THE PLT OF A HOME BUILT DEVIATED FROM THE ACFT'S OPERATING LIMITATIONS.

Narrative

THE PLT HAD MADE CONSIDERABLE PREPARATIONS FOR THE HOMEBUILT ACFT'S FIRST FLT; INCLUDING A REVIEW OF THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS. IN ADDITION; THE PLT CALLED THE TWR BY TELEPHONE TO ALERT THE TWR PERSONNEL; AND TO COORDINATE THE FLT FOR MAX SAFETY FOR ALL PARTIES. THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS PERTAIN TO THE USE OF RWYS AT SBA DURING THE ACFT'S FIRST 10 HRS OF FLT. THE LIMITATIONS ARE STATED AS FOLLOWS: '...DEP FROM SBA ARPT TO BE ON RWY 25 WITH A 45 DEG TURN TO THE SW OR ON RWYS 15L/R WITH A SOUTHERN DEP. ALL DEPS MUST AVOID UCSB COLLEGE. LNDG AT SBA ARPT TO BE L TFC RWY 25 OR RWY 33L/R.' IN THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH SBA TWR; THE PLT ADVISED THE TWR THIS WAS THE ACFT'S FIRST FLT AND OF THE PLAN TO DEPART RWY 25 AND REQUESTED CIRCLING OVER THE ARPT AT 4000-5000 FT FOR AIRWORK. THE TWR INDICATED THEY WOULD PREFER TO USE RWY 7 AND THEN CLB THE FLT TO WORK IN AN AREA NE TO NW TO AVOID BLANKING OUT THEIR RADAR. THE WX AT THE TIME WAS CLR SKIES; 50 MI VISIBILITY; AND LIGHT WINDS (VRB004). THE PLT AGREED TO THE PLAN TO DEPART RWY 7 BECAUSE IT WAS ATC'S REQUEST. THE R TURNOUT SE AFTER DEP WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO THE SW TURNOUT FROM RWY 25; AND WOULD TAKE THE FLT OVER SIMILARLY SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS (PERHAPS EVEN MORE SO THAN THE RWY 25 DEP). THE FLT DEPARTED WITHOUT INCIDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST FLT CHKLIST FOR THIS TYPE ACFT. THE GEAR WAS LEFT EXTENDED; AND A SERIES OF HANDLING TESTS AND STALL TESTS WERE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FLT; THE PLT OBTAINED THE CURRENT WX TO DISCOVER THE WIND WAS NOW 130 DEGS AT 10 KTS. THE FIRST FLT CHKLIST FOR THE AIRPLANE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE MATTER OF XWINDS; AND RECOMMENDS 10 KTS AS A MAX. IN THIS CASE; THERE WERE RWYS (RWY 15L/R) ALMOST DIRECTLY INTO THE WIND; SO THE PLT ELECTED TO LAND ON RWY 15R TO MINIMIZE ANY POTENTIAL PROBS WITH XWINDS ON THE ACFT'S FIRST LNDG. THE APCH WAS FLOWN HIGH TO AVOID ANY POSSIBILITY OF LNDG SHORT. THE LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL; AND THE FLT WAS AN UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS. LATER IN THE DAY; THE DESIGNATED AIRWORTHINESS REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD WRITTEN THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS CONFRONTED THE PLT AND POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD OBSERVED THE ACFT BEING FLOWN IN A MANNER THAT WAS CONTRARY TO THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS. AFTER THE PLT EXPLAINED THE CHOICES FOR TKOF AND LNDG RWYS (IE; ATC REQUESTS AND SAFETY OF FLT CONSIDERATIONS; RESPECTIVELY) THE DESIGNATED AIRWORTHINESS REPRESENTATIVE REMAINED UNSATISFIED; STATING THE PLT HAD NO DISCRETION WHATSOEVER IN THE MATTER. THE PROB THAT AROSE WAS A CONFLICT BTWN THE SAFETY INTENT OF THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS AS EXPRESSLY WRITTEN; THE SAFETY INTERESTS OF ATC; AND THE PLT'S JUDGEMENT PERTAINING TO THE SAFE OP OF THE FLT. IN THIS CASE THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS DID NOT COVER ENOUGH REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES (IE; A DEP FROM RWY 7); NOR DID THEY ALLOW FOR ANY DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE PLT. SINCE NO EMER DEVELOPED; THE PLT WAS NOT FREE TO DEVIATE FROM THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS; REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MOMENT (IE; THE UNANTICIPATED WIND SHIFT). OPTIONS FOR ENSURING THE PROB DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE INCLUDE: 1) OFFERING SOME LATITUDE TO THE PLT REGARDING OPERATING LIMITATIONS TO FIT INTO THE FLOW OF ATC DIRECTED TFC. 2) ENSURING OPERATING LIMITATIONS ARE WRITTEN BROADLY ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES; WHILE RETAINING THEIR SAFETY BENEFITS. 3) HAVING THE PLT AND AUTHOR OF THE OPERATING LIMITATIONS DISCUSS DIRECTLY THE LIMITATIONS; INCLUDING INTERP OF POTENTIALLY AMBIGUOUS POINTS OR REINFORCING THE GRAVITY OF OTHERS THAT MIGHT NOT GET THE ATTN THEY REQUIRE. 4) HAVING THE PLT DELAY THE FLT UNTIL ALL POSSIBLE CONDITIONS ARE MET AND ARE ASSURED TO NOT CHANGE DURING THE COURSE OF THE FLT(S).