The Check-Out Scandal: Discussion.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SELondon
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."
I did some tailwheel to solo standard only back in 98, but would question my suitability, after the subsequent time back on nosewheel aircraft, in a Cub now.
Ok, maybe I'm being hard on myself, I could solo a tailwheel tomorrow but throw in a crosswind which I'd deal with in a nose wheel type and it could be different in the tailwheeler.
To sum up, I reckon if you learnt tailwheel then maybe the above quote has a ring of truth about it.
I whizzed through the thread, apologies if anyone has made a similar point.
Tim
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem with checking out on an unfamiliar aircraft (in fact good idea)
Would like to see something similar to France where once a club has checked you out on an aircraft and you maintain currency then you do not require a checkride for other clubs that you might visit
How about checking out on a Cessna 172 whenever you visit a new club ? Bit OTT I would say, I know some bright spark will mention "local area familiarisation" but you could fly there from your home base without any need for local area "familiarisation"
Downside is it wouldn't cost as much and clubs would not screw that last couple of quid from you
Would like to see something similar to France where once a club has checked you out on an aircraft and you maintain currency then you do not require a checkride for other clubs that you might visit
How about checking out on a Cessna 172 whenever you visit a new club ? Bit OTT I would say, I know some bright spark will mention "local area familiarisation" but you could fly there from your home base without any need for local area "familiarisation"
Downside is it wouldn't cost as much and clubs would not screw that last couple of quid from you
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, I was talking to an FAA Examiner a week or two back and he stated that the FAA are contemplating requiring a type rating for G1000 equipped aircraft.
The local FBO require a G1000 Ground class and a minimum of 5 hours training before letting anybody loose.
The local FBO require a G1000 Ground class and a minimum of 5 hours training before letting anybody loose.
For the record, the FAA have just classed the DA42 as a "complex ME" as per any other MEP's, i.e. no TR required, it is "the same as all the rest". So in FAA land you can indeed do a ME rating in a G1000 Twin Star and then go on to fly a Seneca for example (or try).
BTW, comparing peacetime attitudes to risk with war-time ones is bizarre
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by englishal
Was not comparing at all. It was just an interesting story of how it used to be in times past. And if you read the book, you would quite likely not want to be put in that position.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle,
I was pointing out that it wasn't quite as simple as Roald Dahl wrote, as posted by englishal. They still spent some time going through the notes before being sent off on their own. I understand, the normal progression was Tiger Moth to Master or Harvard and THEN to squadron and the self check.
To put the whole thing in perspective it may be relevant to consider how often a check pilot may have intervened to avoid actual damage/ loss of control. My hypothesis is that this is very rare indeed. If it isn't, then perhaps there is something wrong with the initial training stage.
Let's exclude actual training, learning 'new' skills, stick to flying new types.
It might be well to remember that the requirement for check flights and currency is often, perhaps mostly an insurance requirement. And we know they love our curremcy; preferablt sterling.
I was pointing out that it wasn't quite as simple as Roald Dahl wrote, as posted by englishal. They still spent some time going through the notes before being sent off on their own. I understand, the normal progression was Tiger Moth to Master or Harvard and THEN to squadron and the self check.
To put the whole thing in perspective it may be relevant to consider how often a check pilot may have intervened to avoid actual damage/ loss of control. My hypothesis is that this is very rare indeed. If it isn't, then perhaps there is something wrong with the initial training stage.
Let's exclude actual training, learning 'new' skills, stick to flying new types.
It might be well to remember that the requirement for check flights and currency is often, perhaps mostly an insurance requirement. And we know they love our curremcy; preferablt sterling.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once given the task of accompanying a flying instructor who had to get 5 hours on type to teach. Nearly got caught out when he tried to stall the aircraft several feet above the ground on landing!
One thing i have learnt over the years, no matter what the experience level, i will always insist on a new member checkout, even if its only one circuit.
At least i would have a reasonably clear conscience at the coroners inquest.
(Had an old boy on a trial lesson, he had not flown since the war.
He had done 100 hours just as the war ended.
Said that he had done 20 odd hours on Tigers, then went to Texas to finish off on Stearmans and Harvards.
So goes to prove they weren't sent off after the Hun with 10 hours under their belt).
One thing i have learnt over the years, no matter what the experience level, i will always insist on a new member checkout, even if its only one circuit.
At least i would have a reasonably clear conscience at the coroners inquest.
(Had an old boy on a trial lesson, he had not flown since the war.
He had done 100 hours just as the war ended.
Said that he had done 20 odd hours on Tigers, then went to Texas to finish off on Stearmans and Harvards.
So goes to prove they weren't sent off after the Hun with 10 hours under their belt).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of a story I heard many years ago from a WW2 fighter pilot, a guy named Ed. It seems after the war he and a sqadronmate were on their way someplace and were stranded at a USAF maintenance depot somewhere (don't remember where or how they got stranded - might have been delivering two fighters for maintanence). They needed to get back to base but there was nothing going their direction for a couple of days.
So they're sitting in Base Ops and trying to figure out what they were going to do when a guy comes in and announces to the assembled transient pilots that he had an A-26 that needed to be ferried and was anyone here qualified. Turns out it looked like their ticket home, but they were both single-engine fighter types.
Ed's mate looks at him with a shrug and says something to the effect of "Look, it's either the A-26 or we're stuck here for three days. We're both single-engine qualified, so between the two of us we're twin qualified. How hard can it be? If you sign me off, I'll sign you off. Whaddya say?"
Ed thought for a minute and decided it was better than being stranded where they were. So they snuck around the corner, signed each other's log books, and duly presented themselves to the controller at Base Ops as a fully qualified A-26 ferry crew.
The story then jumps to these guys sitting in the cockpit of an A-26 for the first time, no idea how the damn thing works, with the mission of actually flying it home. Ed was nominated as captain, and these guys start trying to figure out the systems and procedures from looking at the manuals onboard. I'll never forget the briefing they agreed on as Ed figured out how to take advantage of the residual experience left behind from genuine crews:
"Aw, screw it. Jes' move the shiney knobs and leave ev-rythin' else alone!"
He was there 50 years later to tell me the story so the tactic must have worked! So maybe there is something to the old "it's just another airplane" adage?!?!
Pitts2112
So they're sitting in Base Ops and trying to figure out what they were going to do when a guy comes in and announces to the assembled transient pilots that he had an A-26 that needed to be ferried and was anyone here qualified. Turns out it looked like their ticket home, but they were both single-engine fighter types.
Ed's mate looks at him with a shrug and says something to the effect of "Look, it's either the A-26 or we're stuck here for three days. We're both single-engine qualified, so between the two of us we're twin qualified. How hard can it be? If you sign me off, I'll sign you off. Whaddya say?"
Ed thought for a minute and decided it was better than being stranded where they were. So they snuck around the corner, signed each other's log books, and duly presented themselves to the controller at Base Ops as a fully qualified A-26 ferry crew.
The story then jumps to these guys sitting in the cockpit of an A-26 for the first time, no idea how the damn thing works, with the mission of actually flying it home. Ed was nominated as captain, and these guys start trying to figure out the systems and procedures from looking at the manuals onboard. I'll never forget the briefing they agreed on as Ed figured out how to take advantage of the residual experience left behind from genuine crews:
"Aw, screw it. Jes' move the shiney knobs and leave ev-rythin' else alone!"
He was there 50 years later to tell me the story so the tactic must have worked! So maybe there is something to the old "it's just another airplane" adage?!?!
Pitts2112
My third flight in my third single-seat glider was a nasty surprise.
A more powerful tug coupled with stronger wind gradient and unsuitable trim setting (but according to manual) led to a balloon on takeoff followed by a bounce off the ground followed by the spoilers coming out
well maybe they helped bring the pitch oscillation under control
I'll take all the checkout I can get. Even after checkout, there's still a getting better acquainted period.
A more powerful tug coupled with stronger wind gradient and unsuitable trim setting (but according to manual) led to a balloon on takeoff followed by a bounce off the ground followed by the spoilers coming out
well maybe they helped bring the pitch oscillation under controlI'll take all the checkout I can get. Even after checkout, there's still a getting better acquainted period.
Moderator
My two cents worth....
I agree that a competant pilot should be able to fly many different aircraft within a "type", but there are exceptions, and will that pilot recognize their limitations in time?
Rental checkouts are perhaps more a matter of recency for infrequent pilots, than a measure of total skill. Personally, I have not had many problems getting checked out (save for once in a "T" tail Arrow, with an instructor, whom I'm convinced, from his lack of type knowledge, had never been in the plane before!). Often, where I anticipate of an hour of being run through the ringer on a type I've never flown, after one circuit I'm cleared to go. I sometimes ask for a bit more.
I actively seek checkouts when I fly other's aircraft. I see it as a guard against creeping complacency, and a reassurance for the insurer of my own aircraft, that I make an effort to maintain an acceptable skill set.
I often find that checkouts are simply not available on some types I fly for design change approval test flying. As said so well by Genghis, you study up the best you can, from whatever reading and asking you can do, and slowly figure it out for yourself once in the sky. The mod may introduce changes in handling or performance, which you'll have to figure out once airborne - makes a thorough test plan seem like a good idea!
There are many aircraft which by type, or configuration, are very hard to get checked out in - just not common in the training mainstream. Examples would be ski planes and amphibious floatplanes. Your common flying club probably does employ instructors with skills in these types. Both of these types require many special skills and cautions, which a pilot just could not safely figure out without some instruction. Once instructed effectively, however, the pilot can probably manage a variety of similarly configured aircraft with no problem.
The test pilot and ferry pilot share these challenges, as they are both expected to get into an aircraft with less than a complete checkout, and safely conduct the flight. The test pilot may have it easier though, as he can wait for a good weather day, and probably does not have to navigate too far! Oh, and the aircraft is probably leaving a well equipped maintenance facility, with everything as it should be in that respect. Not always so for the ferry pilot!
The design requirements for all civil aircraft would tend to group them into types, which a competant pilot should be able to figure out for themselves with a thorough review of the flight manual. There are exceptions though... The muched talked about Tomahawk (which I like) is certainly an aircraft which takes more than a read of the flight manual for the average pilot to takeoff safely (I learned this the embarrasing way, though injured only my pride) similarly, the Lake amphibian is not a plane for the average floatplane pilot to just jump into - it is very different to fly from a floatplane of equal size and weight, though a delight! Competant training required....
STOL kittied aircraft are another good example. Yes, the average pilot can still fly them fine, but the increased perfomance will only be safely understood and experienced by a pilot already familiar with such aircaft. I once returned an instructor safely to earth in my STOL kitted aircraft, only to have him report to others, that I was "flying my aircraft around below stall speed". He would not have been competant to instruct or checkout the changed performance of that aircraft, without a proper checkout himself.
As for avionics, yep, things are changing... I've played with a G1000 on the gound, and could probably manage it in flight, but certainly not use it to its potential. Certainly, back when I ferried all sorts of different types, I was more often trying to figure out the avionics, than the aircraft itself. This is an obvious reduction in safety, as inadequate attention to flying the aircraft itself, and traffic awareness is likely when you're playing with the radios. For this reason, I always take my own GPS when ferrying, so if the aircraft equipment is not familiar to me, I can still safely navigate without a steep learning curve.
So to all of the early stage pilots out there (I can still remember when I was one, but I guess that's passed now) I owe back all of the wisdom taught to me over the decades. It's fine to be comfortable on a new type, but when things you'd never even though could happen, do, are you ready? My second flight solo in a C185 amphib, and the gear failed in such a way that the left float wheel gear was completly retracted, and the right completely extended, and all of the hydraulic fluid was now atomized behind me... Waddaudonow? With some ground to air advice, I got it down without hurting it!
Cheers, Pilot DAR
I agree that a competant pilot should be able to fly many different aircraft within a "type", but there are exceptions, and will that pilot recognize their limitations in time?
Rental checkouts are perhaps more a matter of recency for infrequent pilots, than a measure of total skill. Personally, I have not had many problems getting checked out (save for once in a "T" tail Arrow, with an instructor, whom I'm convinced, from his lack of type knowledge, had never been in the plane before!). Often, where I anticipate of an hour of being run through the ringer on a type I've never flown, after one circuit I'm cleared to go. I sometimes ask for a bit more.
I actively seek checkouts when I fly other's aircraft. I see it as a guard against creeping complacency, and a reassurance for the insurer of my own aircraft, that I make an effort to maintain an acceptable skill set.
I often find that checkouts are simply not available on some types I fly for design change approval test flying. As said so well by Genghis, you study up the best you can, from whatever reading and asking you can do, and slowly figure it out for yourself once in the sky. The mod may introduce changes in handling or performance, which you'll have to figure out once airborne - makes a thorough test plan seem like a good idea!
There are many aircraft which by type, or configuration, are very hard to get checked out in - just not common in the training mainstream. Examples would be ski planes and amphibious floatplanes. Your common flying club probably does employ instructors with skills in these types. Both of these types require many special skills and cautions, which a pilot just could not safely figure out without some instruction. Once instructed effectively, however, the pilot can probably manage a variety of similarly configured aircraft with no problem.
The test pilot and ferry pilot share these challenges, as they are both expected to get into an aircraft with less than a complete checkout, and safely conduct the flight. The test pilot may have it easier though, as he can wait for a good weather day, and probably does not have to navigate too far! Oh, and the aircraft is probably leaving a well equipped maintenance facility, with everything as it should be in that respect. Not always so for the ferry pilot!
The design requirements for all civil aircraft would tend to group them into types, which a competant pilot should be able to figure out for themselves with a thorough review of the flight manual. There are exceptions though... The muched talked about Tomahawk (which I like) is certainly an aircraft which takes more than a read of the flight manual for the average pilot to takeoff safely (I learned this the embarrasing way, though injured only my pride) similarly, the Lake amphibian is not a plane for the average floatplane pilot to just jump into - it is very different to fly from a floatplane of equal size and weight, though a delight! Competant training required....
STOL kittied aircraft are another good example. Yes, the average pilot can still fly them fine, but the increased perfomance will only be safely understood and experienced by a pilot already familiar with such aircaft. I once returned an instructor safely to earth in my STOL kitted aircraft, only to have him report to others, that I was "flying my aircraft around below stall speed". He would not have been competant to instruct or checkout the changed performance of that aircraft, without a proper checkout himself.
As for avionics, yep, things are changing... I've played with a G1000 on the gound, and could probably manage it in flight, but certainly not use it to its potential. Certainly, back when I ferried all sorts of different types, I was more often trying to figure out the avionics, than the aircraft itself. This is an obvious reduction in safety, as inadequate attention to flying the aircraft itself, and traffic awareness is likely when you're playing with the radios. For this reason, I always take my own GPS when ferrying, so if the aircraft equipment is not familiar to me, I can still safely navigate without a steep learning curve.
So to all of the early stage pilots out there (I can still remember when I was one, but I guess that's passed now) I owe back all of the wisdom taught to me over the decades. It's fine to be comfortable on a new type, but when things you'd never even though could happen, do, are you ready? My second flight solo in a C185 amphib, and the gear failed in such a way that the left float wheel gear was completly retracted, and the right completely extended, and all of the hydraulic fluid was now atomized behind me... Waddaudonow? With some ground to air advice, I got it down without hurting it!
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think PPL training is largely crap unless one is flying a basic spamcan with a speedo, revcounter, altimeter and little else.
Nowadays this is the case in the majority of cases which no doubt is why nothing is done to change the syllabus (at the JAA/ICAO level) but as time moves on and better equipped planes appear in bigger numbers in the fleet, there will be an increasing need for ground school.
The syllabus is also skewed. You need official training and signoffs for retractable gear and CS prop (which don't need much training) but not for the mixture (which, along with the whole subject of engine management) does need a fair bit of understanding. And not for a GPS or autopilot, which potentially need a lot more.
If you are involved in renting out a decent well equipped plane (as I was for a few years) then you will know the issues; let's just say that when somebody turns up and wants to fly the well equipped machine without wanting to have any understanding of the avionics, you will start to wonder if you are going to get the machine back.
It takes a good number of hours for a newcomer to learn this stuff. Currently, it's not a great problem (in terms of pilots affected) because most of those getting into well equipped planes have a fair history of working their way up the ownership chain, but this will change.
I think anything at the GNS430 level and above should have mandatory ground school. There would be a grave shortage of instructors in the UK but one has to start somewhere.
I also think the CAA would do a great deal for future safety if they changed their checkride procedure to the way the FAA does it: require the pilot to show he can work everything installed (GPS, autopilot, the lot).
In this easy little move, the FAA has managed to introduce mandatory ground school for modern avionics without getting the blame for landing the flight training industry with higher costs It also avoids having to push any changes through ICAO or, in the European case, the JAA.
Nowadays this is the case in the majority of cases which no doubt is why nothing is done to change the syllabus (at the JAA/ICAO level) but as time moves on and better equipped planes appear in bigger numbers in the fleet, there will be an increasing need for ground school.
The syllabus is also skewed. You need official training and signoffs for retractable gear and CS prop (which don't need much training) but not for the mixture (which, along with the whole subject of engine management) does need a fair bit of understanding. And not for a GPS or autopilot, which potentially need a lot more.
If you are involved in renting out a decent well equipped plane (as I was for a few years) then you will know the issues; let's just say that when somebody turns up and wants to fly the well equipped machine without wanting to have any understanding of the avionics, you will start to wonder if you are going to get the machine back.
It takes a good number of hours for a newcomer to learn this stuff. Currently, it's not a great problem (in terms of pilots affected) because most of those getting into well equipped planes have a fair history of working their way up the ownership chain, but this will change.
I think anything at the GNS430 level and above should have mandatory ground school. There would be a grave shortage of instructors in the UK but one has to start somewhere.
I also think the CAA would do a great deal for future safety if they changed their checkride procedure to the way the FAA does it: require the pilot to show he can work everything installed (GPS, autopilot, the lot).
In this easy little move, the FAA has managed to introduce mandatory ground school for modern avionics without getting the blame for landing the flight training industry with higher costs
It also avoids having to push any changes through ICAO or, in the European case, the JAA.
I think PPL training is largely crap unless one is flying a basic spamcan with a speedo, revcounter, altimeter and little else.
Let's face it, PPL training is quite expensive enough as it is, you'd price the whole industry out of existence by insisting that a PPL covered everything from an Arrow with a Garmin 1000 to an Evans VP1. So it teaches people how to fly a basic middling performance spamcan, and equips them to learn.
G
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just finished converting to a Garmin 1000 equipped 172 and can say that yes it is pxss easy when youve been shown how it works and it makes flying easier than it was prior . Someone made the argument regarding what when both screens go blank ? simple any VFR pilot worth his salt will be able to carry on maybe divert and get it fixed but why would you , you trained visually , there is a standby analogue AI ASI and altimeter , which is more instrumentation than you may find in some homebuilts or even older A/C . Garmin produce a nice little sim to stick on your pc and you can even use the majoirty if its bits and bobs on microsofts flight sim . I would agree that you do need ot be shown how to use it as with everything else but its not the be all and end all of opearting the A/C , If i can use it anyone can
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was referring to Miserlou, rather than your good self, EA...
Don't shoot the messenger..
I asked the question a couple of weeks ago regarding "partial panel" in a G1000 aeroplane. The response was basically that when the screen goes black, you're now not much worse off than someone in a conventional aeroplane with standard instrumentation. Partial panel with an AI....whatever next 
Many of the "Glass" aeroplanes include FITS (FAA Industry Training Standards) training packages for their new owners in the aeroplane price. This is required for them to get insurance on the aeroplanes in most cases. Typically for a DA40 it is a 3 day training course.....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTE
I don't disagree with you
The present training situation is however pretty poor for advanced types. I suggested a mechanism through which the more advanced types could be covered.
I don't disagree with you
The present training situation is however pretty poor for advanced types. I suggested a mechanism through which the more advanced types could be covered.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for regulation where it adds value. Unfortunately, much of it here doesn't, except into the CAA's coffers.
Pitts2112
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The present training situation is however pretty poor for advanced types. I suggested a mechanism through which the more advanced types could be covered.
I don't think this type of thing should be tagged onto the PPL as it would just add to the costs and put people off. What's wrong with schools offering more post PPL courses? Surely that's a better way to go as it would let the individual follow his/her chosen type of flying. It would also give the fresh PPL goals to achieve, in a similar way to glider pilots and keep their interest fresh. In other words, keep the PPL as simple as possible and have a kind of badge (maybe a less naff name than "badge") system of advanced training. It shouldn't become a stick either as that would de-value the PPL itself and be no different than adding more costly ratings to fill the CAA's pockets. The carrot could be reduced insurance or the acceptance of said pilot to fly the clubs more advanced types. The "badge" system could also follow different genres such as aerobatics, touring, strip flying ect with bronze, silver, gold + levels, again like gliding.
Getting back to the original subject, I would hope that most PPL's could actually fly any aeroplane within their type rating without too much difficulty, although perhaps without much finesse. I'm pretty sure that if my life depended on it (ridiculous scenario one ... tidal wave approaching as I'm drinking a cuppa at low lying airfield
) that I could jump into any non complex SEP, take off fly and land without killing myself. The fact that something has a glass panel doesn't make it fly any different! In good VFR weather, you should be able to fly by attitude, feel and judgement even with dare I say it .... no instruments what-so-ever! The any aeroplane bit, is perhaps stretching things a tad ... but (ridiculous scenario two ... airliner with incapacitated crew) even that with some outside help on the radio isn't beyond the realms of possibility. SS
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts
What I suggested is what the FAA does, no more.
One can bypass the system in the USA in the same way one bypasses it in the UK. You do it by getting your PPL in a basic C172 or whatever, getting your complex checkout in a similarly basic Arrow or similar, and then buying a new SR22 The system will catch up with you 2 years later when you go and do your BFR, in your SR22. Unless of course you rent another old C172 for the BFR, so you don't have to demonstrate any of your kit to the examiner. Somehow, I don't think many pilots will bother to do that sort of subterfuge. It's a good simple system.
What I suggested is what the FAA does, no more.
One can bypass the system in the USA in the same way one bypasses it in the UK. You do it by getting your PPL in a basic C172 or whatever, getting your complex checkout in a similarly basic Arrow or similar, and then buying a new SR22
The system will catch up with you 2 years later when you go and do your BFR, in your SR22. Unless of course you rent another old C172 for the BFR, so you don't have to demonstrate any of your kit to the examiner. Somehow, I don't think many pilots will bother to do that sort of subterfuge. It's a good simple system.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
The system will catch up with you 2 years later when you go and do your BFR, in your SR22. Unless of course you rent another old C172 for the BFR, so you don't have to demonstrate any of your kit to the examiner. Somehow, I don't think many pilots will bother to do that sort of subterfuge. It's a good simple system.
Or does the simple system prevent that somehow? (Genuine question)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A BFR is really to check out airmanship / general standard.
The reality is in the USA that no one in their right mind will lend or rent you a twin unless a) your total twin time is high, b) you total twin time in the last 90 days is sufficient c) your total time is high. You could of course buy a twin, but you won't get insurance unless a) your total twin time is high, b) your total time is high....or you hold some extra ratings such as ME Instructor or Commercial and / or have completed compulsory training, for example the Diamond factory training course.
Typically to rent a twin in the USA by just turning up at an FBO you need 1000 hours TT, 500 hrs ME, and 100 on type and have a check ride. The only way you can bypass this is if you have a known history with some FBO who can list you on their insurance as named pilots - and trusts you.
Different systems.....
The reality is in the USA that no one in their right mind will lend or rent you a twin unless a) your total twin time is high, b) you total twin time in the last 90 days is sufficient c) your total time is high. You could of course buy a twin, but you won't get insurance unless a) your total twin time is high, b) your total time is high....or you hold some extra ratings such as ME Instructor or Commercial and / or have completed compulsory training, for example the Diamond factory training course.
Typically to rent a twin in the USA by just turning up at an FBO you need 1000 hours TT, 500 hrs ME, and 100 on type and have a check ride. The only way you can bypass this is if you have a known history with some FBO who can list you on their insurance as named pilots - and trusts you.
Different systems.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
back to moron flies helicopter
Sorry chaps - just got time to surf the interweb for the first time in days and picked this thread up.
Anyone have any details on the guy in the video?
Did he have much total helicopter time?
Did he have any time in similar helos?
Had he had any checkout time?
Similar thing happened with an R44 with a new (student pilot) owner in the UK last year. The official report was that a freak gust of wing picked the aircraft up as the solo owner/pilot was running the engine at low rpm and flipped it onto its side. There may have been raised eyebrows from the insurance guys/AAIB but they will probably have paid.
Having the keys to that big gleaming bird sitting in your back yard and being unable to fly it is just too tempting for some people.
Sadly when the chopper gets rolled into a ball it hits us all in the insurance department.
The gene pool may get smaller but our premiums go up.
Just climbing in to any modern aircraft and expecting it to all come naturally is (occasionally survivable) lunacy.
James Bond can do it but I'm buggered if I would.
SB
Anyone have any details on the guy in the video?
Did he have much total helicopter time?
Did he have any time in similar helos?
Had he had any checkout time?
Similar thing happened with an R44 with a new (student pilot) owner in the UK last year. The official report was that a freak gust of wing picked the aircraft up as the solo owner/pilot was running the engine at low rpm and flipped it onto its side. There may have been raised eyebrows from the insurance guys/AAIB but they will probably have paid.
Having the keys to that big gleaming bird sitting in your back yard and being unable to fly it is just too tempting for some people.
Sadly when the chopper gets rolled into a ball it hits us all in the insurance department.
The gene pool may get smaller but our premiums go up.
Just climbing in to any modern aircraft and expecting it to all come naturally is (occasionally survivable) lunacy.
James Bond can do it but I'm buggered if I would.
SB