fdavis101454(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:24 am Post subject: RV10-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 09/24/14 |
 |
|
Ellington Field (EFD) is class D with a tower. Sits under Houston Hobby (HOU) which is class B. So he was in controlled airspace. What I don't understand is why he went all the way to RWJ when La Porte Airport (T41) is 6 miles from EFD. Still under the HOU class B airspace but so was RWJ. Why go so far in a yet unproven airplane.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 2:02 AM, RV10-List Digest Server <rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)> wrote:
[quote]*
=========================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=========================
Today's complete RV10-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the RV10-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter=2014-09-24&Archive=RV10
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter=2014-09-24&Archive=RV10
=======================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=======================
----------------------------------------------------------
RV10-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Wed 09/24/14: 21
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:24 AM - Re: N104HN (hotwheels)
2. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Don McDonald)
3. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
4. 09:29 AM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
5. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
6. 09:55 AM - Re: N104HN (Shannon Hicks)
7. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
8. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Phillip Perry)
9. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
10. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: N104HN (RV10(at)texasrv10.com (RV10(at)texasrv10.com))
11. 01:43 PM - Re: Wingtip getting crowded (Rocketman1988)
12. 04:46 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Kelly McMullen)
13. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Justin Jones)
14. 05:19 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Bob Leffler)
15. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Rene Felker)
16. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Bill Watson)
17. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: N104HN (Tim Olson)
18. 06:59 PM - Re: N104HN (Bob Turner)
19. 08:31 PM - Re: Wingtip getting crowded (Evolution10)
20. 08:43 PM - Re: Wingtip getting crowded (bob88)
21. 08:59 PM - Re: N104HN (rv10flyer)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 06:24:56 AM PST US
Subject: Re: N104HN
From: "hotwheels" <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com (jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com)>
There are a few things that left me puzzled here. These guys are lucky to still
be around to tell their story..
"the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers ... and to perform
several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark (54T), Baytown, Texas,
before returning to EFD."
What? Can't basic flight tests be performed right over the airport above the pattern
altitude (maybe this was controlled airspace)? Why tempt fate by "going
somewhere" in the early hours of flight test?
"The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine, while at
an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power during landing roll.
The pilot was able to restart the engine and subsequently departed 54T for the
return flight to EFD."
Note to self: Engines that don't work right should be immediately grounded, not
flown some more before a thorough inspection is done.
I found that having a ground support team during my phase 1 to be extremely valuable
from both troubleshooting and decision making process points of view. There's
so much happening that it's nearly impossible not to miss something critical
if it's just you. I'm very grateful for being the recipient of the collective
knowledge of others who have blazed the trail and been there and done that
- including this forum.
Jay
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431034#431034
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 06:47:05 AM PST US
From: Don McDonald <building_partner(at)yahoo.com (building_partner(at)yahoo.com)>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
My real problem with this is that it seems in every part of our lives the govt
works so hard to protect us from ourselves.... an nowhere in my comment did I
mention that 3 or even 4 individuals should be allowed in the plane. And yes,
it is too bad that there are a lot of pilots out there that are clueless....
but that's another issue. Maybe if that 2nd guy hadn't been in the plane, it
may have ended up with a smoking hole and 1 fatality.
________________________________
From: Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:38 AM
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]
It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize casualties.
This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned, were caused
by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk instead of
two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the ntsb report makes
it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there are rules.
And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are statistically safer
than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one is suggesting that
phase one is a time to be doing transition training.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:24:39 AM PST US
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
It's really hard to say exactly what was going on. It could be
pseudo "transition training", or maybe not. I can certainly
understand why someone new to the RV-10 who just built it
would want to get right into the Left seat as soon as a
successful test flight was done. The motivation is understandable.
But, that doesn't make it a good idea. I think that's one
of the big benefits of actual pre-first-flight transition
training, like you can get with Alex D, Mike S, and now
a few others as well. You can get to the point where you
don't have to be uncomfortable with that first test flight.
I can't imagine having to turn over my keys to a
qualified test pilot. Sure, it's probably ego or something,
but I built the plane, and I want to be the first to fly it.
Just means you need the training BEFORE hand.
When it comes to the question of where they went, I won't
pretend to know or care the airspace they were in.
Maybe they were restricted from doing takeoffs and landings
at their airport of departure. That would be unfortunate
indeed, and in that case I'd almost say the FAA has it's
little share in the blame. We need to be able to do these
first few hours with immediate access to an airport to
land at. While that doesn't mean you need to stay in the
pattern the whole time, I would think a good test flight
plan would be to climb high enough that a glide to landing
is possible at an airport...at least for the first hour
or two. Once you know it's going to stay running,
then carefully broaden your range to other nearby airports.
It's hard not to agree about the fact that they had an
engine quit and then decided to take off. If my engine
quit after 1.5 flights, I'd definitely want to know why,
before I launched again. I know, it's highly inconvenient,
but this is the one place where it's impossible not to
point the finger. These engines just don't quit without
reason, and troubleshooting the ignition, fuel,
and intake systems will definitely lead to an understanding
of what went wrong. Airplane engines will run indefinitely
once started, if they have the right fuel volume,
the right air intake, and a properly firing ignition,
so if it quits, you know it's one of those things that
needs attention.
Like Jay, I had my couple of misses when getting ready
for the first flight. 1 is that before first engine
start, I had removed the fuel hose and re-attached it...but
had forgotten to torque it. My ground crew of 2 caught
that when I hit the boost pump. That could have been
'spensive! The other was my alternator wire connector
wasn't clicked in hard enough into the alternator.
I saw that after the first takeoff and landing. It took
a lot to get myself to ground the plane until I un-cowled
and checked that connector, in the winter, but it could
have been a bad day if I'd taken that 2nd takeoff
with it still loose. So for first flights, I'd suggest
having a small ground crew, even if only to help grab
tools for you.
It sounds like there was a little bit of that "rush"
in this situation, but that is just a feeling, not
that we have any real information. I feel bad for the
guys. It's a lot of work to go through for that outcome.
It does give the RV-10 community a good reminder lesson
though, which we probably need from time to time. Since
there was no life lost, we can consider it a good
free training session in how we could work better to not
have that be us. I know personally that a lot of
what I learned NOT to do, was gained by reading
the "Never Again" type articles in the flying magazines.
This story is just like those.
Regarding the 2 people in the cockpit, this one I have
mixed feelings about. On one hand, I think it's
important to keep the spirit of the rule in that the
goal is not to endanger unnecessarily, any other lives.
Certainly passenger/entertainment flights shouldn't be
allowed, nor a goal of the phase 1. On the other hand,
having 2 pilots gives lots of options too. If you have
erroneous or unusual readings to look at, I'd rather
turn them over to a knowledgeable co-pilot to investigate.
Certainly 1 person can fly the plane well enough, but
I have to admit there would be times, especially during
phase 1, where it could be beneficial to have that extra
pair of hands/eyes. If the requirement said that the
additional person had to have a certain amount of time
in type, would that make it less negative sounding?
I wouldn't consider this to be in lieu of pre-first-flight
transition training, but if someone had obtained
transition training earlier, I wouldn't think it would
be unreasonable either, to have an experienced
in make/model trainer in the plane....it gives
the opportunity to not task saturate or overload this
RV-10 guy who maybe has 5 hours in make/model. Once
he has 5 more in his plane, he's probably in far better
shape. So from that perspective, I'm glad they are
looking at that rule and considering changing it...I think
there are worthwhile possibilities of adding safety
to the system if they allow 2 pilots during phase 1.
On a side note, it may actually be that less people would
violate the FAR on this if we could come to some sort
of consensus on a 25 vs 40 hour flyoff period. If the
engine is made by Lycoming or Continental, and the
prop is made by a company who makes certified props,
I don't see why more than 25 should ever be given.
Now change to a Subaru/Chevy/Ford engine, and heck,
40 sounds great to me.
On the 3rd hand (must be a mutant), I can also see that
having that 2nd pilot aboard can lead to MORE issues.
When I think back to the times when I've been most
distracted, or done the dumbest stuff, it's generally
been when I've been flying with another pilot. You tend
to relax maybe too much, and focus on conversation
rather than airplane and avionics or traffic management.
You may also have that master/subordinate dynamic to
deal with, that can make things clumsy. So, if a pilot
was going to have a co-pilot during phase 1, I'd think
that you would need to 1) establish a defined PIC
before the flight, who will also be the "sole manipulator
of controls" (note that in some other areas, these may
be different people, but I'm saying in this case they
should be only ONE person). 2) keep a sterile cockpit
at all times, 3) The duties of the co-pilot should
be listed in advance, so that they know exactly what
they are to do.
That's all I got, but I'd definitely like to push the
issue that transition training is best done before that
first flight. I'd go so far as to say it should be
mandated, if it weren't for the fact that the rules would
probably get all mucked up if the FAA tried to write a rule.
For instance, I actually may not do transition training
when I fly the RV-14 for first flight. But, it's got the
same wing and same feel as an RV-10, with similar
performance, and I've got over 1000 hours in similar type.
So, I don't see that I'll benefit much, especially now that
I've done a demo flight to see the difference. I wouldn't
want to be forced to do it in my case. But when I
did my first RV-10 flight, I didn't have time in similar
type...so I wouldn't have felt too bad if it were
mandated. In fact it was, by my insurance company, and
maybe it's best if we left it to them to do so.
It could also be that this is the reason supposedly the
person is parting out the plane...because many insurance
companies don't cover the first X number of hours.
So maybe it wasn't due to FAR violation, but more due to
simply not being insurable yet.
Either way, this is a sad event for them, and a learning
opportunity for us. Thankfully it wasn't the same
learning opportunity as Dan Lloyd provided us years ago.
Tim
On 9/24/2014 8:24 AM, hotwheels wrote:
> <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com (jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com)>
>
> There are a few things that left me puzzled here. These guys are
> lucky to still be around to tell their story..
>
> "the second flight test was to complete basic flight maneuvers ...
> and to perform several takeoff-and-landings at the nearby RWJ Airpark
> (54T), Baytown, Texas, before returning to EFD."
>
> What? Can't basic flight tests be performed right over the airport
> above the pattern altitude (maybe this was controlled airspace)? Why
> tempt fate by "going somewhere" in the early hours of flight test?
>
> "The pilot reported that during his final landing at 54T, the engine,
> while at an idle power setting, experienced a total loss of power
> during landing roll. The pilot was able to restart the engine and
> subsequently departed 54T for the return flight to EFD."
>
> Note to self: Engines that don't work right should be immediately
> grounded, not flown some more before a thorough inspection is done.
>
> I found that having a ground support team during my phase 1 to be
> extremely valuable from both troubleshooting and decision making
> process points of view. There's so much happening that it's nearly
> impossible not to miss something critical if it's just you. I'm very
> grateful for being the recipient of the collective knowledge of
> others who have blazed the trail and been there and done that -
> including this forum.
>
> Jay
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431034#431034
>
>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 09:29:06 AM PST US
Subject: Re: N104HN
From: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
partner14 wrote:
> Maybe if that 2nd guy hadn't been in the plane, it may have ended up with a
smoking hole and 1 fatality.
> ]
I agree, and that's what the proposed rules change is all about.
But the other accident I mentioned, the clueless second pilot was the less experienced
one. And in fact he relinquished the controls to the builder after the
engine quit. So it's a mixed bag.
As I told Mark, the FAA guy behind the proposal, my only concern is that if pilots
feel free to ignore the black and white rule as it exists now, they surely
will bend the new proposal - which does contain detailed qualifications for a
second pilot - to anything they want.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431047#431047
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 09:41:35 AM PST US
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
From: Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)>
I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some kind of
ex-military, but I see no restriction on local operations during the
day...just some night noise restrictions. It is under Houston Class B, but
with a 4000 ft floor, so a flight at 3500 would provide about 2800 ft of
clearance from traffic pattern altitude and plenty of altitude for engine
break-in and basic control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the
second flight is the time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers
check out when the basic systems are not yet proven reliable. The airport
they went to looks about 15 miles away, with one much closer uncontrolled
field, if operation with the tower was an issue. One needs to be certain
that basic engine performance and flight control performance is reliable
before departing the safe gliding distance of initial airport.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:
>
>
> partner14 wrote:
> > Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the
> passengers during phase 1?
> > ....
> >
> > Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in
> particular. But did the accident happen because there were two people on
> board, don't think so.
> >
> >
>
>
> It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize
> casualties.
>
> This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned,
> were caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk
> instead of two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the
> ntsb report makes it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why
> there are rules.
>
> And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are
> statistically safer than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one
> is suggesting that phase one is a time to be doing transition training.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023
>
>
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 09:55:15 AM PST US
Subject: Re: N104HN
From: Shannon Hicks <civeng123(at)gmail.com (civeng123(at)gmail.com)>
EFD is under the 2000 Bravo shelf for Hobby. I am based out of Ellington
and it is a mix of military and GA traffic.
Shannon
On Sep 24, 2014 11:46 AM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)');>> wrote:
> I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some kind of
> ex-military, but I see no restriction on local operations during the
> day...just some night noise restrictions. It is under Houston Class B, but
> with a 4000 ft floor, so a flight at 3500 would provide about 2800 ft of
> clearance from traffic pattern altitude and plenty of altitude for engine
> break-in and basic control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the
> second flight is the time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers
> check out when the basic systems are not yet proven reliable. The airport
> they went to looks about 15 miles away, with one much closer uncontrolled
> field, if operation with the tower was an issue. One needs to be certain
> that basic engine performance and flight control performance is reliable
> before departing the safe gliding distance of initial airport.
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)');>> wrote:
>
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)');>>
>>
>>
>> partner14 wrote:
>> > Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the
>> passengers during phase 1?
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in
>> particular. But did the accident happen because there were two people on
>> board, don't think so.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize
>> casualties.
>>
>> This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned,
>> were caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk
>> instead of two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the
>> ntsb report makes it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why
>> there are rules.
>>
>> And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are
>> statistically safer than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one
>> is suggesting that phase one is a time to be doing transition training.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> ">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 10:04:12 AM PST US
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
You are right...I mis-read the chart. However, with TPA at ~640 ft, and
1100 for bigger/faster planes, the tower could easily have him at
1500-1700 ft and out of the way of traffic. I do see why he went to the
other airport IF he wanted to do maneuvers with more altitude, but there
is still significant risk with a unproven engine going at less than 2000
AGL outside gliding range.
On 9/24/2014 9:54 AM, Shannon Hicks wrote:
> EFD is under the 2000 Bravo shelf for Hobby. I am based out of
> Ellington and it is a mix of military and GA traffic.
>
> Shannon
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2014 11:46 AM, "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)');>> wrote:
>
> I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some
> kind of ex-military, but I see no restriction on local operations
> during the day...just some night noise restrictions. It is under
> Houston Class B, but with a 4000 ft floor, so a flight at 3500
> would provide about 2800 ft of clearance from traffic pattern
> altitude and plenty of altitude for engine break-in and basic
> control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the second flight
> is the time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers check out
> when the basic systems are not yet proven reliable. The airport
> they went to looks about 15 miles away, with one much closer
> uncontrolled field, if operation with the tower was an issue. One
> needs to be certain that basic engine performance and flight
> control performance is reliable before departing the safe gliding
> distance of initial airport.
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner
> <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)');>> wrote:
>
> <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)');>>
>
>
> partner14 wrote:
> > Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to
> limit the passengers during phase 1?
> > ....
> >
> > Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep...
> one in particular. But did the accident happen because there
> were two people on board, don't think so.
> >
> >
>
>
> It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to
> minimize casualties.
>
> This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I
> mentioned, were caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues.
> So four lives at risk instead of two. You can argue "informed
> consent" but in the second case the ntsb report makes it
> pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there are
> rules.
>
> And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are
> statistically safer than one novice. Hence the proposed
> change. But no one is suggesting that phase one is a time to
> be doing transition training.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023
>
>
> ==========
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
> ">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 10:08:44 AM PST US
From: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly managed i
n both facilities.
The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is no t
ransition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On top o
f that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't options e
ven if you could have the altitude.
It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during phase
1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to the next
closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less traffic, and more o
ptions. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD and the phase 1 routine t
hat the builder used is widely accepted as the lowest risk for the airspace.
Phil
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 24, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
>
> I'll echo Tim's comments...mostly.
> I did look at the airspace. I guess the departure airport is some kind of e
x-military, but I see no restriction on local operations during the day...ju
st some night noise restrictions. It is under Houston Class B, but with a 40
00 ft floor, so a flight at 3500 would provide about 2800 ft of clearance fr
om traffic pattern altitude and plenty of altitude for engine break-in and b
asic control responsiveness checkout. I don't think the second flight is the
time to be doing touch and goes or full maneuvers check out when the basic s
ystems are not yet proven reliable. The airport they went to looks about 15 m
iles away, with one much closer uncontrolled field, if operation with the to
wer was an issue. One needs to be certain that basic engine performance and f
light control performance is reliable before departing the safe gliding dist
ance of initial airport.
>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wro
te:
>>
>>
>> partner14 wrote:
>> > Do we really know what the real intent was by the FAA to limit the pass
engers during phase 1?
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Did those two guys make a couple of bad decisions, yep... one in partic
ular. But did the accident happen because there were two people on board, d
on't think so.
>> >
>> > [b]
>>
>>
>> It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize cas
ualties.
>>
>> This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned, w
ere caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk ins
tead of two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the nts
b report makes it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there a
re rules.
>>
>> And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are statistica
lly safer than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one is suggesti
ng that phase one is a time to be doing transition training.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> ">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 11:41:35 AM PST US
From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
either.
I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
time out around another airport.
It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
had to deal with.
I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
open space all around most sides of the airport.
Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
I wish everyone could have it that way.
Tim
On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
>
> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
>
> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
> managed in both facilities.
>
> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
>
> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
>
> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
> options even if you could have the altitude.
>
> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to
> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
> lowest risk for the airspace.
>
> Phil
>
>
________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________
Time: 11:56:58 AM PST US
From: "RV10(at)texasrv10.com (RV10(at)texasrv10.com)" <RV10(at)texasrv10.com (RV10(at)texasrv10.com)>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from a previous
airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the systems
plumb up to the engine.
Gaylon Koenning
> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
> either.
>
> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
> time out around another airport.
>
> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
> had to deal with.
>
> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
> open space all around most sides of the airport.
> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
> I wish everyone could have it that way.
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
>>
>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
>>
>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
>> managed in both facilities.
>>
>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
>>
>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
>> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
>>
>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
>> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
>> options even if you could have the altitude.
>>
>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
>> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to
>> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
>> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
>> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
>> lowest risk for the airspace.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________
Time: 01:43:42 PM PST US
Subject: Re: Wingtip getting crowded
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com (Rocketman(at)etczone.com)>
I also have the Safe Air1 tanks. I spoke with the guys at oshkosh this year about
the Aerosun VX. The general consensus was that it WILL fit with the tanks
installed. The adapter that they have produced requires you to enlarge the existing
wingtip cutout in the span wise direction only, not the chord wise direction.
After looking at the tanks and tips on my -10, I think it will fit but
I am not 100% sure yet.
I will be, though, before I cut those tips. I spent too much time making the access
hatches with an english wheel...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431064#431064
________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________
Time: 04:46:55 PM PST US
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
Systems hookup, fuel lines, oil lines, engine controls and electrical
hookup are usually source of more problems than break-in.
Doubly so if anything in the carburetion/fuel injection or ignition has
been changed.
Not to mention all the engine gauges or EMS hookup.
On 9/24/2014 11:56 AM, RV10(at)texasrv10.com (RV10(at)texasrv10.com) wrote:
>
> I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from a previous
airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the systems
plumb up to the engine.
>
> Gaylon Koenning
>
>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
>> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
>> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
>> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
>> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
>> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
>> either.
>>
>> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
>> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
>> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
>> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
>> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
>> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
>> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
>> time out around another airport.
>>
>> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
>> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
>> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
>> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
>> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
>> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
>> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
>> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
>> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
>> had to deal with.
>>
>> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
>> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
>> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
>> open space all around most sides of the airport.
>> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
>> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
>> I wish everyone could have it that way.
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
>>>
>>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
>>>
>>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
>>> managed in both facilities.
>>>
>>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
>>>
>>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
>>> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
>>>
>>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
>>> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
>>> options even if you could have the altitude.
>>>
>>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
>>> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to
>>> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
>>> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
>>> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
>>> lowest risk for the airspace.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________
Time: 05:04:07 PM PST US
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)>
This brings up a question.
For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you sit on the
ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed taxis?
On Sep 24, 2014, at 15:45, Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)> wrote:
>
> Systems hookup, fuel lines, oil lines, engine controls and electrical hookup
are usually source of more problems than break-in.
> Doubly so if anything in the carburetion/fuel injection or ignition has been
changed.
> Not to mention all the engine gauges or EMS hookup.
>
> On 9/24/2014 11:56 AM, RV10(at)texasrv10.com (RV10(at)texasrv10.com) wrote:
>>
>> I believe the engine was not a rebuilt and already had hours on it from a previous
airframe. Not sure break in was an issue but more about evaluating the
systems plumb up to the engine.
>>
>> Gaylon Koenning
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That makes sense. So airspace concerns here are probably tighter
>>> than most people will have to deal with, and they probably actually
>>> took the best option. I agree with Kelly that you'd want to
>>> make sure you have no control and engine issues before leaving the
>>> area, but I can see why they'd want to get out of there on the
>>> 2nd flight if possible. I don't think I'd much want to stay there
>>> either.
>>>
>>> I still wouldn't think touch and goes would be a good way to
>>> spend flight 2, but rather I'd want to get to another
>>> more open airspace airport and get some running time on the
>>> engine. In fact, with Break-in to worry about, I'd think that
>>> the first flight would be pretty short and back to the
>>> departure airport, but then I'd probably want to get the
>>> plane the heck out of there and go put on 3 hours of break-in
>>> time out around another airport.
>>>
>>> It is what it is though. Maybe the best thing that would have
>>> helped these guys is if someone at the outlying airport would
>>> have been able to offer up some hangar space for a couple nights
>>> so that they could have based the airplane somewhere more
>>> convenient for the first 5-10 hours of flying. It's really
>>> too bad that the whole thing happened the way it did...the
>>> issue was probably very minor, and if it hadn't bent the
>>> airframe they'd be all fixed up and flying it today.
>>> I feel even more sympathetic knowing the airspace they
>>> had to deal with.
>>>
>>> I have the perfect situation, myself. Nice sized airport,
>>> with 18/36 & 9/27, one is over 3,000 and one is 5,000'
>>> in length. No airspace to deal with, and plenty of
>>> open space all around most sides of the airport.
>>> Not many great opportunities for off airport landings,
>>> but tons that would not injure anyone on the ground.
>>> I wish everyone could have it that way.
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2014 12:08 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
>>>> Almost. I spent several years as the EAA president at EFD.
>>>>
>>>> EFD is a former military base and was/is used by Nasa.
>>>>
>>>> It is very very close to Hobby and traffic in that area is tightly
>>>> managed in both facilities.
>>>>
>>>> The ceiling on EFD is 2000 (~1968 AGL).
>>>>
>>>> The base of the class B for the Hobby approach is 2000 MSL. So there is
>>>> no transition between the two where you aren't talking to a tower.
>>>>
>>>> The pattern at EFD very very low. It is flown at 632 MSL (600 AGL). On
>>>> top of that it is in a very densely populated area so you don't haven't
>>>> options even if you could have the altitude.
>>>>
>>>> It's well known around here that EFD isn't where you want to be during
>>>> phase 1. Therefore, most folks do exactly what this pilot did and go to
>>>> the next closest reasonable place where they have altitude, less
>>>> traffic, and more options. There is a lot of builder activity at EFD
>>>> and the phase 1 routine that the builder used is widely accepted as the
>>>> lowest risk for the airspace.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________
Time: 05:19:50 PM PST US
Subject: Re: Re: N104HN
From: Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com (rv(at)thelefflers.com)>
Almost none, other than to verify that the engine started and to validate wot and
idle rpm. I did do a quasi high speed taxi, but it was just to ensure that
the air speed came alive. I didn't let it get past 40 knots.
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 24, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:
>
>
> This brings up a question.
>
> For those of you that have gone through the process, how long did you sit on
the ground doing engine runs before the first flight? How many high-speed taxis?
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________
Time: 05:36:31 PM PST US
From: "Rene Felker" <rene(at)felker.com (rene(at)felker.com)>
Subject: RE: Re: N104HN
I did less than 30 minutes total taxi time before first flight on a new
overhaul (0 hours). I did one high speed taxi (on the runway just in case I
had to do the first flight because of a control issue (like the first F-16
flight)) to set the brakes......got to 40 knots and then hard braking.
It was hard to keep the plugs from fowling. Cleaned them after taxi test
and still had trouble passing the run up (mag drop) after taxiing out for
the first flight. Great first flight and no fowling problems after that.
It was one, if not the most, exciting times in my life. Ranks right up
there with Marriage and kids.
I think my wife enjoyed it as much as I did........
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
--
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
