X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:58:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4634199 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:48:36 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.3; envelope-from=n5zq@verizon.net Received: from p6520y ([unknown] [173.72.167.62]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LD400AC1N3LM553@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:47:47 -0600 (CST) X-Original-Message-id: <1E5A760F413D46AF9B681F0015613E60@p6520y> From: "Bill Harrelson" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Cc: , References: In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lancair 360 training X-Original-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:47:39 -0500 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0460_01CB96EF.3E480AD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3502.922 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3502.922 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0460_01CB96EF.3E480AD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeff & Wayne, I give flight instruction in 235/320/360 Lancairs. I would be very happy = to help you but I must point out a few legal technicalities: FAR 91.109(a): =E2=80=9CNo person may operate a civil aircraft (except = a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless = that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.=E2=80=9D=20 The FAA considers rudders and (because we have no nose wheel steering) = brakes to be a part of =E2=80=9Cdual controls=E2=80=9D. I have read = recent comments that persons have given dual in Lancairs without right = side rudders. I believe that those persons are taking on considerable = liability and risk of certificate action by doing so. I am not in a = position to take that risk. The FAA has been extremely clear that dual instruction is not permitted = in an aircraft that is still in phase I testing. The Operating = Limitations that are issued with your airworthiness certificate, the = FARs and many FAA rulings also make it crystal clear that experimental = aircraft may NOT be used for compensation or hire. Therefore, an = instructor can not give flight instruction in an aircraft supplied by = the instructor. A possible exception might be if the instructor made no = charge for his services and accepted no compensation whatever for the = use of his aircraft. Even this possible exception is not totally clear = from a legal standpoint. =20 Consequently, the information that you received from HPAT is not only = correct, but is the only possible course of action that they can legally = propose.=20 I hear your complaints that you feel =E2=80=9Cabandoned=E2=80=9D and = =E2=80=9Cscrewed=E2=80=9D. Although I understand, I do not agree. RV = kits come with dual rudders and brakes. With a Lancair it=E2=80=99s our = choice...your choice. The regulation requiring dual controls for flight = instruction is not new. I feel that you need to take some responsibility = for the decision not to install them. I would imagine that you realized = from early in construction that you=E2=80=99d need instruction in your = plane. =20 I hear your lamentation that LOBO should figure out how to solve the = problem of training. LOBO has been and is now hard at work to that end. = One answer is a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority). This is a letter = issued by the FAA that would offer specific exemptions to the = =E2=80=9Ccompensation or hire=E2=80=9D restrictions for flight training. = Nobody...I say again, nobody is pushing the FAA harder in this area than = LOBO. To the best of my knowledge, no LODAs have been issued by the FAA = although several have been applied for. They say that they are = formulating =E2=80=9Cguidance=E2=80=9D for their field offices.=20 I spent the past 2 days in Washington DC representing LOBO at a meeting = with the FAA. This was a meeting to revise guidance for Flight = Instructor certificate renewal but the main and constant topic was GA = safety. Among the 30 or so industry folks in attendance at this meeting = were many of the top people in aviation education (John and Martha, Dr. = Gleim, AOPA, Jeppesen among others) We had presentations from and very = frank discussions with several FAA people. These were not local FAA = inspectors but people up to the assistant administrator level. One = presentation was by the head of ASF-800, Mel Cintron. Mel is in charge = of all GA activities at FAA. He presented his list of the top 10 factors = in GA fatal accidents. Care to guess what he listed as number one? Yep, = amateur built aircraft. The people at these levels at FAA are under = tremendous pressure not just from the administrator but from Congress = and the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the accident rate. One = easy and obvious answer for them would be to greatly restrict amateur = built aircraft. I don=E2=80=99t believe that they want to do this (and = they said as much) but the possibility cannot be ignored. LOBO has met = with Mel Cintron before and has and will continue to press for relief = from the commercial training restrictions. Since this could help solve = their problem as well as ours I am cautiously optimistic that we will = start seeing LODAs in the near future (note: FAA =E2=80=9Cnear = future=E2=80=9D and our =E2=80=9Cnear future=E2=80=9D may not be = related) =20 Until such time as we can legally offer different solutions, I urge you = to make the hard decision. Install =E2=80=9Cfully functioning dual = controls=E2=80=9D in your airplane, bite the bullet, reach deep into = your wallet and pay a qualified pilot to test your airplane and fly off = the hours (a good one will do real and meaningful testing and data = gathering). The decision that I would beg you not to make is to fly your = airplane without training. As I always tell folks that I fly with in the = 320/360, these airplanes are different...not difficult, but different. = Different enough that to fly it without training would be, at the very = least, inadvisable.=20 Please contact me if there are any areas that can help you with or = questions that I can answer. Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1,850 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction From: Jeff Peterson=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:42 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Re: lancair 360 training Wayne Tassin wrote: Second, the hpat rep tells me he has to train me in my airplane which is = not complete and he has to have rudder pedals on the right side which I did not = install. =20 So what it looks like is I will need hpat to fly the 25hrs off and = retrofit the right side pedals which look to be all but impossible and then train me. Please give me your thoughts or ideas on this = situation. ------------- I would really appreciate it of LOBO could figure out how to solve the = problem of training in the 360 series. If you build any RV, the factory will help you get training. If you build a 360 you are basically screwed. Lancair has abandoned the 360 and does not provide training. All they do is point you to HPAT, and = they want to fly the entire test period (40 hrs for me) before they train you in your = own plane. Has LOBO abandoned the 360 builder as well? Apparently, despite all the 360s out there, some owned by CFIs, there is = nobody willing to=20 train the new 360 pilot. =20 --=20 Jeff Peterson ------=_NextPart_000_0460_01CB96EF.3E480AD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jeff & Wayne,
 
I give flight instruction in 235/320/360 Lancairs. I would be very = happy to=20 help you but I must point out a few legal technicalities:
 
FAR 91.109(a):   =E2=80=9CNo person may operate a civil = aircraft (except=20 a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless = that=20 aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.=E2=80=9D
 
The FAA considers rudders and (because we have no nose wheel = steering)=20 brakes to be a part of =E2=80=9Cdual controls=E2=80=9D. I have read = recent comments that persons=20 have given dual in Lancairs without right side rudders. I believe that = those=20 persons are taking on considerable liability and risk of certificate = action by=20 doing so. I am not in a position to take that risk.
 
The FAA has been extremely clear that dual instruction is not = permitted in=20 an aircraft that is still in phase I testing. The Operating Limitations = that are=20 issued with your airworthiness certificate, the FARs and many FAA = rulings also=20 make it crystal clear that experimental aircraft may NOT be used for=20 compensation or hire. Therefore, an instructor can not give flight = instruction=20 in an aircraft supplied by the instructor. A possible exception = might be=20 if the instructor made no charge for his services and accepted no = compensation=20 whatever for the use of his aircraft. Even this possible exception is = not=20 totally clear from a legal standpoint. 
 
Consequently, the information that you received from HPAT is not = only=20 correct, but is the only possible course of action that they can legally = propose.
 
I hear your complaints that you feel =E2=80=9Cabandoned=E2=80=9D = and =E2=80=9Cscrewed=E2=80=9D. =20 Although I understand, I do not agree. RV kits come with dual rudders = and=20 brakes. With a Lancair it=E2=80=99s our choice...your choice. The = regulation requiring=20 dual controls for flight instruction is not new. I feel that you need to = take=20 some responsibility for the decision not to install them. I would = imagine that=20 you realized from early in construction that you=E2=80=99d need = instruction in your=20 plane. 
 
I hear your lamentation that LOBO should figure out how to solve = the=20 problem of training. LOBO has been and is now hard at work to that end. = One=20 answer is a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority). This is a letter = issued by the=20 FAA that would offer specific exemptions to the =E2=80=9Ccompensation or = hire=E2=80=9D=20 restrictions for flight training. Nobody...I say again, nobody is = pushing the=20 FAA harder in this area than LOBO. To the best of my knowledge, no LODAs = have=20 been issued by the FAA although several have been applied for. They say = that=20 they are formulating =E2=80=9Cguidance=E2=80=9D for their field offices. =
 
I spent the past 2 days in Washington DC representing LOBO at a = meeting=20 with the FAA. This was a meeting to revise guidance for Flight = Instructor=20 certificate renewal but the main and constant topic was GA safety. Among = the 30=20 or so industry folks in attendance at this meeting were many of the top = people=20 in aviation education (John and Martha, Dr. Gleim, AOPA, Jeppesen among = others)=20 We had presentations from and very frank discussions with several FAA = people.=20 These were not local FAA inspectors but people up to the assistant = administrator=20 level. One presentation was by the head of ASF-800, Mel Cintron. Mel is = in=20 charge of all GA activities at FAA. He presented his list of the = top 10=20 factors in GA fatal accidents. Care to guess what he listed as number = one? =20 Yep, amateur built aircraft. The people at these levels at FAA are under = tremendous pressure not just from the administrator but from Congress = and the=20 Secretary of Transportation to reduce the accident rate. One easy and = obvious=20 answer for them would be to greatly restrict amateur built aircraft. I = don=E2=80=99t=20 believe that they want to do this (and they said as much) but the = possibility=20 cannot be ignored. LOBO has met with Mel Cintron before and has and will = continue to press for relief from the commercial training restrictions. = Since=20 this could help solve their problem as well as ours I am cautiously = optimistic=20 that we will start seeing LODAs in the near future (note: FAA = =E2=80=9Cnear future=E2=80=9D and=20 our =E2=80=9Cnear future=E2=80=9D may not be related) 
 
Until such time as we can legally offer different solutions, I urge = you to=20 make the hard decision. Install =E2=80=9Cfully functioning dual = controls=E2=80=9D in your=20 airplane, bite the bullet, reach deep into your wallet and pay a = qualified pilot=20 to test your airplane and fly off the hours (a good one will do real and = meaningful testing and data gathering). The decision that I would beg = you not to=20 make is to fly your airplane without training. As I always tell folks = that I fly=20 with in the 320/360, these airplanes are different...not difficult, but=20 different. Different enough that to fly it without training would be, at = the=20 very least, inadvisable.
 
Please contact me if there are any areas that can help you with or=20 questions that I can answer.
 
Bill Harrelson
N5ZQ 320 1,850 hrs
N6ZQ  IV under construction
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:42 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: lancair 360 training
 
Wayne=20 Tassin wrote:

Second, the hpat rep tells me he has to train me in = my=20 airplane which is not complete
and he has to have rudder pedals on = the right=20 side which I did not install.
 
So what it looks like is I = will need=20 hpat to fly the 25hrs off and retrofit the right side pedals which look = to be=20 all but impossible
and then train me.  Please give me your = thoughts or=20 ideas on this situation.


-------------

I would really=20 appreciate it of LOBO could figure out how to solve the problem of=20 training
in the 360 series.

If you build any RV, the factory = will help=20 you get training.
If you build a 360 you are basically=20 screwed.

Lancair has abandoned the
360 and does not provide = training.=20 All they do is point you to HPAT, and they want to
fly the entire = test period=20 (40 hrs for me) before they train you in your own plane.

Has LOBO = abandoned the 360 builder as well?

Apparently, despite all the = 360s out=20 there, some owned by CFIs, there is nobody willing to
train the new = 360=20 pilot.
 
--
Jeff = Peterson
------=_NextPart_000_0460_01CB96EF.3E480AD0--