Test flights by maintance personel

[copter kid]

Just a quick question to helicopter owners, how would you feel if your pride and joy had been test flown without your conscent by a non rated pilot who logs very little flight time?:mad:

[Helinut]

The probem you quote is a deal more serious than the guy just being "not a very experienced pilot". In most countries (certainly in the UK), if he flies it without a rating then the flight is illegal. If it is illegal, then no insurance will pay up if there were a crash.

I would always be quite specific about who you let fly your aircraft, what for and who insures it and pays for any excess.

Did the flight get recorded in the techlog, and if so whose name was PIC??

[HALF A PILOT]

On the same line, take the situation, an engineer , or some other low time member of the maintenance company who holds a PPL H, but only rated on say an R22 decides to ground (without the owners specific permission) run a B206, H500 or similar. During the ground run, lets say the collective friction is not set to on, or the cyclic is substantially forward - both cases potential for disaster.
Like wise even if the pilot happens to be rated on say the B206 ,do the owners give automatic right for their aircraft to be flown? and do the maintenance companies have special agreements with the insurance companies to cover their various test pilots???:confused:

[OopsNearly]

I'm sure I read somewhere in JAROPS that you must be a type qualified pilot to do a rotor engaged ground run. We used to have trained engineers who carried out rotor engaged ground runs on the S61 and the S76, but the Authorities here would not allow grandfather rights. So now they only do ground runs without engaged rotors. In the past it meant that they did not have to wait around for a pilot who may or may not be available, they also had regular sim checks. Happy days!

[John Bicker]

Two points.
Was it really a "test" flight and did it require some certification as such. There would be some sort of document to be signed off and this would be self incriminating if the person was not qualified.

As far as flying an aircraft without a "type" endorsement, in most places legally/technically not required so long as you are by yourself. A student pilot cannot hold a type rating in most countries yet seem to fly aircraft solo all the time.

[Another KOS]

OopsNearly:

JAR-OPS 3 is not guilty this time. The text to which you are probably referring is:JAR-OPS 3.210 Establishment of Procedures
...
(d) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power without a qualified pilot at the controls.JAR-OPS 3 only prescribes rules for Commercial Air Transport (CAT) and does not apply in this case (and it was not meant to apply to engineers doing ground runs in any case). However my understanding is that the following text may be suggested some time in the future (to ICAO as well as JAR-OPS 3) - to remove confusion:(d) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of flight without a qualified pilot at the controls.The control of ground runs will then be provided by the existing paragraph (a):JAR-OPS 3.210 Establishment of Procedures

(a) An operator shall establish procedures and instructions, for each helicopter type, containing ground staff and crew members' duties for all types of operation on the ground and in flight. (See AMC OPS 3.210(a).)The Authority's interpretation of JARs is for them to explain.

[leading edge]

The operators in the Gulf of Mexico allow engineers to run aircraft with rotors engaged if the aircraft are tied down and the engineer has been qualified and holds a qualification card issued by the company training department.

LE

[Rich Lee]

For the sake of argument, assume an accident. Start with the accident and work backward. The answer to this question should be obvious.

For the record a legal case was settled in San Jose, California where a rated, but low time commercial pilot with no maintanence training was involved in a Hiller rollover accident during a track and balance flight. No injury, just damage. The insurance company paid the owner of the helicopter and then sued the pilot for recovery of the damages paid to the owner.