Add'l Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test

[andrewtac]

New to home built planes (recently started an RV8). I've been testing for two years (1st year was school). I grew up single seat, and had no use for baggage in the rear. One of the main reasons I wanted to be single seat was to not put someone else at risk. When learning to test I realized the benefit of good flight test engineer in the back seat. Not only was my data better, I was much more efficient, and would say probably safer. If test maneuvers were going to be dangerous I would task the FTE with monitoring critical safety of flight parameters (usually one, no more than two). While I would feel comfortable testing alone (as I do it now, sort of, there is a control room); I'd much rather have someone else in the plane to help record data, measure data, and monitor safety of flight parameters. I realize we all have out own level of proficiency, upbringing, and abilities; and this rule might not be suit everyone. But the decision for me to include someone would not be emotional; perhaps I am in the minority and not experienced enough with homebuilts. I am not even sure what is involved in the Phase 1, but looking forward to as I do really enjoy testing (and that means I'll have something of my own to fly).

[AX-O]

Spoke to Mark. He listened to me, took notes and explained where he was coming from. I gave him my number and volunteered myself for any additional questions/issues he has.

Thanks Mark.

Also, thanks to those who PMed me expressing their thanks for my original post.

[andrewtac]

Originally Posted by AX-O

-i am not convince that adding an additional pilot will reduce the amount of fatalities. If you can reduce 50% of the 6 phase I fatalities shown on the document (3 loc and 3 other, power plant not counted), you save 3 lives. But what happens to the other 3 aircraft that had fatalities? They had additional aircrew, 3. That brings the number back to 6.
.

What if the other three were alone? With my limited experience I figured two would be safer than one. I realize with one crash, it will now double the body count. I would think the controls they are trying to implement (with someone experienced as the 2nd pilot) that would help lower the risk.

[comfortcat]

I believe adding a second, experience pilot does not just double the body count in the case of engine out, but rather limits the incorrect response of an engine-out incident. An engine out event does not have to be fatal. Follow training, screw the hardware, land parallel to the ground and fly the plane as far into the crash as possible. The slow landing speed of these planes should be very survivable. A second pilot might prevent spin/stall more than half the time.

But what happens to the other 3 aircraft that had fatalities? They had additional aircrew, 3. That brings the number back to 6.

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by AX-O

....
-i am not convince that adding an additional pilot will reduce the amount of fatalities. If you can reduce 50% of the 6 phase I fatalities shown on the document (3 loc and 3 other, power plant not counted), you save 3 lives. But what happens to the other 3 aircraft that had fatalities? They had additional aircrew, 3. That brings the number back to 6.
......

Bad assumptions at work here.

You have just assumed that every flight under the new rules will have two occupants.

I very much doubt that solo flight testing will cease to exist under the new proposals.

You might need to put your "aerospace engineer" hat on and not a "worse case scenario" flight test hat.

[MeGiron]

I had a good talk with Axel on Friday afternoon. Clearly a guy who understands the balance between safety and risk and its application in the E-AB world. The take-aways from the conversation were excellent. That being said for everyone, the phone lines are always open if there's something you want to talk about regarding this AC, or PM me if you don't want a public post. I'll be at OSH and the social too so don't be shy Don't think that's a problem with this crowd though...

[apkp777]

Just beginning to read the posts here. I share the same opinion as Paul D. My additional initial reaction is this...

Currently, pilots preparing to perform Phase I testing have more of a challenge to meet their insurance company's experience requirements than they do the FAA's. Seems to me that if you made the BP experience requirement to do Phase I testing more similar to what is proposed to be required for a QP pilot, with obvious less requirements, there wouldn't be a need for an Add'l Pilot A.C.

Part 61 could be modified to provide a PIC exclusion for Phase I testing if the Certificated Pilot doesn't meet the experience requirements listed in a matrix similar to the one for the QP.

You could also modify the Non-Commercial operation limitation for an experimental to allow for dual flight instruction to a Certificated Pilot for preparation for Phase I testing. (no extra ratings or endorsements).

[rmartingt]

Originally Posted by apkp777

Just beginning to read the posts here. I share the same opinion as Paul D. My additional initial reaction is this...

Currently, pilots preparing to perform Phase I testing have more of a challenge to meet their insurance company's experience requirements than they do the FAA's. Seems to me that if you made the BP experience requirement to do Phase I testing more similar to what is proposed to be required for a QP pilot, with obvious less requirements, there wouldn't be a need for an Add'l Pilot A.C.

Part 61 could be modified to provide a PIC exclusion for Phase I testing if the Certificated Pilot doesn't meet the experience requirements listed in a matrix similar to the one for the QP.

I really don't think we want to be going down the road of the FAA setting a minimum bar. It's one thing for insurance to set a requirement for coverage, or to encourage people to get training and experience, but we need to think long and hard before we start calling for federal restrictions on ourselves. Once we do so, it will never go away.

Besides, what would you set as the minimum qualifications? Is total time more important, or time in type? Is a guy with 1000 hours in Cessnas, or 10,000 in big jets, but only a couple of hours' transition training safer/more qualified than a guy with only 250 hours but 200 of those in an RV (or whatever other aircraft is being tested)? Again, this is something I'm wary of setting in legal stone, because then it becomes absolutely inflexible and nearly impossible to change if we figure out we don't really like it.

You could also modify the Non-Commercial operation limitation for an experimental to allow for dual flight instruction to a Certificated Pilot for preparation for Phase I testing. (no extra ratings or endorsements).

Isn't that what the LODA process is already there for? Or do you mean something else?

[MeGiron]

I have had a few questions as to where the worksheets for determining the QP and OP should reside. People would like to confirm that they should be kept in the aircraft maintenance log. His question arises from the fact that AC 90-89 only makes a vague reference to a flight test plan. It does not mention anything about recording the results, just about ending up with a custom POH.

Yes, the airframe logbook is correct. We put it in the airframe log to make it a "one-stop shop" whose records would travel with the aircraft, unlike the pilot logbook. The only pilot logbook entry is the "my QP was John Doe" entry similar to IFR safety pilot. We also require the aircraft tests mentioned in the new AC to be documented in the maintenance log so that you can show compliance with the requirement of this particular AC.

I just had my aircraft signed off by FAA MIDO Inspector, and they said that all of the forty hours needed to be recorded in the aircraft mx log. This would show that the time and maneuvers had been completed. I had never seen this noted anywhere.

This is not in any of the Order's operating limitations nor in the regulations. Perhaps the inspector gave you an addition limitation, though I doubt it. The FSDO inspectors may not be very familiar with E-AB, so you get some misunderstandings like you may have here, in this case. The only logbook entries required are those listed in the ops limitations or regulations. I tested this at vx __ vy___ weight___ and loops, rolls, etc. There would be an airframe time recorded with the entry so perhaps that was what they were referring to, though it doesn't really sound that way. Make sense? Ultimately, you'd have to ask the inspector where his requirement is...and some don't find questioning inspectors always, how shall I put it... "helpful". Tact is key, I would say. We're all human.

ONE LAST THING ON RISK

Lastly, the reason for the QP AND the Aircraft Testing Requirements is this...in approximate numbers. 1/3 are powerplant related. 2/3 are Loss of control (LOC) or similarly related. Very few are aircraft falling apart related. What the FAA tries to do in this case is mitigate risk and balance the freedom of being an experiment. How do we mitigate powerplant problems? Require (only for this AC) our testing to be done (fuel flow, compression, etc.). What this does is provide the QP and BP with an engine that is tested to a reasonable standard. If we all but eliminate the 1/3 of powerplant problems, the QP is only asked to mitigate LOC. This should be the QP's wheelhouse. And that's why the requirements and matrices are aimed in that direction.

I hope this helps...

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by MeGiron

......

Lastly, the reason for the QP AND the Aircraft Testing Requirements is this...in approximate numbers. 1/3 are powerplant related. 2/3 are Loss of control (LOC) or similarly related. Very few are aircraft falling apart related. What the FAA tries to do in this case is mitigate risk and balance the freedom of being an experiment. How do we mitigate powerplant problems? Require (only for this AC) our testing to be done (fuel flow, compression, etc.). What this does is provide the QP and BP with an engine that is tested to a reasonable standard. If we all but eliminate the 1/3 of powerplant problems, the QP is only asked to mitigate LOC. This should be the QP's wheelhouse. And that's why the requirements and matrices are aimed in that direction.

I hope this helps...

If the tests you mention really do remove the 1/3 accidents that are power related - which seems reasonable - then they really should be added as a requirement (not an AC suggestion) to the Operating Limitations.

Why make initial flights powerplant mechanically safer for two pilot occupancy over one pilot occupancy?