VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2017, 07:18 PM
Triumph1974 Triumph1974 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 59
Default Phase 1 testing according to AC 90-116 (two pilot testing)

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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-15-2017, 07:37 PM
Ed_Wischmeyer's Avatar
Ed_Wischmeyer Ed_Wischmeyer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 416
Default

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
__________________
RV-8 (steam gauges), RV-9A at KSAV (Savannah, GA; dual screen G3X with autopilot, GTN 650)
Previously RV-4, RV-8A, AirCam, Cessna 175
ATP CFII PhD, so I have no excuses when I screw up
2017 dues paid
Retired - "They used to pay me to be good, now I'm good for nothing."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-15-2017, 08:16 PM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 11,153
Default

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
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor in Chief - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-15-2017, 08:29 PM
rv7charlie rv7charlie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 1,786
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-15-2017, 10:36 PM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 8,340
Post

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.
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
RV-6A VSB (Very Slow Build, but almost there!)
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-16-2017, 06:31 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 1,750
Default

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
__________________
Vic Syracuse

Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, DAR, A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES, EAA Homebuilt Council
Mallards Landing, GA (GA04)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:30 AM
Ed_Wischmeyer's Avatar
Ed_Wischmeyer Ed_Wischmeyer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vic syracuse View Post
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
__________________
RV-8 (steam gauges), RV-9A at KSAV (Savannah, GA; dual screen G3X with autopilot, GTN 650)
Previously RV-4, RV-8A, AirCam, Cessna 175
ATP CFII PhD, so I have no excuses when I screw up
2017 dues paid
Retired - "They used to pay me to be good, now I'm good for nothing."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-17-2017, 12:26 PM
RFazio RFazio is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 353
Default 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.
__________________
Richard Fazio
LI, NY
N966RV
RV-6 Slider
O-360
FP Wood Prop
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-17-2017, 12:41 PM
Ed_Wischmeyer's Avatar
Ed_Wischmeyer Ed_Wischmeyer is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 416
Default

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
__________________
RV-8 (steam gauges), RV-9A at KSAV (Savannah, GA; dual screen G3X with autopilot, GTN 650)
Previously RV-4, RV-8A, AirCam, Cessna 175
ATP CFII PhD, so I have no excuses when I screw up
2017 dues paid
Retired - "They used to pay me to be good, now I'm good for nothing."

Last edited by Ed_Wischmeyer : 03-17-2017 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-17-2017, 12:51 PM
Captain_John's Avatar
Captain_John Captain_John is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: KPYM
Posts: 2,407
Default

I was the first known participant in the program.

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-...-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
__________________
RV-7 Flying - 500 Hours in 2 Years!
TMX-IO-360, G3i ignition & G3X with VP-X
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.