Experimental Amateur Built trans - Part 2
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•278 views
Experimental Amateur Built trans - Part 2
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from FAA Safety Team Central Florida
More from FAA Safety Team Central Florida (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Experimental Amateur Built trans - Part 2
- 2. What happened in 2009?
- 3. What should be in the curriculum? • Systems • Procedures • Performance • Limitations • Maintenance
- 4. Some Rules • Cannot give instruction per 14 cfr 91.319 while aircraft is in Phase 1 (usually 25-40 hours since new) • Cannot give instruction in an experimental aircraft if aircraft is operated for hire (unless you have a Letter of Deviation (LODA) from FSDO).
- 5. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 6. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 7. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 8. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 9. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 10. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 11. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 12. Let’s discuss some scenarios… VS
- 13. FMI
- 14. Summary Summary • Get Experience Before You Fly • Seek Advice From Type Clubs • Read AC 90-109 • Get Training Yourself!
- 15. WWW.SAFEPILOTS.ORG WWW.FAASAFETY.GOV Thanks to: Jeff Edwards Lancair Owners and Builders Organization Experimental Aviation Association Gold Seal Flight WWW.GOLDSEALFLIGHT.COM Written by: Doug Stewart
Editor's Notes
- Graph courtesy of LOBO (Lancair Owners and Builders Organization) It is interesting to note that the accident rate goes down almost exponentially with experience but another important factor, not shown in this graph, is the fact that the accident rate for pilots that belong to a type club are categorically much lower than for those pilots that do not belong to a type club. The next slide addresses the effectiveness of Type Clubs!
- Five Lancair owners formed LOBO in October 2008. It was no coincidence that LOBO was formed during the worst year for Lancair accidents. In two years the Lancair fleet went from the worst accident rate since 1989 to the best. Type clubs work—people who belong to type clubs have a significantly lower accident rate than non-members.
- Systems. • Fuel. • Electrical. • Hydraulic. •Flight control. •Landing gear. •Ventilation/heating/pressurization. • Avionics. Procedures. • Normal. • Abnormal. • Emergency. Performance. •Takeoff and landing. • Climb. • Cruise. • Descent. • Glide. Limitations. • Weight. • CG. • Speeds. • Kinds of operation. • Crosswind.•Landing surface. Maintenance Preflight Inspection. Owner limits: 1. The operating limitations will tell you who can do the work. No certificate or rating of any kind is required to perform maintenance, repair, or modification on an experimental amateur-built aircraft. The only time a specific certificate is necessary is when performing the condition inspection each year, as required by the aircraft's operating limitations. The limitations usually say "Only the builder, when certificated as the repairman, mechanics holding an A & P rating, and appropriately rated repair stations may conduct the condition inspection required by the operating limitations".. 2. If amateur-built, buyer probably can do the work, except for the annual "condition inspection". and 3. That condition inspection will probably have to be done by an A & P, since there are no "appropriately rated repair stations" for non-certified experimental aircraft
- Click for bullets. It is important to emphasize that instructors ARE NOT considered “required crew members” during the first 40 hours of newly built airplane flying, although efforts have been undertaken to change this particularly with respect to the Lancair. A person may always take flight instruction in an experimental aircraft that he/she owns. There is no restriction on flight instruction in an experimental aircraft. The restriction comes when using the aircraft FOR HIRE to instruct others. There is no prohibition against training in an experimental aircraft. The only limitation is that the aircraft cannot "carry persons or property for compensation or hire". This means that a third party cannot rent the aircraft to use for training. Owners of the aircraft are allowed to receive training, as are non-owners who can borrow the aircraft without paying a fee for its use. The flight instructor is allowed to receive compensation for his/her services, as this is not related to the rental of the aircraft itself. Even if the instructor built or owned the airplane they could give instruction in an amateur-built aircraft so long as no fee was charged for the use of the aircraft itself. The instructor would be allowed to charge a reasonable fee for their instruction.
- The following series of slides are designed to stimulate discussion on the “differences”. Some are obvious and will require minimum, if any, discussion. Others might stimulate a heated debate. Remember the list of “differences” referenced in an earlier slide to help guide the discussion. Try to focus on the considerations of differences between the aircraft or panels in each separate slide. Air Creations Trike on left, Challenger II on right. Both are high drag / low inertia aircraft with perhaps similar instrumentation. However all similarities stop there… Amongst the many differences one area that should definitely be touched upon that might not be readily identified has to do with the engine. The trike has a four stroked Rotax, the Challenger has a two stroke.
- C152 vs C162. Although the Skycatcher is not an E/AB airplane and is technically an ASTM “ certified ” S-LSA airplane the transition issues remain the same. Considerations include: Performance; Stability; Controllability; Maneuverability; Systems; Avionics
- On the left is a Grumman AA-1, on the right a Vans RV 6A. There are numerous similarities, but are they at all alike???
- On the left is a Corvalis on the right a Lancair ES. The Corvalis is a Part 123 certificated airplane, The Lancair is an experimental, amateur built airplane. Whereas outward appearance might lead one to believe that they exhibit great similarity the fact is that they don’t! They might (read probably) have vastly different handling characteristics, stall behaviors, etc. Each individual amateur built experimental aircraft possessing high wing loading and stall speeds in excess of 61 knots can have unique handling, stability, and stall characteristics. These design characteristics, while allowing for higher operational speeds, can expose pilots to additional risk during slow- speed operations while close to the ground and with little time to recover from an unintentional stall. Understanding these differences is critical for safe operation of such aircraft. It behooves us as instructors to spend as much time as is necessary to insure that we, and our clients in these types of aircraft have a thorough understanding of the specific airplane’s slow flight and stall characteristics. Some experimental aircraft may have undesirable stall characteristics (roll > 100 degrees); may have no natural or artificial stall warning; and may not recover from spins. Some EAB aircraft may be permitted to perform certain aerobatic maneuvers by the builder but may not be suitable for aerobatics or have a Vn envelope capable of safely performing high g maneuvers.
- Each airplane is a Lancair ES, but each has been built by a different person. Each individually built airplane has it’s own specific idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics. They might (read probably) have vastly different handling characteristics, stall behaviors, etc. (Note: indicated airspeeds can be as much as 10-20% off if the pitot tube or static port is not in the proper location, or if not properly calibrated and verified).
- Both panels are fitted to a Vans RV4. The differences are obvious. Even though an instructor might have hours flying behind a G1000 / GNS700 AP does this prepare them to teach a Dynon panel with a Tru-Trac autopilot?
- As long as we are discussing panels and avionics this might be an appropriate time to discuss the importance of instructors having knowledge and experience of all the different systems available prior to their offering instruction in same. Too often instructors are learning the systems in a “learn as they go” modality. This is a great disservice to the client, and more importantly a dangerous practice as quite often both sets of eyes are inside the cockpit trying to figure out “why’d it do that???” Just because an instructor is intimately familiar with one system does in no way mean they can instruct another system. Same goes for examiners!
- Both are Cirrus panels. On the left is the Garmin Perspective, on the right the Avidyne R9. Although both are glass panels integrated with sophisticated autopilots, the similarities stop there! Again this begs the question: If you know and can teach one panel, does that mean you can teach the other???
- For More Information this is the FAA webpage where AC 90-109 can be found
- The presenter must now summarize the preceding discussions. I hope you ’ve been taking notes. :~}