Newbie Question, really: That first flight

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

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

"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.

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.

"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 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

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 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

"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.

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.