Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:42:58 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1711250@logan.com>
Reply-To: <IIP@hawaii.rr.com>
From: "IIP" <IIP@hawaii.rr.com>
Subject: test pilot
Organization: IIP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal

I have to say it: Jim Hankins=92 comment about testing the airplane
yourself or don=92t build the airplane is ridiculous. So, no one should
build an airplane unless he/she is qualified to be its test pilot? Or,
test the airplane up to the limit of the builder's abilities? Or, worse
yet, try to test it to some macho standard that is beyond his/her
capabilities? All of these are patently stupid. Of course you have to
beware of the qualifications of a would-be test pilot. Why is that such
a big deal? Instead of discouraging people from using professional,
qualified test pilots, we should be motivating a growing stable of
qualified test pilots with experience in a broad range of aircraft. To
my mind, there are very few builders who should be flight testing
airplanes. There is nothing in the build process that would even mildly
qualify one as a test pilot. Even a builder who is a great pilot with
thousands of hours is likely not qualified to be a test pilot.

As I research testing the airplane and developing a proper POH, I am
finding that there is not much help out there on either subject. This is
a major area of deficiency in experimental airplanes. The EAA needs to
focus more on organizing a pool of trained, qualified test pilots with
standards, and on the construction of a standardized POH after the
building is done. I=92m sure there are old, bold pilots who will scoff =
at
my conservatism, but so be it. I did attend my own honeymoon, but I had
all the prior experience I needed.

Brian Barbata
LIVP-T  99%