What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

EAB: the Aircraft Flight Manual, and Phase One Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

wawrzynskivp

Well Known Member
Hello All,

This is a post to inspire some thought. The hard answers here would come from the FAA. Members of several FSDOs on the Flight Inspector side as well as the Certification side admit they cannot formally answer this question:

"Do EAB Airplanes in our category need an Aircraft Flight Manual?"

Many FSDOs and DARs I have talked to were ready with quick answers on both sides of the issue but couldn't point to a source document that had any clarity. My local FSDO has agreed to take the question on and see if they can find an authoritative answer.

As an added consideration the EAA and FAA are collaboratively thinking about offering an option to Phase One testing that may consider reducing testing time if the builder follows a test plan. https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...based-phase-i-to-revolutionize-flight-testing

A polite approach to this discussion reminds us that knowing, understanding, and when appropriate following our FARs and Advisory material doesn't make us better pilots...but pilots with a professional attitude will do this as a matter of course.

Attached is a cheat sheet or crib note I have been casually putting together as I read various FAA docs. Our starting point here is probably FAR 91.9, but notice that various documents both advisory and compulsory presume that we are operating with an AFM. I am sure there are a lot more references and I invite any contribution to this list. Take a quick look at it, some of it may surprise you. ex. From the FAA's AC on EAB testing: "It is imperative that a flight manual describing the anticipated performance of the aircraft be written by the aircraft builder/kit manufacturer"

FAR 91.9 speaks to our category of aircraft as requiring the carriage of any combination of "approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards." Notice that the law says 'Approved AFM' and not 'FAA Approved AFM.' The term 'FAA Approved' happens throughout the FARs and Advisory material, so it isn't appropriate to assume FAR 91.9 stipulates the FAA would approve an EAB AFM...we as builders would be approval authority.

From a practicality perspective the AFM is the logical repository of what is learned in Phase One. An argument can be made that a very basic day VFR EAB that operates only from fields it used during its Phase One could very well do without an AFM and simply rely on its placards and markings. An FAA inspector following his/her ramp inspections instructions would not agree, but it might make practical sense.

But what happens when we go on the road, or fly at night, or under IFR? Is the practical use of an AFM in a normally certified aircraft any different than our case?

On to the suggested Phase One Task Based testing. I have to admit I was a little surprised by the EAA's bargaining position. Essentially: 'If we follow a test plan will you reduce the Phase One hour requirement?' Before we even get to how that would be enforced, what do they mean 'If we follow a test plan!'

We choose to take our personal Safety in our own hands and demonstrate how we will fly our airplanes before we take on passengers or fly outside our designated box. Aren't we already taking that part seriously? For example: Do we assume Van's numbers for our build or do we go out and demonstrate them? Did you fly max forward/aft CG? Did you approach your chosen Vne? Did you fly your max gross at your max altitudes/elevations? Do you know your no-power (not idle power) glide numbers?

IF...and it's a big if...If an AFM is required then in filling that manual out wouldn't all of us take a proper test plan a little more seriously? Is there a nexus here between building an AFM and 'Task Based Testing?'
 

Attachments

  • afm_poh.pdf
    151 KB · Views: 289
Last edited:
The quick answer is, no AFM is required in your EAB. Even in normally certificated aircraft, no AFM is required if they are old enough (I forget - pre 1970 or so?). They used placards, etc., to meet the requirement. You use your phase 2 document, which must be on-board, and spells out passenger warning placards, etc.
Now, having said that, I did write an AFM for my own education. I found it a good exercise to remind myself of systems, procedures, limitations, etc,
 
"Do EAB Airplanes in our category need an Aircraft Flight Manual?"

Many FSDOs and DARs I have talked to were ready with quick answers on both sides of the issue but couldn't point to a source document that had any clarity.

The Reno FSDO has agreed to take the question on and see if they can find an authoritative answer.

I sure hope you did not just kick a hornets nest.

Unintended consequences just might occour............
 
I get that. But it's more like kicking over a can of tar than it is anything as snappy as an angry bee. This topic is already under the microscope owing to the 'Task Based Phase One' discussion.

The real problem is that this is being worked at an FAA HQ and EAA HQ level - so asking a local FSDO for their opinion/input is just going to lead to more confusion. Since I have pretty good relations with folks at the Reno FSDO, I know that most of them have little to no actual experince in interpreting the E-AB rules (and I am not putting them down, I like the guys - they just are short handed, and have to necessarily spend their time doing other stuff). But….they don’t like to admit that they don’t know something, or that their interpretation is wrong.

Overall, as someone who has worked on these kind of issues as a member of the EAA HAC for the past six years, individuals going to their local FSDO’s is not going to help folks - it will just generate confusion and multiple interpretations.

Paul
 
Clarification needed . . .

I am a little lost as to what the question is, why it is important, and what problem is being solved?

Yes, I created a flight manual and demonstrated nearly all of the envelope, except for 6Gs and Vne.
 
Last edited:
I hate having my phase 1 extended by another 50 hours and spending countless hours to complete the mandated FAA AFM and other mandated docs because somebody kicked the hornet nest. I thought many of use get into the pain of EAB to get away from all that stuff.
 
The quick answer is, no AFM is required in your EAB. Even in normally certificated aircraft, no AFM is required if they are old enough (I forget - pre 1970 or so?). They used placards, etc., to meet the requirement. You use your phase 2 document, which must be on-board, and spells out passenger warning placards, etc.
Now, having said that, I did write an AFM for my own education. I found it a good exercise to remind myself of systems, procedures, limitations, etc,

My J3 never had one and at the time I sold it pilots had managed to fly it safely for 75 years just using placards and markings… .

Oliver
 
+1 to several of the above posts. There have been other posts like the OP's that seem to want to bring the regulatory oversight, rigid discipline, and burdens of the Military and Commercial Airline world to the EAB community, maybe thinking they are "helping" us by showing us the "light". Not comfortable at all with that.
 
Last edited:
+1 to several of the above posts. There have been other posts like the OP's that seem to want to bring the regulatory oversight, rigid discipline, and burdens of the Military and Commercial Airline world to the EAB community, maybe thinking they are "helping" us by showing us the "light". Not comfortable at all with that.

^^^^^^This!

If you want a flight manual write one or don’t. But for the love of God don’t ask the FAA to clarify a grey area or we might all drowned in that kicked over can of tar. If you need black and white in your aviation world then please buy a certified aircraft.
 
Abilene Paradox

Thank you all for chiming in. Pretty much where I expected the views to drift, even the Ad Hominem angle is par for the course when we discuss things like this.

The Abilene Paradox or 'the road to Abilene' is a metaphor used in Safety to describe situations where a group becomes fearful of asking questions. In this case we have rice bowls and other groups to defend, and maybe in one response suspicions about motivations. All pretty normal.

The question still stands, and I really can't claim it as my own. In a more familiar framework: Does our acronym A.R.R.O.W. (with just one R. if domestic) apply to us?

On the enforcement side of things an FAA Inspector following FAA rules for ramp inspections would say yes, and several I have spoken to have made that point. But then some Inspectors have said the O. in that acronym doesn't apply to EAB.

On the professional conduct/Safety side it is hard to argue with the FAA's guidance calling the document and process 'Imperative' for EAB.

I personally see goodness in the AFM and process, but don't have any ambition one way or another. Not asking for change, only clarity. I don't believe in being fearful about wanting to be confident in my knowledge of what is expected of me by the FAA.

The EAA on the other hand does seem to want change. I wish them the best in their efforts. It's curious that the upset to our status quo wouldn't be more concerned with that. Curious but not unusual.

Again, this is a thought piece. I hope that apart from the natural emotional pushback some thought came of it.
 
Last edited:
This site is supposed to be for RV related items, including RV-specific safety issues, not EAB issues in general. If you would like to instigate a "thought piece" on general EAB issues, the EAA and AOPA sites would be better suited to your desires.
 
Last edited:
. . .Again, this is a thought piece. I hope that apart from the natural emotional pushback some thought came of it.
My thought is:
Having had experience living in the military world, I most certainly have no desire to emulate the “military way” of doing things in my normal civilian life. Especially in the part of that life that involves building aircraft for “Education and Recreation”, and flying such aircraft purely for recreation and personal pleasure!
 
The question still stands, and I really can't claim it as my own. In a more familiar framework: Does our acronym A.R.R.O.W. (with just one R. if domestic) apply to us?

Yes:

A) Airworthiness Certificate, which in the case of a special A/W certificate includes the FAA-issued operating limitations.

R) Registration certificate (FAA Form 8050-3)

R) Radio station license (if performing certain international operations)

O) Operating limitations (Mentioned above and issued by the FAA as a part of the special Airworthiness Certificate)

W) Current Weight & Balance.


As mentioned by many others in this thread, there is no regulatory requirement for any type POH, AFM, or whatever you want to call it. These were/are required by the CAR and FAR for STANDARD CATEGORY airworthiness certificates. Since our amateur-built aircraft hold SPECIAL airworthiness certificates, these requirements do not apply.
 
How many accidents are caused by the lack of a POH?

I was going to step away having said enough on the original post. But this is a whole different angle (really not anything to do with OP) on the question and certainly a meaningful one.

Standardized flight manuals exist primarily as a response to mishaps. We know that requiring structure as a response to mishaps is a big part of how the FAA performs its Safety responsibility. Many RV mishaps involve flight outside the operating envelope.

Asking whether a piece of paper will prevent flying outside the envelope is silly to everyone involved. But asking whether the process of determining a flight envelope might help a builder stay inside his/her aerodynamic limits is a whole different matter.

Pick a similarly sized airplane built by a third party. A long time ago it used to be operated without any kind of AFM. History caused the FAA to change that approach. Would an accident be caused by not having an AFM in this case? No, accidents are caused primarily because of bad operator decisions and in very few cases bad maintainer decisions. Do flight manuals exist to help inform decisions?

One more time: I am not advocating one way or another on this subject. (If you want to know more about how mishap boards and standardization boards work together to try to prevent mishaps through paperwork I'd be glad to discuss my experience on that through PM.)
 
Last edited:
Yes:

As mentioned by many others in this thread, there is no regulatory requirement for any type POH, AFM, or whatever you want to call it. These were/are required by the CAR and FAR for STANDARD CATEGORY airworthiness certificates. Since our amateur-built aircraft hold SPECIAL airworthiness certificates, these requirements do not apply.

This is the kind of discussion I had hope for, nugging out some of the details that are truly a little confusing:

Try certifying an ELSA like an RV-12 without a POH and see what happens. Does it inspire thought that the existing regs require a homebuilt RV-12 to have a POH? Reading the regulations on AFMs there is no distinction between Standard-Special-Experimental for our size and use.

I think a lot of folks skipped the attachment I put on the OP. Those aren't my words they come cut and paste from the FAA. When it comes to enforcement of A.R.R.O.W. look at the specific instructions to Inspectors when they do ramp inspections: (FAA provided Operating Limitations for Experimental gets grouped with A. not O. Note that these instructions cover Experimentals and provide no exception to the AFM requirement. It is understandable that some inspectors will tell you it is required)

A. N-Numbers. The N-number on the registration certificate must match the N-number on the airworthi-ness certificate.
B. Registration Certificate. If the registered owner has changed you may see a temporary registration (Pink Slip) which is good for 120 days. If the ownership has changed without a Pink Slip or the N- numbers do not match, the registration is not valid.
C. Radio Station License. An aircraft FCC radio license is required although the FAA does not regulate the requirement. The license may be for that particular N-number or a fleet license. The expiration date of the license is in the upper right hand corner. Any discrep¬ancy concerning the radio license should be brought to the attention of the operator only.

D. Flight Manual. An Aircraft Flight Manual is required to be on board the aircraft (FAR § 91.9 {91.31}) along with the appropriate markings and placards.

E. Weight and Balance Information. Weight and balance documents, including a list of equipment, must be on board the aircraft. Some multiengine operators have Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL's) with a letter of authorization issued by a district office. These constitute a supplemental type certificate for the aircraft and must be on board. The inspector should compare inop¬erative equipment to the MEL to assure compliance. (Refer to Related Task #58, Approve a Minimum Equipment List.)

F. Airworthiness Certificate. The certificate most often seen by an inspector is a standard airworthiness certificate, which is issued for normal, utility, acrobatic, and transport category aircraft. A restricted, limited, or ***experimental certificate must be accompanied by a list of limitations and conditions (FAR § 21.183 -191) necessary for safe operation.*** A Special Flight Permit (Ferry Permit) is issued to aircraft that may not be airworthy but are capable of safe flight under certain conditions which are listed and issued with the permit (FAR §§ 21.197 , 91.203 {91.27}, and 91.213 {91.30}). Review the list of limitations and conditions to assure a valid airworthiness certificate. The N-number on the certificate must match the N-number on the fuselage to be valid.
 
Last edited:
Black and White Vs Grey

Foghorn touched on this at least by inference and it's worthy of note.

I am glad for the grey areas, they are sometimes truly wonderful and I would do nothing to change them. One such grey area in our category is the determination of safe for flight whether its preflight, after routine maintenance or post phase 1. The essential part of a grey area is that everybody involved understands it as grey. The FAA makes some things grey by leaving them up to us. It's good stuff, and a mistake to think I would want to lose any of that.

One aspect of my effort on the question of AFM is that 1. It is very specifically not grey, there are obviously very strong opinions some calling it black and some white. 2. Our enforcement agents are split on whether it is required. Some have told me they will cite you for not having one (using black and white rules), some have said they will not (unfortunately no exceptions to those black and white rules currently exist for us).
 
Last edited:
Shades of Grey (and other colors for the colorblind)

Some of the preceding discussion reminds me of a well known talking head aviation expert here in the Pacific Northwest that arrived at my local airport in a Mooney 231 on a cold wet winters day, refueled and then took the short cut to the runway across the grass. The nosegear dug a trench in the waterlogged grass, the application of more power had the prop throwing turf and mud until the prop tried to slice a large rock. Our hero of the day then complained that the accident was “caused” by lack of airport signage directing pilots to stay on the paved surfaces. He further stated that he had taxied across the grass without problems the last time he had visited back in the middle of the summer. Three months later the 231 departed with new prop and rebuilt engine taking the longer route to the runway on the blacktop. Lots of lesssons to be learned from this incident including all the human factors.
Having spent a large part of my working life designing systems for large transport category aircraft I really enjoy the freedom of EAB. I dont have a POH but I do have a collection of data sheets that cover the important aspects of what I should expect for performance at various power, weight, altitude and temperature settings and lots of detailed weight and balance data. Since there are very few pilots that I will allow to be PIC in my RV -7A aircraft I figured performance data is far more relevent.
The one placard that is required by EAB rules states all that is needed. “This aircraft does not comply with standard airworthiness requirements”.
 
The real problem is that this is being worked at an FAA HQ and EAA HQ level - so asking a local FSDO for their opinion/input is just going to lead to more confusion. Since I have pretty good relations with folks at the Reno FSDO, I know that most of them have little to no actual experince in interpreting the E-AB rules (and I am not putting them down, I like the guys - they just are short handed, and have to necessarily spend their time doing other stuff). But….they don’t like to admit that they don’t know something, or that their interpretation is wrong.

Overall, as someone who has worked on these kind of issues as a member of the EAA HAC for the past six years, individuals going to their local FSDO’s is not going to help folks - it will just generate confusion and multiple interpretations.

Paul
Thank You, Paul
This is spot-on. There are LOT of people in the FAA that hold positions of authority. Some are more knowledgeable than others, and NONE of them know everything. Ask five FSDOs for an opinion on this, and you are likely to find yourself with six different answers. FAA rules and policies are sometimes ambiguous do to poor development, and sometimes they are vague on purpose.
Two adages come to mind:
"Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it."
"At the FAA, we're not happy, 'till you're not happy"
There is just no value in getting the FAA spooled up over this. The builder has the option, and that's how it should be.
 
Methinks all that is worth being said here has been said.

As was mentioned in an earlier post-----take the discussion to the EAA or other site.

{Ed: This response came in from Joe Norris, DAR, who was one of the creators of the ABDAR program:

Ok, so in his post today at 9:42 AM, "Duck" posted the following....

When it comes to enforcement of A.R.R.O.W. look at the specific instructions to Inspectors when they do ramp inspections: (FAA provided Operating Limitations for Experimental gets grouped with A. not O. Note that these instructions cover Experimentals and provide no exception to the AFM requirement. It is understandable that some inspectors will tell you it is required)


He then goes on to list the "ARROW" documents. I'll cut to the chase with the following pull-quote:

D. Flight Manual. An Aircraft Flight Manual is required to be on board the aircraft (FAR § 91.9 {91.31}) along with the appropriate markings and placards.

(NOTE: There is no "91.31", so I don't know why that's in the quote.)

The key is that he needs to actually READ FAR § 91.9, specifically 91.9(b) which contains the following:

No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft -

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by § 21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in § 121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by § 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Paragraph (b)(1) of the above directs one to § 21.5, and reading that section you find that it specifically states "Type Certificated". Thus, 21.5 does not apply to our amateur-built aircraft.

So we go back to 91.9(b)(2), which applies to those aircraft not affected by (b)(1). I have added a bold highlight to the specific language that applies. "ANY COMBINATION THEREOF"!

So, for our amateur-built aircraft (and most other special a/w certificates), since there is no approved flight manual of any kind, it is the placards and markings that are relevant to this requirement in the FAA guidance.

He also mentioned ELSA, but those aircraft are governed by additional regulatory requirements found in 91.327. 91.9 in and of itself still applies exactly as described above.



Joe }
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top