Frank N821BF
Active Member
Did anyone find out what may have happened to his RV10? Was/is there something that other 10's should be looking at?
Thanks
Frank
N821BF 9A D95
Thanks
Frank
N821BF 9A D95
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Dan Lloyd and his RV-10
- Thread starter Frank N821BF
- Start date
bsacks05
Well Known Member
There was a long and interesting posting that showed up here briefly but was then removed. It was from the SoCal Yahoo users, I believe, and it cannot be accessed except through membership in that group.
It is not an official report but did bring up some interesting points. I won't go into the substance of what I read here.
However, I agree that if it turns out that there is a problem with the -10 airframe, then it should be made public ASAP.
It is not an official report but did bring up some interesting points. I won't go into the substance of what I read here.
However, I agree that if it turns out that there is a problem with the -10 airframe, then it should be made public ASAP.
kentb
Well Known Member
I beleive that I read what Bruce is refering to.
I was a very speculative report on the circumstance around the accident and didn't suggest anything was wrong with the RV10 airframe and design.
I think we will have to wait until all the investigation is through to know what really happened.
Keep building,
Kent
I was a very speculative report on the circumstance around the accident and didn't suggest anything was wrong with the RV10 airframe and design.
I think we will have to wait until all the investigation is through to know what really happened.
Keep building,
Kent
brianwallis
VAF moderator
HMMM.....
I did hear some rumors...but nothing about the airframe... I'm going to keep my mouth shut and wait untill everything is complete... and then I'll still keep my mouth shut..(dont want to step on any toes).. there are multiple sides to every story I guess... Although I did hear Dan was very supportive of the Egg powerplant and talked about it all the time... he will be missed.... I hope he had life insurance. I saw the accident pic and my heart fell into my stomach... I cannot imagine the amount of force to make that airframe look like that. I hate to suggest it... but maybe Vans could take the airframe and use it for research. From what the witnesses said on the news, it seemed to be a powerplant failure. I dont believe anybody saw anything leave the airplane. He seemed to be one excellent source of information and very helpful. He will be greatly missed.
Best you guys... be safe...
I did hear some rumors...but nothing about the airframe... I'm going to keep my mouth shut and wait untill everything is complete... and then I'll still keep my mouth shut..(dont want to step on any toes).. there are multiple sides to every story I guess... Although I did hear Dan was very supportive of the Egg powerplant and talked about it all the time... he will be missed.... I hope he had life insurance. I saw the accident pic and my heart fell into my stomach... I cannot imagine the amount of force to make that airframe look like that. I hate to suggest it... but maybe Vans could take the airframe and use it for research. From what the witnesses said on the news, it seemed to be a powerplant failure. I dont believe anybody saw anything leave the airplane. He seemed to be one excellent source of information and very helpful. He will be greatly missed.
Best you guys... be safe...
bsacks05
Well Known Member
I'm sure it was removed due to its speculative nature and the fact that it was probably not meant for general release anyway. It was written by someone who had some unique insight into the plane and pilot.
There is little doubt in my mind that it will resurface again.....after a considerable amount of time has passed, that is.
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
If it's the one I'm thinking of - the one from Tim Olson (who may be THE voice of the RV-10 community; he's not some piker) - the bigger meaning was a warning to homebuilders about racing to get things done.
I see Tim now has it hidden behind a registration screen. Too bad.
These are important lessons and I hate the thought that because someone determined it speculation (it wasn't, it was what Tim knew, not what he thought), that someone here who could benefit from the wise advice would go without.
I give great credit to moderators, not only here but on other boards too. I would just like to GENTLY suggest caution on removing such important messages.
KirkGrovesRV8
Well Known Member
Well said Bob
I read the same report(Tims) and agree that I do not believe it was hearsay,
I read the same report(Tims) and agree that I do not believe it was hearsay,
I was the one who deleted it. Communicating with Tim later I found out he would like it to remain a little more private for the time being and I absolutely respect his wishes (he didn't post it here...someone else did).
When the NTSB issues the final report I'm sure it will find its way here, and that would be certainly appropriate.
b,
dr
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
Yeah, I figured since Tim locked it down that he wasn't too happy it was being discussed.
Still, though, it certainly was a glassful of cold water in my face on the subject.
I wonder how much the NTSB will delve into this idea, though, of improper flight testing (or no flight testing at all). Part of me kinda hopes they don't go in that direction and give the regulators a reason to clamp down on us.
This crash really presents a particularly difficult problem for the RV community as a whole. Other than, perhaps, Bill Benedict, I can't think of a person who's perished who was so engaged in the RV community as Dan was. I know for me, personally, I'm having a hard time -- dispassionately -- assessing the facts in the case. I'm not entirely sure 6 months is going to clear that up for me.
Still, though, it certainly was a glassful of cold water in my face on the subject.
I wonder how much the NTSB will delve into this idea, though, of improper flight testing (or no flight testing at all). Part of me kinda hopes they don't go in that direction and give the regulators a reason to clamp down on us.
This crash really presents a particularly difficult problem for the RV community as a whole. Other than, perhaps, Bill Benedict, I can't think of a person who's perished who was so engaged in the RV community as Dan was. I know for me, personally, I'm having a hard time -- dispassionately -- assessing the facts in the case. I'm not entirely sure 6 months is going to clear that up for me.
Last edited:
Geico266
Well Known Member
Seems to me that information like this should be openly shared. If there is a suspected failure we should know about it. If it was pilot error we should know about it. I did not have the honor of knowing Dan, but my guess is he would have wanted all information about this accident made pubic as it is known, when it is known, for the sake of all of us who fly RVs.
Just my $.02 worth.
Just my $.02 worth.
Kevin Horton
Well Known Member
The posting described a low time pilot, with no high performance time, rushing to "fly off the time" in an aircraft with myriad problems with flight instruments, avionics, engine instruments and prop control. Despite much more than 40 hours having apparently being flown, no attempt had been made to rectify the most basic of snags. There were so many problems with the flight instruments, engine instruments and avionics, that even a very experienced pilot would have been hard pressed to deal with any sort of anomaly.
Sorting out all the issues on an amateur-built aircraft is serious business. Don't cut corners during the flight testing. If there is a snag, fix it. Don't simply "fly off the hours". The whole point of the required flight test program is to find all the major problems and fix them. That requires doing all the testing to identify problems, and fixing them once you have found them.
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
I've had this discussion with many builders that 40 hours IS required to work out all the issues with a homebuilt, especially with a first time builder.
Whenever I went for a test flight, I had a test plan in which I expected to conduct in that phase. I used the test cards someone had posted on this list and found them to be very useful and offered a good script to move you through the test phase without rushing to "fly off the hours" before it was ready for prime time.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Dan,
In reading the note that was passed along to me, there was a question regarding if he even bothered to fly off the 40 hours. I say "question" because I don't really know the truth and it is so easy to judge a dead pilot. So... Let's be careful we don't jump to judgment when we really don't know the facts.
Still, I passed along the note to my chapter's tech and first flight advisors as there was a lot of good points contained within and it prompted a lot of good discussion between our advisors.
N908RV
Well Known Member
NTSB Preliminary
I heard he was planning a family flight, but I wasn't aware until after reading the prelim that they were intending to go to Boston that very afternoon. Glad for Dan's family that this was a solo flight. I too read the SOCAL post and it saddened me to read it. Clearly he was a great guy and events seemed to snowball more than he probably wanted to admit to himself. 'nuff said.
Someone mentioned the prelim was out - here are the facts as reported so far. Prelim below:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20071120X01821&key=1
NTSB Identification: NYC08LA023
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, November 02, 2007 in Greenville, PA
Aircraft: Vans Aircraft RV-10, registration: N289DT
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On November 2, 2007, at 0830 eastern daylight time, an amateur built Vans RV-10, N289DT, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Greenville, Pennsylvania. The certificated private pilot was fatally injured. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight that departed Greenville Municipal Airport (4G1), Greenville, Pennsylvania. No flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to a family member, the pilot had driven to the airport to practice "touch and go's" and to make sure everything was functioning properly, prior to a planned afternoon trip in the airplane with his family to Boston, Massachusetts.
Witness interviews were conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Safety Board, and while no one saw the airplane depart 4G1, the airplane was observed by a witness at approximately 0800 traveling in a northwesterly direction at low altitude, moving "fast," and sounding like it was "running strong like a Ford Mustang (turbocharged) Cobra that the witness once owned." At approximately 0825, the airplane was again observed but, this time by multiple witnesses. Descriptions varied between witness statements as to the altitude, direction of flight, and velocity of the airplane; however, the preponderance of witness statements were that the airplane was flying north on the east side of Pennsylvania State Route 58, and seemed to make a circle to the left at approximately 500 feet above ground level (agl). It was next observed to travel in a westerly direction, fly across Route 58 and make another turn to the left with the engine "revving up and down," and losing altitude. When it reached approximately 50-feet agl and was heading east, the airplane rolled wings level and impacted a cornfield in a 35 to 60 degree nose down attitude. A fireball erupted, and the airplane slid approximately 100-feet. It then impacted the shoulder of Route 58, nosed over, and came to rest inverted on the roadway.
The amateur built airplane, was a four place, low wing monoplane. It was equipped with a non-certificated Eggenfellner E6T/220, which was a water cooled, fuel injected, turbo-charged, six cylinder engine. The airplane's special airworthiness certificate was issued on July 10, 2007.
The pilot held a private pilot certificate, with a rating for airplane single engine land. His most recent FAA third class medical certificate was issued on March 14, 2006. According to his pilot logbook, he had accrued 221.4 total hours of flight experience.
A weather observation taken about 23 minutes after the accident at Port Meadville Airport (GKJ), Meadville, Pennsylvania, located about 14 nautical miles northeast of the accident site, recorded the winds as 090 degrees at 4 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 1 degree Celsius, dew point -2 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 30.36 inches of mercury.
The wreckage was retained by the Safety Board for further examination.
I heard he was planning a family flight, but I wasn't aware until after reading the prelim that they were intending to go to Boston that very afternoon. Glad for Dan's family that this was a solo flight. I too read the SOCAL post and it saddened me to read it. Clearly he was a great guy and events seemed to snowball more than he probably wanted to admit to himself. 'nuff said.
Someone mentioned the prelim was out - here are the facts as reported so far. Prelim below:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20071120X01821&key=1
NTSB Identification: NYC08LA023
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, November 02, 2007 in Greenville, PA
Aircraft: Vans Aircraft RV-10, registration: N289DT
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On November 2, 2007, at 0830 eastern daylight time, an amateur built Vans RV-10, N289DT, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain near Greenville, Pennsylvania. The certificated private pilot was fatally injured. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight that departed Greenville Municipal Airport (4G1), Greenville, Pennsylvania. No flight plan was filed for the personal flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.
According to a family member, the pilot had driven to the airport to practice "touch and go's" and to make sure everything was functioning properly, prior to a planned afternoon trip in the airplane with his family to Boston, Massachusetts.
Witness interviews were conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Safety Board, and while no one saw the airplane depart 4G1, the airplane was observed by a witness at approximately 0800 traveling in a northwesterly direction at low altitude, moving "fast," and sounding like it was "running strong like a Ford Mustang (turbocharged) Cobra that the witness once owned." At approximately 0825, the airplane was again observed but, this time by multiple witnesses. Descriptions varied between witness statements as to the altitude, direction of flight, and velocity of the airplane; however, the preponderance of witness statements were that the airplane was flying north on the east side of Pennsylvania State Route 58, and seemed to make a circle to the left at approximately 500 feet above ground level (agl). It was next observed to travel in a westerly direction, fly across Route 58 and make another turn to the left with the engine "revving up and down," and losing altitude. When it reached approximately 50-feet agl and was heading east, the airplane rolled wings level and impacted a cornfield in a 35 to 60 degree nose down attitude. A fireball erupted, and the airplane slid approximately 100-feet. It then impacted the shoulder of Route 58, nosed over, and came to rest inverted on the roadway.
The amateur built airplane, was a four place, low wing monoplane. It was equipped with a non-certificated Eggenfellner E6T/220, which was a water cooled, fuel injected, turbo-charged, six cylinder engine. The airplane's special airworthiness certificate was issued on July 10, 2007.
The pilot held a private pilot certificate, with a rating for airplane single engine land. His most recent FAA third class medical certificate was issued on March 14, 2006. According to his pilot logbook, he had accrued 221.4 total hours of flight experience.
A weather observation taken about 23 minutes after the accident at Port Meadville Airport (GKJ), Meadville, Pennsylvania, located about 14 nautical miles northeast of the accident site, recorded the winds as 090 degrees at 4 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 1 degree Celsius, dew point -2 degrees Celsius, and an altimeter setting of 30.36 inches of mercury.
The wreckage was retained by the Safety Board for further examination.
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
Bill,
I was not attempting to judge anyone.
I didn't know Dan's situation and have only heard some rumours out there.
Several of my friends wanted to fly with me during my phase 1. They would see me flying and felt my 7A was ready. I've had friends that would fly their time with others on board as "data recorders".
It took me 5 months to fly off my time.
My prayers are with Dan's family, especially this time of year.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Dan,
Sorry, I wasn't trying to slam you or anyone else. I was just trying to point out that in our tight knit flying brotherhood we have a habit to pre-judge people who make fatal mistakes.
Giving people rides before the test period is over or pencil wiping the 40 hours in a log book are a personal decision.
Like you, I elected to follow the rules and run a full 40 hour test program. However, flying those 40 hours off in one month was a real challenge and frankly was down right tiring. I was very lucky in that I had no major issues, other than loosing one week while my P-mags went back to the shop for a software upgrade.
Looking back over my log book I had one 6.1 hour day and a bunch of days with over 4 hours of flight testing. That is a LOT of flying, more so when you realize I was taking my cowling off between flights and inspecting the engine on those days. It just goes to show you, build 'em right and they won't give you any problems.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to slam you or anyone else. I was just trying to point out that in our tight knit flying brotherhood we have a habit to pre-judge people who make fatal mistakes.
Giving people rides before the test period is over or pencil wiping the 40 hours in a log book are a personal decision.
Like you, I elected to follow the rules and run a full 40 hour test program. However, flying those 40 hours off in one month was a real challenge and frankly was down right tiring. I was very lucky in that I had no major issues, other than loosing one week while my P-mags went back to the shop for a software upgrade.
Looking back over my log book I had one 6.1 hour day and a bunch of days with over 4 hours of flight testing. That is a LOT of flying, more so when you realize I was taking my cowling off between flights and inspecting the engine on those days. It just goes to show you, build 'em right and they won't give you any problems.
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
Dan Checkoway posted a really good message on approaching Phase One on the Y Group. I've stuffed it aside for reference later when I get near that point but I think it fits the bill here on the larger question of phase one testing
* * *
As an EAA Flight Advisor (uh-oh, he's throwing titles around!), I'm going to be honest. You may not want to hear some of the things I'm going to say.
Looking at your web page, I see a few things that looked to me like things were rushed.
1. The DAR signed the plane off with a skin not riveted on?!
2. The DAR signed the plane off before the engine had been run?!
3. The weight & balance was done last minute and the aircraft was not level (mains need to be ~2" higher than the nosewheel).
4. The engine was run with the front deck structural skin not in place (jeez, at least cleco'd on)?!
I may be picking nits, but the last minute rush is never good. What's another week or two in the grand scheme of things?! It took years, not weeks, to build, so another handful of days to make things absolutely right should be easy to build into the schedule. It's a mindset thing that every builder ought to take seriously.
Now that the plane is signed off (congratulations!), you can step back and take your time getting everything else in place. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but in light of a recent RV-10 accident and the undeniable "get-done-itis" symptoms involved, I'm leaning very conservatively.
Vaughan Askue's book is excellent. Just because you're flying an RV, of which there are thousands in the air, doesn't mean YOUR airplane is not unique and won't have unique traits and challenges. You built an AB experimental aircraft, and you need to treat it that way. Take your Phase One flight testing as seriously as you would on a one-off plane you designed & built from scratch! We have the luxury of assuming that things will be mostly hunky dory, but you as a TEST PILOT cannot rely on that assumption (or any assumption) to save your bacon. Trust nothing until it earns your trust. There will be squawks. You need to find them, and you need to be safe and methodical and brutally objective.
I don't want to see any friggin' videos of first flights with high speed low approaches or aileron rolls. That just drives me nuts. Take your mission seriously. Once you're done with Phase One you can have all the fun in the world -- and you will! But you gotta take it one step at a time.
I know I'm overshooting on the advice here, Garrett. I know you're not one of those guys who does these types of things. But I'm posting this publicly after all, so I'm using broad strokes. Maybe this will save one person's butt someday.
You're on track now. Get your transition training and leave nothing to question. Know the engine limits by heart. Make sure your engine monitor has been programmed for the correct limits/warnings. Know how to operate everything in your cockpit (I shouldn't need to say that, but you'd be surprised how many pilots don't know how to operate and interpret their instrumentation). I spoke to an RV builder yesterday who just made his first flight, and he was asking me about engine temperature limits...after he had already flown it. You gotta have this stuff down cold before the airplane leaves the ground. It should be written right there on your kneeboard after all...what is your "LAND RIGHT NOW" limit for every parameter? Know this stuff.
If you have questions, get them answered. And there may be questions you don't even know you have yet...in the middle of the first flight is not the time for them to come up. A good FA will help you anticipate these types of things.
Don't fly it if there are squawks. And just don't rush it!
We as RV builders sometimes get away with quite a lot on first flights. These airplanes and their relatively simple systems are so forgiving, but we absolutely cannot rely on that. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your safety, not the design of the aircraft.
As far as flight test plans are concerned, check out this link: http://tinyurl.com/yt8fhf Kevin Horton assembled a handful of resources there. You can scour them and develop your own test plan, and you can do that with your FA if you have one.
Have a very safe & enjoyable Phase One. You're gonna love that airplane!
* * *
As an EAA Flight Advisor (uh-oh, he's throwing titles around!), I'm going to be honest. You may not want to hear some of the things I'm going to say.
Looking at your web page, I see a few things that looked to me like things were rushed.
1. The DAR signed the plane off with a skin not riveted on?!
2. The DAR signed the plane off before the engine had been run?!
3. The weight & balance was done last minute and the aircraft was not level (mains need to be ~2" higher than the nosewheel).
4. The engine was run with the front deck structural skin not in place (jeez, at least cleco'd on)?!
I may be picking nits, but the last minute rush is never good. What's another week or two in the grand scheme of things?! It took years, not weeks, to build, so another handful of days to make things absolutely right should be easy to build into the schedule. It's a mindset thing that every builder ought to take seriously.
Now that the plane is signed off (congratulations!), you can step back and take your time getting everything else in place. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but in light of a recent RV-10 accident and the undeniable "get-done-itis" symptoms involved, I'm leaning very conservatively.
Vaughan Askue's book is excellent. Just because you're flying an RV, of which there are thousands in the air, doesn't mean YOUR airplane is not unique and won't have unique traits and challenges. You built an AB experimental aircraft, and you need to treat it that way. Take your Phase One flight testing as seriously as you would on a one-off plane you designed & built from scratch! We have the luxury of assuming that things will be mostly hunky dory, but you as a TEST PILOT cannot rely on that assumption (or any assumption) to save your bacon. Trust nothing until it earns your trust. There will be squawks. You need to find them, and you need to be safe and methodical and brutally objective.
I don't want to see any friggin' videos of first flights with high speed low approaches or aileron rolls. That just drives me nuts. Take your mission seriously. Once you're done with Phase One you can have all the fun in the world -- and you will! But you gotta take it one step at a time.
I know I'm overshooting on the advice here, Garrett. I know you're not one of those guys who does these types of things. But I'm posting this publicly after all, so I'm using broad strokes. Maybe this will save one person's butt someday.
You're on track now. Get your transition training and leave nothing to question. Know the engine limits by heart. Make sure your engine monitor has been programmed for the correct limits/warnings. Know how to operate everything in your cockpit (I shouldn't need to say that, but you'd be surprised how many pilots don't know how to operate and interpret their instrumentation). I spoke to an RV builder yesterday who just made his first flight, and he was asking me about engine temperature limits...after he had already flown it. You gotta have this stuff down cold before the airplane leaves the ground. It should be written right there on your kneeboard after all...what is your "LAND RIGHT NOW" limit for every parameter? Know this stuff.
If you have questions, get them answered. And there may be questions you don't even know you have yet...in the middle of the first flight is not the time for them to come up. A good FA will help you anticipate these types of things.
Don't fly it if there are squawks. And just don't rush it!
We as RV builders sometimes get away with quite a lot on first flights. These airplanes and their relatively simple systems are so forgiving, but we absolutely cannot rely on that. At the end of the day, you are responsible for your safety, not the design of the aircraft.
As far as flight test plans are concerned, check out this link: http://tinyurl.com/yt8fhf Kevin Horton assembled a handful of resources there. You can scour them and develop your own test plan, and you can do that with your FA if you have one.
Have a very safe & enjoyable Phase One. You're gonna love that airplane!
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
No problem Bill.
Wow a 6.1 hour day. I was burned out after 3. It's difficult & stressful work.
Bottom line, this is serious stuff we do. I remember just prior to my first flight, I had all my papers in order in the event there was some terrible accident. BTW, Don't tell my wife.
Last edited:
Having read Tim's original post on Matronix with access limited by Tim, I can tell you the text and information exchange is sombering. There are rules in place for your protection and procedures written in blood. Heed them lest ye take the same path. I knew and liked Dan very much. It sickens me that he died, I pray no one else does the same.
Ron Lee
Well Known Member
I finally read this thread
I have seen and heard of things in recent years that invite trouble. Taking a passenger on the FIRST FLIGHT of a glass airplane. Flying an RV where the pilot is so enamored with his fancy glass panel that he nearly stalled during initial climbout. Pilots who do the first flight even when they are marginally qualified because it is their plane even if they did not build it. Other things that I won't mention.
There is no need to crash an RV and die. Most accidents are preventable. But it seems that ego and other poor decision making is too prevalent in GA flying as a whole and some cases with RVs.
Ideally we could get through to some people who are predisposed to screwing up and killing themselves. I still have hopes that the RV community can develop a safety program that reduces our accidents and fatalities to something that we can be proud of.
This rant may have nothing to do with this accident but is just another opportunity to get us on the track that we don't have to "learn" from another NTSB report. That is sheer nonsense. Most of the mistakes that kill are already well documented and we don't have to have another to learn from it.
I have seen and heard of things in recent years that invite trouble. Taking a passenger on the FIRST FLIGHT of a glass airplane. Flying an RV where the pilot is so enamored with his fancy glass panel that he nearly stalled during initial climbout. Pilots who do the first flight even when they are marginally qualified because it is their plane even if they did not build it. Other things that I won't mention.
There is no need to crash an RV and die. Most accidents are preventable. But it seems that ego and other poor decision making is too prevalent in GA flying as a whole and some cases with RVs.
Ideally we could get through to some people who are predisposed to screwing up and killing themselves. I still have hopes that the RV community can develop a safety program that reduces our accidents and fatalities to something that we can be proud of.
This rant may have nothing to do with this accident but is just another opportunity to get us on the track that we don't have to "learn" from another NTSB report. That is sheer nonsense. Most of the mistakes that kill are already well documented and we don't have to have another to learn from it.
LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
Should there be a standard transition training syllabus and flight regimen. I have heard -- anecdotally, of course -- that the most oft mentioned transition training folks have different points of view on flying an RV. Should there be one?
pierre smith
Well Known Member
There is one
Hi Bob/others,
We have a standardized transition training syllabus from Van's with the help of Mike Seagar. To illustrate the value of this training, the EAA let us know that in 2001 there were 340 something first flight fatalities. Last year, since we were allowed to charge for training/renting our RV's and others (lancairs, Glasairs,etc), first flight fatalities dropped to 45 or so....pretty impressive, I think.
I modify the syllabus as necessary, since the guys who've come down here are as varied as can be, with totally different needs, so one size for all doesn't fit. Some land the airplane almost perfectly after a half dozen landings...others need 25 tries. Emergency procedures, engine failure, etc we go down to near treetops and show what can be done with the RV. However, some guys go home and still fly off small short strips against my advice to accumulate experience on a bigger runway, getting into trouble. The old "you can lead a horse to water.....".
Regards,
Hi Bob/others,
We have a standardized transition training syllabus from Van's with the help of Mike Seagar. To illustrate the value of this training, the EAA let us know that in 2001 there were 340 something first flight fatalities. Last year, since we were allowed to charge for training/renting our RV's and others (lancairs, Glasairs,etc), first flight fatalities dropped to 45 or so....pretty impressive, I think.
I modify the syllabus as necessary, since the guys who've come down here are as varied as can be, with totally different needs, so one size for all doesn't fit. Some land the airplane almost perfectly after a half dozen landings...others need 25 tries. Emergency procedures, engine failure, etc we go down to near treetops and show what can be done with the RV. However, some guys go home and still fly off small short strips against my advice to accumulate experience on a bigger runway, getting into trouble. The old "you can lead a horse to water.....".
Regards,
bsacks05
Well Known Member
340 first flight fatalities in one year?!
I find that very hard to believe....even 45 first flight fatalities in one year is difficult to comprehend.
I hope this is not the case.
kentb
Well Known Member
Some things to ponder....
There has been some good advise already given in this thread, so I won't repeat them.
You (anyone that hasn't finished their plane yet) should realize that the DAR/inspectors function is not to make sure that you build your plane correctly or that it is safe to fly. They are there to make sure that the paper work is in order and that the plane conforms with the FAR's. This will include placards, minimum equipment, W&B, etc. If the inspector helps you find missing rivets or other builder mistakes then they are doing you a favor. I think that most inspectors try to help you out this way, but it is going beyond what is required.
It is you responsibility as the builder to make sure that your plane is ready for flight and in fact you have to sign your log book (the inspector will make sure that you do) that your plane is ready for flight.
It is also the test pilot that makes sure that the plane is ready for the flights during phase one.
It is the pilot in command that makes sure the plane is ready for all flights after phase one.
Please take advantage of the EAA tech counselors to help you check your work.
Please take advantage of the EAA flight advisers to help prepare for you phase one flying.
Kent
There has been some good advise already given in this thread, so I won't repeat them.
You (anyone that hasn't finished their plane yet) should realize that the DAR/inspectors function is not to make sure that you build your plane correctly or that it is safe to fly. They are there to make sure that the paper work is in order and that the plane conforms with the FAR's. This will include placards, minimum equipment, W&B, etc. If the inspector helps you find missing rivets or other builder mistakes then they are doing you a favor. I think that most inspectors try to help you out this way, but it is going beyond what is required.
It is you responsibility as the builder to make sure that your plane is ready for flight and in fact you have to sign your log book (the inspector will make sure that you do) that your plane is ready for flight.
It is also the test pilot that makes sure that the plane is ready for the flights during phase one.
It is the pilot in command that makes sure the plane is ready for all flights after phase one.
Please take advantage of the EAA tech counselors to help you check your work.
Please take advantage of the EAA flight advisers to help prepare for you phase one flying.
Kent
N941WR
Legacy Member
Kent,
That is an excellent list. I do hope some 1st time builders save it for "that day".
The other thing I did prior to my first flight and I just did with a friend before his first flight was to practice the first flight profile.
Take off in both directions (If possible, low pass and standard climb in the down wind direction, if not.), perform a standard climb to your safe altitude (3,000' in my case), shallow turns, check controls, check engine instruments, nibble at the stall, come back and land. Again, fly the practice flight just like you expect to do the first flight. Practice like you fly and you will fly like you practice.
Brief on things to expect like don't be surprised to see CHT's hit 425 to 450 as the engine breaks in, the smell of paint burning off the engine, etc. Nothing to panic over, if you know what to expect before hand.
That is an excellent list. I do hope some 1st time builders save it for "that day".
The other thing I did prior to my first flight and I just did with a friend before his first flight was to practice the first flight profile.
Take off in both directions (If possible, low pass and standard climb in the down wind direction, if not.), perform a standard climb to your safe altitude (3,000' in my case), shallow turns, check controls, check engine instruments, nibble at the stall, come back and land. Again, fly the practice flight just like you expect to do the first flight. Practice like you fly and you will fly like you practice.
Brief on things to expect like don't be surprised to see CHT's hit 425 to 450 as the engine breaks in, the smell of paint burning off the engine, etc. Nothing to panic over, if you know what to expect before hand.
John Clark
Well Known Member
The value of training
The 340 number is real but it was total fatalities in experimental aircraft for the year 2000, not just first flights, However, the majority of those deaths were within the first 10 hours on the aircraft. The important fact is that the number was cut through access to training.
John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
340 first flight fatalities in one year?!
I find that very hard to believe....even 45 first flight fatalities in one year is difficult to comprehend.
I hope this is not the case.
The 340 number is real but it was total fatalities in experimental aircraft for the year 2000, not just first flights, However, the majority of those deaths were within the first 10 hours on the aircraft. The important fact is that the number was cut through access to training.
John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
This is a good time to put in a plug for DARs. Most DARs will give you a very thorough inspection well beyond what is required. For example, my inspection checklist is 7 1/2 pages long. The checklist typically used by an FAA inspector is 1 page.You (anyone that hasn't finished their plane yet) should realize that the DAR/inspectors function is not to make sure that you build your plane correctly or that it is safe to fly. They are there to make sure that the paper work is in order and that the plane conforms with the FAR's. This will include placards, minimum equipment, W&B, etc. If the inspector helps you find missing rivets or other builder mistakes then they are doing you a favor. I think that most inspectors try to help you out this way, but it is going beyond what is required.
Bill,
And to add to your advice, make sure that on first flight that if you have an engine issue during/after take-off, then try to determine where in the immediate vicinity of your field, where would be a suitable place for an emergency landing if you have to go straight ahead or can't return to take off point. Or change your t/o runway to make sure there is one.
I cannot help but to reiterate and emphasize familiarity with your engine and instruments prior to first flight is absolutely required. Yes, sit in the cockpit and make the sounds and movements and visualize the procedures for first take off, instrument scan, set warning levels and lights/buzzers appropriately, and anticipate what to do if the unexpected happens. And try to expect the worst and prepare for it.
I had transition/familiarization training in a -6A (I have a -9A) until I was comfortable (not the instructor) with the handling of the aircraft. The -6A is much faster and responsive than my -9A, so first flight was not an issue until my OT warning went off. Followed procedures and landed and corrected the problem.
I have an old adage that is permanently etched into my flying brain..AVIATE - NAVIGATE -COMMUNICATE. In that order.
Lots of wise words in this thread from some very experienced RV people.
Allan
And to add to your advice, make sure that on first flight that if you have an engine issue during/after take-off, then try to determine where in the immediate vicinity of your field, where would be a suitable place for an emergency landing if you have to go straight ahead or can't return to take off point. Or change your t/o runway to make sure there is one.
I cannot help but to reiterate and emphasize familiarity with your engine and instruments prior to first flight is absolutely required. Yes, sit in the cockpit and make the sounds and movements and visualize the procedures for first take off, instrument scan, set warning levels and lights/buzzers appropriately, and anticipate what to do if the unexpected happens. And try to expect the worst and prepare for it.
I had transition/familiarization training in a -6A (I have a -9A) until I was comfortable (not the instructor) with the handling of the aircraft. The -6A is much faster and responsive than my -9A, so first flight was not an issue until my OT warning went off. Followed procedures and landed and corrected the problem.
I have an old adage that is permanently etched into my flying brain..AVIATE - NAVIGATE -COMMUNICATE. In that order.
Lots of wise words in this thread from some very experienced RV people.
Allan
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
I just took a look at the NTSB website. The accident information is in the 2000 & 2001 GA Accident Aircraft Data used in Annual Report links on this page:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
I sorted these files down to fatal amateur/experimental accidents and found 50 crashes in 2000 with 72 fatalities. In 2001, there were 56 crashes with 71 fatalities.
These are not good numbers, but I'm curious as to where the 340 number came from? Was that a 5 year total? No telling.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
From EAA
Hi Kyle,
Those numbers were sent to me by EAA on their E-Hotline weekly news. Here's a copy:
FAA Retires Exemption 7162
November 1, 2007 ?Midnight on October 31, 2007, signaled the end of an era with the FAA?s non-renewal of Exemption No. 7162. The exemption allowed owners of experimental aircraft to be compensated for renting their aircraft to others who sought experimental aircraft-specific flight training and flight reviews. Its goal was to reduce the number of fatal experimental aircraft accidents, especially during the initial test flight period of an amateur-built aircraft and during the initial 10 flight hours after buying an experimental aircraft.
By that measure, Exemption 7162 was an unqualified success as it contributed to a dramatic reduction in fatal experimental aircraft accidents - from 340 in fiscal year 2000 to 49 in fiscal year 2006.
I'll call them after they open up and try to get a verification of those numbers.
Regards,
Hi Kyle,
Those numbers were sent to me by EAA on their E-Hotline weekly news. Here's a copy:
FAA Retires Exemption 7162
November 1, 2007 ?Midnight on October 31, 2007, signaled the end of an era with the FAA?s non-renewal of Exemption No. 7162. The exemption allowed owners of experimental aircraft to be compensated for renting their aircraft to others who sought experimental aircraft-specific flight training and flight reviews. Its goal was to reduce the number of fatal experimental aircraft accidents, especially during the initial test flight period of an amateur-built aircraft and during the initial 10 flight hours after buying an experimental aircraft.
By that measure, Exemption 7162 was an unqualified success as it contributed to a dramatic reduction in fatal experimental aircraft accidents - from 340 in fiscal year 2000 to 49 in fiscal year 2006.
I'll call them after they open up and try to get a verification of those numbers.
Regards,
fstringham7a
Well Known Member
By that measure, Exemption 7162 was an unqualified success as it contributed to a dramatic reduction in fatal experimental aircraft accidents - from 340 in fiscal year 2000 to 49 in fiscal year 2006.
QUOTE]
This makes more sense Pierre - I think what surprised me with your first post was that you said 49 "first flight" accidents (or maybe I was too tired and read it wrong). I can buy (although I do not like or accept!) 49 Experimental fatals in a year - but if it were 4 during first flights, I'd recommend zero-zero ejection seats for everyone!
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Another 0ption now
The FAA is now issuing Letters of Deviation authority (LODA's) to allow CFI's to deviate from FAR 91.319 which says we can't rent our experimentals for compensation. Yes, we'll still be allowed to do transition training but the FAA will now oversee that instead of the EAA.
FWIW, I've had to jump through more hurdles and hoops to get this done, several pages of all sorts of documentation to include my Oplims, copies of every license and airworthiness...yada..yada...sheesh. The EAA had one page with a very short application and it was done. The rep at FSDO told me that the EAA wasn't doing it too well so now they're doing it. Man, I boiled!! I told him the numbers of accidents and reductions that we accomplished, IN spite of the FAA!! Fortunately, I cooled off before I told him to stuff it.
Just a little more time now,
The FAA is now issuing Letters of Deviation authority (LODA's) to allow CFI's to deviate from FAR 91.319 which says we can't rent our experimentals for compensation. Yes, we'll still be allowed to do transition training but the FAA will now oversee that instead of the EAA.
FWIW, I've had to jump through more hurdles and hoops to get this done, several pages of all sorts of documentation to include my Oplims, copies of every license and airworthiness...yada..yada...sheesh. The EAA had one page with a very short application and it was done. The rep at FSDO told me that the EAA wasn't doing it too well so now they're doing it. Man, I boiled!! I told him the numbers of accidents and reductions that we accomplished, IN spite of the FAA!! Fortunately, I cooled off before I told him to stuff it.
Just a little more time now,
<<The EAA had one page with a very short application and it was done. The rep at FSDO told me that the EAA wasn't doing it too well so now they're doing it. >>
He was talking about paperwork. The FAA is very good at paperwork. Common sense action to reduce accidents will not work without sufficient quantities of paperwork. Heck, everybody knows that <g>
He was talking about paperwork. The FAA is very good at paperwork. Common sense action to reduce accidents will not work without sufficient quantities of paperwork. Heck, everybody knows that <g>
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Correction
Hi Kyle,
The EAA did call me back late yesterday and did in fact acknowledge their error. They also thanked you for pointing out the questionable numbers. The real numbers came from 1999.......68 fatal amateur-built accidents, not 340.
Regards,
Hi Kyle,
The EAA did call me back late yesterday and did in fact acknowledge their error. They also thanked you for pointing out the questionable numbers. The real numbers came from 1999.......68 fatal amateur-built accidents, not 340.
Regards,
