Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:01 AM - Re: SB Nose Wheel Report (Barry)
2. 05:15 AM - Re: Re: SB Nose Wheel Report (Kelly McMullen)
3. 08:52 AM - N104HN (DLM)
4. 09:01 AM - Re: N104HN (Shannon Hicks)
5. 09:53 AM - Re: N104HN (Rene Felker)
6. 10:02 AM - Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
7. 10:47 AM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
8. 11:04 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Sean Stephens)
9. 12:13 PM - Re: N104HN (Kent Ogden)
10. 01:14 PM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
11. 01:14 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
12. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Sean Stephens)
13. 02:23 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Sean Stephens)
14. 02:36 PM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
15. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Pascal)
16. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (David Clifford)
17. 06:22 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Andrew Long)
18. 06:23 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Don McDonald)
19. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Les Kearney)
20. 10:38 PM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
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: | Re: SB Nose Wheel Report |
I'm thinking about riveting the doubler to the top most elastomer in the stack
to keep the doubler centered and make for easy inspections. I also believe that
proper per-load is very important to keep all the parts in the build up free
of slack, which could cause the pounding on the plates. What ya think?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430958#430958
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: SB Nose Wheel Report |
I think you will have issues that you don't need. The shock disk is
bonded together, aluminum on rubber. The only way I think you could
rivet to it would be with blind, pull rivets of some sort. The heads of
the rivets would have to be absolutely flush for the doubler to fit
against the original plate.The doubler is already a snug fit against the
tubing. I had to lightly file the edges smooth to get it to fit snugly.
If you are worried about the doubler moving around, use some RTV or
ProSeal to bond it to the mount. The pre-load is necessary and probably
your best bet to keep the parts from moving around. I really don't think
you want to be drilling holes in the doubler, which is steel.
Aluminum rivets into aluminum plate on the shock disk are not going to
add any strength. The steel strut that the shock disks mount on is going
to limit lateral movement of the shock disks. The doubler is held from
moving laterally by its fit between the steel tubes of the engine mount.
On 9/23/2014 1:59 AM, Barry wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about riveting the doubler to the top most elastomer in the stack
to keep the doubler centered and make for easy inspections. I also believe that
proper per-load is very important to keep all the parts in the build up free
of slack, which could cause the pounding on the plates. What ya think?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430958#430958
>
>
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 |
|
What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this
investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this
aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental
Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a
forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston,
Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The
airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual
meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that
originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second
flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1,
2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initial
flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was
completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that
the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he
was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The
purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers,
verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several
takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before
returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T,
the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of
power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and
subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the
pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the
airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles east
of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude remaining to
glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby
vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed
during landing roll, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing
primary structure and the forward fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind
120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet
above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees
Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=9&year 14>
for Sep2014 | Index <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Month.aspx> of
months
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 |
|
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did
I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on board?
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
> What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
>
> NTSB Identification: *CEN14LA495*
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
> Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
>
> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
> errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report
> has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of
> this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare
> this aircraft accident report.
> On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental
> Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a
> forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston,
> Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The
> airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions
> of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual
> meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that
> originally departed EFD about 1400.
>
> The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second
> flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July
> 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the
> initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden
> flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He
> stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane
> and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier
> flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight
> maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several
> takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas,
> before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing
> at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total
> loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine
> and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after
> the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control
> tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3
> miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude
> remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced
> landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose
> landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in substantial
> damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fuselage
> structure.
>
> At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind
> 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet
> above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees
> Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
>
> Index for Sep2014
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=9&year 14> | Index
> of months <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Month.aspx>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Maybe the first flight was 25/40 hours..hard to do in the same
day.
Do not archive
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: N104HN
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or
did I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on
board?
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in
support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources
to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental
Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged
during a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport
(EFD), Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were
not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot
under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a
flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the
local flight test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's
second flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate
on July 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions
of the initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's
maiden flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another
pilot. He stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in
the airplane and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had
completed the earlier flight. The purpose of the second flight test was
to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit
instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the
nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD. The
pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while
at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during
landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently
departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had
established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the
airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles
east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude
remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced
landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose
landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in
substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward
fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported:
wind 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at
4,000 feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point
23 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014
<http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=9&year 14>
| Index of months <http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Month.aspx>
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
It is sounding like there may be an upcoming rules change in this area.
Tim
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:51 AM, "Rene Felker" <rene@felker.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe the first flight was 25/40 hours..hard to do in the same da
y.
>
> Do not archive
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Hicks
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:01 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: N104HN
>
> Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did
I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on board?
>
> Shannon Hicks
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
> What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
>
> NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
> Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
> Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
> Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors
. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this inve
stigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft
accident report.
>
> On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental No
lin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a fo
rced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston, Texa
s. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The airplan
e was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Cod
e of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorolo
gical conditions prevailed for the local flight test that originally departe
d EFD about 1400.
>
> The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second
flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1
, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initia
l flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was c
ompleted earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that t
he accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he was
being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The purpo
se of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/
calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landin
gs at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD.
The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while a
t an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing ro
ll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T f
or the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had established communi
cations with EFT air traffic control tower, the airplane experienced another
total loss of engine power about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane d
id not have sufficient altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the p
ilot performed a forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main land
ing gear and nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted
in substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fu
selage structure.
>
> At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 1
20 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet a
bove ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees Cels
ius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
> Index for Sep2014 | Index of months
>
>
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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 |
|
The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled conditions, allow for
two people on board during phase one. This is still in the proposal stage.
This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years ago there
were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash. As far as I know
the FAA took no action against the pilots. So apparently some pilots have gotten
the idea that it's okay to break the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
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 |
|
Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me if
I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight testing
paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
-Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
>
> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
> still in the proposal stage.
>
> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash.
> As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>
>
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 |
|
Been known to happen. In '07 there was a Lancair Legacy RG that crashed
on its maiden flight from Oswego County airport here in Central NY. Two
perished, one was the president of the local EAA chapter (his plane) if I
recall correctly. The plane had a fuel leak during ground runs and I
think this was deemed a possible cause of the power loss as there was
plenty of fuel onboard.
Not sure why the second individual was in the plane, I heard it was to
experience the first flight as he helped with the build. What an
unnecessary loss of life.
Kent
>>> Shannon Hicks <civeng123@gmail.com> 9/23/2014 12:00 PM >>>
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did
I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on
board?
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077@cox.net> wrote:
What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report
has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of
this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare
this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental
Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during
a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD),
Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not
injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under
the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight
plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight
test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second
flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July
1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the
initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden
flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He
stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane
and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier
flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight
maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform
several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown,
Texas, before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final
landing at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a
total loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the
engine and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly
after the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic
control tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power
about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient
altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a
forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and
nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in
substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward
fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind
120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000
feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23
degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014 ( http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/AccList.aspx?month=
9&year 14 ) | Index of months ( http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Month
.aspx )
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-Listtp://forums.matr
onics.com_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
============
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 |
|
schmoboy wrote:
> Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me if
> I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
> single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
> and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
> rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight testing
> paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
>
> I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
>
> -Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
>
> > Bob Turner
> > September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
> >
> >
> > The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
> > conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
> > still in the proposal stage.
> >
> > This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
> > ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash.
> > As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
> > apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
> > the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Turner
> > RV-10 QB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
I cannot disagree more strongly. There is no gray area. The operating limitations
limit phase one to 'necessary crew'. Does anyone maintain that the RV-10 is
a two crew airplane? The paperwork I got from Vans said Vans believes it is a
one pilot airplane. My DAR specifically said so, too.
Worse, the touch and goes suggest that transition training was going on, not phase
one testing.
The proposed rules changes are designed to keep 100 hour pilots who fear stalls
and have never seen a spin from doing phase one flights, while still allowing
them the joy of the first flight. The basis is that, statistically, more pilots
die in phase one from poor airmanship than mechanical issues. But this is still
in the proposal stage; the one person rule is still in effect.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430988#430988
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 |
|
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know
that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are not
there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
On 9/23/2014 11:04 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me
> if I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
> single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
> and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
> rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight
> testing paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
>
> I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
>
> -Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
>> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
>>
>> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
>> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
>> still in the proposal stage.
>>
>> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
>> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one
>> crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
>> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
>> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Believe me, I'm not trying to argue the point that two pilot ops during
phase one are allowed in the spirit of the rule.
I'm just saying that the rule could be written somehow to prevent people
from increasing our insurance rates. Not sure how, just saying.
-Sean #40303 (unsend!, unsend!)
> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> September 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM
>
>
> I cannot disagree more strongly. There is no gray area. The operating
> limitations limit phase one to 'necessary crew'. Does anyone maintain
> that the RV-10 is a two crew airplane? The paperwork I got from Vans
> said Vans believes it is a one pilot airplane. My DAR specifically
> said so, too.
> Worse, the touch and goes suggest that transition training was going
> on, not phase one testing.
>
> The proposed rules changes are designed to keep 100 hour pilots who
> fear stalls and have never seen a spin from doing phase one flights,
> while still allowing them the joy of the first flight. The basis is
> that, statistically, more pilots die in phase one from poor airmanship
> than mechanical issues. But this is still in the proposal stage; the
> one person rule is still in effect.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430988#430988
>
>
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 |
|
Your wording of "Only if a plane requires more than one person to
physically operate controls" would be a lot better than "During the
flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during
flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
Who get's to determine "essential to the purpose of the flight"? The
builder? The test pilot? The kit manufacturer? The FAA?
Joe Pilot has a piece of paper for his AoA that says he needs a co-pilot
to perform the in-flight calibration for safety reasons. Would Joe
Pilot consider this "essential to the purpose of the flight"? If he
did, is he within his rights to do so?
> Kelly McMullen <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>
> September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
>
> Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
> white area (not considering proposed change).
> Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
> controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
> person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
> collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I
> know that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are
> not there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what
> they say.
> The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
> considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that
> extra person.
> One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
> source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
> not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel
> pressure setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that,
> as long as idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the
> recommended.
>
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 |
|
schmoboy wrote:
>
>
> I'm just saying that the rule could be written somehow to prevent people
> from increasing our insurance rates. Not sure how, just saying.
>
In all the cases mentioned, it seems unlikely the rules were not understood. At
least by the builder. People just decided not to follow them. IMHO the lack of
enforcement action against them only encourages others to do the same.
Not at all clear this will affect your insurance rates. On another forum the pilot
is offering pieces of his aircraft for sale - suggesting to me that he had
no insurance, or the company has declined coverage due to the circumstances.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430997#430997
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 |
|
April 2014 - Sport Aviation and Experimenter cover this proposal. Unless the
EAA received FAA concurrence it was not permitted when I did my fly off.
Sport Aviation -April 2014:
THE FIRST FEW HOURS of a homebuilt aircrafts life are the most dangerous.
Of all Phase 1 fl ight-testing accidents in 2011, 18 percent occurred on the
first flight, and a full 65 percent occurred within the first eight hours.
To address this problem while maintaining the freedoms that homebuilders
enjoy, EAA has worked to create an optional program, now in the form of a
draft FAA advisory circular. Under this proposal, builders
of kit aircraft meeting certain basic requirements may elect to fly with an
appropriately qualified additional pilot during the early stages of Phase 1
flight
testing, including the maiden flight. The additional qualified pilot would
be based on criteria that measure appropriate experience and currency.
What I find sad, since I too had all sorts of engine heat and other issues
during my fly off (alone) and was stuck at a remote airport due to a
concern, is if this second pilot was qualified to do the maiden flight maybe
he should have thought to discuss with the builder and check why the engine
stopped on the ground to start with, versus starting it up and flying it off
without checking?? granted maybe the NTSB report fails to cover this
critical piece.
Personally, I think the second pilot is a great idea, those first few hours
of engine alarms, due to breaking in heat and so many other mind consuming
tasks would have benefitted me in more ways than one. A experienced RV pilot
would have told me what was "normal" and what needed fixing before the next
flight. I was not allow to stop at a remote airport unless I deemed it
"necessary for the safety of flight", which I deemed a few times, but each
time that cowl came off and I made an adjustment.
Regardless It is sad to hear about this event.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Stephens
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
Your wording of "Only if a plane requires more than one person to
physically operate controls" would be a lot better than "During the
flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during
flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
Who get's to determine "essential to the purpose of the flight"? The
builder? The test pilot? The kit manufacturer? The FAA?
Joe Pilot has a piece of paper for his AoA that says he needs a co-pilot
to perform the in-flight calibration for safety reasons. Would Joe
Pilot consider this "essential to the purpose of the flight"? If he
did, is he within his rights to do so?
> Kelly McMullen <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>
> September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
>
> Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and white
> area (not considering proposed change).
> Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
> controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second person.
> Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data collection, not
> allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know that some folks
> want to read things into the reg that simply are not there. Consult with a
> DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
> The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
> considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
> person.
> One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
> source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is not
> uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
> setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
> idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
>
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 |
|
I also agree 100% with Kelly on this matter. Poor decision making all around IMHO
The insurance company will in all likelihood deny the claim also due to the
fact the plane was operation in violation of the FAR's.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:13:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know
that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are not
there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
On 9/23/2014 11:04 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me
> if I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
> single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
> and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
> rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight
> testing paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
>
> I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
>
> -Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
>> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
>>
>> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
>> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
>> still in the proposal stage.
>>
>> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
>> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one
>> crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
>> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
>> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I too have revised the AOA information and requirements and would it
states that is indeed an instance the an essential crew is required in
this otherwise single pilot aircraft.
We must make sure we process flight testing in a safe manner, not just
according to "perceived" fixed black interpretation of the rules. Remember
this is flight testing for SAFE operations.
IMHO early flights 1 pilot. As the aircraft is confirmed as operational,
where necessary for continuing testing, and where prudent to SAFETY, apply
reasonable addition of essential crew.
--
Regards,
Andrew Long
www.ozrv10.com
>
> Your wording of "Only if a plane requires more than one person to
> physically operate controls" would be a lot better than "During the
> flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during
> flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
>
> Who get's to determine "essential to the purpose of the flight"? The
> builder? The test pilot? The kit manufacturer? The FAA?
>
> Joe Pilot has a piece of paper for his AoA that says he needs a co-pilot
> to perform the in-flight calibration for safety reasons. Would Joe
> Pilot consider this "essential to the purpose of the flight"? If he
> did, is he within his rights to do so?
>> Kelly McMullen <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>
>> September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
>>
>> Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
>> white area (not considering proposed change).
>> Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
>> controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
>> person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
>> collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I
>> know that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are
>> not there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what
>> they say.
>> The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
>> considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that
>> extra person.
>> One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
>> source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
>> not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel
>> pressure setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that,
>> as long as idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the
>> recommended.
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the passengers during
phase 1? Someone taking a friend, wife, girlfriend, etc.... in my mind
would be in complete violation period!!! But having another qualified pilot knowing
the risks involved on board, hurts who? I just think there's a big difference
between having someone go with you during phase 1, who knows nothing of
the risks, and provides no assistance in any way, and having someone who knowingly
accepts the risks and can provide additional expertise in the cockpit.
I guess we've just gotten so used to the govt telling us everything we can and
can't do, that it now is the norm.
Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in particular. But
did the accident happen because there were two people on board, don't think
so.
Just sayin'
________________________________
From: David Clifford <davidsoutpost@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
I also agree 100% with Kelly on this matter. Poor decision making all around IMHO
The insurance company will in all likelihood deny the claim also due to
the fact the plane was operation in violation of the FAR's.
________________________________
From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:13:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know
that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are not
there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
On 9/23/2014 11:04 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
>
> Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me
> if I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
> single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
> and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
> rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight
> testing paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
>
> I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
>
> -Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
>> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
>>
>> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
>> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
>> still in the proposal stage.
>>
>> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
>> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one
>> crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
>> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
>> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
< -Matt Dralle,===========
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 |
|
Hi
This is a very interesting discussion. North of the 49th we are allowed to have
a second pilot on board for the fly off period. On my first flight I had a local
flight instructor on board. Transport Canada doesn't want inexperienced pilots
getting in over their heads during initial flights.
Seems very reasonable from a safety perspective.
Cheers
Les
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled conditions, allow
for two people on board during phase one. This is still in the proposal stage.
>
> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years ago there
were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash. As far as I know
the FAA took no action against the pilots. So apparently some pilots have gotten
the idea that it's okay to break the rules, if they're not convenient for
them.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
partner14 wrote:
> Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the passengers
during phase 1?
> ....
>
> Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in particular.
But did the accident happen because there were two people on board, don't think
so.
>
> [/b][b]
It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize casualties.
This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned, were caused
by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk instead of
two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the ntsb report makes
it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there are rules.
And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are statistically safer
than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one is suggesting that
phase one is a time to be doing transition training.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023
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! --
|