AC-90-APP Additional Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test Draft

[Ylinen]

I have just reviewed the AC the FAA has open for comments. I am very concerned and disappointed in the direction of this circular. I am also disappointed that the EAA agreed with this approach by the FAA.

The whole bureaucratic paperwork approach is in keeping with the FAA. CYA. It also is very prone to errors which I am sure the FAA would use to cite pilots if/when there is an issue. We know how the FAA loves to get us when we make a paperwork mistake.

Why does an OP have to have a minimum of a Private Pilot License? It should be Sport Pilot as this AC is for E-LSA as well.

The whole idea of this new second pilot program is to give the builder/owner some help with phase 1 and to encourage them to find a good qualified pilot to help them early on with their flight testing so they don't try to do it all themselves.

The whole idea of the Matrix and having to reach a certain score to be the QP is so Government. So is having to have 500 hours to be a QP.

This whole concept needs to be scrapped. It needs to be simple and without the government heavy handed paperwork approach.

EAA should oppose this approach. The FAA should not be involved in this at all.

Also having this program only for kit aircraft with certified engines and not Turbine aircraft is crazy. It should apply to all A/B aircraft and E-LSA period.

I would like to know what other EAA members think before I submit my comments to the FAA.

[rleffler]

You may want to read this thread on VAF.

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...d.php?t=114737

The gentleman from the FAA responsible for the AC has been participating in a dialogue and answering questions.

[Ylinen]

Thanks for the link Bob,

Here is my submission to the FAA:

I have reviewed the draft AC and have some recommendations and concerns.

1. FAA must remember what the purpose of the Additional Pilot program is for. After a builder has spent years of sweat, time and costs building an aircraft their normal inclination is they want to fly the aircraft, even if they are not trained or type qualified. This AC should place the minimum constrains possible so as not inhibit the builder/owner from finding and including a more qualified person in the phase 1 process period.
2. Even if every phase 1 flight had two pilots, the number of accidents for A/B Phase 1 would not be a significant number of accidents or fatalities to warrant the bureaucratic overhead this AC imposes.
3. My concern with the standards this AC imposes for the QP will make it be not used, much like the FAA requirements for LODA to be a transition trainer. That program is a failure by the FAA. I recently went to look at the EAA LODA list and find a person in my area that could do my transition training for the MOST popular A/B aircraft. There was on one within 5 states of Virginia. There were only 3 listed for all of the USA.
4. The forms are overly complex. I anticipate that BP/QP/OP will make mistakes in filling out the forms. Those mistakes will be used by the FAA to impose sanctions on those citizens. We see this over and over again with current FAA regulations and paperwork. There should be NO additional paperwork that is not already part of the FARs period.
5. The AC as it is now, will not provide the number of QPs that would have a significant impact on Phase 1 testing. The requirement for Test Pilot School is expensive and onerous. Only ex-military pilots will be in the pool predominately. You cannot reach the required points without that category.
6. The exclusion of Turbine class aircraft and only Kit aircraft has no basis. Going back to Item 1, we should be trying to get the owner/builder to use this program not exclude them. Remove those exemptions.
7. We could significantly increase QPs and reduce the risk of accident in the first 8 hours by just having a standard for the QP to be anyone with required license and currency and has done the phase 1 in the same aircraft or aircraft family. Period. That is the only criteria. Period. No paperwork, no 500 hours, no amount of flying, etc. No risk avoidance checklist. Keep it simple. The goal again is to get the owner/builder to get help. Don’t try and define some level of proficiency. The FAA has never been able to do that and your trying just limits the pool of qualified individuals and makes the program not to be used. Let’s start with a very open standard. If we see there are 5X more deaths than before the program, we can make adjustments.
8. I predict that if the program is implemented as written, it will not be used and the goals will not be met. The FAA will again not do anything, as this exercise is only to respond to an NTSB finding and CYA the FAA so that outside review does not bring criticism to the FAA for accidents or deaths under the additional pilot rule. You have made it so complex and difficult to find a QP that it will not be done. The QP standards will also significantly raise the cost to hire a QP given the small number of qualified candidates. Especially the requirement for time in type/model.
9. Finding a QP with the qualifications as written will be costly and the Owner/builder will not do it. They will revert to business as today. So no change in the accident trend. I bet that a QP would charge in excess of $5000 plus per diem to be a QP for phase 1.
10. The wording of the AC is incorrect and does not include Sport Pilot in the LSA categories. The AC text should be updated everywhere it says Private Pilot to include Sport Pilot on LSA.
11. Let’s keep our eye on the ball. Let’s keep it simple. Let’s think of what the pilot population is. We should be encouraging a mentor process not creating the gold standard for test pilots in Amateur built aircraft.

[Ylinen]

I would like EAA to explain why they support this Draft? From my analysis, you have to be a test pilot to get enough points to qualify to be a QP. How many EAA members have a Test Pilot Cert? I predict this will be like the LODA guidelines. We will have an AC, but few will use it. There are less than 100 LODA US wide. None in Virginia where I live. Last year EAA had to decline on the solution the FAA came up with to get fuel reimbursements for Young Eagle flights. I think this AC is like that. It tries to place TOO high a qualification bar. The goal was to give a builder a "more" experience mentor. The FAA is providing us with a process that we have to hire a test pilot to be our QP.

Anyone that would qualify as a QP will want $1000s to do the job and therefore the builder will just do it himself. No improvement in safety will result and more will die.

[Auburntsts]

Have you watched the EAA Webinar on this-- http://bcove.me/9znjbzp2 ? I think it lays out EAA's position pretty well.

[Ylinen]

Todd,
Thanks so much for pointing me to that. After listening to the video, I am even more in opposition. Charpentier has done what EAA and AOPA are good at which is join the FAA in their goals rather than ours. They spent so much time defining what a QP is, they lost sight of the goal which was to get the builder help with a person more experienced than them. I have two simple questions for the EAA. How many members in EAA would qualify to be a QP in the 10 most common kit built planes? And how much will those QPs charge to perform that service?

I am convinced this will be worse than the LODA solution. The FAA answered the NTSB findings and recommendation and EAA request to provide relief from the regulations to allow for transition training in non-owned aircraft. The result is less than 100 LODAs US wide. Great program.

[WLIU]

I will offer the observation that the formulation of the requirements is pretty reasonable for our friends at FAA. They have to justify why having a second pilot increases safety vs a single pilot. After all, the builder does not have to make the first flight. A more current and qualified pilot can make the first flights while the builder observes from the ground. Safety is not about ego and what we want to do. Its about what will get the airplane off the ground and back, demonstrating that the build has been successful, without damage.

So I have to say that once you get past the current popularity at the agency of expressing everything in a spreadsheet, a lot of the numbers look pretty reasonable. A pilot who has more total hours and more recent hours in the same model aircraft is going to add more value than a pilot who only flew 10 hours in the last year and none in the type aircraft being tested.

I think that it is unreasonable to expect that FAA is going to endorse putting two low time pilots in an airplane for the first few flights.

The bounding of the policy to well known types of homebuilts also makes sense from a policy change point of view. Once the program is proven successful, we can lobby that it be expanded. It appears to me that the "sweet spot" of the policy change is clearly the RV community. Those folks have a mature track record of successful first flights and follow on fleet safety. They have a great support system in the community and the factory. Aiming the new policy at those folks helps make sure that the new policy is a success.

If you want a big change from a federal agency, you will almost always be disappointed. The current draft is the first step, but does not have to be the last. It opens the door. That is a big deal for policy from a federal agency. After all, today you must fly solo. Tomorrow you can find a qualified individual and have help. I applaud EAA for working with FAA on this.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Tom Charpentier]

"How many members in EAA would qualify to be a QP in the 10 most common kit built planes? And how much will those QPs charge to perform that service?"

Thanks for sitting through the webinar. With regards to how many people at your average airport would be eligible, as I said in the presentation you should take a look at the matrices and run a few scenarios. Yes, the matrix does seem overly complicated but it was the best way we found to make sure the program is as flexible as possible to allow as many as possible to participate. For example, I can run myself through it for an RV-6A:

Recency of experience:

-I have more than 10 landings in the past 90 days, so I get 10 points
-I have time in the model family, so I get 15 points
-I have 42 hours in the past 12 calendar months, so I get 10 points
-I have about 210 total hours, so I fail to qualify for total time (which is fine, I agree I'm a low-time pilot)
-It's a tri-gear plane, so I get 10 points without needing tailwheel landings (although I have enough)

The minimum is 60, so to pass this matrix, I would need 500+ hours totals (10 points) and 70+ hours in the past year (15 points) or 1000+ hours total and 40-69 hours in the past year. Neither is particularly unreasonable to expect from an experienced, active GA pilot.

Let's go on to the second matrix and assume I have 500 hours total:

-I would have 500 hours category and class for 20 points
-I have about 78 hours in the RV family so I get 15 points
-I have time in the exact model (RV-6A) so I get 10 points
-I DON'T have any phase I time so I get -75 points
-I don't have more than 20 models flown as PIC so I don't get points for that
-Non-complex/canard/HP/pressurized aircraft, so no deductions for that
-I don't have CRM training, so no points for that
-I'm a private pilot, so I get 5 points.

OK, so I'm sitting on -25 points, which is probably good because without any Phase I time I'm not really cut out to advise a builder on his/her first few flights from the cockpit. BUT, if I made a first flight previously (even in this aircraft if the owner let me) now I'm up to 70 points and I need 90. So if I had that and 20 makes/models in my logbook, OR more than 100 hours in the model family (I'm only 22 hours away as a fairly new RV pilot), I pass.

So to answer your first question, just about any homebuilder who has made a first flight or at least has Phase I experience, has at least 500 hours logged total, and has put a little time on their airplane can pass as a QP in the model family. You don't need to be a professional test pilot. For common types such RVs, Zeniths, Sonexes, Kitfoxes, etc, etc... most homebuilders of the type who are finished and flying should qualify. For more uncommon types, any commercial pilot or CFI with at least 1000 hours category/class, a variety of models flown, and phase I experience will pass. Breadth of experience will substitute for time in type. Notice that at no point did I mention the credit for test pilot school graduates. It's designed to give those people proper credit but is NOT necessary.

How much will QPs charge? It's up to them but you can use current homebuilt test pilots as a model - anywhere from pro-bono to whatever the market will pay.

With regards to sport pilots qualifying as OPs, see Paragraph 12(a) on Page 15:

[Observer pilot must] Have at least a private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the test aircraft, and have received all necessary endorsements, as required per § 61.31, appropriate to the test aircraft. For light-sport aircraft, have at least a Sport Pilot Certificate and the appropriate logbook endorsements for the category and class of the aircraft to be flown, as required by § 61.317.

By the way, the last draft of the AC is temporarily off the FAA's site, so I'm posting it here if anyone wishes to review it further.

Best,

Tom