Royal Vic Aero Club introducing mandatory 90 day checks

[downunderscouser]

I've been somewhat discusted to find out that in a day and age when the cost of flight training is already a struggle to afford RVAC are introducing a new requirement in order to hire an airplane.

Pilots are required to complete a check flight with an instructor EVERY 90 days in order to be able to hire an airplane. For hiring to fly at night a check flight must be completed every 90 days at night.

While they are only charging solo rates for this I still find it extortionate to ask students, not all of which are being financed with silver spoons around their necks from their rich parents, to spend more money unnecessarily with no gain ie instructors get the hours not the pilot being checked. The law does not state this is needed, nor does it state that you can't fly if you have not completed 3 take offs and landings within 90 days in - you just can't carry passengers. RVAC already have the latter as a requirement in order to hire an aircraft.

This is only good news if you are an instructor since now they will get more work and hours. For the rest of us, more money to spend and nothing to gain from it.

[Stationair8]

Nothing new in that, a number of schools have that policy.

Bet have a read up on pilot currency in the regs as well

[cficare]

The other Flying Schools at MB will be pleased

[scavenger]

Seems odd for all pilots, not just SPL holders. Maybe they're getting an insurance premium reduction?

If you were undertaking flying training, you would probably want to be doing some flying every 90 days anyway, surely the dual flights included in the training syllabus would count for the check - assuming you were competent of course:}

[YPJT]

Their aircraft, they can do what they please.

Maybe there's a reason for this being introduced and not just accidents. VCAs, engine damage caused through poor handling, undercarriage damage from rough landings that go un-reported. A whole range of possibilities comes to mind.

The fact is, a lot of hirers don't give a flying :mad: about aircraft they hire. Just maybe RVAC has had enough and decided the only way to nip an increase in bad habits in the bud is to keep an eye on them. Certainly a bit of an insult to those who do the right thing but hey, we face similar punitive measures every day where we have our privileges limited because of the actions of an irresponsible few.

[Checkboard]

to spend more money unnecessarily with no gain ie instructors get the hours not the pilot being checked.

You gain by getting to fly with a more experienced pilot for a while. Ask to do something a bit different - glide approach, short field or flapless! You (of course) get to log the hours as well - as dual.

This is only good news if you are an instructor since now they will get more work and hours. For the rest of us, more money to spend and nothing to gain from it.

Apart from perhaps learning something (see above - although with YOUR attitude, I doubt it :hmm: ), I thought you said they were only charging solo rates! I hope the instructor is being paid (even if YOU aren't paying them!).

If you intend to progress in this flying lark to the lofty heights of a commercial pilot - well, where do you think YOUR pay will be coming from?

[j3pipercub]

That was the case at the place where I did my PPL, 8 years ago... But at that place the 90 day rule was type specific...

Nothing new, just probably trying to keep their insurance premiums down... Anyway, 3 months is quite a long time...

[VH-XXX]

Agreed that 3 months is a long time. It's not that bad. Ideally 6 months would have been good but hey, if it means that in the end insurance premiums are less then hire rates might go down. It's probably the ones that most object that need it the most.

[downunderscouser]

Who really cares about dual hours? I'm currently trying to build up command hours. I have more than enough dual hours right now.

In the end when you go for jobs they are interested in command hours not dual. Do the maths and work out how much extra this adds on top of the already expensive costs for CPL and MECIR when you are self funded while doing a full time job and cannot afford to complete training within a month or two.

It's hard enough already, this just adds insult to injury along with a liberal dose of salt and vinegar...

[FokkerInYour12]

Why would you be logging it as dual?

If you are otherwise current, a check flight is PIC time not dual, right?

[j3pipercub]

If you're looking to build command hours, shouldn't you be flying more than once evey 3 months anyway?

[SM227]

I can see both sides, sure it would be a pain if you are a private hirer an needed to go somewhere ASAP and then not be able to take the plane.

On the other hand, if I owned a plane you would sure as hell have flown a lot more than once in 90 days before you get to even look at it let alone fly it! This is pretty common with private aircraft hire anyway, most owners are understandably protective of there offspring :E

[Aimpoint]

Didn't someone just undershoot into the scrub at RVAC? Coincidence?

[eocvictim]

If you dont like it, hire from Blue Demon, if you dont meet the requirements you probably need the 90 day checks.

When I was starting out as an instructor many years ago, the first paid flights I did were check flights. It was funny, those who didn't complain and realised it was for both insurance and their own safety were happy to prove themselves (plus get a practice glide approach etc) were always fine and done in 30 mins. The ones who kicked up a fuss and rejected the idea they needed checking always seemed to struggle to meet the standard.

One pilot, I advised the company owner that he wasn't suitable on the aircraft model. Unfortunately he had a lot of cash and regularly spent it at the school. He pranged the plane a few weeks later :ugh:

These measures might be a total waste for some people but they save the company from a lot of headaches with others. Look what happens when they dont do 90 day checks. If insurance goes up, your hire rates will go up and imagine the impact THAT will have on your training.

[Sunfish]

I'm asking RVAC what constitutes a check flight since I'm back trying to learn a bit of aerobatics.

As a matter of fact, as a lowly PPL, I did what I would personally call a check flight last month - I hadn't flown for about Six months (building a boat) so I took an instructor with me when I went up again to see if it really is just like "riding a bike". The answer is that you do get rusty, and there is always something new to learn. When I do my annual "big trip" I fly the aircraft before I go with an instructor because it's usually not a type I fly from week to week anyway.

I try and get airborne once a week, if there is an instructor around why not take him/her along?

Furthermore, I know of at least Two aircraft that were taken off line after a succession of expensive handling incidents, and if this procedure reduces incidents and increases the range of aircraft available to me, then I'm all for it.

[triadic]

90 day checks were the norm at RVAC back in the 60's & '70's. Don't see a problem with the requirement whatsoever. The 90 day check back then always related to recent experience and could vary from a single circuit to a full hour in the training area.... that depended on you and how much you were flying.

Considering the standards these days, it is perhaps needed more than ever.

[Joker 10]

Read the Regs 3 takeoffs and landings in last 90 days to remain current.

[Awol57]

That might be the regs for pax carrying but I reckon this would almost certainly be insurance related.

[A37575]

Ask to do something a bit different - glide approach, short field or flapless!

Shudder! Such highly dangerous approaches...

[Checkboard]

Why would you be logging it as dual?

If you are otherwise current, a check flight is PIC time not dual, right?

No. The operator of the aircraft nominates the pilot in command for the flight. If the operator requires you to complete a check flight, then of course you are not nominated as being in command - as the very purpose of the check is to see if you are suitable to command in your own right! :rolleyes:

Being licensed and qualified doesn't mean that any time you are in the aircraft you log command time! A 737 Captain filling-in in the right hand seat on a line flight logs the time in the co-pilot column, because that is the role they are filling. In this specific case (as a 90 day check) you would not be qualified to command a flight with a passenger in any case.

The instructor or check pilot is therefore in command, and only the commander may log command time. This remaining options are dual instruction, or ICUS (which, if you don't have a specific ICUS column would be logged in the co-pilot column with an explanatory note that the flight was ICUS).

If the flight is to be logged as ICUS, it must be done with the approval of the commander AND the operator, and briefed as such.

(As an aside, I once completed a check flight at RVAC with an ex-girlfriend of mine who was working there as an instructor. The flight was in a two seat Eagle. My logbook shows her name as the PIC, and the flight is logged in the dual,single column: my having ten times her experience had nothing to do with it. It was a nice turn-around as I had been one of her instructors when I was at Royal Vic :))

[Ted D Bear]

Some posters seem to be confusing currency and the 90-day check requirement. It seems the RVAC requirement is to do a check with an instructor every 90 days even if you've flown everyday since you did the last one - like a mini-AFR, but once a quarter instead of every two years. Not really [just] a requirement to be current then, is it?

I must say, I don't have a strong view against it - especially if it's easy to find an instructor when you need one. Better still, find an instructor to build a relationship and do something useful (not just a check) once a quarter.

But, as usual, it's a bit of a [wet] blanket approach to address what is presumably a problem related to a few/some people who don't take their responsibilities seriously which affects all, including those who do ... But I'm not sure we can blame RVAC for that!

Maybe a little lattitude in how they apply the requirement (insurance company permitting) so that the long-time, experienced frequently flying pilot who obviously keeps current isn't forced to take the Grade 3 who looks like he doesn't need to shave yet for a ride round the circus for the sake of it - if it's the greybeards who are the ones who are offended by the rule ...

Ted

[j3pipercub]

If that 'long time experienced current' pilot can't respect the instructor who 'hasn't shaved' then not only is he unprofessional, he is a moron.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just get over it...it's an insurance requirment.

My mob even incorporates the check flight within club competitions.

[CHAIRMAN]

Generally NOT an insurance requirement - purely an attempt to protect the flying assets from further damage, and pick up bad flying/airmanship habits.
The operator check has nothing to do with flying recency.
In my experience, the operator 90 day check is value for getting inactive pilots back up to speed, and is a waste of time on the higher time yobbo hirers with plenty of recency, in a whole bunch of different types who will never change their bad habits - jack of all trades, master of none. But I can't think of a better idea to minimise the risk:ugh:

[VH-XXX]

I have on good authority that it's not about insurance at all.

It's about ar-se covering.

The gent that was involved in the "incident" is an excellent pilot, but hadn't flown at night with an instructor for 5 years. He was fixated on the aircraft landing ahead and stuffed up his visual references.

This will hopefully stop this kind of thing from happening.

With 600+ members on the books, how on earth else can you keep track of each pilots' currency?

[Car RAMROD]

XXX
With 600+ members on the books, how on earth else can you keep track of each pilots' currency?

Maybe the same way they will do it after they bring in the checks?
If a currency record can be done after, why not before?


XXX
It's about ar-se covering.


Spot on.


Aimpoint
Didn't someone just undershoot into the scrub at RVAC? Coincidence?

See above!

--

XXX mentions the fella last week "hadn't flown at night with an instructor for 5yrs". But what about his other recency. For all we know he could have done 20hrs in that exact aircraft at night in the last couple of weeks and be very familiar with it all.
Would flying with an instructor 90 days (or even 1 day) before have prevented the accident? Possibly; but logically, also possibly not. Implementing such checks will not totally prevent accidents and incidents occurring because as we all know sh*t does happen, but it is another defence (arse cover).


With the recent history of the Club, they need to appear to at least be doing something about it, this seems to be the first step.

Presumably, if you don't like it, leave?


Sunfish, one would presume that ANY flight with an instructor could/would constitute a check.
But if it is a specific check flight in itself, then it is probably just a way to screw people out of more money.

[Mark1234]

Interesting.. if I hadn't already moved away and let my membership lapse I'd be voting with my feet. Currency is one thing, and happy to fly with (the right) instructor to do something I want to do, but 90 day checks no matter what? Thanks, no.

A little unfair knowing and having the utmost respect for a lot of the instructors, but given this seems to be a response to bent tin, it would be interesting to figure what percentage of the bent tin has had an instructor onboard at the time. Off the top of my head well over 50%? Perhaps they should stop the instructors flying with anyone :E

[Ted D Bear]

I'm with Mark 1234.

On the odd occasion when I've been less current than I'd like (overseas travel, working too hard on other things etc - and a lot less than 90 days, BTW), I've happily booked a session with a good instructor I know and we've gone out and done something useful and challenging. But 3 circuits for the sake of it every 90 days, even if I've logged lots of hours regularly since the last one, is probably just gonna be a waste.

Ted

[Andy_RR]

A typically Australian solution to a problem - add a regulation! :rolleyes:

[notaplanegeek]

money money money MONEY :}

[Reading5]

With respect, what price do you put on safety?

To have an instructor on board is what, an extra 75 - 85 dollars an hour for checking and hopefully keeping us safe and on the ball? When you put in the overall perspective of how much we can spend on maps, medicals, etc, is it an unreasonable investment in safety?

[mcgrath50]

Well yes I would pay a bit extra for safety, but most places manage to have safety without this check...

[Reading5]

Are we not talking about 90 day checks, which are required by day or night?

Either way. The point I am hoping to make, is that we all strive for a minimum safety standard and one that will keep our family/ friends/ associates safe, friendly and happy.

Not the CASA standard, but one that we feel safe and confident taking people up.

Safe Flying all :)

[mcgrath50]

I believe the legislation is three take offs and landings every 90 days (can be solo) to remain current. Then there is the biannual flight review obviously.

I have never flown with RVAC and this wouldn't put me off totally, safety is important, paramount even. It's just interesting that other organisations around don't feel the need for the same thing. So is RVAC being over cautious or are the other organisations being reckless?

[Nadsy]

Like Ted D Bear said, it's not the 3 T/O/Ldgs in 90 days to carry Pax... it sounds more like a 'currency on type' initiative. The flying school I instructed at had a clause in the Ops manual that said you needed 90 day recency on type with an understanding (in general), that you were recent on the complexity of the aircraft and below (e.g. if you were recent on an Arrow, you could fly a 152 (if you'd had conversion training)). For Twins it was 60 days on exact type. There was also a clause that allowed CFI discretion to waive a check in the event you weren't recent.

The aeroclub in the same city however required a 90 day instructor check regardless... and have done so for as long as I can remember. I guess they don't have an entity similar to a CFI to make judgment calls.

[puff]

Another aeroclub I used to fly with you had to do 90 day checks IF you hadn't flown at all during that period. Doing it for solo rates it doesn't seem like a price grab, and sadly if you only did it to 'some' pilots they would cry descrimination. I'm sure the instructors are embarrased to do it for some pilots.

All well and good to do checks - but will the operator have the coconuts to stop a bad pilot from taking the aircraft - after all by doing so they will lose $$ and possibly a 'customer'. Bad pilots will tend to just take their business elsewhere to a place with lesser standards. Sad as it sounds i've heard aircraft owners say the most money you ever make on an aircraft is when it's crashed and written off.

[Ted D Bear]

I believe the legislation is three take offs and landings every 90 days (can be solo) to remain current

3 in 90 days to carry pax. 1 in 6 months to go it alone. Them's the rules, if you're game and the owner (if it's not yours) and the insurance company will let you.

Ted

[FokkerInYour12]

1 in 6 months to go it aloneThat's only for Night VFR. Night VFR also requires a 1 hour flight in last 12 months

Day VFR to go alone you just have to have licence, medical and not due/overdue for Flight Review to go solo.

[bentleg]

Where I fly in Sydney have had a 90 day currency requirement for years. Good idea and ensures anyone who is rusty goes with an instructor first. For an experienced pilot only 3 circuits, or if you are doing some refresher training they'll sign off the 90 day requirement.