Royal Vic Aero Club introducing mandatory 90 day checks
90-day checks and currency
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not about insurance
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?
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?
XXX
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
Spot on.
Aimpoint
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.
With 600+ members on the books, how on earth else can you keep track of each pilots' currency?
If a currency record can be done after, why not before?
XXX
It's about ar-se covering.
Aimpoint
Didn't someone just undershoot into the scrub at RVAC? Coincidence?
--
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up North
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Up North
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Nadsy; 2nd Jul 2010 at 01:50. Reason: clarrification of complexity of aircraft and below statement.
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 $$ and possibly a 'customer'. Bad pilots will tend to just take their business elsewhere to a place with lesser standards. Sad as it sounds i've heard aircraft owners say the most money you ever make on an aircraft is when it's crashed and written off.
All well and good to do checks - but will the operator have the coconuts to stop a bad pilot from taking the aircraft - after all by doing so they will lose $$ 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.
I believe the legislation is three take offs and landings every 90 days (can be solo) to remain current
Ted
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 in 6 months to go it alone
Day VFR to go alone you just have to have licence, medical and not due/overdue for Flight Review to go solo.
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.
