Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:20 AM - Re: Trip report from Nellis Show (Rene Felker)
2. 05:47 AM - Re: Trip report from Nellis Show (Tim Olson)
3. 06:18 AM - Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach? (zackrv8)
4. 06:33 AM - Re: N289DT Accident (John W. Cox)
5. 06:34 AM - Re: Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach? (Tim Olson)
6. 07:03 AM - Icom IC-A210 (Jesse Saint)
7. 07:22 AM - Re: N289DT Accident (John Gonzalez)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: N289DT Accident (John Gonzalez)
9. 07:22 AM - Re: N289DT Accident (John Gonzalez)
10. 07:36 AM - Re: cowl (Dave Saylor)
11. 07:55 AM - First Flight Plans (Rene Felker)
12. 08:13 AM - Re: N289DT Accident (tintopranch)
13. 08:51 AM - Re: Trip report from Nellis Show (Scott Schmidt)
14. 09:07 AM - Re: plexiglass bond to fiberglass (KiloPapa)
15. 09:26 AM - Re: FW: WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet holes (William Curtis)
16. 10:03 AM - Re: FW: WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet holes (Les Kearney)
17. 10:39 AM - Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... (Jay Brinkmeyer)
18. 11:10 AM - Re: N289DT Accident (Scott Schmidt)
19. 11:15 AM - Re: Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... (Tim Olson)
20. 12:40 PM - Re: Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... (William Curtis)
21. 12:52 PM - First Flight Prep (Les Kearney)
22. 01:33 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (John W. Cox)
23. 01:37 PM - Re: Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... (MauleDriver)
24. 02:31 PM - Re: Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach? (Chris Johnston)
25. 02:31 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (Randy Lervold)
26. 02:52 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (William Curtis)
27. 03:17 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (David McNeill)
28. 03:42 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (Scott Schmidt)
29. 03:52 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (Scott Schmidt)
30. 04:04 PM - required crew (David McNeill)
31. 05:25 PM - Required Crew (Dave Saylor)
32. 05:36 PM - Re: required crew (William Curtis)
33. 05:56 PM - Re: Required Crew (William Curtis)
34. 06:00 PM - Re: N289DT Accident (John Kirkland)
35. 06:14 PM - Re: required crew (David McNeill)
36. 06:16 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (gary)
37. 06:23 PM - Re: Tail Longeron bending (John Kirkland)
38. 06:25 PM - Re: required crew (Tim Olson)
39. 06:31 PM - Re: N289DT Accident (zackrv8)
40. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: N289DT Accident (Tim Olson)
41. 06:41 PM - Door Hinges. (Fred Williams, M.D.)
42. 06:44 PM - Re: Required Crew (David McNeill)
43. 07:10 PM - Re: Re: Tail Longeron bending (Deems Davis)
44. 07:11 PM - Re: Re: N289DT Accident (Pascal)
45. 07:34 PM - Re: N289DT Accident (David Maib)
46. 07:34 PM - Re: required crew (Pascal)
47. 07:40 PM - Re: Re: N289DT Accident (Tim Olson)
48. 08:01 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (John W. Cox)
49. 08:06 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (John W. Cox)
50. 08:08 PM - Re: Re: N289DT Accident (B. Rig)
51. 08:10 PM - EAA benefits and resources (Pascal)
52. 08:11 PM - Re: EAA benefits and resources (Pascal)
53. 08:18 PM - Re: wheel pants and leg fairings during flight test (John Kirkland)
54. 08:34 PM - Re: First Flight Prep (William Curtis)
55. 11:24 PM - Re: Wheel Fairing Air Access covers (Sam Marlow)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Trip report from Nellis Show |
My preferred route from SLC (KOGD) to Vegas, you pick the airport, is FFU
(west of Provo)(go by it and not over it, it is on a mountain), Delta,
Milford, Mormon Mesa VOR and into Vegas.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Trip report from Nellis Show
That was actually pretty easy. Going to Valentine and over direct to
SLC (BTF) was pretty easy. The hard part was just going over
the mountain right at BTF. Just call approach as you get there
because there's no good way other than over the mountain in just the
right spot to do it without busting airspace. From SLC, it was a
very easy flight down to Bryce Canyon VOR, and then basically
direct Vegas. You'll fly down parallel to mountain ranges, so
you're right next to long lines of mountains, but you're scooting
along at comfortable altitudes (we used 10,500) and there isn't
anything big to get in your way. Really easy actually, although
had I just done it alone without knowing the land I probably
would have been paranoid a bit....not out of knowing I was in
mountains, but out of not knowing how simple that flight could
be.
I went KLUM to KVTN to Guernsey for a kiddie poop break, and then
direct BTF.
That North route is an hour shorter than the south for me, or more.
I couldn't do it on the way home because of a storm.
Tim
ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Curious about your flight plan to SLC from Valentine.........waypoints
> etc. Looking to go to Las Vegas in a few weeks...........what is the
> preferred NORTH route like you took via SLC.
>
> Dean
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Click here to solve your love problems with the best love advice.
>
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iiegICWW8QGZP1oBwrkdTQuNOP
ldNp9mUqe5YCLSZ4JzzLGjC/>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Trip report from Nellis Show |
Everyone....take Rene's or Scott Schmidt's advice on this one.
My experience is limited to that one flight and Scott and I didn't
want the shortest route, we wanted a scenic one. So, I'm sure
there are better ways. Anyway, it was much easier than I thought
it would be.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Rene Felker wrote:
>
> My preferred route from SLC (KOGD) to Vegas, you pick the airport, is FFU
> (west of Provo)(go by it and not over it, it is on a mountain), Delta,
> Milford, Mormon Mesa VOR and into Vegas.
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 40322
> 801-721-6080
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Trip report from Nellis Show
>
>
> That was actually pretty easy. Going to Valentine and over direct to
> SLC (BTF) was pretty easy. The hard part was just going over
> the mountain right at BTF. Just call approach as you get there
> because there's no good way other than over the mountain in just the
> right spot to do it without busting airspace. From SLC, it was a
> very easy flight down to Bryce Canyon VOR, and then basically
> direct Vegas. You'll fly down parallel to mountain ranges, so
> you're right next to long lines of mountains, but you're scooting
> along at comfortable altitudes (we used 10,500) and there isn't
> anything big to get in your way. Really easy actually, although
> had I just done it alone without knowing the land I probably
> would have been paranoid a bit....not out of knowing I was in
> mountains, but out of not knowing how simple that flight could
> be.
>
> I went KLUM to KVTN to Guernsey for a kiddie poop break, and then
> direct BTF.
>
> That North route is an hour shorter than the south for me, or more.
> I couldn't do it on the way home because of a storm.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
>> Tim,
>>
>> Curious about your flight plan to SLC from Valentine.........waypoints
>> etc. Looking to go to Las Vegas in a few weeks...........what is the
>> preferred NORTH route like you took via SLC.
>>
>> Dean
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Click here to solve your love problems with the best love advice.
>>
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iiegICWW8QGZP1oBwrkdTQuNOP
> ldNp9mUqe5YCLSZ4JzzLGjC/>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach? |
CJ,
I put 4 platenuts in instead of the sheet metal screws. It wasn't too hard.
The platenuts are pop-riveted in and work great. I put them exactly where the
plans dictate. The sheet metal screws are definitely easier and probably work
just as good since Van has them on his RV10's.
Zack
CJohnston(at)popsound.com wrote:
> hey all -
>
> perhaps a dumb question. big surprise. can someone enlighten me as to the method
of attach of the upper gear leg fairing? The plans say screw #6 1/2 SS
SMS 3 places, and AN509-8R8 K1000-08 AN426AD3-3.5 (1place). I found stainless
screws in the kit, but i'm thinking they're not the right ones. and what about
nutplates for those 3 places? I don't get it. I thought that this must've
confounded others, but a search of the archives didn't turn up anything. when
i look inside the aircraft where these screws are supposed to go, it's not immediately
apparent to me how it goes together. Are these "SMS" screws special?
does "SMS" stand for "Super Magic Screw"?
>
> one additional question... does anyone think it would be a problem to do the
upper gear leg intersections later, and with weight on the wheels? the fairings
sent to me by Vans for this area more closely resemble lasagna noodles than
fairings, and i thought i might buy new ones from Fairings Etc. The problem
is, that would take more time, and I'm trying to get these #@$!%!! fairings done
so i can hang the engine! I kind of feel like I'm eating all my broccoli so
I can get dessert. thoughts?
>
> cj
> (currently doing fairings - so call me Sandy)
> #40410
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147080#147080
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
If you fly long enough, you learn the adage "No old Bold Pilots". The
axiom is really that the pilots who last at flying longer are "Less
Bold" than some who do not. Many of the pilots just leave the gene pool
for various reasons.
In over thirty years, I have lost more than two dozen known friends,
eight of them were very close personally. Steve Fossett was/is a fellow
aeronaut who is still reported missing. I have been involved directly in
three NTSB investigations in those thirty years as a Pilot Examiner and
Accident Safety Counselor and one event which was able to be
reclassified at the FAA level to avoid the NTSB investigation, even when
the medical expenses on one passenger exceeded One Million. One of
those accidents, I served as an investigator of primary facts, one I
secured the remaining debris until released to the Insurance company (a
gruesome responsibility). Many reading the RV-10 list have a false
impression of both the role and use of NTSB reports.
The Proficiency Training offered in conjunction with Lancair included(s)
study of all make and model related fatal Lancair accidents. There have
been many. There will be more RV-10s. It also includes Life Skill Sets
which reduce the likelihood of not flying the aircraft incorrectly. One
conclusion this group is likely to reject is that Proficiency Training
goes beyond Transition Training. They each have value. They each should
be seriously considered. When studying NTSB reports, and contrary to
popularly held opinion - they do not always present FACT. They present a
series of findings held by the reader as fact and not subject to
amendment or clarification except in discussion. Often the conditions
may be in error of what actually happened (but are close enough for
study). Not all accidents get the same level of investigation. TWA
Flight 800 was not your typical CFIT Cessna 182. They do present a body
of information and a conclusion which can be used to modify and improve
one's own piloting judgment and flying skills. In the case of TWA800 it
has lead to corrective wiring techniques not yet brought to GA aircraft.
Here are a series of questions which deserve posted answers during the
interim of the NTSB final Preliminary Finding.
Who was the DAR?
What was the data of Weight and Balance presented?
What was the CG of this particular Eggenfelner powered aircraft with the
battery aft? With the Battery relocated forward?
Were these controls balanced?
How was the aircraft able to leave the primary assigned Phase One
Fly-Off and arrive in Florida during the initial testing period?
How was a second POB allowed to be on board when not required on the
Operating Limitations as required crew?
Do you want to speculate that the DAR should be held to completing a
comprehensive final inspection of the workmanship?
Did the written logbook support actual and not fabricated compliance
with the purpose of the Fly Off?
For those who saw the aircraft, was the workmanship up to your standards
or VANS?
Were the instruments and flight controls working properly prior to this
final flight?
Beyond these answers, the rest will remain speculation.
My thoughts are for Dan's family and a prayer for a peaceful
Thanksgiving. I am thankful the circumstances did not have them aboard
on this unfortunate test flight. Don't forget the fund to help his
family.
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
Ok folks, I've received enough encouragement offline to share the story
that I think it's time for limited distribution.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach? |
Actually, if you have the choice, I'd use the platenuts
as much as you can, and perhaps try to limit to one
or two sheet metal screws. I've had mine want to un-screw
so I had to put some sealant on the threads just to keep
them from vibrating. Just pick some good locations for
the nutplates, one probably being on the wing root fairing.
And, if you drill for sheet metal screws, be careful to know
where the spar is. You don't want to hit that.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
zackrv8 wrote:
>
> CJ,
>
> I put 4 platenuts in instead of the sheet metal screws. It wasn't
> too hard. The platenuts are pop-riveted in and work great. I put
> them exactly where the plans dictate. The sheet metal screws are
> definitely easier and probably work just as good since Van has them
> on his RV10's.
>
> Zack
>
>
>
>
>
> CJohnston(at)popsound.com wrote:
>> hey all -
>>
>> perhaps a dumb question. big surprise. can someone enlighten me
>> as to the method of attach of the upper gear leg fairing? The
>> plans say screw #6 1/2 SS SMS 3 places, and AN509-8R8 K1000-08
>> AN426AD3-3.5 (1place). I found stainless screws in the kit, but
>> i'm thinking they're not the right ones. and what about nutplates
>> for those 3 places? I don't get it. I thought that this must've
>> confounded others, but a search of the archives didn't turn up
>> anything. when i look inside the aircraft where these screws are
>> supposed to go, it's not immediately apparent to me how it goes
>> together. Are these "SMS" screws special? does "SMS" stand for
>> "Super Magic Screw"?
>>
>> one additional question... does anyone think it would be a problem
>> to do the upper gear leg intersections later, and with weight on
>> the wheels? the fairings sent to me by Vans for this area more
>> closely resemble lasagna noodles than fairings, and i thought i
>> might buy new ones from Fairings Etc. The problem is, that would
>> take more time, and I'm trying to get these #@$!%!! fairings done
>> so i can hang the engine! I kind of feel like I'm eating all my
>> broccoli so I can get dessert. thoughts?
>>
>> cj (currently doing fairings - so call me Sandy) #40410
>> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
>
> -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147080#147080
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have an Icom IC-A210 that I picked up, but don't need yet. If anybody is
interested who didn't get in on the group guy, please contact me off list.
Do not archive
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
www.saintaviation.com
Cell: 352-427-0285
Fax: 815-377-3694
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And for God's sake, please stop saying Oshkosh '08 or Bust. What the hell d
oes it matter!!!!!
John G. 409> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:52:33 -0600> From: Tim@MyRV10.com> T
o: rv10-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident> > -->
RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>> > Ok folks, I've r
eceived enough encouragement offline to share the story> that I think it's
time for limited distribution. You have no idea how> many people who are ne
aring their first flight are becoming nervous,> and how many wives of build
ers are starting to second-guess their> projects. This accident has touched
some people pretty deeply and> there is very understandable concern that t
hey would just like to hear> more information to give them something to und
erstand the situation a> bit.> > I warn you that you aren't going to find a
ny smoking guns in the story,> so for those wanting that sort of thing, it'
s not here. But, the story> does provide numerous opportunities for observa
tion and introspection> for the builder, to perhaps give you something to n
udge you to do the> proper thing if the time ever hits you. Truly, attitude
s are a critical> part of safe flying. Even on my first flight, I had the o
pportunity> to take off with a battery warning because I hadn't clicked in
my> alternator control wire plug tight enough. I thought briefly about just
> doing "once around the patch", but my conscience (developed from reading>
so many "aftermath" reports) got the best of me and I decided to do the> r
ight thing and fix it before I took off. As you read the story> you will se
e some reasonings that may shed light for you a bit.> > I ask of all of you
to treat this with the utmost respect, because there> are still living mem
bers of his family that have deep feelings.> Understanding accidents is imp
ortant, and so is preservation of> their well being. So to help meet these
needs, I have made this a> link that you will need to log in to read. This
is made only> semi-public to limit it's distribution to only RV-10 builders
.> Please do not distribute further for the time being.> > With that said,
please feel free to read the following synopsis, and not> use it to draw "s
moking gun" conclusions. I do feel though that you> will develop somewhat o
f an understanding. Be aware that nobody is> immune to this sort of thought
process, so it is up to you and all of> us to not become the second fatali
ty in our RV-10 family.> > Here is the link:> http://www.myrv10.com/builder
s/N289DT_accident.html> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying> do not archive
ked@embarqmail.com>> > > > Speculation at some point is inevitable and I'm
sure many just like> > myself have speculated privately about what happened
but without> > substantiation. I hope that the cause is found and dissemin
ated to> > everyone to prevent future tragedies. If Dan was able, he would
post> > what happened during those last minutes to get the word out so the>
> same fate did not befall anyone else. This whole incident has> > persona
lly caused me to step back and rethink my entire outlook on> > aviation and
aviation safety. I read the NTSB reports and several> > Aviation Safety ma
gazines. They all promote thinking and provide> > insight to staying alive
and flying, but all those reports and> > stories never left a pit in my gut
like this one.> > > > Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV
Builder (Michael> > Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> To: rv10-list@matronic
s.com Sent:> > Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:44:07 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_
Angeles > > Subject: RV10-List: N289DT Accident> > > > --> RV10-List messag
e posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"> > <rvbuilder@sausen.net>> > > >
Historically, the NTSB will release a preliminary report with it's> > prob
able findings. This could be anywhere from a week to a who knows> > when. A
s of yesterday they still haven't released a preliminary> > report on N289D
T which means they still haven't found a probable> > cause, or at least hav
en't compiled it into a prelim report.> > > > I don't think anyone can take
a guess at what really happened unless> > they had firsthand knowledge to
anything causal prior to the flight.> > I also really don't expect Jan to b
e forthcoming with any information> > because of legal reasons, so don't lo
ok to him for any data. Not> > suggesting anything, just a fact of business
.> > > > There has also been lots of back room speculation on the decision>
> making process up to that faithful day. I have no firsthand> > knowledge
of any bad decisions or shortcuts being made, and I prefer> > to give peop
le the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, but there> > was too much c
hatter before this to ignore. The fact is only one of> > two things caused
this accident, either mechanical or pilot failures> > or a combination of b
oth. Every single one of us has made a bad> > decision in aviation but 99%
of the time it ends in a benign way.> > It's that compounding of small prob
lems that can rapidly sneak up to> > bite someone in the ass. Aviation isn'
t forgiving of smart people> > having a bad day.> > > > So what I suggest i
s we start sharing what we do know and keep the> > speculation to a minimum
. It is important to remember however that> > it will take a level of specu
lation and assumption to get to a> > conclusion without a VERY clear factor
to lead us to an undeniable> > cause. Even the NTSB will make some assumpt
ions to get to a> > conclusion. I doubt there will be a single smoking gun
in this> > accident but you never know. I suggest this because there are> >
several other people out there looking at installing an alternative> > eng
ine and we can't deny the fact that the install of an alternative> > engine
in this case probably had a contributing factor. I think it> > is importan
t for those people to have information available to help> > them with their
decision making process on their own installs.> > > > Here is what we seem
to know at the moment. Immediately prior to the> > event, the batteries we
re relocated from the standard aft location to> > the firewall. We know the
standard battery location was chosen for> > CG considerations. He was usin
g two batteries but I'm not sure of> > the size. We know the engine was run
ning within a minute or so of the> > impact. We know in a standard RV-10 co
nfiguration with low fuel and> > no passengers it is possible to run out of
elevator authority in a> > flair. We also know that there were many modifi
cations FWF to> > accommodate the Egg engine. Does anyone know what the wei
ght of the> > Egg FWF package is? I thought I recall Dan telling me it wasn
't much> > less than the standard 540 configuration once all the accessorie
s are> > added.> > > > I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that w
ould rather let> > this go out of respect to Dan and his family. Like many
on the list> > I have had numerous personal conversations with Dan. He and
I went> > through the process on choosing an engine at the same time. Even>
> though we came to different conclusions there was always an> > understan
ding on why each of us made our decision and we both> > respected that.> >
> > Michael> > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-ser
ver@matronics.com> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behal
f Of Tim Olson > > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list@ma
tronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dan Loyd> > > > --> RV10-List messa
ge posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>> > > > There is a lot to be learne
d from Dan's experiences, but I'm not sure> > if the group is ready to hear
some of the details yet. Everything > > in regards to the actual crash is
speculation, and I doubt that other> > than when the NTSB downloads all the
EFIS/EIS data log that there is> > any way anything 100% conclusive can ev
er be stated with certainty. > > Even the logged data is just as unlikely t
o produce answers. But,> > there is still a bit of information that is what
I'd consider great> > background info. The question is, is it too early to
discuss at this> > time, do we need to wait months for a full NTSB report
first? On one> > hand, it seems that some "lessons learned" may be better t
o hear> > while the pain in your gut is still fresh. On the other, there ar
e> > people who just can't stand anything but solid evidence like "XYZ nut>
> was removed prior to flight and PQR part was found separated from> > air
plane and recovered 1 mile from impact site". I'm just having> > problems c
oming to terms with when is the right time for us.> > > > Tim Olson - RV-10
N104CD - Flying do not archive> > > > > > gary wrote:> >> --> RV10-List me
ssage posted by: "gary" <speckter@comcast.net>> >> > >> I know the NTSB tak
es a year to publish a cause for accidents, but> >> do we know any info abo
ut Dan's. I am not looking for speculation,> >> just curious if any thing s
uspicious was found.> >> > >> Gary 40274 Painting> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
=======================> > >
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And for God's sake, please stop saying Oshkosh '08 or Bust. What the hell d
oes it matter!!!!!
John G. 409> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:52:33 -0600> From: Tim@MyRV10.com> T
o: rv10-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident> > -->
RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>> > Ok folks, I've r
eceived enough encouragement offline to share the story> that I think it's
time for limited distribution. You have no idea how> many people who are ne
aring their first flight are becoming nervous,> and how many wives of build
ers are starting to second-guess their> projects. This accident has touched
some people pretty deeply and> there is very understandable concern that t
hey would just like to hear> more information to give them something to und
erstand the situation a> bit.> > I warn you that you aren't going to find a
ny smoking guns in the story,> so for those wanting that sort of thing, it'
s not here. But, the story> does provide numerous opportunities for observa
tion and introspection> for the builder, to perhaps give you something to n
udge you to do the> proper thing if the time ever hits you. Truly, attitude
s are a critical> part of safe flying. Even on my first flight, I had the o
pportunity> to take off with a battery warning because I hadn't clicked in
my> alternator control wire plug tight enough. I thought briefly about just
> doing "once around the patch", but my conscience (developed from reading>
so many "aftermath" reports) got the best of me and I decided to do the> r
ight thing and fix it before I took off. As you read the story> you will se
e some reasonings that may shed light for you a bit.> > I ask of all of you
to treat this with the utmost respect, because there> are still living mem
bers of his family that have deep feelings.> Understanding accidents is imp
ortant, and so is preservation of> their well being. So to help meet these
needs, I have made this a> link that you will need to log in to read. This
is made only> semi-public to limit it's distribution to only RV-10 builders
.> Please do not distribute further for the time being.> > With that said,
please feel free to read the following synopsis, and not> use it to draw "s
moking gun" conclusions. I do feel though that you> will develop somewhat o
f an understanding. Be aware that nobody is> immune to this sort of thought
process, so it is up to you and all of> us to not become the second fatali
ty in our RV-10 family.> > Here is the link:> http://www.myrv10.com/builder
s/N289DT_accident.html> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying> do not archive
ked@embarqmail.com>> > > > Speculation at some point is inevitable and I'm
sure many just like> > myself have speculated privately about what happened
but without> > substantiation. I hope that the cause is found and dissemin
ated to> > everyone to prevent future tragedies. If Dan was able, he would
post> > what happened during those last minutes to get the word out so the>
> same fate did not befall anyone else. This whole incident has> > persona
lly caused me to step back and rethink my entire outlook on> > aviation and
aviation safety. I read the NTSB reports and several> > Aviation Safety ma
gazines. They all promote thinking and provide> > insight to staying alive
and flying, but all those reports and> > stories never left a pit in my gut
like this one.> > > > Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV
Builder (Michael> > Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> To: rv10-list@matronic
s.com Sent:> > Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:44:07 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_
Angeles > > Subject: RV10-List: N289DT Accident> > > > --> RV10-List messag
e posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"> > <rvbuilder@sausen.net>> > > >
Historically, the NTSB will release a preliminary report with it's> > prob
able findings. This could be anywhere from a week to a who knows> > when. A
s of yesterday they still haven't released a preliminary> > report on N289D
T which means they still haven't found a probable> > cause, or at least hav
en't compiled it into a prelim report.> > > > I don't think anyone can take
a guess at what really happened unless> > they had firsthand knowledge to
anything causal prior to the flight.> > I also really don't expect Jan to b
e forthcoming with any information> > because of legal reasons, so don't lo
ok to him for any data. Not> > suggesting anything, just a fact of business
.> > > > There has also been lots of back room speculation on the decision>
> making process up to that faithful day. I have no firsthand> > knowledge
of any bad decisions or shortcuts being made, and I prefer> > to give peop
le the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, but there> > was too much c
hatter before this to ignore. The fact is only one of> > two things caused
this accident, either mechanical or pilot failures> > or a combination of b
oth. Every single one of us has made a bad> > decision in aviation but 99%
of the time it ends in a benign way.> > It's that compounding of small prob
lems that can rapidly sneak up to> > bite someone in the ass. Aviation isn'
t forgiving of smart people> > having a bad day.> > > > So what I suggest i
s we start sharing what we do know and keep the> > speculation to a minimum
. It is important to remember however that> > it will take a level of specu
lation and assumption to get to a> > conclusion without a VERY clear factor
to lead us to an undeniable> > cause. Even the NTSB will make some assumpt
ions to get to a> > conclusion. I doubt there will be a single smoking gun
in this> > accident but you never know. I suggest this because there are> >
several other people out there looking at installing an alternative> > eng
ine and we can't deny the fact that the install of an alternative> > engine
in this case probably had a contributing factor. I think it> > is importan
t for those people to have information available to help> > them with their
decision making process on their own installs.> > > > Here is what we seem
to know at the moment. Immediately prior to the> > event, the batteries we
re relocated from the standard aft location to> > the firewall. We know the
standard battery location was chosen for> > CG considerations. He was usin
g two batteries but I'm not sure of> > the size. We know the engine was run
ning within a minute or so of the> > impact. We know in a standard RV-10 co
nfiguration with low fuel and> > no passengers it is possible to run out of
elevator authority in a> > flair. We also know that there were many modifi
cations FWF to> > accommodate the Egg engine. Does anyone know what the wei
ght of the> > Egg FWF package is? I thought I recall Dan telling me it wasn
't much> > less than the standard 540 configuration once all the accessorie
s are> > added.> > > > I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that w
ould rather let> > this go out of respect to Dan and his family. Like many
on the list> > I have had numerous personal conversations with Dan. He and
I went> > through the process on choosing an engine at the same time. Even>
> though we came to different conclusions there was always an> > understan
ding on why each of us made our decision and we both> > respected that.> >
> > Michael> > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-ser
ver@matronics.com> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behal
f Of Tim Olson > > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list@ma
tronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dan Loyd> > > > --> RV10-List messa
ge posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>> > > > There is a lot to be learne
d from Dan's experiences, but I'm not sure> > if the group is ready to hear
some of the details yet. Everything > > in regards to the actual crash is
speculation, and I doubt that other> > than when the NTSB downloads all the
EFIS/EIS data log that there is> > any way anything 100% conclusive can ev
er be stated with certainty. > > Even the logged data is just as unlikely t
o produce answers. But,> > there is still a bit of information that is what
I'd consider great> > background info. The question is, is it too early to
discuss at this> > time, do we need to wait months for a full NTSB report
first? On one> > hand, it seems that some "lessons learned" may be better t
o hear> > while the pain in your gut is still fresh. On the other, there ar
e> > people who just can't stand anything but solid evidence like "XYZ nut>
> was removed prior to flight and PQR part was found separated from> > air
plane and recovered 1 mile from impact site". I'm just having> > problems c
oming to terms with when is the right time for us.> > > > Tim Olson - RV-10
N104CD - Flying do not archive> > > > > > gary wrote:> >> --> RV10-List me
ssage posted by: "gary" <speckter@comcast.net>> >> > >> I know the NTSB tak
es a year to publish a cause for accidents, but> >> do we know any info abo
ut Dan's. I am not looking for speculation,> >> just curious if any thing s
uspicious was found.> >> > >> Gary 40274 Painting> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
=======================> > >
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
And for God's sake, please stop saying Oshkosh '08 or Bust. What the hell d
oes it matter!!!!!
John G. 409> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:52:33 -0600> From: Tim@MyRV10.com> T
o: rv10-list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident> > -->
RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>> > Ok folks, I've r
eceived enough encouragement offline to share the story> that I think it's
time for limited distribution. You have no idea how> many people who are ne
aring their first flight are becoming nervous,> and how many wives of build
ers are starting to second-guess their> projects. This accident has touched
some people pretty deeply and> there is very understandable concern that t
hey would just like to hear> more information to give them something to und
erstand the situation a> bit.> > I warn you that you aren't going to find a
ny smoking guns in the story,> so for those wanting that sort of thing, it'
s not here. But, the story> does provide numerous opportunities for observa
tion and introspection> for the builder, to perhaps give you something to n
udge you to do the> proper thing if the time ever hits you. Truly, attitude
s are a critical> part of safe flying. Even on my first flight, I had the o
pportunity> to take off with a battery warning because I hadn't clicked in
my> alternator control wire plug tight enough. I thought briefly about just
> doing "once around the patch", but my conscience (developed from reading>
so many "aftermath" reports) got the best of me and I decided to do the> r
ight thing and fix it before I took off. As you read the story> you will se
e some reasonings that may shed light for you a bit.> > I ask of all of you
to treat this with the utmost respect, because there> are still living mem
bers of his family that have deep feelings.> Understanding accidents is imp
ortant, and so is preservation of> their well being. So to help meet these
needs, I have made this a> link that you will need to log in to read. This
is made only> semi-public to limit it's distribution to only RV-10 builders
.> Please do not distribute further for the time being.> > With that said,
please feel free to read the following synopsis, and not> use it to draw "s
moking gun" conclusions. I do feel though that you> will develop somewhat o
f an understanding. Be aware that nobody is> immune to this sort of thought
process, so it is up to you and all of> us to not become the second fatali
ty in our RV-10 family.> > Here is the link:> http://www.myrv10.com/builder
s/N289DT_accident.html> > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying> do not archive
ked@embarqmail.com>> > > > Speculation at some point is inevitable and I'm
sure many just like> > myself have speculated privately about what happened
but without> > substantiation. I hope that the cause is found and dissemin
ated to> > everyone to prevent future tragedies. If Dan was able, he would
post> > what happened during those last minutes to get the word out so the>
> same fate did not befall anyone else. This whole incident has> > persona
lly caused me to step back and rethink my entire outlook on> > aviation and
aviation safety. I read the NTSB reports and several> > Aviation Safety ma
gazines. They all promote thinking and provide> > insight to staying alive
and flying, but all those reports and> > stories never left a pit in my gut
like this one.> > > > Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV
Builder (Michael> > Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> To: rv10-list@matronic
s.com Sent:> > Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:44:07 AM (GMT-0800) America/Los_
Angeles > > Subject: RV10-List: N289DT Accident> > > > --> RV10-List messag
e posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"> > <rvbuilder@sausen.net>> > > >
Historically, the NTSB will release a preliminary report with it's> > prob
able findings. This could be anywhere from a week to a who knows> > when. A
s of yesterday they still haven't released a preliminary> > report on N289D
T which means they still haven't found a probable> > cause, or at least hav
en't compiled it into a prelim report.> > > > I don't think anyone can take
a guess at what really happened unless> > they had firsthand knowledge to
anything causal prior to the flight.> > I also really don't expect Jan to b
e forthcoming with any information> > because of legal reasons, so don't lo
ok to him for any data. Not> > suggesting anything, just a fact of business
.> > > > There has also been lots of back room speculation on the decision>
> making process up to that faithful day. I have no firsthand> > knowledge
of any bad decisions or shortcuts being made, and I prefer> > to give peop
le the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, but there> > was too much c
hatter before this to ignore. The fact is only one of> > two things caused
this accident, either mechanical or pilot failures> > or a combination of b
oth. Every single one of us has made a bad> > decision in aviation but 99%
of the time it ends in a benign way.> > It's that compounding of small prob
lems that can rapidly sneak up to> > bite someone in the ass. Aviation isn'
t forgiving of smart people> > having a bad day.> > > > So what I suggest i
s we start sharing what we do know and keep the> > speculation to a minimum
. It is important to remember however that> > it will take a level of specu
lation and assumption to get to a> > conclusion without a VERY clear factor
to lead us to an undeniable> > cause. Even the NTSB will make some assumpt
ions to get to a> > conclusion. I doubt there will be a single smoking gun
in this> > accident but you never know. I suggest this because there are> >
several other people out there looking at installing an alternative> > eng
ine and we can't deny the fact that the install of an alternative> > engine
in this case probably had a contributing factor. I think it> > is importan
t for those people to have information available to help> > them with their
decision making process on their own installs.> > > > Here is what we seem
to know at the moment. Immediately prior to the> > event, the batteries we
re relocated from the standard aft location to> > the firewall. We know the
standard battery location was chosen for> > CG considerations. He was usin
g two batteries but I'm not sure of> > the size. We know the engine was run
ning within a minute or so of the> > impact. We know in a standard RV-10 co
nfiguration with low fuel and> > no passengers it is possible to run out of
elevator authority in a> > flair. We also know that there were many modifi
cations FWF to> > accommodate the Egg engine. Does anyone know what the wei
ght of the> > Egg FWF package is? I thought I recall Dan telling me it wasn
't much> > less than the standard 540 configuration once all the accessorie
s are> > added.> > > > I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that w
ould rather let> > this go out of respect to Dan and his family. Like many
on the list> > I have had numerous personal conversations with Dan. He and
I went> > through the process on choosing an engine at the same time. Even>
> though we came to different conclusions there was always an> > understan
ding on why each of us made our decision and we both> > respected that.> >
> > Michael> > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-ser
ver@matronics.com> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behal
f Of Tim Olson > > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-list@ma
tronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dan Loyd> > > > --> RV10-List messa
ge posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>> > > > There is a lot to be learne
d from Dan's experiences, but I'm not sure> > if the group is ready to hear
some of the details yet. Everything > > in regards to the actual crash is
speculation, and I doubt that other> > than when the NTSB downloads all the
EFIS/EIS data log that there is> > any way anything 100% conclusive can ev
er be stated with certainty. > > Even the logged data is just as unlikely t
o produce answers. But,> > there is still a bit of information that is what
I'd consider great> > background info. The question is, is it too early to
discuss at this> > time, do we need to wait months for a full NTSB report
first? On one> > hand, it seems that some "lessons learned" may be better t
o hear> > while the pain in your gut is still fresh. On the other, there ar
e> > people who just can't stand anything but solid evidence like "XYZ nut>
> was removed prior to flight and PQR part was found separated from> > air
plane and recovered 1 mile from impact site". I'm just having> > problems c
oming to terms with when is the right time for us.> > > > Tim Olson - RV-10
N104CD - Flying do not archive> > > > > > gary wrote:> >> --> RV10-List me
ssage posted by: "gary" <speckter@comcast.net>> >> > >> I know the NTSB tak
es a year to publish a cause for accidents, but> >> do we know any info abo
ut Dan's. I am not looking for speculation,> >> just curious if any thing s
uspicious was found.> >> > >> Gary 40274 Painting> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
=======================> > >
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
One of my lower hinges broke after about 25 hours. I scratched my head for
awhile but now I'm pretty sure it was because I let the pin back out and
contact the exhaust pipe. I think the vibration from the pipe is what did
in the hinge. FWIW I'm using steel pins.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: cowl
Good tips. The one thing that would be good to inject here again for people
since it's been a long time, is that I've heard about quite a few instances
of the bottom hinges the ones next to the exhaust for the lower cowl,
breaking eyelits on the hinges over time. One builder I know saw them brake
at a pretty fast rate, in fact. Then, they switch to a screw and nutplate
arrangement for a better lifespan. All I can think is that there's more
vibration and the lower hinges hold more of the weight of the hanging cowl,
but I do know that they've been the common place that breaks. So, if you're
on the fence about doing nutplates and screws, use that info to your
advantage. If you want to try the hinge method on bottom, no big deal, and
you can always change those over later if you find they don't hold up.
If they do, then that's great too. As long as you monitor them, you
shouldn't really have a huge concern as there's plenty of other hinge to
hold the cowl on. I was kind of intimidated by the hinge pin method of the
cowl securing in general, but so far I've found that even pulling the top
cowl isn't a big deal a tall, so I'm more impressed after 300+ hours than I
thought I'd be.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
David McNeill wrote:
> Just finished fitting the cowl; fits like a glove. Here are a couple
> of tips.
>
> the 1001N-L and -R should match the knuckles on the firewall and cowl
> exactly per plan picture. Otherwise it is necessary to remove a
> portion of the knuckles after the 1001Ns are riveted on. Then the
> center secured pin arrangment will work.
>
> the hinge pins on the bottom cowl hinges should be left longer and
> secure with a clip at the center of the lower cowl attach bracket.
> Otherwise it wil be dificult to remove the cowl pins until the exhaust
> cools.
>
> the side hinge pins should be left long and bent around the forward
> end of the cowl inlet and secured there (as in the Glastar). Otherwise
> the pin will lack enough length to grab it and remove it..
>
> drilling the side hinges can be accomplihed by Clecoing the forward
> center together and clampling the sides together off the aircraft.
> This method was used to drill the side hinges for the top cowl.
>
> *
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Plans |
I shared this with Tim last night, but think it is a good input for the
list. Over the past couple of months I have been putting a focused effort in
to complete and fly the project....to be airplane. I had training scheduled
with Alex in Oct but had to cancel because of work. But, it was a good
thing because I have yet to finish the project. Although I am close, there
is still work to be done....seems endless. Considering recent events, I
have decided to change my plan of attack and just focus on getting the
project through the DAR inspection, then once that is completed, schedule my
transition training....hey Scott are you giving transition training....then
do my first flight. That should take all the pressure off and allow me the
time I will need to continue on the interior and to calibrate and set up all
the electronic wonders I have on this plane.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
40322
801-721-6080
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
Tim, Thanks for taking the time to give us some background on the accident. I
have about 100 hours on my RV10 and this crash hit me hard. I am always looking
for ways to minimize the risk of flying and I have had my share of close calls
over the years of flying (1600 hrs). This kind of tragedy makes you take a
good hard look at yourself.
This reinforces what I believe is the way to long and successful pilot's life:
1) Take baby steps with your flying experience (example: do not go from a simple
certified plane to a complex experimental without proper training and experience)
2) Fix the little things, because in flight they can become an enormous distraction.
3) Take your time to do it right (ie. safe), because flying does not always give
you a second chance.
4) Do your homework, like this forum, manuals, etc.
5) Minimize you risk when you fly, never combine a new plane, new pilot, new
engine, IFR, night flying, etc. Pick one and work with it awhile until you feel
you can handle it in an emergence situation, then take on the next one.
Sometimes, I do not follow my own advice....this accident has made me much more
critical of myself.
--------
MARK SUTHERLAND
RV-10 40292
Flying since June 07
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147109#147109
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Trip report from Nellis Show |
Rene, that is the most direct route. I typically fly over Delta, Milford, west
of St. George. But I wanted to take Tim and his family around Bryce Canyon,
next to Zions, and also wanted to stay near the snow capped mountains.
By the way, how many RV-10's were at Copperstate this year?
Scott Schmidt
Do not archive
----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:46:43 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Trip report from Nellis Show
Everyone....take Rene's or Scott Schmidt's advice on this one.
My experience is limited to that one flight and Scott and I didn't
want the shortest route, we wanted a scenic one. So, I'm sure
there are better ways. Anyway, it was much easier than I thought
it would be.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Rene Felker wrote:
>
> My preferred route from SLC (KOGD) to Vegas, you pick the airport, is
FFU
> (west of Provo)(go by it and not over it, it is on a mountain),
Delta,
> Milford, Mormon Mesa VOR and into Vegas.
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 40322
> 801-721-6080
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Trip report from Nellis Show
>
>
> That was actually pretty easy. Going to Valentine and over direct to
> SLC (BTF) was pretty easy. The hard part was just going over
> the mountain right at BTF. Just call approach as you get there
> because there's no good way other than over the mountain in just the
> right spot to do it without busting airspace. From SLC, it was a
> very easy flight down to Bryce Canyon VOR, and then basically
> direct Vegas. You'll fly down parallel to mountain ranges, so
> you're right next to long lines of mountains, but you're scooting
> along at comfortable altitudes (we used 10,500) and there isn't
> anything big to get in your way. Really easy actually, although
> had I just done it alone without knowing the land I probably
> would have been paranoid a bit....not out of knowing I was in
> mountains, but out of not knowing how simple that flight could
> be.
>
> I went KLUM to KVTN to Guernsey for a kiddie poop break, and then
> direct BTF.
>
> That North route is an hour shorter than the south for me, or more.
> I couldn't do it on the way home because of a storm.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> ddddsp1@juno.com wrote:
>> Tim,
>>
>> Curious about your flight plan to SLC from
Valentine.........waypoints
>> etc. Looking to go to Las Vegas in a few weeks...........what is
the
>> preferred NORTH route like you took via SLC.
>>
>> Dean
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Click here to solve your love problems with the best love advice.
>>
>
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2112/fc/Ioyw6iiegICWW8QGZP1oBwrkdTQuNOP
> ldNp9mUqe5YCLSZ4JzzLGjC/>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: plexiglass bond to fiberglass |
Thanks for the follow-up report.
Kevin
40494
----- Original Message -----
From: "eagerlee" <eagerlee@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:54 PM
Subject: RV10-List: plexiglass bond to fiberglass
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet holes |
I think Deems was the one that brought this to attention first. I remembered it
when I got to that point and rather than letting WD-1002 jsut sit under the
F1001B, I applied some outboard presure to the WD-1002 to make sure the required
edge clearance was achieved. I drilled the aft most hole first at a marked
edge clearance, inserted the cleco and then drilled the remaining holes.
Unfortunately I did not document this on my site.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago I posted a query regarding the edge clearance on the WD-1002
> brackets that tie into the F1004 fuse channel and the firewall. After some
> discussion with Van's I decided to install new parts and try again.
>
>
>
> The source of my problem seemed to be the F1001B flange that contains a line
> of pre drilled holes that pretty much determined where the rivets would go
> in the WD-1002 flange. Attached is a picture of the flanges that I replaced.
> To my mind, and in the opinion of others I respect, these edge clearances
> were insufficient. Attached is a picture of the WD1002 brackets I removed &
> replaced showing the rivet edge distances I initially achieved.
>
>
>
> Fortunately my brother who runs a heavy maintenance crew of a regonial
> airline visited this weekend and help resolve my issue. We ended up
> fabricating a new F1001B flange but this time without a line of rivet holes.
> We then aligned all the parts (the F1001B / WD1002 and F1040 channel)
> clamped everything down and drew a new rivet line on the F1001B that would
> give better overall edge clearances on the WD1002 flange. The end result was
> edge clearances of 1.5 - 2D on all rivets (most were 2D). This was far
> better than what was originally obtained. As a side benefit I learned a
> great deal about bending AL and how to avoid stress cracks in bends etc.
>
>
>
> I guess if I had to do this all over again, I would order the F1001B without
> the pre-drilled rivet holes. That way I could achieve far better results
> (now that I know what to do) right out of the gate.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
> Sent: October-27-07 10:16 PM
> To: 'rv10-list@matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet holes
>
>
>
> Hi Again
>
>
>
> I have a follow-up question for builders who have / are going through the
> forward fuse construction. After a couple of emails / calls to Vans, it
> appears that a reduced edge clearance for the to upper flange rivets is
> okay. Unfortunately the edge clearances that I have achieved are still
> woefully inadequate (at least to me).
>
>
>
> I have spent quite a bit of time trying sort out what the problem is with
> the WD1002. It appears that the edge of the top flange runs very close to
> the line of rivet holes in the F1001B flange. As a result it requires
> considerable clamping to get any sort of edge clearance when match drilling.
> This clamping in turn seems to cause a distortion the firewall as it causes
> a twist in the WD1002 base. I have this problem in both my WD1002 weldments.
> Fortunately, the WD1003 weldments seem okay and require only a *little*
> clamping to get good edge distances.
>
>
>
> I would be interested in finding out if other builders have had the same
> problem and if so how did they handle it.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Frustrated in the fuse ..
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet holes |
William
I tried the approach you used and the end result was the edge distance on
the photos - not very good in my mind. As well, the heavy clamping caused a
noticeable deformation in the firewall which I was unhappy about. I was
afraid that there was too much stress on the base of the flange which could
crack sometime in the future.
I wanted the parts to sit more or less aligned with no more than finger
pressure being required to hold them in the desired position.
I may have been a bit anal about this, but the consensus of the people I
spoke to was that I needed a better solution.
Cheers
Les
#40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: November-19-07 10:34 AM
Subject: re: FW: RV10-List: WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet
holes
I think Deems was the one that brought this to attention first. I
remembered it when I got to that point and rather than letting WD-1002 jsut
sit under the F1001B, I applied some outboard presure to the WD-1002 to make
sure the required edge clearance was achieved. I drilled the aft most hole
first at a marked edge clearance, inserted the cleco and then drilled the
remaining holes.
Unfortunately I did not document this on my site.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago I posted a query regarding the edge clearance on the
WD-1002
> brackets that tie into the F1004 fuse channel and the firewall. After some
> discussion with Van's I decided to install new parts and try again.
>
>
>
> The source of my problem seemed to be the F1001B flange that contains a
line
> of pre drilled holes that pretty much determined where the rivets would go
> in the WD-1002 flange. Attached is a picture of the flanges that I
replaced.
> To my mind, and in the opinion of others I respect, these edge clearances
> were insufficient. Attached is a picture of the WD1002 brackets I removed
&
> replaced showing the rivet edge distances I initially achieved.
>
>
>
> Fortunately my brother who runs a heavy maintenance crew of a regonial
> airline visited this weekend and help resolve my issue. We ended up
> fabricating a new F1001B flange but this time without a line of rivet
holes.
> We then aligned all the parts (the F1001B / WD1002 and F1040 channel)
> clamped everything down and drew a new rivet line on the F1001B that would
> give better overall edge clearances on the WD1002 flange. The end result
was
> edge clearances of 1.5 - 2D on all rivets (most were 2D). This was far
> better than what was originally obtained. As a side benefit I learned a
> great deal about bending AL and how to avoid stress cracks in bends etc.
>
>
>
> I guess if I had to do this all over again, I would order the F1001B
without
> the pre-drilled rivet holes. That way I could achieve far better results
> (now that I know what to do) right out of the gate.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Les Kearney [mailto:kearney@shaw.ca]
> Sent: October-27-07 10:16 PM
> To: 'rv10-list@matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: WD-1002 / F1001B / F1040 Fuse channel rivet holes
>
>
>
> Hi Again
>
>
>
> I have a follow-up question for builders who have / are going through the
> forward fuse construction. After a couple of emails / calls to Vans, it
> appears that a reduced edge clearance for the to upper flange rivets is
> okay. Unfortunately the edge clearances that I have achieved are still
> woefully inadequate (at least to me).
>
>
>
> I have spent quite a bit of time trying sort out what the problem is with
> the WD1002. It appears that the edge of the top flange runs very close to
> the line of rivet holes in the F1001B flange. As a result it requires
> considerable clamping to get any sort of edge clearance when match
drilling.
> This clamping in turn seems to cause a distortion the firewall as it
causes
> a twist in the WD1002 base. I have this problem in both my WD1002
weldments.
> Fortunately, the WD1003 weldments seem okay and require only a *little*
> clamping to get good edge distances.
>
>
>
> I would be interested in finding out if other builders have had the same
> problem and if so how did they handle it.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Frustrated in the fuse ..
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... |
My brake lines were completed a while back. Last week I reviewed the whole works
due to the hard line vs braided thread.
While viewing CJ's photos I noticed the AN837-4D fitting at the fuse exit point
as 45 degree angle. However, I used a "straight" through fitting as shown on
the figure on page 36-2. That page indeed calls out the same part number, but
the diagram shows the part as the straight through variety.
Checking the description on Vans website, AN837-4D is described as "45 deg elbow
bulkhead tube/tube". Checking page 47-07 in the plans shows the part as 45 degrees,
not straight through. I'm assuming the correct fitting is the 45 degree
part, right? Maybe it doesn't matter.
So page 36-2 has correct part number, but not correct diagram. Maybe Vans fixed
the plans after mine was printed?
Regards,
Jay
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding our piloting
skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something, stop and get help.
Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air traffic controller, airline pilot,
aerobatic pilot and high time pilot, if I let them critique my skills and
open myself up to criticism, I always learn something new or have something pointed
out to me. We all have good and bad habits.
One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with my wife
even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying single pilot.
I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots in the cockpit of certain
jets, it is simply safer to have two brains working on conducting a safe
flight. How many guys have taken an accidental cat nap while flying? How many
of us get distracted with something and forget to look outside? If you have
ever had someone fly with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will
understand how nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for
every aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a pilot,
you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I know a person
who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is still alive but will
probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor that is added to the sum.
Reviewing the NTSB teaches
you that typically accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple
risk factors that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time,
just most of the time.
I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's write-up as
well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected, he spent
15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can fully inspect true
defects, it is up to us to get good experienced builders to look at the workmanship
of our planes. My biggest concern on my first flight was to make sure
the engine ran flawlessly. I flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large
pieces of proseal, I did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph
flow rate with the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines,
and I pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm sure there
are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and not so great
ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I mentioned, we spent 15
minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on paperwork, review of my manual
for all steps checked off,
engine and prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all
the new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide range
of aircraft.
This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related accidents will
top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of glass cockpits is incredible
but it does increase your situational awareness even though you can't see
outside which in turn increases our confidence of flying into IMC conditions.
Hopefully with weather info and better icing data, this won't be the case.
I sure would like to see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one
of the safest 4 place plane on the market.
Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced landing, the
insurance company is now the new owner.
I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up, Speed is Life".
I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency situations.
Fly the plane to the ground.
Scott Schmidt
Do not archive
----- Original Message ----
From: John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:26:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
If you fly long enough, you learn the adage "No old Bold Pilots". The
axiom is really that the pilots who last at flying longer are "Less
Bold" than some who do not. Many of the pilots just leave the gene pool
for various reasons.
In over thirty years, I have lost more than two dozen known friends,
eight of them were very close personally. Steve Fossett was/is a fellow
aeronaut who is still reported missing. I have been involved directly in
three NTSB investigations in those thirty years as a Pilot Examiner and
Accident Safety Counselor and one event which was able to be
reclassified at the FAA level to avoid the NTSB investigation, even when
the medical expenses on one passenger exceeded One Million. One of
those accidents, I served as an investigator of primary facts, one I
secured the remaining debris until released to the Insurance company (a
gruesome responsibility). Many reading the RV-10 list have a false
impression of both the role and use of NTSB reports.
The Proficiency Training offered in conjunction with Lancair included(s)
study of all make and model related fatal Lancair accidents. There have
been many. There will be more RV-10s. It also includes Life Skill Sets
which reduce the likelihood of not flying the aircraft incorrectly. One
conclusion this group is likely to reject is that Proficiency Training
goes beyond Transition Training. They each have value. They each should
be seriously considered. When studying NTSB reports, and contrary to
popularly held opinion - they do not always present FACT. They present a
series of findings held by the reader as fact and not subject to
amendment or clarification except in discussion. Often the conditions
may be in error of what actually happened (but are close enough for
study). Not all accidents get the same level of investigation. TWA
Flight 800 was not your typical CFIT Cessna 182. They do present a body
of information and a conclusion which can be used to modify and improve
one's own piloting judgment and flying skills. In the case of TWA800 it
has lead to corrective wiring techniques not yet brought to GA aircraft.
Here are a series of questions which deserve posted answers during the
interim of the NTSB final Preliminary Finding.
Who was the DAR?
What was the data of Weight and Balance presented?
What was the CG of this particular Eggenfelner powered aircraft with the
battery aft? With the Battery relocated forward?
Were these controls balanced?
How was the aircraft able to leave the primary assigned Phase One
Fly-Off and arrive in Florida during the initial testing period?
How was a second POB allowed to be on board when not required on the
Operating Limitations as required crew?
Do you want to speculate that the DAR should be held to completing a
comprehensive final inspection of the workmanship?
Did the written logbook support actual and not fabricated compliance
with the purpose of the Fly Off?
For those who saw the aircraft, was the workmanship up to your standards
or VANS?
Were the instruments and flight controls working properly prior to this
final flight?
Beyond these answers, the rest will remain speculation.
My thoughts are for Dan's family and a prayer for a peaceful
Thanksgiving. I am thankful the circumstances did not have them aboard
on this unfortunate test flight. Don't forget the fund to help his
family.
John Cox - $00.02
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
Ok folks, I've received enough encouragement offline to share the story
that I think it's time for limited distribution.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... |
Not a 100% conclusive answer, but mine is 45 degree and I
thought that was called for on my plans. Seems to work well.
Most important is that you have a connection that will be
more stress free and allow a little flex with no issue.
That's why they wrap the tube around the axle too....like
a strain relief, instead of just going down and over.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
>
> My brake lines were completed a while back. Last week I reviewed the whole works
due to the hard line vs braided thread.
> While viewing CJ's photos I noticed the AN837-4D fitting at the fuse exit point
as 45 degree angle. However, I used a "straight" through fitting as shown on
the figure on page 36-2. That page indeed calls out the same part number, but
the diagram shows the part as the straight through variety.
>
> Checking the description on Vans website, AN837-4D is described as "45 deg elbow
bulkhead tube/tube". Checking page 47-07 in the plans shows the part as 45
degrees, not straight through. I'm assuming the correct fitting is the 45 degree
part, right? Maybe it doesn't matter.
>
> So page 36-2 has correct part number, but not correct diagram. Maybe Vans fixed
the plans after mine was printed?
>
> Regards,
> Jay
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... |
I used the 45 degree fitting also. I guess I paid attention to the part number
and not the picture. The 45 degree seems to align it more parallel with the
gear leg. i guess you will know for sure if you are short two straight fittings
and have two extra 45 degree fittings:-)
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> Not a 100% conclusive answer, but mine is 45 degree and I
> thought that was called for on my plans. Seems to work well.
> Most important is that you have a connection that will be
> more stress free and allow a little flex with no issue.
> That's why they wrap the tube around the axle too....like
> a strain relief, instead of just going down and over.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
> >
> > My brake lines were completed a while back. Last week I reviewed the whole
works due to the hard line vs braided thread.
> > While viewing CJ's photos I noticed the AN837-4D fitting at the fuse exit point
as 45 degree angle. However, I used a "straight" through fitting as shown
on the figure on page 36-2. That page indeed calls out the same part number,
but the diagram shows the part as the straight through variety.
> >
> > Checking the description on Vans website, AN837-4D is described as "45 deg
elbow bulkhead tube/tube". Checking page 47-07 in the plans shows the part as
45 degrees, not straight through. I'm assuming the correct fitting is the 45 degree
part, right? Maybe it doesn't matter.
> >
> > So page 36-2 has correct part number, but not correct diagram. Maybe Vans fixed
the plans after mine was printed?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jay
> >
> >
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
Hi
I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the first
words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR inspection with a
real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to confirm that my build
quality is reasonable and will meet certification requirements. In practical
terms it means that I am not doing anything that would otherwise impair my
ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal to fly. I do know that contrary to
Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork does not make an a/c fly.
This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting into the
air.
In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
* Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever ground
calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
* Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a fine
tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as picky as
possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction, then and
only then will the a/c fly.
* I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to actually fly
the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often tell when
something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would like to find
someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
* I also plan to do transition training with an experienced instructor
so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will be done after
the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of training is important to
me.
* I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off period. The
program will be based on what the best resources available. If there are
issues, they will be addressed as found.
My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I have
only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new learning
curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are manageable in mind
and neither are particularly troublesome provided that I do the right and
appropriate things to ensure I am never behind the a/c.
I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain my
plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn from
their experiences.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to the
final few bars).
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding our
piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something, stop and
get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air traffic controller,
airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot, if I let them critique
my skills and open myself up to criticism, I always learn something new or
have something pointed out to me. We all have good and bad habits.
One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with my
wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying single
pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots in the
cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains working on
conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an accidental cat nap
while flying? How many of us get distracted with something and forget to
look outside? If you have ever had someone fly with you who is very good at
cockpit management, you will understand how nice it is. I love having
someone read off my checklist for every aspect of the flight. Even if the
person in the copilot seat is not a pilot, you fly safer because you don't
want anything to go wrong. I know a person who fell asleep and flew into a
mountain, luckily he is still alive but will probably never fly again. It
is just a risk factor that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches
you that typically accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of
multiple risk factors that reached a critical mass. This is not the case
all the time, just most of the time.
I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected, he
spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can fully
inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced builders to
look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern on my first
flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I flushed my tanks 3
times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I did a flow test to check
that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with the electric fuel pump and make
sure there were no clogged lines, and I pressurized the system to check for
any leaks. If you are relying on the DAR to let you know where all the
problems are, think again. I'm sure there are some incredible DAR's who
really understand systems, and not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there
to do paperwork. Like I mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and
literally 4 hours on paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked
off, engine and prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration
and all the new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very
wide range of aircraft.
This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related accidents
will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of glass cockpits is
incredible but it does increase your situational awareness even though you
can't see outside which in turn increases our confidence of flying into IMC
conditions. Hopefully with weather info and better icing data, this won't
be the case. I sure would like to see some data on the RV-10 over time
showing it is one of the safest 4 place plane on the market.
Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up, Speed
is Life".
I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
situations.
Fly the plane to the ground.
Scott Schmidt
Do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than "SOLO
ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would never
ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear about
it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
process.
Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
prudent and safe.
Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
with your builder brethren.
Flight Prep is a wise thing.
John Cox
Do not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
Hi
I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet certification
requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal
to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork
does not make an a/c fly.
This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting into
the air.
In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
* Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
* Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as picky
as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
then and only then will the a/c fly.
* I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often
tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would
like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
* I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
training is important to me.
* I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
the a/c.
I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain my
plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
from their experiences.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
the final few bars).
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot,
if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We all
have good and bad habits.
One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with
my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots
in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone fly
with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand how
nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor
that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk factors
that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
most of the time.
I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and I
pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and
not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
range of aircraft.
This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases our
confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest 4
place plane on the market.
Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
Speed is Life".
I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
situations.
Fly the plane to the ground.
Scott Schmidt
Do not archive
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Brake line fitting shown on page 36-2... |
It is a slightly confusing drawing. I noticed the struggle in the
drawing with correctly portraying a 45 degree fitting in a roughly 45
degree isometric drawing. You can't tell whether it is 90 or 45 degrees.
I put the 45 degree part in based on the part list/web site documentation.
Jay Brinkmeyer wrote:
>
> My brake lines were completed a while back. Last week I reviewed the whole works
due to the hard line vs braided thread.
> While viewing CJ's photos I noticed the AN837-4D fitting at the fuse exit point
as 45 degree angle. However, I used a "straight" through fitting as shown on
the figure on page 36-2. That page indeed calls out the same part number, but
the diagram shows the part as the straight through variety.
>
> Checking the description on Vans website, AN837-4D is described as "45 deg elbow
bulkhead tube/tube". Checking page 47-07 in the plans shows the part as 45
degrees, not straight through. I'm assuming the correct fitting is the 45 degree
part, right? Maybe it doesn't matter.
>
> So page 36-2 has correct part number, but not correct diagram. Maybe Vans fixed
the plans after mine was printed?
>
> Regards,
> Jay
>
>
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach? |
Weird that the fairing gets stuck on with sheet metal screws. I'll
probably try to do better than that.
For those who have come before me - once you've got the wheelpants (main
and nose) done and are just working on the nosegear leg fairing and the
upper intersection fairing (main gear), do you think the plane needs to
be jacked up for these items? Or can I set 'er down?
Thanks in advance!!
cj
#40410
airplaning
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Upper gear leg fairing attach?
Actually, if you have the choice, I'd use the platenuts
as much as you can, and perhaps try to limit to one
or two sheet metal screws. I've had mine want to un-screw
so I had to put some sealant on the threads just to keep
them from vibrating. Just pick some good locations for
the nutplates, one probably being on the wing root fairing.
And, if you drill for sheet metal screws, be careful to know
where the spar is. You don't want to hit that.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
zackrv8 wrote:
>
> CJ,
>
> I put 4 platenuts in instead of the sheet metal screws. It wasn't
> too hard. The platenuts are pop-riveted in and work great. I put
> them exactly where the plans dictate. The sheet metal screws are
> definitely easier and probably work just as good since Van has them
> on his RV10's.
>
> Zack
>
>
>
>
>
> CJohnston(at)popsound.com wrote:
>> hey all -
>>
>> perhaps a dumb question. big surprise. can someone enlighten me
>> as to the method of attach of the upper gear leg fairing? The
>> plans say screw #6 1/2 SS SMS 3 places, and AN509-8R8 K1000-08
>> AN426AD3-3.5 (1place). I found stainless screws in the kit, but
>> i'm thinking they're not the right ones. and what about nutplates
>> for those 3 places? I don't get it. I thought that this must've
>> confounded others, but a search of the archives didn't turn up
>> anything. when i look inside the aircraft where these screws are
>> supposed to go, it's not immediately apparent to me how it goes
>> together. Are these "SMS" screws special? does "SMS" stand for
>> "Super Magic Screw"?
>>
>> one additional question... does anyone think it would be a problem
>> to do the upper gear leg intersections later, and with weight on
>> the wheels? the fairings sent to me by Vans for this area more
>> closely resemble lasagna noodles than fairings, and i thought i
>> might buy new ones from Fairings Etc. The problem is, that would
>> take more time, and I'm trying to get these #@$!%!! fairings done
>> so i can hang the engine! I kind of feel like I'm eating all my
>> broccoli so I can get dessert. thoughts?
>>
>> cj (currently doing fairings - so call me Sandy) #40410
>> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
>
> -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147080#147080
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight Prep |
And if I can add to John's comments and get on my soapbox for just a
minute, I became an EAA Flight Advisor for the sole reason that I saw
way too many RV builders making first flights without adequate
preparation, but even more importantly I saw the majority of RV builders
doing totally incomplete Phase I work. For example, I have several close
friends who flew their planes all the way into Phase II without ever
loading their planes to gross weight and/or aft CG and testing it. Then
as soon as they get to Phase II they load it up with friends and family
and go fly at gross weight and they have no idea how the plane
behaves.... what is the stall speed at this weight, what should the
approach speed be, how does it behave in the flare, etc. This is just
NOT RIGHT and just makes me cringe. I have therefore become a big of an
evangelist for doing proper Phase I testing. Heck, Van's gives you the
roadmap right there in the builder's manual, just read it. Yes, it's a
hassle to figure out the sand bags or whatever else you need to use for
ballast, but it's part of your responsibility as a manufacturer so
please do it!!
Now RVs are a relatively known quantity and don't think a stock RV needs
to be tested to the same extent as a new design, or a highly modifed
existing design, but every single one of us needs to at least test the
basics.
Ok, off soapbox,
Randy Lervold
EAA Technical Counselor & Flight Advisor
www.rv-3.com
www.rv-8.com
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
"SOLO ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone
flew during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would never
ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear about
it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
process.
Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
prudent and safe.
Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
with your builder brethren.
Flight Prep is a wise thing.
John Cox
Do not Archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
Hi
I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet certification
requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal
to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork
does not make an a/c fly.
This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
into the air.
In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
=B7 Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly.
Whatever ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple
checked.
=B7 Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with
a fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
picky as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's
satisfaction, then and only then will the a/c fly.
=B7 I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often
tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would
like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
=B7 I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
training is important to me.
=B7 I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
the a/c.
I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
my plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
from their experiences.
Cheers
Les Kearney
#40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
the final few bars).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot,
if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We all
have good and bad habits.
One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
with my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of
flying single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two
pilots in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two
brains working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone fly
with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand how
nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor
that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk factors
that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
most of the time.
I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and I
pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and
not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
range of aircraft.
This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases our
confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest 4
place plane on the market.
Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
Speed is Life".
I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
situations.
Fly the plane to the ground.
Scott Schmidt
Do not archive
http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?R
V10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation prevents
two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need two
sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see nothing
in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration, what if
Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new design to
monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they can't. That
is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine the "required crew"
during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling began
from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than "SOLO
> ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would never
> ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear about
> it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet certification
> requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal
> to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork
> does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting into
> the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as picky
> as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often
> tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would
> like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain my
> plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot,
> if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We all
> have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with
> my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots
> in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone fly
> with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand how
> nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor
> that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
> accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk factors
> that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and I
> pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and
> not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases our
> confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest 4
> place plane on the market.
>
> Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
> landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
> I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
> Speed is Life".
> I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
> situations.
> Fly the plane to the ground.
>
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
> Do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the insurance
company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In investigating this
with my Glastar, our problem was not with the FAA but with the insurance
carrier. More than one on board implied no insurance.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation
prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need
two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new
design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they
can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine
the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling
began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
> "SOLO ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone
> flew during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for
> that matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one
> would never ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If
> someone has Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love
> to hear about it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire
a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet
> certification requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not
> doing anything that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so
> I that I am legal to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport
> Canada's opinion, paperwork does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
> into the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
> picky as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's
> satisfaction, then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can
> often tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition.
> I would like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly
off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
> my plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other
> people have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like
> to learn from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time
> pilot, if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to
> criticism, I always learn something new or have something pointed out
> to me. We all have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
> with my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of
> flying single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like
> two pilots in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have
> two brains working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have
> taken an accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get
> distracted with something and forget to look outside? If you have
> ever had someone fly with you who is very good at cockpit management,
> you will understand how nice it is. I love having someone read off my
> checklist for every aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the
> copilot seat is not a pilot, you fly safer because you don't want
> anything to go wrong. I know a person who fell asleep and flew into a
> mountain, luckily he is still alive but will probably never fly again.
> It is just a risk factor that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB
> teaches you that typically accidents are not one thing. They are the
> sum of multiple risk factors that reached a critical mass. This is
> not the case all the time, just most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and
> I pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying
> on the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again.
> I'm sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand
> systems, and not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do
> paperwork. Like I mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and
> literally 4 hours on paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked
off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases
> our confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest 4
> place plane on the market.
>
> Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
> landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
> I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
> Speed is Life".
> I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
> situations.
> Fly the plane to the ground.
>
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
> Do not archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight Prep |
Just to repost a couple of threads, here are two write-ups I did with my tr
ansition training. I know many of you have seen them in the past but this
group has really grown over the past 6 months and I suspect there are alot
new lurkers out there. I use to have to check once per day and I'd have 10
e-mails, now if I don't check it every 3-4 hours, it is overwhelming. Tha
t is a good thing. =0Ahttp://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php
?t=5265=0A=0Ahttp://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=718
2=0A=0AJust thought I'd give you an idea of what to expect with Mike. I ha
ve heard nothing but good things from Alex as well. Either one will be abl
e to give you a good checkout. =0A=0AScott Schmidt=0Ascottmschmidt@yahoo.c
om=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw
.com>=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:29:
08 PM=0ASubject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A
=0A=0A<!--=0A _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
=0A/* Style Definitions */=0A p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal=0A
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times Ne
w Roman";}=0Aa:link, span.MsoHyperlink=0A{color:blue;text-decoration:und
erline;}=0Aa:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed=0A{color:blue;text-decor
ation:underline;}=0Apre=0A{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10
.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";}=0Aspan.EmailStyle18=0A{font-family:Aria
l;color:navy;}=0Aspan.EmailStyle19=0A{font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-
weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}=0A _filtered {m
argin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}=0Adiv.Section1=0A{}=0A/* List Definiti
ons */=0A ol=0A{margin-bottom:0in;}=0Aul=0A{margin-bottom:0in;}=0A-->
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AWhen we eventually learn if the Phase One=0Awas comple
ted other than =93SOLO ONLY=94 a lot of needless speculation will=0Abe answ
ered. If anyone flew during the Phase One with Dan (or any other=0ARV-10 b
uilder for that matter), a full accounting would be in order. And=0AI for
one would never ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If=0Asom
eone has Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear
=0Aabout it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a gun
slinger=0Awho is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued process
.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AYour plan for successful completion of your=0Aflying ai
rcraft seems both prudent and safe.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0ATim, Scott and I sing
the same notes on the=0Asame sheet of music. =93Get Transition Training
=94 Make=0Acertain every variable is reduced to a non event. Fly Often, F
ly Safe,=0ALive Long. I tend to sing off key with additional verse. =93Ge
t=0AHigh Performance Proficiency Training=94 as well which teaches you the
=0Aoperation of the aircraft through its full range of potential ' Includ
ing=0AHigh Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AAs Scott has st
ated, When the engine stops=0Ain flight, the aircraft catches fire or the p
ilot becomes incapacitated, the=0Aaircraft is the immediate property of the
insurance company. Walk away=0Aslowly and safely as soon as practical. F
ly another day to share the=0Aexperience with your builder brethren.=0A=0A
=0A =0A=0A=0AFlight Prep is a wise thing.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AJohn Cox=0A=0A
=0ADo not Archive=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom:=0Aowne
r-rv10-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics
.com] On=0ABehalf Of Les Kearney=0A=0ASent: Monday, November 19, 2007=0A12:
50 PM=0A=0ATo: rv10-list@matronics.com=0A=0ASubject: RV10-List: First Fligh
t=0APrep=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AHi=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AI have changed=0At
he thread title as I prefer to look forward. =0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AWhen I firs
t=0Aspoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the first words th
at=0Acam out of his mouth were =93not to confuse a DAR inspection with a re
al=0Apre-flight inspection=94. I am using my DAR to confirm that my build
=0Aquality is reasonable and will meet certification requirements. In pract
ical=0Aterms it means that I am not doing anything that would otherwise imp
air my=0Aability to get a CoA so I that I am legal to fly. I do know that c
ontrary to=0ATransport Canada=92s opinion, paperwork does not make an a/c f
ly.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AThis in my=0Amind is only the first step in a long pr
ocess to getting into the air. =0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AIn very board=0Aterms, my
plan of attack is to:=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=B7 =0AKnow how to=0Ause wh
atever is in panel before I fly. Whatever ground calibrations can be done
=0Awill be done and triple checked.=0A=0A=0A=B7 =0AHave an AME=0Awho
I respect to go over what I have done with a fine tooth comb. I want then
=0Ato find every nit they can, to be as picky as possible. When they have b
een=0Acorrected to the AME=92s satisfaction, then and only then will the a/
c fly.=0A=0A=0A=0A=B7 =0AI would also=0Alike to find an experienced
RV10 pilot to actually fly the a/c first. I know my=0APA28 extremely well a
nd can often tell when something is not right by sound /=0Afeel and intuiti
on. I would like to find someone with that kind of experience=0Ato start th
e fly off. =0A=0A=0A=B7 =0AI also plan to=0Ado transition training w
ith an experienced instructor so I have a good=0Aunderstanding of what to e
xpect. This will be done after the a/c is ready to=0Afly and not before. Re
cency of training is important to me.=0A=0A=0A=B7 =0AI also plan to
=0Alay out a flight program for the fly off period. The program will be bas
ed on=0Awhat the best resources available. If there are issues, they will b
e addressed=0Aas found.=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AMy view is=0Athat I want to minim
ize any risks (and there will always be some). I am in line=0Afor an EGG en
gine. While some may think that is an additional risk, I view it=0Aas just
a different risk from a Lycosaur. I have only flown an O-360 so an=0AIO540
with a C/S prop presents a new learning curve. The Egg engine also has a=0A
leaning curve. Bothe are manageable in mind and neither are particularly=0A
troublesome provided that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I
am=0Anever behind the a/c. =0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0AI am still=0Aquite some time
away from a first flight and I am certain my plans will change.=0AI would
be interested in hearing what other people have/will do in preparation=0Afo
r their first flights. I=92d like to learn from their experiences. =0A=0A
=0A =0A=0A=0ACheers=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0ALes Kearney =0A=0A=0A#40643 '=0ASti
ll singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to the final few=0Ab
ars).=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom:=0Aowner-
rv10-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.c
om] On=0ABehalf Of Scott Schmidt=0A=0ASent: November-19-07 12:09 PM=0A=0ATo
: rv10-list@matronics.com=0A=0ASubject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT=0AAccident=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0AI could not agree with you more John. =0AWe
should never stop expanding our piloting skills and if we don't feel=0Acomf
ortable with something, stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with=0Aan
instructor, air traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and hig
h=0Atime pilot, if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to crit
icism, I=0Aalways learn something new or have something pointed out to me.
We all=0Ahave good and bad habits. =0A=0A=0A=0AOne thing I picked up on i
n Tim's write-up that I have talked about with my=0Awife even before Dan's
accident is the increased danger of flying single=0Apilot. I can understan
d why insurance companies like two pilots in the=0Acockpit of certain jets,
it is simply safer to have two brains working on=0Aconducting a safe fligh
t. How many guys have taken an accidental cat nap=0Awhile flying? How man
y of us get distracted with something and forget to=0Alook outside? If you
have ever had someone fly with you who is very good=0Aat cockpit managemen
t, you will understand how nice it is. I love having=0Asomeone read off my
checklist for every aspect of the flight. Even if the=0Aperson in the cop
ilot seat is not a pilot, you fly safer because you don't want=0Aanything t
o go wrong. I know a person who fell asleep and flew into=0Aa mountain, l
uckily he is still alive but will probably never fly again. =0AIt is just a
risk factor that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB=0Ateaches you th
at typically accidents are not one thing. They are the sum=0Aof multiple r
isk factors that reached a critical mass. This is not the=0Acase all the t
ime, just most of the time.=0A=0AI think this is what John is pointing out
in his e-mail and in Tim's write-up=0Aas well. We all know this stuff but
it good to be reminded. =0A=0A=0A=0AI want to make a comment about the DAR.
When I had my plane inspected, he spent=0A15 minutes looking at the plane.
I don't think the DAR can fully inspect=0Atrue defects, it is up to us to
get good experienced builders to look at the=0Aworkmanship of our planes.
My biggest concern on my first flight was to=0Amake sure the engine ran fl
awlessly. I flushed my tanks 3 times to insure=0AI had no large pieces of
proseal, I did a flow test to check that I could=0Asustain a 30 gph flow ra
te with the electric fuel pump and make sure there were=0Ano clogged lines,
and I pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If=0Ayou are relying
on the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think=0Aagain. I'm
sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand=0Asystems, and
not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do=0Apaperwork. Like I ment
ioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and=0Aliterally 4 hours on paperwor
k, review of my manual for all steps checked off,=0Aengine and prop log rev
iew, ect...... With Light Sport registration=0Aand all the new Experiment
als flying, these guys are very busy and do a very=0Awide range of aircraft
. =0A=0A=0A=0AThis won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC re
lated=0Aaccidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention o
f glass=0Acockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational awar
eness even=0Athough you can't see outside which in turn increases our confi
dence of flying=0Ainto IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info and bet
ter icing data,=0Athis won't be the case. I sure would like to see some d
ata on the RV-10=0Aover time showing it is one of the safest 4 place plane
on the market. =0A=0A=0A=0AJust remember, if anything does happen and you h
ave to make a forced landing,=0Athe insurance company is now the new owner.
=0A=0AI like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up
, Speed=0Ais Life". =0A=0AI think he writes that so that you'll think about
it in emergency situations. =0A=0AFly the plane to the ground. =0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AScott Schmidt=0A=0A=0A=0ADo not archive
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=================0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight Prep |
I don't know the interpretation of the rules exactly and I'm sure the decision
would go to the Supreme Court, but I attended a forum on first flights at Oshkosh
two years ago and the lecturer stated that according to the FAA there are
no situations where a second person is legal in a plane like an RV-10 during the
flight test phase. I understand your argument if you read it word for word,
but the answer must be in the reason that statement was made. He too had many
people questioning his opinion. I suppose that if you had your rudder pedals
on the right and the stick on the left, you may be able to sneak that one by
them.
(Maybe that would keep my wife awake on long flights)
Can anyone give an example of when it is legal? The lecturer could not come up
with a situation when asked. I can't remember his name but he is the same guy
that does it every year.
Scott Schmidt
----- Original Message ----
From: William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase
One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
creation, I see nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some
exaggeration, what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test
engineers aboard a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or
the FAA to say that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to
the manufacturer to determine the "required crew" during Phase One. That
is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
"SOLO
> ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would
never
> ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear
about
> it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems
both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music.
"Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as
well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full
range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les
Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet
certification
> requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing
anything
> that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am
legal
> to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion,
paperwork
> does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
into
> the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with
a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
picky
> as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can
often
> tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I
would
> like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly
off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This
will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources
available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always
be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is
an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur.
I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never
behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
my
> plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to
learn
> from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time
pilot,
> if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We
all
> have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
with
> my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two
pilots
> in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone
fly
> with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand
how
> nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not
a
> pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk
factor
> that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that
typically
> accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk
factors
> that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time,
just
> most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane
inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest
concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal,
I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and
I
> pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems,
and
> not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all
the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases
our
> confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather
info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest
4
> place plane on the market.
>
> Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
> landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
> I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
> Speed is Life".
> I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
> situations.
> Fly the plane to the ground.
>
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
> Do not archive
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the insurance
company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In investigating this
with my Glastar, our problem may not be with the FAA but with the insurance
carrier. More than one on board implied no insurance.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[ <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation
prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need
two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new
design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they
can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine the
"required crew" during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling
began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My FSDO and many other feds (DC types) who should know have told me that
required crew means ALWAYS required, not just during Phase I. As the
builder you can specify any number of things, including how many crewmembers
are required. If you feel you need two on board, you can so designate two
required crewmembers, but they can't be required for some flights and not
others. Big planes require two pilots all the time, they can't legally be
operated by one for some flights but not others (I'm not absolutely sure
about that, but you get the idea).
The answer to the problem of needing extra help is to fix the things that
require so much attention before you fly. When something comes up, land and
fix it. Like Scott said, take little steps. Leave everything off that's
not absolutely necessary and then turn it on when you're bored stiff. You
may become very un-bored quite suddenly when the autopilot does something
unexpected or some noise comes through the headsets you've never heard.
It's nice to be able to turn off whatever you just turned on, land, fix it.
We put off a few things like calibrating the AOA until Phase I was signed
off, but we still considered the aircraft unfit for passengers. Only after
we had taken care of all the items on our test plan, i.e., gross weight ,
aft C.G. dry tank, etc., that we considered necessary tests, did we opt to
carry passengers. We still haven't taken backseaters because we haven't
installed the crotch straps, something we decided was necessary first.
So as far as I know, no one at EAA or FAA condones any "crew" for RV or
other amateur built first flights.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
I don't know the interpretation of the rules exactly and I'm sure the
decision would go to the Supreme Court, but I attended a forum on first
flights at Oshkosh two years ago and the lecturer stated that according to
the FAA there are no situations where a second person is legal in a plane
like an RV-10 during the flight test phase. I understand your argument if
you read it word for word, but the answer must be in the reason that
statement was made. He too had many people questioning his opinion. I
suppose that if you had your rudder pedals on the right and the stick on the
left, you may be able to sneak that one by them.
(Maybe that would keep my wife awake on long flights)
Can anyone give an example of when it is legal? The lecturer could not come
up with a situation when asked. I can't remember his name but he is the same
guy that does it every year.
Scott Schmidt
----- Original Message ----
From: William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation
prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need
two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new
design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they
can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine
the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling
began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than "SOLO
> ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would never
> ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear about
> it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet certification
> requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal
> to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork
> does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting into
> the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as picky
> as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often
> tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would
> like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain my
> plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot,
> if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We all
> have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with
> my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots
> in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone fly
> with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand how
> nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor
> that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
> accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk factors
> that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and I
> pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and
> not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases our
> confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
David,
No insurance for whom? The extra pilot or ....?
As with so many things in aviation (and life in general), what is legal may not
necessarily be prudent. That being said, if someone can't cite a regulation
(after having time to research) then it is just their opinion and opinions without
facts is just noise.
Personally, I cannot think of any reason for two "required crew" members in an
RV-10. But just as IFR with two pilots is most ofter safer, if someone determined
that the aircraft of their own manufacturer requires an extra person to monitor
things during Phase On, I see nothing in the regulations to prevent this.
A few weeks ago I was perusing the NTSB reports and I came across this report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060522X00601&key=1
This aircraft was just out of Phase I. Maybe in this case it was that extra cremember
that didn't catch the oversight.
After I read that report, this picture immediately came to mind: http://www.matronics.com/forums/download.php?id=7337
I was just about to respond to the last question on the thread and then the N289DT
accident occurred.
I try not to judge, I just hope to learn from the mistakes of others.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the insurance
> company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In investigating this
> with my Glastar, our problem may not be with the FAA but with the insurance
> carrier. More than one on board implied no insurance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>
> [ <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
> mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> John,
>
> Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation
> prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
>
> As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need
> two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see
>
> nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration,
>
> what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new
> design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they
> can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine the
> "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling
> began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
>
> William
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I bet that with 9 FSDO regions and 52 FSDO offices there are 52 possible interpretations
on this.
For example, the Allentown FSDO approved an gear pump running light on my Cardinal.
Another C177RG owner in Ft. Worth could not get the same approval.
FSDOs are fiefdoms and frequently disagree on the interpretation of regulations
and policy.
I didn't mention pilots in my Boeing reference. Before the advent of advanced
telemetry and digital datalinks, Boeing routinely flight tested aircraft with
a bunch of flight engineers in the back monitoring aircraft and instrumentation.
Maybe not on the initial flight but definately in Phase I.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> My FSDO and many other feds (DC types) who should know have told me that
> required crew means ALWAYS required, not just during Phase I. As the
> builder you can specify any number of things, including how many crewmembers
> are required. If you feel you need two on board, you can so designate two
> required crewmembers, but they can't be required for some flights and not
> others. Big planes require two pilots all the time, they can't legally be
> operated by one for some flights but not others (I'm not absolutely sure
> about that, but you get the idea).
>
> The answer to the problem of needing extra help is to fix the things that
> require so much attention before you fly. When something comes up, land and
> fix it. Like Scott said, take little steps. Leave everything off that's
> not absolutely necessary and then turn it on when you're bored stiff. You
> may become very un-bored quite suddenly when the autopilot does something
> unexpected or some noise comes through the headsets you've never heard.
> It's nice to be able to turn off whatever you just turned on, land, fix it.
>
> We put off a few things like calibrating the AOA until Phase I was signed
> off, but we still considered the aircraft unfit for passengers. Only after
> we had taken care of all the items on our test plan, i.e., gross weight ,
> aft C.G. dry tank, etc., that we considered necessary tests, did we opt to
> carry passengers. We still haven't taken backseaters because we haven't
> installed the crotch straps, something we decided was necessary first.
>
> So as far as I know, no one at EAA or FAA condones any "crew" for RV or
> other amateur built first flights.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA
> 831-722-9141
> 831-750-0284 CL
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:52 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> I don't know the interpretation of the rules exactly and I'm sure the
> decision would go to the Supreme Court, but I attended a forum on first
> flights at Oshkosh two years ago and the lecturer stated that according to
> the FAA there are no situations where a second person is legal in a plane
> like an RV-10 during the flight test phase. I understand your argument if
> you read it word for word, but the answer must be in the reason that
> statement was made. He too had many people questioning his opinion. I
> suppose that if you had your rudder pedals on the right and the stick on the
> left, you may be able to sneak that one by them.
> (Maybe that would keep my wife awake on long flights)
>
> Can anyone give an example of when it is legal? The lecturer could not come
> up with a situation when asked. I can't remember his name but he is the same
> guy that does it every year.
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02:02 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> John,
>
> Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation
> prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
>
> As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need
> two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see
> nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration,
> what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new
> design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they
> can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine
> the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling
> began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
>
> William
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> >
> > When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than "SOLO
> > ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> > during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> > matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would never
> > ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> > Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear about
> > it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> > gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> > process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> > prudent and safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> > Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> > event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> > additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> > which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> > of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
> >
> >
> >
> > As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> > catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> > immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> > safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> > with your builder brethren.
> >
> >
> >
> > Flight Prep is a wise thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Cox
> >
> > Do not Archive
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> > first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> > inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> > confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet certification
> > requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> > that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal
> > to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork
> > does not make an a/c fly.
> >
> >
> >
> > This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting into
> > the air.
> >
> >
> >
> > In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
> >
> >
> >
> > * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> > ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
> >
> > * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> > fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as picky
> > as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> > then and only then will the a/c fly.
> >
> > * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> > actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often
> > tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would
> > like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
> >
> > * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> > instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> > be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> > training is important to me.
> >
> > * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> > period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
> > If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
> >
> >
> >
> > My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> > some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> > additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> > have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> > learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> > manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> > that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> > the a/c.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain my
> > plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> > have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> > from their experiences.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > Les Kearney
> >
> > #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> > the final few bars).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
> > Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
> >
> >
> >
> > I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> > our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> > stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> > traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot,
> > if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> > always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We all
> > have good and bad habits.
> >
> > One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with
> > my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> > single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots
> > in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> > working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> > accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> > something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone fly
> > with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand how
> > nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> > aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> > pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> > know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> > still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor
> > that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
> > accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk factors
> > that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> > most of the time.
> > I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> > write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
> >
> > I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> > he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> > fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> > builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> > on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> > flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> > did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> > the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and I
> > pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> > the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> > sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and
> > not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> > mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> > paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> > prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> > new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> > range of aircraft.
> >
> > This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> > accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> > glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> > awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases our
> > confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> > and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> > see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
Well, I guess the Epistle of Tim explains why we haven't seen a preliminary NTSB
report yet, despite the fact that there are several accidents, some experimental,
that are already on the NTSB site that have occurred since Nov 2. The investigator
will have his hands full for some time. I haven't mentioned to my wife
yet that another builder has had a fatal accident, I don't even know how to
broach that subject. When we were deciding on building experimental vs buying
used type certificated, I took her around to see RV-7 and RV-9A projects under
construction. "See honey, it's just like a real plane....."
Thanks Tim, I think the Finance Committee will keep my project alive.
--------
RV-10 #40333
N540XP (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147279#147279
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
no hull and no liability for the owner.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:46 PM
Subject: re: RV10-List: required crew
David,
No insurance for whom? The extra pilot or ....?
As with so many things in aviation (and life in general), what is legal may
not necessarily be prudent. That being said, if someone can't cite a
regulation (after having time to research) then it is just their opinion and
opinions without facts is just noise.
Personally, I cannot think of any reason for two "required crew" members in
an RV-10. But just as IFR with two pilots is most ofter safer, if someone
determined that the aircraft of their own manufacturer requires an extra
person to monitor things during Phase On, I see nothing in the regulations
to prevent this.
A few weeks ago I was perusing the NTSB reports and I came across this
report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060522X00601&key=1
This aircraft was just out of Phase I. Maybe in this case it was that extra
cremember that didn't catch the oversight.
After I read that report, this picture immediately came to mind:
http://www.matronics.com/forums/download.php?id=7337
I was just about to respond to the last question on the thread and then the
N289DT accident occurred.
I try not to judge, I just hope to learn from the mistakes of others.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the insurance
> company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In investigating
> this with my Glastar, our problem may not be with the FAA but with the
> insurance carrier. More than one on board implied no insurance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>
> [ <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
> mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
> Curtis
>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> John,
>
> Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
> regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase
One.
>
> As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
> need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
> creation, I see
>
> nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some
> exaggeration,
>
> what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a
> new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say
> that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer
> to determine the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a
limitation.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
> calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
>
> William
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
When I expanded the CG envelope in my Glasair III, I received approval to
take a second crew along to lift salt bags back as we did a series of stalls
with continually farther aft CG and monitered recovery. FSDO instructed me
to log the purpose of the flight in the aircraft log and the reason for the
second crew to keep it legal. Again only one FSDO your mileage may vary.
Gary
40274
Painting
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
I don't know the interpretation of the rules exactly and I'm sure the
decision would go to the Supreme Court, but I attended a forum on first
flights at Oshkosh two years ago and the lecturer stated that according to
the FAA there are no situations where a second person is legal in a plane
like an RV-10 during the flight test phase. I understand your argument if
you read it word for word, but the answer must be in the reason that
statement was made. He too had many people questioning his opinion. I
suppose that if you had your rudder pedals on the right and the stick on the
left, you may be able to sneak that one by them.
(Maybe that would keep my wife awake on long flights)
Can anyone give an example of when it is legal? The lecturer could not come
up with a situation when asked. I can't remember his name but he is the same
guy that does it every year.
Scott Schmidt
----- Original Message ----
From: William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the regulation
prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you need
two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a new
design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say that they
can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to determine
the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name calling
began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than "SOLO
> ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would never
> ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear about
> it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet certification
> requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am legal
> to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork
> does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting into
> the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as picky
> as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can often
> tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I would
> like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain my
> plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time pilot,
> if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We all
> have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about with
> my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two pilots
> in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone fly
> with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand how
> nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor
> that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
> accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk factors
> that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and I
> pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems, and
> not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases our
> confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail Longeron bending |
An interesting thing I noticed when I did this was that when I laid the longeron
on the fuse skin to check the bend, I noticed the long straight part had a slight
bow in it, so I carefully took that out too. Laying it on a flat table or
bench with the fuse skin also lets you check it for twisting that might have
occurred when beating the bend in it. I also got to take out a little bit of
twist on one of mine.
--------
RV-10 #40333
N540XP (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147292#147292
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: required crew |
I know my insurance company specified this to me directly
when i obtained my insurance....only me in the plane or
the insurance was invalidated.
Tim
David McNeill wrote:
>
> no hull and no liability for the owner.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:46 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: re: RV10-List: required crew
>
>
> David,
>
> No insurance for whom? The extra pilot or ....?
>
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
Scott,
I don't know if Wayne is/was a fighter pilot, but that is the term we used in
combat....i.e. "SPEED IS LIFE!" Gotta have knots to fight at the merge!
However, you are correct in "flying the plane to the ground." Van writes about
this very subject in past RVators. A friend of mine over here on the east
coast recently did just that. Engine failure at low altitude....could not restart...then
concentrated on flying his plane to the ground. RV7 was totaled,
but be walked (hobbled) away.
Zack
I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up, Speed is Life".
I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency situations.
Fly the plane to the ground.
Scott Schmidt
Do not archive
---[/quote]
--------
RV8 #80125
RV10 # 40512
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147297#147297
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
It's now been almost a full 24 hours since I let that out to the list.
I had no idea what I was in for when I did. I was receiving about 2
emails every 5 minutes or less all the way up until 1am when I finally
gave up for the night. Then this a.m. they just kept coming.
Lots and lots of concerned RV-10 builders and many of them shared their
thoughts with me. If for some reason I missed replying to you,
please excuse me...I was trying hard to keep up.
I really have to hand it to this group, and you all make me proud of
you. It is very nice to see that we haven't gone overboard with
accusations, rants, and all sorts of other negatives with all this
info to discuss. Everyone for the most part has been handling it
very well, and no rocks are being thrown. We've consistently shown
that this particular gathering of RV-10 builders can handle such
discussions in a more civil way than almost any group I've ever been
a part of.
Thank you all for your attention to safety, and your appreciative
words. Other than a couple of worries about insurance, there
have been zero negative comments directed my way, and I think the
underlying message hit home in just the way it needed to. Most people
are expressing relief by their spouses or themselves, and now know
that through their own diligence, they will likely not have the same
worries. It was also nice to see this not turn into a total bash
fest on alternative engines, which will get us nowhere in the
discussion. When there are failures of products or components,
if you can't feel comfortable telling others, then you're not
providing a good service to your fellow builders, so it's important
to share, be it a Subaru, Lycoming, LS-2....your challenges are
important to others. Everyone has an opinion, and they can be plenty
valid without turning so negative that a conversation can't take
place.
There were a couple of items that I just updated this afternoon
and tonight. One to clarify something, and one was something that
I remembered after being reminded from another party that saw the
same thing. If you re-read it and search for the string
"in PA with", and "cleco", you should find those two lines.
I tried to get it right and be complete the first time, but I missed
the mark just a touch on this. There was also a correction made
in that one of the door incidents I described wasn't technically
build-for-customer...it was a build that was one of the first in a
series that was later sold to a customer...not specifically originally
built for that person. At any rate, in the interest of accuracy,
I corrected the wording to allow for that a bit in the early
part of the read.
Thank you all for being so receptive, and taking it all to heart. I
very much view this accident as completely preventable, and am very
disheartened that we only made it a few short years before we had a
fatal. I think if we try, we can extend the time until the 2nd
one for many times more duration...but that's all up to us.
I agree highly with Scott. I think that ultimately the accident
pattern we will see with the -10 will be similar to the Cirrus...it
will be things like CFIT, icing, and storms that will be the demise...
all things that the pilot is easily able to control by cautious
piloting. There is nothing inherent in the RV-10 that will cause it
to bite with deep teeth, and we are all in control of our destiny.
Thanks once again, and if I'm a little slow on the replies, please
give me a little leeway...I only got about 30 minutes of real
work done today at work, so I kind of have to get back in the
game. ;)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
John Kirkland wrote:
> <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
>
> Well, I guess the Epistle of Tim explains why we haven't seen a
> preliminary NTSB report yet, despite the fact that there are several
> accidents, some experimental, that are already on the NTSB site that
> have occurred since Nov 2. The investigator will have his hands full
> for some time. I haven't mentioned to my wife yet that another
> builder has had a fatal accident, I don't even know how to broach
> that subject. When we were deciding on building experimental vs
> buying used type certificated, I took her around to see RV-7 and
> RV-9A projects under construction. "See honey, it's just like a real
> plane....."
>
> Thanks Tim, I think the Finance Committee will keep my project alive.
>
>
> -------- RV-10 #40333 N540XP (reserved)
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I need a little help with the hinges on the doors.
On Page 45-06 figure two shows the left side door hinges. A close look
at the WD 1019 L and R show that they are not welded on square to their
hinge bracket. This effectively makes them "ramp up" towards the
center between the hinges. I installed the opposite right side with the
L hinge up front and the R hinge aft. It "looks like" it levels out the
WD 1019 hinges. Is this an optical illusion or is the correct
orientation ramped up and sloped up towards the middle?
Thanks in advance for the replies.
Fred Williams
40515
Top came off hopefully for the last time tonight.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There is a difference between experimental approvals by homebuilders and
transport category manufacturers. If you want an official ruling I suggest
that the EAA rep contact FAA headquarters; they usually can get an official
answer that applies to all FSDOs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: re: RV10-List: Required Crew
I bet that with 9 FSDO regions and 52 FSDO offices there are 52 possible
interpretations on this.
For example, the Allentown FSDO approved an gear pump running light on my
Cardinal. Another C177RG owner in Ft. Worth could not get the same
approval.
FSDOs are fiefdoms and frequently disagree on the interpretation of
regulations and policy.
I didn't mention pilots in my Boeing reference. Before the advent of
advanced telemetry and digital datalinks, Boeing routinely flight tested
aircraft with a bunch of flight engineers in the back monitoring aircraft
and instrumentation. Maybe not on the initial flight but definately in
Phase I.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
> My FSDO and many other feds (DC types) who should know have told me
> that required crew means ALWAYS required, not just during Phase I. As
> the builder you can specify any number of things, including how many
> crewmembers are required. If you feel you need two on board, you can
> so designate two required crewmembers, but they can't be required for
> some flights and not others. Big planes require two pilots all the
> time, they can't legally be operated by one for some flights but not
> others (I'm not absolutely sure about that, but you get the idea).
>
> The answer to the problem of needing extra help is to fix the things
> that require so much attention before you fly. When something comes
> up, land and fix it. Like Scott said, take little steps. Leave
> everything off that's not absolutely necessary and then turn it on
> when you're bored stiff. You may become very un-bored quite suddenly
> when the autopilot does something unexpected or some noise comes through
the headsets you've never heard.
> It's nice to be able to turn off whatever you just turned on, land, fix
it.
>
> We put off a few things like calibrating the AOA until Phase I was
> signed off, but we still considered the aircraft unfit for passengers.
> Only after we had taken care of all the items on our test plan, i.e.,
> gross weight , aft C.G. dry tank, etc., that we considered necessary
> tests, did we opt to carry passengers. We still haven't taken
> backseaters because we haven't installed the crotch straps, something we
decided was necessary first.
>
> So as far as I know, no one at EAA or FAA condones any "crew" for RV
> or other amateur built first flights.
>
> Dave Saylor
> AirCrafters LLC
> 140 Aviation Way
> Watsonville, CA
> 831-722-9141
> 831-750-0284 CL
> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
> _____
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> Schmidt
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:52 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> I don't know the interpretation of the rules exactly and I'm sure the
> decision would go to the Supreme Court, but I attended a forum on
> first flights at Oshkosh two years ago and the lecturer stated that
> according to the FAA there are no situations where a second person is
> legal in a plane like an RV-10 during the flight test phase. I
> understand your argument if you read it word for word, but the answer
> must be in the reason that statement was made. He too had many people
> questioning his opinion. I suppose that if you had your rudder pedals
> on the right and the stick on the left, you may be able to sneak that one
by them.
> (Maybe that would keep my wife awake on long flights)
>
> Can anyone give an example of when it is legal? The lecturer could
> not come up with a situation when asked. I can't remember his name but
> he is the same guy that does it every year.
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02:02 PM
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> John,
>
> Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
> regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during Phase
One.
>
> As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
> need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
> creation, I see nothing in the regulation that would prevent this.
> With some exaggeration, what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional
> test engineers aboard a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who
> are you or the FAA to say that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves
> it up to the manufacturer to determine the "required crew" during Phase
One. That is not a limitation.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
> calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
>
> William
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> >
> > When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
> > "SOLO ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If
> > anyone flew during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10
> > builder for that matter), a full accounting would be in order. And
> > I for one would never ever consider business dealings with such a
> > fool. If someone has Limitations that permit a second sole onboard
> > I would love to hear about it. If you are not qualified to complete
> > the Phase One, hire a gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase
> > One is a high valued process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems
> > both prudent and safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> > Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a
> > non event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key
> > with additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training"
> > as well which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its
> > full range of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
> >
> >
> >
> > As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> > catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> > immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> > safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the
> > experience with your builder brethren.
> >
> >
> >
> > Flight Prep is a wise thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Cox
> >
> > Do not Archive
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les
> > Kearney
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project
> > the first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> > inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> > confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet
> > certification requirements. In practical terms it means that I am
> > not doing anything that would otherwise impair my ability to get a
> > CoA so I that I am legal to fly. I do know that contrary to
> > Transport Canada's opinion, paperwork does not make an a/c fly.
> >
> >
> >
> > This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
> > into the air.
> >
> >
> >
> > In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
> >
> >
> >
> > * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> > ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
> >
> > * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> > fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
> > picky as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's
> > satisfaction, then and only then will the a/c fly.
> >
> > * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> > actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can
> > often tell when something is not right by sound / feel and
> > intuition. I would like to find someone with that kind of experience to
start the fly off.
> >
> > * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> > instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This
> > will be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency
> > of training is important to me.
> >
> > * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> > period. The program will be based on what the best resources available.
> > If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
> >
> >
> >
> > My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always
> > be some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that
> > is an additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a
> > Lycosaur. I have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop
> > presents a new learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning
> > curve. Bothe are manageable in mind and neither are particularly
> > troublesome provided that I do the right and appropriate things to
> > ensure I am never behind the a/c.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
> > my plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other
> > people have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like
> > to learn from their experiences.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > Les Kearney
> >
> > #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer
> > to the final few bars).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> > Schmidt
> > Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
> >
> >
> >
> > I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop
> > expanding our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with
> > something, stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an
> > instructor, air traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot
> > and high time pilot, if I let them critique my skills and open
> > myself up to criticism, I always learn something new or have
> > something pointed out to me. We all have good and bad habits.
> >
> > One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
> > with my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of
> > flying single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like
> > two pilots in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to
> > have two brains working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys
> > have taken an accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get
> > distracted with something and forget to look outside? If you have
> > ever had someone fly with you who is very good at cockpit
> > management, you will understand how nice it is. I love having
> > someone read off my checklist for every aspect of the flight. Even
> > if the person in the copilot seat is not a pilot, you fly safer
> > because you don't want anything to go wrong. I know a person who
> > fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is still alive but
> > will probably never fly again. It is just a risk factor that is
> > added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that typically
> > accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk
> > factors that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the
time, just most of the time.
> > I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> > write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
> >
> > I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane
> > inspected, he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think
> > the DAR can fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good
> > experienced builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My
> > biggest concern on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran
> > flawlessly. I flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large
> > pieces of proseal, I did a flow test to check that I could sustain a
> > 30 gph flow rate with the electric fuel pump and make sure there
> > were no clogged lines, and I pressurized the system to check for any
> > leaks. If you are relying on the DAR to let you know where all the
> > problems are, think again. I'm sure there are some incredible DAR's
> > who really understand systems, and not so great ones. To me, the
> > DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I mentioned, we spent 15 minutes
> > on the plane and literally 4 hours on paperwork, review of my manual
> > for all steps checked off, engine and prop log review, ect......
> > With Light Sport registration and all the new Experimentals flying,
> > these guys are very busy and do a very wide range of aircraft.
> >
> > This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> > accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> > glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> > awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases
> > our confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with
> > weather info and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure
> > would like to see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one
> > of the safest
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tail Longeron bending |
That's exactly how I remember it going, just when you get it to fit in
one axis, you check and the other is out, it took a series of back and
forth 'sessions' to get them to fit in both axis.
Deems Davis # 406
'Its all done....Its just not put together'
http://deemsrv10.com/
John Kirkland wrote:
>
> An interesting thing I noticed when I did this was that when I laid the longeron
on the fuse skin to check the bend, I noticed the long straight part had a
slight bow in it, so I carefully took that out too. Laying it on a flat table
or bench with the fuse skin also lets you check it for twisting that might have
occurred when beating the bend in it. I also got to take out a little bit
of twist on one of mine.
>
> --------
> RV-10 #40333
> N540XP (reserved)
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
John;
A suggestion- let your wife know! the one advantage of building versus
used.. you know where the flaws are and it's new, plus you can fix any
issues to your standards.
My wife is always asking what trip Tim took today or what did Tim say this
week.. she loves the guy!! I tell you this because she knows that this guy
takes his wife and two daughters everywhere and she gets my condensed
version to boot, so when I told her about the accident she thought it was
totally sad and we stopped and prayed for the family and others, than when
Tim put out the NTSB (New Tim Safety Brief) she was very interested in
hearing what it said, the e-mails to back the trail of events in his
commentary said a lot for the facts to back what happened (kind of scary he
has all our e-mails actually) when she saw that the plane wasn't technically
the dangerous piece of the equation it opened a great discussion, that once
again got her very involved with the project.
If your wife finds out on her own there is always too much room for her
interpretation. Show her the 6 page report and suggest to give her the
summary- get it out there and discuss how you would do it differently so you
don't make the same mistakes..
just a suggestion that worked for me.. get her excited about where you'll
take her, get her involved and get her opinion on matters, I know my wife
isn't the only woman that has given me great insight during the building..
Pascal
#40720
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: N289DT Accident
>
> Well, I guess the Epistle of Tim explains why we haven't seen a
> preliminary NTSB report yet, despite the fact that there are several
> accidents, some experimental, that are already on the NTSB site that have
> occurred since Nov 2. The investigator will have his hands full for some
> time. I haven't mentioned to my wife yet that another builder has had a
> fatal accident, I don't even know how to broach that subject. When we were
> deciding on building experimental vs buying used type certificated, I took
> her around to see RV-7 and RV-9A projects under construction. "See honey,
> it's just like a real plane....."
>
> Thanks Tim, I think the Finance Committee will keep my project alive.
>
> --------
> RV-10 #40333
> N540XP (reserved)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147279#147279
>
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
Hi Tim,
I would like the authorization to read your post.
Thanks,
David Maib
On Nov 18, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Ok folks, I've received enough encouragement offline to share the
> story
> that I think it's time for limited distribution. You have no idea how
> many people who are nearing their first flight are becoming nervous,
> and how many wives of builders are starting to second-guess their
> projects. This accident has touched some people pretty deeply and
> there is very understandable concern that they would just like to hear
> more information to give them something to understand the situation a
> bit.
>
> I warn you that you aren't going to find any smoking guns in the
> story,
> so for those wanting that sort of thing, it's not here. But, the
> story
> does provide numerous opportunities for observation and introspection
> for the builder, to perhaps give you something to nudge you to do the
> proper thing if the time ever hits you. Truly, attitudes are a
> critical
> part of safe flying. Even on my first flight, I had the opportunity
> to take off with a battery warning because I hadn't clicked in my
> alternator control wire plug tight enough. I thought briefly about
> just
> doing "once around the patch", but my conscience (developed from
> reading
> so many "aftermath" reports) got the best of me and I decided to do
> the
> right thing and fix it before I took off. As you read the story
> you will see some reasonings that may shed light for you a bit.
>
> I ask of all of you to treat this with the utmost respect, because
> there
> are still living members of his family that have deep feelings.
> Understanding accidents is important, and so is preservation of
> their well being. So to help meet these needs, I have made this a
> link that you will need to log in to read. This is made only
> semi-public to limit it's distribution to only RV-10 builders.
> Please do not distribute further for the time being.
>
> With that said, please feel free to read the following synopsis,
> and not
> use it to draw "smoking gun" conclusions. I do feel though that you
> will develop somewhat of an understanding. Be aware that nobody is
> immune to this sort of thought process, so it is up to you and all of
> us to not become the second fatality in our RV-10 family.
>
> Here is the link:
> http://www.myrv10.com/builders/N289DT_accident.html
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Rick Sked wrote:
>> Speculation at some point is inevitable and I'm sure many just like
>> myself have speculated privately about what happened but without
>> substantiation. I hope that the cause is found and disseminated to
>> everyone to prevent future tragedies. If Dan was able, he would post
>> what happened during those last minutes to get the word out so the
>> same fate did not befall anyone else. This whole incident has
>> personally caused me to step back and rethink my entire outlook on
>> aviation and aviation safety. I read the NTSB reports and several
>> Aviation Safety magazines. They all promote thinking and provide
>> insight to staying alive and flying, but all those reports and
>> stories never left a pit in my gut like this one.
>> Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV Builder (Michael
>> Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> To: rv10-list@matronics.com Sent:
>> Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:44:07 AM (GMT-0800) America/
>> Los_Angeles Subject: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>> Historically, the NTSB will release a preliminary report with it's
>> probable findings. This could be anywhere from a week to a who knows
>> when. As of yesterday they still haven't released a preliminary
>> report on N289DT which means they still haven't found a probable
>> cause, or at least haven't compiled it into a prelim report.
>> I don't think anyone can take a guess at what really happened unless
>> they had firsthand knowledge to anything causal prior to the flight.
>> I also really don't expect Jan to be forthcoming with any information
>> because of legal reasons, so don't look to him for any data. Not
>> suggesting anything, just a fact of business.
>> There has also been lots of back room speculation on the decision
>> making process up to that faithful day. I have no firsthand
>> knowledge of any bad decisions or shortcuts being made, and I prefer
>> to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, but there
>> was too much chatter before this to ignore. The fact is only one of
>> two things caused this accident, either mechanical or pilot failures
>> or a combination of both. Every single one of us has made a bad
>> decision in aviation but 99% of the time it ends in a benign way.
>> It's that compounding of small problems that can rapidly sneak up to
>> bite someone in the ass. Aviation isn't forgiving of smart people
>> having a bad day.
>> So what I suggest is we start sharing what we do know and keep the
>> speculation to a minimum. It is important to remember however that
>> it will take a level of speculation and assumption to get to a
>> conclusion without a VERY clear factor to lead us to an undeniable
>> cause. Even the NTSB will make some assumptions to get to a
>> conclusion. I doubt there will be a single smoking gun in this
>> accident but you never know. I suggest this because there are
>> several other people out there looking at installing an alternative
>> engine and we can't deny the fact that the install of an alternative
>> engine in this case probably had a contributing factor. I think it
>> is important for those people to have information available to help
>> them with their decision making process on their own installs.
>> Here is what we seem to know at the moment. Immediately prior to the
>> event, the batteries were relocated from the standard aft location to
>> the firewall. We know the standard battery location was chosen for
>> CG considerations. He was using two batteries but I'm not sure of
>> the size. We know the engine was running within a minute or so of the
>> impact. We know in a standard RV-10 configuration with low fuel and
>> no passengers it is possible to run out of elevator authority in a
>> flair. We also know that there were many modifications FWF to
>> accommodate the Egg engine. Does anyone know what the weight of the
>> Egg FWF package is? I thought I recall Dan telling me it wasn't much
>> less than the standard 540 configuration once all the accessories are
>> added.
>> I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that would rather let
>> this go out of respect to Dan and his family. Like many on the list
>> I have had numerous personal conversations with Dan. He and I went
>> through the process on choosing an engine at the same time. Even
>> though we came to different conclusions there was always an
>> understanding on why each of us made our decision and we both
>> respected that.
>> Michael
>> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
>> Olson Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:49 AM To: rv10-
>> list@matronics.com Subject: Re: RV10-List: Dan Loyd
>> There is a lot to be learned from Dan's experiences, but I'm not sure
>> if the group is ready to hear some of the details yet.
>> Everything in regards to the actual crash is speculation, and I
>> doubt that other
>> than when the NTSB downloads all the EFIS/EIS data log that there is
>> any way anything 100% conclusive can ever be stated with
>> certainty. Even the logged data is just as unlikely to produce
>> answers. But,
>> there is still a bit of information that is what I'd consider great
>> background info. The question is, is it too early to discuss at this
>> time, do we need to wait months for a full NTSB report first? On one
>> hand, it seems that some "lessons learned" may be better to hear
>> while the pain in your gut is still fresh. On the other, there are
>> people who just can't stand anything but solid evidence like "XYZ nut
>> was removed prior to flight and PQR part was found separated from
>> airplane and recovered 1 mile from impact site". I'm just having
>> problems coming to terms with when is the right time for us.
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive
>> gary wrote:
>>> I know the NTSB takes a year to publish a cause for accidents, but
>>> do we know any info about Dan's. I am not looking for speculation,
>>> just curious if any thing suspicious was found.
>>> Gary 40274 Painting
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: required crew |
If there is a situation where the builder has a specific need for
additional crew in the aircraft during the fight test period, FAA
Advisory Circular AC 20-27E, CERTIFICATION AND OPERATION OF
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT, offers the following advice:
"If an additional crew member is required for a particular test
function, that requirement should be specified in the application
program letter for the airworthiness certificate and listed in the
operating limitations by the FAA."
The FAA will review each application on a case-by-case basis, and may
allow additional crew if they feel there is sufficient justification.
EAA Position: We concur with the FAA that during all flight testing only
the test pilot is allowed in the aircraft. We have yet to see a
homebuilt aircraft that requires a co-pilot. If flight data needs to be
recorded, make use of a tape recorder or other recording device to
record flight data, e.g., airspeeds, engine instrument readings, etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: required crew
That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the insurance
company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In investigating
this with my Glastar, our problem may not be with the FAA but with the
insurance carrier. More than one on board implied no insurance.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during
Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some
exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard a
new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say
that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to
determine the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a
limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
Amen brother Pascal. ;) When building the plane, my wife knew
exactly what was bought, what was spent, and when I had an inner
conflict in what to do to either do an improvement, fix a boo-boo,
or do almost any kind of decision, I used her as my sounding
board. For a lady who didn't know how to build an airplane,
it was very easy for her to come to a good conclusion if I
involved her in the full discussion. She even got tired of
listening to me on some buying decisions and just said "I don't
care what you do." (Hey, maybe that's how I ended up with my
panel ;) ) So anyway, there may be people in your family
that initially think you're nuts. Not only are they probably
correct, but you'll also probably be able to prove to them
that you've matured into a rational airplane builder along
the way and then they will begin to think you're sane, but
they'll be your best support you can get along the way.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Pascal wrote:
>
> John;
> A suggestion- let your wife know! the one advantage of building versus
> used.. you know where the flaws are and it's new, plus you can fix any
> issues to your standards.
> My wife is always asking what trip Tim took today or what did Tim say
> this week.. she loves the guy!! I tell you this because she knows that
> this guy takes his wife and two daughters everywhere and she gets my
> condensed version to boot, so when I told her about the accident she
> thought it was totally sad and we stopped and prayed for the family and
> others, than when Tim put out the NTSB (New Tim Safety Brief) she was
> very interested in hearing what it said, the e-mails to back the trail
> of events in his commentary said a lot for the facts to back what
> happened (kind of scary he has all our e-mails actually) when she saw
> that the plane wasn't technically the dangerous piece of the equation it
> opened a great discussion, that once again got her very involved with
> the project.
> If your wife finds out on her own there is always too much room for her
> interpretation. Show her the 6 page report and suggest to give her the
> summary- get it out there and discuss how you would do it differently so
> you don't make the same mistakes..
> just a suggestion that worked for me.. get her excited about where
> you'll take her, get her involved and get her opinion on matters, I know
> my wife isn't the only woman that has given me great insight during the
> building..
>
> Pascal
> #40720
>
> Do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Kirkland" <jskirkland@webpipe.net>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 6:00 PM
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N289DT Accident
>
>
>>
>> Well, I guess the Epistle of Tim explains why we haven't seen a
>> preliminary NTSB report yet, despite the fact that there are several
>> accidents, some experimental, that are already on the NTSB site that
>> have occurred since Nov 2. The investigator will have his hands full
>> for some time. I haven't mentioned to my wife yet that another builder
>> has had a fatal accident, I don't even know how to broach that
>> subject. When we were deciding on building experimental vs buying used
>> type certificated, I took her around to see RV-7 and RV-9A projects
>> under construction. "See honey, it's just like a real plane....."
>>
>> Thanks Tim, I think the Finance Committee will keep my project alive.
>>
>> --------
>> RV-10 #40333
>> N540XP (reserved)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147279#147279
>>
>>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
William, thank you for taking the bait, both hook,line and sinker.
My question was knowledge of any US certificated pilot performing Phase
One with additional bodies aboard. The key to my obtuse riddle has been
resolved AD NASEUM with Warbirds (for years and impacts all US
Certificated aircraft and is not ever open to pilot interpretation.
SOLO flight is with only one human at risk. A flight crewmember to be
allowed onboard must be written into the Operating Limitations of the
specific aircraft and then mandates the required use on all flights -
not just Phase One. When Boeing or Bombardier operates under an
Experimental production certificate for initial testing, They must
receive the authorization in writing and it becomes part of the
Operating Limitations during the life of that certificate. Once testing
is completed, they get a new airworthiness.
Many builders believe they hold the ultimate decision to ignore the reg.
I am still waiting to hear of a set of Operating Limitations for Amateur
built where Das Fed allowed in writing a second body to be placed at
risk.
Thanks for playing the bonus round.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during
Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
creation, I see nothing in the regulation that would prevent this.
With some exaggeration, what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional
test engineers aboard a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are
you or the FAA to say that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up
to the manufacturer to determine the "required crew" during Phase One.
That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
"SOLO
> ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would
never
> ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear
about
> it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet
certification
> requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am
legal
> to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion,
paperwork
> does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
into
> the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
picky
> as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can
often
> tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I
would
> like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly
off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources
available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
my
> plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time
pilot,
> if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We
all
> have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
with
> my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two
pilots
> in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone
fly
> with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand
how
> nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk
factor
> that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that
typically
> accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk
factors
> that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and
I
> pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems,
and
> not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases
our
> confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest 4
> place plane on the market.
>
> Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
> landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
> I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
> Speed is Life".
> I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
> situations.
> Fly the plane to the ground.
>
>
>
> Scott Schmidt
>
> Do not archive
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
Our rights are not subject to the Supreme Court as flying is a privilege
granted by Congress to the Administration (the Executive) and passed
down by the President to the Secretary of Transportation who then grants
it to the FAA who uses an Administrative Judge with little right of
appeal by us little people.
That will change if we get a 2/3 passage of a Constitutional Amendment
to allow RV-10 pilots to override the FAA and fly with two on a SOLO
limitation.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Schmidt
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
I don't know the interpretation of the rules exactly and I'm sure the
decision would go to the Supreme Court, but I attended a forum on first
flights at Oshkosh two years ago and the lecturer stated that according
to the FAA there are no situations where a second person is legal in a
plane like an RV-10 during the flight test phase. I understand your
argument if you read it word for word, but the answer must be in the
reason that statement was made. He too had many people questioning his
opinion. I suppose that if you had your rudder pedals on the right and
the stick on the left, you may be able to sneak that one by them.
(Maybe that would keep my wife awake on long flights)
Can anyone give an example of when it is legal? The lecturer could not
come up with a situation when asked. I can't remember his name but he is
the same guy that does it every year.
Scott Schmidt
----- Original Message ----
From: William Curtis <wcurtis@nerv10.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02:02 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during
Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
creation, I see nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With
some exaggeration, what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test
engineers aboard a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you
or the FAA to say that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to
the manufacturer to determine the "required crew" during Phase One.
That is not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
"SOLO
> ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would
never
> ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear
about
> it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> process.
>
>
>
> Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> prudent and safe.
>
>
>
> Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music.
"Get
> Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
>
>
>
> As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> with your builder brethren.
>
>
>
> Flight Prep is a wise thing.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
> Do not Archive
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
>
>
>
> When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet
certification
> requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am
legal
> to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion,
paperwork
> does not make an a/c fly.
>
>
>
> This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
into
> the air.
>
>
>
> In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
>
>
>
> * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
>
> * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
picky
> as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> then and only then will the a/c fly.
>
> * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can
often
> tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I
would
> like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly
off.
>
> * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> training is important to me.
>
> * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> period. The program will be based on what the best resources
available.
> If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
>
>
>
> My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> the a/c.
>
>
>
> I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
my
> plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> from their experiences.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Les Kearney
>
> #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> the final few bars).
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Schmidt
> Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
>
>
>
> I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time
pilot,
> if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We
all
> have good and bad habits.
>
> One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
with
> my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two
pilots
> in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone
fly
> with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand
how
> nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk
factor
> that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that
typically
> accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk
factors
> that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> most of the time.
> I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
>
> I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and
I
> pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems,
and
> not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> range of aircraft.
>
> This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases
our
> confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N289DT Accident |
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EAA benefits and resources |
I meant to include that when in doubt utilize the EAA "homebuilders"
site (membership required) there is so much on every phase covered. from
planning to building to registering, to testing and flying.. not to
mention the Govt AC's, FAR and other great information.
When in doubt about something check here first.. you'll be glad your a
EAA member!
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Pascal
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: required crew
If there is a situation where the builder has a specific need for
additional crew in the aircraft during the fight test period, FAA
Advisory Circular AC 20-27E, CERTIFICATION AND OPERATION OF
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT, offers the following advice:
"If an additional crew member is required for a particular test
function, that requirement should be specified in the application
program letter for the airworthiness certificate and listed in the
operating limitations by the FAA."
The FAA will review each application on a case-by-case basis, and may
allow additional crew if they feel there is sufficient justification.
EAA Position: We concur with the FAA that during all flight testing
only the test pilot is allowed in the aircraft. We have yet to see a
homebuilt aircraft that requires a co-pilot. If flight data needs to be
recorded, make use of a tape recorder or other recording device to
record flight data, e.g., airspeeds, engine instrument readings, etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: required crew
That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the
insurance company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In
investigating this with my Glastar, our problem may not be with the FAA
but with the insurance carrier. More than one on board implied no
insurance.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
<wcurtis@nerv10.com>
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during
Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that
you need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some
exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers aboard
a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA to say
that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the manufacturer to
determine the "required crew" during Phase One. That is not a
limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EAA benefits and resources |
oy vay http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Pascal
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:09 PM
Subject: EAA benefits and resources
I meant to include that when in doubt utilize the EAA "homebuilders"
site (membership required) there is so much on every phase covered. from
planning to building to registering, to testing and flying.. not to
mention the Govt AC's, FAR and other great information.
When in doubt about something check here first.. you'll be glad your a
EAA member!
Pascal
----- Original Message -----
From: Pascal
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: required crew
If there is a situation where the builder has a specific need for
additional crew in the aircraft during the fight test period, FAA
Advisory Circular AC 20-27E, CERTIFICATION AND OPERATION OF
AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT, offers the following advice:
"If an additional crew member is required for a particular test
function, that requirement should be specified in the application
program letter for the airworthiness certificate and listed in the
operating limitations by the FAA."
The FAA will review each application on a case-by-case basis, and
may allow additional crew if they feel there is sufficient
justification.
EAA Position: We concur with the FAA that during all flight testing
only the test pilot is allowed in the aircraft. We have yet to see a
homebuilt aircraft that requires a co-pilot. If flight data needs to be
recorded, make use of a tape recorder or other recording device to
record flight data, e.g., airspeeds, engine instrument readings, etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: David McNeill
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:03 PM
Subject: RV10-List: required crew
That "required crew" may fly with the FAA but try it on the
insurance company. The flight will likely be without insurance. In
investigating this with my Glastar, our problem may not be with the FAA
but with the insurance carrier. More than one on board implied no
insurance.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Curtis
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:02 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
<wcurtis@nerv10.com>
John,
Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during
Phase One.
As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that
you need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
creation, I see
nothing in the regulation that would prevent this. With some
exaggeration,
what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional test engineers
aboard a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are you or the FAA
to say that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up to the
manufacturer to determine the "required crew" during Phase One. That is
not a limitation.
I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and
name calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
William
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: wheel pants and leg fairings during flight test |
I don't mean to hijack the thread from dlm46007, but reading this and reflecting
on recent events in the RV-10 builders community, wouldn't one want to do the
later portion of the flight testing with gear leg fairings and wheel pants on?
Doesn't AC 90-89A advise us that one purpose of flight test is to gather performance
data with which to build tables and/or charts of things like take-off
and landing distance, cruise performance, climb performance, ie the stuff you
find in a Cessna POH in section 5? Seems like the plane should be in a 'completed'
configuration once one has confidence that all of the minor squawks are
fixed and new ones aren't cropping up, nothing is dripping or sparking. Seems
to me like one would want to know hard performance numbers and have completed
POH, with calibrated instrumentation to boot, before taking off on long cross
countries to FL or OSH. Did anyone do their flight testing like that?
--------
RV-10 #40333
N540XP (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=147334#147334
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight Prep |
OK, I bit. A few folks have reported getting approval for second crew member on
phase on, not-withstanding the requirements of the insurance company. Further,
this is dependant on the local FSDOs interpretation of the Advisory Circular
(which are not binding regulations by the way)--so what did I win for this
bonus round?
What's a "experimental production certificate?" Now you are just making things
up. Not all aircraft developed by manufacturers go into nor are intended to
go into production. Regardless, how many test pilot do you think the Citation
Mustang had during Phase One? This aircraft is certified for single pilot operation.
William
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
-------- Original Message --------
>
> William, thank you for taking the bait, both hook,line and sinker.
>
> My question was knowledge of any US certificated pilot performing Phase
> One with additional bodies aboard. The key to my obtuse riddle has been
> resolved AD NASEUM with Warbirds (for years and impacts all US
> Certificated aircraft and is not ever open to pilot interpretation.
>
> SOLO flight is with only one human at risk. A flight crewmember to be
> allowed onboard must be written into the Operating Limitations of the
> specific aircraft and then mandates the required use on all flights -
> not just Phase One. When Boeing or Bombardier operates under an
> Experimental production certificate for initial testing, They must
> receive the authorization in writing and it becomes part of the
> Operating Limitations during the life of that certificate. Once testing
> is completed, they get a new airworthiness.
>
> Many builders believe they hold the ultimate decision to ignore the reg.
>
> I am still waiting to hear of a set of Operating Limitations for Amateur
> built where Das Fed allowed in writing a second body to be placed at
> risk.
>
> Thanks for playing the bonus round.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
> Curtis
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
>
>
> John,
>
> Without commenting on what Dan did or did not do, nothing in the
> regulation prevents two people from being the "required crew" during
> Phase One.
>
> As an RV builder YOU are the manufacturer so if YOU determine that you
> need two sets of hand, eyeballs and feet to fully test your new
> creation, I see nothing in the regulation that would prevent this.
> With some exaggeration, what if Boeing wanted to have a few additional
> test engineers aboard a new design to monitor instrumentation -- who are
> you or the FAA to say that they can't. That is why the FAA leaves it up
> to the manufacturer to determine the "required crew" during Phase One.
> That is not a limitation.
>
> I wondered how long it would be before the finger pointing and name
> calling began from this tragic event. Now we know where it starts.
>
> William
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> >
> > When we eventually learn if the Phase One was completed other than
> "SOLO
> > ONLY" a lot of needless speculation will be answered. If anyone flew
> > during the Phase One with Dan (or any other RV-10 builder for that
> > matter), a full accounting would be in order. And I for one would
> never
> > ever consider business dealings with such a fool. If someone has
> > Limitations that permit a second sole onboard I would love to hear
> about
> > it. If you are not qualified to complete the Phase One, hire a
> > gunslinger who is (to fly it solo). The Phase One is a high valued
> > process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your plan for successful completion of your flying aircraft seems both
> > prudent and safe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim, Scott and I sing the same notes on the same sheet of music. "Get
> > Transition Training" Make certain every variable is reduced to a non
> > event. Fly Often, Fly Safe, Live Long. I tend to sing off key with
> > additional verse. "Get High Performance Proficiency Training" as well
> > which teaches you the operation of the aircraft through its full range
> > of potential - Including High Alpha - Engine Out maneuvers.
> >
> >
> >
> > As Scott has stated, When the engine stops in flight, the aircraft
> > catches fire or the pilot becomes incapacitated, the aircraft is the
> > immediate property of the insurance company. Walk away slowly and
> > safely as soon as practical. Fly another day to share the experience
> > with your builder brethren.
> >
> >
> >
> > Flight Prep is a wise thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > John Cox
> >
> > Do not Archive
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Kearney
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:50 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RV10-List: First Flight Prep
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > I have changed the thread title as I prefer to look forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > When I first spoke to my AME (Canadian A&P) about my RV10 project the
> > first words that cam out of his mouth were "not to confuse a DAR
> > inspection with a real pre-flight inspection". I am using my DAR to
> > confirm that my build quality is reasonable and will meet
> certification
> > requirements. In practical terms it means that I am not doing anything
> > that would otherwise impair my ability to get a CoA so I that I am
> legal
> > to fly. I do know that contrary to Transport Canada's opinion,
> paperwork
> > does not make an a/c fly.
> >
> >
> >
> > This in my mind is only the first step in a long process to getting
> into
> > the air.
> >
> >
> >
> > In very board terms, my plan of attack is to:
> >
> >
> >
> > * Know how to use whatever is in panel before I fly. Whatever
> > ground calibrations can be done will be done and triple checked.
> >
> > * Have an AME who I respect to go over what I have done with a
> > fine tooth comb. I want then to find every nit they can, to be as
> picky
> > as possible. When they have been corrected to the AME's satisfaction,
> > then and only then will the a/c fly.
> >
> > * I would also like to find an experienced RV10 pilot to
> > actually fly the a/c first. I know my PA28 extremely well and can
> often
> > tell when something is not right by sound / feel and intuition. I
> would
> > like to find someone with that kind of experience to start the fly
> off.
> >
> > * I also plan to do transition training with an experienced
> > instructor so I have a good understanding of what to expect. This will
> > be done after the a/c is ready to fly and not before. Recency of
> > training is important to me.
> >
> > * I also plan to lay out a flight program for the fly off
> > period. The program will be based on what the best resources
> available.
> > If there are issues, they will be addressed as found.
> >
> >
> >
> > My view is that I want to minimize any risks (and there will always be
> > some). I am in line for an EGG engine. While some may think that is an
> > additional risk, I view it as just a different risk from a Lycosaur. I
> > have only flown an O-360 so an IO540 with a C/S prop presents a new
> > learning curve. The Egg engine also has a leaning curve. Bothe are
> > manageable in mind and neither are particularly troublesome provided
> > that I do the right and appropriate things to ensure I am never behind
> > the a/c.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am still quite some time away from a first flight and I am certain
> my
> > plans will change. I would be interested in hearing what other people
> > have/will do in preparation for their first flights. I'd like to learn
> > from their experiences.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > Les Kearney
> >
> > #40643 - Still singing the section 29 blues (but much, much closer to
> > the final few bars).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
> Schmidt
> > Sent: November-19-07 12:09 PM
> > To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV10-List: N289DT Accident
> >
> >
> >
> > I could not agree with you more John. We should never stop expanding
> > our piloting skills and if we don't feel comfortable with something,
> > stop and get help. Everytime I go flying with an instructor, air
> > traffic controller, airline pilot, aerobatic pilot and high time
> pilot,
> > if I let them critique my skills and open myself up to criticism, I
> > always learn something new or have something pointed out to me. We
> all
> > have good and bad habits.
> >
> > One thing I picked up on in Tim's write-up that I have talked about
> with
> > my wife even before Dan's accident is the increased danger of flying
> > single pilot. I can understand why insurance companies like two
> pilots
> > in the cockpit of certain jets, it is simply safer to have two brains
> > working on conducting a safe flight. How many guys have taken an
> > accidental cat nap while flying? How many of us get distracted with
> > something and forget to look outside? If you have ever had someone
> fly
> > with you who is very good at cockpit management, you will understand
> how
> > nice it is. I love having someone read off my checklist for every
> > aspect of the flight. Even if the person in the copilot seat is not a
> > pilot, you fly safer because you don't want anything to go wrong. I
> > know a person who fell asleep and flew into a mountain, luckily he is
> > still alive but will probably never fly again. It is just a risk
> factor
> > that is added to the sum. Reviewing the NTSB teaches you that
> typically
> > accidents are not one thing. They are the sum of multiple risk
> factors
> > that reached a critical mass. This is not the case all the time, just
> > most of the time.
> > I think this is what John is pointing out in his e-mail and in Tim's
> > write-up as well. We all know this stuff but it good to be reminded.
> >
> > I want to make a comment about the DAR. When I had my plane inspected,
> > he spent 15 minutes looking at the plane. I don't think the DAR can
> > fully inspect true defects, it is up to us to get good experienced
> > builders to look at the workmanship of our planes. My biggest concern
> > on my first flight was to make sure the engine ran flawlessly. I
> > flushed my tanks 3 times to insure I had no large pieces of proseal, I
> > did a flow test to check that I could sustain a 30 gph flow rate with
> > the electric fuel pump and make sure there were no clogged lines, and
> I
> > pressurized the system to check for any leaks. If you are relying on
> > the DAR to let you know where all the problems are, think again. I'm
> > sure there are some incredible DAR's who really understand systems,
> and
> > not so great ones. To me, the DAR is there to do paperwork. Like I
> > mentioned, we spent 15 minutes on the plane and literally 4 hours on
> > paperwork, review of my manual for all steps checked off, engine and
> > prop log review, ect...... With Light Sport registration and all the
> > new Experimentals flying, these guys are very busy and do a very wide
> > range of aircraft.
> >
> > This won't be the last accident. I am concerned that IMC related
> > accidents will top the list after 5-10 more years. The invention of
> > glass cockpits is incredible but it does increase your situational
> > awareness even though you can't see outside which in turn increases
> our
> > confidence of flying into IMC conditions. Hopefully with weather info
> > and better icing data, this won't be the case. I sure would like to
> > see some data on the RV-10 over time showing it is one of the safest 4
> > place plane on the market.
> >
> > Just remember, if anything does happen and you have to make a forced
> > landing, the insurance company is now the new owner.
> > I like the way Wayne Handley signs his posters, "Keep your Knots Up,
> > Speed is Life".
> > I think he writes that so that you'll think about it in emergency
> > situations.
> > Fly the plane to the ground.
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott Schmidt
> >
> > Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wheel Fairing Air Access covers |
Thanks Jesse!
do not archive.
Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> "Plug, 2.0" Cirrus"
> Item # 50498-200
> Price $2.60 ea.
> DLK Aviation
> 2601 Cessna Lane
> Kennesaw, GA 30144
> 770-427-4954
> www.dlkaviation.com
>
> do not archive
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> www.saintaviation.com
> Cell: 352-427-0285
> Fax: 815-377-3694
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Marlow [mailto:sam@fr8dog.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:46 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Wheel Fairing Air Access covers
>
>
> Do you have a part # Jesse, or has anyone found a Cirrus parts catalog
> on line?
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>>
>> I looks like Spruce only has as high a 1.5" diameter. Cirrus (yes, I
>>
> know,
>
>> a bad word) sells a 2" plastic plug. You should be able to order it
>>
> through
>
>> any Cirrus repair shop.
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>> www.saintaviation.com
>> Cell: 352-427-0285
>> Fax: 815-377-3694
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Patton [mailto:bpattonsoa@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:33 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Wheel Fairing Air Access covers
>>
>> I believe that Aircraft Spruce has them. They are fragile and will break.
>> I recommend steel hole plugs, at your hardware store. Paint up a few
>>
> extra,
>
>> they can get lost.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> Sam Marlow <sam@fr8dog.net> wrote:
>> I've looked and looked on the web for these things. The little spring
>> assisted access door to put air in your tires, with wheel pants installed.
>> Does anybody remember the part #?
>> Thanks,
>> Sam Marlow
>> #40157 Flying now
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|