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]

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 :eek:. 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.

[9 lives]

What was the average number of flights a pilot conducted before getting killed? Don't need much training for that

I think for many of these pilots many, many flights, and.... no death!

I have known many pilots who have been trained not just to fly a 'plane, but to understand flying planes more generally, so that self checkouts are safe and practical.

I have self checked out on many types, and the only one of those which caught my attention was the Tomahawk, I was too cavalier with it. It was okay, it was me not respecting it. Once I respected it, we were both fine!

I will never criticize a pilot who seeks a checkout, that's always a good idea. However, anyone presenting themselves as an instructor on that class of aircraft should be able to safely self checkout if they need to. Fair enough that they might take an hour, and a few circuits to get comfortable, but these 'planes are not difficult to fly if you've read the flight manual, and apply some of your experience to the task.

[BEagle]

TMG = Touring Motor Glider

SEP Class = Single Engine Piston generic rating.

Type = Something which has a Type Rating, not a generic Class Rating.

Variant = different breed / model of SEP Class aeroplane. Thus a C152 and PA28 are different SEP Class variants - if the pilot has only flown a C152 and now wants to fly a PA28, it is a legal requirement to receive familiarisation on the PA28. If it's a PA28 with a VP prop, the pilot needs to receive 'differences training' if he/she hasn't flown a VP prop aeroplane before - and that has to be with an instructor.

After a fatal accident in the UK many years ago, the CAA came up with 'strong recommendation' that an instructor should not conduct instruction on a variant he/she hadn't flown before, until such time as he/she had received variant familiarisation - if I recall correctly this was an accident in a Cherokee and the pilot had only flown Warriors previously. One used KIAS, the other mph....

I had about 8000 hrs TT when I asked another FI to give me a quick 'familiarisation' trip in a Cherokee 180 as I'd only flown 140s and Warriors before then. I'm glad I did as there were several clear differences - as a student with whom I was flying one day also discovered when he pulled out the plunger type mixture control instead of the carb heat...with the predictable result (briefly!). All our other aircraft used quadrant-type mixture controls...:\

[n5296s]

From a US perspective I've been following this thread with a mixture of amazement and amusement. It's certainly a miracle that pilots aren't dying by the thousand without the wisdom of the EASA/CAA.

In FAA land, once you have a PPL-ASEL you're good to go in any single-engine piston or turbo-prop airplane less than 12500 lbs. (Well, endorsements are needed for certain characteristics, like retractable and high power, but they are not type specific).

Any further regulation comes from insurers and (for rentals) the aircraft owners. Any FBO or club will want an instructor checkout before they'll let you take one of their planes out on your own, even if you claim to have 5000 hours in type. Though if you really do, it won't take long. I could go out and buy myself say a PC12, and the insurance would want a number of things including most likely an approved training course. But the FAA would be fine with me just jumping in and trying to fly it.

[9 lives]

Thanks BEagle, that clears things up!

If any pilot, let alone an instructor, got themselves in trouble mixing up knots with MPH, or grabbing the wrong knob, they really should not be solo yet. If I'd crashed a plane for a speed units error, I'd be trying to think up a lie for a way better sounding reason than that!

In Canada, privileges are about the same as what N5296S describes, other than we do not have such a thing as a tailwheel endorsement either, just jump in and fly it if you like (insurance, notwithstanding).

My first flights in Tomahawk, Bellanca Viking, Twin Comanche, Found Amphibian, and Piper Navajo, Piper Dakota, Piper Turbo Arrow 4, Tiger Moth, Cessna 206, Ercoupe, Piper Super Cub, Piper Colt, C 172 taildragger, Cessna 305, and Cessna 182 amphibian were all solo flights, as in each case, there was no other pilot available to check me out.

In the case of the 182 Amphibian, I learned of the silliness of EASA differences training regulation. I was told in Norway by the CAA staff member there that in addition to it being a complex aircraft, and seaplane, it also required differences training as it is glass cockpit. Strangely, even though the Norwegian owner, whom I was training in it, did have the glass cockpit differences training in a G1000 172, that did not count toward the 182 as a seaplane. He would have to get seaplane glass cockpit differences training. As a look came over the face of the NCAA guy explaining this to us, I asked if he was serious. He actually paused, and re read the EASA requirement to confirm that it was indeed true. He seemed as stupefied to tell us, as I was to hear it! I replied by saying: "where do I sign for him, 'cause I'm the only other insured pilot of this plane, and it's probably the only glass cockpit amphibian in Norway!". I believe that the NCAA guy decided that this did not need to be an issue, and we heard nothing more about it....

[S-Works]

That's incorrect. G1000 is G1000 regardless of the aircraft it's fitted to.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just going back to the original question.

The aeroplane is syndicate owned - they have one or more trusted people who are co-owners (most likely) whose flying standards and judgement are known and accepted to be of an acceptable standard for that group.

A new member joins - who until proven otherwise is an unknown quantity. He wants to use an instructor who is also an unknown quantity.

Legalities here to me are pretty much secondary - the syndicate has every right and reason to make sure that anybody flying their aeroplane meets their acceptable standards. And also if this 17,000hr instructor is both good and has a good level of professional humility - he'll have absolutely no issue with being checked out by a PPL who knows the aeroplane well, and hopefully it won't take very long at-all.

So, myself, I think that there is no issue here - just do it. Fighting the requirement just indicates to the syndicate an unprofessional attitude towards flying the aeroplane, and that's no way to start off as a new member.

G

[9 lives]

That's incorrect. G1000 is G1000 regardless of the aircraft it's fitted to.

Perhaps, as long as it's a wheelplane. Once the G1000 (or other glass cockpit) is installed in a seaplane, according to the EASA guidance I was shown (at the Norwegian CAA office in Bodo), additional training is required. If a different reference is available, I'd be interested to see it.

[S-Works]

I am a seaplane examiner and have never seen such regulation under Part FCL. Differences training is defined under Part FCL and does not discriminate between the class of aircraft.

[crablab]

Legalities here to me are pretty much secondary - the syndicate has every right and reason to make sure that anybody flying their aeroplane meets their acceptable standards. And also if this 17,000hr instructor is both good and has a good level of professional humility - he'll have absolutely no issue with being checked out by a PPL who knows the aeroplane well, and hopefully it won't take very long at-all.

So, myself, I think that there is no issue here - just do it. Fighting the requirement just indicates to the syndicate an unprofessional attitude towards flying the aeroplane, and that's no way to start off as a new member.

G

Inclined to agree with you now...

I've just had an email with a list of instructors they are "happy" for me to use - something which before was very wishy washy (different people in the group were telling me different things regarding who I should and shouldn't approach etc.) and being a new member (as some have sussed out) I just went and asked advice from my old school.

So, upshot is - I will be arranging training through the group.