shop talk november 2014 - sonexfoundationshop talk! november 2014 2 shop talk robbie culver,...

Shop Talk! November 2014

1

Shop TalkThe newsletter of the Sonex Builders & Pilots Foundation

SONEXFOUNDATION.COM

November 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTSShop Talk! 3Recent updates! 9Featured Aircraft! 10Why a Sonex? Why a Corvair?! 13AeroVee Engine Monitors! 18Are you acting as a Professional Pilot?! 19Tales From the DAR Side! 24Sonex Aircraft Accident Analysis! 28

President - Robbie CulverVice President - Mike FarleySecretary - Eric SeberTreasurer - Carl OrtonMembership - Tony Sabos

368 Members38 Voting members

www.sonexfoundation.com

Submissions are always welcome at [email protected] or [email protected]


2

http://www.sonexfoundation.con






mailto:[email protected]




Shop TalkRobbie Culver, President - Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation

This newsletter is focused on Sonex aircraft safety. While we have included several other articles of interest, the past few weeks in the Sonex community have been extraordinarily difficult. We have suffered a series of devastating fatal accidents. Our thoughts go out to those affected most - the family and friends of the deceased.

This fact is even more shocking when compared to the previous fatal accident data, which amounted to 5 fatal accidents during the period from 2000-2013. In 2014, 5 fatal accidents have occurred. Of the recent 5 accidents, several involved a non builder pilot - that is, the person flying the airplane did not build it. This is not unique to 2014. The Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation has been hard at work discussing these accidents and working to find ways to address them.

I would like to point out that in these accidents, the aircraft, design, and build do not seem to be the issue. Unfortunately, in many of the fatal and non fatal accidents, the pilots are the issue.

One reason this foundation exists is the 2012 NTSB Safety Study, and the recommendations that resulted from the study. When we look at the recent accidents, they mirror the study’s data and re-iterate the need to discuss, understand, and work to reduce these accidents. We realize that doing so is unpleasant and may sound caustic, at best. Still, as a community we must not pretend they did not occur, and we must not ignore the root causes.

Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) remains the largest growth segment of General Aviation. Estimates are that over 500 new EAB aircraft were registered in 2014, and less than 100 new certified aircraft were registered in the same period. As of this issue, Sonex now has 500 aircraft completed and flying. This growth is a sign of the popularity and strength of the EAB market, but as a community, we are having fatal accidents at a rate that continues to exceed that of certified aircraft.

The core problems we face in the EAB community, and most recently in the Sonex community, continue to be loss of control in flight and powerplant failures. These are exactly the root causes of the E-AB aircraft accidents investigated in 2011 as part of the NTSB study. In that study, more than one-half were aircraft that had been purchased used, rather than built by the current owner. As mentioned previously, of the recent fatal Sonex accidents, several were used aircraft/new owner accidents. It is likely that 3 of the 5 fall into that category.

Many of these accidents occur early in the operating life of a new E-AB aircraft, or shortly after being purchased by a new owner. One recent fatal accident involving a non builder owner was on the ferry flight home to Ohio from California. During 2011, more E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during the first flight by a new owner of a used E-AB aircraft than during the first flight of a newly-built aircraft. The most common accident occurrence for first flights of both newly-built and newly purchased aircraft was loss of control in flight. There is a common theme here.

Unfortunately, we continue to see these accidents occur exactly as described in the study that reviewed the 2011 data. This trend must be reversed. As detailed in the EAA article at http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/


3

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-10-14-experimental-category-fatals-edge-past-faa-target


eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-10-14-experimental-category-fatals-edge-past-faa-target “Fatal accidents in experimental category aircraft exceeded the FAA’s not-to-exceed figure for the fiscal year 2014, which ended September 30. There were 67 fatal accidents in all types of experimental aircraft, including 50 experimental amateur-built, nine experimental exhibition, six experimental light-sport, one experimental racing, and one experimental research and development category aircraft.”

Note the words “not to exceed” in the FAA statement.

Clearly, the subject has caught our collective attention. There have been numerous conversations on SonexBuilders.net about this, emails from members and non-members alike, and several phone calls as well. I find the conversation an excellent start, but our community must work together to be part of the solution.

The foundation leadership has held conference calls with Sonex Aircraft, LLC and met in person with the EAA’s Type Club Coalition (TCC). We have been working on steps we can implement to educate the community, and how to solve some of the issues we face. We cannot do this alone. We need your help.

There will always be builders and pilots we cannot reach, or who will not listen. There are many who operate outside the community, offline, and ignore the EAA, Sonex Aircraft LLC, and this foundation. We know this. But if you are reading this, I expect you are not part of that category. How can you help? By participating in the conversation, by reaching out to those you know who need your input, and by refusing to accept that we cannot do better. We can.

No one wants to be told what to do, and that is certainly not the intent of this conversation. Pilots are, by nature, highly independent and egotistical individuals who base their decisions on their own experience and training.

But the facts speak for themselves - we are killing ourselves in Experimental Aircraft at a pace that exceeds that of certified aircraft, with lower numbers of flight hours, and this fact will not be ignored by those who are in a position to regulate change. I would also add most of those in this position do not understand EAB, nor do they care much about the privileges we cherish.

I just turned 50 years old in September, and if I am lucky I will complete Sonex 1517 in 2015 and make its first flight. To me, this means I have many years ahead to enjoy flying the aircraft. As a selfish note, I do not want to face changes to the rules that govern EAB, and I doubt others in the community do either.

We cannot continue to run out of fuel, exceed the capabilities of our aircraft and engine, lose control of our aircraft, fail to maintain our engines, or sell aircraft to individuals that do not receive transition training who then have an accident. The answers to these and other issues are complex. Transition training is a big part of the solution, but there are currently only two places in the US to receive this - the factory in Oshkosh, and from Mike Farley in Ohio. In order to make this more available, we need more aircraft and CFI’s available.

As Mike Farley says later in this issue “If those options are not available for you, then find a local Sonex owner and try to get time in their airplane as a passenger. The more experience you have in the Sonex, the better prepared you'll be to fly yours.”


4



It may surprise you to hear, but you can help with the lack of transition training availability.

A LODA authorizes the aircraft to be used to provide transition training and have compensation allowed. The LODA is for the aircraft - and any qualified CFI can be added as an authorized instructor as part of this LODA. This is a huge opportunity for CFI’s who are willing to work with owners, pilots, and builders to learn how to safely operate these aircraft. Obtaining a LODA is a process that the foundation has documented here: http://sonexfoundation.com/Obtaining_a_LODA.html

If more owners made their aircraft available under the LODA process, more CFI’s could provide transition training in more locations. We’re not suggesting you rent your aircraft to strangers to fly solo - you can’t - but obtaining a LODA and allowing trusted CFI’s to provide training would help the community. This alone would make a big difference - once more training is available, more people can get the training. More training for second and third owners would have a direct impact.

Recently, a new rule from the FAA made flight testing with a second qualified pilot for EAB possible. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 90-116 was issued on September 23rd, 2014. The entire AC may be viewed at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-116.pdf

It is important to note that this new rule only affects those who have it included in their operating limits, and does have stringent requirements for the additional pilot and some required documentation. If your operating limitations do not include the additional pilot you are ineligible.

In part, the AC “...provides information and guidance on the Additional Pilot Program (APP) for flight testing experimental aircraft. The APP was developed to improve safety by enhancing Builder/Owner Pilot (BP) skills and mitigate risks associated with Phase I flight testing of aircraft built from commercially produced kits through the use of a qualified additional pilot and powerplant testing. The APP is an optional program which provides another pathway to conducting Phase I flight testing. The traditional option for a pilot to test their aircraft solo during Phase I is not covered or affected by this AC, and remains an option for those who choose to do so in accordance with their aircraft’s operating limitations.”

Specifically, related to engines... “to mitigate powerplant issues to the extent necessary, powerplant eligibility and minimum initial testing standards are specified.”

While not a complete solution, due in part to some of the limitations of the initial ruling, this AC should make Phase One testing with a qualified second pilot for some EAB kit-built aircraft a possibility for many. At this time, plans-built aircraft are not eligible, nor are aircraft with engines the kit manufacturer does not endorse. The EAB must also have dual controls as specified:

“The aircraft must have fully functioning dual controls. This includes, at minimum, power and control of all three flight axes (pitch, roll, and yaw). Central controls, such as power, available to both pilots simultaneously are acceptable.”

The AC is definitely worth reviewing, even if you do not plan on using a second pilot. It is clear from the wording in the circular that this is directly addressed at loss of control accidents. It was also another part of the NTSB recommendations from the 2012 study that the FAA has now enacted, and includes in part some of the recommended fuel and engine testing the NTSB recommends. What I found curious is that,


5

http://sonexfoundation.com/Obtaining_a_LODA.html

http://sonexfoundation.com/Obtaining_a_LODA.html

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-116.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-116.pdf

as written (or at least as I understood them), the additional tests and documentation are not mandatory unless using the additional pilot. Yet.

Snippets of the NTSB study are quoted below - I urge every Sonex builder and pilot to review this information and pay close attention. It is not the kit design, the build process, or even the workmanship that is causing these accidents. It is the pilots and owners that are causing the accidents. We need to work together to improve our safety record. We have already seen the FAA respond and if the accident rate continues we can expect additional action.

The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built AircraftSafety StudyNTSB/SS-12/01 PB2012-917001 Notation 8413A Adopted May 22, 2012

Key FindingsThe pattern of study results identifies several safety-critical issues that, if addressed, could improve the E-AB aircraft accident record and better prepare pilots to operate E-AB aircraft. Study results indicate:The largest proportion of E-AB aircraft accidents involved loss of control in flight and powerplant failures, and loss of control in flight has been the greatest contributor to fatal E-AB aircraft accidents.

More than one-half of the E-AB aircraft accidents investigated in 2011 were aircraft that had been purchased used, rather than built by the current owner.

A large proportion of accidents occurs early in the operating life of a new E-AB aircraft, or shortly after being purchased by a new owner.

During 2011, more E-AB aircraft accidents occurred during the first flight by a new owner of a used E-AB aircraft than during the first flight of a newly-built aircraft.

The most common accident occurrence for first flights of both newly-built and newly purchased aircraft was loss of control in flight.

Recommended Safety ActionsIn response to the findings of this study, the National Transportation Safety Board issued 12 recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration and 4 recommendations to the Experimental Aircraft Association. The recommendations include expanding the documentation requirements for initial aircraft airworthiness certification, verifying the completion of Phase I flight testing, improving pilots‘ access to transition training and supporting efforts to facilitate that training, encouraging the use of recorded data during flight testing, ensuring that buyers of used E-AB aircraft receive necessary performance documentation, and improving aircraft identification in registry records.

RecommendationsAs a result of its safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations:


6

To the Federal Aviation Administration:

Revise 14 Code of Federal Regulations 21.193, Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G, and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to define aircraft fuel system functional test procedures and require applicants for an airworthiness certificate for a powered experimental, operating amateur-built aircraft to conduct that test and submit a report of the results for Federal Aviation Administration acceptance. (A-12-28)

Revise 14 Code of Federal Regulations 21.193, Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G, and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to require applicants for an airworthiness certificate for experimental, operating amateur-built aircraft to submit for Federal Aviation Administration acceptance a flight test plan that will (1) ensure the aircraft has been adequately tested and has been determined to be safe to fly within the aircraft‘s flight envelope and (2) produce flight test data to develop an accurate and complete aircraft flight manual and to establish emergency procedures and make a copy of this flight test plan part of the aircraft‘s certification file. (A-12-29)

Identify and apply incentives to encourage owners, builders, and pilots of experimental amateur-built aircraft to complete flight test training, such as that available in the Experimental Aircraft Association‘s Test Flying and Developing Pilot Operating Handbook, prior to conducting flight tests of experimental amateur-built aircraft. (A-12-30)

Revise Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G, and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to clarify those circumstances in which a second qualified pilot could be authorized to assist in the performance of flight tests when specified in the flight test plan and Phase I operating limitations. (A-12-31)

Revise Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G, and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to require the review and acceptance of the completed test plan documents and aircraft flight manual (or its equivalent) that documents the aircraft‘s performance data and operating envelope, and that establishes emergency procedures, prior to the issuance of Phase II operating limitations. (A-12-32)Revise Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 90-89A, Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook, to include guidance for the use of recorded flight data for the purposes of flight testing and maintaining continued airworthiness of experimental aircraft. (A-12-33)

Revise Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G, and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to include provisions for the use of electronic data recordings from electronic flight displays, engine instruments, or other recording devices in support of Phase I flight testing of experimental amateur-built aircraft to document the aircraft performance data and operating envelope and develop an accurate and complete aircraft flight manual. (A-12-34)

Develop and publish an advisory circular, or similar guidance, for the issuance of a Letter of Deviation Authority to conduct flight instruction in an experimental aircraft, to include sample documentation and sample training materials. (A-12-35)

Complete planned action to create a coalition of kit manufacturers, type clubs, and pilot and owner groups and (1) develop transition training resources and (2) identify and apply incentives to encourage


7

both builders of experimental amateur-built aircraft and purchasers of used experimental amateur-built aircraft to complete the training that is developed. (A-12-36)

Revise 14 Code of Federal Regulations 47.31 and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to require the review and acceptance of aircraft operating limitations and supporting documentation as a condition of registration or re-registration of an experimental amateur-built aircraft. (A-12-37)

Revise Federal Aviation Administration Order 8130.2G, and related guidance or regulations, as necessary, to include provisions for modifying the operating limitations of aircraft previously certificated as experimental, operating amateur-built, such as returning the aircraft to Phase I flight testing, as necessary, to address identified safety concerns or to correct deficiencies in the aircraft flight manual or equivalent documents. (A-12-38)

Revise the Civil Aircraft Registry database to include a means of identifying aircraft manufacturer, make, model, and series—such as the aircraft make, model, and series classification developed by the CAST/ICAO Common Taxonomy Team—that unambiguously identifies the aircraft kit or plans design as well as the builder of the aircraft. (A-12-39)

To the Experimental Aircraft Association:Identify and apply incentives to encourage owners, builders, and pilots of experimental amateur-built aircraft to complete flight test training, such as that available in the Experimental Aircraft Association‘s Test Flying and Developing Pilot Operating Handbook, prior to conducting flight tests of experimental amateur-built aircraft. (A-12-40)

Work with your membership, aircraft kit manufacturers, and avionics manufacturers to develop standards for the recording of data in electronic flight displays, engine instruments, or other recording devices to be used in support of flight tests or continued airworthiness of experimental amateur-built aircraft. (A-12-41)

Create and publish a repository of voluntarily provided information regarding holders of Letters of Deviation Authority to conduct flight instruction in experimental aircraft. (A-12-42)

Complete planned action to create a coalition of kit manufacturers, type clubs, and pilot and owner groups and (1) develop transition training resources and (2) identify and apply incentives to encourage both builders of experimental amateur-built aircraft and purchasers of used experimental amateur-built aircraft to complete the training that is developed. (A-12-43)


8

Recent updatesWe now have tee shirts based on member feedback, and yes - some of them have pockets!

Several Directors of the foundation attended the American Sonex Association fly-in held at the Crossville, TN airport. Many considered the event a washout due to weather, but personally I learned more this year and had better conversations than I had in the previous two visits. I realize that the success of the event depends on a big turnout, but for those considering attending, the smaller crowd allowed for a more focused and intimate feel to the event.

Congratulations to Sonex Aircraft, LLC on their recent announcement that there are now 500 Sonex aircraft flying. What a huge milestone!

In spite of the weather, the American Sonex Association annual Crossville, TN fly-in was a blast! With the reduced crowd the event had a much more intimate feel and attendees were able to spend more time focused on the aircraft on display. Congratulations to ASA for putting on such a great event!


9

Featured Aircraft

Sonex 373 - John Maxfield

Here’s my Sonex story for the Sonex Foundations Newsletter as a very small payback for all of the direct and indirect help the many people that contributed to the completion of my plane. Also, I hope it inspires those building now or interested in building or owning a Sonex Aircraft.My Sonex is serial number 373, originally owned by Tom Broad of Buffalo NY. Tom had only finished the tail when I purchased the project from him in 2005. There are so many options available to the Sonex line of aircraft, follow along as I describe mine. N50NX is a standard gear Sonex with stock drum brakes, the normal (not lowered) seat configuration, and a center mounted stick. I have the aerobatic (long) ailerons and the new Sonex 4" machined tailwheel. Recently, I added a Waiex ventral fin to my plane for streamlining and I like how it looks.


10

I'd never been a big VW engine fan until I got the chance to fly a friends VW Powered Cygnet about 15 years ago. I loved it, so after learning about the AeroVee details and price, I was sold. My AeroVee is stock with the addition of the Sonex smoke system. I sent the exhaust out to Jet Hot for their coating process. Its used on race cars to retain the heat in the exhaust and keep the engine compartment cooler. I have a stock fuel system with a gascolator and fire sleeve on the fuel line. I was very careful to keep the baffleing tight for proper airflow, and to date, I've not had any temperature issues. I elected to have my instrument panel anodized red instead of painting it. For instruments I have a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 that I use for everything. The tachometer, oil pressure and temperature, airspeed, altimeter, and fuel gauge are all on one screen, very simple. The EGT, CHT, voltmeter and other things are on monitored background screens. I have an X-Com radio/intercom with a music input jack and a Microair Transponder with mode C to operate here in the Detroit area. The antennas are on the bottom of the fuselage and work fine. A small compass sits atop the glare shield and is surprisingly accurate.

Other than cutting the flaps shorter for the aerobatic aileron option, the only real customization I've done is to add a Waiex lower tail fairing to my Sonex. I like the way it looks, it fares in the tailwheel spring


11

nicely and adds a little vertical fin area for when I add the jet. My first flight was in October 2012. There wasn’t transition training nearby so I followed the EAA Flight Advisor program of self-evaluation, airport selection, ground crew, weather, etc... I selected the very large and historic Willow Run Airport (KYIP) for my first flight where anywhere in the pattern, I would be on a base leg for a runway. That paid off, because at about 400 feet, with the end of the runway having disappeared under the nose, I had smoke in the cockpit! It wasn't thick, but it was electrical in nature, so I advised the tower, who then cleared me to land on any runway. As I was making the turn to get on base leg for the closest runway, I noticed the tach reading on my Grand Rapids EIS go blank, indicating bad things were still happening under the cowl. Discression being the better part of valor, my first landing was a greaser on the spacious unoccupied west ramp. That ramp is larger and smoother than many runways, and when you think you're on fire, the world is an airport. The culprit was my miss-interpretation of an old wiring diagram resulting in too small a wire used to carry the alternator load. I flew it again three days later with much better results. It flies great, responsive, but not too sensitive. I flew 5 more uneventful hours near Willow Run, breaking the engine in, before flying the eight miles to our EAA Chapter 113 hangar at Canton (MI) Mettetal Airport (1D2) where I keep it now.My initial exposure to Sonex was actually in the air. While at Oshkosh in our 195, the prototype was headed other way and I remember thinking that it was a pretty cool looking plane. When I discovered the "Sonex Reality Check" approach to the whole Sport Pilot rule, I was hooked. I found the entire building process enjoyable, especially the great tech support. The building process was straight forward. I’d tell visitors that the hardest part of building a Sonex is keeping it simple, it’s not complicated, don’t make it so. Sure, there are parts that require time and patience, like the canopy or cowling, or parts that have a lot of holes to drill, debur, and rivet, like the spars. But it’s a simple airplane to build and fly. I wouldn’t change a thing if I were to build another one. In fact, I enjoyed it so much, I’d love to build another Sonex product of some type. For now though, I’m enjoying flying the restrictions off as the last steps in my building process. I’m planning to take it to Oshkosh in 2015. See you there!

Happy LandingsJohn MaxfieldN50NX


12

Why a Sonex? Why a Corvair?Dale Williams N319WF

Isn’t every pilot searching for the perfect airplane? Does such a thing exist? Not really as airplanes are all a series of compromises that the builder/pilot settles on. Here is how I came to love a Cleanex! “What in the world is a Cleanex” you ask?

I learned to fly in an ultralight trainer when such was allowed by the FAA under FAR 103 and shortly afterwards became a Basic, and then, an Advanced Flight Instructor in Challenger Ultralight aircraft. These are fun airplanes that fly low and slow, bounce around a lot in turbulence, and required lots of rudder work!

I flew a large variety of “fat” ultralights and sport planes after gaining my Sport Pilot Certificate. My friends with GA aircraft would often let me fly their aircraft and I did some training in various Cessna and Piper models. Being the president of our local EAA chapter afforded me the opportunity to get demonstration rides from vendors that would participate in our well attended fly-ins that we held at different locations at least twice a year.


13

http://flycorvair.net/2014/08/20/speaking-of-paul-poberezny/

http://flycorvair.net/2014/08/20/speaking-of-paul-poberezny/

Many had the Rotax 912 series; great engines but they don’t sound like airplane engines to me. Personal preference I know! I enjoyed flying various aircraft but always pondered what I would personally be satisfied with when I moved up from my Challenger II Clip Wing Special.

I went to airshows, read articles, asked owners, helped do maintenance on several types of planes, all in an effort to figure out what it was I was after. I knew that it would not have a two-stroke engine. Not that I had much difficulty with the two strokes but I was looking for reliability in an engine that wasn’t quite so finicky. The Rotax 503 gave good service but there were a few times that I landed before I wanted to because the engine quit working before the flight was over. Great lessons, but not fun!

I came to the conclusion that I wanted a metal aircraft. I wanted something much stronger than the aluminum tube and light weight fabric planes that I flew most often. I looked at a Titan Tornado. It had the 912 or Jabiru option for engine power but there were a number of things that took me away from it. It does have great visibility but the cockpit is cramped, there is no area for luggage without adding a “belly bag” but most of all it looked to me like an ultralight, not a real airplane. The price for a four stroke for a Titan was more than I could touch.

The Zenith 701 was on the radar briefly but it was too slow and too unattractive for my taste. The Zenith 601 was closer to what I had in mind but I couldn’t afford an engine for it unless I used the Corvair. I knew nothing of Corvair flight engines at the time so I began doing research.

This research led me to the FlyCorvair site and I began reading and following the adventures of William Wynne’s Corvair powered 601. Seemed like a very good match! Yet the 601 had things that I couldn’t settle on. (The Folding wing concerns had not yet come to light). At a Lumberton NC fly-in I got a close look at a 601. The thin aluminum sheets on the wings were oil canning in the hot sun, the seat was in a


14

really reclined position, but most concerning was the lack of rollover protection afforded the occupants of the cockpit.

I had seen the Sonex at Sun-N-Fun and it seemed an OK aircraft but the long sloping windshield and blunt look of the small spinner on the nose kind of put me off. But I went to their website and Yahoo group and started reading and understanding. Owners of this airplane were in love with it. All stated that the factory numbers were accurate and maybe even conservative. That fact alone spoke volumes to me as a first impression of the company. Truth in advertising is very respectable!

A short time later I learned that Wayne Andrews, Sonex tail wheel, Jabiru 2200, builder/owner/pilot was offering rides in his Sonex in NC. It was about 5 hours on my motorcycle to get there and the weather was quite blustery but Wayne did get me up in his beautiful Sonex. He warned that it might be bumpy but I wasn’t too concerned as I had flown some very light aircraft in some pretty nasty winds. My problem, after Mr. Andrews gave me the controls, was flying like an ultralight pilot!

Finally he said, “It will be easier if you put your feet on the floor and don’t use so much back pressure in the turns.” It was quite amazing how well the Sonex flew, especially in the wind and turbulence that day. I was sold. I went and ordered a set of plans and attended the builder workshop a few months later. Could I build an aircraft? As it turns out I could, with some help, but not just yet.

Dick Fisher, who I met through our local group, knew of my interest in a Sonex. He had scratch built a beautiful Jabiru 3300 powered, tail wheel Sonex. He lived in Pennsylvania at the time but was in the area and brought me a piece of wing spar and some rivets to practice with.

I had sold my Challenger, had saved a few dollars, and was about to order a kit when Dick sent me a private email about a nearly finished kit close to me for sale. I moved quickly and soon I was the owner of an Aerovee powered tri-gear Sonex. Thanks to my brother for helping me retrieve it on a borrowed trailer.

The builder had done an excellent job of constructing the kit but there was some left to do, i.e. panel and wiring, engine baffling, etc., but the biggest hurdle was the engine. It wouldn’t run correctly. The previous owner had been very honest about this during the sale but I was certain I could find the cause.

It was a bit more than I first suspected in that he had missed the timing between the crank and cam gear by three teeth. It would run, but it wouldn’t idle and the best I could get for RPM was about 2500. It took all of a weekend to remove the engine, tear it down, make the correction, and reinstall it.

After four months of inspection and rework of various items on my Sonex I moved it to the airport, mounted the wings and called the DAR for an inspection. Of course it passed easily! It was now ready for first flight but I wasn’t. In order to get ready I flew every kind of aircraft I could get my hands on.

I had a CFI take me up in a couple of different aircraft to prep me for my first flight. On the day of first flight I was apprehensive as the only Sonex time I had was a few turns during the airplane ride with Wayne Andrews. Still I mounted the steed and rode off down the runway.

Head temps were high but to be expected for engine break-in and I soon learned that this wasn’t a Challenger! It was very responsive but not twitchy, easy to feel, and honest. After a few laps above the airport I figured it was time to see if I could land this thing. Using two notches of flaps and turning final the


15

picture out of the windscreen looked perfect so I followed it down to the runway and made a beautiful landing on the first try! The tri-gear Sonex is the easiest airplane I have ever landed!

I loved that little polished Sonex and flew it from South Carolina to Tennessee twice for the American Sonex Association yearly gathering. The little Aerovee was a good engine, performed as advertised, and was very economical but for hot days and/or heavy flights I was yearning for more power.

Dick Fisher moved close by and soon his 120 HP tail wheel Sonex was in a hangar near my house. What a beautiful build! His instructor put me in it and said, “Your airplane!” I told him I wasn’t a tail wheel guy and he talked me through the take-off. Wow! What a difference another 40 horses makes! Now I just needed to figure out where I was going to find another 20K so my Sonex would come alive also.

The weather was quite poor for the 2009 American Sonex Association meeting and I elected to ride with Dick Fisher to the event rather than attempt to fly through the forecast storms and rain showers. Because of the weather, that year didn’t have the usual high attendance yet in many ways that worked to my advantage.

I had read much of Dan Weseman and his “Cleanex” which is a name given to a Sonex that has a William Wynne Corvair conversion on the nose, but when Dan and Chris Smith appeared in the skies over Crossville with two Cleanex aircraft I was really intrigued! The sound of the straight pipes and the short valve timing gave the Corvair a very distinct and throaty sound. When Dan and Chris did a side by side Tony Spicer type “sheep clearing pass” they had everyone in attendance standing on the tarmac.

I took every opportunity over the next couple of days to thoroughly examine the firewall forward package that Dan had designed for the Sonex that included the mount, nosebowl, and cowling, along with the William Wynne supplied components of the intake, exhaust, front mount alternator, starter, oil adapter, top cover, oil pan, etc.

But there was still more with the dual ignition, carburation, baffling, etc. It was all integrated together into a very well-designed package. Dan and Chris were very forthcoming about the particulars of the installs, answering questions and opening/removing cowls for the hungry eyes of those that were present.

Dan took his Cleanex up over the airport and impressed the small crowd with a very clean aerobatic routine that worked his engine and airframe combination with gracious harmony seen in the hands of a very skilled pilot. I was coming to really consider that if the Corvair was all that I was seeing and hearing and it was mounted to the Sonex airframe that I had fallen in love with, that I might be very close to having the, for me, perfect airplane.

A few months later Dick proposed that we build the airplane I wanted powered with a 3.0 Corvair. As is often said, the rest is history. Two and a half years later I did the first flight in “Myunn” my tail wheel Sonex airframe with a Dan Weseman built 3.0 Corvair engine on the nose.

The performance meets the Jabiru 3300. The Corvair is 30 lbs. heavier but that weight, I believe, is in the additional fins on the heads as cooling is exceptional in the cowling Dan designed for the Sonex. N319WF performed her first long cross country flight to the American Sonex Association Gathering in 2013. She performed perfectly!


16

Perhaps, if you are still reading, you believe that cost was my only consideration. In reality that may have been the initial motivating factor but along the way I’ve come to love the simplicity of the Corvair but even more than that is its reliability. It is a stout and robust engine. GM made about 1.8 million of these engines so parts are available once you learn the people and sources.

Other questions I get are about oil leaking. Originally the Corvair did have concerns with leaks as they used rubber seals in many areas including the pushrod tubes, valve covers, and oil cooler.

But today, with the much better sealing technology available, a leak free Corvair is easily assembled. Others cite crank breaks. The truth is that only one factory crank has ever been broken on a 5th bearing engine and there were some extenuating circumstances involved. For those concerned about using the original crankshaft, Dan Weseman has brand new billet cranks available on his site.

My recommendation for anyone considering a Corvair engine is to study Dan Weseman’s and William Wynne’s web sites. Register and attend a “Corvair Colle ge” where William teaches participants how to convert the Corvair engine into a reliable flight engine. Of course you can buy an assembled engine as I did but the college will still give you the training you need to maintain the engine and understand how and why it has become one of the best kept secrets for a power plant in a Sonex aircraft. Besides, you just may get to see me, and my “perfect for me,” airplane there!


17

AeroVee Engine MonitorsBy Mark Schaible

The Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation asked Mark Schaible of Sonex Aircraft, LLC for some information on AeroVee engine monitors, and his response is copied below for our members:

In terms of our MGL packages, 8 channel monitoring is available in everything from the Xtreme model up. The Velocity Singles packages’ E1 monitor only has 4 channels (you probably already know all this). If you’re still searching for an instrument, you may want to check with MGL to see what else they have in terms of a dedicated engine monitor with more channels — they may have something more along the lines of the E1’s pricing with more channels such as the TC-3.

Regardless of what instrument you use from whichever manufacturer you choose, there isn’t much to be concerned about because most new digital instruments now have the ability to accept multiple different signal types.

- You’ll want to check whether you need a specific type of thermocouple wire for the instrument’s EGT and CHT inputs. In most cases, today’s instruments can be set to accept both J-Type and K-Type wire, however. In-terms of our preferences, we like our AeroConversions CHT senders (available in both K and J) vs. under the spark plug type senders, and we prefer the clamp-type EGT senders instead of something that requires a welded-in threaded bung in the exhaust.

- Double-check that the instrument can read our VDO oil pressure and oil temperature senders that we sell for the AeroVee, according to the specs listed for each sender at: http://www.aeroconversions.com/products/accessories/aerovee/index.html This should not be an issue, as I’ve never heard of a digital instrument that won’t read these probes. The only incompatibility that we ever see with these probes is when someone wants to use steam gauges.

- If monitoring fuel level with the instrument, you’ll want to check whether the instrument requires a capacitive or resistive type fuel level probe. We have both available made specifically for our tanks. Again, most new instruments can now accept both signal types.

- Also something that shouldn’t be an issue with any modern instruments, you’ll want to double-check that the instrument can accept the type of RPM monitoring that we use for the AeroVee, which is detailed in the AeroVee Assembly/Installation Manual (page 47 of the current revision), downloadable at: http://www.aeroconversions.com/support/manuals.html

- Finally, if you’re doing fuel flow, we always prefer the metal sensors such as the FloScan sensor provided by MGL vs. the plastic units on the market.

Mark SchaibleGeneral ManagerSonex Aircraft, LLC


18

http://www.aeroconversions.com/products/accessories/aerovee/index.html




http://www.aeroconversions.com/support/manuals.html




Are you acting as a Professional Pilot?By Mike Farley

One of the interesting aspects of being a Certified Flight Instructor is the wide variety of pilots you have the opportunity to fly with. As an active CFI for the last 12 years, I've been fortunate enough to instruct students ranging from initial Private Pilot candidates all the way through pilots working on their Airline Transport Pilot license.

Overall I really enjoy working with all levels of students while they're engaged in flight training, and in many cases I feel as though I learn as much from my students as they learn from me. As I look back over my 2,500+ hours of 'Dual Given' time, I'm happy to say that the vast majority of the pilots I've had the pleasure of flying with are smart, hard working, and professional in their approach to their training. This hardly comes as a surprise in today's world, given the time, responsibility, and cost that is associated with flight training.

On the other hand, I've also worked with students who are, shall we say, not as hard working or professional as flight training demands. While this has almost nothing to do with actual flying skills, historically some of my most challenging students were those who had large ego's, as well as those who didn't take the responsibility of flight training seriously.

As a corporate pilot, I continue to see these pilot types in the aviation world on a semi-regular basis, and it can be infuriating to watch people act in a unprofessional or even reckless manner while they fly.

Ultimately my hope is that, after reading this article, we all elect to take a few moments for self reflection and self examination to determine if we're truly being professionals in our approach to aviation. In my opinion, we should all constantly be evaluating ourselves to determine if there are attitude or behaviors that we can modify in order to make our own flying safer. Let's face it; no matter which type of airplane you happen to fly, flying in general does come with an inherent risk that we should always strive to mitigate as much as practical. If we all do this, we may then continue to enjoy this wonderful freedom for years to come.

To help illustrate my point, allow me to give you an idea of some routinely asked questions to both myself and my students prior to a flight lesson:!- Do I feel okay to fly today using the personal IMSAFE (Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, Emotion) checklist?- Am I both current and proficient in the airplane I'm about to fly?- Have I considered action plans and checklists in the event of an engine failure during takeoff, cruise, or landing?- Is the airplane in good working order, with no known deficiencies or maintenance issues?- Have I accomplished a thorough preflight, including checking fuel and oil levels?- How is the current and forecast weather conditions for today's flight? - Are there any TFR's in the general vicinity or on my route of flight?

As we can all agree, proper preparation is vital to the completion of a safe flight, and I'm sure a great many of you ask yourselves the same questions highlighted above. Unfortunately we all know of pilots who refuse to call Flight Service, check NOTAMs, and possibly even skip the preflight inspection. At best


19

these pilots are neglectful in their responsibilities, and their lack of action can become a liability for the safe outcome of a flight. To continue this discussion, let's examine a few aircraft accidents where unprofessional behavior or an over-inflated egos may have had a significant part in the accident chain of events:

Example #1:

In late May of 2005, a multi-engine Commercially licensed pilot performed a takeoff in his recently purchased Mitsubishi MU-2. Shortly after rotation, the nose of the aircraft pitched up to nearly 40 degrees before the airplane rolled left and impacted the ground next to the departure end of the runway. The NTSB investigators determined the left engine suffered a partial power loss on takeoff due to fatigue failure of several internal engine components.

After the accident it was determined the pilot had not properly dealt with the partial power loss in accordance with the aircraft's Pilot Operating Handbook which calls for maintaining a proper climb speed while securing the failed engine.

The investigators also discovered that the pilot had only recently purchased the accident aircraft, and while he had flown the MU-2 a small amount 14 years prior, he only had several hours of recent total flying experience in the 2 years prior to the accident, and almost none in the MU-2.

While recurrent simulator or in-aircraft flight training is readily available, the owner/pilot stated to friends that he felt he did not need any recurrent proficiency training in the aircraft given his previous (minimal) experience. At the same time several professional pilots who had recently flown with the owner stated that he was "proficiency lacking" in the MU-2.

Example #2:

In mid April of 2010, an 86 year old Private Pilot was offering rides in his Cessna 206 as part of a fundraising campaign. Towards the completion of one such flight, the airplane stalled and crashed within 1 mile of the airport, killing all 6 occupants on board.

NTSB investigators discovered the pilot had a well known history of flying his airplane in an unsafe and reckless manner, often performing takeoffs by keeping the airplane just off the ground until the end of the runway when he would then perform a rapid climb by pulling into an excessive nose high pitch attitude before resuming a normal climb.

Approach and landings were also non-standard with the pilot often performing extremely low, 270 degree turns to final approach only several hundred feet above the ground. The NTSB investigators also discovered the airplane owner/pilot had been receiving treatment for age-related monocular degeneration over the previous 2 years, with a recent eye exam showing vision in the 20/200 range for both eyes.

In fact, the pilot's vision was so bad that his eye doctor recommended he refrain from driving his car after the completion of that eye exam. An autopsy was performed and findings included massive coronary artery disease which could have led to an increased risk of heart attacks.


20

Example #3:

In October 2004, a Bombardier CL-600 Regional Jet (CRJ-200) was flown on a repositioning flight from Little Rock, Arkansas to Minneapolis, Minnesota. The jet had just finished a maintenance event, and the two company airline pilots were the only occupants on board. Immediately after takeoff, the pilot pitched the nose up into an excessive pitch attitude to the point of activating the jets stall warning and stall identification devices (stick shaker and stick pusher).

After recovery from this extreme maneuver the jet continued to climb normally until, during a temporary level off at 14,000', the two pilots temporarily engaged the autopilot and switched seats. At this point the First Officer was flying the airplane from the left seat while the aircraft Captain had moved to the right seat. Upon clearance to a higher altitude, the pilot flying once again initiated a very excessive pitch up attitude, temporarily pulling over 2.3 G's.

This pilot-induced pitch oscillation occurred once more before the jet was finally leveled off at cruising altitude. Shortly after, the Captain requested a climb to 41,000' which is the service ceiling for the CRJ-200 jet. It was later determined that an informal "410 Pilot's Club" had been created by the pilots who had taken their jet all the way to the 41,000' service ceiling.

Permission was granted and the jet climbed to 41,000', but was unable to maintain airspeed at such a high altitude. Within 1 minute of level off, the aircraft's stick shaker and stick pusher activated indicating the aircraft was in a stall situation. Aircraft control was temporarily lost but regained as the jet continued an uncontrolled descent through 34,000'.

At the same time, both engines began spooling down indicating a double engine flameout as a result of insufficient airflow through the engines during the aircraft stall. As the airplane continued a descent, the pilots attempted to restart both engines multiple times but were unsuccessful.

Air Traffic Control vectored the pilots for a visual landing at Jefferson City, Missouri, but the jet ultimately crashed 2.5 miles away from the airport, killing both pilots on board.

In the final NTSB ruling, a contributing factor was the unprofessionalism of both pilots during the entire duration of the flight, as well as the improper handling of a dual engine failure scenario which allowed the engines to stop turning, thus freezing the engine internals into a "core lock" situation. An additional factor was the improper preparation of an emergency landing in a timely manner by the pilots.

Now that we've summarized the accident reports, it's important to remember that there were no eyewitnesses reports from inside the airplane during these accidents, so at this point we can only speculate on all the specific details.

For the sake of continuing the discussion, if we assume that all previous details are accurate, let's take a few moments to analyze these different scenarios to offer thoughts and opinions as to how pilot attitudes and mindsets may have been contributing factors.

In example #1, the pilot had refused to get any recurrent flight training in his recently purchased, high performance multi-engine turboprop airplane based on his own flying experience many years prior. He


21

had been flying very little for several years before the purchase of his MU-2, and ultimately failed to act properly in accordance with the Pilots Operating Handbook when he did have an aircraft malfunction.

As we look at example #2, the pilot had serious medical issues and in my opinion, should not have been flying an aircraft. The pilot was aware that he had these potentially serious health risks and decided to continue flying anyway. Remember, the pilot's eye doctor had recently recommended he stop driving a car, let alone fly an airplane!

According to the NTSB ruling after the accident, there was also serious question as to wether or not he had been able to see the instrument panel clearly enough to identify a low airspeed situation until the airplane was already stalled.

Finally, after reading accident example #3, reckless flying decisions as well as unprofessional attitudes had a big hand in ultimately causing an accident which resulted in two deaths and the destruction of a regional airliner. Remember that both pilots involved were appropriately rated pilots for their company and trained to airline standards.

Since this accident, the scenario has became something of a benchmark as an example of unprofessionalism on behalf of the crew.

These may be interesting stories, but I'm sure a lot of you are wondering how these accidents are related to a nice Saturday morning flight in a Sonex, right? Good question, and to answer your question, let's re-examine these accidents from slightly different angles.

In our first accident scenario, the pilot had recently purchased an unfamiliar airplane and due to lack of recent experience and training, he was unprepared to handle an abnormal situation. Had he received training to properly prepare for flying this new (to him) airplane, the end result could have been very different.

This situation could very easily be compared to an unexperienced pilot performing the first test flight on a recently built Sonex, or a second-hand buyer purchasing an already completed Sonex and not taking the time to properly prepare to fly their new airplane.

The end lesson is the same; always make sure you as the pilot are properly trained and prepared to fly your airplane! Sonex Aircraft LLC. is providing a wonderful service to the Sonex community with the T-Flight Transition Training Program for this very reason.

After 2 summers, over 100 students have received training on the Sonex factory demonstrator airplanes. Please consider taking advantage of this service, or find an instructor with proper experience (preferably someone with a LODA to offer training in a Sonex) to make your transition into the Sonex an easy and enjoyable one.

Now let's take a look at the second accident scenario. In this situation, an elderly pilot was flying his Cessna while carrying passengers with serious medical issues. I'm certainly not saying all Sonex pilots are anywhere near elderly in age, but it's no secret that the majority of Sonex builders and pilots are at or nearing retirement age. Normally, younger people are too busy working, raising families, and making a living to commit to the task of building or owning a Sonex. As a pilot ages, personal health issues can be


22

a very delicate situation as no one wants to admit a medical condition that may prevent them from flying their airplane.

It's up to each of us as pilots to ensure we are prepared and capable to handle the stress and responsibility of being Pilot in Command and when the day comes that we don't feel comfortable with those requirements, we need to know when to stay on the ground.

Ultimately, the decision of when to give up flying is a personal decision made by each pilot, but remember that even if you don't personally feel up to the duties of Pilot in Command, that doesn't mean you have to quit flying altogether. Take an instructor or pilot qualified friend along with you to enjoy the flight. Remember that even professional airline pilots call of duty occasionally for personal illness or family situations, so don't be afraid to postpone a flight for a better day if you feel uncomfortable for any reason.

Finally, in our last accident scenario, this situation has a very simple yet vitally important lesson. It's always our responsibility to take the duties of flying seriously and never be unprofessional, especially to the point of being dangerous.

The two airline pilots acted in a reckless manner during the initial takeoff and climb, as they changed seats, and as they attempted to fly their jet to the very limits of its performance envelope. Even after the subsequent stall and double engine failure, the pilots continued acting in a reckless manner by diverting their attention to engine restart attempts rather than preparing for an emergency landing.

Remember that our most important task while flying is to 'Fly The Airplane', and in this case both pilots were too distracted by other factors to maintain proper aircraft control.

Please don't misinterpret this statement as saying "don't have any fun," but I think we can all agree there's a huge difference between enjoying the flight and being careless. If a pilot is properly trained and prepared, maneuvers such as aerobatics and formation flying are an absolute blast and can be accomplished safely.

On the other hand, careless actions such as performing low altitude maneuvering (normally known as "showing off"), flying in marginal weather conditions, or flying with known maintenance issues are some examples of situations that have and will continue to kill pilots. It's our responsibility to take things seriously, and always act in a professional matter.

I appreciate you reading my article and I hope you agree with my thoughts on flying safely and professionally. I welcome any feedback, discussions, and remarks on the subject. It's my hope that we can all continue working together to make the Sonex community bigger and better by continuously promoting building and flying safety.Thank you for your time,

Mike Farley

SBPF Vice-PresidentWaiex #0056 Builder and [email protected]


23



Tales From the DAR SideBy Joe Norris

The final airworthiness inspection on your homebuilt aircraft is not unlike the practical test (the dreaded “checkride”) that you took in order to gain your pilot certificate. And much like that checkride, a little bit of preparation will lead to smooth sailing and the issuance of a certificate. For a little over 7 years I served as an FAA Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR), authorized by the FAA Minneapolis Manufacturing Inspection District Office (MIDO) to issue airworthiness certificates to amateur-built and light-sport aircraft. In this article I'd like to share some of the common issues I ran into, so that you might be able to head these off for your own inspection.

During my service as a DAR I had the pleasure to inspect over 400 aircraft. This was during the time when the two-place ultralights were being converted to experimental light-sport aircraft, so a good share of the inspections I performed were for ELSA certificates, but I also did my fair share of amateur-built aircraft as well, some of which were Sonex designs. No aircraft I looked at was without some issue, but of course some had more issues than others. Ultimately, every aircraft I inspected earned an airworthiness certificate. Some just took a little more effort than others.

By far the most common issues I ran into were “paperwork” related. Forms not filled out correctly, markings applied incorrectly or not at all, data plates not properly completed, etc. Remember, notwithstanding the fact that the FAA representative is issuing an “airworthiness” certificate, he or she is really only attesting to the legality of the aircraft. You'll note that the statement the inspector makes in the aircraft records says nothing about “airworthiness”, or even condition of the aircraft. The FAA only states that the aircraft “meets the requirements of the certificate requested”. It's the applicant that has to sign the statement in the aircraft records stating that the aircraft is in a “condition for safe operation”.

Also note that even though an “airworthiness” certificate is issued, an experimental aircraft actually cannot be “airworthy” in the legal definition of the term. According to the FAA's definition of “airworthy”, the aircraft must meet it's “type design” (think “type certificate”) and also be “in a condition for safe operation”. Since an experimental aircraft does not have a type design, it can only meet the second requirement in the definition of airworthy. Thus, the term “airworthy” is never used when inspecting an experimental aircraft, either during its initial inspection by the FAA or during any subsequent condition inspection. The aircraft is simply stated to be in a “condition for safe operation”.

So let's take a look at some of the common things that popped up on the inspections I performed as a DAR. By far the most common problems were related to markings. N numbers were quite often not in compliance with the regulations found in FAR Part 45. Almost everyone knew that the characters marking the N number on the aircraft needed to be a least 3 inches high (in most cases). But almost nobody knew that there are also specifications for character spacing, width, thickness, and color. Very commonly the characters were too close together.

The requirements in Part 45 state that the characters have to be spaced at one sixth the height. So, 3 inch tall N numbers have to have ½ inch between the characters. Most people these days are using vinyl


24

decals for N numbers, which they purchase at a local sign shop. But the computer programs these shops use don't space the characters far enough apart. Many times the fonts used do not make the characters wide enough (2/3 the height, except for the number 1, which must be 1/6 the hight), or thick enough (1/6 the height). And of course the regulation requires that the color be “contrasting” with the background. This is of course somewhat subjective, but if you try to get too “creative” with color(s) of your N number, don't be surprised if the inspector takes issue.

Another place were builders can get into trouble is with the data plate. On an experimental aircraft, there are only three items of information that need to be on the aircraft's data plate: Builder name, aircraft model, and aircraft serial number. No other info is required, and I don't recommend any other info is imprinted on the data plate. Remember that the data plate must be “fireproof equal to steel”, so stainless steel is the usual choice of material.

Also, remember that the info on the data plate has to EXACTLY match that shown on the aircraft's certificate or registration. For example, the builder name is usually the name of the individual who is presenting the aircraft for certification. If the builder uses his or her middle initial in the builder name block on the registration, then the middle initial had better appear on the data plate as well. Also, the


25

serial number must be exactly the same. Don't use “001” on the registration and use on the the number “1” on the data plate (or vice versa).

Remember that the builder name is not the name of the kit manufacturer. It is the name of the applicant (which can be a US corporation or LLC) who is presenting the aircraft for certification (or the person who is listed as the “builder” on the amateur-built eligibility statement). Also, the serial number can be anything the builder chooses, so long as it does not conflict with another serial number under that builder name. Most people use the serial number of their plans or kit, and that's what the FAA suggests, but it is not required. Similarly, the aircraft model can be anything the builder decides. Again, most builders choose the model as called out on the plans or kit documentation. Just make sure you stay consistent with the builder name, aircraft model, and aircraft serial number across all related paperwork and on the aircraft's data plate.

Remember that in most cases there will need to be an “EXPERIMENTAL” placard near the cockpit entrance. Contrary to what some believe, this does not have to be on the outside of the aircraft. The FAA says it has to be “visible upon entering” the aircraft. There are many ways to meet this requirement without placing the placard on the outside of the aircraft. There are no specific font or spacing requirements for this placard.

The only requirement is that the letters be a minimum of 2 inches tall. That's ALL the letters, not just the “E” at the beginning of the word. By the way, there is also a maximum limitation on this placard. The letters cannot be any taller than 6 inches. I don't think I've ever seen an aircraft with letters taller than the minimum 2-inch requirement, but you can go bigger if you want!

Markings inside the cockpit are another place where the applicant can get caught out. What I always recommended to my applicants was to sit in the cockpit and pretend that you'd never seen the aircraft before. Look at every switch and control (other than primary flight controls) and ask yourself “what does this do” and “how does it work”. The answers to those questions are what should be marked on or near the switch control. For example, the throttle should be marked “Throttle” and marked in some way as to show how to work it (“Push Open” or something similar). Same goes for mixture control, ignition and light switches, fuses or circuit breakers, etc. Mark EVERYTHING. You can't overdo it.

Don't forget the “passenger warning” placard, which declares that the aircraft is amateur-built and does not meet the requirements for standard aircraft. This must be placed in view of passengers and crew. Somewhere on the instrument panel is the most common place.

Once the inspection progresses past the paperwork and markings, we get into the physical condition of the aircraft. The most common errors here are missing safeties (such as cotter pins or safety wire) loose fasteners or jam nuts, or improper hardware for the application. For example, any bolt that is subject to rotation should be installed with a castellated nut and cotter pin. Bolts that are not subject to rotation can use a “self-locking” nut. In either case, make sure at least 1.5 threads, but no more than 3 threads, are showing beyond the nut.


26

Sure, there were some inspections I performed that found more serious problems than those I've outlined here. There were some cases where hardware was completely missing, or where “hardware store” hardware was installed instead of aircraft quality items. There were also cases where things weren't hooked up right.

In one memorable case, I found an elevator that was rigged totally backwards. When I pulled the stick back, the elevator was DOWN, and when the stick was forward, the elevator was UP. This would have made for a very interesting first flight! Obviously, this wasn't on a Sonex design, but it serves to illustrate that some seemingly obvious things can be missed even when multiple sets of eyes have looked at the aircraft prior to the FAA inspection.

In closing I'll leave you with this advice; Use all the resources available to you when preparing for your final inspection. Use your local EAA Technical Counselor. He or she can walk you through a “pre-inspection inspection” and probably find most if not all the little things that might catch you out when the FAA inspector shows up.

Have other experienced builders look the aircraft over as well. The more sets of eyes that look over the aircraft, the more chance there is of catching all the discrepancies. Also don't be afraid of starting a dialog with the inspector who will be performing the final inspection. Early contact with the inspector can help you prepare for the specific things he or she may be looking for, or any specific things he or she will want to see during the inspection.

Finally, take advantage of the EAA's “Amateur-Built Certification Kit”. This kit offers very complete and useful guidance for filling out the paperwork, marking the aircraft, and preparing for the final inspection. The kit can be found on the EAA website, www.eaa.org. Just click on the “Shop EAA” tab at the top of the page, then click on “Homebuilder's Corner” on the resulting page. You can click on the certification kit to get all the info, and to order. You'll be glad you did!

As I said at the outset, a little preparation will make your final inspection go smoothly and quickly. You've spent months or years building the aircraft. Spend a little time preparing for the inspection and it will be a breeze. Then it's time to FLY!

Fly safely!

Joe Norris is a full time Sonex employee who created and manages the T-Flight Program. Joe joined the Sonex team after a highly-successful career at EAA, including becoming the first experimental aircraft DAR.


27

http://www.eaa.org/

http://www.eaa.org/

Sonex Aircraft Accident AnalysisBy Mike Farley

When the Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation began outlining objectives and goals for the creation of the organization, we all agreed a guiding principle would be to continuously promote safety while building and operating our Sonex aircraft. For obvious reasons, aircraft safety is a vital and necessary goal for each and every one of us as we continue to build and enjoy these wonderful aircraft.

With this in mind, we feel it's important to address and discuss this year's unfortunate trend in Sonex accidents. For those who may be unfamiliar, since the beginning of 2014 there have been a total of 5 Sonex aircraft accidents that have resulted in a fatality. If we compare this to the total number of fatal accidents from 2000-2013 (5 total for that 13 year span), we can plainly see that in 2014 the Sonex community saw an unprecedented rise in number of fatal accidents.

If you were able to attend this year's American Sonex Association's annual Sonex Gathering in Crossville, Tennessee, you undoubtedly recall the Sonex Foundation lead a round table discussion focusing on the history of Sonex aircraft incidents. We spent time reviewing specific accidents, categorized the results, and discussed strategies to help reduce the chance of future accidents from occurring. For those who were unable to attend the ASA gathering, we would like to offer a recap of that presentation.


28

We understand the sensitive nature of this discussion and this review is in no way an indictment or reflection on anyone involved in a Sonex accident. Hopefully this information can be used to create and refine strategies to prevent future accidents from occurring, with the goal of keeping the Sonex line of airplanes one of the safest homebuilt airplanes available on the market today.

To prepare for our presentation, members of the Sonex Foundation performed an extensive review of the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) website analyzing data from 2000 thru 2014. Foundation leaders found a total of 36 Sonex related accidents that have been recorded since the year 2000* (*note: this data is current through 11/11/2014*). Of the

36 accidents, 26 were non-fatal, while 10 resulted in fatalities.

The following list shows a very brief summary of the accidents. For clarification purposes, each line is a separate accident and a brief summary of the cause.

Sonex Non-Fatal Accidents

- Crankshaft failure

- Crankshaft failure (owner stated he disassembled and rebuilt incorrectly)

- Loss of engine power due to stuck throttle

- Engine loses power for undetermined reasons

- Engine failure due to electronic ignition failure

- Engine failure on first takeoff for unknown reasons

- Engine failure due to incorrect rocker arm assembly and adjustment procedures

- First flight; rough running engine, go around, and failed landing attempt

- Engine failure in cruise for undetermined reasons

- Partial loss of engine power during takeoff roll

- Engine failure on takeoff

- Engine failure on takeoff

- (pending) Aircraft lost power on takeoff roll

- Loss of engine power during cruise flight

- Engine failure during cruise for undetermined reasons

- Pilot was unable to maintain directional control on takeoff


29

- Departed side of runway on takeoff

- Loss of control during takeoff roll

- Loss of control due to possible alcohol impairment

- Fuel exhaustion during cruise

- Low on approach and landed short of runway

- Failed Go-Around Attempt resulting in collision with trees

- Pilot landed short of runway on long final approach

- Improper flare resulting in hard landing

- Pilot lands short of runway

- Departed side of runway and hit sign

Sonex Fatal Accidents

- (pending) Engine failure on takeoff

- Loss of aircraft control during takeoff and initial climb

- Engine failure on takeoff and initial climb

- Clogged fuel screen leading to engine failure in cruise

- In flight breakup (Waiex)

- Fuel exhaustion during attempt at landing

- (pending) Engine failure in cruise

- (pending) Aircraft missing in central Florida (found months later)

- (pending) Accident on high density altitude takeoff

- (pending) Complete engine failure in cruise

Once the total listing of reported Sonex accidents was complete, we attempted to categorize the reasons why these aircraft were involved. Two primary issues became very clear: first, aircraft mechanical issues are almost entirely "firewall forward"; i.e., if you are going to have a malfunction in a Sonex, it will most likely be some sort of engine failure.


30

In fact, after we look at the list we can see that 21 of the 36 total accidents have some sort of engine failure as a contributing cause. That means 58% of all Sonex accidents have engine failure as either the primary cause or a contributing factor. The second recurring condition that appears multiple times is...dare we say it...pilot error.

Or more specifically, the loss of control of the aircraft during flight which accounts for 13 of the 36 accidents, or roughly 36%. As an interesting note, when examining the phase of flight when aircraft control is lost, there is a nearly even split between takeoff and landing incidents.

Although we've determined that nearly all mechanical malfunctions somehow dealt with the engine or engine accessories - before we start pointing fingers at one specific engine or engine component, it's important to keep in mind that this list includes both Jabiru engines as well as VW conversions (both AeroVee and non-AeroVee engines) alike, with no specific component causing all of the issues.

We have and will continue to fully support the Sonex aircraft design as well as the AeroVee and Jabiru engines. Given the thousands of hours of trouble-free flying the Sonex community has seen, it is readily apparent the airframe and engines are very rugged, reliable designs.

Again we must ask...what do these results mean to me as a builder/owner? Put simply, examination of these accidents means two things:

1. If you're going to have an aircraft mechanical issue, history indicates it will most likely be an engine failure.

2. The Sonex is a high performance aircraft with light control forces. You must become familiar with the flight characteristics prior to flying your own.

Now that we've taken a look at past accidents and determined potential issues, let's turn our focus on how to keep accidents from happening in the future. In our opinion, here are some ideas to consider in order to mitigate the chances of a future accident from occurring.

1. Ensure you have a properly running engine on the ground.

Regardless of the engine type you've installed on your Sonex, proper diligence must be taken prior to flight to ensure the engine is properly tuned and putting out rated power. A very exciting moment during the build of your airplane is the moment the engine first starts, but don't ever be fooled into thinking that just because the engine is running, it's ready for flight.

You MUST take the time to follow the engine manual for proper tuning prior to first flight. If you have any doubts or questions, call the factory or enlist the help of another local Sonex pilot to ensure your engine is running reliably as well as putting out proper power.

2. When in doubt, troubleshoot on the ground.

When tuning or modifying engines and/or airframes, never troubleshoot in flight. Always ensure the engine is running properly on the ground first before any attempt of flight is made. Not to go into


31

specifics, but there have been accidents in the past where Sonex owners made modifications or performed maintenance that wasn't in accordance with the factory manuals, and such actions ultimately resulted in power loss in flight. The time to work on the airplane is when it's in the hangar, not in the air.

3. Become familiar with the performance and handling characteristics of the Sonex before flying your own.

The Sonex line of airplanes are easy to fly, fast, and very responsive. It's important to remember that the light control forces which make these airplanes so much fun to fly does take time to get used to. The combination of light control forces, low inertia, and fast control responses mean the Sonex does not fly like the Cessna or Piper you may be used to.

This is becoming even more important as completed, flying Sonexes are changing ownership to second-hand owners. Before you hop into your airplane and go, take the time to get training by traveling to Oshkosh and enrolling in the hugely-successful Sonex T-Flight program, or find an instructor with a LODA for the Sonex. If those options are not available for you, then find a local Sonex owner and try to get time in their airplane as a passenger. The more experience you have in the Sonex, the better prepared you'll be to fly yours.

4. Be prepared for each flight

Let's be honest for a second; how many people accomplish a thorough preflight before each flight? How about checking fuel and oil levels? If we refer back to our list of Sonex accidents, several involved fuel exhaustion which in my opinion is easily avoidable.

Also, how many people call Flight Service to check for weather and Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) before they hop in and go flying? Part of our responsibility as Pilot In Command is to ensure we have reviewed all available information prior to flight (FAR 91.103), so make sure you're taking the time to check things over before you takeoff.

5. Always maintain aircraft control, i.e., Fly The Airplane!

Plain and simple, this is Rule #1 for every pilot. No matter what happens while flying, NOTHING is more important than flying the airplane. Again, if we refer to our list of accidents, a high percentage of the fatal accidents include some sort of stall/spin situation which is the FAA's way of saying that the pilot lost control of the airplane.

I'm not saying that you can't troubleshoot, plan a landing, call for help on the radio, brief passengers, etc., but always remember that your #1 job is to Fly The Airplane!

In conclusion, we've reviewed the causes of previous Sonex accidents and hopefully discussed some actions we can all employ to help prevent future accidents from occurring. Flying safely is an important task for each and every one of us, and is something we all need to take seriously.


32

Hopefully this article will promote additional conversations and ideas on how to fly our Sonex airplanes safely while enjoying all the fun they have to offer. If you have an interest in researching any of these accidents further, the Sonex Foundation maintains a current list of all accidents and links to the individual NTSB reports. You can find more information at www.sonexfoundation.com including the list of all Sonex accidents.

We appreciate you taking the time to read this, and welcome any feedback you may have. Please feel free to email me directly or join the conversations via the forum boards at www.sonexbuilders.com

Thank you and fly safe,

Mike Farley

SBPF Vice President

Waiex #0056 Builder/Owner


33

http://www.sonexfoundation.com

http://www.sonexfoundation.com

http://www.sonexbuilders.com

http://www.sonexbuilders.com

shop talk november 2014 - sonexfoundationshop talk! november 2014 2 shop talk robbie culver,...

Documents