Newbie Question, really: That first flight

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:45:56 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

You should be aware, if you aren't already, that the first flight is
deadly, statistically speaking. It's the single most deadly flight
you'll ever take.

Some numbers to go with that: The accident rate for homebuilt aircraft is
about 1% a year. Coincidentally, about 1% of new homebuilts crash on their
first flight.

That means that the first flight packs a full year's worth of danger into a
single takeoff and landing.....

Ron Wanttaja

RobertR237 wrote:
A question I've always wanted to ask homebuilders is based on how I can see
one could go through the process of building through lots of hard work and
dedication - but how do you get yourself to do that first flight? I would
think a thousand questions would fill one's mind (ex: did I tighten or
overtighten that blank, are the rivets going to hold,,,, etc.).

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

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL



A wise builder will have check, re-checked, and checked it all again but will
then hire a professional test pilot for the first flight. The logical reasons
for doing this are many. The professional test pilot is going to be very
logical and methodical in the flight test program. They will be less excited,
more tuned into how the aircraft flies, more qualified to handle the
unexpected, and last but not least they will be less likely to sacrifice their
life trying to save the plane.

Bob Reed

I think that if a person absolutely feels "un qualified" to fly the first flight
then they should do as you say. On the other hand if a person is a competent
pilot and gets some training in a similar type aircraft then if is perfectly
fine to do your own first flight. I have talked to many builders that regret
not making the first flight. Making that first flight in your own aircraft that
you created is a feeling that you will never forget as long as you live. I have
made four first flights and each one is as exciting as the first one was.
I feel sorry for anyone that builds their own aircraft and doesn't not get to
make the first flight. If it is a untested design that adds another element that
has to be taken into consideration but most "kit planes" being built today
already have a proven flight record so flight characteristics can be anticipated.

Jerry

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
. com...
A question I've always wanted to ask homebuilders is based on how I can see
one could go through the process of building through lots of hard work and
dedication - but how do you get yourself to do that first flight? I would
think a thousand questions would fill one's mind (ex: did I tighten or
overtighten that blank, are the rivets going to hold,,,, etc.).

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

--

The first flight of any airplane is a sobering experience (been there, done
that), and shouldn't be attempted until the builder, pilot, and everyone
else in the loop is convinced that the aircraft is properly assembled,
rigged, and tested to the limit of ground tests. If the CG is correct, the
wings stay attached, the engine and prop work properly, and the primary
controls function, there is every reason to expect a safe first flight.

Still, there is always the "X" factor, and the pilot should have an
appropriate ground crew on hand with rescue equipment. Before the flight,
the pilot needs to establish go/no go conditions, and then stick with them.
Also, the pilot needs to make sure s/he is properly prepared to fly the
aircraft and has thought through likely situations.

My big question was "Is the engine going to run long enough to haul this
thing to pattern altitude or higher?" I assumed I could more or less handle
anything beyond that point.

KB

"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:39:22 -0500, "James M. Knox"

Rules vary from country to country (some require stage checks), but in
the US there is a final exam that must be passed. An examiner goes over
the plane (hopefully with a fine tooth comb) for anything that does not
look save and conform to safety standards. Only then do you get a
certificate to go flying.

Why then, must the aircraft be placarded with a passenger warning that
states that it does NOT conform to federal safety standards?
snip

'Cause you don't have a library full of FAA approved paperwork to show that
your manufacturing process and design were approved by the FAA. Doesn't mean
your airplane isn't be safer than a brand new factory built... Of course,
I've seen a few experimentals that looked like they had been assembled by
impatient 10 year olds...

KB

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:40:48 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

Why then, must the aircraft be placarded with a passenger warning that
states that it does NOT conform to federal safety standards? Yeah,
I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but it was my understanding
that if you are bound and determined to ignore standard practices,
that they still have to give you an experimental amateur built C of A
if you meet the requirements for it (paperwork, markings, 51%, etc).
They may cripple you with lousy operating limitations, but they have
to give you the certicate of airworthiness.

Comments?

Our EAA chapter had as our guest speaker during one of last winter's
meetings, the local DAR. He turned out to be old, crotchety,
cantankerous, outspoken and opinionated.

He began his talk by hammering home paperwork, paperwork, paperwork.
He spoke so long about it, and in such a doomsday manner that I feared
that would be ALL he'd speak about.

But eventually he began relating anecdotes. Among them was a story
about how he inspected a small single seat airplane (he mentioned the
name but I don't remember it now). It was a very simple airplane and
he thought it was extremely poorly put together and had a non aviation
type engine to boot. He tried to not grant him a C of A. But the guy
called his congressman, who shook the FAA tree, who called the DAR and
told him he WILL hand out the C of A to this guy.

So he did. But he required the maximum 40 hours of flight time for
testing and also categorically specified where this flying must take
place: over unpopulated land. He then told us that to his relief,
when the engine failed as he feared it would, the guy only killed a
cow, not a human being, when he put it down in a pasture. The pilot
survived.

Corky Scott

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:45:56 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

You should be aware, if you aren't already, that the first flight is
deadly, statistically speaking. It's the single most deadly flight
you'll ever take.

Some numbers to go with that: The accident rate for homebuilt aircraft is
about 1% a year. Coincidentally, about 1% of new homebuilts crash on
their
first flight.

That means that the first flight packs a full year's worth of danger into
a
single takeoff and landing.....

Ron Wanttaja

Those are good numbers, meaning a first flight is a worthy risk. If more
people would preflight and not race against time or an airshow event the
numbers would be even better.

A Moni killed a good doctor here on first flight. He was under pressure to
please the crowd, including his young family, and took off in too much gusty
wind.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:40:48 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

Why then, must the aircraft be placarded with a passenger warning that
states that it does NOT conform to federal safety standards? Yeah,
I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but it was my understanding
that if you are bound and determined to ignore standard practices,
that they still have to give you an experimental amateur built C of A
if you meet the requirements for it (paperwork, markings, 51%, etc).
They may cripple you with lousy operating limitations, but they have
to give you the certicate of airworthiness.

Comments?

Our EAA chapter had as our guest speaker during one of last winter's
meetings, the local DAR. He turned out to be old, crotchety,
cantankerous, outspoken and opinionated.

He began his talk by hammering home paperwork, paperwork, paperwork.
He spoke so long about it, and in such a doomsday manner that I feared
that would be ALL he'd speak about.

But eventually he began relating anecdotes. Among them was a story
about how he inspected a small single seat airplane (he mentioned the
name but I don't remember it now). It was a very simple airplane and
he thought it was extremely poorly put together and had a non aviation
type engine to boot. He tried to not grant him a C of A. But the guy
called his congressman, who shook the FAA tree, who called the DAR and
told him he WILL hand out the C of A to this guy.

So he did. But he required the maximum 40 hours of flight time for
testing and also categorically specified where this flying must take
place: over unpopulated land. He then told us that to his relief,
when the engine failed as he feared it would, the guy only killed a
cow, not a human being, when he put it down in a pasture. The pilot
survived.

Corky Scott

But that is why they call them EXPERIMENTAL and a Learning experience.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:27:31 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:


"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:39:22 -0500, "James M. Knox"

Rules vary from country to country (some require stage checks), but in
the US there is a final exam that must be passed. An examiner goes over
the plane (hopefully with a fine tooth comb) for anything that does not
look save and conform to safety standards. Only then do you get a
certificate to go flying.

Why then, must the aircraft be placarded with a passenger warning that
states that it does NOT conform to federal safety standards?
snip

'Cause you don't have a library full of FAA approved paperwork to show that
your manufacturing process and design were approved by the FAA. Doesn't mean
your airplane isn't be safer than a brand new factory built... Of course,
I've seen a few experimentals that looked like they had been assembled by
impatient 10 year olds...

All that is true, 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. I'm certainly not
arguing *against* good construction practices, I was just making the
point that the federales can't prevent you from killing yourself
through the lack of them.


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

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:09:10 -0400, " jls"
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.

Ed Sullivan

Ed Sullivan wrote:

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:09:10 -0400, " jls"
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.

Ed Sullivan


Dibs!

;-)
Just Joking