[John Clark]

From AvWeb:

Babbitt Says Homebuilt Safety Needs Improvement

FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said at EAA AirVenture on Wednesday that the homebuilt community needs to do a better job of preventing accidents. "Last year, amateur-built aircraft accounted for 25 percent of all general aviation accidents," he said. "But the troubling number here is that they represent only 10 percent of GA aircraft. We're trying to change that trend." Many accidents seem to happen in the transition time after a new owner buys an aircraft from the original builder, Babbitt said, and he would like to see an effort to ensure that new owners get thoroughly trained in the performance and characteristics of the aircraft. He also said the GA numbers overall are not where they should be, with 120 fatal accidents already this year.

Babbitt, a former airline pilot, also reprised his emphasis on professionalism for pilots at all levels. "This is not something we can regulate," he said. "It's up to every pilot to go that extra mile, to take recurrent training. Take that extra step and bring that accident rate down."

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[jferraro17]

10% of the GA aircraft, but what percentage of the usage/hours flown? Much more telling statistic...if you even believe in such things


Joe

 

[AirbusPilot]

What about van's aircraft stadistic???

 

[N395V]

I wonder how he defines the GA fleet.

Is it the total number of all aircraft ever registered many of which do not fly?

Is it based on hours flown?

I would submit that the numbers would not be so skewed if it were based on actively flying aircraft or hours flown.

 

[jferraro17]

Too slow Milt!

 

[apkp777]

From AvWeb:

Babbitt Says Homebuilt Safety Needs Improvement

...Babbitt said, and he would like to see an effort to ensure that new owners get thoroughly trained in the performance and characteristics of the aircraft...."

Yep, but when I asked my FSDO, and the FAA at OSH about getting a LODA to provide transition training, they all said, "uh, what's that, no you can't do commercial ops in an experimental".

I agree with them that LODA's are sketchy at best, I am for a rule change that would allow a RV qualified CFI to provide training in an owner aircraft or non-owner aircraft. Until that happens I am afraid the cost and difficulty in obtaining quality transition training will keep many from getting the training they need.

 

[John Clark]

Send and email, write a letter...

Yep, but when I asked my FSDO, and the FAA at OSH about getting a LODA to provide transition training, they all said, "uh, what's that, no you can't do commercial ops in an experimental".

I agree with them that LODA's are sketchy at best, I am for a rule change that would allow a RV qualified CFI to provide training in an owner aircraft or non-owner aircraft. Until that happens I am afraid the cost and difficulty in obtaining quality transition training will keep many from getting the training they need.

I agree, the administrator needs to be made aware of the LODA issue. A clear Advisory Circular from the FAA on the subject would be a good start.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[terrykohler]

Yep, but when I asked my FSDO, and the FAA at OSH about getting a LODA to provide transition training, they all said, "uh, what's that, no you can't do commercial ops in an experimental".

I agree with them that LODA's are sketchy at best, I am for a rule change that would allow a RV qualified CFI to provide training in an owner aircraft or non-owner aircraft. Until that happens I am afraid the cost and difficulty in obtaining quality transition training will keep many from getting the training they need.

Tony:
while we can offer training in an aircraft owned by the student, the tough part is offering needed instruction to pilots about to complete their ships. When I checked on a LODA for 3TP thru Detroit FSDO, I was informed that I'd be required to adhere to a 100 hour inspection cycle as well as submit a training syllabus for review and approval. Also learned that my insurance premium would take a pretty good bump. In the end, it didn't make any economic sense.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[apkp777]

Terry, There's no doubt that you would need a pretty descent hourly rate to make it financially viable. I am not sure if an A&P (I have one) would be required to do the 100hr inspections, that would add even more expense. The insurance is a whole nother issue.

Maybe there is another way. I don't know. But right now FAR 91.319 is very vague and leaves you sort of searching for approval to provide training, that I think is already inherent in a Commercial Pilot's License with a Flight Instructor rating.

I have done 13 hours dual given in my -9 already. Two of my friends and myself just happened to finish our -9's all at the same time. They were a few weeks behind me so they had to wait a weeks or so till I flew of my 40 hours to get them in my left seat.

My assessment of each was about the same. Both were very good pilots who, like many builders, spent most of their "aviation dollars" on building rather than at the local FBO renting a Cessna. Because of the higher performance of the RV and rusty skills, they both just needed some basic recurrent training to get them up to speed. The unique flying qualities of the RV are not difficult to master but are different than your typical rental aircraft.

Maybe one solution to the alarming crash statistics would be to keep the topic alive on the forums to remind us all that if we operate outside our flight envelopes and relative skill level, we are likely to fill out or be the subject of an NTSB report.

One thing I encourage everyone to do before they fly any airplane is to define their personal minimums. Take your logbook, in the next entry list the conditions you are willing to tackle. Then when you head to the airport with a low ceiling and/or stiff crosswind, don't try to figure out if you can "handle" things. Go to you log book, if the conditions are beyond, you go home. Or better yet, work on your plane. I still have a 10kt P.M. crosswind component, No night flight, no IMC. In time these will change, but it's a real safety net right now.

Find a good instructor whose not afraid to give you an ear full and check your EGO at the canopy.

 

[rv8ch]

We need to focus on the right problem

Just curious, how many fatal RV accidents are the result of rusty or subpar pilot skills during the first 100 hours of build completion or purchasing the aircraft?

If this is a big number, then we should really encourage more transition training. It is available already across the US from several excellent instructors, and of course more would be helpful.

Many of the fatal RV accidents that I can recall are pilot judgment problems, and cracking that nut is a bit more difficult, but can be helped a lot by forums such as these.

 

[pierre smith]

If you're at Osh....

...perhaps you could defy him to tell you why the LODA's aren't being issued!
I've given up on this do-nothing bureaucracy and gave several hours of transistion training in an owner's new-to-him RV-9A this past weekend.

There are several of us that want to do transition training in our --10's but we're stalled by the incompetence of the FAA,

Best,

 

[TS Flightlines]

training

So-- what if a guy wants to build an RV9A, and has NO real training? Can he complete his plane, and find a similiar RV9A to train in? This might be an important point for some of us dreamers
Tom

 

[dmaib]

I fought and lost the LODA fight a few months ago. Classic bureaucratic finger pointing from my FSDO, FAA Region, Washington, and even EAA. The letter from Washington to FSDO's outlining requirements expired sometime in 2008 without ever making it into the inspectors handbook. Now there is some mumbling from all parties about how it "kind of got tangled up with the rewrite of LSA regs, but we are sure the new guidelines will be released soon". Riiiiiight!
I had a syllabus that the FSDO was very happy with, insurance all lined up, and people needing training. Since most insurers are requiring some dual, and the administrator wants to find a way to make sure homebuilders get proper training, one would think this would get moved along. EAA was no help to me at all.

 

[jcaplins]

10% of the GA aircraft, but what percentage of the usage/hours flown? Much more telling statistic...if you even believe in such things


Joe

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain







.

 

[Ironflight]

Just curious, how many fatal RV accidents are the result of rusty or subpar pilot skills during the first 100 hours of build completion or purchasing the aircraft?

Terry Lutz spoke at the Tech Counselor/Flight Adviser breakfast yesterday, and used a lot of accident statistics (The goal of the TC/FA program is, after all, safety!). The one that stuck with me is that over the years of the program, "First Flight" accidents, which were numerous before TC/FA's got involved were very high in number. That has dropped significantly - but the total number of accidents in "Phase 1" has not. Which might mean that we need to make sure pilots aren't letting their guard down after that first, short, successful flight.

Paul

 

[N395V]

Too slow Milt!

Yep I'm gettin old and just can't move as fast as you youngsters

 

[John Clark]

Write a letter

I fought and lost the LODA fight a few months ago. Classic bureaucratic finger pointing from my FSDO, FAA Region, Washington, and even EAA. The letter from Washington to FSDO's outlining requirements expired sometime in 2008 without ever making it into the inspectors handbook. Now there is some mumbling from all parties about how it "kind of got tangled up with the rewrite of LSA regs, but we are sure the new guidelines will be released soon". Riiiiiight!
I had a syllabus that the FSDO was very happy with, insurance all lined up, and people needing training. Since most insurers are requiring some dual, and the administrator wants to find a way to make sure homebuilders get proper training, one would think this would get moved along. EAA was no help to me at all.

I doubt that Randy Babbitt is up to speed on everything that is going on in our little corner of aviation. But since he made the comments, we need to point out the issues that are keeping the training from happening. I respectfully suggest that you do as I did and write a factual letter to:

Mr. Randy Babbitt, Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
Orville Wright Building (FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

As in nature, things flow downhill much faster than uphill at the FAA. One memo from Washington is better than a bunch of us pounding on the counter at the FSDO

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

 

[pierre smith]

Hi again, Tom...

So-- what if a guy wants to build an RV9A, and has NO real training? Can he complete his plane, and find a similiar RV9A to train in? This might be an important point for some of us dreamers
Tom

You can still get transition training in Jan Bussell's -6 or -6A...very suitable for -9, -9A builders because the -9's are easier to handle, not so quick on the controls. I probably had 12 to 15 -9A builders come here and transition to their -9's well.

BTW, Ray will measure all my fuel and oil lines on my -10 for replacement at annual.

Best,

 

[DanH]

Anybody have a link to the current AC regarding a LODA for experimental flight training? And what exactly is the problem?

Always happy to write a letter.

 

[az_gila]

Perhaps....

Terry Lutz spoke at the Tech Counselor/Flight Adviser breakfast yesterday, and used a lot of accident statistics (The goal of the TC/FA program is, after all, safety!). The one that stuck with me is that over the years of the program, "First Flight" accidents, which were numerous before TC/FA's got involved were very high in number. That has dropped significantly - but the total number of accidents in "Phase 1" has not. Which might mean that we need to make sure pilots aren't letting their guard down after that first, short, successful flight.

Paul

...the EAA FC program needs something like 5 or 10 hour increment follow-ups after the initial flight?

gil A - travelling - now in Houston

 

[TS Flightlines]

Hey Pierre,

I was looking into a -9A, but without the other little minor things, like a pilots license, I was wondering if the training had to be in the aircraft that I build, or just the model that I build---for instance a -6A, or -7A.
I need to come up and see you and Ray, but I figure guys are busy flying!! Cooler at altitude than here on the coast!!
Perhaps I can make an appointment to come and see you guys. When you are ready for your hoses, let me know and I can bring the trailer and do them right there for you!!
Tom

You can still get transition training in Jan Bussell's -6 or -6A...very suitable for -9, -9A builders because the -9's are easier to handle, not so quick on the controls. I probably had 12 to 15 -9A builders come here and transition to their -9's well.

BTW, Ray will measure all my fuel and oil lines on my -10 for replacement at annual.

Best,

 

[dmaib]

Anybody have a link to the current AC regarding a LODA for experimental flight training? And what exactly is the problem?

Always happy to write a letter.

I don't think it is an AC, Dan. But I could be wrong about that. What my FSDO sent me was a copy of a letter from HQ giving inspectors guidance for what was needed to issue the LODA. As I noted in my earlier post, the letter had an expiration date of Oct. (?) 2008. The expectation was that this info would be put into the inspectors handbook before the letter expired. That never happened. I have heard that some FSDO's continued to use the aforementioned letter as guidance to issue LODA's for a while after the expiration date, but I don't think that is happening any more.

I am going to take John Clark's suggestion and write a letter to Administrator Babbitt. Good advice and I am a bit embarrassed that I have not done so before now.

 

[jferraro17]

I penned (okay, typed) my letter today. Squeaky wheel and all that. Seems like so much common sense after his remarks at OSH, should be a rubber stamp...right?

Joe

 

[apkp777]

Anybody have a link to the current AC regarding a LODA for experimental flight training? And what exactly is the problem?

Always happy to write a letter.

N8700.47 Provided the LODA to FAR 91.319, but was canceled 8/07.

FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3 Cht 11. Sec I Provides the guidance for FSDO's to issue LODA's but is vague at best.

What is needed is the allowance for a CFI who owns an RV to be able to rent his/her airplane for the purpose of flight training. Clearly this would need to be limited some how. I imagine this is where the problem is. They don't want to CFI's using their planes for primary instruction. However, my thought would be to limit flight training in an experimental so that dual received does not count toward any certificate or rating. That would fix the dilemma the FAA faces and still make for a good training environment.

 

[apkp777]

My guess that Randy Babbitt's email address is [email protected]

 

[dmaib]

N8700.47 Provided the LODA to FAR 91.319, but was canceled 8/07.

FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3 Cht 11. Sec I Provides the guidance for FSDO's to issue LODA's but is vague at best.

What is needed is the allowance for a CFI who owns an RV to be able to rent his/her airplane for the purpose of flight training. Clearly this would need to be limited some how. I imagine this is where the problem is. They don't want to CFI's using their planes for primary instruction. However, my thought would be to limit flight training in an experimental so that dual received does not count toward any certificate or rating. That would fix the dilemma the FAA faces and still make for a good training environment.

I don't have the letter in front of me, but as I recall, it was very clear that the training that a CFI, in his own experimental airplane would only be allowed to give transition training in that type of airplane. No Flight Reviews, training towards a rating, etc. It was a workable document and the individuals that were issued LODA's during that time are still able give training today. I don't believe there was any expiration date on the LODA's. My point is, the guidance previously used seemed to be complete and appropriately restrictive.
I will try to find the letter and post a copy of it if anyone is interested.

 

[apkp777]

I should clarify my proposal. Not a LODA but a NPRM, that is, a change in FAR 91.319.

 

[pierre smith]

Dave's correct....

...in that Loda's don't expire to the best of my knowledge.

In my situation, I sold the -6A that had revised oplims, allowing me to give transition training.

So now, the -10 has to have new oplims issued since I can't piggyback my permission for the -6A.

Best,

 

[apkp777]

...in that Loda's don't expire to the best of my knowledge.

In my situation, I sold the -6A that had revised oplims, allowing me to give transition training.

So now, the -10 has to have new oplims issued since I can't piggyback my permission for the -6A.

Best,

The LODA's may or may not expire, depending on how they write it and what its for. Some are for a one time deviation, some for continual deviation. However the FAA Order N8700.47 that gave guidance for the FSDO's to issue a LODA did. Maybe there is another document that they are using to issue them now. However, so far I have talked to 4 FAA inspectors and none seem to know. None of my own searches have turned up anything.

For me it's not a really big deal right now. I don't mind providing training "pro rata" or the English equivalent "for beer". Plus there are so few -9's out there I don't see a real market for transition training in them.

However, if the crash statics are going to come down, I think this issue will need to be addressed. I doubt it'll fix the problem, but it will help.

 

[dmaib]

The LODA's may or may not expire, depending on how they write it and what its for. Some are for a one time deviation, some for continual deviation. However the FAA Order N8700.47 that gave guidance for the FSDO's to issue a LODA did. Maybe there is another document that they are using to issue them now. However, so far I have talked to 4 FAA inspectors and none seem to know. None of my own searches have turned up anything.

For me it's not a really big deal right now. I don't mind providing training "pro rata" or the English equivalent "for beer". Plus there are so few -9's out there I don't see a real market for transition training in them.

However, if the crash statics are going to come down, I think this issue will need to be addressed. I doubt it'll fix the problem, but it will help.

The LODA's issued for transition training in experimental aircraft did not have an expiration date. They are not using any document to issue them now because they are not issuing them now.

 

[David-aviator]

I doubt that Randy Babbitt is up to speed on everything that is going on in our little corner of aviation. But since he made the comments, we need to point out the issues that are keeping the training from happening. I respectfully suggest that you do as I did and write a factual letter to:

Mr. Randy Babbitt, Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
Orville Wright Building (FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

As in nature, things flow downhill much faster than uphill at the FAA. One memo from Washington is better than a bunch of us pounding on the counter at the FSDO

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

My letter to Mr. Babbitt.

Dear Randy,

Forgive the familiarity of addressing you simply as Randy, but from one pilot to another I am determined to get your attention. Your comments at OSH on experimental aviation flight safety need responding to.

As a former Eastern Airlines pilot, ALPA leader, and now FAA Administrator, you probably know the value of TRAINING better than many of the people under your command.

The problem lies in FAR 91.319. This regulation governs flight training in experimental aircraft. Unfortunately, 91.319 is legally complex, difficult to comply with, and entails much bureaucratic hoop jumping before a certified instructor can do his thing.

The FAA certified flight instructor is ready, able and willing to provide much needed training in experimental aircraft, many are builders and aviators of their aircraft. A so-called "letter of deviation" is required before any flight instructor can provide a much needed service of transition training. The LOD is so en-snarled with regulation complexity, local FISDO inspectors are reluctant to grant one.

If FAR 91.319 were amended with a new section that did not begin with "No person may...." to read:

IN THE INTEREST OF FLIGHT SAFETY, PERSONS CONTEMPLATING FLIGHT IN ANY EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ARE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK OUT AND ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR WHO IS PILOT QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED IN THAT TYPE OF EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED IN SUCH AIRCRAFT MAY PLY THEIR TRADE AS THEY SEE FIT AND RECEIVE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SUCH SERVICES.

.....it would go a long way to providing much needed training.

It must be pointed out that the FAA has certified numerous flight instructors for the purpose of giving flight instruction and requires a renewal of that certificate each 2 years - the CFI is the only certificate that carries an expiration date - and to impose road blocks in the process of flight instruction is counter flight safety. Instructors need be turned loose from unintended regulation complexity and encouraged to do their thing in an open and free manner.

The complexity of 91.319 is directly responsible for the high accident rate with experimental aircraft because it discourages flight training.

The tone of "No person may..." needs to changed to a positive message encouraging flight training. The FAA needs to act in this matter as soon as possible.

 

[Ron Lee]

The complexity of 91.319 is directly responsible for the high accident rate with experimental aircraft because it discourages flight training.

Correcting this issue is important and your suggestion may solve it, but I doubt the comment above. My "guess" is that the vast majority of accidents are due to pilot error and some percentage due to systems design failures. Unless you correct those, you have not made the largest improvement.

 

[dmaib]

My letter to Mr. Babbitt.

Dear Randy,

Forgive the familiarity of addressing you simply as Randy, but from one pilot to another I am determined to get your attention. Your comments at OSH on experimental aviation flight safety need responding to.

As a former Eastern Airlines pilot, ALPA leader, and now FAA Administrator, you probably know the value of TRAINING better than many of the people under your command.

The problem lies in FAR 91.319. This regulation governs flight training in experimental aircraft. Unfortunately, 91.319 is legally complex, difficult to comply with, and entails much bureaucratic hoop jumping before a certified instructor can do his thing.

The FAA certified flight instructor is ready, able and willing to provide much needed training in experimental aircraft, many are builders and aviators of their aircraft. A so-called "letter of deviation" is required before any flight instructor can provide a much needed service of transition training. The LOD is so en-snarled with regulation complexity, local FISDO inspectors are reluctant to grant one.

If FAR 91.319 were amended with a new section that did not begin with "No person may...." to read:

IN THE INTEREST OF FLIGHT SAFETY, PERSONS CONTEMPLATING FLIGHT IN ANY EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ARE ENCOURAGED TO SEEK OUT AND ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF A CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR WHO IS PILOT QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED IN THAT TYPE OF EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED IN SUCH AIRCRAFT MAY PLY THEIR TRADE AS THEY SEE FIT AND RECEIVE REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SUCH SERVICES.

.....it would go a long way to providing much needed training.

It must be pointed out that the FAA has certified numerous flight instructors for the purpose of giving flight instruction and requires a renewal of that certificate each 2 years - the CFI is the only certificate that carries an expiration date - and to impose road blocks in the process of flight instruction is counter flight safety. Instructors need be turned loose from unintended regulation complexity and encouraged to do their thing in an open and free manner.

The complexity of 91.319 is directly responsible for the high accident rate with experimental aircraft because it discourages flight training.

The tone of "No person may..." needs to changed to a positive message encouraging flight training. The FAA needs to act in this matter as soon as possible.

Good letter David. However, the problem is not that CFI's cannot give and charge for transition training. The problem is that a CFI cannot charge a fee for utilizing his own experimental airplane for the transition training. The LODA's were issued to allow a deviation from the FAR and permit "commercial" use of an experimental airplane for a very specific training scenario. This is how folks like Alex DeDominices, Mike Seager, and others are allowed to charge for the use of their airplanes for transition training. Not to allow a CFI to charge for his or her instruction. CFI's are free to charge for their services as they see fit.

 

[David-aviator]

Good letter David. However, the problem is not that CFI's cannot give and charge for transition training. The problem is that a CFI cannot charge a fee for utilizing his own experimental airplane for the transition training. The LODA's were issued to allow a deviation from the FAR and permit "commercial" use of an experimental airplane for a very specific training scenario. This is how folks like Alex DeDominices, Mike Seager, and others are allowed to charge for the use of their airplanes for transition training. Not to allow a CFI to charge for his or her instruction. CFI's are free to charge for their services as they see fit.

I did not have a clear understanding of the problem, I do now. Thanks.

The letter to Mr. Babbitt will be amended.

 

[Kevin Horton]

I don't think a change to 91.319 is the right target to solve the immediate problem. The process to change a FAR is extremely cumbersome, and it takes many, many years to get a reg changed. Ten years is a realistic estimate.

The FAA legal beagles will almost certainly tell Mr. Babbitt that FAR 91.319 (h) already provides the means to address this issue, as it allows the FAA to issue a Letter of Deviation Authority to allow deviation from 91.319 (a).

I think the letters should focus on the fact that the LODAs allowed by 91.319 (h) are not being issued. If the FAA would issue clear and practical guidance to FSDOs on the issuance of LODAs, then this problem could be solved very quickly.

 

[dmaib]

I don't think a change to 91.319 is the right target to solve the immediate problem. The process to change a FAR is extremely cumbersome, and it takes many, many years to get a reg changed. Ten years is a realistic estimate.

The FAA legal beagles will almost certainly tell Mr. Babbitt that FAR 91.319 (h) already provides the means to address this issue, as it allows the FAA to issue a Letter of Deviation Authority to allow deviation from 91.319 (a).

I think the letters should focus on the fact that the LODAs allowed by 91.319 (h) are not being issued. If the FAA would issue clear and practical guidance to FSDOs on the issuance of LODAs, then this problem could be solved very quickly.

I completely agree Kevin. My letter to Mr. Babbitt asks exactly that.

 

[David-aviator]

I completely agree Kevin. My letter to Mr. Babbitt asks exactly that.

One good method of getting the FAA word out is by AC (Advisory Circular). It doesn't have the legal teeth of a regulation but it does get the job done as it has with the amateur built aircraft certification process. (AC 20-27G)

An AC dedicated to amateur built aircraft flight training could be the guideline for FSDO's and CFI's. It would get everyone on the same page, especially if it included a sample LODA and training curriculum. This would be a better method of addressing the issue rather than changing 91.319. That, unfortunately, would take years.

My letter to Mr. Babbitt will reflect what Dave and Kevin have agreed is the best way to go. In a sense, the thread has evolved to committee work. Ideas are on the table, kicked around, sorted out and the best put forward. Committees with open minded people almost always come up with good solutions.

Now if we can, in a civil manner, get the FAA's attention and prod them to become proactive on the subject, maybe things will change for the better and perhaps there will be fewer accidents in the future. That's what this is all about.

 

[dforster]

There are a number of ways to reduce proficiency-related accidents for new amateur built aircraft, but the formula has at least two elements:

(a) The aircraft used for flight is rigged and operating within the parameters expected for the type
(b) The operator possesses as much experience and skill as practical, but at least enough to handle the parameters that the aircraft in (a) might present.

The EAA technical counselor program and the DAR inspections and unofficial visits from builder-friends helps a lot with (a), but unfortunately, there is no way to know that the airplane is truly within expected parameters until it is actually flown - which means that the person in (b) needs to have skill and experience far beyond the "expected parameters" for those critical first few flights, when the actual flight characteristics can be ?unexpected?. We might get lucky, but how many weekend fliers truly possess the level of skill and experience to be qualified test pilots of a design that could be operating outside the normal parameters?

Once the first few flights are done, then the parameters are known with better assurance and the skills for (b) can be more closely defined, and fall to the level of ordinary builder-mortals ? weekend fliers like myself.

Flight schools are presented with a similar issue whenever a new rental pilot shows up. In this case, even though the plane in (a) is usually a well known quantity and the pilot might have experience in type, the school still requires the pilot to demonstrate their abilities to an instructor, who must agree that the pilot is sufficiently skilled before they fly off into the sunset. In most cases, even if the prospective pilot has experience in type, they still want a check ride to ensure the renter?s skills are current and to pass along any nuances of that particular airplane ? even though it is factory built. It is interesting to think that if there are differences between factory built aircraft which are sufficient to require a check ride for a pilot experienced in type, the potential differences between homebuilt aircraft, especially on their first flight, can be much more significant. This means that even if you have time in type and even if the airplane is performing within expected parameters, there can still be differences that could challenge a pilot who doesn?t have very broad skills ? especially in the heart-pounding excitement of the first flight.

To help reduce accidents, it might be helpful if every builder thought of themselves as the flight school, renting out their airplane to a prospective new pilot (the builder).

There are at least two ?stages? of skill needed for a pilot of a new experimental aircraft:

i) The really high-skill test pilot, when the parameters of the airplane are not yet proven and could be very wide.
ii) The lesser skills needed to handle an aircraft which has demonstrated at least once that it is operating within the expected parameters.

Covering stage (i) is pretty straightforward. An excellent candidate will have hundreds of hours of experience in type and have experience in a lot of different types, so when they see something unexpected, there is a better chance that one of the airplanes they have flown before will have prepared them to handle it. These people can be found for many of the more popular designs and can be hired for their flying skills. This is perfectly legal, as you are hiring the person, not the airplane.

Stage (ii) is much more problematic ? at some point, the builder needs to learn to fly their creation. The airplane itself might be performing within the expected parameters, but how does the builder obtain assurance that their skills exceed those parameters?

There are a few options:

1) Purchase time from an instructor in his experimental aircraft. This has been covered elsewhere in this forum, but requires either a LODA or a liberal interpretation of the regulations (?I?m only paying for his/her time, not his/her airplane ? and their time is really expensive?). If a LODA is not available, then this would not be very compliant with the regs. If a LODA is available, this can be a good option, but it doesn?t by itself provide for the skills needed for the first flight and doesn?t address any of the nuances that might apply to the particular copy constructed by the builder.

2) Fly with a friend in their aircraft of the same type. This is similar to #1, but without money changing hands. It works really well and is perfectly legal, if you have a generous friend who is willing to let you learn on their airplane. Unfortunately, friends like that can be hard to find. It?s especially difficult if there are not a lot of examples of the design already flying.

3) Hire someone to provide transition training in the owner?s new aircraft. This can be really convenient ? the test pilot checks out the new airplane and then checks out the new builder/pilot before they leave. This is legal if the airplane is past 40 hours, but getting past 40 hours can be difficult and expensive to do, if the builder can?t do it themselves. Unfortunately, doing it in the airplane before it passes 40 hours is very questionable. Some people point to the ?required crewmember? clause of the Operating Limitations, but a less-liberal person might take a dim view of the argument that a single-engine aircraft ?requires? two people to test fly it.

It seems we have a good opportunity to lobby for regulatory change to facilitate #1 and #3.

Conceptually, #1 can be fairly easy. Make it legal to provide instruction in an amateur built aircraft if the student already has a pilot?s license and has already purchased a kit on the approved list or has completed construction of a similar model. This shouldn?t require a specific LODA for every case ? it could be a blanket regulation.

#3 is also conceptually easy. Clarify that the definition of ?Required crewmember? includes the builder of the aircraft, who already has a pilot?s license and is flying with an instructor for the purpose of gaining the required experience in type to safely complete the 40 hour test flight period.

Making these two changes would likely reduce the accident rates for experimental aircraft in their first 10 hours and would encourage more appropriately qualified people to offer their services and aircraft.

What do you think? Would this work? Do we have a chance to convince the administrator that these would be good changes?