Clear thots
mark manda said:
I find your remarks about lawlessness and law breaking a bit harsh if not offensive. This Inspector was very serious about promoting safety and airworthy aircraft.
Mark, I think if you'll stop, stand back and take an objective look at this, you'll see I wasn't that harsh.
Your person, should *not* have even offered that thought to you as a representative of the FAA. He was putting a second person at danger, and he was putting his FAA representative status at risk. He was also condoning an act, that if bad things had happened, would have caused you a great amount of grief both personally and financially.
My fear with airplanes in general is that we take all of this to lightly. I don't care whether you are getting in a spam can or an experimental, each time you do, it is an exercise in risk management.
I believe your comments also show the other challenge with experimentals. Builders seem to suffer from lack of *objectivity* when it comes to their airplane. I believe their judgement is clouded by the knowledge that they have of what they have done, and how they did it. This then leads to a conviction that *everything is (will be) perfect*.
If the DAR in your case, would have had safety as his number 1 objective, do you believe he would have offered to put 2 people in an experimental with all the risks associated with "the first flight"?... I doubt it. Do you believe he would have knowingly put your health and financial well being at greater risk? (doesn't matter if you or another person were on board, if something bad had happened, your insurance would have most likely not paid, and probably would have sued you for damages)
You can justify it anyway you like. The intent of the FAA is clear - only *one* person on board, unless you've written, and been given permission for a second, and then you run the risk of this being an on going requirement. If you want data during the flight, a video camera is a whole bunch cheaper than the risk associated with a second person on board. If the person doing the first flight can't figure out flight related critical informaiton or isn't familiar with your aircraft (and electronics), then find a different person to do the first flight. It's all about risks and safety, and to improve both, you'd do the above.
In the last 6 months, we have had two fatal accidents within the Atlanta airspace, both experimental airplanes, both seasoned builders (second if not third airplanes built and flown), both on "first flights", and both with engine failings that occured withing 1 min of leaving the ground with no ability to turn back to the airport.
Yep, I lay awake at nights sometimes thinking about that, what I'd do, what I'd check during the build, before the flight, etc. Doing that hopefully helps make me be more objective about the airplane I'm building.
If rules are provided to increase the safety margin and decrease the risk, then why would you *even think* of putting a second person in an experimental during it's phase one flight time!
The entire purpose of this thread was to see if something had changed around this rule. It appears is has not. If as a result, it hit home a little close with a few... I'm sorry for that. The right to fly an experimental in the US is a pretty fragile right at the moment, with all the issues with some FSDO's not allowing flight over high population areas, the FAA wanting to require everyone to be in "positive" control before you can be in the air, etc. I want to make sure I do everything I can to keep it the right as granted.
Holy cow...no one's suggesting anyone break any laws. This was just about whether or not you can take passengers or not during phase I. The quote was:
