Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:12 AM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Jesse Saint)
2. 05:49 AM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Tim Olson)
3. 09:24 AM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Jae Chang)
4. 10:40 AM - Re: two pilots in phase one (Bob Turner)
5. 11:09 AM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Jesse Saint)
6. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (John Cox)
7. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (John Cox)
8. 01:17 PM - Re: two pilots in phase one (Bob Turner)
9. 03:17 PM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Tim Olson)
10. 03:38 PM - Re: two pilots in phase one (Bob Turner)
11. 04:46 PM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Jesse Saint)
12. 05:05 PM - Re: two pilots in phase one (Bob Turner)
13. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: two pilots in phase one (Jesse Saint)
14. 06:19 PM - Re: two pilots in phase one (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: two pilots in phase one |
I would think you should be disqualified from being a safety pilot (somewhat in
the act of instructing the owner of the plane during phase 1) if you've never
flown in phase 1 before.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:58 AM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>> It sure does look like they have a process. It's pretty strict, that's for
sure. ...... It is definitely strict enough that you don't have a chance until
you have at least 500 hours.
> [/quote]
>
> In fact less than 500 hours total time is disqualifying.
> What I find interesting is that it is almost impossible to qualify without prior
phase one experience (unless you've been to navy test pilot school!).
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431266#431266
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: two pilots in phase one |
Yep...that one line clearly makes it "not just any old pilot". I agree
that some will continue to break the rules, but I also think having the
clear definition will prevent some who would have. Personally, I find
there to both be a lot to agree with in this new plan, but also a little
to disagree with. There are many pilots I've met that would be cockpit
assets who have never flown phase I for instance. I think the bar is a
little high in some categories. But the there are some that are easy to
agree with such as the number of hours flown in the last year, and such.
Now, how much does test pilot school cost and how long does it take? ;)
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 12:58 AM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tim Olson wrote:
>> It sure does look like they have a process. It's pretty strict, that's for
sure. ...... It is definitely strict enough that you don't have a chance until
you have at least 500 hours.
> [/quote]
>
> In fact less than 500 hours total time is disqualifying.
> What I find interesting is that it is almost impossible to qualify without prior
phase one experience (unless you've been to navy test pilot school!).
>
> Bob
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
I am surprised if there is no CFI rating requirement, or is there? They
were being lenient if not, which is a surprise.
Jae
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points in
the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight test,
not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that some
training occurs anyway.
One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder, as apparently
happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know how
you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally
if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would insist
on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to countermand
a decision to land off-airport, etc.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be acting
as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood
from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the standard,
"you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse@saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points
in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight test,
not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that
some training occurs anyway.
> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder, as
apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know
how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally
if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would insist
on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to
countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
Bob, that is a great observation and one which always created difficulty
when I was a Pilot Examiner. "One Fright per Flight" was the mantra but a
buddy out of OAK FSDO was knocked out cold (a strong Left Hook) by the
Pilot Applicant when the applicant asked, "Did I pass?" and the Examiner
verbally shared observations prior to the applicant landing and shutting
down the aircraft.
Physical action from the Owner/Builder/PIC can overcome even the most
comprehensive word-crafted document. I was involved in a rebuild of the
first RV-12 damaged on a departure stall. The Phase ONE was never logged.
The steps of the Phase ONE were never flown. The multiple builders joined
in the attitude that it was just like the Factory RV-12 so it must be the
same performance. "NO Need".
The Phase One Flight and new Second in Command was to address the need for
a measurable reduction in the number of quantifiable discrepancies which
have been growing into full blown Incident/Accident statistics. When a
builder cuts corners, unanticipated outcomes are encountered. When an
Inflight incident arises during Phase I, having a "qualified" Second to
reduce the load, share the tasks and objectively provide options can be
invaluable. The OFF Field landing will continue to be the 800# gorilla in
the room / cockpit (Flight Deck - p.c.). When the Duties of PIC are
assumed, the PIC must then relinquish those duties back to the Second. And
the Second acknowledges verbally he has assumed the control. If they
don't, the Last man as PIC continues stubbornly holding the
responsibility. A Second "demanding" authority be given it back verbally
from the Owner/Builder/Operator PIC will be interesting to hear the
Attorneys in the Room weigh IN. So many dual, high time airline pilots
flying with another buddy into C.F.I.T. required a full review of what is
needed.
Phase I does not need training provided by the Second. The builder should
be fully qualified and capable to "Fly the Intent of the Mission" of each
step. The World's Best Second might not have averted the circumstances
which came together to take Dan Lloyd to another place.
Additional Training is NOT the intent of approving a Second in the cockpit"
during Amateur Kit Built Experimental. At the airlines we call it an OCF -
Operational Check Flight and it has a complete "Flightcrew" with no
passengers. We do have an approved Airline Check Pilot who is also an
approved Test Pilot available for the hairy challenges. He does not proved
training during such activity. Lots of documentation is involved before
placing the aircraft back into Part 121.
In time, the hope is that the statistics take a more positive turn in the
desired direction.
Seek respected opinions, Evaluate their validity, Investigate the potential
outcomes and confirm the issue is resolved.
John Cox
#40600
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra
> points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains
> flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some
> expectation that some training occurs anyway.
> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder,
> as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not
> know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about
> PiC). Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do
> so) I would insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would
> be no attempt to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
If the Owner Pilot is not PIC and is not qualified to be the Qualified
Second. How can the QS be the PIC? There would be no need for the
Owner/Builder/Operator to be aboard the flight. Many Lancair builders
would go to Qualified Test Pilots approved by the Kit Manufacturer to have
that First Flight in Phase I (and possibly more) flown by those guys.
The sleeping dawg is the high number of resold/purchased/ previously built
and flown Experiment Kit Aircraft that get the Prideful New Owner down a
dark alley when the systems or the circumstances go South. That number is
skewing the statistics and is much harder to address. Proficiency
Training, different from Transition Training is a tool used by one kit
builder whose builders can't acquire affordable insurance coverage. Cirrus
has a Certified flavor of the same Proficiency Training - COPA.
John C.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Jesse Saint <jesse@saintaviation.com>
wrote:
>
> I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be
> acting as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always
> understood from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would
> require the standard, "you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse@saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra
> points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains
> flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some
> expectation that some training occurs anyway.
> > One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the
> builder, as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently.
> I do not know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion
> about PiC). Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans
> to do so) I would insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there
> would be no attempt to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Turner
> > RV-10 QB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
Jesse, you are re-writing the definition. If the cfi or QP or whomever has the
agreed upon power to 'take the plane', and is the final authority to do so, then
by definition he is the PIC. Builder can fly but final authority rests with
the QP. What person in his right mind would agree to be QP without being PiC?
jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
> I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be acting
as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood
from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the standard,
"you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> 352-427-0285
> jesse@saintaviation.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points
in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight
test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that
some training occurs anyway.
> > One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder,
as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know
how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally
if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would
insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt
to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Turner
> > RV-10 QB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431301#431301
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
I didn't see anything (maybe I didn't look hard enough) that indicated
that simply
because you have a QP, that they are automatically also PIC. Is that in
there?
I don't think as Builder, that I'd ever let anyone else claim PIC in my
plane,
but, I would consider having a qualified person be there assisting me.
I'm sure there are people that would be willing to be there, without
being PIC.
Not everyone is so worried that they're sticking their neck out. I would be
willing, in some specific cases, to be someone's RV-10 second pilot on
phase 1 flights, and I would never insist that I be PIC to do it. Of
course, I wouldn't
be willing to do this for just anyone, but I'm not going to force them
to allow
me to be PIC just so I can help them. Now, if the builder pilot is not
really
qualified to fly his own plane, that's another story. Then I'm not only
going
to be PIC, but I'd insist on sitting in the seat of my choice for the
flight, so
that I'm the most comfortable, because I'm probably going to fly the plane.
I'm not interested in flying along with someone who's not qualified to fly
the plane.
I can see where you are coming from Bob, as a CFI, you'd want to have it be
assumed that if you're there, you're PIC, but I don't see it as cut an
dry like
that, and while you yourself may not want to be there without being PIC,
I don't think that's universal. Maybe I read your intentions wrong.
I still think that there are people out there that will stick their neck
out for
their friends. If you're just a hired-gun CFI, hired for the purpose of
being
a second person in the cockpit to help, I would think that would be a
fairly rare thing. People want assistance on their first few overwhelming
flights, but I don't know that they want the associated P.I.A. of having
that
be someone that they have to not only pay, but turn over their aircraft to.
To me, I like the intention of the rules...to ensure that you don't
stick people
there just for enjoyment, but find qualified people who can be there for
advice when issues come up, and assistance as needed, to help ensure a
safe outcome. But if this bar is set so high and the very few qualified
people
out there insist on taking control of the aircraft to do it, I think the
rule
fails miserably and will be useless to most people. Even as it is, I
think the
bar is set so high that it will be seldom used. The people who are that
paranoid, are probably not interested in doing the first flight anyway.
I don't think the intention of the rules is to allow a builder to go
along on
the first flight, as a casual observer, while turning over control to a
qualified
test pilot. If that's what it's about, that's fine, but I think it's
more about
encouraging proper use of a second set of eyes, ears, and hands who
realistically will be very good at the tasks.
Heck the checklist is already long enough that I myself will probably
just say screw it and do the hours alone. I would rather take 3 days off
work and fly it off in 3x 9 hour days, and then be free to do as I please to
examine any more details I couldn't do with those first hours.
Tim
On 9/30/2014 3:17 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> Jesse, you are re-writing the definition. If the cfi or QP or whomever has the
agreed upon power to 'take the plane', and is the final authority to do so,
then by definition he is the PIC. Builder can fly but final authority rests with
the QP. What person in his right mind would agree to be QP without being PiC?
>
>
> jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
>> I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be acting
as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood
from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the
standard, "you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> 352-427-0285
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points
in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight
test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that
some training occurs anyway.
>>> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder,
as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not
know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC).
Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would
insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt
to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bob Turner
>>> RV-10 QB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
The AC says the pilots involved should have a preflight discussion, including among
other things who will serve as PIC. It does not stipulate who.
I do not mean disrespect for the dead, but here is what I was thinking of:
BP: Dan L
QP: pilot who has agreed to "assist" but builder pilot will be PIC
Scene: Engine quits over a corn field
QP: "We must land in the corn field"
BP: "NO, I'm sure we can make the highway and save the plane. I'm PIC and that's
what we'll do."
What experienced QP would be willing to put himself into a situation like that?
This is an example of where that builder pilot would most likely be alive today,
but only if he allowed the QP to be "the final authority".
I agree that takes some of the first flight experience away from the BP.
It's right back to the ego problem of inexperienced pilots wanting to do the first
flight(s).
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431312#431312
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
PIC is the sole manipulator of the controls. Every time a CFI flies he us doing
just that. He has final authority, but the student is the sole manipulator if
the controls, at least after initial training.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Jesse, you are re-writing the definition. If the cfi or QP or whomever has the
agreed upon power to 'take the plane', and is the final authority to do so,
then by definition he is the PIC. Builder can fly but final authority rests with
the QP. What person in his right mind would agree to be QP without being PiC?
>
>
>
> jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
>> I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be acting
as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood
from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the
standard, "you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> 352-427-0285
>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points
in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight
test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that
some training occurs anyway.
>>> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder,
as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know
how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally
if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would
insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to
countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Bob Turner
>>> RV-10 QB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
>
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431301#431301
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
Jesse,
This is a very common confusion, caused by the moronic FARs. There is a difference
between LOGGING time as PIC and beIng THE PIC.
Part 61 gives names to the kind of experience the FAA wants to see for additional
ratings. They should never have called it PIC time, too much confusion.
For example, I am giving instrument instruction to a private pilot. He is the only
one manipulating the controls. I just sit and talk. Part 61 allows us BOTH
to log the time as PIC. But who is THE PIC, the one responsible? It depends.
If we are in IMC then it must be me, because the FARs require THE PIC to be instrument
rated in imc. But what if he is under the hood? I have in fact flown
in such circumstances in an airplane I was not familiar with, and we both agreed
the owner would be THE PIC.
jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
> PIC is the sole manipulator of the controls. Every time a CFI flies he us doing
just that. He has final authority, but the student is the sole manipulator
if the controls, at least after initial training.
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> O: 352-465-4545
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Jesse, you are re-writing the definition. If the cfi or QP or whomever has
the agreed upon power to 'take the plane', and is the final authority to do so,
then by definition he is the PIC. Builder can fly but final authority rests
with the QP. What person in his right mind would agree to be QP without being
PiC?
> >
> >
> >
> > jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
> > > I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be
acting as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood
from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the
standard, "you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
> > >
> > > Jesse Saint
> > > Saint Aviation, Inc.
> > > 352-427-0285
> > > jesse@saintaviation.com
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points
in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight
test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation
that some training occurs anyway.
> > >> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder,
as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not
know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC).
Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would
insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt
to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
> > >>
> > >> --------
> > >> Bob Turner
> > >> RV-10 QB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Read this topic online here:
> > >>
> > >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
> >
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Turner
> > RV-10 QB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431301#431301
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431316#431316
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
I agree with Tim completely. I have flown probably 8 planes or more in Phase 1.
I wouldn't just hop in any plane solo or as a QP. I would inspect it myself before
strapping in. If I wasn't comfortable with the plane (recent Texas crash),
the engine and fuel system (recent Texas crash) or the owner/builder, then
I would refuse to fly it (recent Texas crash). That's why I walked away from that
one and refused to fly it. Others I have been willing and happy to fly, both
as first flight and as just some of the Phase 1 time.
In the mentioned crash, if the QP (whether qualified by the new AC or not) hadn't
had the authority to "take the plane", he likely would not have lived to talk
about it.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>
> I didn't see anything (maybe I didn't look hard enough) that indicated that simply
> because you have a QP, that they are automatically also PIC. Is that in there?
> I don't think as Builder, that I'd ever let anyone else claim PIC in my plane,
> but, I would consider having a qualified person be there assisting me.
> I'm sure there are people that would be willing to be there, without being PIC.
> Not everyone is so worried that they're sticking their neck out. I would be
> willing, in some specific cases, to be someone's RV-10 second pilot on
> phase 1 flights, and I would never insist that I be PIC to do it. Of course,
I wouldn't
> be willing to do this for just anyone, but I'm not going to force them to allow
> me to be PIC just so I can help them. Now, if the builder pilot is not really
> qualified to fly his own plane, that's another story. Then I'm not only going
> to be PIC, but I'd insist on sitting in the seat of my choice for the flight,
so
> that I'm the most comfortable, because I'm probably going to fly the plane.
> I'm not interested in flying along with someone who's not qualified to fly
> the plane.
>
> I can see where you are coming from Bob, as a CFI, you'd want to have it be
> assumed that if you're there, you're PIC, but I don't see it as cut an dry like
> that, and while you yourself may not want to be there without being PIC,
> I don't think that's universal. Maybe I read your intentions wrong.
> I still think that there are people out there that will stick their neck out
for
> their friends. If you're just a hired-gun CFI, hired for the purpose of being
> a second person in the cockpit to help, I would think that would be a
> fairly rare thing. People want assistance on their first few overwhelming
> flights, but I don't know that they want the associated P.I.A. of having that
> be someone that they have to not only pay, but turn over their aircraft to.
>
> To me, I like the intention of the rules...to ensure that you don't stick people
> there just for enjoyment, but find qualified people who can be there for
> advice when issues come up, and assistance as needed, to help ensure a
> safe outcome. But if this bar is set so high and the very few qualified people
> out there insist on taking control of the aircraft to do it, I think the rule
> fails miserably and will be useless to most people. Even as it is, I think the
> bar is set so high that it will be seldom used. The people who are that
> paranoid, are probably not interested in doing the first flight anyway.
> I don't think the intention of the rules is to allow a builder to go along on
> the first flight, as a casual observer, while turning over control to a qualified
> test pilot. If that's what it's about, that's fine, but I think it's more about
> encouraging proper use of a second set of eyes, ears, and hands who
> realistically will be very good at the tasks.
>
> Heck the checklist is already long enough that I myself will probably
> just say screw it and do the hours alone. I would rather take 3 days off
> work and fly it off in 3x 9 hour days, and then be free to do as I please to
> examine any more details I couldn't do with those first hours.
>
> Tim
>
>
>> On 9/30/2014 3:17 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>>
>> Jesse, you are re-writing the definition. If the cfi or QP or whomever has the
agreed upon power to 'take the plane', and is the final authority to do so,
then by definition he is the PIC. Builder can fly but final authority rests with
the QP. What person in his right mind would agree to be QP without being PiC?
>>
>>
>>
>> jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
>>> I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be acting
as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood
from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the
standard, "you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>>> 352-427-0285
>>> jesse@saintaviation.com
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
>>>> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra
points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains
flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation
that some training occurs anyway.
>>>> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder,
as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not
know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC).
Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would
insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt
to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
>>>> --------
>>>> Bob Turner
>>>> RV-10 QB
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: two pilots in phase one |
Then we are in agreement. If the QP had authority to take the controls, he was
in fact the PIC - regardless of who was manipulating the controls.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431319#431319
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! --
|