Newbie Question, really: That first flight

[Cecil Chapman]

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

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:48:24 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
> 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.....

The answer is really quite simple, you don't.

Really, if you think you are going to be all a-quiver with emotions
and questions while attempting to pilot the airplane during the
momentous first flight, maybe you should hire someone who doesn't have
so much emotion and time invested in the airplane.

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. There are many reasons for this: The pilot may not
have current skills (because he's been building and not flying), the
pilot may be low time, the pilot may not have any flight training in
type, the airplane may have a performance greater than the pilot is
used to, the engine may not have run for a long time, the engine
installation may include non aviation type fasteners and tubing, the
engine installation may be a non certified type, the engine may not
have been tested at full power for a time equal to takeoff and climb,
the airplane may not have been built to plans, the airplane may not
have an improper center of gravity. Or the situation may include ALL
of the above.

If your situation includes one or two of the above, or more, you might
ask youself what it is you are trying to prove by being the one to
take that first flight.

Corky (as you can see I've thought about this a lot) Scott

[Corky Scott]

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

>the airplane may not
>have an improper center of gravity.

Sorry, this of course was supposed to read: The airplane my have an
improper center of gravity.

Corky Scott

[James M. Knox]

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in
. 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.....

Sounds like a wedding night. <G>


Seriously, remember that you don't just "take to the sky" the minute the
last rivet is set. By the time you have the thing built a lot of pieces
have been assembled and disassembled and reassembled, and you are
probably (certainly should be) VERY familiar with pretty much every
piece of that plane.

There are test runs of the engine. Even taxi tests. Leak checks are
performed. And everything SHOULD be rechecked for proper torque.

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.

The first flight itself is interesting. There are books and tapes (and
not all agree) on how to do it. Test hops (just a couple of feet in the
air) can be made. But usually once you do commit to flight, you go fly.
The plane is climbed to a safe altitude (about as high as practical) and
a series of test maneuvers is made to verify things like stall speed and
wing drop -- things you probably need to know before trying to land. <G>

Yes, mistakes do happen, but considering the number of safe "first
flights" taken by experimental aircraft every year, aircraft built often
by first-time builders, the success rate is IMHO amazing.

jmk

[W P Dixon]

Well I wonder if someone has to question there own ability as a mechanic
should even attempt to build something that their life will depend on being
right.
I think it is always a great idea to have some "inspectors" that know
aircraft very well to check your work from time to time. Sometimes we ALL
can miss something. But you really need self confidence in your work ability
to even start.
"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
2...
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in
> . 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.....
>
> Sounds like a wedding night. <G>
>
>
> Seriously, remember that you don't just "take to the sky" the minute the
> last rivet is set. By the time you have the thing built a lot of pieces
> have been assembled and disassembled and reassembled, and you are
> probably (certainly should be) VERY familiar with pretty much every
> piece of that plane.
>
> There are test runs of the engine. Even taxi tests. Leak checks are
> performed. And everything SHOULD be rechecked for proper torque.
>
> 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.
>
> The first flight itself is interesting. There are books and tapes (and
> not all agree) on how to do it. Test hops (just a couple of feet in the
> air) can be made. But usually once you do commit to flight, you go fly.
> The plane is climbed to a safe altitude (about as high as practical) and
> a series of test maneuvers is made to verify things like stall speed and
> wing drop -- things you probably need to know before trying to land. <G>
>
> Yes, mistakes do happen, but considering the number of safe "first
> flights" taken by experimental aircraft every year, aircraft built often
> by first-time builders, the success rate is IMHO amazing.
>
> jmk

[Rich S.]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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?

Have to go along with you 100% on that one, Del. The inspector that checked
out my Emeraude couldn't find his ass with both hands. The *only* things he
was interested in - or knew how to check were those that you mentioned. As
far as airplane expertise? He failed to notice (for example) that none of my
control cable turnbuckles were safetied. I knew that I was going to
disassemble and reassemble it again before going flying - but he didn't. He
did even ask. All he wanted to see were the numbers for his record.

Rich "You get what you pay for - excluding your taxes" S.

[Del Rawlins]

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? 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?


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

[W P Dixon]

Yep!
That's another reason to have a good group of aircraft related friends,
though not the rule or necessary by the FAA's standards always having those
extra eyes from others can help alot.
As for the inspector ..so true! I know alot of aeronautical engineers
that only know how to read something out of a book too! HAHAHA All goes bad
to what I was saying, you have to have confidence in your own ability.
Hopefully have those "extra eyes"....and if it feels good ...let's fly!
"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Del Rawlins" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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?
>
> Have to go along with you 100% on that one, Del. The inspector that
checked
> out my Emeraude couldn't find his ass with both hands. The *only* things
he
> was interested in - or knew how to check were those that you mentioned. As
> far as airplane expertise? He failed to notice (for example) that none of
my
> control cable turnbuckles were safetied. I knew that I was going to
> disassemble and reassemble it again before going flying - but he didn't.
He
> did even ask. All he wanted to see were the numbers for his record.
>
> Rich "You get what you pay for - excluding your taxes" S.
>
>

[Richard Lamb]

Cecil Chapman 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
>




Reduce the number of unknowns to a bare minimum.


First on the list is a valid weight and balance.

It's arguably THE most important question of the lot,
and is too often glossed over with a guess.

After that, it's mostly, "Is the engine going to run?"
Will it run at a high pitch angle (as when climbing)

Are the controls hooked up correctly - for certain?

And, if you are going to fly it yourself, get some
current time in a similar type of aircraft.

[RobertR237]

>
>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.

After that first flight, you have a plan that allows you, the pilot, to become
accustomed to the aircraft as you methodically expand the flight envelope and
test the aircraft. The flight test plan should be written and plan each flight
and what the flight should test and what results should be expected. Those
first 25-40 hours are not pleasure flights, they are work and should be planned
as such. Enjoy the flight but understand their purpose.


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)

[Ron Wanttaja]

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

[Jerry Springer]

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

[Kyle Boatright]

"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

[Kyle Boatright]

"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

[Corky Scott]

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

[jls]

"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.

[Cy Galley]

"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.

[Del Rawlins]

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

[Ed Sullivan]

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

[UltraJohn]

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

[RobertR237]

>>
>>
>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)

[Dave Hyde]

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

[Dave Hyde]

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

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

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 are: 49 USC 44701 and 44702.

2. The regulations to look at are: 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

[Del Rawlins]

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 are: 49 USC 44701 and 44702.
>
>2. The regulations to look at are: 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

[Rich S.]

"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.