 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dlm34077
Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Location: AZ
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:52 am Post subject: N104HN |
 |
|
What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014 | Index of months
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
civengpe
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:01 am Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on board? Â
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
[quote] What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
Â
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014 | Index of months
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rene(at)felker.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:53 am Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Maybe the first flight was 25/40 hours…..hard to do in the same day.Â
Do not archive
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:01 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: N104HN
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on board?
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014 | Index of months
01234567890123
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Olson
Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2878
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:02 am Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
It is sounding like there may be an upcoming rules change in this area.
Tim
On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:51 AM, "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com (rene(at)felker.com)> wrote:
[quote] <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Maybe the first flight was 25/40 hours…..hard to do in the same day.
Do not archive
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Shannon Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:01 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: N104HN
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on board?
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014 | Index of months
01234567890123
4
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: Re: N104HN |
|
|
The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is still in the proposal stage.
This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schmoboy
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:04 am Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me if
I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight testing
paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
-Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
| Quote: | Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
still in the proposal stage.
This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash.
As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ogdenk
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:13 am Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Been known to happen. In '07 there was a Lancair Legacy RG that crashed on its maiden flight from Oswego County airport here in Central NY. Two perished, one was the president of the local EAA chapter (his plane) if I recall correctly. The plane had a fuel leak during ground runs and I think this was deemed a possible cause of the power loss as there was plenty of fuel onboard.
Not sure why the second individual was in the plane, I heard it was to experience the first flight as he helped with the build. What an unnecessary loss of life.
Kent
| Quote: | >> Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com> 9/23/2014 12:00 PM >>>
|
Did the rules change regarding "essential personnel" during Phase 1 or did I misread that this was only the second flight and there were 2 on board?
Shannon Hicks
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, DLM <dlm34077(at)cox.net (dlm34077(at)cox.net)> wrote:
[quote] What is the response of the FAA and the insurance company?
NTSB Identification: CEN14LA495
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 09, 2014 in Houston, TX
Aircraft: NOLIN VANS RV-10, registration: N104HN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On September 9, 2014, about 1500 central daylight time, an experimental Nolin model Vans RV-10 airplane, N104HN, was substantially damaged during a forced landing while on approach to the Ellington Airport (EFD), Houston, Texas. The private pilot and pilot-rated-passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight test that originally departed EFD about 1400.
The pilot reported that the accident occurred during the airplane's second flight since receiving its experimental airworthiness certificate on July 1, 2014, and that it was still operating under the restrictions of the initial flight test phase. The pilot stated that the airplane's maiden flight was completed earlier in the day and was flown by another pilot. He stated that the accident occurred during his first flight in the airplane and that he was being assisted by the pilot who had completed the earlier flight. The purpose of the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers, verify/calibrate cockpit instrumentation, and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD. The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD. Shortly after the pilot had established communications with EFT air traffic control tower, the airplane experienced another total loss of engine power about 3 miles east of the airport. The airplane did not have sufficient altitude remaining to glide to EFD, and as such, the pilot performed a forced landing to a nearby vacant field. The left main landing gear and nose landing gear collapsed during landing roll, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing primary structure and the forward fuselage structure.
At 1450, the EFD automated surface observing system (ASOS) reported: wind 120 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,000 feet above ground level, temperature 32 degrees Celsius; dew point 23 degrees Celsius; and an altimeter setting of 29.95 inches of mercury.
Index for Sep2014 | Index of months
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
ics.com
.matronics.com/contribution
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: N104HN |
|
|
| schmoboy wrote: | Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me if
I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight testing
paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
-Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
| Quote: | Bob Turner <mailto>
September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
still in the proposal stage.
This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash.
As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
|
|
I cannot disagree more strongly. There is no gray area. The operating limitations limit phase one to 'necessary crew'. Does anyone maintain that the RV-10 is a two crew airplane? The paperwork I got from Vans said Vans believes it is a one pilot airplane. My DAR specifically said so, too.
Worse, the touch and goes suggest that transition training was going on, not phase one testing.
It is pretty hard to maintain two pilots are necessary, when the first flight was made solo!
The proposed rules changes are designed to keep 100 hour pilots who fear stalls and have never seen a spin from doing phase one flights, while still allowing them the joy of the first flight. The basis is that, statistically, more pilots die in phase one from poor airmanship than mechanical issues. But this is still in the proposal stage; the one person rule is still in effect.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Last edited by Bob Turner on Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:14 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know
that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are not
there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
On 9/23/2014 11:04 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
| Quote: |
Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me
if I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight
testing paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
-Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
>
>
> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
> still in the proposal stage.
>
> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one
> crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>
>
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schmoboy
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:39 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Believe me, I'm not trying to argue the point that two pilot ops during
phase one are allowed in the spirit of the rule.
I'm just saying that the rule could be written somehow to prevent people
from increasing our insurance rates. Not sure how, just saying.
-Sean #40303 (unsend!, unsend!)
| Quote: | Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
September 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM
I cannot disagree more strongly. There is no gray area. The operating
limitations limit phase one to 'necessary crew'. Does anyone maintain
that the RV-10 is a two crew airplane? The paperwork I got from Vans
said Vans believes it is a one pilot airplane. My DAR specifically
said so, too.
Worse, the touch and goes suggest that transition training was going
on, not phase one testing.
The proposed rules changes are designed to keep 100 hour pilots who
fear stalls and have never seen a spin from doing phase one flights,
while still allowing them the joy of the first flight. The basis is
that, statistically, more pilots die in phase one from poor airmanship
than mechanical issues. But this is still in the proposal stage; the
one person rule is still in effect.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430988#430988
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schmoboy
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:23 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Your wording of "Only if a plane requires more than one person to
physically operate controls" would be a lot better than "During the
flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during
flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
Who get's to determine "essential to the purpose of the flight"? The
builder? The test pilot? The kit manufacturer? The FAA?
Joe Pilot has a piece of paper for his AoA that says he needs a co-pilot
to perform the in-flight calibration for safety reasons. Would Joe
Pilot consider this "essential to the purpose of the flight"? If he
did, is he within his rights to do so?
| Quote: | Kelly McMullen <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>
September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I
know that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are
not there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what
they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that
extra person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel
pressure setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that,
as long as idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the
recommended.
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: N104HN |
|
|
| schmoboy wrote: |
I'm just saying that the rule could be written somehow to prevent people
from increasing our insurance rates. Not sure how, just saying.
|
In all the cases mentioned, it seems unlikely the rules were not understood. At least by the builder. People just decided not to follow them. IMHO the lack of enforcement action against them only encourages others to do the same.
Not at all clear this will affect your insurance rates. On another forum the pilot is offering pieces of his aircraft for sale - suggesting to me that he had no insurance, or the company has declined coverage due to the circumstances.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv10flyer(at)live.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:15 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
April 2014 - Sport Aviation and Experimenter cover this proposal. Unless the
EAA received FAA concurrence it was not permitted when I did my fly off.
Sport Aviation -April 2014:
THE FIRST FEW HOURS of a homebuilt aircraft’s life are the most dangerous.
Of all Phase 1 fl ight-testing accidents in 2011, 18 percent occurred on the
first flight, and a full 65 percent occurred within the first eight hours.
To address this problem while maintaining the freedoms that homebuilders
enjoy, EAA has worked to create an optional program, now in the form of a
draft FAA advisory circular. Under this proposal, builders
of kit aircraft meeting certain basic requirements may elect to fly with an
appropriately qualified additional pilot during the early stages of Phase 1
flight
testing, including the maiden flight. The additional “qualified pilot” would
be based on criteria that measure appropriate experience and currency.
What I find sad, since I too had all sorts of engine heat and other issues
during my fly off (alone) and was stuck at a remote airport due to a
concern, is if this second pilot was qualified to do the maiden flight maybe
he should have thought to discuss with the builder and check why the engine
stopped on the ground to start with, versus starting it up and flying it off
without checking?? granted maybe the NTSB report fails to cover this
critical piece.
Personally, I think the second pilot is a great idea, those first few hours
of engine alarms, due to breaking in heat and so many other mind consuming
tasks would have benefitted me in more ways than one. A experienced RV pilot
would have told me what was "normal" and what needed fixing before the next
flight. I was not allow to stop at a remote airport unless I deemed it
"necessary for the safety of flight", which I deemed a few times, but each
time that cowl came off and I made an adjustment.
Regardless It is sad to hear about this event.
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davidsoutpost(at)comcast.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:21 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
I also agree 100% with Kelly on this matter. Poor decision making all around IMHO The insurance company will in all likelihood deny the claim also due to the fact the plane was operation in violation of the FAR's.
From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:13:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know
that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are not
there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
On 9/23/2014 11:04 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me
if I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight
testing paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
-Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
>
> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
> still in the proposal stage.
>
> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one
> crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>
>
|
< -Matt Dralle,============
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
along(at)aanet.com.au
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:22 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
I too have revised the AOA information and requirements and would it
states that is indeed an instance the an essential crew is required in
this otherwise single pilot aircraft.
We must make sure we process flight testing in a safe manner, not just
according to "perceived" fixed black interpretation of the rules. Remember
this is flight testing for SAFE operations.
IMHO early flights 1 pilot. As the aircraft is confirmed as operational,
where necessary for continuing testing, and where prudent to SAFETY, apply
reasonable addition of essential crew.
--
Regards,
Andrew Long
www.ozrv10.com
| Quote: |
Your wording of "Only if a plane requires more than one person to
physically operate controls" would be a lot better than "During the
flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during
flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."
Who get's to determine "essential to the purpose of the flight"? The
builder? The test pilot? The kit manufacturer? The FAA?
Joe Pilot has a piece of paper for his AoA that says he needs a co-pilot
to perform the in-flight calibration for safety reasons. Would Joe
Pilot consider this "essential to the purpose of the flight"? If he
did, is he within his rights to do so?
> Kelly McMullen <mailto:kellym(at)aviating.com>
> September 23, 2014 at 3:13 PM
>
>
> Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
> white area (not considering proposed change).
> Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
> controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
> person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
> collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I
> know that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are
> not there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what
> they say.
> The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
> considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that
> extra person.
> One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
> source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
> not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel
> pressure setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that,
> as long as idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the
> recommended.
>
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
partner14
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:23 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the passengers during phase 1? Someone taking a friend, wife, girlfriend, etc.... in my mind would be in complete violation period!!! But having another qualified pilot knowing the risks involved on board, hurts who? I just think there's a big difference between having someone go with you during phase 1, who knows nothing of the risks, and provides no assistance in any way, and having someone who knowingly accepts the risks and can provide additional expertise in the cockpit.
I guess we've just gotten so used to the govt telling us everything we can and can't do, that it now is the norm.
Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in particular. But did the accident happen because there were two people on board, don't think so.
Just sayin'
From: David Clifford <davidsoutpost(at)comcast.net>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
I also agree 100% with Kelly on this matter. Poor decision making all around IMHO The insurance company will in all likelihood deny the claim also due to the fact the plane was operation in violation of the FAR's.
From: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym(at)aviating.com>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:13:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
--> RV10-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Well, every FAA person I have spoken to sees it as a very black and
white area (not considering proposed change).
Only if a plane requires more than one person to physically operate
controls, like most large/turbine aircraft, can you carry a second
person. Not allowed for gross wt testing, not allowed for data
collection, not allowed for extra expertise/experience, etc, etc. I know
that some folks want to read things into the reg that simply are not
there. Consult with a DAR like Vic or Mel Asberry and see what they say.
The reg uses the words persons essential to the flight. AFAIK the FAA
considers essential to mean the flight can't be done without that extra
person.
One might also question the judgement of making second take-off if the
source of the original engine dying was not investigated. While it is
not uncommon for a Continental fuel injected engine if low fuel pressure
setting is not right, Bendix fuel injection does not do that, as long as
idle mixture and speed are set somewhere close to the recommended.
On 9/23/2014 11:04 AM, Sean Stephens wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: Sean Stephens <sean(at)stephensville.com>
Don't want to stir the pot regarding this and by all means correct me
if I am wrong, but the regs do not specifically limit phase one to
single-pilot operations. We all know this is a gray area in the regs
and I'm sure that's why no action was taken against the pilots as no
rule was actually broken. Vans even mentions it in their flight
testing paperwork that comes with the finish kit.
I'm sure the rule change is partially to eliminate the gray area.
-Sean #40303 (just me in the left seat)
> Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
> September 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
>
> The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled
> conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is
> still in the proposal stage.
>
> This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years
> ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one
> crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So
> apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break
> the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
>
>
|
< -Matt Dralle,============
[quote]
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kearney
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 563
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:45 pm Post subject: N104HN |
|
|
Hi
This is a very interesting discussion. North of the 49th we are allowed to have a second pilot on board for the fly off period. On my first flight I had a local flight instructor on board. Transport Canada doesn't want inexperienced pilots getting in over their heads during initial flights.
Seems very reasonable from a safety perspective.
Cheers
Les
Sent from my iPhone
| Quote: | On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
The FAA has issued a proposal which would, under controlled conditions, allow for two people on board during phase one. This is still in the proposal stage.
This is not the first time this rule has been broken. A couple years ago there were serious injuries to two pilots after a phase one crash. As far as I know the FAA took no action against the pilots. So apparently some pilots have gotten the idea that it's okay to break the rules, if they're not convenient for them.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430978#430978
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:38 pm Post subject: 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.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hotwheels
Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 240
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:24 am Post subject: Re: N104HN |
|
|
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
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
partner14
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:47 am Post subject: 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(at)alum.rpi.edu>
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: N104HN
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
partner14 wrote:
| Quote: | 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 [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
