Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

N104HN
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:24 am Post subject: 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:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <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

Bob Turner

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:28 am Post subject: Re: N104HN

 	  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

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:41 am Post subject: N104HN

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:

[quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <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.

 >

 > [/b][b]

 It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize casualties.

 This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned, were caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk instead of two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the ntsb report makes it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there are rules.

 And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are statistically safer than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one is suggesting that phase one is a time to be doing transition training.

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023

 ===========

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

 ===========

 ">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

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

 ===========

 [b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

civengpe

Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 105

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:55 am Post subject: N104HN

EFD is under the 2000 BravoÂ shelf for Hobby. Â  I am based out of Ellington and it is a mix of military and GA traffic.Â 

ShannonÂ Â 

Â 

On Sep 24, 2014 11:46 AM, "Kelly McMullen" <[url=javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','apilot2(at)gmail.com');]apilot2(at)gmail.com[/url]> wrote:[quote]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 <[url=javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu');]bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu[/url]> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <[url=javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu');]bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu[/url]>

 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.Â  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

 ===========

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

 ===========

 ">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

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

 ===========

 [b]

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

tp://forums.matronics.com

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

[b]

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:04 am Post subject: 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:

 	  Quote: 	
		   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 

 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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

     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu');>> wrote:



         

         <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu

         <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.

         >

         > [/b][b]

         It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to

         minimize casualties.



         This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I

         mentioned, were caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues.

         So four lives at risk instead of two. You can argue "informed

         consent" but in the second case the ntsb report makes it

         pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there are

         rules.



         And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are

         statistically safer than one novice. Hence the proposed

         change. But no one is suggesting that phase one is a time to

         be doing transition training.



         --------

         Bob Turner

         RV-10 QB





         Read this topic online here:



         http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023



         ===========

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

         ===========

         ">http://forums.matronics.com

         ===========

         le, List Admin.

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

         ===========





     *



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

     tp://forums.matronics.com

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



     *



 *

 *

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

philperry9

Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Posts: 381

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:08 am Post subject: 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 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

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2(at)gmail.com (apilot2(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]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:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <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.

 >

 > [/b]

 It seems to me pretty obvious; the intent of the rule was to minimize casualties.

 This accident (apparently), and the previous RV10 accident I mentioned, were caused by mechanical issues, not pilot issues. So four lives at risk instead of two. You can argue "informed consent" but in the second case the ntsb report makes it pretty clear that pilot #2 was clueless. That's why there are rules.

 And now, within certain constraints, it appears two pilots are statistically safer than one novice. Hence the proposed change. But no one is suggesting that phase one is a time to be doing transition training.

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431023#431023

 ===========

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

 ===========

 ">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

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

 ===========

 [b]

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

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

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

//forums.matronics.com

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

ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

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

[b]

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:41 am Post subject: 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:

 	  Quote: 	
		   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

RV10(at)texasrv10.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:56 am Post subject: 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



 	  Quote: 	
		   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

> 

>

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1706
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:46 pm Post subject: 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 wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 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

>>

>>

>

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:04 pm Post subject: N104HN

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> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 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 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

rleffler

Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 680

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:19 pm Post subject: N104HN

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



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Sep 24, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Justin Jones <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?

_________________
Bob Leffler
N410BL - Phase I
http://mykitlog.com/rleffler

rene(at)felker.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:36 pm Post subject: 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



--

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:11 pm Post subject: N104HN

This builder did no high speed taxis and minimal ground runs.



However I have one heck of a Technical Counselor.  Once he figured out 

that I was "OK" to build and wasn't really looking for a lot of help or 

advice, he  provided very little during my 5 year build.   When I have a 

problem that I need help or advice on, he jumps in with both feet and 

makes sure it is properly resolved. There have been two - 1 being the SB 

welding.



But, when it came to first flight, he stepped in big time:



- He strongly suggested that I not plan to make the first flights from 

the grass strip my hangar/workshop is on, but rather plan final assembly 

for another very quiet airport with a 5,000' hard surface runway and 

plenty of land-able areas nearby.  I wanted to resist but he owns the 

grass strip so his strong suggestion was taken and I know it was the 

right thing to do.



- I was intent on having an absolute minimum of people around for my 

first flight.  Except for my Crew Chief (wife), everyone is potentially 

a distraction and I'm easily distracted.  He made it clear that he would 

be there and that he would do the final setup and check of the power 

plant and its systems.   Okay, I'm a glider guy and I need help with the 

oily stuff.



- When going thru the fuel system he found a loose connection.  I was 

sent to a quiet corner and he went over each and every fuel connection 

(I hadn't touched the connections in 2 years but had never done the 

final torquing!!)  Thanks again.



- We did just enough ground running so that he could get the idle speed 

and engine control throws properly set up - and that was it.



- I personally consider high speed taxi runs dangerous since it's a 

maneuver I never practice.  In normal ops,  I hit throttle and takeoff 

or do an emergency stop.  So I  didn't do any.  It's a highly evolved 

kit design after all.  Build it according to plans, get the CG in the 

right place and fly it off.



- The first flight and all those afterward have been drama free. Well, 

actually not.  When I changed out the break-in oil for the normal stuff 

and departed the test strip for my home strip, I forgot to latch the oil 

filler cap... haven't done that since I was 17.  Fortunately the caught 

a big sheet of oil right after takeoff and I landed with more oil than I 

now takeoff with.



Bill "waiting for a local shop to bead blast and powdercoat my engine 

mount before mounting a second Adel Clamp campaign" Watson

40605 at 500 hours and 348 rough surface operations



On 9/24/2014 8:03 PM, Justin Jones wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 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> 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 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

>

>

 -----

 No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2881

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:38 pm Post subject: N104HN

Same here...I ran it WOT and idle and made sure it would make full power.

I may have done one or two very short break-releases and stops to set 

the brakes too,

but I don't think I did any real high speed taxis.  It was a fresh 

rebuild, so it was

important not to just idle it around.

Tim

On 9/24/2014 7:19 PM, Bob Leffler wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 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> 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?

>

>

Bob Turner

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: N104HN

One moderate speed taxi on the runway, to condition the brake pads.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

rv10flyer

Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 364

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: N104HN

I had no less than ten guys look my plane over before the AW certificate was issued. Then 5.8 hours of transition training. In 2011, my FAA inspector approved of having a pilot in the right seat. He mentioned an accident where a gentleman lost control and crashed due to a sandbag coming loose that was in the copilot's seat. I chose to fly phase 1 solo.The first 5 within glide distance of home.

_________________
Wayne G.

glastar(at)gmx.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:50 pm Post subject: N104HN

When I was in that phase that a 150lbs sandbag occupied the co seat it 

was not only strapped in with the seatbelts, two ratchet straps kept it 

firm connected with the seatback...



Cheers Werner



On 25.09.2014 05:59, rv10flyer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  .. He mentioned an accident where a gentleman lost control and crashed due to a sandbag coming loose that was in the copilot's seat.

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:16 am Post subject: N104HN

This is the correct evaluation. Insurance was supposed to take effect at 10 hours. I know there was an A&P/IA that looked at the plane a week or so before the accident that said he thought there was a fuel supply problem and recommended that the plane not be flown until that was completely fixed and verified.



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694



On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 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.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=430997#430997

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:20 am Post subject: N104HN

The pattern altitude is 632 ft. Class B starts at 2,000 ft. Personally, I would not be willing to do much test flying in the initial hours at 1,500-1,800 ft.



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694



On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:24 AM, hotwheels <jaybrinkmeyer(at)yahoo.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 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

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:34 am Post subject: N104HN

I will reply inline.

Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

jesse(at)saintaviation.com

C: 352-427-0285

F: 815-377-3694

On Sep 24, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 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.

There were medical issues involved and the plane was going to be sold asap. That doesn't excuse it, it just explains it.

 	  Quote: 	

 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.

I agree with the FAA's portion of the blame, mainly because of the tight Class B areas and the Class B restriction.

 	  Quote: 	

 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.

Completely agree, especially after someone recently told him he thought there was a fuel supply problem. 

 	  Quote: 	

 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.

There was definitely "rush" in this situation.

 	  Quote: 	

 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.

I agree completely with Tim on this one. I think absolutely single pilot until it is verified for at least 10-15 hours that the engine is going to stay running and parts aren't falling off, but the point of Phase 1 is to verify that systems are working and that the plane is operable throughout its range of operations. During stalls, are you supposed to be watching outside or looking at the instruments to see airspeed and keep the ball in the center? Any time you are "under the hood", a safety pilot is required, is it not? So I say, it is completely within the wording of the rule that any heavy panel operation flight, a safety pilot can be considered required crew. In this case, being 2nd flight, it was clearly a transition training flight and not within any possible interpretation of required crew. I do think, however, that if the builder had been the sole occupant at the time of engine failure, he would likely not be a survivor. The "safety pilot" took the controls and they both walked away.

 	  Quote: 	

 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.

Yep

 	  Quote: 	

 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

Oh, and do not archive

 	  Quote: 	

 On 9/24/2014 8:24 AM, hotwheels wrote:

> 

> <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

> 

>

Display posts from previous:

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