FAA Publishes Additional Pilot Program

September 26, 2014 - The FAA recently released AC 90-116, the Additional Pilot Program (APP) for Phase I flight testing. EAA advocacy and safety staff worked closely with members of EAA’s Homebuilt Aircraft Council, Safety Committee, and the FAA to craft the program, which will allow homebuilders to have a qualified additional pilot on board their aircraft during Phase I flights. Before this program, 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.

This policy change comes after years of data suggesting that the most accidents in the E-AB fleet occur in aircraft during their first eight hours of operation, and that the majority of those accidents were related to pilot loss of control and were preventable. EAA and FAA hope to drastically reduce the rate of these accidents by having an appropriately qualified and experienced additional pilot on board the aircraft with the builder who can fly the aircraft safely, even in the face of unexpected rigging problems or engine stoppages.

The APP is a completely voluntary alternative program, and builders who want to undertake the first flights of their aircraft alone are not affected in any way. The program is currently available to builders of most E-AB kits with manufacturer recommended engine installations.

“This is the first time that builders can get the best of both worlds: going airborne on the plane’s first flights and having an experienced test pilot on board to add an additional layer of safety,” said Tom Charpentier, EAA government advocacy specialist. “The APP is a great example of a program that is a constructive response to safety data, and it has significant potential to reduce the number of Phase I accidents for our community. We hope this will set the stage for additional positive reforms in the future.”

The policy change makes so much common sense it's surprising the FAA approved it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

The policy change makes so much common sense it's surprising the FAA approved it.

---

I'm of the opposite opinion. Test flying and pilot training/familiarization are completely different functions and shouldn't be combined. When combined, they put two souls at risk when there is no need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Boatright

I'm of the opposite opinion. Test flying and pilot training/familiarization are completely different functions and shouldn't be combined. When combined, they put two souls at risk when there is no need.

---

That's a very reasonable point, and believe me, we considered the "two souls at risk" problem very carefully and we approached it from a skeptical perspective (we also involved experts from the military and GA flight test communities who are dedicated EAA members and homebuilders). Here's what we concluded: because mechanical failure is a minority factor in Phase I accidents, and most people hurt themselves due to loss of control caused by unfamiliarity with the aircraft, adding the second, experienced and current pilot will mitigate the human factor-related accidents to the point that the additional pilot is worth it. The fundamental question is "will this cut the accident rate in half or better for people who use this program properly," thereby justifying the risk. Our honest assessment is "Yes."

The builder will need to become familiar with his/her aircraft at some point, and right now the only way to do that is solo unless a test pilot is going to fly all 40/25 hours. Even with prior transition training in a similar type (which we still strongly recommend), every E-AB airplane is a little different. If you're experienced enough in similar type to make a smooth transition, great! This program will always be optional and you don't have to use it. Otherwise, it's sometimes nice to have someone else work through the intricacies with you, at an appropriate time during Phase I. For example, on our staff-built Zenith 750 STOL, the aircraft that was available for transition training for our test pilots had a Rotax 912iS while ours has a legacy O-200. Ours flies similar but not quite the same due to the heavier, carbureted engine. It would have been nice for some of our less experienced test pilots to have taken the "hand off" from our first flight pilot.

The program also allows for an "observer pilot" in the latter hours of Phase I after the fundamental airworthiness of the airplane and the familiarity of the builder is proven (as long as the observer pilot has a documented reason to be there, i.e. no joyriding). This also would have been helpful in testing our Zeniths, because I was the electronics wonk for our staff build and have the most familiarity with the Dynon system, but I chose not to be part of the flight test team because we had better-qualified pilots. Rather than coaching the pilot through the various calibrations and having his head down trying to figure out the EFIS while flying, wouldn't it have been better to have me up there working the system while the pilot focused on flying? We actually held off on calibrating some non-essential systems until after Phase I so I could ride along for this purpose.

I hope that clears up a few questions, but please feel free to ask away if you have more.

I noticed that the new rule appears to exclude plans built aircraft. What about those that are normally kit built, but the builder elected to build from plans instead of the standard kit? I am thinking of a friend with a brand new Sonex that he elected to build from plans rather than the standard kit. His airplane is standard sonex in every way with no deviation. He would like to take advantage of this new program, but he is unsure if he can.

"...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."

Written reference, please, for the "legal requirement" ?

The requirement is normally written into the operating limitations for the aircraft, in the Phase I section. At this moment, I do not recall which chapter of the FAA's online manuals controls how these are done, but you should be able to find it.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

FAA inspectors generate operating limitations based on the guidance laid out in Order 8130.2G.

I deleted my original post in this thread because I FINALLY FOUND THE WRITTEN GUIDANCE that amends FAA Order 8130.2G!

They did it with deviations and memos, the administrative equivalent of shims and wedges.

The FAA amended E/AB limits (6) and (10) by inserting the phrase, "unless operating in accordance with advisory circular 90-116...only the minimum crew necessary to fly the aircraft during normal flight operations may be on board." I'm not sure if that will go into all E/AB limitations immediately, or if it only will go to those eligible to use the APP.

Either way, it still doesn't require solo flight, which is good.

"Flightcrew member" is defined in CFR 14 Pt 1.1. "Minimum crew" is new to these limitations (replacing "essential to the purpose of the flight") and is undefined. As is this fresh usage of "normal flight operations." At least, I can't find those in CFR 14 Pt 1.1. If you've got a written reference, I'm open to correction.

AC 90-89 (the Amateur-Built Flight Test Handbook) documents an FAA-issued outline for a particular series of flights. What they expect to be done. In the absence of a better definition, one could logically argue that's what's normal. If logic applied to FAA Orders. Anyway, based on that, I believe either the old or the revised limitations verbiage still allow an aircraft manufacturer who cannot use the APP because of its applicability restrictions to create and implement a test plan, including the minimum number of flightcrew members the manufacturer deems essential to safely operating the aircraft and installed equipment on each flight, while using AC 90-89 as the source for the normal operations the FAA expects to be conducted during Phase I.

Which does NOT allow for flight instruction of a new owner, does NOT allow taking the builder's spouse for a ride, does NOT allow a whole bunch of things. Does allow a second flightcrew member to conduct essential functions delineated in the written test plan implementing AC 90-89 such as testing systems, ensuring proper operations, documenting test results, managing avionics and collision avoidance, etc etc.

Don't ask, don't tell. - Bill Clinton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

Ops Limit #10. People essential to the purpose of the flight MAY be carried. Allows crewmembers (see 14 CFR 1.1). Doesn't prohibit minimum required crew as per manufacturer's test sequence for installed systems and equipment, and doesn't limit to solo. Still searching for the written legal requirement for solo flight. Gotta be one, everybody knows it's true. Where is it?

---

Show me a single engine E/AB aircraft that has a minimum required crew of more than one person.

Since you're only "essential" to the purpose of the flight if you're "required crew", and since only one person is "required crew", by deduction, only one person is allowed in the plane during Phase I (until now).

There may be some E/AB aircraft for which there are two crewmembers required, but I've never seen one. For those, Phase I would allow a 2nd crewmember.

Solo flight is not explicitly called out - it's a derivation of the definitions and restrictions. Arguments have been made that the pilot gets to decide whether someone is "essential" ("Hey - I can't fly the plane and take data at the same time"), but that hasn't been the FAA's interpretation of the rules.

From the new AC:

b. Increasing Safety. During Phase I testing, the minimum crew for typical E-AB aircraft
and all E-LSA is one. Operating limitations issued for Phase I operations currently restrict the
number on board an aircraft to minimum flightcrew.

By the transitive property, if MC =1 and # on Board = MC, then # on Board = 1 :-).

Just my $0.02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin

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.

[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.

[QUOTE=Jonathan Harger;45335]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

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.

[QUOTE=cdrmuetzel@juno.com;45336]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Harger

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.

[QUOTE=Jonathan Harger;45360]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

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...

[QUOTE=Jonathan Harger;45360]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin

...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

[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

...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?