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?'
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
Last edited: