To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
…A thorough preflight, especially before the first flight!
And a passenger on the first test flight?!?
Well…the rules say no one but required flight crew. The FAA doesn’t not totally prohibit a second person onboard, but they have to have a definite function.
We had a very experienced homebuilt pilot in our chapter who had built a T-18 and often made first flights for builders. He’d station the builder in the right seat to monitor the engine and gauges while he flew the aircraft. A reasonable split of functions, I think, and probably within the letter of the FAA requirements. Whether a passing FSDO inspector would have thought the same, well….
There was one case where he was making the first flight with the builder aboard and the engine quit…fortunately, with plenty of altitude. He let the builder fiddle with the engine while he set up for the forced landing (at the airport they’d taken off from). All came out OK.
Yup. The owner of the build assist program where I built my gyro insisted on all first flights. I went along, in the pilot’s seat, to record temperatures, pressures, etc. Then he got out and I completed the 40 hour Phase I test flying before flying home from TX to NM.
Reversed controls can happen to anyone when assembly/disassembly is required. A second set of eyes is not a guarantee of correctness but as close as you can get for most lighter aircraft.
Best story I heard concerns the two Thurston Seafires built by Dave Woodcock and Bob Hammer. Very complex aircraft; four-seat amphibians with retractable gear, constant speed props. Took them a decade to build the two, side-by-side. EAA chapter members regularly came out to view the production. As the first flight day neared, that attention was even more intense. The FAA DAR came by, took hours to examine the builds, and signed off.
Finally, the day of the first flight came by. Woodcock taxied to the runup pad. He’d always used the CIGAR acronym for his final check. “Controls free and correct….” he moved the stick to the side, watching the ailerons.
Hey, wait a minute….
He stared at the wing in disbelief. After a moment, he taxied back to the ramp, shut down the engine, and popped open the door.
“What’s wrong?” asked Hammer.
“Either I’m crazy,” said Woodcock, “Or these ailerons are reversed!”
Woodcock wasn’t crazy. Dozens of homebuilders, three EAA Tech Counselors, the DAR, and Woodcock and Hammer themselves (both having built previous airplanes, including an original-design jet) had missed it.
They pulled out the plans to see where they’d gone wrong.
The point was…they hadn’t. The plane was built totally per the plans.
The airplane had been designed for a yoke, and the two had asked the designer to give a modification for joysticks, instead. He’d sent the plans for the modifications. They called the designer, he checked…and they were right. The modification plans were wrong.
It’s something ANY aircraft owner… production, plans-built, or kit-built homebuilt…has to keep in mind.
One thing to consider is that if the swap had been to the rudder (like this Zenith) instead of the aileron, Woodcock probably wouldn’t have caught it. Most Cessnas have a nice rear window, but few other planes do. I’m happy to fly an open-cockpit plane that lets me strain my neck around and watch the rudder jiggle.
Yes, the Zenith builder should have caught the problem. But it’s an easy one to miss. the odd chain of responsibility for the aircraft made it even worse.
My Cessna 180K is kept in my locked hangar so, before most takeoffs, I simply verify “Controls – Free and Clear”. During preflight, it’s readily apparent that the controls are connected to the yoke.
But after any work done on the airplane, especially Annual Inspection, I verify VISUALLY, that the left aileron goes up when the wheel is moved left AND that the right aileron goes down at the same time. Then I look at the other wing and do the same test.
I also verify the same for the elevators and stabilizer trim. I can’t see the rudder from the cockpit but I’m quick to abort any takeoff where yaw makes me uncomfortable.
It’s easy to lift the nose (assuming nosegear) off the ground, and push on a pedal, and ensure that the rudder goes the correct direction. (and that the nose wheel turns the other way for that matter).
This is something that you verify BEFORE that final “controls free & clear” check before takeoff.
It shouldn’t matter that you can’t see the rudder from the cockpit. If it’s newly built, or just undergone maintenance, that’s the time to check it.
I do both checking free and CORRECT per checklist at runup. But, I also check free and correct — by manipulating the control SURFACES and watching the yoke/pedals from outside the aircraft during the walkaround — EVERY FLIGHT
Same thing happened with my plane — but it was the electric stab trim that was backwards. Mere switch of the wires was all that was needed (and change to the schematic.) Noticed during the build preflight — LONG before the 1st flight.
While reverse assembly is possible. Take off with reversed is impossible with a proper preflight.
Sounds wonderfull, but it isn’t.
Control check before takeoff is mandatory. And it actually saved my life once. I landed and taxi back. Before pulling on runway ran before takeoff check list and discovered ailerons only went one direction. Very puzzling since I had just landed and they were working. Taxi to hangar and discovered ailerons only piece of balsa wood used for stream lining had came loose and jammed ailerons in one direction. When checklist followed properly, impossible to take off with controls reversed. In this case since had not completed a test plan, he probably did have a checklist either.
The DAR who inspected this has some explaining to do also, unless the owner R&Red the rudder post inspection. This is one thing that should be pretty hard to miss.
The full NTSB report (link with the article above) has a few ambiguities. It notes that the builder completed the Condition Inspection about two months before the accident. It notes the DAR signoff, but doesn’t give the date. The owner had bought it partially assembled. Ideally, a logbook entry would be made for any work, but it’s possible the rudder was removed (for one reason or the other) after the DAR inspection.
Thought this bit was interesting…
Approximately 13 months prior to the accident flight, a maintenance facility had performed a considerable amount of construction and modification on the airplane, including “installation” of the rudder. After that, the pilot/owner decided that the work performed did not meet his liking or the kit specifications, and undid or modified the work performed by the maintenance facility. It could not be determined who performed the most recent work on the rudder and rudder control system prior to the accident flight.
There were a lot of cooks’ hands in this broth, with no obvious way to pin the error on anybody.
There are a few DARS out there that seem to be only checking paperwork. I looked over an expermental that a DAR had signed off on and it was not airworthy. Took 3 guys and a weekends worth of work to get it ready for the first flight.
Checklist:
Yeahbut — watch people! Most get to that bullet and “stir the controls” but RARELY check for correctness. “Yeah, they’re free [and I mouth “and correct”]
But can the pilot see the rudder from the cockpit of a CH-750 to verify the “correct” part?
Yes, that should have been done in the hangar before mounting up. But the normal CIGAR test at the runup pad won’t catch this problem.
Testing in the hangar shouldn’t be difficult, but it would require someone else to visually confirm proper motion. Personally, I’d set up a cell phone video pointed at the rudder while I loudly call out the rudder pedal being pressed.
A good reason to check the proper operation of all flight controls before every takeoff.
In a book about the history of the Travel Air company, I read that Clyde Cessna intentionally had the rudders rigged backwards whenever he flew check flights of new Travel Air airplanes. Apparently the pedal movement seemed more natural to him that way. Of course they were re-rigged in the conventional manner prior to delivery.