X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:35:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4636771 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:05:16 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.100.31; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oBAI4KbX019682 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:04:21 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.fd8.77d1e6f (37518) for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from magic-d21.mail.aol.com (magic-d21.mail.aol.com [172.19.155.137]) by cia-ma08.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA083-928e4d026b9f2cc; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:04:15 -0500 From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <273b2.6f602f46.3a33c59f@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:04:15 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lancair 360 training X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_273b2.6f602f46.3a33c59f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 5400 X-AOL-IP: 24.15.17.119 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com --part1_273b2.6f602f46.3a33c59f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Bill, =20 Thanks for your work to inject some sanity into the convoluted FAA rules= =20 view of safety and training for experimental aircraft pilots. =20 You have made me re-think a condition I have in my own aircraft. Even =20 though I have dual adjustable rudder pedals, many years ago I disabled the= =20 co-pilot pedal brake actuators (Lancair supplied Matco's, circa 1989) be= cause=20 of a potential lock up state. It was reported that if the pilot depresse= d=20 a brake and then the co-pilot pressed one on the same side, neither could= =20 release the now locked brake. However, because of the dual control=20 requirement, I will find and install better actuators for the right side.= =20 =20 One might ask, "Why do that?" Well, it is not for my safety as I have =20 always feared that a right seat occupant might apply braking at an inoppor= tune =20 moment, but for the training and safety of the next owner. We all must= =20 contemplate the possibility that our airplane might continue to perform= =20 beyond our own ability to do so.=20 =20 Heck, I usually fly alone or with Harvey and he can't push anything. =20 Scott =20 Hint: Google Harvey 1950=20 =20 =20 In a message dated 12/9/2010 6:59:50 A.M. Central Standard Time, =20 n5zq@verizon.net writes: =20 Jeff & Wayne, =20 I give flight instruction in 235/320/360 Lancairs. I would be very happy= =20 to help you but I must point out a few legal technicalities: =20 FAR 91.109(a): =E2=80=9CNo person may operate a civil aircraft (except= a manned=20 free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that=20 aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.=E2=80=9D=20 =20 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 =20 persons have given dual in Lancairs without right side rudders. I believe= that =20 those persons are taking on considerable liability and risk of certificate= =20 action by doing so. I am not in a position to take that risk. =20 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 = =20 that are issued with your airworthiness certificate, the FARs and many FAA= =20 rulings also make it crystal clear that experimental aircraft may NOT be= used =20 for compensation or hire. Therefore, an instructor can not give flight =20 instruction in an aircraft supplied by the instructor. A possible exceptio= n =20 might be if the instructor made no charge for his services and accepted = no=20 compensation whatever for the use of his aircraft. Even this possible =20 exception is not totally clear from a legal standpoint. =20 =20 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= =20 propose.=20 =20 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= brakes.=20 With a Lancair it=E2=80=99s our choice...your choice. The regulation requi= ring dual=20 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= =20 that you realized from early in construction that you=E2=80=99d need inst= ruction in=20 your plane. =20 =20 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. On= e =20 answer is a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority). This is a letter issued= by =20 the 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= =20 have been issued by the FAA although several have been applied for. They= say=20 that they are formulating =E2=80=9Cguidance=E2=80=9D for their field offi= ces.=20 =20 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 =20 30 or so industry folks in attendance at this meeting were many of the top= =20 people in aviation education (John and Martha, Dr. Gleim, AOPA, Jeppesen= =20 among others) We had presentations from and very frank discussions with= several=20 FAA people. These were not local FAA inspectors but people up to the=20 assistant administrator level. One presentation was by the head of ASF-80= 0, Mel=20 Cintron. Mel is in charge of all GA activities at FAA. He presented his= =20 list of the top 10 factors in GA fatal accidents. Care to guess what he= listed=20 as number one? Yep, amateur built aircraft. The people at these levels= at=20 FAA are under tremendous pressure not just from the administrator but fro= m=20 Congress and the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the accident rate.= =20 One easy and obvious answer for them would be to greatly restrict amateur= =20 built aircraft. I don=E2=80=99t believe that they want to do this (and th= ey said as=20 much) but the possibility cannot be ignored. LOBO has met with Mel Cintro= n=20 before and has and will continue to press for relief from the commercial= =20 training restrictions. Since this could help solve their problem as well= as=20 ours I am cautiously optimistic that we will start seeing LODAs in the ne= ar=20 future (note: FAA =E2=80=9Cnear future=E2=80=9D and our =E2=80=9Cnear fut= ure=E2=80=9D may not be related)=20 =20 =20 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= =20 pilot to test your airplane and fly off the hours (a good one will do real= =20 and meaningful testing and data gathering). The decision that I would beg= =20 you not to make is to fly your airplane without training. As I always tel= l=20 folks that I fly with in the 320/360, these airplanes are different...not= =20 difficult, but different. Different enough that to fly it without trainin= g=20 would be, at the very least, inadvisable.=20 =20 Please contact me if there are any areas that can help you with or =20 questions that I can answer. =20 Bill Harrelson N5ZQ 320 1,850 hrs N6ZQ IV under construction =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 From: _Jeff Peterson_ (mailto:jeffreyb.peterson@gmail.com) =20 Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:42 AM To: _lml@lancaironline.net_ (mailto:lml@lancaironline.net) =20 Subject: [LML] Re: lancair 360 training =20 Wayne Tassin wrote: Second, the hpat rep tells me he has to train me in my airplane which is= =20 not complete and he has to have rudder pedals on the right side which I did not instal= l. So what it looks like is I will need hpat to fly the 25hrs off and=20 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=20 situation. ------------- I would really appreciate it of LOBO could figure out how to solve the=20 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= =20 they want to fly the entire test period (40 hrs for me) before they train you in your= =20 own plane. Has LOBO abandoned the 360 builder as well? Apparently, despite all the 360s out there, some owned by CFIs, there is= =20 nobody willing to =20 train the new 360 pilot. --=20 Jeff Peterson --part1_273b2.6f602f46.3a33c59f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en <= FONT id=3Drole_document color=3D#000000 size=3D2 face=3DArial>
Bill,
 
Thanks for your work to inject some sanity into the convoluted FAA ru= les=20 view of safety and training for experimental aircraft pilots.
 
You have made me re-think a condition I have in my own aircraft. = ; Even=20 though I have dual adjustable rudder pedals, many years ago I disable= d the=20 co-pilot pedal  brake actuators (Lancair supplied Matco's, circa 1989= )=20 because of a potential lock up state.  It was reported that if= the=20 pilot depressed a brake and then the co-pilot pressed one on the same= side,=20 neither could release the now locked brake.  However, because of= the=20 dual control requirement, I will find and install better actuators fo= r the=20 right side. 
 
One might ask, "Why do that?"  Well, it is not for my safety as= I have=20 always feared that a right seat occupant might apply braking at an inoppor= tune=20 moment, but for the training and safety of the next owner.  We= all=20 must contemplate the possibility that our airplane might continue to= =20 perform beyond our own ability to do so. 
 
Heck, I usually fly alone or with Harvey and he can't push anything.<= /DIV>
 
Scott
 
Hint: Google Harvey 1950 
 
In a message dated 12/9/2010 6:59:50 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 n5zq@verizon.net writes:
Jeff & Wayne,
 
I give flight instruction in 235/320/360 Lancairs. I would be very= happy=20 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=20 (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction= =20 unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.=E2=80=9D
 
The FAA considers rudders and (because we have no nose wheel steeri= ng)=20 brakes to be a part of =E2=80=9Cdual controls=E2=80=9D. I have read rece= nt comments that=20 persons have given dual in Lancairs without right side rudders. I believ= e that=20 those persons are taking on considerable liability and risk of certifica= te=20 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 permi= tted=20 in an aircraft that is still in phase I testing. The Operating Limitatio= ns=20 that are issued with your airworthiness certificate, the FARs and many= FAA=20 rulings also make it crystal clear that experimental aircraft may NOT be= used=20 for compensation or hire. Therefore, an instructor can not give flight= =20 instruction in an aircraft supplied by the instructor. A possible except= ion=20 might be if the instructor made no charge for his services and ac= cepted=20 no compensation whatever for the use of his aircraft. Even this possible= =20 exception is not totally clear from a legal standpoint. 
 
Consequently, the information that you received from HPAT is not on= ly=20 correct, but is the only possible course of action that they can legally= =20 propose.
 
I hear your complaints that you feel =E2=80=9Cabandoned=E2=80=9D an= d =E2=80=9Cscrewed=E2=80=9D. =20 Although I understand, I do not agree. RV kits come with dual rudders an= d=20 brakes. With a Lancair it=E2=80=99s our choice...your choice. The regula= tion 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 imagin= e that=20 you realized from early in construction that you=E2=80=99d need instruct= ion in your=20 plane. 
 
I hear your lamentation that LOBO should figure out how to solve th= e=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 issue= d by=20 the FAA that would offer specific exemptions to the =E2=80=9Ccompensatio= n or hire=E2=80=9D=20 restrictions for flight training. Nobody...I say again, nobody is pushin= g 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 mee= ting=20 with the FAA. This was a meeting to revise guidance for Flight Instructo= r=20 certificate renewal but the main and constant topic was GA safety. Among= the=20 30 or so industry folks in attendance at this meeting were many of the= top=20 people in aviation education (John and Martha, Dr. Gleim, AOPA, Jeppesen= among=20 others) We had presentations from and very frank discussions with severa= l FAA=20 people. These were not local FAA inspectors but people up to the assista= nt=20 administrator level. One presentation was by the head of ASF-800, Mel Ci= ntron.=20 Mel is in charge of all GA activities at FAA. He presented his li= st of=20 the top 10 factors in GA fatal accidents. Care to guess what he listed= as=20 number one?  Yep, amateur built aircraft. The people at these level= s at=20 FAA are under tremendous pressure not just from the administrator but fr= om=20 Congress and the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the accident rate= . One=20 easy and obvious answer for them would be to greatly restrict amateur bu= ilt=20 aircraft. I don=E2=80=99t believe that they want to do this (and they sa= id as much)=20 but the possibility cannot be ignored. LOBO has met with Mel Cintron bef= ore=20 and has and will continue to press for relief from the commercial traini= ng=20 restrictions. Since this could help solve their problem as well as ours= I am=20 cautiously optimistic that we will start seeing LODAs in the near future= =20 (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=20 to make the hard decision. Install =E2=80=9Cfully functioning dual contr= ols=E2=80=9D in your=20 airplane, bite the bullet, reach deep into your wallet and pay a qualifi= ed=20 pilot to test your airplane and fly off the hours (a good one will do re= al and=20 meaningful testing and data gathering). The decision that I would beg yo= u not=20 to make is to fly your airplane without training. As I always tell folks= that=20 I fly 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 th= e=20 right side which I did not install.
 
So what it looks like= is I=20 will need hpat to fly the 25hrs off and retrofit the right side pedals= which=20 look to be all but impossible
and then train me.  Please give me= your=20 thoughts or ideas on this situation.


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

I= would=20 really 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=20 help you get training.
If you build a 360 you are basically=20 screwed.

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

Has LOBO abandoned the 360 builder as well?

Apparen= tly,=20 despite all the 360s out there, some owned by CFIs, there is nobody will= ing to=20
train the new 360 pilot.
 
--
Jeff=20 Peterson
--part1_273b2.6f602f46.3a33c59f_boundary--