What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Phase 1 testing according to AC 90-116 (two pilot testing)

Triumph1974

Well Known Member
I have been trying to find some current info and obtain feedback about utilizing the AC 90-116 approach for phase 1 testing as I am getting very close to finishing the RV7A project.

Can those of you have had direct experience in being a QP, or a BP comment as to your experience following this testing path for phase 1 testing? I asked a potential DAR about this program, but he did not seem very receptive to the idea...

Thanks,
Paul
 
This is not directly related to your question, but I helped a buddy first flight his LongEZ some years ago. He was solo in the EZ, and I was right seat in the Mooney chase plane. The Mooney pilot was responsible for the Mooney and for traffic for both planes. I had a copy of the test cards and asked questions at the appropriate times, once reminding the pilot to check oil temperature and he had not yet noticed it was high.

And if your plane has records umpty gazillion parameters like the G3X Touch does, you won't need somebody to write down parameters for you.

Best,

Ed
 
We used the APP for the Phase 1 on our Dream Tundra last year, and it worked out well for data gathering missions. Airplanes that meet the requirements are pretty well known quantities, having been built to plans, with engines recommended by the manufacturer, from established kits. Yet I am still not comfortable putting two people in an airplane for a first flight because even trivial changes have gotcha's that might not reveal themselves until you're airborne. Other's disagree with this, and the APP does allow first flights with two onboard - you'll have to make your own risk decision, and you have the freedom to do that.

It turned out that our partner in the Tundra, the man who started the project eight year's earlier, did not meet the insurance requirements to fly it as PIC, so the APP gave him a chance to be a part of the program once I was happy that we'd accumulated enough hours that the potential "big surprises" were past. We did run in to some interesting issues in checking out a local instructor who was also going to be a part of the program, because the insurance required that he have five solo hours before he could take anyone else up, but he didn't meet the requirements as QP. No problem, I figured, I'd be QP for his checkout flight - but since he had no financial stake in the airplane, he didn't qualify as BP! A funny little loophole that made him do his first flight solo. How does THAT contribute to safety? (I wasn't worried, he owns a similar spam can, and has plenty of time.)

Read the APP very, very carefully, use all of the worksheets, and make sure that you have all the i's dotted and T's crossed, in case something happens. It is easy to acccidently color outside the lines. There is paperwork to be done, and logs to be filled out - ground tests that must be documented. Then take advantage of it to fly safely - or at least with lower risk.

Paul
 
Yeah, I read through the EAA articles about the program when it was 1st implemented. If you built a nearly certified factory stock a/c, and you're perfectly qualified, no problem using a 2nd pilot. On the other hand, if you have something like an alternative engine controller that might need in-flight tuning, you can't use a 2nd pilot.

Hopefully, the FAA will make the program actually useful at some point.
 
I plan on using a second pilot during the later part of the 40 hrs.

An experienced RV pilot is more useful, and safer, than strapping weights in the passenger seat to test and calibrate gross weight performance. :)

As Ironflight said, the paperwork needs to be straight, but the ground tests required all make sense for any new plane before first flight.
 
I've done a number of them now, and it is clearly safer than having a non-experienced pilot take to the skies on his/her own. With today's EFIS's and engine monitoring systems there are so many chances to get distracted with unnecessary warnings/bells. etc. We have already seen it way too many times on this forum with someone getting fatally injured due to a distraction.

Nine thousand flying RV's kind of prove they are a joy to fly and if built to the plans don't have any adverse flight characteristics. It's the distractions at the most inopportune time that will bite you. It's a really good idea to have an experienced person on board who can calmly handle the distractions while you fly the airplane.

Vic
 
I've done a number of them now, and it is clearly safer than having a non-experienced pilot take to the skies on his/her own. With today's EFIS's and engine monitoring systems there are so many chances to get distracted with unnecessary warnings/bells. etc. We have already seen it way too many times on this forum with someone getting fatally injured due to a distraction.

Along those lines, a statistic I've seen is that about a third of homebuilts involved in accidents these days have glass cockpits. And as an old user interface designer, and having worked my way up a hefty learning curve with little assistance, I can understand why.

One concept that needs to come to fruition is to have experimental avionics training available in the same way that experimental airframe training is available with an LODA. Hey, I can teach people to use a Garmin G3X touch system in my RV-9A and that will be valuable to them in whatever they fly, RV or not, even if they never touch the flight controls of the -9A. But as often happens, the rules haven't yet caught up with the new reality.

Meantime, I can give ground instruction on the G3X and not worry about insurance... hook up the ground power and roll the plane out of the hangar.

Ed
 
I was QP on a buddies RV7

My friend built a beautiful RV7 and was a little nervous about the first flight. We had been flying my 6 getting him used to the RV. It worked out perfectly for him and I would do it again. I've done four first flights now, one as a QP and it can be daunting for a new pilot in a new plane. In my opinion having that Qualified Pilot aboard makes a big difference.
 
And that raises an interesting (rhetorical) question. If the first flight is daunting, does that imply that the pilot is really not prepared or otherwise not qualified to make the first flight?

I'm working (as a CFI, because Flight Advisors do not give dual) with a man who wants to make the first flight in his new homebuilt, and when we're done, he will be fully prepared. The curriculum includes high proficiency in his present plane; proficiency with left hand stick in a different plane; glider training for light controls and rudders; and then going to the factory for their checkout. He will be fully prepared! He has a great attitude and gladly accepts the challenges of getting his skill levels where they need to safely and enjoyably accomplish the first flight.

Ed
 
Last edited:
I was the first known participant in the program.

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-10-09-teaming-up-for-safety

I didn't bring anyone along until after the first 8 hours.

After that, I leaned on the knowledge of my peers for coming up to speed on the advanced functions of the G3X system like the GTN 650 and autopilot.

Your needs might be different. It is a GREAT program! As I recall, it is standard language in the OPLIMS (can someone confirm?) now. Your DAR might not have an option to include or exclude it. It is just a matter of your compliance with it... ie. aircraft equipment and pilot qualifications.

Have fun testing!

:) CJ
 
No quite the first.

I was the first known participant in the program.
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-10-09-teaming-up-for-safety
I didn't bring anyone along until after the first 8 hours.
After that, I leaned on the knowledge of my peers for coming up to speed on the advanced functions of the G3X system like the GTN 650 and autopilot.
Your needs might be different. It is a GREAT program! As I recall, it is standard language in the OPLIMS (can someone confirm?) now. Your DAR might not have an option to include or exclude it. It is just a matter of your compliance with it... ie. aircraft equipment and pilot qualifications.
Have fun testing!
:) CJ

Actually, I issued an airworthiness certificate to an RV-9, N369RV, on October 4, 2014 with the inclusion of AC 91-116.
 
Good info

Thanks guys for the feedback on your experience with the program, and the glass cockpit comments (which is what i have...skyview). Looking forward to updating you all in a few months when we are ready to start testing.

I wonder if the Faa has published test stats on two pilot testing vs. the traditional approach.....or if there is enough data at this point to do a sampling.

So it does sound like the Dar needs to signs you off with the ac 90-116 then.....so need to find a DAR that is open to this appoach to
Flight testing phase 1.

Paul
 
So it does sound like the Dar needs to signs you off with the ac 90-116 then.....so need to find a DAR that is open to this appoach to
Flight testing phase 1.

Paul

Mel or Vic can confirm, but I think it is automatically included in the Ops Lims these days. It was when we did our Tundra about a year ago with the FSDO inspector - he was surprised when I pointed it out, because he didn't know about the APP.....

Paul
 
Yes!

Mel or Vic can confirm, but I think it is automatically included in the Ops Lims these days. It was when we did our Tundra about a year ago with the FSDO inspector - he was surprised when I pointed it out, because he didn't know about the APP.....
Paul

That paragraph is standard in all experimental amateur-built operating limitations issued since it became effective in October of 2014.

"Unless operating in accordance with AC 90-116, Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test, only the minimum crew necessary to fly the aircraft during normal operations may be on board. (36)"
 
Along those lines, a statistic I've seen is that about a third of homebuilts involved in accidents these days have glass cockpits. And as an old user interface designer, and having worked my way up a hefty learning curve with little assistance, I can understand why.

One concept that needs to come to fruition is to have experimental avionics training available in the same way that experimental airframe training is available with an LODA. Hey, I can teach people to use a Garmin G3X touch system in my RV-9A and that will be valuable to them in whatever they fly, RV or not, even if they never touch the flight controls of the -9A. But as often happens, the rules haven't yet caught up with the new reality.

Meantime, I can give ground instruction on the G3X and not worry about insurance... hook up the ground power and roll the plane out of the hangar.

Ed

Yes, play with the EFIS incessantly and familiarize yourself with it on the ground. Also, declutter it as much as possible for the first flights...you can add more info later.
 
Watch for my column in the upcoming June issue of KP by yours truly on how to prepare yourself for distractions on first flights. Hopefully , you will find it of value, and certainly pertinent to this discussion. :)

Vic
 
Watch for my column in the upcoming June issue of KP by yours truly on how to prepare yourself for distractions on first flights. Hopefully , you will find it of value, and certainly pertinent to this discussion. :)

Vic
The picture alone is worth the price of the magazine!;)
 
Actually, I issued an airworthiness certificate to an RV-9, N369RV, on October 4, 2014 with the inclusion of AC 91-116.
Mel, I guess that you were the first UNKNOWN issuance then!

Lol

Seriously, I was wondering if I were really the first.

:) CJ
 
... statistic I've seen is that about a third of homebuilts involved in accidents these days have glass cockpits. ..... Ed

Put another way, 2/3 have round gauges. This statistic alone suggests glass cockpits are better. .... But of course it's also true that 100% of people who ate pickles in 1865 (at the end of the American civil war) have died, so avoid eating pickles at all cost.
 
Along those lines, a statistic I've seen is that about a third of homebuilts involved in accidents these days have glass cockpits. And as an old user interface designer, and having worked my way up a hefty learning curve with little assistance, I can understand why.

That statistic alone is meaningless, just like the one that came out a while ago that said certified aircraft with glass have a higher accident rate. It's like saying "the majority of airplanes involved in crashes have propellers" and thereby concluding that propellers are a causative factor in those accidents. There are a bunch of other things that could be at play--type of aircraft and use of aircraft (VFR vs IFR) for instance--and what matters is if the accident cause has anything to do with the glass at all. Comparing the accident rates of high-performance airplanes flying actual IFR to steam-equipped day VFR trainers and fun flyers would be a red herring.
 
To raise an old topic:

I've read AC90-116 thoroughly, but it doesn't answer one question.

Is the observer pilot required to log their pilot function time in their pilot log book?

My interest is mainly from the point of view of them meeting insurance requirements to act as pilot in command after having gained experience as observer pilot.

The AC only specifies that the builder-pilot notes details of utilizing an observer pilot in their log book.
 
One can log (or not) anything at all. The better question is whether an observer pilot having logged those flights during which he served as observer can expect those hours to apply toward meeting future insurance requirements.

Given that he's not acting as PIC or even SIC (not a required crew member, but merely a permitted one), my suspicion is that the insurance companies won't give any weight toward "experience" gained as an observer. That said, the only useful answer will come from the insurance agent involved.
 
It seems a little bit of a grey area.

They have a pilot function for which they must be qualified.

A safety pilot on a simulated IMC flight can legitimately log the time in that function as PIC and the situation is analogous in some respects (i.e they must be qualified to act as PIC and are declered in the pilot's log).
 
free advice...that I even followed for my new to me RV

I have worked with several RV folks with glass earn their IFR rating / currency in their plane. De-cluttering your screens WILL make you fly better.

New to you airplane or avionics:

Needle ball airspeed. Look out the window. Try to get transition training. Especially pattern work. Learn "the box" later with someone else on board to watch for traffic and those "what's it doin now" times.

I have watched all of these and needed to intervene:

slow airspeed (forgot to add throttle in climb)
near miss with non xponder aircraft
blown through courses / altitudes
penetrated controlled airspace

These are very good pilots too. Its just too much going on in the cockpit. Especially when you're new to the plane and or the avionics.

In the airline world you go through procedurial trainers before you even enter the Sim let alone the real airplane. I wish we had those same tools for EAB phase one.

So...for now we have to stack the deck in our favor with what we do have. Fly the plane and incrementally add cockpit tasks. Again... I believe having someone else with you helps this process.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top