Tumper

Tumper

Well Known Member
This is related to another post this morning but I thought it deserved its own thread.

A group of us were told last night by a VP of EAA that by Oshkosh 2014 there would be a policy shift at the FAA where someone would be able to fly with the builder during the Phase 1 period. He made it clear however this would not be an instructor and the extra person would have to pass a matrix of qualifications; time in type etc.

This is a great idea. Example; I am a low time pilot and don?t plan to fly the first flight in my RV-9. However I plan to make the second or third flight and as it stands today, my test pilot can only describe how she flies. It would be nice to have him in the plane with me. Sadly, I plan to be flying prior to Oshkosh 2014.
 
Second Pilot

Dean,
This is something I, as a member of the Homebuilt Aircraft Council at EAA, have been involved with. There has been considerable time and effort put in the details of making this happen. As you said, the plan is for a second pilot meeting a qualification matrix will be allowed. This is not a policy to just take a buddy but a pilot contributing to safety of flight.
I'm taken back by the projected date. I've not seen any real projections for completion of policy. Could you please send a private message with the name of the EAA VP. I'd like to follow up to find out if I have missed a communication.
The second pilot is going to be a true safety asset and I think it's great that the FAA is working with EAA to make it happen.
 
Ditto ...

Randy Hooper said:
Dean,
This is something I, as a member of the Homebuilt Aircraft Council at EAA, have been involved with. There has been considerable time and effort put in the details of making this happen. As you said, the plan is for a second pilot meeting a qualification matrix will be allowed. This is not a policy to just take a buddy but a pilot contributing to safety of flight.
I'm taken back by the projected date. I've not seen any real projections for completion of policy. Could you please send a private message with the name of the EAA VP. I'd like to follow up to find out if I have missed a communication.
The second pilot is going to be a true safety asset and I think it's great that the FAA is working with EAA to make it happen.
Click to expand...

My thoughts were similar to those of Randy. I had even written a post but erased it.

We cannot stress enough that when/if this is all done, our community of home builders MUST follow the rules to the letter. Otherwise, I suspect a lot of forward progress that is and continues to be made with the FAA will be lost.

More later as we get DETAILS.

James
Director, EAA
 
Seem like a contradiction here. If the intent of this is to add safety to the phase 1 experience, then why can't that second person be a CFI? How much safer can you get than that?
 
diamond said:
Seem like a contradiction here. If the intent of this is to add safety to the phase 1 experience, then why can't that second person be a CFI? How much safer can you get than that?
Click to expand...


The person can be a CFI, but can't be performing CFI duties. i.e. no instruction. I believe the intent is for them to function as a required crew member to perform certain functions during the flight.
 
diamond said:
Seem like a contradiction here. If the intent of this is to add safety to the phase 1 experience, then why can't that second person be a CFI? How much safer can you get than that?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the intent is to not have a CFI, but to have a pilot with experience in the specific make and model of aircraft. If that person also happens to be a CFI, great, but I would also think the intent is not to teach you how to fly your new experimental while it is in phase 1; that is what the transition training is for before you have your first flight.
 
diamond said:
Seem like a contradiction here. If the intent of this is to add safety to the phase 1 experience, then why can't that second person be a CFI? How much safer can you get than that?
Click to expand...

I am not a CFI. If the CFI does not have "time in type," they may be an OK test pilot but I am not sure how they would make it safer for another person that also does not have time (or very low time) in type.

I hope that if the FAA does allow a 2nd pilot in the airplane, there is a MATRIX that lists certain flight tests having been completed and documented before hand.
 
Experience (time in type) is often a BIG help

diamond said:
Seem like a contradiction here. If the intent of this is to add safety to the phase 1 experience, then why can't that second person be a CFI? How much safer can you get than that?
Click to expand...

Who would you prefer to be in an RV with if the RV has serious problems?

1. CFI with 3000 hours, 3 in RV
2. non-CFI with 2000 hours in RV

I have two very good friends with qualifications similar to the above and there is NOT DOUBT who I would want at the controls! And the CFI friend would agree.

Remember the time period being mentioned is Phase I wherein the AIRCRAFT is being "checked out".
 
jclark said:
Who would you prefer to be in an RV with if the RV has serious problems?

1. CFI with 3000 hours, 3 in RV
2. non-CFI with 2000 hours in RV

I have two very good friends with qualifications similar to the above and there is NOT DOUBT who I would want at the controls! And the CFI friend would agree.

Remember the time period being mentioned is Phase I wherein the AIRCRAFT is being "checked out".
Click to expand...

I'd choose option #3, A CFI with 2000 hours in the same type RV that I would want instruction in. To me, I don't see much of a safety concern in that situation.
 
The Matrix

When this all happens, I think most will agree with the proposed matrix. Points will be credited for things like CFI, time in type and other areas of experience. There will be a minimum qualifying score for the second pilot.

As I said before, there has been a lot of time and effort put in the process of making this a workable change. The work continues.
 
I think this would apply especially to people like me. I am an old guy (76) who has not flown much in the last 20 years, only around 500 hrs total when I was young. In NO CASE will I allow anyone except me be at the controls on my first flight. I intend to get a few hours transition training in an RV12 (with LODA) and then launch my own plane.
There can be little doubt that one of my friends with many hours in an RV12 (one at least is also a CFI) with me on that first flight would be infinitely safer than rusty old me alone. I hope this proposal is allowed.
 
Time in type is critical!

I let a guy fly my -9 (I was with him) who had previously owned a Pitts, Giles 202, RV-4, and an F1 Rocket. He has a LOT of time, is a great pilot, etc.

It took him four tries to my my -9 down on a 5000 runway. (Can you say, "Too fast, float, float, float..."?) If it was a test flight and something went wrong, he would have been in a load of hurt.
 
Maxrate said:
Yes Bill, airspeed is you're friend. :D
...
Click to expand...
Not in a FP -9. Too fast and you are going to float off even a long runway. If you come in as fast as you need to in a -7 or -8, good luck getting it down and stopped!

On the other hand, if you are flying a -7 or -8, and come in as slow as you need to in a -9, you will drop out of the sky like a rock.

Airspeed is like a first date. Too fast and she will blow you off. Too slow and she will drop you. Just the right speed and all will end well.
 
Bizzaro World ??

Tumper said:
<snip>

Sadly, I plan to be flying prior to Oshkosh 2014.
Click to expand...

I watch the news, and now this. Have we slipped into some weird parallel universe, or is it just me?

I would be ecstatic to know I will be flying before 2014 OSH! It IS my plan, but that is what my plan was last year too.

It would be safer and more rewarding to have a good pilot next to me for the first flight.
 
BillL said:
It would be safer and more rewarding to have a good pilot next to me for the first flight.
Click to expand...

The best thing - if there is an emergency - is to have only one life at risk - not the life of a "passenger" as well.

I don't think we are talking about having two aboard for FIRST FLIGHTS here. At least we weren't the last time I went around on this with a few key people.

Once certain flight test parameters have been satisfied, the extra person is another matter. What they are effectively doing with this proposal is shortening Phase 1 considerably in certain ways.
 
I tend to ageree with Paul on this. Maybe in the later stages of Phase 1, but certianly not in the early stages. Thats speaking from someone with limited flight time. But I can see where 2 people during a check out may be of value. Gee---I dont know--
Tom
 
DonFromTX said:
In NO CASE will I allow anyone except me be at the controls on my first flight.

I hope this proposal is allowed.
Click to expand...

Exactly what is this experienced 'copilot/test pilot' doing if you won't let him have the controls? Who would ever agree to such an arrangement?
 
IMHO... two souls in an EAB is a very bad idea on a first flight actually very dangerous. With no flight characteristic data in hand and verified, you're are just asking for trouble. I would never do it! :)
 
Maybe that came across wrong. Obviously if needed he would have the controls in a split second! I only meant that unlike many, that first flight in my creation has to include me, even if only as a passenger! Many want nothing to do with that first flight, I feel strongly just the opposite.
I don't understand Paul's reasoning, why would I need an experienced pilot along for my 38th hour of flying it? It has been my observation that too many first flights end in disaster BECAUSE there was not a pilot experienced in that exact type aircraft on board, and as I understood the thread starter, that is what is being considered. I am lucky, there is a LODA RV12 that I can get some training in, but of course it is configured differently than mine. Why would we want to make illegal an action that could help safety of a newly completed plane?
BobTurner said:
Exactly what is this experienced 'copilot/test pilot' doing if you won't let him have the controls? Who would ever agree to such an arrangement?
Click to expand...
 
DonFromTX said:
I don't understand Paul's reasoning, why would I need an experienced pilot along for my 38th hour of flying it? It has been my observation that too many first flights end in disaster BECAUSE there was not a pilot experienced in that exact type aircraft on board, and as I understood the thread starter, that is what is being considered.
Click to expand...

You probably don't on the 38th - unless you didn't start flying until the 30th. But that's not the point. My objection is to First flights.

You are clearly proud of, and attached to your machine Don. So you find an experienced pilot to go along with you because you don't have the experience required (this is a hypothetical "you" - could be anyone). At 400' on the first takeoff, that trivial piece of glop that got missed in the fuel system finds its way into the carb inlet and blocks it, stopping the engine dead.

The experienced pilot says "we're going straight ahead, into those mesquite trees. The airplane will suffer, but we'll live."

You, the proud owner in the left seat, goes "Nooooo!!!!!". And what might result?

Forty hours is really not enough time to truly find all the corners of an airplanes envelope and build good performance data. But it is well more than enough time to prove that an RV (they're everywhere) built to plans is safe enough to bring along an experienced. transition pilot. Where is the dividing line? Not in hours - it is in specific test results.

But testing is testing, and the emotions of "I built it, I'm going to be in it" just shouldn't come in to play. And I know I am never going to change the minds of those who have theirs made up otherwise. The message isn't for them - its for those still learning.
 
I remember my first flight, it was fantastic and a high point of my life, But It was not Aurora's 1st flight. My test pilot did the first 2 shake down flights to ensure she was good to go.

do I think 2 people should be on board during phase 1...possibly, it depends on what is being tested. First flights...no way.
If you are not 110% positive of doing the right thing for every possibility on the first flight, then you have no business doing it or even being on board.

I paid my money for the Mike Seager Transistion Training. He said "you'll be fine". notice...he said you'll be fine....he's never seen Aurora I thought long and hard about doing the first flight. In the end I realized I am not the best person to take my pride and joy into the air the first time. I knew I built her right, I did the best I could...but Aurora deserved the best possible pilot in that initial flight.

I'd do it again....my first flight was awesome
 
Ironflight said:
The best thing - if there is an emergency - is to have only one life at risk - not the life of a "passenger" as well.

I don't think we are talking about having two aboard for FIRST FLIGHTS here. At least we weren't the last time I went around on this with a few key people.

Once certain flight test parameters have been satisfied, the extra person is another matter. What they are effectively doing with this proposal is shortening Phase 1 considerably in certain ways.
Click to expand...

If there is an emergency it is ALWAYS better to minimize the life at risk, but I am not sure how this is a singular reason for a first flight limitation. What I was thinking is when (if) the emergency happens is a better outcome more likely with two? In that context I did say ME, which probably means as long as I feel that way I should not be the first to pilot my plane, a judgement decision not lost on me.

Since this seems to be a sensitive subject, I am sure you have had more in-depth discussions that make good sense to improve the single individual limitation. I appears the die is already cast for what will, and will not be proposed. Thanks for your efforts in this improvement.
 
Ironflight said:
The experienced pilot says "we're going straight ahead, into those mesquite trees. The airplane will suffer, but we'll live."

You, the proud owner in the left seat, goes "Nooooo!!!!!". And what might result?
Click to expand...

That's what insurance is for. And not just for the first flight of your new baby - but for each and every flight - ANY TIME the airplane needs to get bent or broken in order for me to walk away unscathed, it's an instant decision, and should be for anyone. We can build another airplane and we'll likely enjoy the process. If I can manage to get it down in one piece and unscratched, that's a bonus - but when the chips are down the pilot HAS to be springloaded to sacrifice the airplane if needed to protect themselves and their passengers.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
....but when the chips are down the pilot HAS to be springloaded to sacrifice the airplane if needed to protect themselves and their passengers.
Click to expand...

Reminded me of a time in USAF where one of the pilots I knew was telling a long story, and it ended, "....so I jettisoned the airplane."

Dave
RV-3B, now building tanks
 
Here is why you only want one person on your first flight.

The other issue is one of liability. If you and someone else parish while testing your airplane, your estate can / will be sued, regardless if a hold harmless document was signed.

The test period is not a time for flight instruction.
 
Safety First

Ironflight said:
You probably don't on the 38th - unless you didn't start flying until the 30th. But that's not the point. My objection is to First flights.

You are clearly proud of, and attached to your machine Don. So you find an experienced pilot to go along with you because you don't have the experience required (this is a hypothetical "you" - could be anyone). At 400' on the first takeoff, that trivial piece of glop that got missed in the fuel system finds its way into the carb inlet and blocks it, stopping the engine dead.

The experienced pilot says "we're going straight ahead, into those mesquite trees. The airplane will suffer, but we'll live."

You, the proud owner in the left seat, goes "Nooooo!!!!!". And what might result?

Forty hours is really not enough time to truly find all the corners of an airplanes envelope and build good performance data. But it is well more than enough time to prove that an RV (they're everywhere) built to plans is safe enough to bring along an experienced. transition pilot. Where is the dividing line? Not in hours - it is in specific test results.

But testing is testing, and the emotions of "I built it, I'm going to be in it" just shouldn't come in to play. And I know I am never going to change the minds of those who have theirs made up otherwise. The message isn't for them - its for those still learning.
Click to expand...

Paul (in my opinion) is oh, so right! Been there, done that for a lot of what he just mentioned.

Now on this matter overall, there have been individuals working on this for some time now (one even spoke up early on in this thread) and from what I understand there is a strong effort to base decisions on data. Data that if properly acted upon will result in greater safety.

The first "X" hours of flight for a new plane can be statistically shown to be the most dangerous. Sort of like "infant mortality" in electronics. Make it past that time period and you are likely have a "good one".

And the first flight is the one with the MOST unknowns. So .. for THAT flight, the person at the controls really should be ready and prepared to face them. That person may be someone you get to do it for you or if you want to be there but don't have the skills, yet, then hopefully you will take the time and effort to GET the skills. SO that you can be ready for that unique experience with your creation.

Most of the time, all is going to be just fine. But there will be times where a series of decisions will have to be made by the PIC and at that time I know that if it is me who has the skills and experience to be that PIC, I do NOT want to have to worry about the well-being of one of my friends sitting in a seat next to me. My plate will be FULL. And yes, your mileage with your friends may vary.

Once a plane is "wrung out" and once "my friend" has received all appropriate Transition Training, THEN there may be an opportunity for "knowledge transfer" in the area of:

a) Advanced Flight Systems (EFIS, Autopilot, etc)
b) Unique handling of the particular aircraft
c) Logical flight protocols based on the experience gained in type.

Finally, this effort is a case where EAA and some of its members along with the FAA and some of its members are really trying to sort through some complicated matters. Lots of dialog. But in the end, you can bet there will be a slant towards safety and that might not result in the exact outcome that some wish for.

Safety first.

James
 
James,

I beg to disagree with you. In an upcoming issue of KitPlanes I detail how I had four engine stoppages well into my Phase 1 testing.

How many hours are enough? I can only imagine there is a reason the FAA set the length of the test period where they did.

After 40 hours of day VFR flying the owner can have someone ride along and share their knowledge with regard to the EFIS, flight characteristic at the limits, etc. Before that magical number, it is best they fly solo. All of this is IMHO, of course.
 
I'm curious and excited about more options during phase 1.

Although at the bottom end of first flight qualifications with 130ish hours RV time with 7.5 hours transition training weeks before. I felt I was capable and well prepared for my first flight and more than willing to sacrifice the airplane if need be. I also agree that first flights and initial testing should be solo.

I currently have 16.1 hours and as I work my way through AC90-89A, I find myself ahead of schedule (never happened in college!) working on stability testing hours 21-35. I think the quality of Van's aircraft and the data logging of EFIS's help to literally fly through phase 1.

I haven't received any aerobatic instruction beyond spins and aileron rolls, I plan on having a qualified friend test this portion of the envelope for me. Perhaps this new rule would allow an advanced instructor to then teach me the outer envelope of the airplane during the last 5-10 hours of phase 1. Then again I'm sure I will finish my 40 hour prior to any rule changes and I'm fine with that too!
 
Test Pilot

Although I agree that this should be a very serious subject, some of the posts would make good comic strip material.
I have picked up brand new factory certified airplanes and have also done some "testing" of Experimental Exhibition Aircraft as well as Experimental Amateur Built.
I have had just as many problems, probably more with Exhibition and nearly
as many problems with factory certified as with EAB.
I would be completely comfortable heading out 1300 nm to OSH with my brand new built from scratch EAB with 15 hours as long as I was COMPLETELY satisfied with the engine. After all, those FANTASTIC certified airplanes that I picked up at the factory typically had one hour or less on them, and I was going 1200 miles.

Now lets look at some real world issues:

EAB #1: New factory certified engine and certified fixed pitch prop. Testing required by regulation 25 hours. This aircraft is sucessfully flown 26 hours, phase one is complete, and I decide to install a non certified prop. I notify my FSDO and they tell me I must test the new prop for five hours. At the end of the prop testing I now have 31 hours compared to the 40 hours that would have been required had I installed the non certified prop in the first place. Makes perfect sense to me.

EAB #2: Lets say this is a Glastar just to stir the pot. It has a factory new stock Lycoming and certified prop. The workmanship is impeccable. Oshkosh Grand Champion potential. The airplane is working to perfection, Oshkosh is two days away, the owner cheats and signs off phase one at 18 hours, and heads for Oshkosh.

EAB #3: A built from scratch airplane. The builder did not really take the time to learn ANY of the appropriate building skills. The airplane is a total disaster but somehow a DAR signs it off and the airplane survives 40 hours of testing.

Which of these three owner/builders has conducted the safest operation.

About half a century ago I was acquainted with a person who had a high level FAA FSDO position. He was a very qualified pilot. At that time the testing requirement for EAB with certified engine was 50 hours. Mr. FAA volunteered the following: That 50 hours is total nonsense. Throughly test the airplane for 20 hours. If everything is working properly and you have a recording tach, hook an electric drill to the tach and run it to 50 hours.

I like to say that the FAA recommended Mr. Black and Mr. Decker as pilots who would help me fly off the 50 hours. They always left the fuel tank full and the windshield clean.

Of the EAB's that I have been involved in, both as a builder and initial test pilot, ALL the problems, and they were all very minor, have showed up in the first ten hours, most of them in the first five hours. I really didn't know much when I built my first built from scratch EAB. I had just one problem and that was a small oil leak at the generator(Continental) that was a pain to fix. NO OTHER PROBLEMS.

Airplanes such as the RV's, Glasairs, Lancairs etc, built without major modifications, with certified engine/prop and impeccable workmanship should be treated the same as Experimental Exhibition. 20 hours , MAXIMUM testing, as little as 5 hours at DAR/FAA discretion.
 
testing

I had exactly 300 hours total time when I made the initial test flight of the first EAB that I built.
Zero problems except for the mentioned oil leak. Jul 6, 2014 will mark 50 years since that first flight.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that pilots in that era had far superior stick and rudder skills compared to todays pilots. Very few first flight accidents. There were pilots with 50 hours total time who survived first flights in midget racers.
There was no prohibition preventing flight instruction during phase one in that era. I know of a FBO owner who did the initial test flight in a new EAB and taught the builder to fly in that airplane, a design that is NOT a good trainer. The builder completed his Private training in that aircraft.
 
We ACTUALLY agree!

N941WR said:
James,

I beg to disagree with you. In an upcoming issue of KitPlanes I detail how I had four engine stoppages well into my Phase 1 testing.

How many hours are enough? I can only imagine there is a reason the FAA set the length of the test period where they did.

After 40 hours of day VFR flying the owner can have someone ride along and share their knowledge with regard to the EFIS, flight characteristic at the limits, etc. Before that magical number, it is best they fly solo. All of this is IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

I agree that the knowledge transfer can occur after the 25 or 40 hours of test.

I was only suggesting that after some point the likelihood of something major going wrong is diminished. Thus the "airplane" is somewhat "safer". Again this is from what I have been informed of is the DATA.

Bad things can happen at 2 or 20 or 200 or 2000 hours.

If I am the one who is sharing info about EFIS operation, I would surely feel better if the plane had 40+ hours of real testing done. If it has only 4 then I personally only want to be in it solo.
 
testing

The engine problems that I have had with all the airplanes I have flown can be divided into two groups: Cassutt and all other aircraft. I believe I only had the Cassutt quit completely on one occasion, caused by overheating and vapor lock. Loss of power so many times I lost track, but I knew what was required to make the engine run properly again. The Cassutt fuel system is a known problem, most just learn to live with it.
I have only had one engine failure on takeoff, that was in the Wittman Tailwind with Continental 0 200. Cylinder failed on liftoff, about a foot off the ground, airplane came back down by itself as I was closing the throttle. Plenty of runway to stop.
With the exception of the Cassutt ALL engine problems I have had in 52 years of EAB flying have been after completion of phase one.
I am still waiting for someone to explain why 5 hours phase one is ok for Exhibition but EAB requires 25 or 40.
99.9% of the problems I have had with EAB have been well outside phase one, a couple approaching 1000 hours, and most firewall forward.
It is inexcusable that with the resources available today that anyone would have four engine stoppages in phase one.
 
In the UK, the first test flight must be solo. Typically, it's just a 30 minute shake down to make sure the aeroplane flies and check the stall speed for the approach.

After that, you are allowed to take a "passenger". This is not a "jolly" nor for instruction. It is simply to have someone to help with taking notes and lookout during the flight testing.

Our testing is a minimum of 5 hours and there is a specific schedule to follow, issued by the LAA. I suspect on something like a complex -10, it's going to take considerably more than that (but less than 25 hours).

Seems very sensible to me.....
 
a story

The people involved are long gone, the story dates to the late sixties. A well know person was manufacturing EAB aircraft ready to fly. Customer travels 1200 miles to pick up his brand new airplane. Airplane is still in pieces late Friday afternoon. FAA is there and has signed off on the airplane. FAA is leaving, says to the builder "when will you have the 50 hours flown off?" Builder says Monday morning. FAA says see you Monday morning. Midday Monday the owner was headed back home in his new toy. FAA knew exactly what was going on and simply didn't care.
Obviously not something that could be done today.
Another example is the grounding of most Experimental aircraft in the 30's. People like Bernie Pietenpol just kept on flying their homebuilts, carrying passengers and maybe giving flight instruction, sometime after WWII homebuilts became legal again. I would surmise that Mr. Pietenpol never gave much consideration to phase one.
Steve Wittman publicly admitted that he made a long cross country with four people in an Experimental airplane that was not certified to carry passengers.
The Wittman Tailwind in Dec 1953 became the first EAB aircraft approved to carry a passenger.
 
Hi Paul...

I hate to contradict you, but your:
After that, you are allowed to take a "passenger". This is not a "jolly" nor for instruction. It is simply to have someone to help with taking notes and lookout during the flight testing
Click to expand...
is somewhat countered by the LAA's:
It is illegal to carry passengers on a test flight
Click to expand...

The complete paragraph is below, but it would seem the FAA is maybe going the same "sensible" route as the LAA policy i.e. maximise safety, which with 2 suitable people is likely better than 1.

LAA Link TL1.19
Test Crew
It is illegal to carry passengers on a test flight. LAA policy is not to allow anyone other than the pilot to be on board during the initial flight. Once the aeroplane has been shown to be broadly behaving itself it is acceptable, legal and often desirable for a second crew member to be carried for the purpose of acting as a flight test observer, helping the pilot by managing the test schedule and recording the results in conjunction with the pilot. The crew member can only legally be carried where there is a genuine need however, he cannot go along merely for a ?jolly?. While there is no reason why the pilot shouldn?t let the crew member handle the controls in flight if this helps complete some part of the test process, it is not permissible for the aircraft to be flown for the purpose of ?checking out? the crew member while it is only cleared for test flying.
Click to expand...
 
Original Post Follow-up

Ok I think it is time I chime in again. Let me begin by detailing the experience that I should have at the beginning of my Phase 1 testing.

I should have about 150 hours including the following
About 130 hours in an underpowered Piper Cherokee
About 10 hours in a Super Decathlon
Maybe 4 hours transition training in an RV-7
About 6 hours total RV time
Total about 15 hours tail wheel time

I have a very qualified person ready to pilot the initial flight(s) in my RV-9. He will fly solo. I plan for him to fly the first and maybe second flights but I plan to, and look forward to, flying the remaining Phase 1 time. However when I climb into the plane I built myself for the first time I am going to be very nervous. In fact I am shaking typing this. I feel qualified to fly the plane and I am told that the RV-9 is very easy to fly. That is one reason I am building it. I think it would ease the anxiety considerably to have someone transition me to the new plane. I don?t anticipate this taking more than one flight and not more than an hour.

I?m not looking for a CFI and I am not flying a ?friend? or ?passenger? around. This guy is retired Air force, current airline pilot and RV-8 builder flyer and has tested many RV?s. I would just be looking for him to talk me through my first flight. I need him to tell me to breathe occasionally.

And, yes I would love to be the one to fly the first flight. And I may always regret that I am not going to be at the controls first, but I am smart enough to be prudent in this decision. Also, I don?t think this is going to affect me because I plan to be flying prior to any rule change.

Bill R. has offer to fly me around in his hot rod RV-9 and that should calm the butterflies some.

Thanks to everyone for their comments and I hope through any changes at the FAA we can make birthing our projects, into flying machines, safer.
 
Dean,

With your hours and listed training, you should check on insurance right now, so you won't be rudely surprised. I have more hours, but not much, and they allowed me to do 10 hours of transition training IFF it was Mike Seager. They did not say what it would have been otherwise. Also 25 hrs min TG time.

I think I'll have to see if I feel qualified for FF, after that the need for others is uncertain unless there is some handing issue that needs to be evaluated. It depends on what is needed on the test cards, something not prepared yet. I am not sure what is needed that efis can not supply in terms of data. Plenty of time for that. Why be nervous?

"do or don't do, there is no try" : YODA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.