Royal Vic Aero Club introducing mandatory 90 day checks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Vic Aero Club introducing mandatory 90 day checks
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
to spend more money unnecessarily with no gain ie instructors get the hours not the pilot being checked.
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.
), 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?
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...
Nothing new, just probably trying to keep their insurance premiums down... Anyway, 3 months is quite a long time...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Considering the standards these days, it is perhaps needed more than ever.
Why would you be logging it as dual?
If you are otherwise current, a check flight is PIC time not dual, right?
If you are otherwise current, a check flight is PIC time not dual, right?
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
)
Last edited by Checkboard; 9th Apr 2010 at 14:15.