Instructor Checkout

[crablab]

I need to get my wobbly prop endorsement and my "normal" instructor from my old club is happy to do this. For reference he's recently retired from the airlines, 17,000 hours he says...

I'm part of a group and I've been told that if he wants to do my wobbly prop training (~1 hour) in that aircraft, he'll need to get checked out in it. So, an experienced instructor is being checked out by a significantly less experienced PPL...that seems crazy to me?! (and of course I have to pay for his checkout!) I believe he's flown the type before.

Any ideas? Who's being unreasonable?

[S-Works]

No need.

If he has the rights to sign the differences training then he should self brief on the aircraft and brief you on generic theory. There is not actually a requirement for a flight for wobbly prop.......

[crablab]

Originally Posted by bose-x

No need.

If he has the rights to sign the differences training then he should self brief on the aircraft and brief you on generic theory. There is not actually a requirement for a flight for wobbly prop.......

I see. Thank you.

The instructor isn't actually the one saying he needs to be checked out - that's the group's self appointed leader. I sense a bit of politics may be in play here as I'm not using the "normal" group instructor... rather an outsider.

[S-Works]

I figured that it was the group.

Like I said you don't actually need to fly and any instructor qualified to sign you off is capable of operating any wobbly prop. They are not rocket science. I give a slide show on the operation and discuss the AFM and then if needed/wanted will do a flight.

[9 lives]

A 17,000 hour pilot either can fly a certified GA aircraft without a checkout, or should not be providing flying instruction in it. If that pilot needs a checkout from another pilot, to fly it safely, they are not ready to mentor someone else in the following hour of their flying in that type. These planes are not that complicated!

If the type is exotic, and they need a checkout to fly it (and I can think of a couple of types: SM1019, Lake Amphibian, Cessna on amphib floats) then they are not ready to provide you training in it, they'll need so more training themselves first - and probably the insurer will insist on it.

Otherwise, if we're talking a PA-28 series, 172 Hawk XP/RG, or 182, just go fly the plane, it's darned near impossible to get propeller management dangerously wrong.

I'm not against checkouts, to the contrary, but I would not like pilots to think that these common (Cessna/Piper) fire breathers are going to challenge a 17,000 hour pilot. There have been a number of types I have flown where after I have checked myself out I have gone on to check out the new owner or pilot next, never a problem (though I concede, the least relaxing was the Piper Tomahawk, I approached that a little too casually . Good 'plane, but training or briefing wise).

I will qualify the foregoing to say that if the variable pitch prop checkout is for a reversing propeller, that's a different story, and proper training is a must for that.

[BEagle]

crablab, you will need an instructor to conduct the variant differences training for an SEP Class VP aeroplane - and it will need to be signed off in your logbook i.aw. FCL.710(c). Also, if the 17000 hr instructor hasn't flown that variant before, he will indeed need to met the requirements of FCL.710.

However, if he has flown other VP SEP Class aeroplanes before, then he would only need 'familiarisation' on the group aeroplane, which does not actually require an instructor.

It sounds as though the group is being eminently sensible. As for signing-off a pilot who has never flown a VP prop aeroplane before without a flight to show pre-flight CSU checks, take-off and climb, setting up the cruise at the POH RPM/MAP etc. etc..... A slide show cannot really be sufficient, but the flight shouldn't need to take very long.

[crablab]

BEagle,

Indeed - that is why I'm having to find an instructor I a) know b) is available c) fits in the aeroplane (!)

He has indeed. I think he has flown TB-10's however he has flown a great variety of aircraft, including VP and complex, as well as substantially more

I quite agree that I need to have a flight in the aeroplane with an instructor however I am not quite sure why they seem to be insisting that a PPL "check-out" an well qualified instructor. Other people have suggested that the instructor would normally carry out his own familiarisation.

[MrAverage]

What don't you like about the group instructor? It's rarely worth going against a group's policies if you want to get on with them.

[MrAverage]

..........the group not the policies.........

[crablab]

It's not him so much, just his availability and the fact I am doing my night rating with a different instructor anyway so it makes sense to use him...

[alex90]

Do you have part ownership of the plane? Or just fly a group aeroplane for a set hourly rate?

Have you read the insurance document? Any mention of limitations for anyone to teach on it? Any mention of a checkout required for an instructor prior to teaching in this particular aeroplane? Under what category is the plane insured?

These MAY have something to do with it... I would seriously consider not going through with getting your own instructor in to sign off your VP differences in that plane, just from the standpoint that I believe they want / need you to have some teaching uniform to others flying the plane. For instance, cruise settings they want you to use to enhance the life of the engine, specific instructions about particular checks that may not be standard for the plane type, any non standard instruments / lights / engine management system / other items that you may only know whilst flying with someone who already flies in that plane, how you should leave the plane after you have flown.... etc....

It may sound petty, and I do agree with you that surely a well experienced instructor may very well be more than capable at teaching you about the type. It is important to remember that every plane is different! I remember an instructor teaching me on a new type some years ago, and he didn't seem too familiar with the plane despite him having flown that particular plane more than 40 hours (albeit some time ago) there was a digital engine management system that had been installed and he had no idea how to use it - which is somewhat worrying...

I think you should probably just bite the bullet and wait for the group instructor. Groups have a tendency to have a lot of politics... I'd go with the flow for now and then when you've flown the plane, get your instructor in! :-)

[BEagle]

crablab, if your favoured instructor hasn't flown the TB-10 before (which I assume is the group aeroplane), then he will need to receive familiarisation from someone familiar with the aircraft.

The fact that he has umpteen thousand hours from the airlines is utterly irrelevant - if he's a half-way decent instructor he should know the Part-FCL requirements for variant familiarisation and/or differences training. Self-briefed familiarisation, whether it's even lawful (no doubt some barrack room lawyer will disagree) is not a particularly sensible course of action for an instructor to take.

[BackPacker]

Agree with alex90. It may just be something simple as an insurance or group policy that states that everyone flying as PIC (which your instructor would be when he's teaching you) needs to have a familiarisation flight ("check out") on the aircraft. Which is, generally speaking, a good policy to have. And it's a good and decent thing that this flight can be done with anyone of the members, not just with the designated group instructor. (*)

If your instructor is anywhere near as experienced as you've led me to believe, that flight can probably be done in 15 minutes. And in the future gives other members the additional benefit of an extra instructor that's available to teach on the group aircraft.

What I don't get, though, is that you are "part of a group" that apparently owns a VP/CS aircraft, and that you have not yet been endorsed with VP/CS training. IMHO as soon as you join such a group, it would be the very first thing to arrange, as without that endorsement you can't legally fly the aircraft. From that I conclude that you're a new member. In which case I would advise you not to start kicking up dust just yet. Talk things over with the group members. See what they think of an unfamiliar instructor teaching on their aircraft, and what they think needs to be done to get this instructor on board. As said, they may benefit from it as well.

(*) From a legal point of view the situation where a non-instructor, or even worse a PPL, checks out someone else on an aircraft, is very murky. Who is the PIC in that case? If the "student" is the PIC, what is the responsibility/liability of the "instructor" if something goes wrong? And if the "instructor" is the PIC, then the "instructor" - assuming he only has a PPL - needs to pay part of the costs and the "student" can't log the flight. Plenty of discussions on this elsewhere on this forum, no need to rehash them here, but to preempt the discussion a lot of groups/clubs specify that these check-out flights can only be done by qualified instructors.

[9 lives]

Self-briefed familiarisation, whether it's even lawful (no doubt some barrack room lawyer will disagree) is not a particularly sensible course of action for an instructor to take.

Well, if the subject 'plane is a certified GA type, this is not rocket science. Of course, a briefing and checkout are always a good idea, I am never against training. But a very experienced pilot, competent in light single GA 'planes, can generally check themselves out in a similar type certified GA type without problem.

Information about power settings is published in the Flight Manual, as are any operating limitations, which will also be marked. If there are any changes to the operation of the aircraft resulting from avionics installations, there will be an FMS for these. Otherwise, the use and operation of this secondary equipment should be considered optional, and will not affect the aircraft if improperly done.

Certification of the aircraft, and the equipment installation, would not allow approval, if the aircraft is very difficult to fly in any configuration. The pilot is required to be familiar with the contents of the Flight Manual, and any FMS's, but while conforming to those, and proper training, flying a new certified type of the class you are qualified in, is not overwhelming. In some cases, regulators and insurers get carried away with obsessing about pilot training.

I opine that a pilot is more likely to have a accident because they mis managed the 'plane itself, (handling or systems), rather than installed systems or the engine/propeller.

Of course more training and mentor flying will bring more wisdom, and that's always great, but good basic piloting skills are the most things to keep you safe. Hopefully you keep these fresh.

When I was a 200 or so pilot, I was asked to ferry all kinds of complex singles, and never had a problem. I'd read whatever was provided in terms of instruction in and FMS, and off I'd go. Sometimes I'd learn as I'd fly, and that's fine. It is unlikely that you will often find two similarly equipped aircraft. The mindset to understand those systems, and use them properly is the same you will need to operated a prop or retractable gear properly, read and learn, then do.

[alex90]

Information about power settings is published in the Flight Manual, as are any operating limitations, which will also be marked. If there are any changes to the operation of the aircraft resulting from avionics installations, there will be an FMS for these. Otherwise, the use and operation of this secondary equipment should be considered optional, and will not affect the aircraft if improperly done.

Certification of the aircraft, and the equipment installation, would not allow approval, if the aircraft is very difficult to fly in any configuration. The pilot is required to be familiar with the contents of the Flight Manual, and any FMS's, but while conforming to those, and proper training, flying a new certified type of the class you are qualified in, is not overwhelming. In some cases, regulators and insurers get carried away with obsessing about pilot training.

I do agree with what you are saying, and I was not suggesting that these were operational limits, but more, "group guidelines". I have come across a few groups who requested their aircraft be operated at specific power settings in the cruise (because they believe that this increased the longevity of their engine - which I was assured by a qualified mechanic was all rubbish...), this won't be in the POH / FMS. Or groups which had particularly peculiar checks (which turned out to be for good reason) which again were not in the POH.

I also agree with this quote:

The mindset to understand those systems, and use them properly is the same you will need to operated a prop or retractable gear properly, read and learn, then do.

But also understand that as a co-owner of a plane, I will want to know who is flying my shareoplane, and will want to know that they will take good care of it, and are more than capable of handling it. Irrespective of number of hours flown, or qualifications held!

I once flew with an ATPL holder, 10,000+hrs captain for a well known airline, I genuinely felt like he was trying to kill me during his first approach. So much so that I took over the controls and went around. After having talked about it whilst at a safe height, and explained why I deemed it an unsafe approach, he agreed it wasn't his finest approach... To his credit though his second approach was darn smooth!

[9 lives]

I once flew with an ATPL holder, 10,000+hrs captain for a well known airline, I genuinely felt like he was trying to kill me during his first approach.

Certainly, those pilots are out there, hence my remark:

But a very experienced pilot, competent in light single GA 'planes, can generally check themselves out in a similar type certified GA type without problem.

You want to be assured that the pilot (instructor) is current in the class of aircraft under consideration. Some big iron pilots are very certainly out of touch with flying light aircraft. Hopefully, they are not offering mentoring services in those types!

Otherwise, a pilot is entitled to refamiliarize themselves in a less familiar type, while being current. Their first landing may be excused from perfection. I checked myself out in the Super Cub on skis the other day, I had not flown it on skis in ten months. I was not proud of my first landing, but the next six were very pleasing. But the same afternoon, I flew as mentor to another pilot, while he flew eight circuits.

It can be common that a pilot not fly a type for a while (like seasonal float flying). It is their duty to assure they are ready for their first next flight. This may be by seeking a checkout, or just being extra careful for a self checkout.

[BEagle]

For the avoidance of any doubt, these are the Aircrew Regulation requirements:

FCL.710 Class and type ratings — variants

(a) In order to extend his/her privileges to another variant of aircraft within one class or type rating, the pilot shall undertake differences or familiarisation training. In the case of variants within a type rating, the differences or familiarisation training shall include the relevant elements defined in the operational suitability data established in accordance with Part-21.

(b) If the variant has not been flown within a period of 2 years following the differences training, further differences training or a proficiency check in that variant shall be required to maintain the privileges, except for types or variants within the single-engine piston and TMG class ratings.

(c) The differences training shall be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent record and signed by the instructor as appropriate.

GM1 FCL.710 Class and type ratings — variants. Differences and familiarisation training

(a) Differences training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge and training on an appropriate training device or the aircraft.

(b) Familiarisation training requires the acquisition of additional knowledge.

[9 lives]

So, 'cause I'm curious, and learning, what's a "TMG" class?

And, within "Single Engined Piston" class, what constitutes a "variant"? I presume there would be similar types whose differences did not rise to the level of "variant", and thus require any training? Different fixed prop, fixed gear Cherokees? Or if the pilot has the variable pitch prop sign off going from Piper PA-28-235 to PA-32?

I certainly feel strongly that type/differences training is vital between some aircraft models (class? type?), such as a pilot new to tailwheel, new to floats, new to amphibian, new to reversing propeller, new to flying boat, or new to skis.

I'm interested though as to how "variant" would be categorized for tricycle fixed wheel SEP models?

The rules I fly by in Canada are less stringent, it's more being covered by insurance which will dictate what you can just jump into and fly.....

[Duo802]

I wonder how during WW2, ATA pilots managed to convert quite well to new, and often complex, types with no check flights and just a set of universal pilot notes. And how does one get checked out to fly single seaters? A good briefing and read the flight manual. Seems to work OK.

[ChickenHouse]

I wonder how during WW2, ATA pilots managed to convert quite well to new, and often complex, types with no check flights and just a set of universal pilot notes. And how does one get checked out to fly single seaters? A good briefing and read the flight manual. Seems to work OK.

What was the average number of flights a pilot conducted before getting killed? Don't need much training for that. Even later, i.e. Korean war, warbirds were designed for a one-digit number of flights ... but this is getting off topic now.