Maybe he has another AC that has more than one seat and not an RV that needs flight testing? Some of us have more than one AC, I've got 1 1/4 right now myself.
 
Ron B. said:
Maybe he has another AC that has more than one seat and not an RV that needs flight testing? Some of us have more than one AC, I've got 1 1/4 right now myself.
Click to expand...

For the record, four quarters don't make a whole. :( ;-)
 
Last edited:
FAA Ac

I posted this so that others with more seating than my 3 can take advantage of this and have their pilot friend go up on their first flight or whatever..
And to Mike you can come with me, but you will have to hang on to the antenna and there is lots of wind so bring some goggles....;) My wife says that most of the wind is sitting in the chair, hummm..
 
Deal-------as long as it is a top mounted antenna, so I can sit the fuse like a horse:D
 
Mike S said:
Deal-------as long as it is a top mounted antenna, so I can sit the fuse like a horse:D
Click to expand...

Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg
 
RV3bpilot said:
I posted this so that others with more seating than my 3 can take advantage of this and have their pilot friend go up on their first flight or whatever..
And to Mike you can come with me, but you will have to hang on to the antenna and there is lots of wind so bring some goggles....;) My wife says that most of the wind is sitting in the chair, hummm..
Click to expand...

Wow! Read the ac. This is not so you can "take your pilot friend" along. This to allow a more experienced test pilot, and the proposal has a list of qualifications.

I personally warned Mark (the main author) that this sort of "any friend can go" misinterpretation might happen.
 
RV3bpilot said:
I posted this so that others ...... have their pilot friend go up on their first flight or whatever..
Click to expand...

I spoke with the gentleman responsible for this AC in great depth about my concerns. We had a great conversation and he knows a lot. One of the concerns I shared with him was the misconception that you can take your buddy up during phase I. This AC is a very slippery slope. Folks will take advantage of it (in a negative way).

I hope it helps to reduce loss of life and not increase bad flight test behavior.
 
Second Pilot

So now we have an advisory circular which is not regulatory. But parts of the advisory circular will apparently be made mandatory by requiring certain qualifications for the "second pilot" that will be included in the Phase one requirements.
 
jrs14855 said:
So now we have an advisory circular which is not regulatory. But parts of the advisory circular will apparently be made mandatory by requiring certain qualifications for the "second pilot" that will be included in the Phase one requirements.
Click to expand...

First off, the "Additional Pilot Program" is in itself voluntary. The mandatory conditions apply only if you chose to "volunteer" to participate in the program.
 
The other thing to remember is that there are people doing this illegally right now because well, I guess they don't like the rules, and therefore don't think they apply to them. Those same people will probably continue to do it illegally, regardless of this AC, because they will think that the AC is burdensome. Well, in a way - it is.

There is no free lunch if you want to minimize risk, it takes some effort. I spent a lot of time talking with Mark about this in the past two years, and if nothing else, this does provide a good document on ways to ensure that both the airplane and pilot are in the best possible shape for Phase 1. Even if you don't want have a second pilot (or be one), you can use the criteria in the AC to make sure the airplane is ready and get an idea of the kind of qualifications you might want in a test pilot - yourself or others.

As Mel points out - this is voluntary, and you can simply pretend that it doesn't exist and you'll be fine.
 
jrs14855 said:
So now we have an advisory circular which is not regulatory. But parts of the advisory circular will apparently be made mandatory by requiring certain qualifications for the "second pilot" that will be included in the Phase one requirements.
Click to expand...

No. The AC itself says new operating limitations will say (paraphrase) "During phase one only minimum required crew, OR YOU MAY FOLLOW AC 91-90-116"

Your choice.
 
I was glad to see that this was finalized and activated. I personally was very surprised to see that a Qualified Pilot can be on the first flight. I like the idea of the Owner/Builder doing much of the Phase 1, but only after the first 5-15 hours. I do like that they made hire qualifications for early hours. Personally, in the Phase 1 flying I've done, he first 5+ hours are just to make sure the engine stays running and major parts aren't falling off. I like to see 5 landings in the first 5 hours and always within gliding distance of the base airport, although I realize that isn't always possible.

In summary, I think it's a good move overall and hopefully will increase safety by encouraging low-time owners don't risk too much doing it themselves and encouraging those stretching the old rules start complying with the new.
 
I sent an email to FAA about this new "rule". Since this is an Advisory Circular, it is not regulatory. Our guidance comes from 8130.2 and that has not changed.
I asked if we are now authorized to change the operating limitations wording IAW the new AC.

The answer I received was; "We do not regulate by Advisory Circulars. Continue to follow current guidance contained in 8130.2G."

So if you wish to participate in the new program, do so at your own risk. At this point inspectors are not authorized to change operating limitations wording.
 
Last edited:
Mel, my impression is that an Advisory Circular has as much regulatory influence as the FAA Order as neither are regulation and both are interpretation and guidance.

Reality is ????
 
twisted-wrench said:
Mel, my impression is that an Advisory Circular has as much regulatory influence as the FAA Order as neither are regulation and both are interpretation and guidance.

Reality is ????
Click to expand...

The FAA order IS regulatory for inspectors.
 
Mel said:
I sent an email to FAA about this new "rule". Since this is an Advisory Circular, it is not regulatory. Our guidance comes from 8130.2 and that has not changed.
I asked if we are now authorized to change the operating limitations wording IAW the new AC.

The answer I received was; "We do not regulate by Advisory Circulars. Continue to follow current guidance contained in 8130.2G."

So if you wish to participate in the new program, do so at your own risk. At this point inspectors are not authorized to change operating limitations wording.
Click to expand...

Mel,

Clearly the AC is meant to rationalize carrying a second person during Phase I. It would therefore seem to provide a formal protocol for establishing when a second person is "essential to to the purpose of the flight". If this is the case then it doesn't appear any change is actually needed to the operating limitations?
 
Alan Carroll said:
Mel,

Clearly the AC is meant to rationalize carrying a second person during Phase I. It would therefore seem to provide a formal protocol for establishing when a second person is "essential to to the purpose of the flight". If this is the case then it doesn't appear any change is actually needed to the operating limitations?
Click to expand...

I was referring to paragraph 15.a. of the AC which gives new wording for the op lims.
 
I am actually interested in taking part in this...

Can I assume/propose that the website publish names and contacts of those "Additional Pilots" that meet the qualification in the AC and are available for such services?
 
Just to be clear here with all of the information going back and forth. Here is the deal. In preparation for the release of the AC (AC 90-116), I had drafted a deviation to FAA Order 8130.2G. This deviation could not be published until the AC was published since, prior to publishing, the AC is not assigned a number. It was formerly known as AC 90-APP during draft. Once published and number assigned, the deviation draft was then updated with the newly assigned number with the wording for the new operating limitations. I was on vacation last thursday and friday and came back to find my AC hit the market...and VAF. Go figure. That being said, this morning, I authorized AIR to proceed with the deviation for signature.

Bottom line, the Order (8130.2G) will have a deviation published soon to authorize the use of the AC. Until then, there is NO "operate at your own risk". One is either authorized by their operating limitations, or they are not. Until the deviation is published AND your aircraft operating limitations are updated or issued with the contents of the deviation (as described in the AC), the only way to utilize the AC is via special coordination with the FAA to allow this on a case by case basis. However, I expect this deviation to be published very shortly.

So, from a regulatory standpoint.... an AC is not-regulatory on its own, and by its very nature. The coming deviation to the order will then make the AC available for use, and 'legal' for DAR issuance, and 14 CFR 91.9(a) will make it regulatory for those who choose to use it.

Here's the reg "bold" added for emphasis:

91.9(a)...Except as provided by paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certifiying authority of the country of registry.

I hope this helps clear things up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE 10/3/2014: FAA Order 8130.2G Deviations has been signed. The ops limitations are now able to be amended/issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
RV7A Flyer said:
What a bunch of rigmarole. Could they have made it any more involved and convoluted?
Click to expand...

Yes. Thinking back to the two years of discussions we had with pilots, test pilot professionals, manufacturers and type clubs who helped carve this AC by weighing complexity with safety goals, I guess we could have.
 
MeGiron said:
J

Bottom line, the Order (8130.2G) will have a deviation published soon to authorize the use of the AC. Until then, there is NO "operate at your own risk". One is either authorized by their operating limitations, or they are not. Until the deviation is published AND your aircraft operating limitations are updated or issued with the contents of the deviation (as described in the AC), the only way to utilize the AC is via special coordination with the FAA to allow this on a case by case basis. However, I expect this deviation to be published very shortly.
Click to expand...

My "operate at your own risk" was meant to state that whatever you do that is not covered in your op lims will be on YOU. It is not currently authorized by your operating limitations.
 
I checked as well

As DAR's we have to wait until the Order is changed or a deviation issued. Some of the MIDO's haven't even heard of it yet.

Vic
 
I hate to rain on the parade, but having tried to go through the AC twice - my impression is that it is virtually unworkable.

I know it's probably not the case, but it sure does look like a piece put together by someone who wouldn't know the front from the back of an airplane. Also, one has to wonder why the nutty use of all the abbreviations that seem to intentionally make it very difficult to understand? (Read - "...I give up...let's just do it the old way...." - now, there's some real progress!)

If you step back from the picture, the fact is that the statistics are sobering. After some reflection, I think it still makes the most sense for quality transition training or the use of an experienced pilot to do the first flight (if not well into the first few hours).

But, hey, in the final analysis, there's a positive response (at least in theory) to the NTSB recommendation!

Dan
 
Dan,
I have personally spoken with Mark (the author) and can assure you that your character assasination of him is completely unwarranted. He has to conform to agency guidelines (look at the nonsense that the FSDOs cannot change operating limitations yet because a number could not be assigned to the ac until after it was approved....), and for sure there were lots of compromises necessary to achieve a consensus.
Yes, you need to copy down and decode all the abbreviations to read the ac; and yes, I have fears that pilots will deliberately ignore the qualification matrix, but it certainly is neither unworkable nor not understandable.

And if you do not like it, you are free to keep to the old rules.

Bob
 
I think "character assassination" is a little strong, but if that is how what I said is being interpreted I definitely owe someone an apology. That was not the intention.

Nevertheless, my opinion remains that this is not a workable document. In fact, my fear is that over time it will prove to backfire - it may turn out that it is not followed as intended yet people may point to it as the basis for carrying that extra person during the test flights.

If all the kinks were worked out so that a DAR could issue a letter incorporating this and someone came to me asking if this were a good idea, it would be my advice that they should instead invest in the appropriate transition training or find an appropriate pilot to do the initial flight testing. I think the key point that we can all agree with is that the statistics point to a significantly elevated risk to be managed.

Again, just an opinion, but that is my conclusion after reading the AC.

Dan
 
DanBaier said:
my fear is that over time it will prove to backfire - it may turn out that it is not followed as intended yet people may point to it as the basis for carrying that extra person during the test flights.

Dan
Click to expand...

Dan, I agree with you on this point, and expressed my concerns to Mark.

I just want everyone to know that Mark is one of the good guys, genuinely interested in EAB (he is an RV owner), willing to listen to anyone who emails or calls, and trying to address a serious concern while working within the confines of a federal agency (I too dislike all the acronyms).
 
I for one find great merit in the circular. Having recently completed my RV-8, I plan to take advantage of it. I had a very qualified pilot perform the initial flight and additional flights while working out the bugs, and since, I?ve made a couple of flights in it as well. Regardless, I will feel more comfortable and likely increase my skills faster in the plane with a QP/coach along with me.

I fall right in that category of low time pilots (with a newly minted TW endorsement) with an airplane I built that desperately wants to fly it. I think this is a good alternate path to fly the test phase and build proficiency at the same time. Fact is, there just aren?t a whole lot of LODA holding transition trainers around. For folks like me with limited resources, flying airplanes is an extravagant hobby, and having to travel to another part of the country, staying in a hotel and paying for an instructor and his airplane for a week is a major expense that frankly I don?t have the money for.

For me, even though my airplane has about 4.5 hours on it, squawks have been fixed, I?ve flown an RV-6 for a few hours to transition and I?ve flown my new RV-8, I still see benefit of having a QP on board. Here?s a few of them.

1. Exploring aft and max gross weight limit corners of the WB envelope.
2. Exploring stall and slow flight characteristics.
3. Expanding my personal crosswind abilities in this particular aircraft. (as well as polishing landing technique)

The one area I don?t personally agree with is having two aboard for the initial flight. I understand the ?I built it and I?ll be da**d if I?m going to let anyone else make the first flight? attitude. (That being loosely akin to turning your new bride over to a more experienced guy on your wedding night?.) But it just doesn?t make any logical sense. Of course this hasn?t stopped many from sticking their necks out there and flying it themselves regardless of their capacity, and I hope this AC has a positive effect on those folks. I just would never be one of them.

So my plan moving forward is to take advantage of this Advisory Circular. While I will probably make solo flights as well, for the items listed above I will utilize a QP or OP as appropriate to conduct the full AIT and BPML. I believe this is a much better plan toward not becoming a statistic as compared with going it alone.

Also, I have no problem with the acronyms. After giving the document a serious read it?s just not an issue. Much easier to deal with than making the first landing in your new airplane.:rolleyes:
 
Me too

Jesse,

I second that comment. I am right where you are.

PS Thank you Mark for helping make this happen. Correctly applied and I think this will make transitions safer. Utilized incorrectly and...well I guess nothing will have changed any.
 
Last edited:
Any news?

Just checking back on this. One of the post from earlier this week stated "At this point inspectors are not authorized to change operating limitations wording".

Are there any updates from inspectors?
 
Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but the local FSDO already gave me new ops limits with the language added. I'll wait for the deviation to be published before I exercise it though.
 
Veetail88 said:
Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, but the local FSDO already gave me new ops limits with the language added. I'll wait for the deviation to be published before I exercise it though.
Click to expand...

Just as an FYI, the "local FSDO" does not have the authority to do this!
 
Deviation to Order Memo

Folks,

I am happy to announce that the deviation to Order 8130.2G has been signed. This document grants deviations to the order that issues the ops limitations for your aircraft to allow for use of the Additional Pilot Program AC 90-116. If you need a copy of this deviation memo, please let me know by email mark.e.giron<at>faa.gov

-Mark
 
Last edited:
Mark: I'm close to getting my airworthiness for an RV-8 and would like to have a copy to show my FAA inspector. Thanks in advance for offering this. Bill
 
Already in Phase 1 with about 10 hours. Did transition training (danged good thing!).

Can my Ops Limits be amended to allow use of the AC 90-116?

If so, how?

Can a local FSDO keep this from happening?
 
you need to take your airworthiness certificate with your ops limitations to the fsdo (or a DAR properly authorized) and the deviation memo to order 8130.2g (easily obtained on EAA's website) and make an appointment with the faa (fsdo/DAR). they will reissue your ops limits with the deviation. they should not have reason to block this for this change.
 
The FSDO or a DAR with function codes 46 and 33 can amend your op limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.