Help with creating a building task list or workflow

[jaredyates]

I've been working for a while on a project that will hopefully consolidate building information, and give builders a topic-based source that can be revised and expanded as time goes on. One key component of this project is a task list that will help keep the building steps in order. Imagine a chart shaped like a tree. The trunk of the tree (the pointy end) says "test fly your airplane." The other end has a list of tasks that can be performed without any prerequisite steps. Those two ends are connected by all of the tasks that must be completed in a particular order.

Where I'd like to have help is with fleshing out the tree. The preliminary "rough draft" is here. It's still a work in progress, so keep that in mind. If you'd like to help, take a look at the list and reply here (or send me an email) with any tasks that you know of that aren't on the list. Focus on tasks that you have needed help with, or needed to do research about. Eventually, each task is going to be a link to a category of solutions to completing the task. Don't worry about describing the tasks, or about getting them in order (unless you want to)- I can do all of that, just list them by name. For example:
Bleed brakes
Mount tires
Create Instrument Panel
etc.

Thanks in advance!

[Yadama]

Jared

Fantastic idea, that would be a great resource.

I couldn't find any reference to fuel tanks or pumps for aux tanks or wing inspection panels if that helps...

[swpilot3]

I agree! Fantastic idea! So far I've gone to your tips website for several things. (I really appreciate it by they way) Some of which has been there and some hasn't. I'll try and compile a list of what I've gone there for and email it to you. But, I'll also start using your "tree" list and see what's there and isn't.

Bobby

[Bcone1381]

Jared,

Putting your tree on the wall of my workshop will give me a clear path from a 30,000' view point of the build Process

Giving the builder a source as you describe...topic based, and revisable is an idea I had thought would be a huge help. I am glad you are taking this on. When you are putting together the details for each step, think about including two items, 1) A "Best Practices" section, and 2) a "Common Errors" section

This will be an interesting thread.

[jaredyates]

My hope is that by including a mechanism for ratings and comments, the best practices will eventually float to the top. A message board like this is very useful for answering specific questions, but it sorts information by chronology instead of by quality. In some ventures, chronology trumps quality, but for building Bearhawks, often there are age-old answers that provide the best value. Someone who buys a set of plans today has some of the same questions that builders like Russ Erb and Pat Fagan had almost 20 years ago. If we don't have a way to consolidate those answers, as time goes on, we can expect to keep getting the same questions. Sometimes that is good, and sometimes it is not. Meanwhile, keep adding suggestions and tasks. The rough draft linked above includes maybe 10% of what it could/should. I'd like to eventually allow for some filtering of kit/scratch and 4-Place/Patrol/LSA.

[Battson]

Hi Jared,

Good initiative. I think it's been widely said that the Bearhawk line could benefit from additional support material.

I think the Wikipedia model is often a good way "crowd sourcing" this kind of information. If such a thing as a Bearhawk wiki page could be available online for people to contribute to and edit - that would be huge. I don't know of any other kit manufacturer who can offer such a modern approach to a build manual.

[Chewie]

Someone who buys a set of plans today has some of the same questions that builders like Russ Erb and Pat Fagan had almost 20 years ago.

I agree. Lots of discoveries have been made over and over. As I start on spars, for example, the most helpful tool for me right now aside from Eric's manual would be just what Jonathan said, a wiki where I type in spars and up comes a few pictures at various stages of assembly, overall description, requirements, lessons learned, fab methods, and links to common supplemental material like maybe rivet basics. That would be huge for a first time or prospective builder. Usually the information is out there but I may not have found it, and if I did at some point I may not remember where when the time comes to apply it.

[Zzz]

Hi Jared,

Good initiative. I think it's been widely said that the Bearhawk line could benefit from additional support material.

I think the Wikipedia model is often a good way "crowd sourcing" this kind of information. If such a thing as a Bearhawk wiki page could be available online for people to contribute to and edit - that would be huge. I don't know of any other kit manufacturer who can offer such a modern approach to a build manual.

There are many approaches to aircraft documentation, and each has its place. The sequential build manual with chapters and steps and diagrams and contextual parts lists, etc is really useful for the builder. I don't think the Bearhawk build manual in its current form is sufficient.

The task tree that Jared is suggesting is also hugely helpful for project management. I suffer from this very issue right now, that I sometimes have clarity of the sequence and the objectives, but other times I am totally lost. I tree, similar to an sports tournament elimination, where many many steps reduce to a single final step, e.g. "test flight," would be helpful for this project visualization. The trouble is that there is no single way to do it. I think a best practice suggested sequence does exist though. I'm personally all out of sequence, often doing low hanging fruit tasks because they are easy.

The Wiki is a great encyclopedia type referece, which makes it very easy to cross reference concepts/pages as well as support multiple contributors. It does raise the level of difficulty for contributing though, as well as make additional workload for moderators. The risk of erroneous or poorly written information is ever-present.

The forum is the most comfortable venue for users to express their opinions and voice, though often repetitive in nature because finding existing answers requires searching and then poring through multiple responses in a discussion format. The wiki is a place for natural curators or documentarians to distill and record the consensus, often culled from the forum. It is a HUGE amount of work. Jared however has already done much of that with his blog, and a good job at it IMO.

For example, years ago while I was still a C170 owner I put some effort into creating a 170 wiki that was snubbed by the 170 Association. Those guys couldn't get on board with the concept, despite probably using Wikipedia daily.

I've also put a fair amount of work into the Knowledge Base on BackcountryPilot.org, and it is WORK. Thanks to the help of members like Jared and Battson though, we've slowly built some content.

For some people, they will always want to ask the questions. That's where a good FAQ comes in. Sometimes people can only be satisfied if they can start a new thread and get direct answers. Nothing wrong with that, but I personally value a categorized and indexed manual. CubCrafters does a decent job with theirs, though it too leaves a little to be desired. I do like the log sheet concept per task.

[Bcone1381]

If we don't have a way to consolidate those answers, as time goes on, we can expect to keep getting the same questions. Sometimes that is good, and sometimes it is not. Meanwhile, keep adding suggestions and tasks. The rough draft linked above includes maybe 10% of what it could/should. I'd like to eventually allow for some filtering of kit/scratch and 4-Place/Patrol/LSA.

Jared,

If you can fear, doubt and uncertainty of scratch building, and replace it with easy to follow, well tested processes and knowledge, you will energize scratch building!

[jaredyates]

Thank you for the input everyone, please keep it coming. I'm absolutely listening.

My vision is for something that combines some of the features from sites like Slashdot and Wikipedia. Think of something a little less editable than Wikipedia, and thus, a little bit less edited. If you'd like to know about how to mount an oil cooler, instead of presenting a single article weighing the merits of each option, you'll find a menu of options that you can read about individually, sorted by 1-5 star ratings. Less-optimal ideas shouldn't be suppressed, they should be rated poorly. That way, when a builder in 2019 has what he thinks is a great idea that a builder in 2005 tried with poor results, he won't have to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

I'd rather that the public input be concentrated more on ratings and comments than on writing, though quality writing would be welcome too. A lot of what needs to be written has already been written, it just needs to be consolidated, and subject to revision and follow-up. Occasionally folks do come up with new ways of doing things that are really better, and those are the kind of ideas that I'd like to funnel into new Beartracks content, where they will be written well, and subject to at input from Bob. Getting the Beartracks content in place is just a starting point to see how it all works out. There is quality info in the old Beartracks, but better organization and presentation is overdue. In other words, the Beartracks content needed this anyway, so I'm going to attempt to grow something bigger out of that content rather than start from scratch.

My intent is not just to energize scratch building, but all building. The information management challenge is a recurring theme that I hear about when travelling around the country visiting Bearhawk builders, talking with builders at shows, reading survey responses (thanks), and even in my own experience. Scratch building and kit building is less a binary choice and more of a spectrum. If we were talking about the kind of kit where every nut and washer was included, it might be different, but Mark has structured the kits to be more flexible than that. I think this is a smart choice in that it keeps the builder's options open. The cost of this flexibility is the feeling that Zane points out. Specific instructions and builder flexibility seem to be mutually exclusive. Looking at the level of builder independence and individualism that the Bearhawk attracts, I'm not sure that a Vans level of instruction detail is really what we need. (I've also considered the possibility that this is a chicken vs egg scenario, where it may be less about who the type attracts, and more about who the process scares away, but that's another topic) That's partly how I've arrived at this other plan for now. I'm trying to find the functional middle ground between "assembly instructions" and what we currently have, especially as it relates to best practices and building safe airplanes.

[Zzz]

The cost of this flexibility is the feeling that Zane points out. Specific instructions and builder flexibility seem to be mutually exclusive. Looking at the level of builder independence and individualism that the Bearhawk attracts, I'm not sure that a Vans level of instruction detail is really what we need.

I disagree, Jared. I think if we communicate a baseline way to properly accomplish a task, a savvy builder (or even a newbie) can use that as a solid reference to then customize how they like. Builders in general are pretty smart, but it's often getting anchored to that initial vision of what's to be done that's the challenge. If it's left entirely to the builder's imagination, I think we'll see more improper build results. One example I can think of is a story I heard second hand about a very poorly designed Bearhawk fuel system that caused starvation at the tank outlet at certain pitch attitudes. I'd love to just see an authoritative section on fuel plumbing for the whole aircraft, something more substantive that the Beartracks diagram.