Date   

Re: We can do better! S. Wilson

JMasal@...
 

Your advice is exhaustive...But it is a Gold Standard plan. The problem for us Americans is that our standard is much looser than the European one... and we like it, we like it a lot. It reminds me of my experience as a Respiratory Therapist. I could counsel smokers about their future 30-40 smoking years down the road but on rare occasion a 70 year old who still smoked like a bad diesel truck would turn up with no lung disease. That encouraged a large numer to think they would be that one in a ...????. All I know is that if you shortcut your preparation you quite likely will be spending those hours and dollars repairing/rebuilding at best. Thanks for setting your thoughts down here.

j.

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Wilson <quickieq2uk@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 12:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Hi All,
First of all I would like to say what terrible loss this is and wish to extend my condolences to Jerry’s family even though I did not know him. I also would not wish to speculate on the cause of the accident as that is the job of the NTSB to determine. The following is not making judgement on the cause of Jerry’s accident. However, I would like to pick up some points that Jerry Marstal has made and take them a bit further if I may, especially those pertaining to pilot skill. I suspect there is an underlying issue here when it comes to owner/builders carrying out initial test flights in their own aircraft, particularly high performance taildraggers, not just Quickies.
The following text is my opinion and based on personal experience of this subject and is in no way meant to be taken as you must do as I say, although it may come across as such to some. There are many ways to skin the cat when it comes to flying, and I strongly believe that if you dogmatically stick to one way of doing something without being open minded about other ways of doing them, then you are a fool.
The following is just one way I propose that first flights on high performance aircraft be carried out and is certainly not a panacea to what can be a complicated and sensitive subject. It is however based on my own experience flying a wide variety of aircraft types and to give you a feel of where I’m coming from here I will give a brief summary of my flying experience for those of you that don’t know me. I am serving military pilot with 2300+ hours and have flown 70+ different aircraft types ranging from Helicopters to Fast Jets, 20+ of these types have been taildraggers ranging from Ultralights up to Warbirds and everything in between. I am also a Class Rating Instructor (CRI) and carry out tailwheel conversions and differences training. I am not what I consider to be an experienced pilot, considering some of the company I keep and I am not an experienced Quickie pilot with only 20 hours on type however, what follows should be applicable to any
high performance tailwheel aircraft including Quickies.
Here in the United Kingdom the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) is given delegated responsibility by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for airworthiness of homebuilt aeroplanes. When a builder submits his paperwork for initial test flying, he has to submit where the test flying will take place and who it will be performed by. This is to ensure that the site is suitable and the pilot is suitably qualified to carry out initial test flights. Very rarely in the UK will a builder be permitted to carry out the test flights on their own aeroplane unless they have proven track record of carrying out these flights or extensive experience on type. Normally a test pilot will be recommended by the LAA and will either be fully qualified professional test pilots or pilots who are very experienced on type (such as Gary McKirdy for Quickies) and have flown a number of different examples of the type so they can understand if the particular example they are flying is
representative or not. Now we have an awful lot of restrictions and red tape when it comes to flying in the UK and we could learn a lot from the EAAA, however I believe this is one area where have got it right. If you’re not suitably experienced or qualified you won’t be doing the test flight, period.
A lot of you may disagree with the following statement and that is fine as this is based purely my own opinion and experience. I believe that a builder really has no place carrying out the initial test flights on their own aeroplane. The reasons for this are as follows;
1. An initial test flight is not the place to be learning to fly your aircraft if you don’t have experience on type! There are a lot of things that can go wrong on a first flight either with the engine or the airframe or both and may require advanced handling techniques to recover the situation safely. If the pilot hasn’t got the experience or the mental capacity to fly the aircraft in normal flight modes at this stage, how can he expect to handle a serious malfunction in what can be a challenging aircraft to fly in normal circumstances?

2. Builders can occasionally be too emotionally involved in their aircraft to stand back and really be objective about it. Another pilot who is coming to test the aircraft independently will have a strong sense of self preservation, (not that the owner won’t) but he’ll be objective and generally cast a fresh pair of eyes over the machine. They are probably less likely to feel pressured into flying it if it’s not quite right. I certainly know from my own experience that it can be difficult to pick up errors in your own work. Sometimes you can’t see the wood for the trees and an independent second pair of eyes will often pick up stuff you have missed. It is also very easy to pressure yourself into flying because you know how long it has taken you to complete and you want to see it in the air as soon as you can. I know, I’ve bought and worn that T-Shirt too and I am sure if we are all brutally honest with ourselves we have all done
something similar at some stage in our flying career.

3. Builders may not have been keeping in good flying practice whilst building the machine and doing a few hours in another type before you test fly doesn’t really cut it. As it is unlikely you will fly enough hours over a wide enough range of conditions to make the experience worthwhile. Experience takes time to acquire and can’t bought by doing 5 hours in a Citabria or a Cub a couple of weeks before your first flight on type! Hours mean nothing if you haven’t made the most of them.
As previously stated I have flown a wide number of different aircraft and on a number of occasions I have flown tailwheel aircraft that are either single seat or have no dual controls. Each time I have done this I have carried rigorous preparation flying in other aircraft gradually working myself up to it. As I have already stated doing 5 hours in a Cub a few weeks before you fly a high performance taildragger, especially a Quickie doesn’t really cut the mustard.
Ideally you should be keeping in current flying practice all the time, however I realise this is very difficult for the majority of pilots due to the expense of it all. What I would say is work it up in stages. Get yourself checked out with an instructor in the last aircraft type you were current in and go through the full range of general handling exercises and circuit work until you are up to speed and he is happy that you are safe. Next go and fly with an instructor in a high performance type such as Pitts or RV so that you get used to the high approach and threshold speeds along with twitchy handling. Again you need to go through all the aspects of general handling and circuit work until you are safe in high performance aeroplanes. You should really aim to get 20-30 hours over a period of a few months in different aircraft types and different environmental conditions to build experience and capacity before your first flight. Finally try and get a
ride with a pilot who owns the same type of aircraft as you. You might not get to land or take off but the experience, sights, sounds and smells will reduce the unfamiliar sensations when you come to fly your own and will help give you the capacity you will need for your first flight. Get him to show you any handling quirks with the aircraft so as they don’t come as surprise and also prove that it is normal for the particular type. Get him to show you a few circuits so you can build a picture of what a circuit looks like, also get him to show you a practice forced landing pattern so that you get a feel for its glide characteristics should the engine quit. This way you might be some way prepared for the first flight in your aircraft. As stated earlier, get your test flying done by another pilot who is more qualified and experienced on type. The above procedure is aimed at a first flight on type after the test flying is complete, as the last thing you
need to be worrying about is checking performance figures or handling any potential malfunction.
However, if you do end up doing the test flying whether it is as an owner/builder or experienced pilot on type doing it for somebody else, here are a few considerations to think about. Hopefully it is common sense and I am teaching you to suck eggs as hopefully you already know it. They are not in any particular order, other than which they came into my head. It is by no means exhaustive!
1. For the first test flight keep it short. Absolutely no more than 15-20 minutes maximum. Don’t bother with recording any figures. Climb straight into the overhead and remain within gliding distance of the into wind runway at all times. It should be a shakedown flight and nothing more. Purely proving serviceability of the aircraft and finding anything that does not work as advertised to be rectified before the next flight.

2. Pick an airfield that is large enough to be able to put it back on the runway or land on another runway should something go wrong. Make sure it has a clear undershoot and overshoot if possible.

3. Always give yourself a pre-take off emergencies brief. This preconditions your brain to the actions you will take in the conditions of the day should something go wrong with the aircraft during take off and climb.

4. Do it when the airfield is quiet and not many aircraft in the circuit, so as not to get in their way and vice versa.

5. Make sure the wind conditions are suitable and there is no turbulence in the air as wind and turbulence make the task more difficult than it needs to be and may even mask some issues with the aircraft. The last hour before sunset is usually best and also means density altitude should be lower giving you better performance. Don’t do it just before sunset or the half hour of light after sunset as just before the light may be in the wrong place especially if landing on a westerly runway and blind you and just after although still light enough to fly, is too dark for a test flight and you lose depth perception with the lower light levels.

6. Don’t do short hops down the runway. By all means do taxy tests and gradually build up speed, but hops down the runway increase the risk of losing control for an unnecessary length of time. Instead get airborne, get into the overhead and get a feel for the aircraft’s slow flight characteristics. Carry out some dummy circuits at height to get a feel for the handling of the aeroplane at circuit speeds.

7. Don’t land off your first approach unless it is perfect! The chances are it won’t be! Go around and do a couple of low approaches if necessary before committing to a landing.
8. Finally don’t relax until the engine has stopped and the brakes are on. It is easy to switch off after you have landed thinking you’ve finished, only to do something dumb like run into a taxiway marker and damage the aeroplane because you switched off!

9. For the remainder of the test flights ensure you have a specific programme of tests to be carried out to prove and record performance, reliability and rectify any issues prior to further flights.

10. Once satisfied with the performance and reliability take the owner up as an observer to help record any further data as required by the test schedule and give them exposure to the operating environment of their aeroplane.
I know the above seems like a gold plated solution in ideal world and most of it is. However you really should strive to do most of the things listed above as possible as it will really reduce the risk you are carrying after all the hard work and expense expended on your shiny new aeroplane. I know some of it may seem extra expense when you have completed your plane at considerable expense but what is a couple of thousand bucks compared to the loss of your aeroplane or even your life? In my view doing this is better than any insurance policy. Personally I think that a loss rate of 3 out of 4 first flights this year is totally unacceptable and as a group of experienced Q-builders and fliers we should maybe take ownership of this issue before we lose another one of our friends in the Q community. I think we should probably come up with some sort of training package and mentoring scheme that will help prepare new builders and owners for their first flight
on type. There a number of experienced guys out there with the knowledge and whilst they have been willing to share it, it is clear that perhaps the message isn’t getting through to everyone and we as a group need to communicate the do’s and don’ts of first flights to people as clearly as we can.
I apologise if this comes across as holier than thou, believe me it’s not meant to and I am certainly no angel. I’ve made plenty of mistakes in the past and I have written this so that others may glean at least one nugget of information from my flying experience that they may not have thought about.
I know have certainly picked up plenty of useful information already from the experienced Q fliers who post on here and they have helped me tremendously so far in my scant 20 hours flying Quickies!
Standing by for incoming!

Safe flying,

Simon Wilson
Quickie Q2
United Kingdom



From: jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 0:05
Subject: [Q-LIST] We can do better!


I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.

There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.

There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
success.

I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
something about it.

Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.

While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.

I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
could your experience have been made safer, etc?

My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
Tri-Q before his first flight.

This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.

This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
flying his TriQ2.

Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
higher level.

I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.

This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.

I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.

Jerry Marstall

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: We can do better!++Thank you Gentlemen

JMasal@...
 

Thank you Gentlemen for your thoughtful comments thus far. To further a discussion of judgement/skill it is almost spooky that KITPLANES magazine chose the November to publish an article by Parul Dye entitled "Superior judgement versus superior skill." All of you should read it. There are several quotable statements of which I like, "...there are many dead airshow performers and aerobatic champions who had far more command over their aircraft than most of us ever will. They [and other pilots in general- JM) CHOSE to put themselves in a position where an instant's distraction, an unexpected wind gust or a mechanical glitch left them no options."
Some tiny puzzle pieces to the JB accident are coming together. It seems he chose not to install sparrow strainers for his first flight which may or may not have had an effect on some scary trim issues he had during that flight. He discussed this at Marion and seemed to resolve to install them prior to his next flight. Where is Sanjay??? I wish I could get somebody in the area to check out the wreck and see if they were on. I also wish I had a photo of his panel.
Jerry was pleased with flight 2 so his trim issues subsided. Jerry was test flying on a 6,000' runway, for safety, some 40 miles from his home field. There is a feeling that he wanted to fly the plane back to his home field on this 3rd flight or soon thereafter. For convenience, I'd guess. Is this true??? I dunno. Was this too soon??? I think so.
Tulip Airfield had no tower and sparse witnessess so far as we know.
Gnawing at me are KITPLANES "...an instant's distraction." and the possibility that something broke or a health problem erupted. I also understand that there will be an autopsy and that the engine was running at the time of the accident.

j.

-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 8:20 am
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++




That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500

Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@... wrote:


When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc










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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links


__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: What I did right/wrong

Mike Dwyer
 

Wowa, that got messed up, darn HTML! Let's try again.


I'd like to challenge the people that have a few hundred or more Q hours to

comment on what they did right and what they did wrong during the first 40
hours of operation. We might get some good insight into this flight test
stuff from people that have done it. I'll start it off. Please if you comment

you need to say WHAT Q MODEL and hours!


Mike Dwyer Q200 1200 hours flying for 26 years.


Previous flight experience: 50 hours in C150's, 10 hrs in Aeronca, Porterfield



What I did right:

1) Built plane exactly to plans.
2) Had 2 other experienced builders go over the plane with a fine tooth comb.
3) Got an extremely experienced tail dragger pilot to fly off the first few

hours while oil temp and trim issues were worked out.
4) Practiced flying a C150 in at full power over the numbers (gets you used
to the 120mph in the pattern and 90 mph approach).

5) Got checked out in 3 other slow tail draggers (no Pitts S2 available would

be best option).
6) Got a ride in my Q200 from the test pilot just prior to my solo.
7) Chose an unused 7000' x 200' strip for the test.
) Didn't have tons of friends and family around.
9) Waited for the perfect day=2C light winds right down the runway.
10) Had plenty of taxi time to familiarize my brain with the visual picture.

The Q is totally different that most pLanes in that you can't see both wings.

There is no level in roll visual indication. The curved canopy on the left

doesn't help.
11) Had my head on straight that I was flying a high performance airplane

and need to be sharp.

12) Filled the tanks with minimal fuel plus 30 min reserve.

13) Had ground personal with aircraft radio to spot other air traffic or an omalies

like smoke=2C pieces falling off...
14) Flew only when well rested and in good shape.



What I did wrong:

1) Chose an unused 7000'x200' strip for the test with no fire rescue. Need

to chose a place where it won't take 20 minutes for a fire truck to get there.
2) Probably should have worn nomex.



How do I remember this after 26 years? Trust me, you test fly a new

airplane and you'll remember!


Yall be safe out there

Mike Q200 N3QP
http://www.warnerair.com/q200/


What I did right/wrong

Mike Dwyer
 

Content-TransferEncoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0



I'd like to challenge the people that have a few hundred or more Q hours to=
comment on what they did right and what they did wrong during the first 40=
hours of operation. We might get some good insight into this flight test =
stuff from people that have done it. I'll start it off. Please if you com=
ment=2C you need to say WHAT Q MODEL and hours!

=20

Mike Dwyer Q200 1200 hours flying for 26 years.

=20

Previous flight experience: 50 hours in C150's=2C 10 hrs in Aeronca=2C Port=
erfield

=20

What I did right:

1) Built plane exactly to plans.

2) Had 2 other experienced builders go over the plane with a fine tooth com=
b.

3) Got an extremely experienced tail dragger pilot to fly off the first few=
hours while oil temp and trim issues were worked out.

4) Practiced flying a C150 in at full power over the numbers (gets you used=
to the 120mph in the pattern and 90 mph approach).

5) Got checked out in 3 other slow tail draggers (no Pitts S2 available - w=
ould be best option).

6) Got a ride in my Q200 from the test pilot just prior to my solo.

7) Chose an unused 7000' x 200' strip for the test.

8) Didn't have tons of friends and family around.

9) Waited for the perfect day=2C light winds right down the runway.

10) Had plenty of taxi time to familiarize my brain with the visual picture=
. The Q is totally different that most pLanes in that you can't see both w=
ings. There is no level in roll visual indication. The curved canopy on t=
he left doesn't help.

11) Had my head on straight that I was flying a high performance airplane a=
nd need to be sharp.

12) Filled the tanks with minimal fuel plus 30 min reserve.

13) Had ground personal with aircraft radio to spot other air traffic or an=
omalies like smoke=2C pieces falling off...

14) Flew only when well rested and in good shape.

=20

What I did wrong:

1) Chose an unused 7000'x200' strip for the test with no fire rescue. Need=
to chose a place where it won't take 20 minutes for a fire truck to get th=
ere.

2) Probably should have worn nomex.

=20

=20

How do I remember this after 26 years? Trust me=2C you test fly a new airp=
lane and you'll remember!

=20

Yall be safe out there=2C

Mike Q200 N3QP

http://www.warnerair.com/q200/ =


Re: We can do better!

quickieq2uk
 

Hi All,
First of all I would like to say what terrible loss this is and wish to extend my condolences to Jerry’s family even though I did not know him. I also would not wish to speculate on the cause of the accident as that is the job of the NTSB to determine. The following is not making judgement on the cause of Jerry’s accident. However, I would like to pick up some points that Jerry Marstal has made and take them a bit further if I may, especially those pertaining to pilot skill. I suspect there is an underlying issue here when it comes to owner/builders carrying out initial test flights in their own aircraft, particularly high performance taildraggers, not just Quickies.
The following text is my opinion and based on personal experience of this subject and is in no way meant to be taken as you must do as I say, although it may come across as such to some. There are many ways to skin the cat when it comes to flying, and I strongly believe that if you dogmatically stick to one way of doing something without being open minded about other ways of doing them, then you are a fool.
The following is just one way I propose that first flights on high performance aircraft be carried out and is certainly not a panacea to what can be a complicated and sensitive subject. It is however based on my own experience flying a wide variety of aircraft types and to give you a feel of where I’m coming from here I will give a brief summary of my flying experience for those of you that don’t know me. I am serving military pilot with 2300+ hours and have flown 70+ different aircraft types ranging from Helicopters to Fast Jets, 20+ of these types have been taildraggers ranging from Ultralights up to Warbirds and everything in between. I am also a Class Rating Instructor (CRI) and carry out tailwheel conversions and differences training. I am not what I consider to be an experienced pilot, considering some of the company I keep and I am not an experienced Quickie pilot with only 20 hours on type however, what follows should be applicable to any
high performance tailwheel aircraft including Quickies.
Here in the United Kingdom the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) is given delegated responsibility by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for airworthiness of homebuilt aeroplanes. When a builder submits his paperwork for initial test flying, he has to submit where the test flying will take place and who it will be performed by. This is to ensure that the site is suitable and the pilot is suitably qualified to carry out initial test flights. Very rarely in the UK will a builder be permitted to carry out the test flights on their own aeroplane unless they have proven track record of carrying out these flights or extensive experience on type. Normally a test pilot will be recommended by the LAA and will either be fully qualified professional test pilots or pilots who are very experienced on type (such as Gary McKirdy for Quickies)  and have flown a number of different examples of the type so they can understand if the particular example they are flying is
representative or not. Now we have an awful lot of restrictions and red tape when it comes to flying in the UK and we could learn a lot from the EAAA, however I believe this is one area where have got it right. If you’re not suitably experienced or qualified you won’t be doing the test flight, period.
A lot of you may disagree with the following statement and that is fine as this is based purely my own opinion and experience. I believe that a builder really has no place carrying out the initial test flights on their own aeroplane. The reasons for this are as follows;
1.       An initial test flight is not the place to be learning to fly your aircraft if you don’t have experience on type! There are a lot of things that can go wrong on a first flight either with the engine or the airframe or both and may require advanced handling techniques to recover the situation safely. If the pilot hasn’t got the experience or the mental capacity to fly the aircraft in normal flight modes at this stage, how can he expect to handle a serious malfunction in what can be a challenging aircraft to fly in normal circumstances?
 
2.       Builders can occasionally be too emotionally involved in their aircraft to stand back and really be objective about it. Another pilot who is coming to test the aircraft independently will have a strong sense of self preservation, (not that the owner won’t) but he’ll be objective and generally cast a fresh pair of eyes over the machine. They are probably less likely to feel pressured into flying it if it’s not quite right. I certainly know from my own experience that it can be difficult to pick up errors in your own work. Sometimes you can’t see the wood for the trees and an independent second pair of eyes will often pick up stuff you have missed. It is also very easy to pressure yourself into flying because you know how long it has taken you to complete and you want to see it in the air as soon as you can. I know, I’ve bought and worn that T-Shirt too and I am sure if we are all brutally honest with ourselves we have all done
something similar at some stage in our flying career.
 
3.       Builders may not have been keeping in good flying practice whilst building the machine and doing a few hours in another type before you test fly doesn’t really cut it. As it is unlikely you will fly enough hours over a wide enough range of conditions to make the experience worthwhile. Experience takes time to acquire and can’t bought by doing 5 hours in a Citabria or a Cub a couple of weeks before your first flight on type! Hours mean nothing if you haven’t made the most of them.
As previously stated I have flown a wide number of different aircraft and on a number of occasions I have flown tailwheel aircraft that are either single seat or have no dual controls. Each time I have done this I have carried rigorous preparation flying in other aircraft gradually working myself up to it. As I have already stated doing 5 hours in a Cub a few weeks before you fly a high performance taildragger, especially a Quickie doesn’t really cut the mustard.
Ideally you should be keeping in current flying practice all the time, however I realise this is very difficult for the majority of pilots due to the expense of it all. What I would say is work it up in stages. Get yourself checked out with an instructor in the last aircraft type you were current in and go through the full range of general handling exercises and circuit work until you are up to speed and he is happy that you are safe. Next go and fly with an instructor in a high performance type such as Pitts or RV so that you get used to the high approach and threshold speeds along with twitchy handling. Again you need to go through all the aspects of general handling and circuit work until you are safe in high performance aeroplanes. You should really aim to get 20-30 hours over a period of a few months in different aircraft types and different environmental conditions to build experience and capacity before your first flight. Finally try and get a
ride with a pilot who owns the same type of aircraft as you. You might not get to land or take off but the experience, sights, sounds and smells will reduce the unfamiliar sensations when you come to fly your own and will help give you the capacity you will need for your first flight. Get him to show you any handling quirks with the aircraft so as they don’t come as surprise and also prove that it is normal for the particular type. Get him to show you a few circuits so you can build a picture of what a circuit looks like, also get him to show you a practice forced landing pattern so that you get a feel for its glide characteristics should the engine quit. This way you might be some way prepared for the first flight in your aircraft. As stated earlier, get your test flying done by another pilot who is more qualified and experienced on type. The above procedure is aimed at a first flight on type after the test flying is complete, as the last thing you
need to be worrying about is checking performance figures or handling any potential malfunction.
However, if you do end up doing the test flying whether it is as an owner/builder or experienced pilot on type doing it for somebody else, here are a few considerations to think about. Hopefully it is common sense and I am teaching you to suck eggs as hopefully you already know it. They are not in any particular order, other than which they came into my head. It is by no means exhaustive!
1.       For the first test flight keep it short. Absolutely no more than 15-20 minutes maximum. Don’t bother with recording any figures. Climb straight into the overhead and remain within gliding distance of the into wind runway at all times. It should be a shakedown flight and nothing more. Purely proving serviceability of the aircraft and finding anything that does not work as advertised to be rectified before the next flight.
 
2.       Pick an airfield that is large enough to be able to put it back on the runway or land on another runway should something go wrong. Make sure it has a clear undershoot and overshoot if possible.
 
3.       Always give yourself a pre-take off emergencies brief. This preconditions your brain to the actions you will take in the conditions of the day should something go wrong with the aircraft during take off and climb.
 
4.       Do it when the airfield is quiet and not many aircraft in the circuit, so as not to get in their way and vice versa.
 
5.       Make sure the wind conditions are suitable and there is no turbulence in the air as wind and turbulence make the task more difficult than it needs to be and may even mask some issues with the aircraft. The last hour before sunset is usually best and also means density altitude should be lower giving you better performance. Don’t do it just before sunset or the half hour of light after sunset as just before the light may be in the wrong place especially if landing on a westerly runway and blind you and just after although still light enough to fly, is too dark for a test flight and you lose depth perception with the lower light levels.
 
6.       Don’t do short hops down the runway. By all means do taxy tests and gradually build up speed, but hops down the runway increase the risk of losing control for an unnecessary length of time. Instead get airborne, get into the overhead and get a feel for the aircraft’s slow flight characteristics. Carry out some dummy circuits at height to get a feel for the handling of the aeroplane at circuit speeds.
 
7.       Don’t land off your first approach unless it is perfect! The chances are it won’t be! Go around and do a couple of low approaches if necessary before committing to a landing.
8.       Finally don’t relax until the engine has stopped and the brakes are on. It is easy to switch off after you have landed thinking you’ve finished, only to do something dumb like run into a taxiway marker and damage the aeroplane because you switched off!
 
9.       For the remainder of the test flights ensure you have a specific programme of tests to be carried out to prove and record performance, reliability and rectify any issues prior to further flights.
 
10.   Once satisfied with the performance and reliability take the owner up as an observer to help record any further data as required by the test schedule and give them exposure to the operating environment of their aeroplane.
I know the above seems like a gold plated solution in ideal world and most of it is. However you really should strive to do most of the things listed above as possible as it will really reduce the risk you are carrying after all the hard work and expense expended on your shiny new aeroplane. I know some of it may seem extra expense when you have completed your plane at considerable expense but what is a couple of thousand bucks compared to the loss of your aeroplane or even your life? In my view doing this is better than any insurance policy. Personally I think that a loss rate of 3 out of 4 first flights this year is totally unacceptable and as a group of experienced Q-builders and fliers we should maybe take ownership of this issue before we lose another one of our friends in the Q community. I think we should probably come up with some sort of training package and mentoring scheme that will help prepare new builders and owners for their first flight
on type. There a number of experienced guys out there with the knowledge and whilst they have been willing to share it, it is clear that perhaps the message isn’t getting through to everyone and we as a group need to communicate the do’s and don’ts of first flights to people as clearly as we can.
I apologise if this comes across as holier than thou, believe me it’s not meant to and I am certainly no angel. I’ve made plenty of mistakes in the past and I have written this so that others may glean at least one nugget of information from my flying experience that they may not have thought about.
I know have certainly picked up plenty of useful information already from the experienced Q fliers who post on here and they have helped me tremendously so far in my scant 20 hours flying Quickies!
Standing by for incoming!
 
Safe flying,
 
Simon Wilson
Quickie Q2
United Kingdom
 
 


From: jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 0:05
Subject: [Q-LIST] We can do better!


 
I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.

There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.

There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
success.

I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
something about it.

Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.

While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.

I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
could your experience have been made safer, etc?

My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
Tri-Q before his first flight.

This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.

This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
flying his TriQ2.

Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
higher level.

I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.

This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.

I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.

Jerry Marstall




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: We can do better!++

L.J. French <LJFrench@...>
 

Paul - this has been updated since I saw it years ago. There is some good and relevant info in here. I like the flow chart. Maybe something that could be customized for our Quickies.

LJ

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 9, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Paul S" <wypaul2001@...> wrote:




I have added a folder (Flight Testing Files) and file to the files section which contains FAA AC 90-109
(http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AMWRTiCRAtejlJjiuSRlil8rm697zu1TV_j_NumXx6xaigyepRjkwtMwaOXlWMm3FQMTA3uzf9OQgaF5wqL50Yk9lYWIbk91/Flight%20Testing%20Files/AC90-109.pdf

I had hoped that there would be an option to allow others to add files to the folder as is possible with photos but it does not appear to be the case. So if anyone would like to add files to this folder contact me with a link and I will be happy to add them.

It will be a while before we have more details as to what caused the crash and with that said, landing/crashing short of the runway is usually caused by mechanical/fuel issues. One issue that is unique to plastic airplanes is the fuel filter being clogged by glass particles from the tank. No matter how clean you think the tank is, there will likely be enough material loosen up during flight testing to plug up the fuel filters (you do have more than one I hope). I recommend changing the fuel filters after the first flight and every 3 hrs for the first ten hours for a total of four times in the first ten hours of testing. This may be excessive but it is darn cheap insurance IMHO.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "jcrain2@..." <jcrain2@...> wrote:

That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500


Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@... wrote:


When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc










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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links


____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links



New file uploaded to Q-LIST

Q-LIST@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Q-LIST
group.

File : /Flight Testing Files/ac90-89a.pdf
Uploaded by : wypaul2001 <wypaul2001@...>
Description : FAA AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT AND ULTRALIGHT

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/files/Flight%20Testing%20Files/ac90-89a.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

wypaul2001 <wypaul2001@...>


Re: Very sad news

Gary McKirdy
 

I would like to add my personal condolences from Britain to the friends and
family of Jerry Brinkerhuf and to the Q-list subscribers who will have all,
in their own way, been affected by this tragedy.

Although I never met Jerry he emailed me recently and like others have
already said I also got the distinct impression that he was approaching test
flying his Quickie Q200 in a considered manner with due care and attention.

I believe that, whatever the cause of his aircraft landing just short, Jerry
was unlucky on this occasion.

I know of two Quickie incidents in the U.K. in the distant past where a Q2
aircraft ended up upside down. One was a relative low energy incident having
gone through a fence along the side of the runway but the other was after
landing in a ploughed field after engine failure.

In each case the pilot got out without assistance.

Regards
Gary McKirdy


Re: We can do better!++

Bruce Crain
 

That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500


Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@... wrote:

>
> When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
> or should you be doing your basic airwork???
>
> j.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@...>
> To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
> Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!
>
>
>
>
> Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
> One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
> My 2 cents worth
> Bruce Crain
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
> Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc


Re: We can do better!

Bruce Crain
 

The pic that Dan sent out showed that he had put the sparrow strainers on. That might explain the extra big smile that he had on in the pic as it would reduce the work load a bunch.Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: ericapplegate@...
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:54:09 +0000


Hey guys,
I have been wondering if Jerry ever installed the sparrow strainers? He and I walked around inspecting the examples in the hanger and I believe that he had decided to duplicate something on the order of Lynn's.

Eric
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "L. J. French" <LJFrench@...>
Sender: Q-LIST@...
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:29:58
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Reply-To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!

Jerry,
Thanks for kicking us in the butt and helping us to think what we can do
better. I also applaud Dan for working diligently to get feedback from us so
that it can be published for any newbie getting ready for their first
flight.

What I am envisioning right now based yours and Dan's prompting is some sort
of "quiz" that every first flight pilot should take AS WELL as each of us
veteran pilots. It could simply be a yes or no quiz based on the ideas that
we each should be contributing as you suggest. A first flight should never
be attempted until a newbie can conscienshously answer all questions with a
"yes" for example. Questions like "Have at least ??? hours of taxi testing
been complete at speeds up to ???", or "Has a thorough review of the
aircraft been completed by a technical advisor", or "Have at least ??? hours
of flight training been completed in an exact type of aircraft", or "Have at
least ??? take offs and landing been completed by self in an exact type of
aircraft", or "Have all components of the Jim/Bob six pack been
incorporated", etc..... I know my examples sound elementary, but you get the
picture. We can build a good set of "critical assessments" that can be used
before any first flight. This might sound critical at a bad time, but I have
to believe that if any one of us would have done a thorough review of
Jerry's aircraft prior to his first flight we would have noticed that he did
not have sparrow strainers installed. Any of us should have grounded him and
made sure they were properly installed prior to even doing taxi tests. Of
course after he had made the first flight it became painfully obvious of the
lack thereof. I spent a great deal of time at Marion helping him understand
why they were needed and how to set them up properly. My aircraft can be
flown hands off in almost any configuration without the use of any elevator
trim. So I know a great set-up can be achieved with meticulous attention and
care. I do believe he went home and followed this advice, and I do not
believe based on what little I know at this time that this was relavent to
his accident.

Likewise, we as a veteran Q community should be able to answer a seperate
set of questions related to our support of this first time flyer. I know
this may not be popular because we will see liability written all over this,
but we need to stand up and feel good about the checklist of things we did
to help a first time flyer. I know that Joseph Snow would confirm that at
last years Beatrice fly-in, I actually let him take the stick and do a
couple of complete landings on his own as well as take offs. Was I very
nervous? Of course, and my hand was very near the stick the whole time in
case I needed to take over.

Dan has such a great skill set with his website, that I could also envision
this "quiz" or "checklist" as a link that any pilot could go to and that any
of us could point someone to for them to make a critical assessment of their
prepardness. I'm sure Dan already had something like this or better in mind.

Another thing for builders to never under estimate is the power of
questions. I will never forget all the questions Sanjay would ask me - both
in person at fly-ins but also via e-mail. He did not just ask me questions,
but everyone. All of us that have been there before know there are no stupid
questions and I find that answering questions is a great way to expand on
other things. I think it was either Sanjay or Joseph that asked me a
question that reminded me of a first flight checklist that I taped on my
instrument panel when I did my first flight. This checklist was bold,
simple, and concise of the things I needed to do when I became airborne the
first time. Often we are so nervous that it is easy to forget some of the
basic things we need to do or keep an eye on. After thinking of this and
mentioning it to them I forwarded it at their request - helpful or not.

I have been so busy lately that I have not been able to contribute much on
the list, but this was important enough I thought I would throw some things
out.

Regards,

LJFrench
TriQ-200

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

> I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
> that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
> felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
> forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.
>
> There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
> completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
> the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.
>
> There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
> the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
> process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
> success.
>
> I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
> another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
> and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
> something about it.
>
> Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
> the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
> of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
> newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
> Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
> me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.
>
> While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
> and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
> rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
> flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.
>
> I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
> successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
> series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
> could your experience have been made safer, etc?
>
> My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
> know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
> spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
> result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
> Tri-Q before his first flight.
>
> This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
> gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
> it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
> characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
> newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
> current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
> looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
> Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
> Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
> multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.
>
> This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
> ( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
> his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
> so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
> became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
> the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
> back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
> thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
> we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
> a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
> He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
> flying his TriQ2.
>
> Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
> higher level.
>
> I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
> skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
> about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.
>
> This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
> some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
> a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.
>
> I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
> or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.
>
> Jerry Marstall
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>







____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919e065a0878f077ast06vuc


Re: We can do better!

ericapplegate@rocketmail.com
 

I would be tickled to pay for instruction in a Q of any kind before I make my first flight, as it seems that the tail dragger part of the plane is only part of the gotcha factor.
Eric
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard" <mylittlemgb@...>
Sender: Q-LIST@...
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 05:06:09
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Reply-To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!

Okay folks let's see what you all think of this. First off I do not mean to make anybody mad in what I may say just looking for a way to make everyone safer, and your thoughts. When I flew my first tandem wing now 20 years ago I learned that the J3's and Champ's do not prepare you for an airplane looking to bite you. The best advice I got was dual time in a Pitt's S2. From the photos I have seen of many broken Q's there are two weak places on any Q. A tail that breaks off easy and no forward roll over support in the canopy area in the advent of a ground loop roll over. One hard fact about tail draggers you fly them enough a ground loop will happen no matter how good of a pilot you are. This is backed by data from the insurance industry, and the FAA. Same thing goes for retracts. As we move forward with the idea of new kits we are working to build safety into the design. The side I want to present to the group is this: We are rebuilding my Tri-Q with dual controls. I will be offering the use of it for flight training only asking the trainee to pay for the fuel and the instructor. Yes we have an instructor on the field that will be happy to give dual time in the plane. At this time he is working with a new Dragonfly owner with zero tail wheel time. Did I say how great this instructor is? Insurance cost on our part will not at this time permit us to offer a tail dragger version for training. Please let us know your thoughts of this idea.

Fast Little Airplanes

--- In Q-LIST@..., "L. J. French" <LJFrench@...> wrote:

Jerry,
Thanks for kicking us in the butt and helping us to think what we can do
better. I also applaud Dan for working diligently to get feedback from us so
that it can be published for any newbie getting ready for their first
flight.

What I am envisioning right now based yours and Dan's prompting is some sort
of "quiz" that every first flight pilot should take AS WELL as each of us
veteran pilots. It could simply be a yes or no quiz based on the ideas that
we each should be contributing as you suggest. A first flight should never
be attempted until a newbie can conscienshously answer all questions with a
"yes" for example. Questions like "Have at least ??? hours of taxi testing
been complete at speeds up to ???", or "Has a thorough review of the
aircraft been completed by a technical advisor", or "Have at least ??? hours
of flight training been completed in an exact type of aircraft", or "Have at
least ??? take offs and landing been completed by self in an exact type of
aircraft", or "Have all components of the Jim/Bob six pack been
incorporated", etc..... I know my examples sound elementary, but you get the
picture. We can build a good set of "critical assessments" that can be used
before any first flight. This might sound critical at a bad time, but I have
to believe that if any one of us would have done a thorough review of
Jerry's aircraft prior to his first flight we would have noticed that he did
not have sparrow strainers installed. Any of us should have grounded him and
made sure they were properly installed prior to even doing taxi tests. Of
course after he had made the first flight it became painfully obvious of the
lack thereof. I spent a great deal of time at Marion helping him understand
why they were needed and how to set them up properly. My aircraft can be
flown hands off in almost any configuration without the use of any elevator
trim. So I know a great set-up can be achieved with meticulous attention and
care. I do believe he went home and followed this advice, and I do not
believe based on what little I know at this time that this was relavent to
his accident.

Likewise, we as a veteran Q community should be able to answer a seperate
set of questions related to our support of this first time flyer. I know
this may not be popular because we will see liability written all over this,
but we need to stand up and feel good about the checklist of things we did
to help a first time flyer. I know that Joseph Snow would confirm that at
last years Beatrice fly-in, I actually let him take the stick and do a
couple of complete landings on his own as well as take offs. Was I very
nervous? Of course, and my hand was very near the stick the whole time in
case I needed to take over.

Dan has such a great skill set with his website, that I could also envision
this "quiz" or "checklist" as a link that any pilot could go to and that any
of us could point someone to for them to make a critical assessment of their
prepardness. I'm sure Dan already had something like this or better in mind.

Another thing for builders to never under estimate is the power of
questions. I will never forget all the questions Sanjay would ask me - both
in person at fly-ins but also via e-mail. He did not just ask me questions,
but everyone. All of us that have been there before know there are no stupid
questions and I find that answering questions is a great way to expand on
other things. I think it was either Sanjay or Joseph that asked me a
question that reminded me of a first flight checklist that I taped on my
instrument panel when I did my first flight. This checklist was bold,
simple, and concise of the things I needed to do when I became airborne the
first time. Often we are so nervous that it is easy to forget some of the
basic things we need to do or keep an eye on. After thinking of this and
mentioning it to them I forwarded it at their request - helpful or not.

I have been so busy lately that I have not been able to contribute much on
the list, but this was important enough I thought I would throw some things
out.

Regards,

LJFrench
TriQ-200

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.

There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.

There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
success.

I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
something about it.

Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.

While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.

I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
could your experience have been made safer, etc?

My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
Tri-Q before his first flight.

This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.

This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
flying his TriQ2.

Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
higher level.

I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.

This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.

I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.

Jerry Marstall






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: We can do better!

ericapplegate@rocketmail.com
 

Hey guys,
I have been wondering if Jerry ever installed the sparrow strainers? He and I walked around inspecting the examples in the hanger and I believe that he had decided to duplicate something on the order of Lynn's.

Eric
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "L. J. French" <LJFrench@...>
Sender: Q-LIST@...
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:29:58
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Reply-To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!

Jerry,
Thanks for kicking us in the butt and helping us to think what we can do
better. I also applaud Dan for working diligently to get feedback from us so
that it can be published for any newbie getting ready for their first
flight.

What I am envisioning right now based yours and Dan's prompting is some sort
of "quiz" that every first flight pilot should take AS WELL as each of us
veteran pilots. It could simply be a yes or no quiz based on the ideas that
we each should be contributing as you suggest. A first flight should never
be attempted until a newbie can conscienshously answer all questions with a
"yes" for example. Questions like "Have at least ??? hours of taxi testing
been complete at speeds up to ???", or "Has a thorough review of the
aircraft been completed by a technical advisor", or "Have at least ??? hours
of flight training been completed in an exact type of aircraft", or "Have at
least ??? take offs and landing been completed by self in an exact type of
aircraft", or "Have all components of the Jim/Bob six pack been
incorporated", etc..... I know my examples sound elementary, but you get the
picture. We can build a good set of "critical assessments" that can be used
before any first flight. This might sound critical at a bad time, but I have
to believe that if any one of us would have done a thorough review of
Jerry's aircraft prior to his first flight we would have noticed that he did
not have sparrow strainers installed. Any of us should have grounded him and
made sure they were properly installed prior to even doing taxi tests. Of
course after he had made the first flight it became painfully obvious of the
lack thereof. I spent a great deal of time at Marion helping him understand
why they were needed and how to set them up properly. My aircraft can be
flown hands off in almost any configuration without the use of any elevator
trim. So I know a great set-up can be achieved with meticulous attention and
care. I do believe he went home and followed this advice, and I do not
believe based on what little I know at this time that this was relavent to
his accident.

Likewise, we as a veteran Q community should be able to answer a seperate
set of questions related to our support of this first time flyer. I know
this may not be popular because we will see liability written all over this,
but we need to stand up and feel good about the checklist of things we did
to help a first time flyer. I know that Joseph Snow would confirm that at
last years Beatrice fly-in, I actually let him take the stick and do a
couple of complete landings on his own as well as take offs. Was I very
nervous? Of course, and my hand was very near the stick the whole time in
case I needed to take over.

Dan has such a great skill set with his website, that I could also envision
this "quiz" or "checklist" as a link that any pilot could go to and that any
of us could point someone to for them to make a critical assessment of their
prepardness. I'm sure Dan already had something like this or better in mind.

Another thing for builders to never under estimate is the power of
questions. I will never forget all the questions Sanjay would ask me - both
in person at fly-ins but also via e-mail. He did not just ask me questions,
but everyone. All of us that have been there before know there are no stupid
questions and I find that answering questions is a great way to expand on
other things. I think it was either Sanjay or Joseph that asked me a
question that reminded me of a first flight checklist that I taped on my
instrument panel when I did my first flight. This checklist was bold,
simple, and concise of the things I needed to do when I became airborne the
first time. Often we are so nervous that it is easy to forget some of the
basic things we need to do or keep an eye on. After thinking of this and
mentioning it to them I forwarded it at their request - helpful or not.

I have been so busy lately that I have not been able to contribute much on
the list, but this was important enough I thought I would throw some things
out.

Regards,

LJFrench
TriQ-200

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.

There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.

There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
success.

I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
something about it.

Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.

While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.

I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
could your experience have been made safer, etc?

My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
Tri-Q before his first flight.

This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.

This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
flying his TriQ2.

Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
higher level.

I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.

This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.

I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.

Jerry Marstall






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: We can do better!++

L.J. French <LJFrench@...>
 

Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@... wrote:


When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: We can do better!

Richard <mylittlemgb@...>
 

Okay folks let's see what you all think of this. First off I do not mean to make anybody mad in what I may say just looking for a way to make everyone safer, and your thoughts. When I flew my first tandem wing now 20 years ago I learned that the J3's and Champ's do not prepare you for an airplane looking to bite you. The best advice I got was dual time in a Pitt's S2. From the photos I have seen of many broken Q's there are two weak places on any Q. A tail that breaks off easy and no forward roll over support in the canopy area in the advent of a ground loop roll over. One hard fact about tail draggers you fly them enough a ground loop will happen no matter how good of a pilot you are. This is backed by data from the insurance industry, and the FAA. Same thing goes for retracts. As we move forward with the idea of new kits we are working to build safety into the design. The side I want to present to the group is this: We are rebuilding my Tri-Q with dual controls. I will be offering the use of it for flight training only asking the trainee to pay for the fuel and the instructor. Yes we have an instructor on the field that will be happy to give dual time in the plane. At this time he is working with a new Dragonfly owner with zero tail wheel time. Did I say how great this instructor is? Insurance cost on our part will not at this time permit us to offer a tail dragger version for training. Please let us know your thoughts of this idea.

Fast Little Airplanes

--- In Q-LIST@..., "L. J. French" <LJFrench@...> wrote:

Jerry,
Thanks for kicking us in the butt and helping us to think what we can do
better. I also applaud Dan for working diligently to get feedback from us so
that it can be published for any newbie getting ready for their first
flight.

What I am envisioning right now based yours and Dan's prompting is some sort
of "quiz" that every first flight pilot should take AS WELL as each of us
veteran pilots. It could simply be a yes or no quiz based on the ideas that
we each should be contributing as you suggest. A first flight should never
be attempted until a newbie can conscienshously answer all questions with a
"yes" for example. Questions like "Have at least ??? hours of taxi testing
been complete at speeds up to ???", or "Has a thorough review of the
aircraft been completed by a technical advisor", or "Have at least ??? hours
of flight training been completed in an exact type of aircraft", or "Have at
least ??? take offs and landing been completed by self in an exact type of
aircraft", or "Have all components of the Jim/Bob six pack been
incorporated", etc..... I know my examples sound elementary, but you get the
picture. We can build a good set of "critical assessments" that can be used
before any first flight. This might sound critical at a bad time, but I have
to believe that if any one of us would have done a thorough review of
Jerry's aircraft prior to his first flight we would have noticed that he did
not have sparrow strainers installed. Any of us should have grounded him and
made sure they were properly installed prior to even doing taxi tests. Of
course after he had made the first flight it became painfully obvious of the
lack thereof. I spent a great deal of time at Marion helping him understand
why they were needed and how to set them up properly. My aircraft can be
flown hands off in almost any configuration without the use of any elevator
trim. So I know a great set-up can be achieved with meticulous attention and
care. I do believe he went home and followed this advice, and I do not
believe based on what little I know at this time that this was relavent to
his accident.

Likewise, we as a veteran Q community should be able to answer a seperate
set of questions related to our support of this first time flyer. I know
this may not be popular because we will see liability written all over this,
but we need to stand up and feel good about the checklist of things we did
to help a first time flyer. I know that Joseph Snow would confirm that at
last years Beatrice fly-in, I actually let him take the stick and do a
couple of complete landings on his own as well as take offs. Was I very
nervous? Of course, and my hand was very near the stick the whole time in
case I needed to take over.

Dan has such a great skill set with his website, that I could also envision
this "quiz" or "checklist" as a link that any pilot could go to and that any
of us could point someone to for them to make a critical assessment of their
prepardness. I'm sure Dan already had something like this or better in mind.

Another thing for builders to never under estimate is the power of
questions. I will never forget all the questions Sanjay would ask me - both
in person at fly-ins but also via e-mail. He did not just ask me questions,
but everyone. All of us that have been there before know there are no stupid
questions and I find that answering questions is a great way to expand on
other things. I think it was either Sanjay or Joseph that asked me a
question that reminded me of a first flight checklist that I taped on my
instrument panel when I did my first flight. This checklist was bold,
simple, and concise of the things I needed to do when I became airborne the
first time. Often we are so nervous that it is easy to forget some of the
basic things we need to do or keep an eye on. After thinking of this and
mentioning it to them I forwarded it at their request - helpful or not.

I have been so busy lately that I have not been able to contribute much on
the list, but this was important enough I thought I would throw some things
out.

Regards,

LJFrench
TriQ-200

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.

There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.

There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
success.

I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
something about it.

Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.

While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.

I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
could your experience have been made safer, etc?

My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
Tri-Q before his first flight.

This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.

This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
flying his TriQ2.

Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
higher level.

I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.

This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.

I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.

Jerry Marstall






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Photo of Jerry B

quickheads
 

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 21:54:02 -0400, Sanjay Dhall wrote:
I have posted a picture of Jerry after his second test flight, to
Q-list
photos and at Quickheads-> Media -> Quicker. After returning from
the Marion
fly-in, he redid the rigging of his Q, and added sparrow strainers.
It is
evident from this photo, and from hearing a description from his
girlfriend,
that he was very happy with the way his plane was now flying. She
mentioned
that he was up there for quite a while, and made a very nice
landing. She
took this photo as he was stepping out of his plane after that
flight.

Sanjay


Photo of Jerry B

Sanjay Dhall <sdhall@...>
 

I have posted a picture of Jerry after his second test flight, to Q-list
photos and at Quickheads-> Media -> Quicker. After returning from the Marion
fly-in, he redid the rigging of his Q, and added sparrow strainers. It is
evident from this photo, and from hearing a description from his girlfriend,
that he was very happy with the way his plane was now flying. She mentioned
that he was up there for quite a while, and made a very nice landing. She
took this photo as he was stepping out of his plane after that flight.

Sanjay


Re: We can do better!

L. J. French <LJFrench@...>
 

Jerry,
Thanks for kicking us in the butt and helping us to think what we can do
better. I also applaud Dan for working diligently to get feedback from us so
that it can be published for any newbie getting ready for their first
flight.

What I am envisioning right now based yours and Dan's prompting is some sort
of "quiz" that every first flight pilot should take AS WELL as each of us
veteran pilots. It could simply be a yes or no quiz based on the ideas that
we each should be contributing as you suggest. A first flight should never
be attempted until a newbie can conscienshously answer all questions with a
"yes" for example. Questions like "Have at least ??? hours of taxi testing
been complete at speeds up to ???", or "Has a thorough review of the
aircraft been completed by a technical advisor", or "Have at least ??? hours
of flight training been completed in an exact type of aircraft", or "Have at
least ??? take offs and landing been completed by self in an exact type of
aircraft", or "Have all components of the Jim/Bob six pack been
incorporated", etc..... I know my examples sound elementary, but you get the
picture. We can build a good set of "critical assessments" that can be used
before any first flight. This might sound critical at a bad time, but I have
to believe that if any one of us would have done a thorough review of
Jerry's aircraft prior to his first flight we would have noticed that he did
not have sparrow strainers installed. Any of us should have grounded him and
made sure they were properly installed prior to even doing taxi tests. Of
course after he had made the first flight it became painfully obvious of the
lack thereof. I spent a great deal of time at Marion helping him understand
why they were needed and how to set them up properly. My aircraft can be
flown hands off in almost any configuration without the use of any elevator
trim. So I know a great set-up can be achieved with meticulous attention and
care. I do believe he went home and followed this advice, and I do not
believe based on what little I know at this time that this was relavent to
his accident.

Likewise, we as a veteran Q community should be able to answer a seperate
set of questions related to our support of this first time flyer. I know
this may not be popular because we will see liability written all over this,
but we need to stand up and feel good about the checklist of things we did
to help a first time flyer. I know that Joseph Snow would confirm that at
last years Beatrice fly-in, I actually let him take the stick and do a
couple of complete landings on his own as well as take offs. Was I very
nervous? Of course, and my hand was very near the stick the whole time in
case I needed to take over.

Dan has such a great skill set with his website, that I could also envision
this "quiz" or "checklist" as a link that any pilot could go to and that any
of us could point someone to for them to make a critical assessment of their
prepardness. I'm sure Dan already had something like this or better in mind.

Another thing for builders to never under estimate is the power of
questions. I will never forget all the questions Sanjay would ask me - both
in person at fly-ins but also via e-mail. He did not just ask me questions,
but everyone. All of us that have been there before know there are no stupid
questions and I find that answering questions is a great way to expand on
other things. I think it was either Sanjay or Joseph that asked me a
question that reminded me of a first flight checklist that I taped on my
instrument panel when I did my first flight. This checklist was bold,
simple, and concise of the things I needed to do when I became airborne the
first time. Often we are so nervous that it is easy to forget some of the
basic things we need to do or keep an eye on. After thinking of this and
mentioning it to them I forwarded it at their request - helpful or not.

I have been so busy lately that I have not been able to contribute much on
the list, but this was important enough I thought I would throw some things
out.

Regards,

LJFrench
TriQ-200

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

I have been mulling the loss of Jerry. While I only met him once and
that was at Marion. I can't help but think that everyone who met him
felt his genuineness and knew they had just made a friend. If you will
forgive me, I am go to subject you to a tirade. I will try to be brief.

There is something basically wrong when three of our last four Q
completions ended as they did. In most cases, the results were not
the fault of the plane, but us. We can do better. We must do better.

There are several planes in the incubator, waiting to hatch and take to
the air. Before the next first flight, we need to develop a program,
process, etc, whatever you want to call it to better insure our brothers
success.

I agree with Jim M. regarding his comment, " . . . we can never give
another pilot is judgement and pilot skill." to a point. If judgement
and skill are enhanced by instruction and practice, then we can do
something about it.

Yes, we give pilots rides before their initial flight. They see what
the Q can do and let them try their hand at it at altitude. Since few
of us have dual controls, and for other justifiable reasons, few of the
newbies get a chance at landing it. I was most fortunate that Earnest
Martin was brave enough and confident enough in my abilities to provide
me this priceless experience. I am forever grateful for that.

While real landing practice is ideal, there are good reasons, personal
and legal that we don't typically do it. The end result is that the
rides don't really contribute to preparing the pilot for his first
flight. They just get the adrenalin running faster.

I challenge each of us to contribute ideas to making our first flights
successful. What would you have liked to have done before the first
series of flights? (excluding the landings I mentioned above). How
could your experience have been made safer, etc?

My suggestion. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all (those who
know me can vouch for the fact that I am on the other end of that
spectrum), I offer the following suggestion: This suggestion is the
result of my one and only experience at checking someone out in the
Tri-Q before his first flight.

This suggestion is simply - before a pilot takes his first flight, he
gets a Q pilot who flys the same make and model of Q he has built. Be
it a Tri-Q2, Q2, TriQ200, Q200, etc. Someone who knows the
characteristics of the type of plane the newbie is about to fly. The
newbie takes the experienced Q guy for a ride in whatever plane he is
current in at the time, doesn't matter make/model. What the Q guy is
looking for is does the newbie have the skill set required to fly the
Q. Are the fundamentals good? Does he demonstrate good judgement?
Total flying time doesn't mean squat. As we know there are just as many
multi-thousand hour guys that bust their butts and >100 hrs.

This idea never occurred to me before I began to check out this fellow.
( it has only occurred to me while thinking about Jerry) I discovered
his lack of certain skills while we were in my Q. I have dual controls,
so he was doing all the flying with me on the other stick. It quickly
became apparent that his skills weren't where they needed to be to fly
the Q. I stopped the checkout process. My instruction to him was to go
back home and get dual time in whatever he flies. I specified what he I
thought he should concentrate on. Several months later he came back and
we tried it again. He then possessed the basic skills necessary. After
a few laps around the pattern, he was putting it safely on the ground.
He went on to successfully test fly his and had many happy hours of
flying his TriQ2.

Also, his judgement was much better because his skill set was at a much
higher level.

I could have more easily and more safely discovered his basic flying
skills by riding with him in a plane he was familiar with than learn
about them in the Q in which he had no proficiency.

This is not a panacea, only a stimulus to see if we can't come up with
some way of saving our brothers and Q-craft from tragedy. I don't have
a lot of friends, therefore I can't afford to lose any more.

I would happily be the clearing house for the collection of these ideas
or pass along any of my other brain farts to whomever.

Jerry Marstall






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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: We can do better!++

JMasal@...
 

When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.

-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: We can do better!

Bruce Crain
 

Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc


Re: We can do better!

quickheads
 

Jerry M.
I have been trying to get submissions of this sort for the past three newsletters! Please. . . Please. . . Pretty please. . . Keep sending this kind of stuff. I am in the process of compling the information and I intend to make it a special "highly visible" area of the website so that all of us newbies will have an easy reference.

I love the idea of assessing the skill set of the new guys on something they are familiar with. All of the accidents this year have given me pause, and made me asses my OWN skill set. I intend to get a lot more flying hours before attempting any flying in a Q on my own.

There is a limit to the knowledge that you can pass on to the new guys. . . But keeping what the more experienced guys know, locked inside their heads, is treacherous! Everyone with more than 200 hrs flying a Q should have sent me something about what they've learned already!

Enough is enough!

Dan Yager
QBA Editor
www.quickheads.com

17121 - 17140 of 55797