Add'l Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test

The FAA has just opened the comment period for allowing a qualified second pilot in the cockpit during Phase I test flights. After more than a year of hard work, the final draft of the Additional Pilot Program, informally known as ?2nd Pilot,? is available for public comment. The program will be administered via an AC, with the working title AC 90-APP ?Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test.? You can find it on this page: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/afs_ac/ (direct link to the document: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/afs/AC_90-APP_Coord_Copy.pdf).

There is some background info in the beginning of the AC as to why the second pilot (Qualified Pilot) must meet certain flight experience requirements to be in the aircraft during the first eight hours of flight time. Yes, this proposed AC will allow the Qualified Pilot to be onboard the aircraft for the first flight. After the first eight hours and specific flight tests have been completed, the strict requirements are lessened and the second pilot can be another private pilot (Observer Pilot).

As one of many people involved in helping to create this program, I can assure you that there was very intensive discussion so that there was value added to each flight, not just another body.

The comment period is open until July 29, and I am sure that the FAA will be holding some forums through too the week at Oshkosh.

Nice job Gary, and all contributors. Hopefully, the spirit of the AC won't be misconstrued or abused. The first flight cockpit, as we know, is a very busy place.

Good Idea, but I wish the document would use the English language, rather than NASA-ese.

With 25 pages total, one extra page wouldn't harm anything and make it easier to read.

The ITP aligns the mitigations provided by a qualified additional pilot to the hazard level of early flight test. Once the AIT is accomplished, the advanced skill set for the additional pilot can be reduced for any BP who has personally performed, in the test aircraft, all items in the BPML, thus completing the ITP for that BP.

Becomes

The Initial Tests Package aligns the mitigations provided by a qualified additional pilot to the hazard level of the early flight tests. Once the Aircraft Initial Tests is accomplished, the advanced skill set for the additional pilot can be reduced by any Builder/Owner Pilot who has personally performed, in the test aircraft, all items in the Builder/Pilot Maneuvers List, thus completing the Initial Tests Package for that Builder/Owner Pilot.


If the new section with the acronyms spelled out doesn't read correctly (or easier), then it simply says a bit more editing is needed.

Thanks Gary and all that are working on this.
The collaboration that this effort represents is more amazing than most will ever realize.

James

jclark said:

Thanks Gary and all that are working on this.
The collaboration that this effort represents is more amazing than most will ever realize.

James

Click to expand...

I was really pleasantly surprised by how much effort Mark put into getting end-user input on this. I probably spent a good hour or more talking to him at Oshkosh last year, and even though I have nowhere near the flying experience that a lot of other guys do, he still listened sincerely to my concerns and ideas.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Two on board during phase I...

Well folks, I take my first week of vacation in years, and they publish the draft of the AC I worked on while I'm away. Typical government operation, right? Read only a few comments from the folks here on VAF about the document. I'll try to provide responses to those who take the time to post to the best of my ability.

I'll be presenting this program at OSH this year on Monday from 11:30-12:45 in Forum 10. Charlie Precourt will be up there with me. If you haven't met Charlie or heard what he has to say, hearing him alone is worth attending.

This will be a great opportunity for anyone looking to begin or is in the midst of Phase I, and also for those who want to be that 'additional' pilot.

The format of ACs is not very flexible, and so it's not always as simple to write it to read like a book or manual as one would wish. However, if you use the worksheets in the back (Appendix1) for structure and reference the body of the AC to help answer any of the questions you have it becomes a bit easier to understand.

Gil fairly points out some of the inflexibility, but if you understand the roles of each person, or imagine who they might be, it's easier to understand.

BP - That's the person who owns the aircraft and wants to bring along another better pilot.
QP - That's the hot shot pilot or "Qualified Pilot" who's got enough experience to provide real deal good help.
OP - That's very similar to an IFR safety pilot role. Can fly if need be, but mostly there to keep you from bumping into somebody while you're busy head-down or otherwise.

ITP - Initial Tests Package. These are the flight maneuvers and tests that need to be conducted by the aircraft and the owner (BP). Until these are completed, the only person allowed on board with the owner is the hot shot. After completion, you can take the hot shot (QP) or the safety-pilot-like person (OP).

When you get multiple owners for a single aircraft, it gets more complicated in the wording, but not in the process.
1. The aircraft needs its stuff tested to show it's safe.
2. If there are multiple owners for the bird, an individual pilot needs to be able do the private pilot 101 stuff to show they can handle the aircraft safely. Then the hot shot (QP) requirement can go away for that owner. The other owners still need the hot shot until they conduct the private pilot 101 stuff so they have the benefit of the QP too.

The presentation at OSH should help this, and EAA is promising some webinars on this stuff as well.

Bottom line, if I had to sum up the program in a sentence, it would be this:
The program provides a means such that no pilot should have to solo their aircraft until they are comfortable to do so.

Curious to get your thoughts on all of this...

Two Up

Mark Giron is one of the good guys at the FAA ? an RV-6 pilot lodged into a reasonably high-level position in the Washington HQ is a good thing to have! I have worked with Mark on the topic of two pilots in the cockpit for Phase 1 ever since he held a little meeting in Homebuilt Camping a couple of years ago, and we talked on the grass. Mark is a good listener, has a lot of aviation experience, and has enlisted the aid and counsel of a fair number of experts in flying and risk management in this effort. This is a solid piece of work, addresses some mighty complex issues, and is an indication that there are people in the FAA who actually DO want to work with the pilot community, not just dictate to it. If you pass up this opportunity to participate, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don?t like the outcome.

Now I will be blunt ? I think that having two people at risk where you only need one doesn?t pass the initial sniff test in any structured risk management program that I am aware of. However, the program laid out by this Advisory Circular is an attempt to address a directive from the NTSB, and to deal with an emotional (not a logical) l issue ? the desire of an inexperienced builder to be in the cockpit for the first flight of their homebuilt airplane. This is inherently not a logical problem, and therefore, pure logic won?t fully address it. There is a gray area between pure logic and emotion, because we are dealing with human beings. Statistically, there is a possibility that this program can reduce the total number of fatalities (which is not a big number to begin with) seen in Phase 1 testing by a small amount. Not as much as if the FAA dictated rigorous qualification standards for anyone that does test flying, but I don?t think very many people want them to resort to draconian restrictions.

I would advise folks who usually take things at surface appearances to delve very deeply into the Advisory Circular ? the program is not as simple as some might like. This is not a case of ?oh, the FAA is now allowing two people in the cockpit for Phase 1, let?s go fly!? It is much more rigorous that that ? there are requirements on what aircraft can be used, and on the experience levels of the ?Qualified Pilot?. There are also modifications to Ops Lims that will have to be made. This is STRUCTURED. Of course, those that have been violating the rules all along will violate these structures as well. This is a voluntary program ? if you want to continue doing things as they have always been, you can do that.

I?ll be honest - as a person who meets the standards of the ?Qualified Pilot? in most cases, I still doubt if I will ever serve in this capacity. As the old saying goes, ?Never say Never? ? but I will do everything I can to help a new builder/pilot understand that risk minimization dictates fewer people in the cockpit under almost all situations. I will educate, discuss, counsel and even pontificate ? I will do whatever I can to come up with the safest plan in a given situation for a given pilot. This AC is a wealth of information developed from many sources ? even if no one ever flies two-up in Phase 1, it is still a valuable resource for Flight Advisors looking for concrete information on risk management and what might be considered ?good qualifications? as a test pilot. Its good stuff.

I?d encourage everyone that I have talked with ? and those I haven?t ? on this topic to go to the web site and make your comments. This is our chance to influence the process. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we don?t.

Paul

Ironflight said:

This is a solid piece of work, addresses some mighty complex issues, and is an indication that there are people in the FAA who actually DO want to work with the pilot community, not just dictate to it. If you pass up this opportunity to participate, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don?t like the outcome...
I?d encourage everyone that I have talked with ? and those I haven?t ? on this topic to go to the web site and make your comments. This is our chance to influence the process. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we don?t.

Click to expand...

QFT... it's rare that an opportunity to get "inside the circle" and talk directly to the rulemakers presents itself. Take advantage of it when you can.



Now, my thoughts on the proposal itself (Disclaimer: I'm a ground test engineer with only a PPL and ~150 RV/200 total time)

First, I don't believe that the first flight or three is the time to have a second person on board. If the builder isn't comfortable doing the flights themselves, they shouldn't be doing them, period. I also don't believe that early Phase I is the time to be doing transition training. You have an airplane that is largely unproven and you don't need to add learning a completely new and wildly different airplane to that mix.

On the other hand, a "checkride" for a builder who is generally qualified but would still rather have someone show them the ideosyncracies of that particular airplane is arguably a little different. At least speaking for myself, I might be hesitant to just jump into someone else's RV and go flying without a flight or two with its owner to learn the little quirks of that airplane--though perhaps the bigger part of that could be not wanting to bend "someone else's airplane"?. Maybe guys with thousands of hours in lots of different airplanes feel differently, but not all (or even most?) homebuilders have that level of experience, or the resources (time, money, test pilot buddies) to wait out a full 40 hours before getting any stick time. It seems the QP proposal addresses this, though I still don't think the very first flight or two is the place for it.

The observer pilot provisions seem more reasonable to me, though I'd consider a bit more in the way of time on the airframe and some more "envelope expansion" type flights first. I know some people will still object that nobody should ever be on board before 40 hours for any reason, but consider that the entire E-LSA Phase I period is only what, 5 hours? And then anyone can go along? Granted, an E-LSA must be built exactly to plans, whereas a regular E-AB can have a lot of variation... but if we look at what the proposed AC applies to (recognized kits running manufacturer-recommended engines, and getting engine/fuel tests before first flight) it seems we're most of the way there. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow, after 10-15 hours or so and certain tasks completed, that a second pilot (who is current and better informed than a non-pilot passenger) be allowed on board to assist with lower-risk testing like autopilot calibration and testing, nav equipment checks, time-to-climb and cruise performance determination, etc. Four-way airspeed runs and fuel flow checks in cruise at Hour 29 just isn't the same risk level as accelerated stalls with aft CG at Hour 7. Come to think of it, maybe the blanket "40 hours and all intended maneuvers" isn't really the best specification for a test program... but that's another discussion for another time.



I do have a concern (as do others I've talked to about it) that this proposal could serve as some kind of steppingstone for the FAA to start piling on flight-test pilot qualifications for everyone flying in Phase I, or to restrict innovation and new concepts in favor of more standardized kits. Something like that could flat-out kill the homebuilding industry as we know it. I know that's not happening under this proposal, and I know Mark isn't looking to go down that road at all, but I'm not as... how to say it... trusting?... of those higher up the food chain. We enjoy a whole lot of freedom in the homebuilt world, and I don't want us to lose that.

Thanks for the initial responses. Keep them coming. I'll incorporate these concerns into my presentation at the forum Monday!

rmartingt said:

I do have a concern (as do others I've talked to about it) that this proposal could serve as some kind of steppingstone for the FAA to start piling on flight-test pilot qualifications for everyone flying in Phase I, or to restrict innovation and new concepts in favor of more standardized kits. Something like that could flat-out kill the homebuilding industry as we know it. I know that's not happening under this proposal, and I know Mark isn't looking to go down that road at all, but I'm not as... how to say it... trusting?... of those higher up the food chain. We enjoy a whole lot of freedom in the homebuilt world, and I don't want us to lose that.

Click to expand...

No concerns here, and no plans lurking in the ivory tower. When I studied the phase I accidents and their causes, it was clear that the pilot (along with the aircraft) was being tested during phase I. I don't want to lose the freedom of experimental flight, nor the pilot. Some of the things the VAF crowd enjoy, such as available transition training, just isn't available for other kits. We're working on making the LODA more friendly, too. Perhaps it will open up the way to more providers of training for other kits too. Clearly, training is a great first step.

The thought process I have is something along this line...
1. Fix the LODA to create more training providers (I am pushing for the ability to do things like obtaining endorsements and such through these providers).
2. Provide a means by which one can, with good intention and good help, fly a respectable phase I and accomplish all tasks to obtain good numbers for performance and understand the handling of the aircraft. The AC gives the flexibility to move a qualified individual in and out of the aircraft when you feel it would provide you benefit. Not necessarily the first flight, but not prohibiting it either.
3. A good phase I, means a good test plan. A good test plan is not judged by hours, but by completed tasks. So one could make a leap that says, complete the tasks and thus complete phase I. A good test plan is something I'll be talking to kit mfr's this year about, and other groups as well.

I'll be at the social too to try and field some questions and get some other ideas from the braintrust.

I am reading this document to make an informed comment. It is extensive. I see that the application must be made by someone with "standing" on behalf of the aircraft, and that there are many details of qualification for the QP, but can not see if Phase I pilot qualifications change otherwise.

One question: does it place any additional restrictions or requirements on the pilot in phase I that do not already exist?


Thanks

Test pilot

I read the AC but still have a question. Can the QP take the plane up for it's first test flight solo without the BP?
I agree minimal crew is best. To me, low time pilot with transition training, I don't feel qualified to be my own test pilot. I would prefer a qualified test pilot fly the first hour. Then we fix the issues and go up together till I'm comfortable. I read it to be BP solo or BP and QP. Did I misread?

wirejock said:

I read the AC but still have a question. Can the QP take the plane up for it's first test flight solo without the BP?
......

Click to expand...

That is no different from now... any person (with a PP cert. IIRC) can fly the 40 hours off solo.

If there is just one pilot, the existing rules apply... BP, QP and OP are not applicable.

BillL said:

One question: does it place any additional restrictions or requirements on the pilot in phase I that do not already exist?

Click to expand...

If using the program, you must be current (90 day passenger carrying, flight review kind of stuff spelled out in "7. Determining Applicant Eligibility") and qualified (category, class and endorsments as necessary for aircraft).

Basically, it doesn't really place any additional restrictions except perhaps 61.57(a) (the 90 day currency for passenger carrying). I hope this helps.

MeGiron said:

If using the program, you must be current (90 day passenger carrying, flight review kind of stuff spelled out in "7. Determining Applicant Eligibility") and qualified (category, class and endorsments as necessary for aircraft).

Basically, it doesn't really place any additional restrictions except perhaps 61.57(a) (the 90 day currency for passenger carrying). I hope this helps.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does, thanks for a quick response and for your efforts in protecting our safety balanced with our rights as pilots. I sent a "for" note/comment to Ms Rogers as I had no intelligent comments to the substance of the proposal.

wirejock said:

I read the AC but still have a question. Can the QP take the plane up for it's first test flight solo without the BP?
I agree minimal crew is best. To me, low time pilot with transition training, I don't feel qualified to be my own test pilot. I would prefer a qualified test pilot fly the first hour. Then we fix the issues and go up together till I'm comfortable. I read it to be BP solo or BP and QP. Did I misread?

Click to expand...

My understanding: The AC does not address or change solo flight during Phase 1. It only comes into play when a second pilot is desired during Phase 1.
The minimum qualifications for the second pilot (OP vs. QP) depend on what flight tasks the BP has (or hasn't) done.

az_gila said:

That is no different from now... any person (with a PP cert. IIRC) can fly the 40 hours off solo.

If there is just one pilot, the existing rules apply... BP, QP and OP are not applicable.

Click to expand...

This is correct. If one pilot is in the plane, the "existing rules" apply.

DGlaeser said:

My understanding: The AC does not address or change solo flight during Phase 1. It only comes into play when a second pilot is desired during Phase 1.
The minimum qualifications for the second pilot (OP vs. QP) depend on what flight tasks the BP has (or hasn't) done.

Click to expand...

Good understanding. But don't forget the AIRCRAFT also has a list of tests that must be completed (by anyone) and the BP must complete their list of maneuvers before the QP qualifications descend to the OP quals.

wirejock said:

I read the AC but still have a question. Can the QP take the plane up for it's first test flight solo without the BP?
I agree minimal crew is best. To me, low time pilot with transition training, I don't feel qualified to be my own test pilot. I would prefer a qualified test pilot fly the first hour. Then we fix the issues and go up together till I'm comfortable. I read it to be BP solo or BP and QP. Did I misread?

Click to expand...

The reality is anyone can take it up for the first flight (or flights) solo. Because of this, we don't call them the QP, but in fact, that's probably who would do it. Then you, the BP hop in with the QP and fly the bird till you're comfortable.

Test Pilot

MeGiron said:

The reality is anyone can take it up for the first flight (or flights) solo. Because of this, we don't call them the QP, but in fact, that's probably who would do it. Then you, the BP hop in with the QP and fly the bird till you're comfortable.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That's what I was hoping to hear.

YES ...

wirejock said:

I read the AC but still have a question. Can the QP take the plane up for it's first test flight solo without the BP?
I agree minimal crew is best. To me, low time pilot with transition training, I don't feel qualified to be my own test pilot. I would prefer a qualified test pilot fly the first hour. Then we fix the issues and go up together till I'm comfortable. I read it to be BP solo or BP and QP. Did I misread?

Click to expand...

Page 15 Scenario 2.
"Another pilot tests the aircraft ..."
".... though highly recommended, this pilot need not be a QP ..."

More comments
--------------

When I initially heard about this, I was one to "push back". Asking the question "What problem are we trying to solve?"

Over time as I realized more of what is happening in the "real world" and looked at the data, I became more open to the concept.

I still think that good use of the EAA Technical Advisor and Flight Advisor Programs along with good transition training would go a long way if everyone would use them.

As a result of this AC, I expect that there will be more "two pilot" flights during Phase I. I just hope that that everyone really takes to heart the spirit of what is being attempted here....

Do things that reduce risk.

I also suspect that many of the QP's will pass on having a second pilot on the first flight. Their call.

Where the MOST VALUE will come in (in my opinion) is after the first eight (8) hours and completion of the ITP. Hopefully this will lead to more in depth testing of the increasingly more complex systems that are being installed in our planes.

And if it leads to pilots who are more "at one with" their planes by Phase II and pilots who really feel at ease with their increasingly Advanced Cockpits, then this indeed will be a (very) good thing.

James

jclark said:

I still think that good use of the EAA Technical Advisor and Flight Advisor Programs along with good transition training would go a long way if everyone would use them.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

Thanks, James, for taking the time to provide feedback.

I often see as an instructor the reluctance of a student pilot to do stalls solo, but they'll work the pattern all day. I think I see this trend in flight test as well. The reluctance to explore the aircraft's envelope solo, but perhaps with a very experienced person on board they feel more comfortable doing so. These are the maneuvers that lead to Loss of Control (LOC) and my hope is that pilots will do better in this area as a result. Those first 8 hours are the ones you really NEED TO FOCUS ON-- 65% of all phase one accidents occur in the first 8 hours. 35% occur in the remaining 32. That's why we wanted to get good help in and get them in early.

I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?

VETE76 said:

I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.

Click to expand...

This is probably the most contested part of the new AC. I have been presented this scenario many times since we first started putting this idea into a usable document. Based on the hours and hours of discussion, debate, and conversation, my experience on this has shown the following.

1. Those who are very experienced pilots have no use for, or are strictly against having a second pilot in the aircraft during the first flight, and generally any flight thereafter.

2. Those who are inexperienced pilots have a strong desire to have a more experienced person to aid them in better understanding their aircraft. Most are willing to allow their experienced help to flight test the aircraft solo prior to hopping on board.

3. There is a concern that if those in group 2 are forced to solo the aircraft with success, they may never employ the help they really could use.

4. If you read and understand and talk through the program, you'll change your mind daily as to whether it's a good idea or not, but most of the concerns have been addressed through the program with statistics backing the decisions and a team of test pilots, aviation experts in the experimental homebuilt realm and public input guiding us to where we are today.

This AC, through the two matrices, ensures it is not about "taking your buddy flying". Your buddy would be very experienced in the test aircraft to the point that they would be considered a "Qualified Pilot", not just a passenger. The AC describes the need for crew resource management and determination of PIC.

Still, I see your point. The first thing I said when it all started was, "I can't see having two people in the aircraft on the first flight." I also fit squarely into #1 above. But I have spent two years working with everyone between #1 and #2. Now, I am comfortable with what is written, and the process.

VETE76 said:

can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any that I can think of.

Low time pilots...

Yes, bad things can happen in an aircraft. First flight or tenth flight. What is the probability of two experienced high-time pilots making a bad judgement call vs. a qualified pilot and a low time pilot? If I was the pilot in that plane, I'd probably be hearing the co-pilot scream "DON'T TURN BACK! LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD!" because there is a clear chain of command. And he/she would not give a darn about trying to save the plane.

With these changes, you can still have a single pilot do the first flight. In my case, that will probably not be me. Instead, an experienced pilot who does not have a lot of buy in for the aircraft. Every high time pilot know the priority: Skin, Tin and Ticket. In that order.

CC

VETE76 said:

I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?

Click to expand...

VETE76 said:

I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?

Click to expand...

I am sorry for your loss. But of course this was illegal then, and would still be illegal under this proposal.
The guy in the right seat is not supposed to be a passenger; he's supposed to be the more experienced pilot, who, with no emotional attachment to the airplane, would insist on not turning back without sufficient altitude.
This is a statistics game; the hope is that for every pair of pilots who die, three inexperienced solo pilots would be saved. Of course it will be very hard on the survivors of the unfortunate pair. Statistics and emotions don't mix well.

Mark, this post points out some real issues. One, people are willing to ignore the rules when they are black and white ("no passengers"). When the rules get complicated - and to some this a/c is complicated - they then feel they are free to do whatever they want. I predict you will see lots of second pilots on board who do not meet the listed qualifications, either because they don't understand them, or more likely because they are willing to bend, or totally ignore, the rules they do not like.

Would the new rules eventually create a new paragraph in the default Operating Limitations?

az_gila said:

Would the new rules eventually create a new paragraph in the default Operating Limitations?

Click to expand...

We will replace the current Op Limitation. We are working on a change to the Ops Limitations issued moving forward. It is going through FAA coordination right now as well. Here is the paragraph from the AC:

15. OPERATING LIMITATIONS.
a. Required Limitation. In order to utilize the APP, the operating limitations for the test aircraft need to reference this AC. The limitation that authorizes the use of the APP is worded as, or worded similarly to, the following:


b. Adding the APP Limitation. Those wishing to use the program but missing the above limitation may schedule an appointment with the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or other qualified FAA representative (e.g., Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR)) and request to have the aircraft operating limitations updated to those found in the current edition of FAA Order 8130.2.


Here is the plain language explanation...

Once the change is made to FAA docs and approved, when the DAR issues you your limitations, you'll be issued this:


If you already have your limitations, but want this one, you'll need to call the FSDO or DAR and have them ammend your limitations, which will then contain the above language.

This will allow you to operate under the program or "old school"...

You might note that not all DARs have the authority to "amend" operating limitations. To amend, a DAR must hold function code 33 plus the function code for the aircraft involved. i.e. function code 46 for E-AB and function code 47 for E-LSA.

VETE76 said:

I guess that nobody who agrees with a second person in a planes 1st flight has ever stood at the end of a runway and watch your friend take off on his 1st flight with his best friend as copilot and at the end of the runway the engine quits, he try's to turn back, snaps and spins in right in front of you killing BOTH instantly! what are we supposed to tell the cp's wife and family, "he had to be in the airplane with the pilot!" I don't think so. the main pilot was a B52 pilot, lots of experience.
thanks. i had to get it off my chest.
can anyone tell me a model # of a home built that absolutely requires a second person?

Click to expand...

The event described above goes far beyond that. The PIC was the Chapter President and also chapter safety officer. He was a lot more than a B52 Pilot. He held all CFI Certificates and owned and flew a high performance single engine aircraft.
The bad day started out with a circus like environment, a big party celebrating the first flight. At least one qualified person asked the PIC if he had adequate fuel. He responded affirmatively, but in fact the tanks were nearly empty.
Probably the worst part is that there were several highly qualified people who should have stopped the PIC from taking a passenger.
The one thing that I do not know for certain, but only suspect, is the lack of qualification/currency for the "copilot".
If the person(s) who asked about the fuel had simply said "slow down, I want you to prove to me you have adequate fuel", the accident never would have happened.
Also this accident proves that the tech counselors and flight advisors do not always get the job done.

Ironflight said:

Now I will be blunt ? I think that having two people at risk where you only need one doesn?t pass the initial sniff test in any structured risk management program that I am aware of. However, the program laid out by this Advisory Circular is an attempt to address a directive from the NTSB, and to deal with an emotional (not a logical) l issue ? the desire of an inexperienced builder to be in the cockpit for the first flight of their homebuilt airplane.

Click to expand...

I haven't taken the time to read all the posts/comments in the thread, but I feel that Paul hits it dead on with his.
I have very mixed emotions about this proposal... But I need to read it in detail before commenting further.

New to home built planes (recently started an RV8). I've been testing for two years (1st year was school). I grew up single seat, and had no use for baggage in the rear. One of the main reasons I wanted to be single seat was to not put someone else at risk. When learning to test I realized the benefit of good flight test engineer in the back seat. Not only was my data better, I was much more efficient, and would say probably safer. If test maneuvers were going to be dangerous I would task the FTE with monitoring critical safety of flight parameters (usually one, no more than two). While I would feel comfortable testing alone (as I do it now, sort of, there is a control room); I'd much rather have someone else in the plane to help record data, measure data, and monitor safety of flight parameters. I realize we all have out own level of proficiency, upbringing, and abilities; and this rule might not be suit everyone. But the decision for me to include someone would not be emotional; perhaps I am in the minority and not experienced enough with homebuilts. I am not even sure what is involved in the Phase 1, but looking forward to as I do really enjoy testing (and that means I'll have something of my own to fly).

Spoke to Mark. He listened to me, took notes and explained where he was coming from. I gave him my number and volunteered myself for any additional questions/issues he has.

Thanks Mark.

Also, thanks to those who PMed me expressing their thanks for my original post.

AX-O said:

-i am not convince that adding an additional pilot will reduce the amount of fatalities. If you can reduce 50% of the 6 phase I fatalities shown on the document (3 loc and 3 other, power plant not counted), you save 3 lives. But what happens to the other 3 aircraft that had fatalities? They had additional aircrew, 3. That brings the number back to 6.
.

Click to expand...

What if the other three were alone? With my limited experience I figured two would be safer than one. I realize with one crash, it will now double the body count. I would think the controls they are trying to implement (with someone experienced as the 2nd pilot) that would help lower the risk.

Not quite double the body count...

I believe adding a second, experience pilot does not just double the body count in the case of engine out, but rather limits the incorrect response of an engine-out incident. An engine out event does not have to be fatal. Follow training, screw the hardware, land parallel to the ground and fly the plane as far into the crash as possible. The slow landing speed of these planes should be very survivable. A second pilot might prevent spin/stall more than half the time.

But what happens to the other 3 aircraft that had fatalities? They had additional aircrew, 3. That brings the number back to 6.

Click to expand...

AX-O said:

....
-i am not convince that adding an additional pilot will reduce the amount of fatalities. If you can reduce 50% of the 6 phase I fatalities shown on the document (3 loc and 3 other, power plant not counted), you save 3 lives. But what happens to the other 3 aircraft that had fatalities? They had additional aircrew, 3. That brings the number back to 6.
......

Click to expand...

Bad assumptions at work here.

You have just assumed that every flight under the new rules will have two occupants.

I very much doubt that solo flight testing will cease to exist under the new proposals.

You might need to put your "aerospace engineer" hat on and not a "worse case scenario" flight test hat.

Thanks Ax-O

I had a good talk with Axel on Friday afternoon. Clearly a guy who understands the balance between safety and risk and its application in the E-AB world. The take-aways from the conversation were excellent. That being said for everyone, the phone lines are always open if there's something you want to talk about regarding this AC, or PM me if you don't want a public post. I'll be at OSH and the social too so don't be shy Don't think that's a problem with this crowd though...

Just beginning to read the posts here. I share the same opinion as Paul D. My additional initial reaction is this...

Currently, pilots preparing to perform Phase I testing have more of a challenge to meet their insurance company's experience requirements than they do the FAA's. Seems to me that if you made the BP experience requirement to do Phase I testing more similar to what is proposed to be required for a QP pilot, with obvious less requirements, there wouldn't be a need for an Add'l Pilot A.C.

Part 61 could be modified to provide a PIC exclusion for Phase I testing if the Certificated Pilot doesn't meet the experience requirements listed in a matrix similar to the one for the QP.

You could also modify the Non-Commercial operation limitation for an experimental to allow for dual flight instruction to a Certificated Pilot for preparation for Phase I testing. (no extra ratings or endorsements).

apkp777 said:

Just beginning to read the posts here. I share the same opinion as Paul D. My additional initial reaction is this...

Currently, pilots preparing to perform Phase I testing have more of a challenge to meet their insurance company's experience requirements than they do the FAA's. Seems to me that if you made the BP experience requirement to do Phase I testing more similar to what is proposed to be required for a QP pilot, with obvious less requirements, there wouldn't be a need for an Add'l Pilot A.C.

Part 61 could be modified to provide a PIC exclusion for Phase I testing if the Certificated Pilot doesn't meet the experience requirements listed in a matrix similar to the one for the QP.

Click to expand...

I really don't think we want to be going down the road of the FAA setting a minimum bar. It's one thing for insurance to set a requirement for coverage, or to encourage people to get training and experience, but we need to think long and hard before we start calling for federal restrictions on ourselves. Once we do so, it will never go away.

Besides, what would you set as the minimum qualifications? Is total time more important, or time in type? Is a guy with 1000 hours in Cessnas, or 10,000 in big jets, but only a couple of hours' transition training safer/more qualified than a guy with only 250 hours but 200 of those in an RV (or whatever other aircraft is being tested)? Again, this is something I'm wary of setting in legal stone, because then it becomes absolutely inflexible and nearly impossible to change if we figure out we don't really like it.

You could also modify the Non-Commercial operation limitation for an experimental to allow for dual flight instruction to a Certificated Pilot for preparation for Phase I testing. (no extra ratings or endorsements).

Click to expand...

Isn't that what the LODA process is already there for? Or do you mean something else?

Some questions answered...

I have had a few questions as to where the worksheets for determining the QP and OP should reside. People would like to confirm that they should be kept in the aircraft maintenance log. His question arises from the fact that AC 90-89 only makes a vague reference to a flight test plan. It does not mention anything about recording the results, just about ending up with a custom POH.

Click to expand...

Yes, the airframe logbook is correct. We put it in the airframe log to make it a "one-stop shop" whose records would travel with the aircraft, unlike the pilot logbook. The only pilot logbook entry is the "my QP was John Doe" entry similar to IFR safety pilot. We also require the aircraft tests mentioned in the new AC to be documented in the maintenance log so that you can show compliance with the requirement of this particular AC.

I just had my aircraft signed off by FAA MIDO Inspector, and they said that all of the forty hours needed to be recorded in the aircraft mx log. This would show that the time and maneuvers had been completed. I had never seen this noted anywhere.

Click to expand...

This is not in any of the Order's operating limitations nor in the regulations. Perhaps the inspector gave you an addition limitation, though I doubt it. The FSDO inspectors may not be very familiar with E-AB, so you get some misunderstandings like you may have here, in this case. The only logbook entries required are those listed in the ops limitations or regulations. I tested this at vx __ vy___ weight___ and loops, rolls, etc. There would be an airframe time recorded with the entry so perhaps that was what they were referring to, though it doesn't really sound that way. Make sense? Ultimately, you'd have to ask the inspector where his requirement is...and some don't find questioning inspectors always, how shall I put it... "helpful". Tact is key, I would say. We're all human.

ONE LAST THING ON RISK

Lastly, the reason for the QP AND the Aircraft Testing Requirements is this...in approximate numbers. 1/3 are powerplant related. 2/3 are Loss of control (LOC) or similarly related. Very few are aircraft falling apart related. What the FAA tries to do in this case is mitigate risk and balance the freedom of being an experiment. How do we mitigate powerplant problems? Require (only for this AC) our testing to be done (fuel flow, compression, etc.). What this does is provide the QP and BP with an engine that is tested to a reasonable standard. If we all but eliminate the 1/3 of powerplant problems, the QP is only asked to mitigate LOC. This should be the QP's wheelhouse. And that's why the requirements and matrices are aimed in that direction.

I hope this helps...

MeGiron said:

......

Lastly, the reason for the QP AND the Aircraft Testing Requirements is this...in approximate numbers. 1/3 are powerplant related. 2/3 are Loss of control (LOC) or similarly related. Very few are aircraft falling apart related. What the FAA tries to do in this case is mitigate risk and balance the freedom of being an experiment. How do we mitigate powerplant problems? Require (only for this AC) our testing to be done (fuel flow, compression, etc.). What this does is provide the QP and BP with an engine that is tested to a reasonable standard. If we all but eliminate the 1/3 of powerplant problems, the QP is only asked to mitigate LOC. This should be the QP's wheelhouse. And that's why the requirements and matrices are aimed in that direction.

I hope this helps...

Click to expand...

If the tests you mention really do remove the 1/3 accidents that are power related - which seems reasonable - then they really should be added as a requirement (not an AC suggestion) to the Operating Limitations.

Why make initial flights powerplant mechanically safer for two pilot occupancy over one pilot occupancy?

az_gila said:

Why make initial flights powerplant mechanically safer for two pilot occupancy over one pilot occupancy?

Click to expand...

That's also what I was thinking. And then I thought, "People go out and fly a plane with a powerplant they haven't yet put through the paces test-wise?" In my mind, compression and fuel flow checks are part of knowing whether the engine is ready to go up in the air (or not).

greghughespdx said:

That's also what I was thinking. And then I thought, "People go out and fly a plane with a powerplant they haven't yet put through the paces test-wise?" In my mind, compression and fuel flow checks are part of knowing whether the engine is ready to go up in the air (or not).

Click to expand...

It's great to hear that people think in terms of minimizing their first flight risks by doing the recommended ground tests of powerplant sna fuels systems. The FAA has advised these tests in AC 90-89A for years. Some folks do them some don't.
As much as I am a proponent of risk management, I am also a believer that those who practice it will, and those don't practice it are unlikely to do so - even if the regs require it.

I am not a fan of excessive regulation, and figure that there are some people you will simply never reach- so why put a burden on those who will do the right thing anyway?

The new Additional Pilot Program is voluntary - a good example of how we can reach a compromise between regulation and education.

Changed my mind

Ironflight said:

As much as I am a proponent of risk management, I am also a believer that those who practice it will, and those don't practice it are unlikely to do so - even if the regs require it.

I am not a fan of excessive regulation, and figure that there are some people you will simply never reach- so why put a burden on those who will do the right thing anyway?

n.

Click to expand...

I feel sick. Last night I read the NTSB probable cause for N499RV's accident - an improperly installed fuel injector, that took 20 hours to show up. This is a textbook example of why the current rule exists; there should have been one life at risk. But in fact there were two serious injuries. What was the second pilot doing on board? "Familiarization training" he told the NTSB. He had zero E-AB experience. The report suggests that pilot #2 was clueless about the illegal nature of the flight. Sadly, this thread contains other examples.

Mark, I know you have worked hard on this proposal. But by changing a black and white rule ("one person on board") to something gray ("Well, sometimes a second person can be on board") this rule will encourage more 'bending' of the rules. There will be more accidents where the second person was really just a passenger, along for the ride, and the unintended consequence is that the overall casualty rate will go up, not down. Unless - and I really hate to say this, but I will - unless you find a way to put some enforcement teeth into the rules, and strongly 'encourage' pilots to stop making up their own rules, I fear these changes are doomed to fail at reducing the casualty rate.

I don't normally get into politics on the internet, but my feelings on this proposal is exactly in line with what Bob says.
I have no problem with the rules as they are now.

Mel said:

I don't normally get into politics on the internet, but my feelings on this proposal is exactly in line with what Bob says.
I have no problem with the rules as they are now.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. There is nothing about 99% of the current homebuilt fleet that makes a second crew member advisable. For that other 1%, the DAR should have the latitude to grant the owner's request for a second pilot within very limited parameters and for specific tasks which cannot be accomplished with a single pilot.

BobTurner said:

But by changing a black and white rule ("one person on board") to something gray ("Well, sometimes a second person can be on board") this rule will encourage more 'bending' of the rules. There will be more accidents where the second person was really just a passenger, along for the ride, and the unintended consequence is that the overall casualty rate will go up, not down. Unless - and I really hate to say this, but I will - unless you find a way to put some enforcement teeth into the rules, and strongly 'encourage' pilots to stop making up their own rules, I fear these changes are doomed to fail at reducing the casualty rate.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of effort put into making sure there is no 'gray' area as you describe. Here's how:


The hook here is 14 CFR ? 91.9, which says in pertinant part that no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry. (those being your operating limitations issued with your airworthiness certificate)

The argument for or against the program has been hashed out in fine detail for over a year and a half with many, many organizations, individuals and aviation professionals providing input, and ultimately encouraged by the end result. The program is NOT for everybody, and thus, why it is optional. However, I urge you all to keep in mind that the RV community is large and widespread. Training is available, though not as widespread as many would like. For the remainder of the amateur-built fleet, this is not the case. I believe we can all agree that Phase I flight test is serious business, and not to be taken lightly. With the majority of the accidents during all phases of flight being loss of control related, the pilots are not doing as well as they could. Lack of experience in aircraft with similar performance and handling is often to blame. This program provides the ability to construct a flight test plan with a trusted qualified individual to establish experience in the aircraft. Ideally it would begin with transition training in another aircraft prior to flight test. The key is to understand that these aircraft are not always being flown by professional test pilots, nor are they being flown by high time, high experience individuals. Those who meet the last statement will never see the need for this program. Keep in mind, even if the aircraft was flown by a hired pro test pilot for all of phase I, when the owner sits in the aircraft for the first time, they are still confronted with mitigating loss of control. The program requires that the maneuvers done on a typical private pilot checkride are those that must be conducted by the owner during phase I using the program. The idea being achieving a two-pronged outcome: good airplane, good pilot. The overarching idea is this: you should never have to solo any aircraft until you are confident and prepared to do so. The original phase I limitation never provided a means to achieve this.

Lastly, I really do appreciate every response. I want to make sure that we've considered all sides of the debate. To date, I can say that we have. I also hope, though brief, the responses help provide understanding.

Aside from the one pilot/two pilot question for Phase 1, I have some questions.

How many Phase 1 accidents are a result of structural failure or failure of a flight control system as opposed to loss of power, CFIT, stall/spin, etc. My guess is that structural failures or failures of a flight control system in any of the mainstream kits is very, very low.

I'm not sure that loss of power should equal injuries or fatalities in or out of Phase 1. Simplistically, I know, day, VFR, uncongested area, pick a spot for your glider and land. I personally only know of three loss of power accidents with no fatalities and only one with injuries.

CFIT and stall/spin are not Phase related issues but could be mitigated with another experienced pilot.

Here is an excellent study with a lot of charts and figures that can be skimmed and/or read to get a real feel for approximate numbers. The study was conducted by the NTSB back in 2011, and is the best hi-fi data we have to date. I looked at a data from 2001 to current day during our study, and found that it correlated very well...nearly identical in that data that was tracked.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/SS1201.pdf

Our local guru Will Fox just posted an article on First flights that might be an interesting read. Will is our TC, FA and CFII.

http://eaa691.net/images/technotes/First%20Flight%20Aug%202014.pdf

Bob
EAA Chapter 691: http://eaa691.net FB: http://www.facebook.com/eaa691