Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:20:05 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [198.175.229.250] (HELO babbler.bmc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b2) with ESMTP id 2110041 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:09:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2-BMC/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38FAJd20632 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:10:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: babbler.bmc.com: iscan owned process doing -bs Received: from pdavis.bmc.com (pdavis@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h38F97M30983 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:09:08 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <200304081509.h38F97M30983@localhost.localdomain> X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: pdavis owned process doing -bs X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Pgp-Action: PGP/MIME-signclear; rfc822=off; originator="Paul Davis " From: "Paul Davis" Reply-to: "Paul Davis" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: [LML] test flying In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:04:13 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Original-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:09:07 -0500 Ted> I was told that the regs are iron-clad. There is no exception Ted> since there is no reason for a second person to be needed in Ted> a single engine airplane as a "required crew member" for any Ted> purpose. Probably preachin' to the choir, but I don't get this. My wife and I are both instrument rated, and we've invested a fair amount of effort in learning to work as a "crew". Typically one of us flies the airplane -- period, full stop -- while the other does everything else: radios, nav, talking to ATC, handling charts, briefing approaches, etc, etc, etc. On the return trip, we reverse roles. If something goes wrong whoever is flying the airplane continues to do *just* that: fly the airplane. The other "works the problem". This just seems good, standard practice recommended by NASA *and* the FAA. And all the reasons that make this sort of arrangement desirable seem to apply -- in spades -- during the test phase of a new, experimental airplane where glitches, small and large, are virtually certain. This brain-dead FAA policy seems to guarantee that the sole pilot is going to have to split his/her attention just when the ca-ca hits the fan. How can this possibly do anything but *decrease* safety? Bureaucrats. Not to mention the desirability of having another set of eyes/ brain to monitor/record data. So what's the down-side of ignoring the regs and doing what I think is the prudent thing -- flying as a crew? What's the worst the FAA could do and under what circumstances might that happen (short of a crash)? ------------------- Bella horrida bella Wars, horrid wars Arguments are repl Aviation/Lancair/List /home/pdavis/Mail/drafts/332