Newbie Question, really: That first flight

All in all, I would suggest that having someone else make your first
flight would be tatamount to having a stand in take the first shot at
your new wife.

Ed Sullivan


Only if your wife is likely to KILL YOU if you make a mistake.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Cecil Chapman wrote...

...but how do you get yourself to do that first flight?

In my case it was a matter of whether or not I felt I
was qualified and safe to do it. I got as much time as
I could scrounge in similar airplanes, I sought out airplanes
with worse handling qualities than mine and practiced emergency
procedures, and plannedplannedplanned for every contingency
I could think of, and racticed those that I could. I wouldn't
consider myself the BEST qualified pilot to make the first
flight of my airplane (an RV-4), but I felt I was qualified,
and I trusted myself as much or more than anyone else I
could think of. I've certainly seen surrogates who took it
_less_ seriously than I did. After all that, the first flight
(video buried somewhere on John Ousterhout's website) was a non-event.
Other flights since have certainly been more, uh, 'worrisome'.

I would think a thousand questions would fill one's
mind...

Self doubt is probably a normal reaction (I certainly
suffered from it), but if my workmanship were to cause a
problem that resulted in an injury I'd rather it be to
me than someone else. If you doubt your ability to
handle an emergency, by all means have someone better
qualified fly it, but if you're qualified, are you going
to feel better if someone else gets hurt while you watch?

How does one safely test an 'unknown'...

In small steps with time to review results in between
flights.

Dave 'endpoint' Hyde

RV-4 down for engine work at 27 hours
EAA tech counselor

Ed Sullivan wrote...

All in all, I would suggest that having someone else make your first
flight would be tatamount to having a stand in take the first shot at
your new wife.

If your new wife has the potential to crush you, stab you,
and burn you to death due to your inability to handle her,
you might consider getting a stand-in until you've polished
your skills a bit. So to speak.

Pride has no place in flight test.

Dave 'long fall' Hyde

Del Rawlins wrote:

.....but if you will read the whole thing you will see
that I was using that to question James' assertion that the airplane
has to look safe and conform to safety standards, when neither is
required for an experimental amateur built C of A.

Here's an excerpt from a post (by someone else, not me) on this exact
subject on a canard forum:

I have a personal saying, "You can't change peoples' opinions, only the
facts on which they're based." So I'll leave you with the following I
received from Darren Brown, Aviation Safety Inspector with the Richmond
FSDO. I'll leave it up to you to determine fact from fiction.

1. The congressional laws for authority a 49 USC 44701 and 44702.

2. The regulations to look at a 14 CFR 21.191(g), 21.193, 39, 45, 47,
91.7(b), 91.319, and 183.33. For more information go to:
http://av-info.faa.gov/ click on "Amateur Built Aircraft".

3. The certification process that the inspector or DAR would follow, go
to: http://av-info.faa.gov/ click on "Regulatory Guidance Library" then
click on "Orders/Notices" then click "Current Orders" scroll down to
8130.2E change 2 incorporated. Go to chapter 4, sections 6 and 7 for
general experimental airworthiness certifications and experimental
amateur-built airworthiness certifications.

4. The extent of the application, records review and aircraft inspection
is to determine that the eligibility requirements referred to above have
been met and the physical inspection of the aircraft does not reveal
item(s) that would make the aircraft unsafe for flight. If an FAA
Inspector or DAR finds an item that is unsafe for flight, then the
Special Airworthiness Certificate would not be issued until the item(s)
are corrected. This may be an opinion on part of the designee or
inspector but would be based on industry standards like the aircraft
plans/build instructions, AC 43.13-1B or the scope of Appendix D of 14
CFR Part 43 and justifiable.

5. If an application or certificate is denied and the applicant does not
agree with the findings of the inspector or designee, they may request
to contact the next level of supervision at the FSDO as part of the
FAA's Customer Service Initiative. The individual may take the issue as
high up the managerial chain as necessary to attain resolution.

6. When the applicable requirements have been met, the FAA Inspector or
DAR concurs with the owner's certification statement made in the
application and records that "the aircraft is safe for flight," and
makes a similar statement in the aircraft records and issues the
certificate with its' associated operating limitations.


So, while people may like to THINK that the DAR or FAA inspector HAS to
issue the certificate, that's not so. They may respond to pressure from
above, but that's not the same as being REQUIRED to issue the
certificate just because the paper is in order.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:27:41 GMT, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
wrote:

Here's an excerpt from a post (by someone else, not me) on this exact
subject on a canard forum:

I have a personal saying, "You can't change peoples' opinions, only the
facts on which they're based." So I'll leave you with the following I
received from Darren Brown, Aviation Safety Inspector with the Richmond
FSDO. I'll leave it up to you to determine fact from fiction.

I looked at each and every one of the documents cited and did not find
one instance of the regulations allowing them to inspect for
compliance with safety standards. What I did find, is that they have
assumed that authority for themselves without bothering to go through
the NPRM process for modifying the regulations. Nothing surprising in
that, but the regs specifically mention that the aircraft has to meet
criteria like having been constructed for education of recreation, and
carry certain markings, and they spell out what those requirements
are. If homebuilt aircraft were required to meet some airworthiness
or safety standard the regs would say so and it would spell out what
those are.

1. The congressional laws for authority a 49 USC 44701 and 44702.

2. The regulations to look at a 14 CFR 21.191(g), 21.193,

Nothing in there about safety standards. It just says that amateur
built is a type of experimental C of A you can get. 21.193 just talks
about paperwork that must be submitted to apply.

39,

Part 39 is all of the airworthiness directives issued against type
certified products.

45,

Identification and Registration Marking. Includes stuff that the
DAR/Inspector can actually deny a certificate for, but not safety
standards.

47,

Aircraft Registration. Paperwork and such.

91.7(b),

This just says that the PIC is responsible for determining an
aircraft's airworthiness.

91.319,

Operating Limitations. Nothing about process of obtaining the
certificate.

and 183.33.

This is a general list of the things a DAR may do, but contains no
procedures.

For more information go to:
http://av-info.faa.gov/ click on "Amateur Built Aircraft".

The relevant document on this site is AC20-27F, which says that the
FAA or DAR will inspect it for "general airworthiness", whatever that
means. Ignoring for a second that the regs don't give them any
authority for doing so, this is impossibly vague. You can't build
something to meet a standard if they don't say what that standard is.

3. The certification process that the inspector or DAR would follow, go
to: http://av-info.faa.gov/ click on "Regulatory Guidance Library" then
click on "Orders/Notices" then click "Current Orders" scroll down to
8130.2E change 2 incorporated. Go to chapter 4, sections 6 and 7 for
general experimental airworthiness certifications and experimental
amateur-built airworthiness certifications.

Looks like they are up to change 3 now, but there isn't anything
relevant there that isn't in AC20-27F.

4. The extent of the application, records review and aircraft inspection
is to determine that the eligibility requirements referred to above have
been met and the physical inspection of the aircraft does not reveal
item(s) that would make the aircraft unsafe for flight. If an FAA
Inspector or DAR finds an item that is unsafe for flight, then the
Special Airworthiness Certificate would not be issued until the item(s)
are corrected. This may be an opinion on part of the designee or
inspector but would be based on industry standards like the aircraft
plans/build instructions, AC 43.13-1B or the scope of Appendix D of 14
CFR Part 43 and justifiable.

This is more along the lines of what I expected. Basically the
position the author takes is that they can make up the inspection
criteria at the time of inspection if that is what they want to do.
43.1(b) specifically states that part 43 doesn't apply to experimental
aircraft. Either way the regulations do not give them the authority
to do that.

[snipped a couple paragraphs about appealing an adverse decision up
through the chain of command]

So, while people may like to THINK that the DAR or FAA inspector HAS to
issue the certificate, that's not so. They may respond to pressure from
above, but that's not the same as being REQUIRED to issue the
certificate just because the paper is in order.

I'm still trying to find a regulation (which AC20-27F and the last
document are not) that says they will inspect for safety standards,
and more importantly, what those standards are.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
snip
I'm still trying to find a regulation (which AC20-27F and the last
document are not) that says they will inspect for safety standards,
and more importantly, what those standards are.

I remember talking to one of the inspectors from the Seattle office many
years ago. Memory fails but I believe his last name was Clark. At the time,
the Feds had a lighter workload and a bigger budget. He told me that while
he couldn't refuse a certificate, he could set test parameters.

First off, if he found an airplane which needed some fixin' up, he'd try to
explain to the builder just what were the deficiencies and how to correct
them. Failing his compliance, he would contact other reputable builders in
the area and the EAA chapter to see if they couldn't 'splain things to the
Darwin candidate.

If all the above failed, he would set up the test area at someplace like the
Mojave desert, all flights to take place between Sunrise and Six am on
alternate Thursdays. And *that* man knew airplanes.

Rich S.