Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:50 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Werner Schneider)
2. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Jesse Saint)
3. 08:20 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Jesse Saint)
4. 08:34 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Jesse Saint)
5. 09:56 AM - 104HN (DLM)
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 |
|
When I was in that phase that a 150lbs sandbag occupied the co seat it
was not only strapped in with the seatbelts, two ratchet straps kept it
firm connected with the seatback...
Cheers Werner
On 25.09.2014 05:59, rv10flyer wrote:
>.. He mentioned an accident where a gentleman lost control and crashed due to
a sandbag coming loose that was in the copilot's seat.
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 |
|
This is the correct evaluation. Insurance was supposed to take effect at 10 hours.
I know there was an A&P/IA that looked at the plane a week or so before the
accident that said he thought there was a fuel supply problem and recommended
that the plane not be flown until that was completely fixed and verified.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> 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 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 |
|
The pattern altitude is 632 ft. Class B starts at 2,000 ft. Personally, I would
not be willing to do much test flying in the initial hours at 1,500-1,800 ft.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:24 AM, hotwheels <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There are a few things that left me puzzled here. These guys are lucky to still
be around to tell their story..
>
> "the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers ... and to perform
several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas,
before returning to EFD."
>
> What? Can't basic flight tests be performed right over the airport above the
pattern altitude (maybe this was controlled airspace)? Why tempt fate by "going
somewhere" in the early hours of flight test?
>
> "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."
>
> Note to self: Engines that don't work right should be immediately grounded, not
flown some more before a thorough inspection is done.
>
> I found that having a ground support team during my phase 1 to be extremely valuable
from both troubleshooting and decision making process points of view.
There's so much happening that it's nearly impossible not to miss something critical
if it's just you. I'm very grateful for being the recipient of the collective
knowledge of others who have blazed the trail and been there and done that
- including this forum.
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431034#431034
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
I will reply inline.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On Sep 24, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> It's really hard to say exactly what was going on. It could be
> pseudo "transition training", or maybe not. I can certainly
> understand why someone new to the RV-10 who just built it
> would want to get right into the Left seat as soon as a
> successful test flight was done. The motivation is understandable.
> But, that doesn't make it a good idea. I think that's one
> of the big benefits of actual pre-first-flight transition
> training, like you can get with Alex D, Mike S, and now
> a few others as well. You can get to the point where you
> don't have to be uncomfortable with that first test flight.
> I can't imagine having to turn over my keys to a
> qualified test pilot. Sure, it's probably ego or something,
> but I built the plane, and I want to be the first to fly it.
> Just means you need the training BEFORE hand.
There were medical issues involved and the plane was going to be sold asap. That
doesn't excuse it, it just explains it.
>
> When it comes to the question of where they went, I won't
> pretend to know or care the airspace they were in.
> Maybe they were restricted from doing takeoffs and landings
> at their airport of departure. That would be unfortunate
> indeed, and in that case I'd almost say the FAA has it's
> little share in the blame. We need to be able to do these
> first few hours with immediate access to an airport to
> land at. While that doesn't mean you need to stay in the
> pattern the whole time, I would think a good test flight
> plan would be to climb high enough that a glide to landing
> is possible at an airport...at least for the first hour
> or two. Once you know it's going to stay running,
> then carefully broaden your range to other nearby airports.
I agree with the FAA's portion of the blame, mainly because of the tight Class
B areas and the Class B restriction.
>
> It's hard not to agree about the fact that they had an
> engine quit and then decided to take off. If my engine
> quit after 1.5 flights, I'd definitely want to know why,
> before I launched again. I know, it's highly inconvenient,
> but this is the one place where it's impossible not to
> point the finger. These engines just don't quit without
> reason, and troubleshooting the ignition, fuel,
> and intake systems will definitely lead to an understanding
> of what went wrong. Airplane engines will run indefinitely
> once started, if they have the right fuel volume,
> the right air intake, and a properly firing ignition,
> so if it quits, you know it's one of those things that
> needs attention.
Completely agree, especially after someone recently told him he thought there was
a fuel supply problem.
>
> Like Jay, I had my couple of misses when getting ready
> for the first flight. 1 is that before first engine
> start, I had removed the fuel hose and re-attached it...but
> had forgotten to torque it. My ground crew of 2 caught
> that when I hit the boost pump. That could have been
> 'spensive! The other was my alternator wire connector
> wasn't clicked in hard enough into the alternator.
> I saw that after the first takeoff and landing. It took
> a lot to get myself to ground the plane until I un-cowled
> and checked that connector, in the winter, but it could
> have been a bad day if I'd taken that 2nd takeoff
> with it still loose. So for first flights, I'd suggest
> having a small ground crew, even if only to help grab
> tools for you.
>
> It sounds like there was a little bit of that "rush"
> in this situation, but that is just a feeling, not
> that we have any real information. I feel bad for the
> guys. It's a lot of work to go through for that outcome.
> It does give the RV-10 community a good reminder lesson
> though, which we probably need from time to time. Since
> there was no life lost, we can consider it a good
> free training session in how we could work better to not
> have that be us. I know personally that a lot of
> what I learned NOT to do, was gained by reading
> the "Never Again" type articles in the flying magazines.
> This story is just like those.
There was definitely "rush" in this situation.
>
> Regarding the 2 people in the cockpit, this one I have
> mixed feelings about. On one hand, I think it's
> important to keep the spirit of the rule in that the
> goal is not to endanger unnecessarily, any other lives.
> Certainly passenger/entertainment flights shouldn't be
> allowed, nor a goal of the phase 1. On the other hand,
> having 2 pilots gives lots of options too. If you have
> erroneous or unusual readings to look at, I'd rather
> turn them over to a knowledgeable co-pilot to investigate.
> Certainly 1 person can fly the plane well enough, but
> I have to admit there would be times, especially during
> phase 1, where it could be beneficial to have that extra
> pair of hands/eyes. If the requirement said that the
> additional person had to have a certain amount of time
> in type, would that make it less negative sounding?
> I wouldn't consider this to be in lieu of pre-first-flight
> transition training, but if someone had obtained
> transition training earlier, I wouldn't think it would
> be unreasonable either, to have an experienced
> in make/model trainer in the plane....it gives
> the opportunity to not task saturate or overload this
> RV-10 guy who maybe has 5 hours in make/model. Once
> he has 5 more in his plane, he's probably in far better
> shape. So from that perspective, I'm glad they are
> looking at that rule and considering changing it...I think
> there are worthwhile possibilities of adding safety
> to the system if they allow 2 pilots during phase 1.
> On a side note, it may actually be that less people would
> violate the FAR on this if we could come to some sort
> of consensus on a 25 vs 40 hour flyoff period. If the
> engine is made by Lycoming or Continental, and the
> prop is made by a company who makes certified props,
> I don't see why more than 25 should ever be given.
> Now change to a Subaru/Chevy/Ford engine, and heck,
> 40 sounds great to me.
I agree completely with Tim on this one. I think absolutely single pilot until
it is verified for at least 10-15 hours that the engine is going to stay running
and parts aren't falling off, but the point of Phase 1 is to verify that systems
are working and that the plane is operable throughout its range of operations.
During stalls, are you supposed to be watching outside or looking at the
instruments to see airspeed and keep the ball in the center? Any time you are
"under the hood", a safety pilot is required, is it not? So I say, it is completely
within the wording of the rule that any heavy panel operation flight,
a safety pilot can be considered required crew. In this case, being 2nd flight,
it was clearly a transition training flight and not within any possible interpretation
of required crew. I do think, however, that if the builder had been
the sole occupant at the time of engine failure, he would likely not be a survivor.
The "safety pilot" took the controls and they both walked away.
>
> On the 3rd hand (must be a mutant), I can also see that
> having that 2nd pilot aboard can lead to MORE issues.
> When I think back to the times when I've been most
> distracted, or done the dumbest stuff, it's generally
> been when I've been flying with another pilot. You tend
> to relax maybe too much, and focus on conversation
> rather than airplane and avionics or traffic management.
> You may also have that master/subordinate dynamic to
> deal with, that can make things clumsy. So, if a pilot
> was going to have a co-pilot during phase 1, I'd think
> that you would need to 1) establish a defined PIC
> before the flight, who will also be the "sole manipulator
> of controls" (note that in some other areas, these may
> be different people, but I'm saying in this case they
> should be only ONE person). 2) keep a sterile cockpit
> at all times, 3) The duties of the co-pilot should
> be listed in advance, so that they know exactly what
> they are to do.
>
> That's all I got, but I'd definitely like to push the
> issue that transition training is best done before that
> first flight. I'd go so far as to say it should be
> mandated, if it weren't for the fact that the rules would
> probably get all mucked up if the FAA tried to write a rule.
> For instance, I actually may not do transition training
> when I fly the RV-14 for first flight. But, it's got the
> same wing and same feel as an RV-10, with similar
> performance, and I've got over 1000 hours in similar type.
> So, I don't see that I'll benefit much, especially now that
> I've done a demo flight to see the difference. I wouldn't
> want to be forced to do it in my case. But when I
> did my first RV-10 flight, I didn't have time in similar
> type...so I wouldn't have felt too bad if it were
> mandated. In fact it was, by my insurance company, and
> maybe it's best if we left it to them to do so.
>
> It could also be that this is the reason supposedly the
> person is parting out the plane...because many insurance
> companies don't cover the first X number of hours.
> So maybe it wasn't due to FAR violation, but more due to
> simply not being insurable yet.
Yep
>
> Either way, this is a sad event for them, and a learning
> opportunity for us. Thankfully it wasn't the same
> learning opportunity as Dan Lloyd provided us years ago.
>
> Tim
Oh, and do not archive
>
>
>
> On 9/24/2014 8:24 AM, hotwheels wrote:
>> <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>>
>> There are a few things that left me puzzled here. These guys are
>> lucky to still be around to tell their story..
>>
>> "the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers ...
>> and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark
>> (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD."
>>
>> What? Can't basic flight tests be performed right over the airport
>> above the pattern altitude (maybe this was controlled airspace)? Why
>> tempt fate by "going somewhere" in the early hours of flight test?
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> Note to self: Engines that don't work right should be immediately
>> grounded, not flown some more before a thorough inspection is done.
>>
>> I found that having a ground support team during my phase 1 to be
>> extremely valuable from both troubleshooting and decision making
>> process points of view. There's so much happening that it's nearly
>> impossible not to miss something critical if it's just you. I'm very
>> grateful for being the recipient of the collective knowledge of
>> others who have blazed the trail and been there and done that -
>> including this forum.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431034#431034
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
It has been almost 900 hours since my first flight in 2008; I did no high
speed taxi and minimal engine runs as the engine was a new certified engine
from Vans (only thing available from Vans at the time). The airworthiness
inspection for both aircraft were more about getting the FAA paperwork
correct as I had an A&P. I was alone in the aircraft and had about half
tanks. Since my transition training with Alex consisted of an hour without a
standing start takeoff (just touch and goes) I was unprepared for the
acceleration. I had been flying Cessna (177RG) which are powered up and
eventually one accelerates to flying speed. I just pushed the power lever
forward and about 5 seconds later was flying. I spent a 1.3 hours over the
airport above the pattern doing moderate power settings lazy circles and
returning to land. My building buddy was my crew chief (Boeing inspector).
we uncowled the aircraft and inspected for leaks and loose connections. I
believe another flight or 2 were also spent over the traffic pattern near
home field. Using the GRT EIS we were able to record about 30 aircraft
parameters every second which could be analyzed later. For the first 5
hours the CHTs always reached the low 400s during the first 5 minutes of
flight then receding to the mid 300s and eventually to the low 300s when
LOP. Several pieces of advice. Stay over the test airport for at least three
flights. Second inspect with cowl off after each of the first few flights.
Include a inexpensive fuel stop in your test area. Use , if available, a
EFIS recording device to measure performance during the test. Leave the
wheel pants off for the test period as the aircraft will fly well above Va
with them on when using the necessary power for break-in.
David McNeill
N46007 RV10 2008 850+ TT
N48007 Glastar 2003 sold 2010 800+TT (currently fish spotting above the
Pacific)
Com CFII A&P
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! --
|