We're not talking experimental aircraft versus certified aircraft here. We're talking experimental aircraft on "first flights".
Since I started the thread, Mel, I pretty much know what we're talking about.
I brought up the question simply because I want to know the data and I want to fully understand the philosophy behind restricting one aspect of flight and not, say another.
I don't think I would want a certified aircraft doing a "first flight" over residential area either. The risk on a first flight IS greater with either airplane.
I'm not disagreeing with you but how much greater? I assume experimentals fail on takeoff on first flight at a rate greater than, say, second flight, or third, or after 40 hours. I'm interested in knowing what the rate is, and -- frankly -- I'm interested in knowing whether the people setting the policy know what that rate is.
You're talking about a public reaction to an event as negatively impacting experimental aviation and that's a great point. But I'm going to hazard a guess and say the public reaction wouldn't change if a plane was on the 1st flight or the 50th so the question becomes how FAR down the restriction road do we want to go to protect this threat to our image? It's a good idea -- in KSGS' case -- to restrict 1st flights. But if an experimental fails at roughly the same rate after a fly-off period, why not just ban experimentals from KSGS altogether? And if there is a difference, what is the threshold for acceptable/unacceptable? A 20% chance? A 30% chance?
I want to know whether there's sound data here to be considered, or whether these things spring up out of an emotional reponse not unlike the kind we see -- and constantly criticize -- by airport neighbors.
In assessing risk, I want to assess it on facts. My guess is if anyone has this data, it's Ron Wanttaja. But I haven't seen it and I'm curious whether anybody else has.
And concerning the spreading of "the word" about which airports are involved, I agree that this should be done in a more consistent manner. If you read AC 20-27G, it tells you that when you begin building, you should contact the local FSDO. At that point the FSDO should give you this information. I know most people don't contact the FSDO at this point, but they are really supposed to.
Sure, and people should know where to find torque values and what the regulations are but if they did do that, you wouldn't be selling an article to Kitplanes every month.
If we can just step back and remember our roots a bit, deciding to build an experimental aircraft is hard. There's a blizzard of information out there to consume in a relatively short period of time. People simply don't know what questions to ask and frankly it's highly unlikely that a novice airplane builder is going to know to ask "Can I fly my plane on first flight off Airport XYZ?" and it's even less likely that the FSDO is going to volunteer the information, "By the way, you're not going to be able to fly your airplane of Airport XYZ?" Especially when -- as I indicated in the original article -- these particular restrictions were not in place when I started my airplane in 2001. We don't even know if they were in place when I moved my aircraft to KSGS in 2007.
We
think they originated when one DAR decided David Maib couldn't fly his RV-10 off the field and then was able to get the FSDO to go along with that idea. The DAR -- not the FSDO -- is the one who influenced the change, but it also showed the inconsistency between DARs. I believe the initial determination was a flat "no" for David and then, perhaps after another DAR got involved, was modified to a "maybe." I would think that sort of thing would lead to DAR-shopping and I'm not sure that's a good thing in the long run. As I understand it, this particular person would take days to go over an RV and at one point some influential RVers took him aside and reminded him that RVs aren't the space shuttle. So that's another reason why I'd rather have strong determinations and policies rather than ones that might pop up because that's just the way somebody felt one day, and the next thing you know it gets codified.
So, yeah, we can just say "you should've known" except that's not the way reality works in matters like this.
If you're building an airplane now, you not only have to know what the situation is at a particular airport now, you have to figure out the political winds at a particular airport are now that
might lead to a different reality at the point where you're ready for first flight, assuming you have a realistic timetable for when that first flight might be. That's an art few people can master on their first homebuilt so anything we can do to call attention to that will substantially benefit the future of experimental aviation.
Of course the other aspect of this is another thread but if electronic ignition is a safety issue, why are we using them?
