Genghis the Engineer
6th Jul 2005, 11:55
I've been thinking about Qualevals just lately, mostly because last week I did my first in about a year (normally I do one every 3-6 months, but it's been a dry 18 months), which was at rather shorter notice than I'd have liked and although the combination of a benign aeroplane and friendly and competent safety pilot ensured that nothing went aft-a-gley, and I managed to put a reasonable assessment report together, I was rather less happy with my own performance than I'd like.
One thing I've decided is that I really must go and put together some generic "qualevel test cards" and tuck them in the back of my flight bag against the next time I'm asked to give my opinions on an aeroplane at an hour's notice.
But also it struck me that there's a rich seam here; most Test Pilots have to fly a formal qualeval from time to time, and it's an area we don't talk about all that much, and perhaps we should.
So, here's an open invitation for thoughts, comments, and "war-stories" to do with qualeval assessments? For that matter, if anybody's got any useful guidance for all our benefits, why not share it! I'll kick off with a few thoughts of my own below.
G
I learned about qualevals from that!
I was sent to do the best assessment I could on a highish performance 2-seat light aeroplane at an airfield "somewhere in Eastern Europe". It was an important and high-profile task, and I'd prepared carefully, spending several days digesting company FTR and operators manuals (which thankfully they'd provided in English).
One area that, unsurprisinly, I wanted to look at was the stall. I'd read the company reports on this, which said (I summarise) "stall speed 64 kph IAS, no wing drop, no tendency to spin". So, expecting no surprises, I asked the safety pilot (who also happened to be the designer) for permission to stall the aircraft, to which he agreed. So, throttle closed, carb heat on, trim back, then back on the stick...
65-64-63-62-INCIPIENT SPIN.
Recovered smartly from that, and expressed "that was rather interesting" (or words to that effect). To which the designer replied "yes, wasn't it - please don't try again, let's talk about it on the ground". In the subsequent debrief it turned out that the local practice was (because the local regs required a Vso below 65kph) to slow to 64kph, and so long as the aeroplane did nothing silly, declare that as the stall speed, with "no reported problems" ! I may well have been the first pilot to reach the aerodynamic stall in that particular aeroplane - an honour that on the whole I could have lived without.
One thing I've decided is that I really must go and put together some generic "qualevel test cards" and tuck them in the back of my flight bag against the next time I'm asked to give my opinions on an aeroplane at an hour's notice.
But also it struck me that there's a rich seam here; most Test Pilots have to fly a formal qualeval from time to time, and it's an area we don't talk about all that much, and perhaps we should.
So, here's an open invitation for thoughts, comments, and "war-stories" to do with qualeval assessments? For that matter, if anybody's got any useful guidance for all our benefits, why not share it! I'll kick off with a few thoughts of my own below.
G
I learned about qualevals from that!
I was sent to do the best assessment I could on a highish performance 2-seat light aeroplane at an airfield "somewhere in Eastern Europe". It was an important and high-profile task, and I'd prepared carefully, spending several days digesting company FTR and operators manuals (which thankfully they'd provided in English).
One area that, unsurprisinly, I wanted to look at was the stall. I'd read the company reports on this, which said (I summarise) "stall speed 64 kph IAS, no wing drop, no tendency to spin". So, expecting no surprises, I asked the safety pilot (who also happened to be the designer) for permission to stall the aircraft, to which he agreed. So, throttle closed, carb heat on, trim back, then back on the stick...
65-64-63-62-INCIPIENT SPIN.
Recovered smartly from that, and expressed "that was rather interesting" (or words to that effect). To which the designer replied "yes, wasn't it - please don't try again, let's talk about it on the ground". In the subsequent debrief it turned out that the local practice was (because the local regs required a Vso below 65kph) to slow to 64kph, and so long as the aeroplane did nothing silly, declare that as the stall speed, with "no reported problems" ! I may well have been the first pilot to reach the aerodynamic stall in that particular aeroplane - an honour that on the whole I could have lived without.