Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: FAA Publishes Additional Pilot Program

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin View Post
    Show me a single engine E/AB aircraft that has a minimum required crew of more than one person.........

    I acknowledge your points, and they're well thought out and supported by your experience. I've been searching for the common sense in this. Probably in vain. Seriously, a guy jumps out of a 180hp Arrow with steam gauges and a pair of VOR's and into a Lancair 4P with twin turbos on a Chevy V8 and triple glass panels but can't take somebody along who knows those avionics cold to assist? Nor the guy who built the engine to help set up the electronic engine computer calibration? Seriously? Increasing safety? Hmmmm.

    Thanks, sir.

  2. #12
    Jonathan Harger
    Guest
    [QUOTE=cdrmuetzel@juno.com;45314]I deleted my original post in this thread because I FINALLY FOUND THE WRITTEN GUIDANCE that amends FAA Order 8130.2G!

    I originally wrote, "before this program [APP], builders were only permitted to have “required crew” aboard for initial flights, which usually meant that every Phase I E-AB aircraft was legally required to be flown solo." If additional people other than the pilot were needed aboard the aircraft for flight testing, that need would be listed as a part of the Phase I operating limitations. Any other person than the pilot on board an aircraft during Phase I, unless that other person is specifically listed in the operating limitations, is considered a "passenger." Pilots are not allowed to carry "passengers" during Phase I.
    Specific guidance for this can be found in AC 20-27G, page 28, which states under the "restrictions" section that:

    (1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your phase I flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need in your operating limitations.

    So, before the additional pilot program is was theoretically possible to have someone along on certain flights to act as a data recorder or safety pilot of sorts, but to the best of our knowledge it was extremely rare and unusual for builders to ask for additional crewmember language put into their ops limits.
    Basically: if more than one person is supposed to be aboard an aircraft during Phase I, the ops limits will reflect that. If they don't, it's supposed to be a solo flight.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    [QUOTE=Jonathan Harger;45335]
    Quote Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com View Post
    I deleted my original post in this thread because I FINALLY FOUND THE WRITTEN GUIDANCE that amends FAA Order 8130.2G!

    I originally wrote, "before this program [APP], builders were only permitted to have “required crew” aboard for initial flights, which usually meant that every Phase I E-AB aircraft was legally required to be flown solo." If additional people other than the pilot were needed aboard the aircraft for flight testing, that need would be listed as a part of the Phase I operating limitations. Any other person than the pilot on board an aircraft during Phase I, unless that other person is specifically listed in the operating limitations, is considered a "passenger." Pilots are not allowed to carry "passengers" during Phase I.
    Specific guidance for this can be found in AC 20-27G, page 28, which states under the "restrictions" section that:

    (1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your phase I flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need in your operating limitations.

    So, before the additional pilot program is was theoretically possible to have someone along on certain flights to act as a data recorder or safety pilot of sorts, but to the best of our knowledge it was extremely rare and unusual for builders to ask for additional crewmember language put into their ops limits.
    Basically: if more than one person is supposed to be aboard an aircraft during Phase I, the ops limits will reflect that. If they don't, it's supposed to be a solo flight.

    Subject: Certification and Operation of
    Amateur-Built Aircraft
    Date: 9/30/2009
    Initiated by: AIR-200
    AC No: 20-27G

    This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. This ACdescribes an acceptable means, but not the only means, to comply with airworthinesscertification and operation requirements of amateur-built aircraft.

    Jonathan, thank you. That's an advisory circular you ref'd. Advisory. Not regulatory for Pt 91 ops. And yes, it does refer to passengers. Not essential personnel, not flight crewmembers. Which were specifically allowed by the language of the standard E/AB ops limit #10. So it was never a legal requirement to fly Phase I solo, and it still isn't. At least, it isn't if the aircraft's operating limitations (which are regulatory, not advisory) contain the cookbook phrases listed in the memo.
    Last edited by Mike M; 10-14-2014 at 11:16 AM.

  4. #14
    Jonathan Harger
    Guest
    [QUOTE=cdrmuetzel@juno.com;45336]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Harger View Post


    Advisory. Not regulatory for Pt 91 ops. And yes, it does refer to passengers. Not essential personnel, not flight crewmembers. Which were specifically allowed by the language of the standard E/AB ops limit #10. So it was never a legal requirement to fly Phase I solo, and it still isn't. At least, it isn't if the aircraft's operating limitations (which are regulatory, not advisory) contain the cookbook phrases listed in the memo.

    As I see it, the Order and the AC say the same thing with slightly different wording, basically: during Phase I, no person may be carried in the aircraft during
    flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight. Examples of essential personnel, as I understand it, are pilots, co-pilots, flight engineers, and navigators.
    So, as I see it, there are no experimental amateur-built aircraft that would have an "essential" or "required" crew of more than one. The AC does allow for an exception to allow a non-flying pilot aboard a test flight, but that exception must asked for, granted, and written directly into the operating limitations, just like the Additional Pilot Program.
    People have, and still do, interpret "person... essential to the purpose of the flight" however it suits them, and many people believe that there is wiggle room in the phrasing. I would only say that I would not want to be ramp checked after a Phase I test flight that had another pilot on board for whatever reason, unless that other person were accounted for in my ops limits. I am certain that the FAA inspector wouldn't buy the "essential" safety pilot/data recorder/radio operator gambit and my ticket and I would be temporarily separated.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tehachapi, CA
    Posts
    219
    [QUOTE=Jonathan Harger;45360]
    Quote Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com View Post
    As I see it, the Order and the AC say the same thing... I would not want to be ramp checked after a Phase I test flight that had another pilot on board for whatever reason, unless that other person were accounted for in my ops limits. I am certain that the FAA inspector wouldn't buy the "essential" safety pilot/data recorder/radio operator gambit and my ticket and I would be temporarily separated.
    My thoughts exactly. Chances of getting caught? Low. Doesn't change the rules, though...

  6. #16
    Jeff Point's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    309
    [QUOTE=Jonathan Harger;45360]
    Quote Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com View Post
    I would only say that I would not want to be ramp checked after a Phase I test flight that had another pilot on board for whatever reason, unless that other person were accounted for in my ops limits. I am certain that the FAA inspector wouldn't buy the "essential" safety pilot/data recorder/radio operator gambit and my ticket and I would be temporarily separated.
    That could be the least of your worries. How about an accident that occurs during this flight, resulting in serious injury or worse to your "required crew member" that your insurance refuses to cover because you violated the FARs and your ops lims?
    Jeff Point
    RV-6 and RLU-1 built & flying
    Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor & President, EAA Chapter 18
    Milwaukee, WI
    "It All Started Here!"

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin View Post
    ...Show me a single engine E/AB aircraft that has a minimum required crew of more than one person...There may be some E/AB aircraft for which there are two crewmembers required, but I'venever seen one. For those, Phase I would allow a 2nd crewmember....



    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Harger View Post
    [QUOTE=cdrmuetzel@juno.com;45336]...The AC does allow for an exception to allow a non-flying pilot aboard a test flight, but that exception must asked for, granted, and written directly into the operating limitations...



    [QUOTE=Jeff Point;45365]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Harger View Post
    ...How about an accident that occurs during this flight, resulting in serious injury or worse to your "required crew member" that your insurance refuses to cover because you violated the FARs and your ops lims?


    Advisory Circular. Non-regulatory. Not limiting, just advice.
    FAA Order. Binding.
    Operations limitation. Mandatory.
    FAR.The regulation.


    1.Accident? Violation? Which FAR was violated with an essential crew member IAW the ops limits?That's what I've been searching for.
    2.Which ops limit was violated?The old E/AB limit #10 allows essential personnel, and the new E/AB limit #6 and #10 allow minimum crew, so which ops limit was violated?

    3. The opinion that no E/AB single engine aircraft requires more than one crew falters when considering that regulations and advice look forward, not back. And that very aircraft may be under construction now. And the manufacturer probably knows better than the FAA what its capabilities and requirements might be. And it is probably not eligible for the A/C's APP.
    4. The “requirement” to plead for blessing is actually advice; not a regulation, order, or limitation. Advisory circulars neither require nor allow anything.

    I'm having a really tough time understanding why anyone would read mandatory operating limitations that allow a manufacturer to determine that there is a need for essential personnel (or minimum crew), read the FAR definition of a crewmember, read AC 20-27 advising about how serious the FAA is about prohibiting passengers and recommending advance planning for including essential crewmembers, and read AC 90-116 advising how beneficial minimum essential crewmember personnel can be to improving safety - then conclude that crewmembers have been previously prohibited by regulation from performing vital safety functions. And still are,except for the arguably safer kit-built clones with clone engines. Not the potentially riskier true E/AB plans-built with one-off engines and exotic engine management, fuel systems, avionics,etc, where their safety benefit would be optimal.

    In case y'all think I'm "anti-authority" just consider that I'm defending the legal requirements. I object to the contrary advice.


    I just don't buy it. It's detrimental to the FAA safety mission assigned by Congress. FAA wouldn't DO that - would they?
    Last edited by Mike M; 10-16-2014 at 08:27 AM. Reason: typos (and i might have missed some)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •