[terrykohler]

I see we have an open thread about an RV12 which got bent on its first flight. The pilot exercised a great deal of courage in sharing his experience with the forum readers and ultimately pointing the finger at himself. I'm glad he's alright and the airplane can be fixed. What I'm about to say is not a personal assault, but an observation of Experimental Aviation in general and RVs in particular.

When I was building my 9, I would venture to say that at least half of the aircraft under construction at my EAA chapter were being built by low time pilots. Thankfully, many of these were RVs, with relatively little worry about rigging and flight characteristic problems that may come with plans-built aircraft. Unfortunately, most of the first flights were ultimately carried out by these same builders, in many cases encouraged by their peers that "you've gotta do the first one"!

In spite of the forgiving nature of the RVs, two of my best friends, both longgg time pilots, opted to have their first flights and initial testing done by a very qualified test pilot (Terry Lutz - Airbus Test Group). Not every one has someone like this available, but my point is that two very experienced guys felt the better of doing it themselves.

Another friend, recently completed a plans-built, single seat biplane and in spite of having about the first 10 hours flown by a professional (and owner of a pitts), the builder unfortunately managed to stand it on its nose of "his" first landing after only recently having acquired a TW endorsement. Was he ready? Only he can answer that. But from my point, it you have ANY concern whatsoever, get someone you know is qualified to really shake it out, and keep training until you feel comfortable. Your first flight is really going to be the "First Flight" anyway

The RV12 situation had the potential of turning out much worse than it thankfully did. I'm just glad the pilot was able to tell the story instead of forum readers endlessly speculating what went wrong. In addition to asking ourselves if we meet IMSAFE before our flights, we should probably be asking ourselves if I am "Really Ready".
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[Brantel]

While I don't think you must be "test pilot" caliber to do a first flight in an RV since the design is well proven (as long as you did not stray to far from the plans), transition training is a must do in my opinion. Some people get away with it and never look back but some won't.

I did not want to be one that did not. I had about 2 hours dual in an RV7 before going to see Jan Bussell in Florida for my formal TW endorsement and transition training in his RV6. I ended up with about 10 hours with him.

It tool me about another year and a half to finish the plane. Over that time I was lucky to get several more hours of dual in an RV7 to stay on top of it.

When I did the first flight on my plane I think I had around 20hrs of dual TW time all in an RV6 & 7 with an hour of dual earlier in the day to make sure I was ready.

I have the impression that some (not all) people think that the 12 does not require any transition training and that it should be easy enough for any PP to jump in and fly...Really???? I don't think so! Even the local mom and pop flight schools require checkouts in 150's before they will let you blast off....

I would say that the 12 is also much different than the other RV models that even if you have a bazillion hrs in an RV you should still think about some dual time!

 

[RV8R999]

Interesting timing for me. I am a formerly trained test pilot with over 60 aircraft types logged from F18s to blimps to paragliders and a whole bunch of helicopters. I have about 15 hours in T/W (beaver and an Otter) and about 20 on planes/helos that float. Total time for me is about 4300hrs. Even still I've scheduled time this July with Jan in South Florida for a T/W endorsement and transition training and am planning a very honest and deliberate approach to flying my -8. Truthfully, one thing I've learned flying all those planes is that no two are alike and everyone of them can hurt you if you let it get ahead of your skills. I built my standard kit in 18 months but I'll be fine taking my time to be sure I'm up to flying it well on the first flight. No way someone else is flying MY plane first but I'll be sure I'm darn good and ready. No shame in admitting I have a lot to learn about flying T/W airplanes and emphatically look forward to doing so! Thanks for the post

 

[Mel]

The question is NOT, can you handle the airplane!

With a little transition training, most all of us can handle an RV. If not, then you probably shouldn't be building one in the first place.
The qualification for "first flight" has more to do with, "Can you fly the airplane with a major distraction?"
When test flying, flying the airplane should be second nature so that if there is a distraction, you can deal with it without losing control of the aircraft.
As flight advisors, we almost always recommend that someone else do the first flight. Someone that has recent proficiency and is not emotionally connected to the aircraft.

 

[Brantel]

Good transition training will also include first flight emergency training. I know Jan provides this as part of his training...

The dual I recieved hours before my first flight also included much discussion and planning on what to do in an emergency.

If your someone that can't make a quick decision, locks up or stalls under pressure, can't imagine denting your new pride and joy, is slow to recognize and admit to yourself that you have a problem, etc. let someone else have the honors of the maiden flight on your bird.

 

[pierre smith]

Look at this bit of wisdom..

Interesting timing for me. I am a formerly trained test pilot with over 60 aircraft types logged from F18s to blimps to paragliders and a whole bunch of helicopters. ............. No shame in admitting I have a lot to learn about flying T/W airplanes and emphatically look forward to doing so! Thanks for the post

...from Ken K and think about the amount of experience he has but still goes for transition training. Wise indeed,

Best,

 

[Geico266]

The RV12 situation had the potential of turning out much worse than it thankfully did. I'm just glad the pilot was able to tell the story instead of forum readers endlessly speculating what went wrong. In addition to asking ourselves if we meet IMSAFE before our flights, we should probably be asking ourselves if I am "Really Ready".
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

You are 110% right on Terri, JohnF should be commended for his courage to allow others to learn from his experience.

 

[Tom Martin]

I have at least 10 first flights under my belt but the best, and most memorable one is the first one; the one that I did not do myself. I was a low time pilot, 350 hours, when I finished my RV4 in 1995, and I did not feel that I would be able to deal with an emergency, should it occur. A good friend of mine, one of those guys that makes your airplane sigh with relieve when he takes the controls, did the honour for me. It was an amazing feeling to see that pile of aluminium jump to the air in the hands of an experienced pilot, a memory that has never left me.

 

[Bill Dicus]

1st flight

Doesn't anybody imagine and fret about the feeling that would occur if your "test pilot" did something stupid and bent your airplane or was severely injured? I certainly have.

 

[N8RV]

I have at least 10 first flights under my belt but the best, and most memorable one is the first one; the one that I did not do myself. I was a low time pilot, 350 hours, when I finished my RV4 in 1995, and I did not feel that I would be able to deal with an emergency, should it occur. A good friend of mine, one of those guys that makes your airplane sigh with relieve when he takes the controls, did the honour for me. It was an amazing feeling to see that pile of aluminium jump to the air in the hands of an experienced pilot, a memory that has never left me.

Ditto, Tom. I wrote extensively about my first flight -- which was about a month after the airplane's first flights. Looking back, I have ZERO regrets about letting a qualified friend to the honor. My first flight was still MY first flight, and it will never go away.

And, for example, despite my efforts to the contrary, there were bugs for that first flight. Something as stupid as forgetting to hook up the pitot and static hoses to the EFIS left the airplane without airspeed info! If I had been at the stick, I wonder if I'd have had vapor lock and fixated on the fact that, despite the airplane leaving the ground, my instruments said that I wasn't moving. Danny, on the other hand, just shrugged at my stupidity and flew the plane.

Don't be a hero. Squarely assess your currency and ability before you make that first flight.

 

[Mel]

Yep; It's always a factor!

Doesn't anybody imagine and fret about the feeling that would occur if your "test pilot" did something stupid and bent your airplane or was severely injured? I certainly have.

Back when I used to do a considerable amount of flight testing, there was always an agreement that neither builder/owner or test pilot was liable to the other for any physical or property damage.
You have to do whatever you're comfortable with.

 

[Ironflight]

Doesn't anybody imagine and fret about the feeling that would occur if your "test pilot" did something stupid and bent your airplane or was severely injured? I certainly have.

While I agree with Mel that it is a "Factor", it is an emotional one, not a technical one. Flight Test decsions should be made on technical value, not emotional - and this is an easy one, because it is made on the ground, and not in the air.

Paul

 

[L.Adamson]

Something as stupid as forgetting to hook up the pitot and static hoses to the EFIS left the airplane without airspeed info!

And that's why I made one run down the runway without taking off. I wanted to see how the airspeed indicator was doing, and make sure the landing gear tracked well. Both seemed fine, so that was the end of any "semi" high speed taxi testing. I taxied back and took to the air.

For me, no one else was going to be test flying the first flight. It's something that I planned on for a long time. No one tried to convince me that I should fly the first flight, and I had an offer from a pilot with plenty of RV time in numerous RV's. What I ened up doing, is just a lot of transition training in his RV. It all worked out.

LAdamson -- RV6A

 

[[email protected]]

liability in another's hands...

while it might be the 'best' test process to have an impartial expert take the controls for first flight i am unwilling to carry the general liability or potential loss at the hands of another. we all manage risks for all sorts of things in many ways.

perhaps i am less skilled than an available 'test pilot'. perhaps my hart will cloud impartial judgment during flight. okay, i accept that, and factor it into my risk tolerance thoughts.

in the end, if there is a problem i want my hands and my head as the responsible party, period.

 

[B25Flyer]

The accident record for first flights of homebuilt aircraft is terrible.

There are several reasons why.

First, the builder has spent all their spare time for at least several years building instead of flying. Very few active builders do very much flying. They are almost never the most qualified person on their airport to do the test flight, and certainly not the most qualified person with in a one hour flight in an RV.

Second, the test pilot MUST be willing to sacrifice the airplane to save their butt. A builder has an emotional attachment to the pile of tin and they are also more likely to be in denial that their magnificent airplane is letting them down. A dispassionate test pilot will trade an airplane for their a$$ in a heartbeat and that is a necessary skill to be a test pilot.

If the builder is not willing to risk allowing a test pilot crash their airplane, does anyone think they will will quickly chose to crash the airplane to save their life?

Third, just because many people do their own first flights and do not crash that does not make it smart. An RV would fly with half the rivets installed and the other half in the bag. That does not make flying an RV with only half the rivets installed a good idea.

Most of the first flights that I have witnessed by builders have been near disasters.... Many of the first flights that I have done have had significant issues that very well could have caused major problems for the builder.

Very few builders are qualified to do their own first flights.... Even the ones that might be good candidates to do someone elses first flight, would be better served by letting someone else do the honor.

Endulge me one quick story....

We had a old boy who built a very nice RV but he was totally unqualified to fly it at all, much less first flight. I tried repeatedly to convince him to select someone else. I told him, it did not need to be me, it was not about me, I would help him find someone else if he wanted me to, but he should not do it.

He said to me, "50 years ago on my wedding night, I didn't know what I was doing but I didn't hire someone else to do it for me."

That is a really cute story, but it doesn't apply. Most likely nobody was going to get hurt on his wedding night.

He flew his beautiful airplane and nearly wrecked it. This is an area in the industry that definitely needs education and culture change......

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[pierre smith]

Well said, Doug....

...and I enjoyed your article about the Velocity in Kitplanes!

Best,

 

[apkp777]

I had fully planned to have someone do my first flight. He was more qualified and did not have the emotional attachment. However, my insurance would not cover him to do the flight. Had something terrible happen he would have orphaned his family and they would have gotten very little from me.

I was able to go and get some transition training just days prior and I am an active pilot/CFI. So I made the decision to do the first flight.

I still think it would have been better to have someone else do the first flight. I don't recommend what I did.

 

[apkp777]

Something as stupid as forgetting to hook up the pitot and static hoses to the EFIS left the airplane without airspeed info!

Did I mention that the Avionics shop that did my Pitot/Static check swapped my AOA and Pitot. And yes on my first flight I had NO airspeed indication above 25kts.

My first landing was the best landing I have ever done!

 

[L.Adamson]

With all the recommendations NOT to do the first flight, I must wonder when the builder/owner will be capable? After the first hour, fifth hour, forty hours?

At least RV's are not "one off designs". If built like the plans, you pretty well know what to expect. I do follow the NTSB reports three times a week, and there certainly are numerous cases of "first flight tragedies"; however it's not a common phenomenon with Van's RVs.

Yet, I must wonder when I see reports of "backwards trim", "no airspeed" indication", etc. These aspects should be checked & double checked before the first flight. And if I was a "test pilot", I'd certainly be looking to make sure these control surfaces were moving the right direction before any notions of leaving the ground. Just a few years ago (at an airport nearby), two test pilots were lost because the aileron controls were reversed when mechanics did some landing gear revision work on an experimental business jet. Nobody looked to make sure the flight surfaces moved in the proper direction, after the mechanics had been worked with. In this case, the plane had been test flown many hours, and the pilots wouldn't have suspected a reverse situation. But when you do that "controls free & clear check", it would certainly be prudent to see that they move in the proper direction.

But getting back to the basics here. With some good transition training, or past RV experience, I don't see it as a major problem to do your own test flight. It's been done by thousands, and has been successful. If you're worried that your airplane won't fly properly, then I wouldn't want to pass it off to someone else either. If you're worried about your own abilities, then it's a must to get additional transition time.

In my own case, I did a two hour cross country, within hours of the initial flight around the pattern & subsequent checks. Why, because the cross country was over open territory/ freeway, and much safer than over residential subdivisions. I was followed by a chase plane, and could run the engine at full bore for break in purposes.

Just about every RV owner builder around here, that I know, had done their own test flight. And all were sucessful. There are lot's of RV's in my part of the country, and active builder groups.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Ironflight]

Just about every RV owner builder around here, that I know, had done their own test flight. And all were successful.

I would argue that this is anecdotal, and inadmissible as evidence. I can cite at least 3 instances that I know of "around here" where first flights ended up with significant aircraft damage. And none of those was due to a significant problem with the airplane (like reversed controls) - they were all minor distractions that caught the pilot by surprise. None should have been an issue - they were distractions, or minor maintenance issues that should have been fixed before flight.

Once the owner gets committed to doing that first flight, and heads to the airport on "first flight day", it is very, very hard to stop and not go flying, despite finding a little leak, or an instrument that isn't reading quite right. It is easier to call it off if you have no emotional connection to the airplane. You can fly it later in the day, or the next day, or next week.

This is not, in any way, meant to say that an owner.builder should never do their first flight - not at all. It means that everyone needs to do a completely dispassionate, logical, and rationale examination of the first flight plan, and do what makes the most sense. Emotional arguments must go straight out the window - let experience, conditions, and skills be the guide.

Claiming that something is OK because others have done it successfully is not a logical justification - lots of people "win" at Russian Roulette in the (very) short term. Which is not a good reason to keep playing.

Paul

 

[flybill7]

Anecdotal Evidence

In my local area, there are five of us who built our own RV's in the last three years. All of us did their our own first flights. All of us were typical GA pilots. Not low time, but not military trained or Naval Test Pilot School graduates either. All of us were in the 500-800 hour range. We all did five hours or so of transition training. All first flights were uneventful. None were "near disasters".

 

[rv6ejguy]

While it is good to be cautious about first flights let's remember that the vast majority on RVs are indeed completed successfully. Problems with inop ASIs, backwards trim installs and such just point to a lack of checking critical things on the ground and in the case of the ASI, not doing even basic checks while rolling down the runway. If you screw up this stuff, one wonders what other problems lurk...

Having someone else go over your RV from spinner to rudder very carefully would help prevent many of these problems and is perhaps more important than who is at the controls.

If you have been building for the last five years and flying nothing or just 172s, you NEED to get current on something similar to an RV or better yet get some proper dual on an RV.

The first flight in an RV is nothing like that in a new one off design. It will fly if even half right. I really tire about this talk about RVs being "Hot Ships". They don't fly a lot different than something like a Grumman Tiger but you have to fly all aircraft by the numbers and a Piper Cub can kill you as sure as an RV or an F18 if you screw up.

I agree you need to be mentally prepared to sacrifice the airplane if the engine stops at the wrong time and you need to be fully prepared for all likely emergencies. You shouldn't ever be in a rush, you shouldn't be flying from a short strip with a lot of obstructions nearby either. You need a solid plan for the first flight with test cards and you need to stick to that plan.

Many builders don't want the possible liability if another pilot is hurt or killed test flying their aircraft. In my case, I didn't want anyone testing my aircraft who didn't understand the liquid cooled engine or different systems. As that turned out, it was a good decision as there were problems on the first flight and I was the best one to deal with them.

We have a new Sube turbo powered RV7 up here which has been waiting 6 months for a qualified test pilot to be found- preferably someone with TW RV time and liquid cooled flight time. Not so easy to find around here.

I can think of two cases up here where experienced pilots were called in to do first flights and both were killed on those flights- neither due to any airframe problem.

I don't have a problem with a builder doing the first flight in his/her creation if they are comfortable with it and current. If not, probably not a great idea at all.

I'm no exceptional pilot but I did my first flight and I have no regrets even in retrospect. It was the most exciting moment of my life I'd have to say and a memory I'll always cherish with a great sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. It was carefully planned with plenty of ground and fast taxi testing due to the totally unproven engine and propeller combination. I went though things very methodically after consulting many more experienced friends.

In the end it is a personal decision, but needs to be made with eyes wide open and a realistic evaluation of your capabilities. Don't just ask yourself, get some true feedback from your closest pilot friends too, your tech adviser etc. You don't need to be Steve Hinton to test fly an RV but you do need to be properly prepared.

 

[Ironflight]

Outside Perspective!

Don't just ask yourself, get some true feedback from your closest pilot friends too, your tech adviser etc.

Absolutely the best advice Ross, and to the point, It doesn't bother me at all when people do there own first flights after evaluating all of the facts. It DOES bother me when someone says "I am going to do my own first flight because I can't imagine letting anyone else do it!" Those kind of statements tell me that the person simply hasn't done the research and preparation, and received some honest feedback on their decision. My business is test flying - and we do an extraordinary number of reviews by many people before we go try something new.

RV's are very easy to fly, and it is extremely hard to mess them up bad enough so that they won't fly well. You DON'T have to be an extraordinary stick to fly one. But you do need to have a cautious and questioning attitude when approaching a first flight. Outside evaluation is an excellent and necessary way to do a reasonableness check on yourself.

Paul

 

[az_gila]

Paul...

I would argue that this is anecdotal, and inadmissible as evidence. I can cite at least 3 instances that I know of "around here" where first flights ended up with significant aircraft damage. And none of those was due to a significant problem with the airplane (like reversed controls) - they were all minor distractions that caught the pilot by surprise. None should have been an issue - they were distractions, or minor maintenance issues that should have been fixed before flight.
....
Paul

...in the interests of general education, can you give us details of what these minor disractions were?

 

[TOAD]

Don't pick an unqualified test pilot. Be the pilot.

This is just another perspective (mine) on the first flight.

I drive by a home that has crashed planes out front every couple of weeks. I do see the majority being first flight issues. The point is that some day you may have an emergency and will need those first flight skills. In a crash it is the pilots fault or the plane. Some one gets the blame. Sometimes I question how expert the expert pilot was. I find that each time I listen to the details I ask myself "Could I have done a better job in the situation than this pilot?" I was anxious about my first flight and so I did many walk throughs and armchair flights. By the time I made the flight I really had rehearsed and prepared for each second of the trip. I went over the script with pilots I highly respect. I was still nervous.

I did the test period against a full test plan. I went over the plane with other pilots and experts. (You know who you are and thanks!!!) I even built with the thought that I had to understand and trust each piece that went on the plane. In my opinion this is what the experimental aircraft building is all about.

I personally am not in favor of giving the first flight to an expert to see if he lives. If you are not qualified to fly your plane, or do not trust the plane then fix that problem. If you are not qualified to fly the plane then is high time to learn. Some day, if not the first flight you may have the opportunity to need the skills. Be a better pilot, build the best plane you can.

 

[Gary 40274]

Reality Check

While it is true some folks should not do first flights and many can, the absolute worst person to determine whether you should or shouldn't is you. This is because you are emotionally involved. EAA has a Flight Advisor program designed to get an unbiased opinion about whether you are in a position to do that first flight or not. It is free and well worth the time to do. It is designed to help you make an honest decision based upon your qualifications and currency.

Try it, you'll like it!

Gary Specketer
Flight Advisor
Tech Counselor

 

[flybill7]

I personally am not in favor of giving the first flight to an expert to see if he lives. If you are not qualified to fly your plane, or do not trust the plane then fix that problem.

Well said!

 

[TThurston]

EAA Webinar - First Flight in your Homebuilt

I just watched the EAA webinar "First Flight in your Homebuilt". I found it quite informative. The main presentation is about 1 hour, and then about 30 minutes for questions and answers. He doesn't really address the issue of WHO should do the first flight until the question/answer. But he does address the issue of being thoroughly prepared - not just in type, but for any emergency.

This is the link: http://www.eaa.org/video/eaa.html?videoId=105192196001

Of note, someone asked about the 5 hour test period for a plane like the RV-12, and the presenter expressed his opinion that 5 hours was not enough Phase I for any new homebuilt. I believe he recommended something like 20 hours to thorougly explore all aspects of flight and performance for a new plane, even if only 5 hours is all that is legally required.

 

[Mel]

Pet Peave!

Of note, someone asked about the 5 hour test period for a plane like the RV-12, and the presenter expressed his opinion that 5 hours was not enough Phase I for any new homebuilt. I believe he recommended something like 20 hours to thoroughly explore all aspects of flight and performance for a new plane, even if only 5 hours is all that is legally required.

Misunderstanding: 5 hours is NOT what is required. What is required is that you must complete your test program. The 5 hours is simply a minimum time frame.

 

[B25Flyer]

.......the absolute worst person to determine whether you should or shouldn't is you.
Gary Specketer
Flight Advisor
Tech Counselor

These are some wise words.

The problem is those who are most unwilling to let someone else fly their baby are the same ones who are unwilling to listen to someone else when it comes to the truth about their capabilities....

If the standard for a test pilot were only "above average," which is incredibly low, then half the population is unqualified by definition.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[L.Adamson]

The problem is those who are most unwilling to let someone else fly their baby are the same ones who are unwilling to listen to someone else when it comes to the truth about their capabilities....

And that can be very true. My "advisor pilot", said I wasn't walking and chewing gum at the same time. He said that I had flown his RV much better............four years previously. This was a typical case of not flying as much as building.

My RV6A was inspected two years ago today (7/1/08). It didn't fly until Sept. 7th , 2008. In those two months, we went up in his RV every few days, with me in the left seat. Hour after hour, until I was "again" completely comfortable with the fact of flying a Van's RV, constant speed prop, flying tighter patterns, and blending in with "slug" Cessnas, etc, while talking on the comm.

I was not in a hurry. I didn't feel that I needed to make any deadlines. It had took twelve years to build as it was. My only goal, was that I put at least 100hrs on the plane the first year. I exceeded that. However, it was in my mind that I'd do the first flight. If I was to the point of being totally uncomfortable, and wanting some one else to do it, then I shouldn't have built it in the first place, or sold it before finishing........or waited some time (oh that's what I did! ) And of course, I did have some anxiety before the wheels left the ground. Once airborne, that all disappeared.

All squawks of any significance were taken care of before the first flight. There was nothing that caused an in-flight problem. I didn't expect there to be any. I had meticulously gone over everything before. I didn't feel that I was doing one in six odds as with Russian Roulette (referring to Paul's reply)My airplane did a fine job with a two hour cross country just hours after the first takeoff. Note: I previously explained that the cross country was mostly open desert with a freeway below, and on a Sunday (less traveled). Much better than flying over subdivisions.

It does appear that this thread seems to swing in favor of having others do the first flight. Some reasons are valid of course, but it doesn't have to be that way. As mentioned by a few others, RV's are not all that tough to fly. They are just faster. We're not getting stuffed into the cockpit or a P-51, Corsair........or B-25. Just get the transition training to be comfortable with the characteristics, and make sure the aircraft is thoroughly checked out before flight. In my mind there is little excuse for "minor" squawks that can cause problems.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[L.Adamson]

I was restricted to a 40 Mile Radius during Phase 1.

DR Pohl
RV7A

I was allowed to go from Salt Lake City, to Wendover Ut (approx 100 miles), as well as 40 miles the other direction (Nephi) if I wished. It's all desert in these areas. Much better than local flying.

L.Adamson -- RV6A

 

[B25Flyer]

Think of it in these terms, you own a company and you hire 10 builders to build RV's for a customer. Does anyone think they would let each builder fly the airplane they built? Of course not, you would select the most qualified individual you had access to, without regard for whether they were a builder or not, and have them fly ALL the airplanes....

The statistics show that first flights are a high risk activity and if we want to drive the risk out of aviation we have to be able to discuss it honestly.

The risk mitigation process goes like this:

Identify the Risk.

Rate the Risk.

Rate the Reward.

If the risk outweighs the reward stop doing it, or change the process to lower the risk and rate the risk again and start over.

If the reward outweighs the risk, be honest about the risks and then proceed looking for every opportunity to drive out the risks.

If everyone went through this risk mitigation process with a peer they trusted enough to be honest, most would come to the conclusion that the safest and smartest course of action would be to have someone else fly their airplane.

In reality, too often, it is just, I built it, I am going to fly it, and all too often the results are predictable.

BTW Not crashing does not equal safe.... In most cases it means you just did not get caught. Safe is when the worst case scenario occurs and you have mitigated the risks to a point that has a successful outcome. In this case, that might mean the pilot survives the accident.

This is all very easy for me to discuss because I will never understand the emotional satisfaction of flying the first flight in an airplane I built with my hands, because I know my limitations and I would never fly an airplane that I built.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[rvbuilder2002]

I believe there is another phenomena that plays into first flights depending on who the pilot is. I have no scientific data to prove it, but I am convinced that when the pucker factor gets high, most of the time the decision making process is different for the builder/pilot than it is for the non builder pilot.

It is very hard for the airplane builder to not allow save the airplane (or at least minimize damage) thoughts to pollute his thinking process.
It is much easier for the non-builder pilot to think first and foremost of saving himself. This thinking will help avoid making incorrect choices such as turning back to the airport at low altitude so as to get the airplane on a runway
I strongly believe this failed thinking process has killed quite a large number of builder/test pilots over the years.

 

[flybill7]

Statistics

The statistics show that first flights are a high risk activity and if we want to drive the risk out of aviation we have to be able to discuss it honestly.

So I am looking at an article by Ron Wanttaja called "Safety Is No Accident" in Kitplanes magazine July 2010 issue. It is a detailed review of RV accidents compared to all homebuilts. Here are the figures for Percentage of Accidents:
-----------------All RVs - All Homebuilts
0-10 Hours ------ 6% ------ 10.5%
10-20 ----------- 0 ------ 3.5%
20-30 ----------- 2% ------ 3%
30-40 ----------- 1% ------ 2%
40-50 ----------- 2% ------ 4%
50-60 ----------- 3% ------ 4%
60-70 ----------- 4% ------ 4%
70-80 ----------- 2% ------ 2%
80-90 ----------- 4% ------ 2%
90-100 ---------- 4% ------ 2%
100-200 -------- 17% ------ 18%

Clearly, there are more accidents in the first ten hours for RVs. But look at the numbers starting at the 60 hours point. 4% isn’t that much less than 6%. To me the numbers show that the RV-series proven design, the high quality of the kits, and the information sharing of Vans Air Force community all combine to bring the first flight accident numbers significantly below all homebuilts and nearly to what the normal RV accident rate is in the below 100 hour range.

 

[Bob Axsom]

This goes on and on doesn't it

If it were fool proof it would fit right in to the life style we seem to demand in today's no risk & no progress society. I recently started reading the new book "Fighter Pilot" of Robin Olds' career. On page 99 he describes his second flight in a P-51 Mustang. At this time he was already an Ace in the P-38 and his group was converting to Mustangs. He lost it during the landing and heavily damaged the plane because of the different landing characteristics and the high torque effects of the high powered Mustang as opposed to the P-38 with counter rotating props.

Bob Axsom

 

[L.Adamson]

If everyone went through this risk mitigation process with a peer they trusted enough to be honest, most would come to the conclusion that the safest and smartest course of action would be to have someone else fly their airplane.

Nope....

I know you've been around aircraft for a long time. I know that Scott has been around Van's airplanes for quite a number of years, and that Paul's line of work is at NASA.

But after my own 16 years of being around Van's airplanes, I just have to disagree on the assesment, that someone else should fly your airplane. If I hadn't personally seen or heard of so many successful flights by Van's builder/owners, then I'd be thinking differently. But I have not seen a rash of accidents with first flights by the owner/builder of a Van's plane. At least not in my part of the country. Perhaps in my part of the country.... we build them better, as well as being better pilots. But I seriously doubt that!

So just put me down as one individual (of many) who is not going along with this first flight by someone else scenario........because we have too much emotional attachment to the aircraft. There are those who will fly the first flight, and those who won't. But I wouldn't want newcomers to this forum to just assume that it's an "automatically" dangerous endeavor.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[RV8R999]

I am going to conduct my first flight and cannot imagine ever letting someone else do it, even if the pilot standing next to me was considered the absolute most qualified, expert pilot in an RV8 would I allow them to fly my plane first.

Sorry Paul, those are exactly the words I would use. To me this is a journey of accomplishment which includes the whole package..building, painting, and test flying myself, start to finish. Those words in no way should be construed as meaning I don't give a hoot if I'm qualified to fly the first flight but instead I will fly the first flight when I'm darn good and ready to do so safely. If I take several years to build the darn thing I can certainly take the time to be sure I'm trained, proficient and ready for the first flight.

We can always use the Operational Risk Management principle of never accepting unnecessary risk to work ourselves out of the entire evolution if we try hard enough. Heck, one could argue along the lines that finding the most qualified pilot to fly the first flight could translate into finding the most qualified builder to build the plane to lesson the risk of first flight mechanical failure too...geez might as well buy a cessna. We don't need to be the MOST qualified, just qualified enough. Besides Risk Management is NOT about risk elimination but rather mitigation. Training, preparation, proficiency all help to mitigate or minimize the residual risks associated with first flights and flying in general. The only way to eliminate the risk is to roll yourself in bubble wrap and stay home.

Barring a major mechanical issue every builder is going to have a first flight anyway with the necessity to have the same skills and competence as if it were the PLANES very first flight too (all things being equal). Mechanical failures can occur on any flight so the idea a pilot needs to have special skills on the first one doesn't match my experiences as a test pilot at all. All of my first flights were non-events (except a few butterflies). It was the 10th, 15th or 20th flight when things got stupid because it was at these times I found myself at the edge of the envelope and invariably discovered an unexpected flying qualities cliff with the houses getting bigger. Plus, I hope everyone conducts a build-up toward the first flight with a mind toward discovering mechanical issues on the ground. I'm going to spend a great deal of time taxiing, running the engine, high speed taxi (yes I know this has its own risks), systems and avionics checks and lots and lots of static flying (blind cockpit check, rehearsal of Emergency Procedures while sitting in the cockpit, low altitude engine failure plan of action, briefing the airport smash and crash crew, ensuring weather and other traffic are not distractions by waiting until conditions match my test plan criteria, etc...) Luckily I planned the timing of building this plane around the purchase of a new engine for my first homebuilt (BD4). I broke this engine in on that airframe knowing I'd remove the engine and put it on the RV8 right after brake in. I did this so as not to worry about the engine health while I'm learning to taxi and operate the plane on the ground. I realize not everyone did this.

I dislike ever speaking in absolutes but I'd say one thing for sure - anyone who approaches a first of anything dangerous with a cavalier attitude is likely to find themselves in the center of a smokin hole.

 

[Flying Scotsman]

The risk mitigation process goes like this:

Identify the Risk.

Rate the Risk.

Rate the Reward.

If the risk outweighs the reward stop doing it, or change the process to lower the risk and rate the risk again and start over.

If the reward outweighs the risk, be honest about the risks and then proceed looking for every opportunity to drive out the risks.

If everyone went through this risk mitigation process with a peer they trusted enough to be honest, most would come to the conclusion that the safest and smartest course of action would be to have someone else fly their airplane.

I'll respectfully disagree with the process you've described here. Risk management is not about "risk vs. reward". It's about consequence and likelihood. If a certain thing comes to pass, what are the consequences? What is the likelihood that this situation will occur?

In my line of work, we use a standardized risk matrix of consequence vs. likelihood for rating risks and determining the response (accept, watch or mitigate). It is the combination of likelihood and consequence that feeds into the mitigation decision.

It's not as simple as "the reward is bigger than the risk", etc. Which is why risk management is more about *discussing* and analyzing the situation than some formulaic, algorithmic solution to when to do something.

So in this situation, which granted I have not yet had the benefit of experiencing (first flight...although I'm getting closer every day, I hope ), I would say that the analysis should be along the lines of: identifying those things that represent a real risk, and determing the likelihood and consequences, and then evaluating that combination to determine what to do.

E.g., IF piece X of the airframe fails, THEN the structure would fracture in flight, causing a loss of aircraft. The LIKELIHOOD of that happening is very low, as it has been built to plans and to specs. Thus, the overall mitigation is to ACCEPT the risk.

IF flight instruments are improperly connected, THEN the inexperienced in type pilot may become distracted and lose control of the aircraft, resulting in loss of aircraft and pilot. The LIKELIHOOD of this occuring is medium, because this aircraft is homebuilt and the systems may not have been properly inspected prior to flight. Thus, the mitigation is to have a second expert inspect and certify the system.

The trick here is to split up likelihood and consequence...a high likelihood but low consequence risk may never be mitigated. But a low likelihood/high consequence risk is almost always mitigated (somehow).

Sorry for my digression into risk management processes. LOL! It's a big part of my everyday work these days

 

[RV8R999]

Steve is spot on!

Our process of ORM goes like this:

Identify Hazards
Assess Risk (probability and severity)
Make Risk Decisions (which are acceptable which are not)
Implement Controls to mitigate the risks
Supervise those controls

we frame this process with the following principles of risk management:
1. Never accept unnecessary risk
2. Accept risk who's benefit outweighs cost
3. Make risk decisions at the appropriate level
4. Manage risk through proper planning

This process has proven to reduce Naval Aviation Mishaps as well as personal accidents significantly since implementation 15 or so years ago.

 

[JonJay]

What about the human factor?

Steve is spot on!

Our process of ORM goes like this:

Identify Hazards
Assess Risk (probability and severity)
Make Risk Decisions (which are acceptable which are not)
Implement Controls to mitigate the risks
Supervise those controls

we frame this process with the following principles of risk management:
1. Never accept unnecessary risk
2. Accept risk who's benefit outweighs cost
3. Make risk decisions at the appropriate level
4. Manage risk through proper planning

This process has proven to reduce Naval Aviation Mishaps as well as personal accidents significantly since implementation 15 or so years ago.

I think that is fine in a controlled, military, industrial, or other setting, where many people are involved or affected, but we are people, human animals if you like, and this is largley an individuals decisions and risk. If you apply the first principle, "Never accept unnecessary risk", why in the world would anybody skydive, drive a motorcycle, or even leave the house? I dont think I could quantify the 2nd principle when it came to the benefit of taking my first flight. It was priceless, to me....

 

[Bubblehead]

4% isn?t that much less than 6%.

It's a lot less - 1/3 less! To me that is significant. That means 2 less accidents out of 100.

 

[RV7Ron]

I am going to conduct my first flight and cannot imagine ever letting someone else do it, even if the pilot standing next to me was considered the absolute most qualified, expert pilot in an RV8 would I allow them to fly my plane first.

Sorry Paul, those are exactly the words I would use. To me this is a journey of accomplishment which includes the whole package..building, painting, and test flying myself, start to finish. Those words in no way should be construed as meaning I don't give a hoot if I'm qualified to fly the first flight but instead I will fly the first flight when I'm darn good and ready to do so safely. If I take several years to build the darn thing I can certainly take the time to be sure I'm trained, proficient and ready for the first flight.

We can always use the Operational Risk Management principle of never accepting unnecessary risk to work ourselves out of the entire evolution if we try hard enough. Heck, one could argue along the lines that finding the most qualified pilot to fly the first flight could translate into finding the most qualified builder to build the plane to lesson the risk of first flight mechanical failure too...geez might as well buy a cessna. We don't need to be the MOST qualified, just qualified enough. Besides Risk Management is NOT about risk elimination but rather mitigation. Training, preparation, proficiency all help to mitigate or minimize the residual risks associated with first flights and flying in general. The only way to eliminate the risk is to roll yourself in bubble wrap and stay home.

Barring a major mechanical issue every builder is going to have a first flight anyway with the necessity to have the same skills and competence as if it were the PLANES very first flight too (all things being equal). Mechanical failures can occur on any flight so the idea a pilot needs to have special skills on the first one doesn't match my experiences as a test pilot at all. All of my first flights were non-events (except a few butterflies). It was the 10th, 15th or 20th flight when things got stupid because it was at these times I found myself at the edge of the envelope and invariably discovered an unexpected flying qualities cliff with the houses getting bigger. Plus, I hope everyone conducts a build-up toward the first flight with a mind toward discovering mechanical issues on the ground. I'm going to spend a great deal of time taxiing, running the engine, high speed taxi (yes I know this has its own risks), systems and avionics checks and lots and lots of static flying (blind cockpit check, rehearsal of Emergency Procedures while sitting in the cockpit, low altitude engine failure plan of action, briefing the airport smash and crash crew, ensuring weather and other traffic are not distractions by waiting until conditions match my test plan criteria, etc...) Luckily I planned the timing of building this plane around the purchase of a new engine for my first homebuilt (BD4). I broke this engine in on that airframe knowing I'd remove the engine and put it on the RV8 right after brake in. I did this so as not to worry about the engine health while I'm learning to taxi and operate the plane on the ground. I realize not everyone did this.

I dislike ever speaking in absolutes but I'd say one thing for sure - anyone who approaches a first of anything dangerous with a cavalier attitude is likely to find themselves in the center of a smokin hole.

Bravo! well said, totally agree.

I plan to do my own first flight. This topic has been beat to death before and belongs in the primer/Tip up/TW debate since it will never end. People have strong feelings one way or the other and thats fine and I would never criticize anyone for their choice. At the end of the day, its my life and my own personal decision. We should just leave it at that. Society nowadays has done its best to eliminate ALL risk from our lives...has anyone ever stopped to think that some risk (not recklessness because thats totally different) in life is actually GOOD? Flying an airplane is not, and never will be, risk free--but thats part of why I love it so much. Life is too short to live it safely on the couch. Fly safe!

 

[Ironflight]

But after my own 16 years of being around Van's airplanes, I just have to disagree on the assessment, that someone else should fly your airplane.

Larry - if you actually read the ideas presented in some of our admittedly rather long posts, you would find that most of us that advise people on Flight Test are NOT saying that someone else should fly your airplane on it's first flight. We are saying that each person needs to rationally evaluate their own situation to DECIDE if that is the right thing to do or not. An outside opinion is a great way to make that decision rational. I would say that at least half of the folks I talk to about first flights are a good choice to make that first flight. So the message I would like to stay in the archives of these forums is that the choice of the first flight pilot IS a CHOICE - not a forgone conclusion.

I am going to conduct my first flight and cannot imagine ever letting someone else do it, even if the pilot standing next to me was considered the absolute most qualified, expert pilot in an RV8 would I allow them to fly my plane first.

Sorry Paul, those are exactly the words I would use.

I seriously doubt whether I would disagree with you doing your first flight Ken. Although I have never met you, I know your background (from these forums), and I suspect that you know EXACTLY how you react to distractions in flight. You'd be a no-brainer for the first flight, assuming you have brushed up your tail dragger skills, and i can't imagine that you wouldn't.

This discussion is intended to help those who are not the world's most qualified RV-8 pilot, but those who are on the other end of the spectrum. When I made the Val's first flight, I consulted the highest-time RV-8 pilot at the time, and we concluded that I was the right guy to do the flight. You don't need to be at the top of the stack - you simply need to be above some certain line drawn between the bottom and the top.

Paul

 

[RV8R999]

Im with you Paul.

JonJay - A common misunderstanding of the principle of never accepting any unnecessary risk is that anything risky is unnecessary.

The discussion would go like this using your example:

Given I've decided to go Skydiving what are the unnecessary risks associated with Skydiving I need to eliminate.
1. Not having a reserve
2. Jumping in high winds
3. not receiving instruction

and so on...

Our ORM process applies to any environment controlled or otherwise. I use it at home with my family too whenever I go boating, hunting, or when I try to convince my wife its ok for me to stay out late with the guys on a Thursday night (talk about unnecessary risk!)

 

[B25Flyer]

I agree with Steve and Ken's risk analysis models. And for the record, I am not one to try and drive all the risks out of every aspect of our lives. I fly airplanes upside down close to the ground at an airshow almost every weekend. But I have done the risk reward analysis with peers that I trust and decided that the reward outweighs the risks.

And with those peers we have developed strategies to drive as much risk as possible out of that process. All I want is for people to acknowledge the risk and have a conversation with qualified peers about what they are doing. If the net result of that discussion is a decision to continue, made in the light of day, I can deal with that.

My concern, Like Paul's is about the people I have seen who are totally unqualified, and unprepared to test fly an airplane. They are doing it everyday and it is easy to stick our collective heads in the sand and say that RVs are immune to this problem because they are better airplanes. B.S. They are built by human beings and humans have problems. RV's are not immune. I had a oil line come loose on the first flight of an airplane that was built by an absolute master craftsman and the most meticulous mechanic I know. The chase plane spotted oil on the belly and I landed with 2 quarts remaining.

I was preparing a pilot to fly his RV-6. I had every intention that he would do it himself. With training he would have been capable. As we went through that training, and the discussion of what he needed to be ready for, he came to the conclusion, on his own, that he was not the best choice, and asked me to do it. On the first flight take-off, an injector plugged at the end of the runway. It ran like ****, but it would climb so entered the downwind and made a normal landing. We cleaned the injector and 30 minutes later we were flying again, but he was very happy with his decision.

Most of these first flights have no chase plane and no safety crew on the ground with shovels, a rope, fire extinguishers, and enough people in a truck to flip the airplane over if it ends up on its top during landing. Essential elements if I am doing it.

This is a problem that needs to be discussed in the light of day and on a regular basis because some, certainly not all, but some, will realize that they either need a bunch of preparation and training or need to have someone else do it.

Just like the turnback after take-off and so many other topics, I hold little hope of changing the mind of those who are hard-over about this. My objective it to provide discussion for those who are on the fence.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[pat]

good stuff

Great advice here most of it can be addressed by utiilizing the EAA flight advisor program. Typically this person is an excellent resource for just this moment (first flight and subsequent data flights). As stated previous, it seems many first time builders are also low time pilots and simply dont know where to start looking. Tech and flight advisors are an excellent place to start.

 

[JonJay]

Ok, that makes good sense...

Im with you Paul.

JonJay - A common misunderstanding of the principle of never accepting any unnecessary risk is that anything risky is unnecessary.

The discussion would go like this using your example:

Given I've decided to go Skydiving what are the unnecessary risks associated with Skydiving I need to eliminate.
1. Not having a reserve
2. Jumping in high winds
3. not receiving instruction

and so on...

Our ORM process applies to any environment controlled or otherwise. I use it at home with my family too whenever I go boating, hunting, or when I try to convince my wife its ok for me to stay out late with the guys on a Thursday night (talk about unnecessary risk!)

But, anybody jumping out of a perfectly good airplane is an idiot!! Ha! (kidding)

 

[koda2]

Getting ready

It seems pretty obvious from the posts that there are going to be people who won't or can't afford the luxury of a test pilot and the thread title asks "are you ready".

I've already read Van's sections several times, and I plan on getting "Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft" by Vaughan Askue. Its been long enough since I have flown, I am also planning a military-style recurrency training scenario. Also I don't know how much the transition training costs or where the options are.

But getting the pilot ready is only part of the deal. The place,the plan and the plane are just as important.

ORM, CRM, risk management principles, OODA loops, etc, are all good general
guidelines but how about some more specifics from those who have been there?

Dave A.
6A build

 

[JonJay]

Get a good honest evaluation from a known source....

ORM, CRM, risk management principles, OODA loops, etc, are all good general
guidelines but how about some more specifics from those who have been there?

Dave A.
6A build

Get with a known person to check you out. I was checked out by Mike Seager. Make sure he knows you will be doing the first flight. He will tell you when you are ready to "fly" the airplane. As noted in the posts, flying the airplane is only part of the process of evaluating if you are ready, but there are none better or more experienced than Mike.
I had a boat load of TW time, but non in an RV except for some right stick. I spent one hour in the air with Mike, and he told me to go fly my airplane. Coincidently, as we parked the airplane, another student showed up. This was his third day of training and they where approaching 8 hours of dual. Mike still had not let him go yet. Everybody is different.