Amateur-built planes more likely to crash

[facthunter]

The "justice" of that may be appropriate Yenn, but there should be NO major flaw(s). There is never a life and death need to fly a plane at that particular time (unless the indians are coming over the hill). After years of building there would be some anticipation of the "reward ' of the labours but a few of the planes that I have seen being prepared did not fill me with the desire to fly them. I have done some test flying over the years and as far as I can recall there was always something wrong that could have been a bit serious. As far as I'm concerned you can't have too much checking ( in a real way) but this should be as the plane is being built.

 

I don't think that the SAAA can cover their test and conversion thing easily as they have a massive range of planes that are built. although most of them are RV's . Instructors out there couldn't be expected to be familiar in any way with some of them . They include one -off jets. Dispensations to allow conversions by other than instructors have been used in the past. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Philaarh yes, but we have a 'test schedule' to follow which allows you to find out the 'performance of your plane. IMO the LAA has TOO MUCH control over what you guys do & they have prevented IFR in homebuilts as well & charge heaps of fees etc & you have to go through their approval process anytime you want to do a mod. An example of how much out of control they are was the case of an RV owner who was required to get engineering justification from DYNON re the Auto Pilot install brackets.

 

Talking of IFR, my Glasair was built under 101.28 (certified, but I was not allowed to sign off the maintenace release annually) & flew for 10 + years (including 2 'big' trips over water to NZ etc). Then I changed it to Experimental category, plane doesn't know the difference & is still IFR. Why is is so difficult for the LAA to allow IFR there especially given the high numbers of VFR aircraft having CFIT fatalities ?

 

With regards to test flights as NEV said earlier, it IS about ATTITUDE which covers just about everything. We don't need more regulation but just for pilots to think seriously of whether they are really up to the task of flying a generally high performance, low inertia, extremely responsive (adepending on aircraft type) aircraft that they haven't flown before. From my observation most pilots are too emotionally (& financially) involved with their plane to be able to make cool calculated decisions on their first flight.

 

From what I've heard in the USA a lot of builders conider it much smarter for someone else to do the first flight, whereas some here probably think they'd be called a wuss if they didn't test fly. Go figure.

 

We don't need more regulation & just use our head more rather than our heart . Off soapbox now

Hi Again Jake, I'm not really certain what your point is here,. . . . . you are saying that the LAA doesn't allow IFR, NO that's the CAA. Big difference. The LAA are allowed to issue permits to fly, and have been delgated the rights to organise the promulgation of engineering info, and the approval of new types. The CAA have the over-riding authority in all other matters. Incidentally, if you build an aeroplane under the BMAA umbrella, then things are relatively similar, but it's all oversighted by the dreaded CAA.

 

And if you are actually saying that you think it's a good idea for an aircraft builder to test fly his own aircraft, then I'm sorry mate, that just ain't logical., unless the builder has some serious experience, and is able to interpret minor, or sometimes Major quirks which new aircraft can sometimes exhibit, and compensate with EXPERIENCE, rather than allow someone with less, or even NO experience of typpe to lose it and waste all that time in the garage after work. . . and possibly die in the process. . . then I'd have to lean towards the test pilot route, these guys in the UK, by the way, only charge expenses,. . . and do the work because they love it, sometimes driving hundreds of miles to test fly YOUR plane, to make certain that you have not screwed something up in the build, so If I misinterpreted your post, please forgive me.

 

If you have to pay a Commercial / military type test pilot in OZ, then perhaps I can see why you'd maybe shy away from such expense, but it still wouldn't make a crapload of sense in my view mate.

 

Kind regards,

 

Phil

 

 

[Bandit12]

If you read US forums like http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/forum.php generally there is quite a bit of concern and bordering on criticism of builders who want to test fly their own aircraft. Of course, it is very much a case by case situation, and those that are very current on similar types generally attract no critics and those that design and build their own single seat part 103 ultralight and seek to test it - sometimes with no flying experience at all - tend to cop a lot more criticism. And rightly so, given that it is lives and potentially everyone else's hobby that are at risk.

 

Personally, I hope to build my own and also test fly it one day. But I would also be planning to get quite a bit of time on similar types and plenty of recency before actually doing it.

 

 

[facthunter]

The general view is that the owner builder also being the test pilot is a BAD idea. There are going to be times when this is not applicable due to the extensive flying experience of some builders and If the engine is the untested part the builder of the engine might make a good case for testing the whole thing. What is apparent is that on occasions there will not be anyone who is familiar with that specific design. Someone who has tested/flown many varied types will still have picked up a lot of usefull knowledge and being more versatile will handle something going wrong better and what's more significant be able to detect the problem before it gets out of hand, in many cases. Flying similar planes would help anyone proposing to fly something and of course being current is a must. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Philaarh yes, but we have a 'test schedule' to follow which allows you to find out the 'performance of your plane. IMO the LAA has TOO MUCH control over what you guys do & they have prevented IFR in homebuilts as well & charge heaps of fees etc & you have to go through their approval process anytime you want to do a mod. An example of how much out of control they are was the case of an RV owner who was required to get engineering justification from DYNON re the Auto Pilot install brackets.

 

Talking of IFR, my Glasair was built under 101.28 (certified, but I was not allowed to sign off the maintenace release annually) & flew for 10 + years (including 2 'big' trips over water to NZ etc). Then I changed it to Experimental category, plane doesn't know the difference & is still IFR. Why is is so difficult for the LAA to allow IFR there especially given the high numbers of VFR aircraft having CFIT fatalities ?

 

With regards to test flights as NEV said earlier, it IS about ATTITUDE which covers just about everything. We don't need more regulation but just for pilots to think seriously of whether they are really up to the task of flying a generally high performance, low inertia, extremely responsive (adepending on aircraft type) aircraft that they haven't flown before. From my observation most pilots are too emotionally (& financially) involved with their plane to be able to make cool calculated decisions on their first flight.

 

From what I've heard in the USA a lot of builders conider it much smarter for someone else to do the first flight, whereas some here probably think they'd be called a wuss if they didn't test fly. Go figure.

 

We don't need more regulation & just use our head more rather than our heart . Off soapbox now

JAKE. . . . . My apologies, I obviously did not read your post correctly, which means we are basically in agreement. Please ignore first reply.

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

Going back to the initial post. Generally they are, but a particular "amateur built" Plane could be (in theory) better built than a production aircraft and I am sure that some are. Some of the factory built planes that we think are well made are actually not and the only way the average person will ever find out is when they corrode or have an accident and the aircraft is required to be repaired. I won't be specific on this except to say I will never buy one of the makes out there unless there has been a big improvement in the way they are assembled.

 

Certified planes can't easily be improved either. You are stuck with the original certified version." Home built" is the most variable. I would be reluctant ( and probably would not even try) to purchase one unless I knew the builder and had seen it being built, or an extensive inspection was able to be carried out... Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

I have had first-hand experience of amateur-built aircraft with dangerous deficiencies. Flight testing a Pazmany PL-4: stall in a turn - I was unable to prevent it from suddenly entering a spin and it would go for about a turn before it stopped so lost nearly 1,000 ft. A friend bought a Mustang II but rarely flew it as it scared him - I had a flight with him and understood why - landing flare with full flap it would, without warning drop a wing substantially and uncontrollably. A Laser which would consider drop a wing excessively at the stall, hard to spin upright in one direction, inverted would not spin in one direction and oscillatory in the other - poor upright and inverted snap roll behaviour.

 

All fixed with appropriate configurations of wing stall strips.

 

 

[Sapphire]

I've spent quite a bit of time looking at homebuilts and reading about them-especially in the USA. It amazes me what deficiencies people will fly with. Wings have fallen off, fabric fallen off, cross threaded bolts and more wings falling off, marine fuel pump installed and melting apart, fueling a raging fire. I think fuel lines and fuel seals are the most overlooked item. Seen several pilots return almost "well done".

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I once thought that being a pretty good pilot [ my own opinion - THEN !! ] and only having a couple of decent crashes under my belt,. . .that becoming a test pilot might be a good idea, ( I was younger then ! ) and the way to get there in the UK is first to become a "Check Pilot" which means that , if you are familiar with the type, and have a reasonable amount of experience thereon, you are allowed to perform this function following a successful permit to fly renewal inspection, carried out by an inspector approved for that type.

 

The programme is quite straigtforward for these check flights, check for any obvious control anomalies, does the thing fly in a straight line ? how well does the pitch trim operate . . VNE dive and recovery, large control inputs at slightly below normal cruise speed and then Hands Off. . . to check for return to normal flight ( dynamic stability ) etc...etc... Nothing violent, and NOTHING approaching the programme of tests usually carried out by a test pilot for issue of the FIRST permit to fly.

 

Some of these inspectors are themselves, check pilots, but not all. In the case of the BMAA, it is possible to apply for, and be granted permission to "Check Fly" your own machine, with the aforementioned caveats, but not others of the same design, belonging to other people. . . . The PFA ( Now LAA ) used to allow another pilot, ( Not the owner ) to perform this function, but this has now been clouded a bit, and I'm not really sure what's going on at the moment, as I'm no longer a member of that organisation, and due to imminent rule changes brought on by the impending E.A.S.A. regulations, all this may soon change radically. Most of our test pilots seem to stick to a particular type range, although there are a few who fly several different types, they must really eat and sleep and dream flying, and be very good at the aeronautical arithmetic as well as aircraft type engineeering specifics / specifications to remain qualified so to do. And they do all this as a hobby - - - - for expenses only.! ! !

 

One of my good friends has been an inspector and check pilot for many years, and is ( in my opinion ) vastly experienced with around 18,000 hours flying microlights since the very early days,( He flew the second actually recorded cross country in one in the early 70s )

 

But he fell foul of new regulations, ( didn't read his mail ) where the authorities had banned the carrying of the onwer / pilot during a permit remewal check flight, because of bloody "Elf 'N' Safety" concerns. He was suspended for six months from any check flying, following an engine failure on takeoff at very low level, which even HE with all his experience, couldn't do anything with, and the aeroplane cartwheeled., ( no injuries )

 

Bit severe I thought. . . .

 

Oh well,

 

Might consider it when I retire, as there are still several types in which I have not crashed. ( If I can still pass the medical ! ! ! ) Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Nothing in Oz stops us from getting training in a similar aircraft to what we build. Only restraint is that the owner cannot legally recover all of the cost of the flight.there are dedicated people in SAAA who let you fly with hem in their plane and get a feel of how competent you are.

As far as doing test flying yourself there are two ways to look at it. firstly someone else may be more competent on type, but secondly if there is a major flaw in the construction then it is better for the builder to kill himself than somebody else.

I can't believe you just said that Yenn. . . . the MAIN REASON we have a test pilot / test flight regime in the UK is precisely to PREVENT an owner / builder from bloody well killing himself due to an oversight in the building or riggging of his home built aaircraft.

 

The BMAA / LAA have highly experienced test / check pilots, most of whom are highly conversant with building and rigging techniques where the owner may not be so well endowed. AND I HAVE TO TAKE SERIOUS ISSUE WITH YOUR COMMENT THAT "IT IS BETTER THAT THE OWNER KILLS HIMSELF. . . . . " Balderdash mate, you are talking absolute garbage ( In my opinion, - - - others may disagree ) I would much rather have a competent test pilot, who is very conversant with the type in question, fly my plane after a new build than me, ( even though I've flown things that would curdle custard ) this isn't the point, . . . the point is that NO ONE without some serious experience ON THE TYPE should EVER be allowed to test a flying machine unless they have enough experience to be able to sort out or even solve problems which appear in the air, any of which can quite well arise during first flight / test flight programme.

 

If you are happy to test your own build, and have enough experience to do this safely, then that's fine. But in my experience, MOST builders / pilots are not endowed with such experience. and all their hard work in the shed for a few years is wasted in a pointless loss of control smash-up, where an experienced TP could well have reported a couple of problems, recovered from the resulting weird flight envelope problem, and suggested the remedy, AND THEN re-tested the damn thing to make sure it was IDIOT PROOF. . . . ..

 

Just a thought mate, and NO OFFENCE INTENDED ( I used to be good at karate, but I'm getting on a bit now. . . )

 

Cheers. . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Could be to do with Aust having way smaller population, less test pilots with confidence to jump in a homebuilt let alone to have "time" in every model and configuration.If these rule applied getting test flights done would be difficult for all but common kits.

Volunteers mate, but I agree that there may not be as many of these available in OZ, so your point is taken. Phil.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

As I've posted elsewhere, owner/builders should be able to undergo parallel transition training in the same type as they are building. This is allowed in the US and particularly helps VANS RV builders because there are quite a number of FAA approved CFI's able to offer this training.....but, in the instructors' own EXP built aircraft. Here, we can only offer the owner training - in his own aircraft - and only then after it has been test flown and Phase 1 completed. (25 or 40 hrs). The new SAAA initiative has not convinced CASA to allow this in Australia - at least not so far. Owners have to either take the risk of a DYO test flying exercise - or wait until after the aircraft is through Phase 1.Yenn, the issue is whether you can legally do some training in an RV4 that you don't own. If it's owner was both brave and well insured, I guess there's nothing to stop you 'self familiarising'........... bit like we did in Pawnees and Agwgons many moons ago. However, you can't actually do 'dual' in someone elses' aircraft, although carrying a 'safety pilot' in the other seat might get around this - provided you remained the PIC.

 

happy days,

Totally agree POT,

 

If the regs don't allow it, BUT IT MAKES FOR COMMONSENSE then by all means fly with a new pilot as P2, or "Passenger" or whatever you have to do to make the situation legal. If it gives the bloke some experience of what the airframe can, and more importantly CAN'T do, then all the better. ( As long as the bugger pays for some of the fuel,. . or buys the breakfasts. . . . ! )

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

Testing is rarely (if at all) allowed a passenger in RAAus. One way of limiting the risk till 25 hours flown . Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

That is what happens here, you fly in a similar plane to what you built with a qualified pilot to get some time in the air. that is what I shall be doing.

 

It gets a bit hard if you buiild a single seater, which I have done.In that case there was nobody alongside to help out so you had to have the courage of your own convictions. First flight I had a cylinder head gasket blow, when I decided to go around instead of landing. Interesting.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

That is what happens here, you fly in a similar plane to what you built with a qualified pilot to get some time in the air. that is what I shall be doing.It gets a bit hard if you buiild a single seater, which I have done.In that case there was nobody alongside to help out so you had to have the courage of your own convictions. First flight I had a cylinder head gasket blow, when I decided to go around instead of landing. Interesting.

That's a tough one mate, but I've no doubt that talking to other owners and gleaning as much info as possible has to be the best way of doing it as you've said, which is all you really CAN do with a Single seat home built. . . . few ground runs, getting quicker each time, few bunny hops . . . .see how the controls respond at near to flying speed, especially if you've got the luxury of a nice long strip to play with too and then I guess . . .wait for a nice calm day, put on an armoured motorcycle jacket and a skid lid, and go for it ! ! ! I hope the rest of the testing goes well anyway. . . I think someone said it was 25 hours,. same in the UK with a new build jobbie, but in the case of a 2 seat type, after the test pilot has finished with it and signed it off, you are allowed to carry a passenger during the 25 hour proving period, but only to around four designated airfields, ( You designate these yourself )

 

I guess that, apart from the mandatory test pilot business, the procedure isn't that much different from here.

 

Phil

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Another dimension to this discussion: ethics. The test pilot can be the bunny, and must be made aware of all relevant information.

 

I know of an aircraft which suffered a severe mouse invasion. After it was cleaned out, the owner was not game to fly it, so arranged for an engineer to collect it for servicing, without telling him of the mouse issue.

 

Test flying problem solved.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Another dimension to this discussion: ethics. The test pilot can be the bunny, and must be made aware of all relevant information.I know of an aircraft which suffered a severe mouse invasion. After it was cleaned out, the owner was not game to fly it, so arranged for an engineer to collect it for servicing, without telling him of the mouse issue.

Test flying problem solved.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

Hi Mate, . . . good story, but not nice when a failure to reveal certain info could result in the case of a female engineer suddenly seeing a mouse which had been missed,. . . and standing on the pilots seat screaming . . . ? You DID say ENGINEER,. . . and not TEST PILOT didn't you ? . . . ( I DO know a couple of female test jockeys named Fiona and Joan,. . . . but . . . trust me, they can bend steel with their bare words. . . Caroline Grace is pretty good at testing rebuilt Spitfires [ real ones ] too, but she has got a heck of a temper and doesn't suffer fools lightly. . . . ) My mate John Hamer is a well respected microlight and LSA test pilot, and although he LOOKS like a bit of a rodent, . . . he isn't that worried about encountering another one in an aeroplane,. . . but on a completely different tack,. . I was delivering a Rotax 532 powered Rans S-10 from Blackpool to our place at Otherton once upon a time,. . . with these shoulder wing type machines, you view the tank contents in the wing roots to your left and right. . . . I noticed a live and well animated mouse in the right wing tank viewing port, and it seemed quite happy with the way I was flying. . . no complaints received anyway, and I wasn't at all cheesed off with the additional passenger, as it was that sodding turbulent on the day, that it didn't seem to affect the balance at all. . . . . . although, I suppose, in an extreme turbulence created departure from normal flight,. . .it could well have caused a Minnie wing drop. . . ( Oh - stop it now ! )

 

I DID however, report the mousey sighting to the new owner, and suggested that perhaps he find and remove same, as they DO tend to gnaw at things when they are feeling a little esulient,. . . including fuel hoses, and wiring etc. . . . Of topic. . . . .I did once land out in a farmer's field, tied the wing down into the grass, and had a frog drop onto my lap whilst taxying the trike for takeoff the next morning, . . . but I digress. . . I was already nideep in navigational concerns at the time. . . . .

 

Phil