow and I dont have a problem sharing those with people in my flying community, but ratting one another out in my opinion is not the way to handle things.

I agree. When I see someone breaking into a house, I don't call the cops either! :confused:
 
Geez Vic, I dunno what to say to make it better. I remember a Berkut who's first flight was Cali to Jackson hole. Wheels folded on the landing. I remember the local hotshot at a grass field who's wife would drive him to the aiport cause he was a drunk driver. Every time he got out of his vette the beer cans would roll out with him. Remember the movie star that landed on a highway by mistake and gave away his 12 pack so he wouldn't get busted? I know a San diego lawyer who has ground looped literally dozens of times, has wrecked half a dozen times (that I know of) and has had his license yanked a couple times and he just keeps on keepin' on. It's been said here before, you can't fix stupid. There's also that added attraction to homebuilts by those with outlaw natures because they think there are less rules. Couple years ago the keynote speaker for the flying physicians wrecked his banana on his way to their annual gathering because he was 90 years old, hadn't eaten for 2 days and got so hypoxic he didn't have the strength to turn the spigot on his O2 bottle. I say, do what you can and let natural selection take it's course. Sucks, but there it is.
 
Vic,
I agree with some of what your saying but not all of it. In many cases the planes built for hire are of a better build quality then the average Joe builds.

The regulations state that this is an "Amateur-Built" classification. We don't get to "pick & choose" which regulations we follow and which we don't.
If you want an aircraft that is "of a better build quality than the average Joe builds", then you need to look for another classification.
 
Holding my ground

I have had a few "cowboy" clients. The most effective approach for me is to let them know that unless what they are doing is really stupid and or involves innocents, I probably won't go taddle on them, but if I am asked, I am not going to lie for them either. I won't put my A&P at risk either. The influence of friendship generally is more effective than presuming to have authority (moral or legal) over them. People will change because the want to (because I have their confidence and trust) or they have to. I would rather let the legal authorities reason with unreasonable people, they are better equipped for it. Most times it is possible to keep my friends while drawing a line in the sand, usually they come around if I don't push it. Other times it's best to let them go.
When will it stop? I think it's just like maintenance. It's something to keep on top of. Thank goodness for my friends (and this forum) who have provided me with what I need, in a way that I was open to receive. It has made me more conservative, and much more aware.
 
By the way, guys, for clarification I have never called the FAA or anyone else. Nor do I entend to. I've been man enough to speak to the offenders in person when it presented the opportunity. I don't intend to call anyone in a position of "authority." I think WE have the moral obligation. Period.
And, sorry, I am right there with Mel. The excuse of "it's better built than I or the average Joe can do it" doesn't hold water. As a matter of fact, the areas that we are actually allowed (encouraged?) to get help are in the critical areas: engine, avionics, etc.


Vic
 
Well, I hope I won't be banned for starting this thread, but quite candidly I am getting very annoyed with the flagrant rules violations occuring in 2 specific areas of our piece of the aviation world: obvious building for hire and multiple people in the aircraft during Phase I fly-off period. Most recently we have had another accident with people seriously hurt........
.........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

Vic,

The problem lies within the rules governing what we do. It is not a clear black and white issue.

I am not all that familiar with what is going on with "building for hire" except companies and/or individuals are advertising their services, doing it with someone signing off required paper, and the FAA is accepting it as legitimate. Why else would it continue?

With regard to more than one person in the airplane during flight testing, my operating limitations state:

"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."

That leaves an awful lot of wiggle room on the issue. Has the FAA defined "essential to the purpose of the flight"? I don't think so.

I know of a recent local first flight where a CFI accompanied the builder on the flight. Who is to say his presence was not "essential to the purpose of the flight"? From a safety and practical point of view most would agree it is OK.

Yes, there have been accidents associated with phase one flight testing and more than one person in the aircraft. But that extra person did not contribute to the accident, he/she simply become a statistic for being there, whatever the reason they were there.

There are lots of loop holes in this business.

One that bothers me is ANY licensed pilot can fly Young Eagles. I am almost 73 and could drop dead for any reason, any day, and it is perfectly legal and am encouraged to fly Young Eagles. I won't do it. Nor will I take up a passenger who is not a pilot unless they come crawling on their hands knees for a ride. Not passing judgement on anyone else, but those are my standards in that matter, to each his own.

I understand your frustration, I see pilots doing dumb things on a regular basis. But those observations and conclusions are from my perspective and most frequently met with disagreement if made known.

I agree with you but I don't see your message as making much difference. It is personal vent on your part. About the only satisfaction you will see is thoughtful guys will agree. It will end there.
 
Here is one vote for moving Vic's post to Best of the Best.


I am frustrated by the attitude that pilots and builders within our community should be able to choose to break rules/reg's without anyone else calling them on it.

I would probably agree if I was sure that what they were doing would not likely hurt anyone else and would not have an impact on me.

The problem is, a lot of choices people make do hurt innocent people, and do have a impact on me...
I have said it many times before, but I will say it again...

The way the government deals with regulation/rule non compliance, is to make more rules and regulations. Period.

If this attitude impacts you as far as your profession or ability to make a living, sorry. If what you are doing has a potential to impact my and everyone else's freedom to build airplanes, find another way to run your business.

Disregard for the required crew members rule is a whole different subject... In 22 years of involvement in this industry (personally and professionally) I have yet to hear a valid reason for carrying a second passenger during phase one testing of an RV.
 
I know of a recent local first flight where a CFI accompanied the builder on the flight. Who is to say his presence was not "essential to the purpose of the flight"? From a safety and practical point of view most would agree it is OK.

David,
I strongly disagree with this statement.
I don't think most would agree it was ok.
I think most will say that if the builder needed a CFI in the plane to be safe, then a different test pilot needed to be making the first flight.
 
Well, I hope I won't be banned for starting this thread, but quite candidly I am getting very annoyed with the flagrant rules violations occuring in 2 specific areas of our piece of the aviation world: obvious building for hire and multiple people in the aircraft during Phase I fly-off period. Most recently we have had another accident with people seriously hurt during Phase I. This stuff is impacting all of us, and unless we start policing ourselves, we are going to get help that we don't want or need.

<much good stuff snipped>

Vic

The sentiment among the people who do these things is "Nobody has gotten busted yet and I'm betting I won't be the first.". Historically, that's been a pretty good bet.

They also rationalize that others have done it, so why shouldn't they?

It's a bad situation and the community needs to address it.

If the FAA carried out a few high profile crucifictions, that might put the brakes on the build-for-hire types. However, the FAA couldn't hold the line effectively with Epic, so are they really gonna go after a guy churning out RV's? From a airworthiness certificate standpoint, how often do DAR's walk away from projects with a questionable build history? Even if they do, the community knows the DAR's who are comfortable winking at the rules as long as the check doesn't bounce.

On the violations during the test period, would it be appropriate for aircraft within the test period to carry large vinyl markings signifying that the aircraft is in Phase 1 and no pax are allowed? That would raise the ante a bit for violators...

As you stated, we need to address these issues. Otherwise, the Fed's are going to create new burdens for those of us who follow the rules. It won't be a problem for the rule breakers - they will ignore the new rules too...
 
Vic,

The problem lies within the rules governing what we do. It is not a clear black and white issue.

With regard to more than one person in the airplane during flight testing, my operating limitations state:

"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."

I don't see that anyone can make a legitimate case that a second person is/was necessary on a first flight of a single engine piston aircraft. The airplane doesn't require it, and it will never pass a sniff test.

If the pilot is incapable of handling the job by him/herself, that can be addressed through training or by having a more capable pilot make the flight. There is really no excuse.
 
From a airworthiness certificate standpoint, how often do DAR's walk away from projects with a questionable build history? Even if they do, the community knows the DAR's who are comfortable winking at the rules as long as the check doesn't bounce.

A DAR cannot legally "walk away". Once the application has been accepted, the DAR must either "issue or deny" the certificate. If the certificate is denied, an e-mail is immediately sent to all inspectors throughout the U.S. stating the reason for the denial. It would be up to the "next" inspector to determine whether the discrepancies are justified or corrected. It would be rare for another inspector to accept discrepancies that have already been denied on record.
 
Vic,
my operating limitations state:

"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."
Mine says that as well.

Why does the DAR not just write the limitations to eliminate the second half of the statement? The DAR can make the determination that for that particular aircraft, only one crew is required for flight test. Therefore put
"During the flight-testing phase, no passenger may be carried in this aircraft during flight"
Of coarse someone will get around the rule and say they are not passengers but flight crew.
 
The p

That leaves an awful lot of wiggle room on the issue. Has the FAA defined "essential to the purpose of the flight"? I don't think so.

The "purpose of the flight" is flight testing the aircraft, period! Not flight training or anything else.
This is NOT a gray area. The only time a second person is required for the purpose of the flight is when the AIRCRAFT requires a crew of 2 or more. None of our airplanes fall into this category.
 
A DAR cannot legally "walk away". Once the application has been accepted, the DAR must either "issue or deny" the certificate. If the certificate is denied, an e-mail is immediately sent to all inspectors throughout the U.S. stating the reason for the denial. It would be up to the "next" inspector to determine whether the discrepancies are justified or corrected. It would be rare for another inspector to accept discrepancies that have already been denied on record.

How many denials were issued last year because the DAR didn't think the aircraft met the 51% rule?
 
Why does the DAR not just write the limitations to eliminate the second half of the statement? The DAR can make the determination that for that particular aircraft, only one crew is required for flight test. Therefore put
"During the flight-testing phase, no passenger may be carried in this aircraft during flight"
Of coarse someone will get around the rule and say they are not passengers but flight crew.

Actually the wording HAS changed within the Light-Sport op lims. They state that the pilot will be the sole occupant of the aircraft.
For amateur-built aircraft, unfortunately DARs cannot change the original wording of the op lims. They must be stated exactly as laid out in 8130.2. We are allowed to add limitations as we see fit in the interest of safety, but we can remove nothing.
 
The second person in an RV during Phase 1 has been discussed before and I believe the consensus is that two pilots are NOT required.
 
How many denials were issued last year because the DAR didn't think the aircraft met the 51% rule?

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. There have been a few. Not very many for sure.
If an applicant receives commercial assistance, he/she must submit the checklist found in appendix 8 of AC20-27G showing that the 51% rule has been met.
 
The "purpose of the flight" is flight testing the aircraft, period! Not flight training or anything else.
This is NOT a gray area. The only time a second person is required for the purpose of the flight is when the AIRCRAFT requires a crew of 2 or more. None of our airplanes fall into this category.

I'm gonna play devils advocate for a minute. Mel and other knowledgable folks have said many times that the test pilot and no one else should be aboard during phase 1, but the actual wording used in the operating limitations ("essential to the purpose of the flight") is simply far too vague in my mind. Reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret that text, when crystal clear directions on this matter would be so easy. The language used INVITES abuse.

While I am not advocating a 2nd person on aboard, and flight training on first flights is certainly out of the question, I think a reasonable argument could be made that a 2nd person was necessary for data collection. Those first flights are awfully busy, and data collection is certainly part of flight testing. Bottom line though, if FAA wants to be clear, they need clear language. How hard is it to say "no more than one person (the pilot) may be on board during phase 1 testing".

I'm just glad I have Mel et al to tell me what these rules really mean :)

Erich
 
Someone had to say it...

It appears the first police action to be conducted should be within the DAR community...

Amen to that.

This is like the cops complaining that people commit crimes.

In Australia its pretty strict. I would have though its that way in the US as well.

We can talk about the 51% rule all you like. Its the Law, the rest is just conversation. DARs make the Law a reality. If it isn't being adheared to then we know who's responsibility it is to enforce it.

Personally my thoughts as far as two people in the cockpit goes. One person flying, one person making observations and recording information.

If the thing shouldn't be in the air then it shouldn't be in the air with ONE person.

but again.... the Law is the law and ALL of this is just conversation.
 
Not all experimentals are RV's. A few actually have big ol' engines and a real flight engineer station. Some actually REQUIRE a crew to fly them safely. That's why the wording exists that way. Unless you mount your engine gages and a bunch of switches in the baggage area You're not gonna convince me you need two crew in an RV. You're not gonna get the FAA to buy it either. On the other hand, John Denver could have sure used someone to work the vise-grip fuel selector on his last piece of junk.
 
What We Do

The second person in an RV during Phase 1 has been discussed before and I believe the consensus is that two pilots are NOT required.

There is no such thing as rule by consensus in this matter. Only the FAA is the authority to clearly define the meaning of any regulation and if they decline to do so, it becomes a matter of legal determination. As far as I know there has been no enforcement of this matter by the FAA. The expressed definition of the term here is a matter of opinion, not law.

For anyone to assert the "essential purpose" of the flight is solely flight testing is a personal opinion, not a matter of law. The essential purpose of any flight is FLIGHT SAFETY. If it can be shown another person will contribute to the safe conclusion of a flight, that person serves the essential purpose of that flight.

At least that would be my argument before a FAA law judge in this matter. Since the FAA is charged with promoting FLIGHT SAFETY, I wonder what their argument would be?
 
While I, and most DARs I know, do go out of our way to explain the FAAs interpretation of "necessary crew" to each applicant. We can only do so much. Once we are gone, the owner/pilot is on his/her own.
We are NOT policemen.
I would prefer wording similar to that in the light-sport op lims, but we can't change that wording on our own.

All the "excuses" have been discussed within our DAR seminars. Data can be taken with a recorder or radio conversations with persons on the ground. There is simply no reason to have a second person in our type of airplanes during phase I!

PS. I HAVE denied certificates for not complying with the 51% rule!
 
There is no such thing as rule by consensus in this matter. Only the FAA is the authority to clearly define the meaning of any regulation and if they decline to do so, it becomes a matter of legal determination. As far as I know there has been no enforcement of this matter by the FAA. The expressed definition of the term here is a matter of opinion, not law.

For anyone to assert the "essential purpose" of the flight is solely flight testing is a personal opinion, not a matter of law. The essential purpose of any flight is FLIGHT SAFETY. If it can be shown another person will contribute to the safe conclusion of a flight, that person serves the essential purpose of that flight.

At least that would be my argument before a FAA law judge in this matter. Since the FAA is charged with promoting FLIGHT SAFETY, I wonder what their argument would be?

very well done
 
First, thanks for all of the thoughtful discussion here. My private email is almost overwhelming as well!
A couple of points, which have been mentioned here....First, we can all try to convince ourselves about the safety of flight and why you might need 2 people. I will tell you that you are only kidding yourselves. It might be your license, but if something were to happen, it could be your survivors that find themselves in a very bad predicament. There is not any single-engine certified piston airplane in the US that I am aware of that requires a crew of 2. It would be very hard to convince anyone that our little RV's are so complex that they require a crew of 2. I certainly would hate to even try that argument against a whole cadre of Expert witnesses that could be brought forth to repudiate the need for 2 people because the aircraft does not require it.The pilot might, but that's a different story and they probably shouldn't be in the airplane to begin with.
Second, as a DAR we can not change one iota of the wording of the Order. We can add to it if we deem it necessary, such as clearly defining a test area in the interest of public safety.
The Order is written for everything from a single seat Experimental aircraft to the largest Commercial aircraft (Space Shuttle, too?) that absolutely require a crew of more than one, as the systems management alone can not be handled by one person.
 
In my opinion, there are 2 separate types of issues here... one of which has to do with safety, and one of which has to do more with adherence to the letter of the law. I think both of these issues have the potential to be addressed in the same way, so please bear with me and I'll try to bring this rambling conglomerate of thoughts to what I think is actually a logical conclusion. Skip to the last 2 paragraphs if you just want to read my idea and skip the thought process.

The safety issue I think I have to agree that a second person is not required for flight testing of a single engine aircraft (at least not any of them that I'm aware of). So simply changing the wording of the regulation to say single engine airplane flight testing is pilot only without prior FAA approval would eliminate the ambiguity and allow for unique situations that might have a legitimate need.

As to the issue of professional builder's assistance, I wonder if this is a safety issue, or a case of adherence to the rule for adherence' sake. Do builders' shops increase or decrease safety? If the answer is that they increase, or at least don't decrease, then why are we fighting against this? Why not develop rules that make room for this type of flying?

In both of these cases, I think the assertion about the FAA is correct...the industry/community needs to police itself or the FAA will make up rules to police it for us. Since it seems that there is very little the industry/community can do to police those mavericks who will act and do as they please, then it seems almost inevitable that the FAA will regulate and the insurance industry will come down on this group known as Experimental Amateur Built.

It also occurs to me that it really seems that the way we currently are utilizing the EAB category is not quite the same as when the category was conceived. So maybe it's time for a new category that more appropriately addresses the kit built/proven design type market and allows for certain degrees of builder assistance in a controlled environment (maybe factory pre-approved build centers??)

So my idea is this...perhaps the community/industry needs to form some sort of working group to develop rules that more appropriately address this type of building/flying that we do and petition FAA to consider adopting them. I think this would best be done in two separate proposals. One proposal would be to address the current perceived safety loopholes in the existing EAB regulations (IE change the rule regarding flight testing to say something to the effect of "no occupant except the pilot for testing of single engine aircraft unless specifically approved by the FAA") The second section would be to adopt a new category of aircraft entirely. It could be called "experimental kit built" or "Standardized Kit Built" or "Amateur Kit Built" or whatever most appropriately addresses this type of aircraft. If the working group determines it appropriate, this category could include allowances for professional assistance by qualified individuals or shops, qualification standards for determining who they are, building by owners only, training standards, etc.

Obviously my inspiration for this thought is EAA and AOPA's recent successful interactions with the FAA regarding the creation of LSA and their more recent petitioning of FAA to reconsider the medical certification standards. It seems like this is something that would be proactive and could actually be undertaken, either with EAA/AOPA support, or not.
 
The second person in an RV during Phase 1 has been discussed before and I believe the consensus is that two pilots are NOT required.

I don't disagree with this or much of the conservative view on this thread. However, I have a practical question that I hope Mel or Vic will address. My RV-10 will have an AOA installed. The calibration for the system requires two people, one to safely fly the calibration maneuvers and the other to operate the device (per the AFS manual). It seems to me that this should be accomplished during Phase I (only one flight out of the Phase I hours, though). Or would your interpretation be that I should wait until out of Phase I to calibrate and test the AOA?

The reason I raise the question here rather than in a separate thread is to point out that there might be small exceptions. I think that the knee-jerk "there can be no exceptions at all" mentality is a little counter-productive. Having said that, I also think that allowing exceptions opens the door to people using it as an excuse to break the intent of the rules. It's Catch-22 and I don't see a good answer to it; I can only take responsibility for my choices and try to honor the intent of the rules myself. A test pilot flew my -6A until the engine was broken in and I had a chance to get some time in a different RV. Then I finished the Phase I by myself as the sole occupant. This time around I may do the initial flight (I've got more experience and I know the systems better than another pilot would) but I'll be sure to have a flight adviser on hand to check that decision on go day. My choice but also my responsibility.
 
David,
I strongly disagree with this statement.
I don't think most would agree it was ok.
I think most will say that if the builder needed a CFI in the plane to be safe, then a different test pilot needed to be making the first flight.

You make a good point, Scott.

In reading the latest version of AC 20-27G, Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft, I tend to agree with you. (I have not read Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft since my aircraft was certified in 2003.)

(1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your phase I flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need in your operating limitations.

(2) Flight Instruction. You may not receive flight instruction during your flight test.


It is not a stretch to conclude that if a pilot needs a CFI on the first flight, he needs instruction.

But to argue from a legal point of view, who's to say there was an exchange of flight instruction on the flight? His presence may be a matter of insuring the safe conclusion of the flight which is an essential purpose of any flight.

It is a stretch to conclude that the pilot of the aircraft being flown in phase one needs to be or is a "test pilot". That term "test pilot" is not used in any part of Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft. The FAA calls phase one "Flight testing your amateur-built aircraft", but does not require the pilot to be flight test qualified. The legal requirement is the pilot hold at least a PPL. We like to call ourselves "test pilots" but we are not. The dirty rotten deal here for us is we are required to perform the duties of a test pilot but are not required to be flight test qualified.

And that opens the door to discussing this matter from a perspective of FLIGHT SAFETY.

I hold to a view that the "essential purpose" of any flight has to be its successful conclusion, and in some cases two people may be better than one, relative to that matter.
 
Very well said, Vic...

"This stuff is impacting all of us, and unless we start policing ourselves, we are going to get help that we don't want or need."

...And there a bunch of very powerful people in this country--both in and out of aviation--that would like to make very expensive lawn ornaments of all our airplanes.
 
Adding to Patrick's post......

I think that there are multiple issues to address.

I don't think that there is any dispute on if a CFI or more experience pilot is needed during Phase I, then that pilot shouldn't be flying Phase I and they should hire a test pilot.

Patrick touched on a point that those of us, with technically advanced panels that require programming and calibration during Phase I to work properly.

I think we all agree that Phase I needs to resolve safe flight testing as the primary objective. Once safe flight testing has been concluded, those of us with technically advanced panels need to test that equipment next. To do so, requires one person to look out the window and fly the plane (safety first) and a second person to program and calibrate the various avionics.

I think the debate and gray area is if this should this be done during Phase I.

In talking with our local FSDO rep, he has no problem with it being done during Phase I. My first reaction, was great! Then I started to think a bit more. If I was involved in an incident with a second crew member on board, how would the insurance company handle the situation? The FSDO rep and/or DAR doesn't have the ability to re-write the FAR/AIM to include a second crew member just for technically advanced equiped aircraft. How would you justify having a second crewmember on board a SEL?

I think everyone can see the common sense of having the second crew member when you get to this phase of testing for technically advanced panels. The open ended question is should it occur before or after the completion of Phase 1?

I also believe that if you attempt too much as a single pilot, you will get yourself in trouble. Imagine taking your eyes from outside the aircraft to getting tunnel vision on an EFIS or AP issue in the cockpit? In any of the RVs you can get into trouble pretty quickly if your attention is diverted.

To me this is a gray area in which I'm not anxious to be the test case.

bob
 
I think this recent RV10 accident in Ohio is a perfect example of Vic's fustration. And to those that feel an aircraft would probably be safer built by a professional, I believe the facts here clearly don't back up that assumption. Rick, the pilot rated passenger, runs a business helping builders build their planes. The Operating Limitations on carrying other than required crew members seem pretty clear to me. When I test flew my RV7 on first flights I radioed in to a crew member on the ground my numbers. My dual EFIS was programmed on the ground prior to first flight and what adjustments were needed airborne were minor.

NTSB Identification: CEN11LA669
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 27, 2011 in Marietta, OH
Aircraft: Owen VANS RV-10, registration: N499RV
Injuries: 2 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On September 27, 2011, at 1915 eastern daylight time, an Owen model Vans RV-10 airplane, N499RV, was substantially damaged during a forced landing and postimpact ground fire near Marietta, Ohio. The pilot and passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was registered to and operated by Veracity Aviation LLC, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was operated without a flight plan. The local flight departed Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Airport (KPKB), near Parkersburg, West Virginia, at 1855.

According to the pilot, the purpose of the flight was to familiarize himself with the experimental amateur-built airplane. The pilot-rated passenger had contributed in the assembly of the airplane and subsequently completed about 20 hours of flight testing on the airplane before the accident flight. The pilot stated that after departure he completed 15-20 minutes of basic flight maneuvers before returning to the departure airport. After receiving a clearance from the tower controller he reduced engine power to initiate a descent from 3,000 feet mean sea level. The passenger suggested using a higher engine power setting during the cruise-descent, and as the pilot slowly increased engine power they heard a loud bang from the engine and oil began covering the windscreen. He noted that the engine continued to run erratically, but engine speed could not be controlled using the throttle or propeller controls. The pilot relinquished aircraft control to the passenger, who had more experience in the accident airplane, and a forced landing to a nearby wooded area. The airplane was extensively damaged during a postimpact ground fire.
 
Last edited:
My $.02...builders for hire are a good thing. Not everyone is equipped mentally to build their own airplane, and if they have the financial freedom to be able to write a big check for someone to build their airplane, more power to them. The Canadians have this figured out from a rules perspective. Why don't we here in the US?
 
The DAR doesn't decide who is "essential" . So who gets to decide "essential"? My opinion is YOU as the builder and PIC decide based upon the complexity of your test, the environement, systems complexity and your experience. You were the person certifying the plane as airworthy - The DAR is simply verifying conformity.

As described in a previous post, even the FAA isn't standardized in their view on this matter why would anyone else?

Personally I didn't fly with anyone until Phase 1 complete but to denegrate anyone else for doing so when the rule specifically provides for it is ridiculous.

I'd discuss with your FSDO first.
 
Many comments above talk about a grey area... however, if this really is the FAA defining documentation -

(1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your phase I flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need in your operating limitations.

It doesn't sound very "grey" to me.

Tell the FAA what you need to do, they will add it to the Operating Limitations - then make all of your flights in accordance with your Operating Limitations as per the FARs...:rolleyes:

I say it's quite black and white.

Any DAR comments about adding tests requiring a second crew member?
 
The DAR doesn't decide who is "essential" . So who gets to decide "essential"? My opinion is YOU as the builder and PIC decide based upon the complexity of your test, the environment, systems complexity and your experience. You were the person certifying the plane as airworthy - The DAR is simply verifying conformity.
As described in a previous post, even the FAA isn't standardized in their view on this matter why would anyone else?
Personally I didn't fly with anyone until Phase 1 complete but to denegrate anyone else for doing so when the rule specifically provides for it is ridiculous.
I'd discuss with your FSDO first.
While I will agree that the situation is not "standardized" among FSDOs, the FAA in Oklahoma City HAS given their interpretation (which is binding) of the rule.

And like Bob previously stated, neither the FSDO nor the DAR has the authority to deviate from the rule. Many times a FSDO may give you the answer you want. That does not make it binding. The FAA Headquarters has the final say!
 
The regulations state that this is an "Amateur-Built" classification. We don't get to "pick & choose" which regulations we follow and which we don't.

What classification could an RV be built for hire? As an example, I have built my own RV, have the repairmans certificate, etc... I am toying with an RV project that I am considering having built due to time constraints on other projects. I could supervise the construction through all the stages, do all the inspections pre-DAR.etc... But, I would not be doing the majority of the work. My DAR knows me, knows the project, and knows the program. Is he in violation signing it off?
This is very different than having someone unfamiliar hire someone but I suspect it falls under the same rules and would not be legal to register as Amature-Built.
Is there another path that is not full of restrictions? My Bucker is Experimental Exibition. My Operating limitations state that I can conduct flights with authorization from the FISDO, or for routine maintenance, or for continual training. I do a LOT of training and maintenance flights but I only fly that machine 30 hours a year or so. Not practical considering how most RV's are flown.
 
You may not want to hear this, but calibrating your angle of attack meter is not required during Phase I. Some things may need to be left alone until you can certify that the aircraft has no known hazardous characteristics, which is the explicit purpose of the Phase I fly off period.
This includes things such as flights at max gross weight. Some people try to justify that by putting people in it. I assure you that the Big Boys (Boeing, etc.) don't test max gross weights by adding people during the test programs. Pretty hard to justify, again.
And if you aren't capable of building your own airplane, then you can write the check for the certified airplane and have it built to your equipment specs as they allow or buy an amateur-built aircraft that's for sale. There are certainly opportunities out there for each of those alternatives.
Vic
 
Last edited:
Many comments above talk about a grey area... however, if this really is the FAA defining documentation -
(1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your phase I flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need in your operating limitations.
It doesn't sound very "grey" to me.
Tell the FAA what you need to do, they will add it to the Operating Limitations - then make all of your flights in accordance with your Operating Limitations as per the FARs...:rolleyes:
I say it's quite black and white.
Any DAR comments about adding tests requiring a second crew member?

Even though this statement may appear in AC 20-27 (advisory circulars are not binding), it is NOT in the Order 8130.2 (which is what we must adhere to).
I don't know of any DAR who would accept the liability of allowing a second person during phase I flight testing in the type airplanes we a talking about.
 
Last edited:
WRONG

My $.02...builders for hire are a good thing. Not everyone is equipped mentally to build their own airplane, and if they have the financial freedom to be able to write a big check for someone to build their airplane, more power to them. The Canadians have this figured out from a rules perspective. Why don't we here in the US?


I'm sorry but this is just plain WRONG. DEAD WRONG.

You want a rule to do build for hire, fine, go lobby the FAA to make it legal. Good Luck. But encouraging build for hire, 2 weeks to taxi, etc... is just flagrantly misusing the amateur built rule. Keep this behavior up and we stand a good chance of losing the privilege (it is a privilege after all) altogether.

Not prepared mentally to build, fine, go buy a used one, there are plenty of good used RV's for sale. Or go buy a Cessna.
 
And if you aren't capable of building your own airplane, then you can write the check for the certified airplane and have it built to your equipment specs as they allow or buy an amateur-built aircraft that's for sale. There are certainly opportunities out there for each of those alternatives.
Vic

I completely disagree. There are many builders for hire and customers alike that I wholeheartedly support in being a part of our hobby, especially during the building process. Having these folks in the in our community is far better than not having them in the mix.

I'll quote the Transport Canada rule regarding this:
"2.2 Amongst other things, the exemption allows persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification to contract for professional assistance in the construction or assembly of parts of the aircraft, provided the work is subject to the builder's overall control. The intent of this provision in the revised standard is to allow a builder to seek assistance with the construction of those parts of the aircraft where the builder does not feel competent."

Seems awful reasonable to me.
 
Then go license your airplane in Canada or help get a rule like that in the US.

Quit trying to rationalize what is clearly against the reg! Whether you think its good for us all or not.
 
Builder for hire vs build and sell

Hi Vic

I've seen a continuum from self built planes all the way to "almost commercial ventures". The Lance Air IVP's were frequent instances of the latter.

So, where does the guy fall in your view who builds an AHB kit with the intent of selling it after Phase I?

I ask because there are those who just love to build and once it's done they sell so they can build again and do so knowingly. There are those who also build to sell and do so knowingly. And I don't think anyone could tell the two apart.

And for full disclosure, I knew I was not the builder type so I bought a finished RV-8 with about 100hrs on it.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but this is just plain WRONG. DEAD WRONG.

You want a rule to do build for hire, fine, go lobby the FAA to make it legal. Good Luck. But encouraging build for hire, 2 weeks to taxi, etc... is just flagrantly misusing the amateur built rule. Keep this behavior up and we stand a good chance of losing the privilege (it is a privilege after all) altogether.

Not prepared mentally to build, fine, go buy a used one, there are plenty of good used RV's for sale. Or go buy a Cessna.

I Agree!

Don't we already have a rule for building airplanes for hire? It's called CFR 14 Part 23. The amateur built rules aren't there so that rich guys can turn money into any airplane that they choose. It's there to give those of us who LOVE to BUILD airplanes the freedom to do so. If you want one already built for you, go to the Cessna store and pick one.

Yes, the part 23 standards and procedures are difficult, costly and tend to stifle innovation in design, but those are the problems that need to be fixed. Lower the cost of admission and you may see something that resembles an RV-10 on a production line, but skirting the amateur built rules will just make it worse in the long run.
 
Regarding AOA calibrating, mine was VERY close straight out of the box...I think its default calibration was designed around the RVs. That said, I waited until I was out of Phase 1 and had a friend help me with the calibration. After a lot of futzing I think we ended up very close to where it was originally:eek:

Regarding more than 1 person during Phase 1, I actually had to deal with a couple of people trying to ENCOURAGE me to have them help "train" me in the aircraft during Phase 1, even though I went through transition training, and was comfortable with flying Phase 1. I guess I don't swagger enough around the airport... Or maybe the fact that I had someone else do the first flight was misinterpreted as me lacking confidence in my skills. Even when I made it clear that I, the FAA, and my insurance company all felt this was neither the letter NOR THE SPIRIT of the language, there was reluctance to let it go. The good news was that it was entirely my call to make and it was easy. I finally put an end to the pressure by stating that in my view, if I or anyone else needs a second crew member for Phase 1 in any RV, the aircraft needs to be placarded "2 crewmembers required" for the life of the aircraft.

The "data acquisition" arguement is a bit like listening to a kid try to justify why he did something that he knew was a bad idea, but I went through the same thought process before realizing what it was sounding like. Let's face it, there are way too many folks not doing ANY actual flight testing during Phase 1. There's just "flying off the hours". Their first experiment in envelope expansion is inadvertantly discovering that the plane handles differently with your wife in the passenger seat and your 8 year old child and baggage in the baggage compartment of a two seater.:eek: Yeah, we heard about it after the fact. It's a testament to Vans design but you can't have it both ways: so easy you don't do any testing, but so compicated you need a second person for data acquisition.

I know you can't fix stupid and that people who tend to feel the rules don't apply to them will still disregard the rules, but I think that there are degrees of rebelious behaviour. I think there are some people who are absolutist: either legal or illegal. There are others who see in shades of gray and of those there is a spectrum of folks who explore pushing the boundaries. A lot of us have played tennis with people who are forever arguing about whether the ball was in or not, doing it as a tactic to "win". I think what we're trying to do here is dust off the boundary lines. We have a fantastic referree for boundary calls...thanks Mel!!

GREAT Discussion...thanks Vic!!!!!

Jeremy Constant
 
To calibrate my AOA all I had to do is fly to a stall and push a button. No calculus or wire twisting required. I don't think I needed extra "epaulets" on board to do that. How hard can it be? I'm with Vic on this one for sure. The rules are specific, and as a community we need to hang together or hang separately.
 
Then go license your airplane in Canada or help get a rule like that in the US.

Exactly what I suggested. I agree completely, professional building isn't currently allowed within the structure of the rules we have. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in aviation.
 
Back
Top