What's new
Van's Air Force

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

NTSB E-AB recommendations are published

ronrapp

Well Known Member
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2012/A-12-028-039.pdf

I'm sure it'll be the talk of the town at OSH this year. I gave it a quick read and there are some good recommendations in there regarding easier access to transition training and help with flight testing.

On the other hand, I also see increased regulation and additional hoops to jump through for those trying to register and/or reregister an Experimental.

It'll be interesting to see how much of this the FAA adopts and which items they leave on the table...

--Ron
 
Thanks Ron,

Of particular interest to me, was the NTSB's recommendation to re-word, or modify 8130 G, to allow, in some instances, a second test pilot aboard.

Some guys insist that they absolutely have to be the first to fly their newly built airplane, whether or not they're fully qualified to do so. This rewording would allow them to do so more safely, methinks.

What say y'all?

Best,
 
I think you are right Pierre

Pierre,

I think you are right. I would like to be the first to fly my plane, but I will probably have someone else do it for me. I have never flown an 8A and have only flown an 8 from the back seat. This problem is complicated by the lack of transitional training for the tandem models. I fully intend to take tranisitonal training but would prefer it to be in an 8 or better yet, an 8A.

The "test pilot" should at least know how the plane is supposed to fly and handle in order to recognize that it is not flying or handeling as it should.

I think this rule proposal is a positive one. The other recommendations seem to impose more limitations, although I cannot complain about that if it leads to the airplane being safer.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the recommendation to allow additional pilots during phase 1 testing. This should be done not only for inexperienced low time pilots, but also for purposes of joint data collection. Yes, I know that most of us have an EFIS that will store data, but there is nothing like an additional set of eyes.
I also agree with the requirement for a POH with a description of the systems etc. A lot of these aircraft are being sold to individuals who are not at all familiar with the aircraft. Let's face it, the first thing your instructor had you do in primary training was to read the POH!
One thing I did not see was in-process inspections. It surprised me that this was not mentioned or targeted since most other countries require them.
 
creeping regulation

I am against any more regulation of any sort. Who gave the FAA the "right" or even the charter to make sure we are safe from ourselves ?? I want my money to the EAA and AOPA to go towards making sure there is less government involvement in my flying life; not rationalizing more regulation. I'm sure I'm in a minority here; and I also think those that accept any further regulation are already on a slippery slope and don't fully understand the logical conclusion of their path. Oh-oh, flame suit on :).
 
I agree with the recommendation to allow additional pilots during phase 1 testing. This should be done not only for inexperienced low time pilots, but also for purposes of joint data collection.

Interesting how different two points of view can be. Mine is the exact opposite of yours. ;-)

My thought is that Phase 1 testing and Transition training are very different operations and we should keep the distinction. Mixing the two would put two people at risk during Phase 1, which isn't a good choice.

As far as data collection goes, a $15 lipstick camera mounted on the passenger seat can record more data than a right seater ever could, and wouldn't risk a second soul during phase 1.
 
Last edited:
Thank You Kyle. I agree 110%.
Phase I flight testing is just that. Not flight training!
 
Well I have mixed emotions about the 2nd person

The RV is so easy to fly if you have recent transition training and are not a new pilot I don't think it is necessary for basic flight and the human risk is increased by the problems in every new complex thing created by a first time builder without control over many years in a changing environment. However, when I see write-ups in here about not being able to figure out what rivets to use for mounting platenuts I wonder about whether hand holding on the order of teaching to fly in some cases might might save a few airplanes and lives.

The POH is a stinking can of legal worms that can turn into rattle snakes and should never be opened.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
The POH is a stinking can of legal worms that can turn into rattle snakes and should never be opened.

Bob Axsom

Very eloquently put and so very true. How long before half the new EABs flying would satisfy the POH reg with a printout of an identical POH document file passed around on internet forums......what would that prove?
 
Last edited:
I like the proposal, with a sort of role reversal. The builder could be the builder, and be busy observing and recording data - the flight engineer. The second person could be the experienced test pilot. This would help with the psychological problem of builders who want to be on the first flight but who don't have as much pilot experience as might be desirable. Let's not confuse transition training with experience. A 100 hour pilot, after 5 hours of transition training, is a 105 hour pilot. I agree, phase one is not the time or place to be doing pilot training. There would be some two-fatality accidents, hopefully rare. I think overall there would be fewer fatalities, as there would be fewer botched landings in corn fields, and fewer loss of control accidents.
 
Interesting how different two points of view can be. Mine is the exact opposite of yours. ;-)

My thought is that Phase 1 testing and Transition training are very different operations and we should keep the distinction. Mixing the two would put two people at risk during Phase 1, which isn't a good choice.

As far as data collection goes, a $15 lipstick camera mounted on the passenger seat can record more data than a right seater ever could, and wouldn't risk a second soul during phase 1.

+2

If you think about it honestly, a second person on board could actually complicate any give situation to an even greater degree.
Who is number one in command? The person who owns/built the airplane, or the person with the most experience?
How serious of an inflight situation will the owner handle? At what point does the experienced pilot take over.
There is probably many more "what if" questions we could list. Clearly there is no way to make these decisions on the fly ;)

To take this one step further... It is my opinion that there are safety benefits to having someone else do the initial flight testing (at least the initial flight).

1st Positive - It would be presumed that anyone choosing this route would likely select someone with considerably more experience than them self.
2nd Positive - Someone selected as test pilot, that has no personal connection to the airplane other than to do a job, is far less likely to have their decision making processes influenced by any interest in preventing damage to the airplane.
I guarantee that this is at the top of the list for any professional test pilot (as it should be), and probably anyone else that does much test flying.
At first it might seem that this possibly puts a persons airplane at higher risk. I think just the opposite. If someone has a lot of experience test flying, they have spent a lot of time thinking through the "what ifs", and are probably more likely to pull off a save (if it is possible), than most of us are.
I don't mean to imply that the majority of first flight or early testing accidents are caused by people trying to save their airplane when something goes bad, but I do believe there is a significant # of people that would still be alive today if they hadn't (I personally know of some).

So, back to the orig. discussion... lets say there is two people aboard, and something goes wrong at 200 ft after the first take-off, and the owner builder starts to execute a return to the runway (even though the pre-flight brief set 600' as the minimum altitude. The safety pilot, because of his experience and interest in putting his personal safety first, is now in a situation where he has to demand control of the airplane... precious moments are lost... who knows what the outcome will be... or what it would have been if only the experienced pilot was on board.
This is only one of probably hundreds of situations we could dream up...
Think up some of your own...
I don't think you could convince me that you could pre-brief all of the possible circumstances well enough that making an initial test flight with two aboard could be just as safe as with one, more experienced pilot.

Food for thought....
 
I guess when I think of a second person riding along it would be in terms of data recording more so than flight training. Phase one is not the time to do flight training, and I did not mean to imply that. Having a test pilot do your first flights with you along, in my opinion, would be good experience for a low time pilot. After several flights with a test pilot the low time pilot could then finish up phase one on his own.

Let's face it guys, the accident rate of E-AB's is not a good one. Sticking our heads in the sand does not accomplish anything. If we don't improve it on our own, I am afraid that we will be told by big brother how he wants it improved. The recommendations are just the first step unfortunately.

I regards to the POH, I guess I just don't see the objection.

I too am for anything that makes this endeavor safer.
 
Let's face it guys, the accident rate of E-AB's is not a good one. Sticking our heads in the sand does not accomplish anything. If we don't improve it on our own, I am afraid that we will be told by big brother how he wants it improved. The recommendations are just the first step unfortunately.

Absolutely - I agree 100%. However, the "cures" to the problem need to relate directly to the "causes" - we don't want to follow recommendations that can't be directly shown to reduce accidents. This is where the report is lacking in some respects (in others, it is right on).

For instance, If you can show that crashes are occurring in Phase 1 BECAUSE there is only one person on board, then adding a second person might make sense. But I have not seen a single proof of that accident "cause". Now the NTSB CAN show that crashes are occurring because lack of experience or readiness on the part of the pilot. You don't need to fix that by adding a second person - you can fix that by making sure that the single person has appropriate experience and qualifications. That is just an example of cause/effect/solution reasoning - there are others.

I look forward to meaningful improvements in safety through thoughtful analysis of the cause of accidents, and logical answers to those causes. "Shotgun" solutions that look good to the uninformed but have no actual affect are simply going to restrict us all without a positive affect.

Paul
 
Let's face it guys, the accident rate of E-AB's is not a good one. Sticking our heads in the sand does not accomplish anything
It isn't? How do you know? I've never seen any valid data to support this bit of conventional wisdom, including the data that the NTSB used in this analysis, which was severely flawed.

Not saying that we shouldn't try to improve our safety record, but this idea that E-ABs are falling from the sky is not supported by data, and needs to be addressed before it becomes even more ingrained into the collective government psyche.
 
If there were a way to have a robot do the first flights I'd say go for it. Unfortunately its not really an option (yet) so we're forced to endanger a human. Putting a second person into the mix is an unnecessary risk without any legitimate benefit.

There was a Kitfox crash a few weeks back where one person died and one lived. The news media reported that the aircraft was being tested at the time of the crash. I'm not saying it was a phase one situation, but if it was being tested in any way why have two aboard?
 
Paul nailed it. I do not have access (or just have not read all the complete reports) to all the data that the NTSB does and I cannot download the report but crashes/fatalities on early flights may not be a significant accident scenario.

The "data collection" justification for an added person is bogus. If the pilot cannot fly a well-proven design and monitor a few critical parameters (not necessarily record them) then a more experienced pilot should make that initial flight(s).

Look at Table 1 here:

http://www.rvflightsafety.org/safetyprogram/introduction/

Twenty one percent of the fatalities are listed in the maneuvering category. Does the NTSB report have fixes for that or is it a culture/attitude problem that may not change?

What about the 11% due to weather? Those should be close to 100% preventable.

Nine percent of fatalities were attributed to fuel management. That should be zero.

Sixteen percent due to Mechanical failures and Unexplained power loss. Better checks of critical systems before the first flight and during Phase 1 should reduce that a lot.
 
Last edited:
I too am for anything that makes this endeavor safer.

Are you sure about that? I hear that a lot from people. "Safety is the most important thing". But I'm not totally sure everyone who says that means it.

This is just me spouting off my $.02, so take it with a grain of salt. But if safety is the only metric -- and I think that's where the NTSB comes from, if their mission statement is to be believed -- we could make it safer by forcing the E-AB airplanes to go through the same certification hurdles as those in the Normal category. I'm not being facetious. That would make it safer by adding additional levels of inspection, design review, and so on. They specifically mention fuel systems in their letter to the FAA, but if those have to be FAA-approved, can engines, props, and other components be far behind?

Outlaw automotive engines, non-certified wiring and avionics, and require the test period be flown off by an FAA-approved test pilot. Then require 20 hours of dual and a logbook endorsement from a CFI, as well as an annual flight review in the specific aircraft, again with an instructor. Those things will help the accident rate.

I'm betting we could get the accident rate down to where it is with the certificated aircraft. Of course, there would no longer be any experimental aviation (beyond a high-dollar factory, that is), but I don't think the NTSB is tasked with preserving freedoms or promoting aviation. Their mission is safety recommendations and accident investigation.

I'm not necessarily for anything that makes the endeavor safer. I'm for anything that allows pilots the freedom and responsibility to determine for themselves what risks they're okay taking on while minimizing the risk to uninvolved persons. I wouldn't feel comfortable building my own engine, PSRU, and so on. But for those who do? Thank goodness for them.

The road of more rules for experimentals is a slippery slope that can quite easily crush the amateur-built category faster than a foot stomping on a soda can. It can do this through sheer economics. Heck, I just saw a replacement window go into one of our Gulfstream IVs. A single window, mind you, for $80,000.

In my experience, regardless of certification status, regulations don't make pilots safer. A safety-minded attitude and quality decision-making -- those are the things that reduce accident rates. But more regulations? I'm not so sure that's the way to go.

Once a bit of our freedom is gone, it's not coming back -- ever. The years since 9/11 have taught me that much. Anyway, my point is simply this: as the old saying goes, be careful how much safety you ask for. You may get it. :) In my opinion, it would be sad to leave general aviation to the next generation without the freedoms that the E-AB community currently enjoys.

--Ron
 
In 1,231 posts I have never chimed in with a "me too!" but I need to do it here
What Ron said! Safety is not the no.1 goal- freedom is.
 
+1 for multi-crew Phase 1

If there were a way to have a robot do the first flights I'd say go for it. Unfortunately its not really an option (yet) so we're forced to endanger a human. Putting a second person into the mix is an unnecessary risk without any legitimate benefit.

There was a Kitfox crash a few weeks back where one person died and one lived. The news media reported that the aircraft was being tested at the time of the crash. I'm not saying it was a phase one situation, but if it was being tested in any way why have two aboard?

I am a professional (I get paid anyway) test pilot for a leading aerospace manufacturer and our policy is to fly all development (especially 1st flights) with more than one pilot and often a FTE, even on our single pilot aircraft (all our aircraft are multi-seat but not all are multi-piloted). We won't even taxi to reposition the aircraft with only one pilot...

I don't care if you have 100000 hours in RVs... unless the instrument/engine configuration is the same (or very similar) as the aircraft in which the test pilot flew all those hours in, he/she is going to be flying an unfamiliar configuration. Having a 2nd set of eyes as B/U can be very helpful, not always required, but if someone cannot be found who has experience with the configuration to be flown having two guys is better than one.

You are in fact training during Phase-I, unless you somehow accumulated flight experience and are already proficient with the instrument/engine configuration in your plane already.

We as American citizens should be free to determine and accept the risks of our decisions.

+1 for allowing more than 1 pilot at the determination of the owner/builder and PIC during Phase I.
 
Let's face it, the first thing your instructor had you do in primary training was to read the POH!

That was not my experience as a student pilot. Likewise, I don't think I've ever asked a primary student to do that first. In fact, some of the airplanes I've taught primary students in (the J-3 Cub comes to mind) don't even have a "POH" per se. Pilots have been flying them just fine for about 70 years now.

One thing I did not see was in-process inspections. It surprised me that this was not mentioned or targeted since most other countries require them.

Most other countries have very little general aviation, and even less E-AB activity. If we emulate their regulatory hurdles, it's logical to assume we will get the same level of activity in our own amateur-built community.

For those who want in-progress inspections (and I think it's a great idea!), there seem to be EAA tech counselors just about everywhere.

--Ron
 
We as American citizens should be free to determine and accept the risks of our decisions.

Agreed 100%.

In the US, motorcycle riders are 37 times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident than they are in a car accident. If you want to ride a motorcycle in America, you accept the risk, period.

BTW, I count 37 certificated airplane fatalities on the NTSB website for the month of June, 2012. Is the FAA/NTSB making recommendations for that segment of aviation? Just making a point.
 
NTSB

I believe the NTSB information is seriously flawed. First of all if the NTSB is able to complete a study including 2011 accidents, why is it thaat many of the 2011 final accident reports are not available on the NTSB website?
In most cases the NTSB does not investtgate EAB accidents, the FAA does.
A small portion of these reports are very detailed. Many are one paragraph long.
I did a personal analisis of 2009 accidents, the latest year where all reports are final. I made an arbitrary division in performance based on early Bonanza cruise speeds of 170 m/h. No consideration of retract gear, flaps or constant speed prop. If a particular EAB cruises less than 170, its low performance, if more than 170 high performance. Low performance EAB have between 65 and 70% of the accidents.
The NTSB recommendations will have zero effect on the low performance accidents. There are a shocking number of low performance accidents invloving alcohol and drugs, both illegal and prescription. Too many of the pilots have NO MEDICAL OR PILOT CERTIFICATE.
Many of the low performance accidents are aircraft just barely out of the ultralight category, including two place ultralights that are not really EAB but were "grandfathered" prior to 2008.
Lets use a single place Pitts with a four cylinder Lyc and no inverted system as an example.
The single gravity feed fuel tank holds 20 gallons, 19 useable. Fuel is either on or off. No electrical systems, no systems at all. Why do we need a POH for this aircraft??
I learned to fly in a J3 Cub. It did not have a POH. Why do I need a POH today for an EAB no more complicated than the J3???
There have been no fatal airline accidents for quite a while. The corporate and charter accidents have been very rare. So the NTSB doesn't have much to do, they are finding work by "investigating" EAB's.
 
I believe the NTSB information is seriously flawed. First of all if the NTSB is able to complete a study including 2011 accidents, why is it thaat many of the 2011 final accident reports are not available on the NTSB website?
In most cases the NTSB does not investtgate EAB accidents, the FAA does.
A small portion of these reports are very detailed. Many are one paragraph long.

It is also worth noting that the sheer number of RV accidents rising does not necessarily indicate an increasing accident rate. The number of flying RVs has been increasing at a very respectable rate, especially when compared with the slow decline of single engine piston GA deliveries from certificated manufacturers.

There are nearly 7,800 reported "first flights" as of now on the Vans Aircraft web site, with who-knows-how-many more under construction. I'm sure the number must be in the thousands.
 
NTSB

In the 1960's, I met a gentleman who had built a very nice 2 place EAB. He had little or no flight experience, and the airplane was capable of 150 statute cruise, and in its day had a fairly high wing loading. The owner of the local FBO did the initial test flights, and then trained the pilot in his airplane. He soloed and got his Private in the EAB. The training was conducted during the then 50 hour test period. THE FAA DID NOT CARE.
If one has an EAB that is a well proven design with a good aircraft engine, there is little to be "tested" beyond the five hour mark. There is no legitimate reason why training by a CFI cannot be conducted after five hours of through testing.
 
The only trouble with all this talk of personal freedoms is that, rarely but not never, our risk taking hurts an innocent person. Plane hits a house, or a car on the freeway.
I honestly believe that the FAA and NTSB don't care at all about pilot safety; they do care about non pilot safety, despite the very low fatality rates there. They respond to the politicians,who in turn hear from voters. And 98% (or is it 99%?) of the voters are non pilots, many of whom fear aircraft. Everytime there's an accident they think it just barely missed their house. There is no rationality here. But it is a complicated world, no one lives in a vacuum. The honest truth is that our hobby does put ordinary citizens at risk, even if very remote. And an attitude of, "well, that's my right" won't go over very well with most of the voters.
That's how I see it.
 
The only trouble with all this talk of personal freedoms is that, rarely but not never, our risk taking hurts an innocent person. Plane hits a house, or a car on the freeway.
I honestly believe that the FAA and NTSB don't care at all about pilot safety; they do care about non pilot safety, despite the very low fatality rates there. They respond to the politicians,who in turn hear from voters. And 98% (or is it 99%?) of the voters are non pilots, many of whom fear aircraft. Everytime there's an accident they think it just barely missed their house. There is no rationality here. But it is a complicated world, no one lives in a vacuum. The honest truth is that our hobby does put ordinary citizens at risk, even if very remote. And an attitude of, "well, that's my right" won't go over very well with most of the voters.
That's how I see it.

Bob, you're right, we don't live in a vacuum, and there may be public pressure to reduce GA accidents. However, I believe the FAA and NTSB have done what they can do to minimize GA accidents. What is left is largely the bad judgement factor, and I'm not sure anyone can succeed in regulating bad judgement.

On the other hand, the FAA and NTSB (aviation) would be downsized very quickly if they so much as whispered what I just wrote. So instead, they propose new initiatives of questionable value in order to justify their continued existance.

Yeah, I know it is a cynical position... ;-)
 
A person is either qualified to be the test pilot or not. Most of the E-AB's out there are not that complex so 2 test pilots are not required.

There may be a few very complex E-AB's that require 2 test pilots, but maybe the kit manufacturer should supply a test program w/pilots for those aircraft.

Once the initial shakedown flights have occurred, the transition trained owner/builder should be able to do the rest of phase 1....solo. If that pilot needs an additional checkout in the subject plane, he is not sufficiently trained to be doing the phase 1.

I don't like government intervention either. We lose a lot of freedoms these days. But I think we bring a lot of it upon ourselves by ignoring the obvious.....some of us are not test pilots and some of us are also experimenting without the proper engineering background. Egos get in the way of responsible thinking.

Many times we read on here, "you gotta do the first flight" "you'll regret not doing it"...etc. Peer pressure can kill....Peer pressure could also save
 
A person is either qualified to be the test pilot or not. Most of the E-AB's out there are not that complex so 2 test pilots are not required.

Please list the qualifications required and how you determined them? The reality is it isn't as black-n-white as we'd all like it to be.

The PIC should be free to determine the minimum crew requirements suitable for the test in question - not the FAA. A 2nd pilot can act as the test director, data recorder, and help with traffic avoidance. Even during the most simple tests freeing the flying pilot to concentrate soley on smooth accurate "on-condition" points will improve the quality and efficiency of the entire test program. Not all flights may need two pilots, but they should have the authority to determine this based upon their experience, currency, profficiency and complexity of the test in question.
 
NTSB

The good news is the FAA really doesn't pay much attention to what the NTSB says. The modest changes after the Buffalo Regional Airline accident came primarily from Congress.
 
The semi-recent off airport/runway landing of an RV with two people on board might be used to justify two people during Phase 1. The info available is not well-known to me so the following are unconfirmed statements:

1) Two people on board during Phase 1
2) It was a familiarization flight for the non-builder owner.
3) Something happened in-flight and the possible builder/experienced RV pilot got the plane on the ground.
4) No fatalities.

From the NTSB preliminary report:

"The passenger suggested using a higher engine power setting during the cruise-descent, and as the pilot slowly increased engine power they heard a loud bang from the engine and oil began covering the windscreen. He noted that the engine continued to run erratically, but engine speed could not be controlled using the throttle or propeller controls. The pilot relinquished aircraft control to the passenger, who had more experience in the accident airplane, and a forced landing to a nearby wooded area. The airplane was extensively damaged during a postimpact ground fire."

Using this sketchy info of unknown veracity as reasonable truth for discussion purposes, we might conclude that having an experienced RV pilot on-board probably saved the owner.

I would counter with the view that if the owner was not competent to handle a problem, he should not have been flying the plane during Phase 1.

Then we have the question on what was the problem that ended with an off-airport/runway landing. Was it an event that was beyond the control of the pilot? Was it faulty workmanship that finally became catastrophic after about twenty hours of Phase 1 flying? We have seen two (?) cases of that in the recent past.

If the former, then that is one of those things than can happen. If the latter, then it is within the control of the builder and the new owner to ensure that critical systems are checked and re-checked during Phase 1.
 
Last edited:
NTSB

Post #33 is a perfect example of what to me is very questionable data being used by the NTSB. This accident happened in late 2011, there is still no final report available to the public.
 
NTSB

The NTSB still has not answered the qusetion as to whether they are truly separating EAB from other Experimentals, such as the Experimental Exhibition Airshow Aircraft and imported aircraft such as the MIG 21 which had a runway overun a few days ago.
Expanding on what I previously posted on my study of 2009 EAB accidents:
73% were low performance aircraft
61% of all accidents were some form of loss of control. This ranges from vfr pilot in IMC to loss of directional control on takeoff or landing and everything in between.
Only 32% of high performance EAB accidents were loss of control.
One of the interesting facts is that of the low performance accidents it is quite rare to find aircraft from the early EAA era. Examples are Stits, Baby Ace and Pientenpol etc. There are a lot of these aircraft still around and they appear to be flying very safely.
The Zenith aircraft seem to have a very high accident rate. I did not make a formal study of this.
The bottom line, if you take the high performance EAB's that have a reasonable wing loading, the accident record is really quite good.
An additional issue is the hours flown issue. The low performance airplane is much more likely to make very short flights. The high performance airplanes are flying much longer flights.
 
jrs, do you believe the following statistic:

?Accidents in amateur-built aircraft remain a major contributor to the overall non-commercial accident rates. In 2009, the accident rate among amateur-built aircraft was just under four times the rate for type-certificated aircraft, and their fatal accident rate was more than six and a half times higher.? (Source: 2010 Nall Report, page 37)

Do you believe that the RV only fatality rate is about the same as for certified GA aircraft?

What if the RV fatality rate is not ~6.5 times certified GA aircraft but only four times? Is that good enough?

What about three times? Or double?

Is the same accident rate acceptable? Personally I believe that the RV community can be the safest GA aviators and not impact the fun factor.
 
I am against any more regulation of any sort. Who gave the FAA the "right" or even the charter to make sure we are safe from ourselves ?? I want my money to the EAA and AOPA to go towards making sure there is less government involvement in my flying life; not rationalizing more regulation. I'm sure I'm in a minority here; and I also think those that accept any further regulation are already on a slippery slope and don't fully understand the logical conclusion of their path. Oh-oh, flame suit on :).

I'm with you. --Jerre
 
Please list the qualifications required and how you determined them? The reality is it isn't as black-n-white as we'd all like it to be.

The PIC should be free to determine the minimum crew requirements suitable for the test in question - not the FAA. A 2nd pilot can act as the test director, data recorder, and help with traffic avoidance. Even during the most simple tests freeing the flying pilot to concentrate soley on smooth accurate "on-condition" points will improve the quality and efficiency of the entire test program. Not all flights may need two pilots, but they should have the authority to determine this based upon their experience, currency, profficiency and complexity of the test in question.

I don't know the answer you seek. I do know that some of us don't have the skill set to be able to handle any possibility that arises during those early flights. But the test pilot should know when the Shtuff hits the fan, instinct will make the right decisions. Putting that second person in there probably won't help when the chips fall.

I had huge peer pressure to do my first flight. could I have done it?...turns out, yes as no issues were noted. But I was smart enough to know I was not the correct person to handle any problem on that flight.

Go to the EAA Forums. There is a guy building his own design light sport floatplane(might be ultralight) called Norm's flying boat. he has no pilot cert of any kind, he is not an aviation engineer, he has limited flight time (no solo even) and yet he is determined to build and fly this home built contraption. He is an accident waiting to happen. Yet, Several people encourage him, afterall the wright bros had no training either.

THIS mentality will only fuel the fire against homebuilts.

So what are test pilot qualifications?...I don't know, but at least I know that I don't know.
 
NTSB

Regarding Ron Lees post I do not have the answer. The NTSB study is very seriously flawed. Who knows how many hours various aircraft are flying in todays horrible economy??
EAB accident #1, pilot doing aerobatics flies into a cloud and loses control. Would this have been any different in a Decathalon or Pitts?
#2 Pilot flying VFR and talking to center encounters low IFR conditions. Picks up an IFR clearance. Only problem is he only has a turn and bank and no IFR charts. Loses control and crashes. Would the outcome be any different in a Bonanza?
#3 Non instrument rated pilot gets in the clouds, loses control and pulls the wings off. Would the outcome be any different in a Bonanza or Cessna 210.
The above are heavily edited examples of real accidents.
We are talking about most of the same issues that Leighton Collins wrtote about in Air Facts Magazine starting in 1938. The equipment has gotten much much better, the pilots probably are worse. Lack of judgement is at least as bad now as it was then.
 
jrs, your examples from the post above mine are absolutely correct. The problem is that there may be far more cases of these or other problems within the EAB community.

A group of RV pilots created a website to address many of these problems and if people read and followed the suggestions (modified as required for their case) in RVFlightSafety.org, then the RV community could become the safest GA group around.

Every RV pilot that dies flying an RV is a loss to his family, friends and the RV community.

I do not know if we could ever achieve a zero fatality rate in a given year, but what if we reduce it by 50%. That is a lot of husbands/fathers/sons/etc who will still be around. Yes the last sentence is "sexist" but I expect women to be smarter.
 
Back
Top