Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:24 AM - Re: RV10-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 09/24/14 (Frank Davis)
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: RV10-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 09/24/14 |
Ellington Field (EFD) is class D with a tower. Sits under Houston Hobby
(HOU) which is class B. So he was in controlled airspace. What I don't
understand is why he went all the way to RWJ when La Porte Airport (T41) is
6 miles from EFD. Still under the HOU class B airspace but so was RWJ. Why
go so far in a yet unproven airplane.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:02 AM, RV10-List Digest Server <
rv10-list@matronics.com> wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete RV10-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the RV10-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 14-09-24&Archive=RV10
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 14-09-24&Archive=RV10
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> RV10-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Wed 09/24/14: 21
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 06:24 AM - Re: N104HN (hotwheels)
> 2. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Don McDonald)
> 3. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
> 4. 09:29 AM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
> 5. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
> 6. 09:55 AM - Re: N104HN (Shannon Hicks)
> 7. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
> 8. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Phillip Perry)
> 9. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
> 10. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (RV10@texasrv10.com)
> 11. 01:43 PM - Re: Wingtip getting crowded (Rocketman1988)
> 12. 04:46 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
> 13. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Justin Jones)
> 14. 05:19 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Bob Leffler)
> 15. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Rene Felker)
> 16. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Bill Watson)
> 17. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
> 18. 06:59 PM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
> 19. 08:31 PM - Re: Wingtip getting crowded (Evolution10)
> 20. 08:43 PM - Re: Wingtip getting crowded (bob88)
> 21. 08:59 PM - Re: N104HN (rv10flyer)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:24:56 AM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: "hotwheels" <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 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:47:05 AM PST US
> From: Don McDonald <building_partner@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
> My real problem with this is that it seems in every part of our lives the
> govt
> works so hard to protect us from ourselves.... an nowhere in my comment
> did I
> mention that 3 or even 4 individuals should be allowed in the plane. And
> yes,
> it is too bad that there are a lot of pilots out there that are
> clueless....
> but that's another issue. Maybe if that 2nd guy hadn't been in the plane,
> it
> may have ended up with a smoking hole and 1 fatality.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:38 AM
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:24:39 AM PST US
> From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
> 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 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:29:06 AM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>
>
> partner14 wrote:
> > Maybe if that 2nd guy hadn't been in the plane, it may have ended up
> with a
> smoking hole and 1 fatality.
> > ]
>
>
> I agree, and that's what the proposed rules change is all about.
>
> But the other accident I mentioned, the clueless second pilot was the less
> experienced
> one. And in fact he relinquished the controls to the builder after the
> engine quit. So it's a mixed bag.
>
> As I told Mark, the FAA guy behind the proposal, my only concern is that
> if pilots
> feel free to ignore the black and white rule as it exists now, they surely
> will bend the new proposal - which does contain detailed qualifications
> for a
> second pilot - to anything they want.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431047#431047
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:41:35 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com>
>
> I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some kind of
> ex-military, but I see no restriction on local operations during the
> day...just some night noise restrictions. It is under Houston Class B, but
> with a 4000 ft floor, so a flight at 3500 would provide about 2800 ft of
> clearance from traffic pattern altitude and plenty of altitude for engine
> break-in and basic control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the
> second flight is the time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers
> check out when the basic systems are not yet proven reliable. The airport
> they went to looks about 15 miles away, with one much closer uncontrolled
> field, if operation with the tower was an issue. One needs to be certain
> that basic engine performance and flight control performance is reliable
> before departing the safe gliding distance of initial airport.
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:55:15 AM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: Shannon Hicks <civeng123@gmail.com>
>
> EFD is under the 2000 Bravo shelf for Hobby. I am based out of Ellington
> and it is a mix of military and GA traffic.
>
> Shannon
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2014 11:46 AM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apilot2@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> > I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> > I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some kind of
> > ex-military, but I see no restriction on local operations during the
> > day...just some night noise restrictions. It is under Houston Class B,
> but
> > with a 4000 ft floor, so a flight at 3500 would provide about 2800 ft of
> > clearance from traffic pattern altitude and plenty of altitude for engine
> > break-in and basic control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the
> > second flight is the time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers
> > check out when the basic systems are not yet proven reliable. The airport
> > they went to looks about 15 miles away, with one much closer uncontrolled
> > field, if operation with the tower was an issue. One needs to be certain
> > that basic engine performance and flight control performance is reliable
> > before departing the safe gliding distance of initial airport.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner@alum.rpi.edu');>> wrote:
> >
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner@alum.rpi.edu');>>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =========
> >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >> =========
> >> ">http://forums.matronics.com
> >> =========
> >> le, List Admin.
> >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >> =========
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:04:12 AM PST US
> From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> You are right...I mis-read the chart. However, with TPA at ~640 ft, and
> 1100 for bigger/faster planes, the tower could easily have him at
> 1500-1700 ft and out of the way of traffic. I do see why he went to the
> other airport IF he wanted to do maneuvers with more altitude, but there
> is still significant risk with a unproven engine going at less than 2000
> AGL outside gliding range.
>
> On 9/24/2014 9:54 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> > EFD is under the 2000 Bravo shelf for Hobby. I am based out of
> > Ellington and it is a mix of military and GA traffic.
> >
> > Shannon
> >
> >
> > On Sep 24, 2014 11:46 AM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apilot2@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> >
> > I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> > I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some
> > kind of ex-military, but I see no restriction on local operations
> > during the day...just some night noise restrictions. It is under
> > Houston Class B, but with a 4000 ft floor, so a flight at 3500
> > would provide about 2800 ft of clearance from traffic pattern
> > altitude and plenty of altitude for engine break-in and basic
> > control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the second flight
> > is the time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers check out
> > when the basic systems are not yet proven reliable. The airport
> > they went to looks about 15 miles away, with one much closer
> > uncontrolled field, if operation with the tower was an issue. One
> > needs to be certain that basic engine performance and flight
> > control performance is reliable before departing the safe gliding
> > distance of initial airport.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner
> > <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner@alum.rpi.edu');>> wrote:
> >
> > <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner@alum.rpi.edu');>>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > =========
> > target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > =========
> > ">http://forums.matronics.com
> > =========
> > le, List Admin.
> > ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > =========
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> > tp://forums.matronics.com
> > _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:08:44 AM PST US
> From: Phillip Perry <philperry9@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
>
> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
>
> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly managed
> i
> n both facilities.
>
> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
>
> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
> no t
> ransition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
>
> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
> top o
> f that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't options
> e
> ven if you could have the altitude.
>
> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
> phase
> 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to the
> next
> closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less traffic, and more
> o
> ptions. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD and the phase 1 routine
> t
> hat the builder used is widely accepted as the lowest risk for the
> airspace.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 24, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> > I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some kind
> of e
> x-military, but I see no restriction on local operations during the
> day...ju
> st some night noise restrictions. It is under Houston Class B, but with a
> 40
> 00 ft floor, so a flight at 3500 would provide about 2800 ft of clearance
> fr
> om traffic pattern altitude and plenty of altitude for engine break-in and
> b
> asic control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the second flight is
> the
> time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers check out when the
> basic s
> ystems are not yet proven reliable. The airport they went to looks about
> 15 m
> iles away, with one much closer uncontrolled field, if operation with the
> to
> wer was an issue. One needs to be certain that basic engine performance
> and f
> light control performance is reliable before departing the safe gliding
> dist
> ance of initial airport.
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> wro
> te:
> >>
> >>
> >> partner14 wrote:
> >> > Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the
> pass
> engers during phase 1?
> >> > ....
> >> >
> >> > Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in
> partic
> ular. But did the accident happen because there were two people on board,
> d
> on't think so.
> >> >
> >> > [/b][b]
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize
> cas
> ualties.
> >>
> >> This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned,
> w
> ere caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk
> ins
> tead of two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the
> nts
> b report makes it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why
> there a
> re rules.
> >>
> >> And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are
> statistica
> lly safer than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one is
> suggesti
> ng 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> =========
> >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> >> =========
> >> ">http://forums.matronics.com
> >> =========
> >> le, List Admin.
> >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >> =========
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 3D===============3
> D==============
> ==============
> 3D===============3
> D==============
> ==============
> 3D===============3
> D==============
> ==============
> 3D===============3
> D==============
> ==============
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:41:35 AM PST US
> From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
> either.
>
> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
> time out around another airport.
>
> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
> had to deal with.
>
> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
> open space all around most sides of the airport.
> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
> I wish everyone could have it that way.
> Tim
>
>
> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> > Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
> >
> > EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
> >
> > It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> > managed in both facilities.
> >
> > The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
> >
> > The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
> > no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
> >
> > The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
> > top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
> > options even if you could have the altitude.
> >
> > It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
> > phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to
> > the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
> > traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
> > and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
> > lowest risk for the airspace.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:56:58 AM PST US
> From: "RV10@texasrv10.com" <RV10@texasrv10.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from a
> previous
> airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the
> systems
> plumb up to the engine.
>
> Gaylon Koenning
>
> > On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> > than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> > took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
> > make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
> > area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
> > 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
> > either.
> >
> > I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
> > spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
> > more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
> > engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
> > the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
> > departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
> > plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
> > time out around another airport.
> >
> > It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> > helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
> > have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
> > so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
> > convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
> > too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
> > issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
> > airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
> > I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
> > had to deal with.
> >
> > I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
> > with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> > in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
> > open space all around most sides of the airport.
> > Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
> > but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
> > I wish everyone could have it that way.
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> >> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
> >>
> >> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
> >>
> >> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> >> managed in both facilities.
> >>
> >> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
> >>
> >> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
> >> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
> >>
> >> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
> >> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
> >> options even if you could have the altitude.
> >>
> >> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
> >> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to
> >> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
> >> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
> >> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
> >> lowest risk for the airspace.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 11
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:43:42 PM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Wingtip getting crowded
> From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman@etczone.com>
>
>
> I also have the Safe Air1 tanks. I spoke with the guys at oshkosh this
> year about
> the Aerosun VX. The general consensus was that it WILL fit with the tanks
> installed. The adapter that they have produced requires you to enlarge
> the existing
> wingtip cutout in the span wise direction only, not the chord wise
> direction.
> After looking at the tanks and tips on my -10, I think it will fit but
> I am not 100% sure yet.
>
> I will be, though, before I cut those tips. I spent too much time making
> the access
> hatches with an english wheel...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431064#431064
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:46:55 PM PST US
> From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> Systems hookup, fuel lines, oil lines, engine controls and electrical
> hookup are usually source of more problems than break-in.
> Doubly so if anything in the carburetion/fuel injection or ignition has
> been changed.
> Not to mention all the engine gauges or EMS hookup.
>
> On 9/24/2014 11:56 AM, RV10@texasrv10.com wrote:
> >
> > I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from
> a previous
> airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the
> systems
> plumb up to the engine.
> >
> > Gaylon Koenning
> >
> >> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> >> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> >> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
> >> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
> >> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
> >> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
> >> either.
> >>
> >> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
> >> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
> >> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
> >> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
> >> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
> >> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
> >> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
> >> time out around another airport.
> >>
> >> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> >> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
> >> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
> >> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
> >> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
> >> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
> >> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
> >> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
> >> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
> >> had to deal with.
> >>
> >> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
> >> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> >> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
> >> open space all around most sides of the airport.
> >> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
> >> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
> >> I wish everyone could have it that way.
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> >>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
> >>>
> >>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
> >>>
> >>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> >>> managed in both facilities.
> >>>
> >>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
> >>>
> >>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there
> is
> >>> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
> >>>
> >>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
> >>> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
> >>> options even if you could have the altitude.
> >>>
> >>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
> >>> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go
> to
> >>> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
> >>> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
> >>> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
> >>> lowest risk for the airspace.
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 13
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:04:07 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
>
>
> This brings up a question.
>
> For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you sit
> on the
> ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed
> taxis?
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2014, at 15:45, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Systems hookup, fuel lines, oil lines, engine controls and electrical
> hookup
> are usually source of more problems than break-in.
> > Doubly so if anything in the carburetion/fuel injection or ignition has
> been
> changed.
> > Not to mention all the engine gauges or EMS hookup.
> >
> > On 9/24/2014 11:56 AM, RV10@texasrv10.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from
> a previous
> airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the
> systems plumb up to the engine.
> >>
> >> Gaylon Koenning
> >>
> >>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> >>> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> >>> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
> >>> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
> >>> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
> >>> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
> >>> either.
> >>>
> >>> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
> >>> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
> >>> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
> >>> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
> >>> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
> >>> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
> >>> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
> >>> time out around another airport.
> >>>
> >>> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> >>> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
> >>> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
> >>> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
> >>> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
> >>> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
> >>> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
> >>> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
> >>> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
> >>> had to deal with.
> >>>
> >>> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
> >>> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> >>> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
> >>> open space all around most sides of the airport.
> >>> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
> >>> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
> >>> I wish everyone could have it that way.
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> >>>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
> >>>>
> >>>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> >>>> managed in both facilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
> >>>>
> >>>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there
> is
> >>>> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
> >>>>
> >>>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL).
> On
> >>>> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't
> haven't
> >>>> options even if you could have the altitude.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
> >>>> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go
> to
> >>>> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
> >>>> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
> >>>> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as
> the
> >>>> lowest risk for the airspace.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 14
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:19:50 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: Bob Leffler <rv@thelefflers.com>
>
>
> Almost none, other than to verify that the engine started and to validate
> wot and
> idle rpm. I did do a quasi high speed taxi, but it was just to ensure
> that
> the air speed came alive. I didn't let it get past 40 knots.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 24, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This brings up a question.
> >
> > For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you
> sit on
> the ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed
> taxis?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 15
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:36:31 PM PST US
> From: "Rene Felker" <rene@felker.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> I did less than 30 minutes total taxi time before first flight on a new
> overhaul (0 hours). I did one high speed taxi (on the runway just in case
> I
> had to do the first flight because of a control issue (like the first F-16
> flight)) to set the brakes......got to 40 knots and then hard braking.
>
> It was hard to keep the plugs from fowling. Cleaned them after taxi test
> and still had trouble passing the run up (mag drop) after taxiing out for
> the first flight. Great first flight and no fowling problems after that.
>
> It was one, if not the most, exciting times in my life. Ranks right up
> there with Marriage and kids.
>
> I think my wife enjoyed it as much as I did........
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Justin Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
> --> <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
>
> This brings up a question.
>
> For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you sit
> on
> the ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed
> taxis?
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2014, at 15:45, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Systems hookup, fuel lines, oil lines, engine controls and electrical
> hookup are usually source of more problems than break-in.
> > Doubly so if anything in the carburetion/fuel injection or ignition has
> been changed.
> > Not to mention all the engine gauges or EMS hookup.
> >
> > On 9/24/2014 11:56 AM, RV10@texasrv10.com wrote:
> >> --> <RV10@texasrv10.com>
> >>
> >> I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from
> a
> previous airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating
> the systems plumb up to the engine.
> >>
> >> Gaylon Koenning
> >>
> >>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> >>> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> >>> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to make
> >>> sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the area,
> >>> but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the 2nd flight
> >>> if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there either.
> >>>
> >>> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to spend
> >>> flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another more open airspace
> >>> airport and get some running time on the engine. In fact, with
> >>> Break-in to worry about, I'd think that the first flight would be
> >>> pretty short and back to the departure airport, but then I'd
> >>> probably want to get the plane the heck out of there and go put on 3
> >>> hours of break-in time out around another airport.
> >>>
> >>> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> >>> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would have
> >>> been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights so that
> >>> they could have based the airplane somewhere more convenient for the
> >>> first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really too bad that the whole
> >>> thing happened the way it did...the issue was probably very minor,
> >>> and if it hadn't bent the airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying
> >>> it today.
> >>> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they had to deal
> >>> with.
> >>>
> >>> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport, with
> >>> 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> >>> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of open space all
> >>> around most sides of the airport.
> >>> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings, but tons that
> >>> would not injure anyone on the ground.
> >>> I wish everyone could have it that way.
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> >>>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
> >>>>
> >>>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> >>>> managed in both facilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
> >>>>
> >>>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So
> >>>> there is no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a
> tower.
> >>>>
> >>>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600
> >>>> AGL). On top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you
> >>>> don't haven't options even if you could have the altitude.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be
> >>>> during phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot
> >>>> did and go to the next closest reasonable place where they have
> >>>> altitude, less traffic, and more options. There is a lot of
> >>>> builder activity at EFD and the phase 1 routine that the builder
> >>>> used is widely accepted as the lowest risk for the airspace.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 16
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:11:03 PM PST US
> From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> This builder did no high speed taxis and minimal ground runs.
>
> However I have one heck of a Technical Counselor. Once he figured out
> that I was "OK" to build and wasn't really looking for a lot of help or
> advice, he provided very little during my 5 year build. When I have a
> problem that I need help or advice on, he jumps in with both feet and
> makes sure it is properly resolved. There have been two - 1 being the SB
> welding.
>
> But, when it came to first flight, he stepped in big time:
>
> - He strongly suggested that I not plan to make the first flights from
> the grass strip my hangar/workshop is on, but rather plan final assembly
> for another very quiet airport with a 5,000' hard surface runway and
> plenty of land-able areas nearby. I wanted to resist but he owns the
> grass strip so his strong suggestion was taken and I know it was the
> right thing to do.
>
> - I was intent on having an absolute minimum of people around for my
> first flight. Except for my Crew Chief (wife), everyone is potentially
> a distraction and I'm easily distracted. He made it clear that he would
> be there and that he would do the final setup and check of the power
> plant and its systems. Okay, I'm a glider guy and I need help with the
> oily stuff.
>
> - When going thru the fuel system he found a loose connection. I was
> sent to a quiet corner and he went over each and every fuel connection
> (I hadn't touched the connections in 2 years but had never done the
> final torquing!!) Thanks again.
>
> - We did just enough ground running so that he could get the idle speed
> and engine control throws properly set up - and that was it.
>
> - I personally consider high speed taxi runs dangerous since it's a
> maneuver I never practice. In normal ops, I hit throttle and takeoff
> or do an emergency stop. So I didn't do any. It's a highly evolved
> kit design after all. Build it according to plans, get the CG in the
> right place and fly it off.
>
> - The first flight and all those afterward have been drama free. Well,
> actually not. When I changed out the break-in oil for the normal stuff
> and departed the test strip for my home strip, I forgot to latch the oil
> filler cap... haven't done that since I was 17. Fortunately the caught
> a big sheet of oil right after takeoff and I landed with more oil than I
> now takeoff with.
>
> Bill "waiting for a local shop to bead blast and powdercoat my engine
> mount before mounting a second Adel Clamp campaign" Watson
> 40605 at 500 hours and 348 rough surface operations
>
> On 9/24/2014 8:03 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
> >
> > This brings up a question.
> >
> > For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you
> sit on
> the ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed
> taxis?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 24, 2014, at 15:45, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Systems hookup, fuel lines, oil lines, engine controls and electrical
> hookup
> are usually source of more problems than break-in.
> >> Doubly so if anything in the carburetion/fuel injection or ignition has
> been
> changed.
> >> Not to mention all the engine gauges or EMS hookup.
> >>
> >> On 9/24/2014 11:56 AM, RV10@texasrv10.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it
> from a previous
> airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the
> systems plumb up to the engine.
> >>>
> >>> Gaylon Koenning
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> >>>> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> >>>> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
> >>>> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
> >>>> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
> >>>> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
> >>>> either.
> >>>>
> >>>> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
> >>>> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
> >>>> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
> >>>> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
> >>>> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
> >>>> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
> >>>> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
> >>>> time out around another airport.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> >>>> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
> >>>> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
> >>>> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
> >>>> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
> >>>> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
> >>>> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
> >>>> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
> >>>> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
> >>>> had to deal with.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
> >>>> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> >>>> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
> >>>> open space all around most sides of the airport.
> >>>> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
> >>>> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
> >>>> I wish everyone could have it that way.
> >>>> Tim
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> >>>>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> >>>>> managed in both facilities.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So
> there is
> >>>>> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL).
> On
> >>>>> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't
> haven't
> >>>>> options even if you could have the altitude.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be
> during
> >>>>> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and
> go to
> >>>>> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
> >>>>> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
> >>>>> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as
> the
> >>>>> lowest risk for the airspace.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 17
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:38:01 PM PST US
> From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
>
>
> Same here...I ran it WOT and idle and made sure it would make full power.
> I may have done one or two very short break-releases and stops to set
> the brakes too,
> but I don't think I did any real high speed taxis. It was a fresh
> rebuild, so it was
> important not to just idle it around.
> Tim
>
>
> On 9/24/2014 7:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:
> >
> > Almost none, other than to verify that the engine started and to
> validate wot
> and idle rpm. I did do a quasi high speed taxi, but it was just to
> ensure
> that the air speed came alive. I didn't let it get past 40 knots.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Sep 24, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> This brings up a question.
> >>
> >> For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you
> sit on
> the ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed
> taxis?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 18
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:59:00 PM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
>
>
> One moderate speed taxi on the runway, to condition the brake pads.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431072#431072
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 19
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:31:25 PM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Wingtip getting crowded
> From: "Evolution10" <qvi@earthlink.net>
>
>
> It does not fit directly as they say. I had to perform substantial glass
> work
> to make them fit, as there was tolerance issues. That said, I am glad to
> have
> them installed. I will try and get some pics (parts are off to paint).
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431074#431074
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 20
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:43:22 PM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: Wingtip getting crowded
> From: "bob88" <marty.crooks@comcast.net>
>
>
> Thanks guys. Looks like I have a bit of work ahead.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431075#431075
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 21
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:59:54 PM PST US
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: N104HN
> From: "rv10flyer" <wayne.gillispie@gmail.com>
>
>
> I had no less than ten guys look my plane over before the AW certificate
> was issued.
> Then 5.8 hours of transition training. In 2011, my FAA inspector approved
> of having a pilot in the right seat. He mentioned an accident where a
> gentleman
> lost control and crashed due to a sandbag coming loose that was in the
> copilot's
> seat. I chose to fly phase 1 solo.The first 5 within glide distance of
> home.
>
> --------
> Wayne G.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431076#431076
>
>
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! --
|