FAA Test Pilot Regulations

[Ylinen]

I attended the NTSB Experimental Aircraft Safety Seminar yesterday at Ashburn, VA. Very good session and well run by NTSB.

During Q/A, someone asked when the FAA would have the draft test pilot regulations out. The person from the FAA, Tom Glista, FAA Manager of GA operations branch AFS-830, said it would be out in Jan 2014, but that he needed AOPA and EAA and other industry members to come to some agreement on what they should be.

Questions:
1. What is this all about? Why do we now need FAA regulations in this area?
2. The EAA rep (Tom Charpentier) said there had been meetings on this topic at AV. What did EAA do and what is their position on this topic?

[Tom Charpentier]

Thanks for attending the presentation, and sorry if we confused you. What Tom Glista and I were talking about was a proposal that would allow a second pilot to fly with the builder during Phase I. Since this is not currently allowed we would need a set of requirements for that second pilot to meet to ensure that they actually add safety to the flight testing process. There is no proposal on the table to regulate solo test pilots, and we have consistently opposed any attempt to do so.

This would be an optional alternative to the current Phase I rules, which allow any appropriately rated pilot to fly the aircraft as long as they are solo. These rules would not change.

Thanks again for coming, and I hope you enjoyed the talk! If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

Tom

[Kurt Flunkn]

I'm not aware of new regs on the horizon for test pilots (assuming this is limited to amateur experimental). For certified aircraft under part 21.37 calls for:

21.37 Flight test pilot.
Each applicant for a normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category aircraft type certificate must provide a person holding an appropriate pilot certificate to make the flight tests required by this part.


However, there are also Designated Engineering Representative (DER) Test Pilots who are authorized to determine compliance with FARs on behalf of the FAA. I can't see FAA flowing this requirement to the home built world. The requirement to become a DER test pilot is much higher and is contained in the designee management handbook:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/examiners_inspectors/

[Ylinen]

Tom,
Thanks for the reply. You did a great job with your presentation. I guess I question the need for any FAA regulation. Do they regulate OEMs and their test flight operations. We have learned that when we ask the FAA for help, we may not get what we want. The recent response to the EAA Young Eagle program is a good example.

The NTSB has provided the data that shows the FAA and its rules are actually making us less safe than the GA fleet. That is in our flight test operations and our transition training. There rules which as I understand it were designed to limit exposure and deaths are causing more.

We should push very hard for them to make two very simple changes and only those two: 1) Allow A/B aircraft to be used for transition training for hire (And only transition training) 2) Allow for a flight crew to be used for test fight for piloting and data capture. It is crazy that one person should have to perform both functions and it is no wonder that phase is has more accidents.

[Mike M]

...What Tom Glista and I were talking about was a proposal that would allow a second pilot to fly with the builder during Phase I. Since this is not currently allowed we would need a set of requirements for that second pilot to meet to ensure that they actually add safety to the flight testing process....

Wow, that was certainly open to misinterpretation. I know because I misinterpreted it. I can find NO prohibition in Pt91.319 or in FAA Order 8130.2G on operating Phase I test flights with a second pilot. Nor a prohibition on carrying NON pilots. What is in the books? Permission to carry crewmembers as needed to complete the stated test. We all know Boeing and Cessna etc don't fly test flights solo. They use minimum crew to achieve the goals of the written test plan developed and published before the flight. And so do we, right, ladies and gentlemen? Minimum crew!

"8130.2G para 4104 b (10) During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight."

Tom, took me a while to realize you were addressing carrying folks like instructors to teach the owner to fly the rest of the test plan. Flight instruction is obviously not part of the test procedure, and doing things not part of the test procedure during Phase I is obviously not permitted.

[Tom Charpentier]

Fair enough, that was my goof on the description. We have been colloquially calling this proposal "2nd pilot." But you're right that that's a bit of a misnomer. And of course you're also right that it's required flight crew, not always a solo pilot.

This isn't really about instruction during Phase I. It's more about mitigating the emotional factor of a builder wanting to flight test their airplane even if they aren't the best qualified by allowing the builder, at their option, to bring in a qualified test pilot to handle the first few flights while the builder rides along. The builders we want to reach are those who might otherwise handle the flights themselves if they were not allowed to be involved.

We are working to make the standard for this "second" (test) pilot as flexible and as reasonable as possible (there has to be some standard or we won't be able to justify the safety benefit of exposing a second person to risk). We're working with the HAC and other community experts to develop a plan for FAA to consider, and we will carefully review and comment on their resulting proposal. Rest assured through this whole process your right to test fly your own airplane or anyone else's (with the appropriate ratings) is safe.

[Ylinen]

Thanks for attending the presentation, and sorry if we confused you. What Tom Glista and I were talking about was a proposal that would allow a second pilot to fly with the builder during Phase I. Since this is not currently allowed we would need a set of requirements for that second pilot to meet to ensure that they actually add safety to the flight testing process. There is no proposal on the table to regulate solo test pilots, and we have consistently opposed any attempt to do so.

This would be an optional alternative to the current Phase I rules, which allow any appropriately rated pilot to fly the aircraft as long as they are solo. These rules would not change.

Thanks again for coming, and I hope you enjoyed the talk! If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

Tom

Tom,
Could you describe what some of the proposals are? I guess this is going to be another one of those "Freedom" vs Government knows best arguments.

I can not believe that any Aircraft builder would needlessly risk additional personnel. I also don't want the classic government over-engineered solution. There are parts of the flight test process where having more than one person can help and actually make it MORE safe. Heck even the OEMs have more than one person on many flights. Of course they have the luxury of having real time telemetry to capture many data points also.

On the second topic of the FAA presentation. I think the current LODA process is ridiculous. Why does any person have to put together a full package of information and submit to the FAA to get transition training for a A/B aircraft. I can image that many packages are kicked back for being inadequate or incomplete. The EAA should demand that the FAA make transition training for hire legal in ALL A/B aircraft period. I would hope we would see an immediate improvement in the accident rate due to this change so we can show the FAA that they have needlessly caused many deaths and accidents through their rules. What SONEX has done is a good thing, but we can't all travel to SONEX nor does it scale to all of A/B with 33,000 aircraft.

[Mike M]

...We are working to make the standard for this "second" (test) pilot as flexible and as reasonable as possible (there has to be some standard or we won't get FAA buy-in)....

OK, think I got it. If that's all you're working on, having the owner in the aircraft while the qualified PIC makes it happen safely, we already have that. We don't need a new FAA standard, they already gave us the standard, the CREWMEMBER must be ESSENTIAL to the purpose of the flight. Who better than the manufacturer to devise the test plan and define how it must be executed? The FAA didn't design or build the aircraft, the manufacturer did. If the manufacturer says a crewmember is essential to raise the flaps, set the trim, or monitor the engine, OAT, altitude, etcetcetc then the crewmember is essential. Ever heard of CRM? The FAA crammed that into our cockpits, they should be glad we listened. Doesn't matter how simple the aircraft appears to be or how much automatic equipment is installed, the only reason for the crewmember might just be to monitor the automatic equipment and back up the data at specified intervals in case of automatic system failure. Now, if the crewmember is only there to provide ballast, well, geepers, folks be a bit smarter than that when you (yes, you, the builder, the manufacturer) write out the test plan card. Plan it out, write it out, do your paperwork, be safe.

Don't negotiate away what we already own. We'd be best to say "thank you" and sit down and shut up.

[Anymouse]

As someone that did the full gamut of testing (structural, handling, performance) on my own aircraft, I think it would have been EXTREMELY helpful to have a second set of eyes to help with recording data while I was paying more attention to the actual flying part.

[Ylinen]

OK, think I got it. If that's all you're working on, having the owner in the aircraft while the qualified PIC makes it happen safely, we already have that. We don't need a new FAA standard, they already gave us the standard, the CREWMEMBER must be ESSENTIAL to the purpose of the flight. Who better than the manufacturer to devise the test plan and define how it must be executed? The FAA didn't design or build the aircraft, the manufacturer did. If the manufacturer says a crewmember is essential to raise the flaps, set the trim, or monitor the engine, OAT, altitude, etcetcetc then the crewmember is essential. Ever heard of CRM? The FAA crammed that into our cockpits, they should be glad we listened. Doesn't matter how simple the aircraft appears to be or how much automatic equipment is installed, the only reason for the crewmember might just be to monitor the automatic equipment and back up the data at specified intervals in case of automatic system failure. Now, if the crewmember is only there to provide ballast, well, geepers, folks be a bit smarter than that when you (yes, you, the builder, the manufacturer) write out the test plan card. Plan it out, write it out, do your paperwork, be safe.

Don't negotiate away what we already own. We'd be best to say "thank you" and sit down and shut up.

CDRMUETZEL, you have nailed it. The regulations allow us to do exactly what the EAA is trying to get the FAA to allow. They should stop what they are doing and put out guidance and information on how to have the builder (or other person) fly with a more qualified test pilot and do the crew functions or data gathering that their test plan calls for. I would recommend the EAA take the FAA AC on flight test and put out supplimental information on how the builder/manufacturer can have more than one person peform the test flight functions. The two crewpersons could then divide up the tasks as they see fit. If some training and familiarization occurs during the test, so much the better.

The good news is that our government has actually allowed a very open Amateur built community to exist and gives great latitude to its buillding and flying. We should not be asking them for things that we already have. If we do proceed with this effort, I can image that the FAA will want the EAA to manage a "Test pilot" list. To get on the list will require a long process and will be costly. These test pilots will have to charge a fee to recoop those items. Therefore, what may have been a good idea will be one that is not very often used.

On the LODA process for transition training, does the EAA have a sample or approved LODA that people can use to go to their FSDO and get approved. How long does it take? How often are the first drafts disapproved?

[Bill Greenwood]

Jostling the FAA on anything is a little like taking a stray dog to the vets for the first time; you are likely to get a long, time consuming list of ills when you didn't even know anything was wrong.

Now I am not up to date or at all expert on the test flying regs for homebuilts . I was a partner in one, a very small Rotax powered Starlite, but my partner did most of the construction. I was the more experienced pilot, and it was single seat so I did the test flying.My biggest problem was finding a parachute small enough to fit in there with me. It is a fun little plane, as light as some ultraligthts, but a performer with 140 mph top speed.
Here is how it seems to me that it should be done. If the builder is not very qualified to fly that type of plane solo,then he should ask someone who is to do the first couple of flights. If he is qualified, either by past experience or training in a two seat version of the same plane, then he can do the test flights.

I don't believe that a 2nd person should be aboard for these first flights. That simply puts a 2nd person at risk if there is an accident, and it is unlikely that the 2nd person can do much to help in an emergency, especially if the plane has only one set of controls. The 2nd person adds weight which can be factor in many of the smaller planes.

The idea that the 2nd person is there to write something down is a pretty thin argument. The pilot can easily write on a kneeboard or just remember the figures until after the fllght or even radio them to his crew on the ground if he really wants to make more out of a simple thing. Let's say you just built a Sonex, how much is there really to write? This isn't the test flight of a B-1, afterall.

Where I think the 2nd pilot should be allowed is once the plane has a few flights, then a 2nd pilot can be doing or helping with transition training, and this should be allowed, whether for free or for pay.

You would think that a builder/pilot would want to use the utmost care with a plane they had put years and maybe a lot of money into building, but that is not always human nature. Some people just say, "I built it and I am going to be the one to fly it" even if they haven't flown much during the building period, or were low time to start with. I know of a case where a man rebuilt a basket case high performance complex, fast high performance plane which he had never flown and he not only did the first test flight himself, but took his wife in the back seat.Other pilots with time in type were available, but he was not the kind of guy to share that time and fortuneally it was a safe flight. I know of another experienced Reno race pilot that did the same thing in a plane that was know to be hard to handle and he lost it on the first attempted takeoff, on a fairly narrow runway. A few people already flown this type of plane and might have been available to test it.

[Jim Hann]

CDRMUETZEL, you have nailed it. The regulations allow us to do exactly what the EAA is trying to get the FAA to allow. They should stop what they are doing and put out guidance and information on how to have the builder (or other person) fly with a more qualified test pilot and do the crew functions or data gathering that their test plan calls for.

Ylinen, the rub is that the FAA interprets the current rules for Phase I like a ferry permit, i.e. required crew only. I know that isn't what it says, but that is how they read it. NONE of the homebuilts I've seen at OSH (unless you consider Proteus or White Knight an E-AB) REQUIRE two crew members. Could they use two? Definitely, but they are not required.

The FAA loves gray areas, that is where many of the violations come from, once a rule is nailed down in black and white it is easier to comply with it (or break it if you want to look at it another way!) Tom might be able to provide more insight but I'll bet that the FAA already had knowledge of people trying to get around the single pilot Phase I restriction, so unless we answer them appropriately we could end up with a system where you have to have a certificated test pilot fly your airplane first. I believe South Africa has something like this.

Jim

[WLIU]

Walking in on this conversation late, it appears that two practices are being mixed together here.

The issue of data collection is easily taken care of by wiring an inexpensive voice recorder into the intercom. No need to write anything. Look at your test card, read the instrument readings aloud. Done. As noted above, an alternative is to go to a quiet frequency on the radio and read the data to your ground crew. So you do not need a second person in the cockpit for data collection. That is a very weak argument in 2013.

The other issue is a builder who has low total time or low or no time in type. This individual may insist on being in the cockpit for the first flight. How can this be accommodated and a high safety level be achieved? There is an argument for allowing a pilot with current experience type to be the PIC and the builder to be a second pilot. But as noted above, sometimes too many pilots in the cockpit gets you to the scene of the accident faster. So without defining clear and beneficial division of cockpit labor, and a clear improvement in cockpit decision making and safety, this too can be a weak argument.

The FAA won't invest in changing policy unless there is a clearly articulable safety benefit. It is easy for the FAA to tell builders who are not current enough that they should watch a more experienced and current pilot make the first flight in their ship. And find fault with build-pilots if they insist on making a first flight that ends badly.

I will suggest that making a rule change, or making it easy to get a LODA, to allow dual instruction in an Amateur Built for transition training, as noted above and elsewhere, will have the greatest safety benefit. If I understand correctly, to obtain a LODA you must have built the airplane that you will give transition training in. But this logic seems to suggest that you must be a builder with a CFI which drastically shrinks the pool of potential individuals who will provide the training. A more effective rule, that follows current CFI practice, would be to allow a CFI with say 25 hours in the type, to provide transition training in a borrowed ship of that type. And allow the owner of the ship to be reimbursed for expenses.

Be interesting to watch the discussion develop.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Ylinen]

The idea of using a ground crew or automation is certainly useful and helpful. That unto itsself should not limit air crew.

As we have seen in the thread, the test plan can be developed to clearly provide for more than one crew member.

I think having a second crew member to keep the test plan and collect the required data is more than useful. Not everyone will have a CREW. Not every test flight lends itself to a crew.

The issue of that FIRST FLIGHT challenge is a valid one. Here again, if the FAA were really addressing the issue of type transition, it would be less of an issue. Just went to the EAA listing of LODA holders. It is listed by state. Very few are listed. I live in Virginia and none are listed there. None of the aircraft types that I am interested in are listed. The FAA may have produced a table of like type aircraft to try and get an approximate model, but the real issue is why do they need a pile of paperwork to allow transition training instruction. Can't we all just agree that it is a good think and should be allowed. Someone needs to show the downside is worse than the upside. The downside is there might be some accidents. I would like to see the FAA make case that there would be more accidents during transition training with a licensed CFI than by not allowing it as it is now.

[WLIU]

The challenge is that the FAA does not have to make a case, they just leave everything as it is. The applicants, you and I, have to make the case for change. So my analysis tried to show one possible view that they can use to leave the rules as is. I agree that a second pilot on board can be helpful, but you are not flight testing a 787. The case for multiple crew in a small homebuilt airplane's first flight is, as we are seeing, harder to make. And again looking at it from the FAA point of view, there is a question of why can't that second "crew member" be sitting on the ground with a hand held radio writing down what the pilot flying reports and offering advice as needed? If we can not make a compelling answer to that question, then we are less likely to be successful with this petition. Merely wanting the option will not sway a government regulator.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Tom Charpentier]

Unfortunately Wes is correct - The FAA usually interprets the "minimum crew" rule to mean the minimum crew required in all flight regimes. Some builders have had luck getting authorization from their FSDO to have a second person aboard in very specific circumstances (and the Lancair community has arranged a "second pilot" program at the FSDO level), but these are generally the exception rather than the rule. In general, the Agency is going to rule conservatively unless they have guidance that allows them to be more flexible. This would be that guidance. Otherwise if you bring a second person along and something goes wrong the burden of proof is going to be squarely on you to explain why the second person needed to be aboard. This program would involve a change to guidance, not regulation, so there is still some room for the FSDOs to be flexible while giving us leverage against those who are not.

[Jim Hann]

Unfortunately Wes is correct - The FAA usually interprets the "minimum crew" rule to mean the minimum crew required in all flight regimes. Some builders have had luck getting authorization from their FSDO to have a second person aboard in very specific circumstances (and the Lancair community has arranged a "second pilot" program at the FSDO level), but these are generally the exception rather than the rule. In general, the Agency is going to rule conservatively unless they have guidance that allows them to be more flexible. This would be that guidance. Otherwise if you bring a second person along and something goes wrong the burden of proof is going to be squarely on you to explain why the second person needed to be aboard. This program would involve a change to guidance, not regulation, so there is still some room for the FSDOs to be flexible while giving us leverage against those who are not.
Thanks Tom.

[WLIU]

For folks who would like to see the manner in which the FAA thinks and how they direct their FSDO staff to view and process applications for Letters Of Deviation Authority (LODA), the official work instructions for FSDO staff is online at http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v03%20tech%20admin/chapter%2011/03_011_001.pdf.

Most pilots find doing paperwork much less rewarding than going flying. This likely explains the low participation in the program.

I will suggest that if the kit plane manufacturers and/or builder associations put together training syllabus' that LODA applicants could use, the application paperwork burden would go down perhaps encouraging more appliclicants and a large pool of LODA holders would improve safety. The FAA has a history of favoring that type of standardization.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Tom Charpentier]

Sonex put together a very good guide (including example application materials) for LODAs based on their experience, which can be found here: http://sonexfoundation.com/Obtaining_a_LODA.html. We're happy to help as much as we can (especially when it comes to policy, which we always strive to make less burdensome), but ultimately the ones who have firsthand knowledge of the actual application process are the best experts on that process. Jeremy, Joe, Robbie, and rest of the gang at Sonex and the Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation were very gracious in making the materials and lessons learned from setting up their factory-run "T-Flight" program available to all.

[rleffler]

Unfortunately Wes is correct - The FAA usually interprets the "minimum crew" rule to mean the minimum crew required in all flight regimes. Some builders have had luck getting authorization from their FSDO to have a second person aboard in very specific circumstances (and the Lancair community has arranged a "second pilot" program at the FSDO level), but these are generally the exception rather than the rule. In general, the Agency is going to rule conservatively unless they have guidance that allows them to be more flexible. This would be that guidance. Otherwise if you bring a second person along and something goes wrong the burden of proof is going to be squarely on you to explain why the second person needed to be aboard. This program would involve a change to guidance, not regulation, so there is still some room for the FSDOs to be flexible while giving us leverage against those who are not.

The FSDO inspector that did my aircraft was very supportive of having a second crew member in the final hours of testing in technically advance aircraft. The debate I've had with others is when do you draw that line between initial flight testing (which should have a single crew member) and the more advance testing of the avionics. The issue is that if you have you head in the EFIS, autopilot, GPS, ADSB, etc documenting metrics, settings, result, or perhaps even changing configurations that are safe to change in flight, someboy else needs to be looking out the window for traffic. My personal belief that somepoint around the mid-point of the forty hour Phase I may be appropriate for the transition.

The concern that I have is more of the process. It has been suggested to me in the past from various local FSDO inspectors that just to drop them an email or give them a call when I would possibly have a second crewmember. The concern is two fold. One is the FSDO inspector authorized to allow a second crewmember where traditionally a second crewmember wasn't deemed needed. Second, the document trail to establish you were clearly authorized by the FAA for use of a second crewmember. I clearly don't want to find out after an incident that I voided my insurance.

[Mike M]

The challenge is that the FAA does not have to make a case, they just leave everything as it is.


Concur fully. That is exactly what we want. No change.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/1ba6ee60e8779bd7862572c90063c0ac/$FILE/Order%208130.2f%20incorp%20with%20chg%203.pdf"

(10)During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight
unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight.

As it is now, the FAA does not define "essential to the purpose of the flight" which by default means it is up to the aircraft manufacturer to delineate minimum crew for a particular flight depending on the purpose of that flight - which is why the limitations state that! Aircraft manufacturer, the entity with the best knowledge of the experimental one-off unique aircraft and what is required to safely operate it during the particular flight within the test phase. Not all flights forever, not yet, the test phase isn't done; but the best knowledge of what is needed for the particular flight within the test period. WRITE UP A TEST PLAN and KEEP A COPY ON THE GROUND. The FAA does not require submission before the flight, nor require they approve each one before each flight. But if something goes wrong they will want to be able to cover themselves with paper showing it wasn't their fault. That's all that's going on here, folks. Don't make this more complicated than it has to be and DON'T give away what has worked for decades. If you haven't been using common sense to improve aviation safety, stop trying to hamstring those who have!