Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - two pilots in phase one

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

two pilots in phase one
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:46 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one

The FAA has just released the ac allowing qualified second pilots to be on board in phase one. The ac details what "qualified" means.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

john(at)trollingers.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:00 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one

I don't think they could have made this any more complicated to understand.  How they can not write simple instructions is beyond me.



On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

 

 The FAA has just released the ac allowing qualified second pilots to be on board in phase one. The ac details what "qualified" means.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431154#431154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:15 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one

Is there a link?



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:46 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

 

 

 

 The FAA has just released the ac allowing qualified second pilots to be on board in phase one. The ac details what "qualified" means.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431154#431154

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:16 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one

Thanks google.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1025667



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:46 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

 

 

 

 The FAA has just released the ac allowing qualified second pilots to be on board in phase one. The ac details what "qualified" means.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431154#431154

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 3:03 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one

It takes some concentration to understand how it works, but it really does clarify what is permissible and I think it's a good move. The appear to have covered he bases well to avoid just taking passengers around during Phase 1. 



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

352-427-0285

jesse(at)saintaviation.com



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 Thanks google.

 http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1025667

 

> On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:46 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> The FAA has just released the ac allowing qualified second pilots to be on board in phase one. The ac details what "qualified" means.

> 

> --------

> Bob Turner

> RV-10 QB

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Read this topic online here:

> 

> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431154#431154

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:02 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one

It sure does look like they have a process.  It's pretty strict, that's for sure.  I think that if someone actually meets all of the requirements they're likely to be a pretty good asset.

I just did the run through and tried to see if the wife would qualify and no way Jose'.  It is definitely strict enough that you don't have a chance until you have at least 500 hours.

I would almost think it could be overkill on some items, but then again the goal is to get a very experienced person.  I started to wonder when you get more points for flying 20 or more types of aircraft....if you had a guy with 600 hours of ONLY Rv10 experience I would tend to think he'd be an asset still...but it may be hard for him to meet the numbers.  I think they should give more weight if you have lots of hours in make and model.

The one mixed bag is the alternative engine thing too.  I would like to say I'm sympathetic to those with alternatives, and they should be able to have a 2nd pilot too because it would be useful....but in all honesty, I think the rule is fin as-is in that regard.  Even in the very small sample of RV10 accidents and/or fatals, non-aircraft origin engines make too high of a statistical risk...so better to keep the souls on board to 1.  It could be a waste of a perfectly good 1000 hour CFI/test pilot if they were allowed aboard.

Also, clearly there is enough documentation required that it will be hard to fudge the numbers and say your hangar buddy is qualified....you'll have a lot of pre-planning to do.

Tim

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com> wrote:

 It takes some concentration to understand how it works, but it really does clarify what is permissible and I think it's a good move. The appear to have covered he bases well to avoid just taking passengers around during Phase 1. 

 Jesse Saint

 Saint Aviation, Inc.

 352-427-0285

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com

 Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> Thanks google.

> http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1025667

> 

>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:46 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> The FAA has just released the ac allowing qualified second pilots to be on board in phase one. The ac details what "qualified" means.

>> 

>> --------

>> Bob Turner

>> RV-10 QB

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Read this topic online here:

>> 

>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431154#431154

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: two pilots in phase one

I think there is some value in a test pilot having experience in a large variety of aircraft, although I have no idea if 20 is the right number.

CFI's and others who frequently move from one type to another tend to develop a knack for almost immediately adjusting to different aircraft. This could be handy if for some unexpected reason your plane does not fly like a standard -10.



As to following the rules, I'm afraid I'm a pessimist. People have shown they're willing to ignore the black and white 'no passengers' rule now.  If the rule is 'sometimes a passenger' there will be some who feel they can ignore the technical details.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:58 pm Post subject: Re: two pilots in phase one

 	  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

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:12 am Post subject: 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(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694



Sent from my iPhone



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:58 AM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)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.

 	


 

 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[/quote]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:49 am Post subject: 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? 





 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 30, 2014, at 12:58 AM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)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.

 	




 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


[/quote]

jchang10

Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 227

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:24 am Post subject: 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

_________________
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:39 am Post 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

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:09 am Post subject: 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(at)saintaviation.com



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)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

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:25 am Post subject: 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(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

 

 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:33 am Post subject: 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(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse Saint <jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)>

 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.

 [url=tel:352-427-0285]352-427-0285[/url]

 jesse(at)saintaviation.com (jesse(at)saintaviation.com)

 Sent from my iPad

 > On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:

 >

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>

 >

 > 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

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 _blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 [b]

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:17 pm Post 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(at)saintaviation.com



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner> 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

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:17 pm Post subject: 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:

 	  Quote: 	

 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(at)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

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:37 pm Post 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).



I think we see this AC as serving different purposes. If it's to help take engine measurements and stuff, with a qualified  builder at the controls, that's one thing. But I think the whole thrust here is to reduce inadvertent stall/spin accidents, and the like, from less experienced pilots. And that cannot be done unless the QP has some authority to act.



I think you're right, my cfi experience clouds my thoughts on this subject. I tend to see rusty pilots. The 182 pilot who refused to use flaps. The 182RG instrument rated pilot who said he could not fly and navigate at the same time without the autopilot. The Bonanza pilot who put the plane into a spin entry (with no idea of how to recover) during a Vx climb. And so on. There are many builders who get very rusty during the build time, but insist on flying anyway. Those are the ones who need this AC. But it will only work if those builders acknowledge the very reason they need help by giving the QPs authority to do so.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:46 pm Post subject: 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(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694



Sent from my iPhone



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)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(at)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

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:04 pm Post 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(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694

Sent from my iPhone

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 30, 2014, at 4:17 PM, "Bob Turner" <bobturner> 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(at)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

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

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