Checkouts, Currency and Insurance
Thread Starter
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Checkouts, Currency and Insurance
What are pilot's experiences with being checked out, maintaining currency, and being so credited by insurers? I know that flying clubs and rental outfits have currency requirements (fly once a month?) which are probably insurance driven.
What about being covered/added on privately owned airplanes?
For myself, it has been extremes over the years, from being asked: (when being added to a friend's C172 policy) "...how many of your 4000 hours on single Cessnas are on a 172?", to more recent experiences of having zero time on type, and being covered without question. I know that many years ago, I asked my very experienced insurance broker how little I would have to fly for them to become concerned. He told me that if I flew less than ten hours a year, the insurer would ask for some dual time.
What has constituted a checkout for you? a couple of circuits? or an hour in the practice area? What has been your experience checking someone else out when you were the experienced pilot?
What about being covered/added on privately owned airplanes?
For myself, it has been extremes over the years, from being asked: (when being added to a friend's C172 policy) "...how many of your 4000 hours on single Cessnas are on a 172?", to more recent experiences of having zero time on type, and being covered without question. I know that many years ago, I asked my very experienced insurance broker how little I would have to fly for them to become concerned. He told me that if I flew less than ten hours a year, the insurer would ask for some dual time.
What has constituted a checkout for you? a couple of circuits? or an hour in the practice area? What has been your experience checking someone else out when you were the experienced pilot?
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
I try to avoid doing insurance checkout for private pilots on their new to them airplanes. The problem is that I usually find multiple areas of poor flying skills, so it isn’t a checkout it is basic flight instruction because I am not going to sign off on anyone without good aircraft control and I am not really interested in doing basic instruction anymore.
Most of my insurance checkouts are for low end warbirds, like Nanchangs, Yaks and type ratting training for T28’s.
I have a structured 10 hour course starting with a full day ground school and I am a known quantity for the insurance brokers that deal with these kinds of aircraft.
Most of my insurance checkouts are for low end warbirds, like Nanchangs, Yaks and type ratting training for T28’s.
I have a structured 10 hour course starting with a full day ground school and I am a known quantity for the insurance brokers that deal with these kinds of aircraft.
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 51
Likes: 61
From: Tottenham
I try to avoid doing insurance checkout for private pilots on their new to them airplanes. The problem is that I usually find multiple areas of poor flying skills, so it isn’t a checkout it is basic flight instruction because I am not going to sign off on anyone without good aircraft control and I am not really interested in doing basic instruction anymore.
Most of my insurance checkouts are for low end warbirds, like Nanchangs, Yaks and type ratting training for T28’s.
I have a structured 10 hour course starting with a full day ground school and I am a known quantity for the insurance brokers that deal with these kinds of aircraft.
Most of my insurance checkouts are for low end warbirds, like Nanchangs, Yaks and type ratting training for T28’s.
I have a structured 10 hour course starting with a full day ground school and I am a known quantity for the insurance brokers that deal with these kinds of aircraft.
Thread Starter
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
how does one get involved in that sort of thing?
With considerable experience in advanced GA singles, particularly amphibians and flying boats, I used to do a number of checkouts, and found exactly what BPF has observed:
The problem is that I usually find multiple areas of poor flying skills, so it isn’t a checkout it is basic flight instruction because I am not going to sign off on anyone without good aircraft control and I am not really interested in doing basic instruction anymore.
There's a lot of responsibility on the training pilot to get the training correct and complete. It's stressful to send the candidate solo in the advanced plane, and hope they can demonstrate the skill safely. I got that wrong once on the landing just before I was going to send him solo - we both ended up in hospital. This past summer (in exactly the same spot in the lake as my accident) a new pilot, on his first solo flight after type training wrote off his plane, though survived. From he video of the landing I saw, he was certainly not completely ready for solo flying in that plane. Conditions were not challenging, and he still mismanaged things.
The check pilot has to have the guts to tell the candidate that they are not ready , and the candidate has to have the spirit to hear and embrace that wisdom! Decades back, I trained a new owner in his Bellanca Viking. After 19 hours of training him, I could not see that we would ever get there. I got up the nerve to break the news to him, and he was gracious about it.
A couple of pilot friends of mine, whom I consider to be "mid skilled" have mentioned to me their desire to be check pilots. I have cautiously not encouraged that for them.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I'm an instructor with significant time on a range of interesting aeroplanes, so it's not all that unusual for me to be asked to conduct checkouts for owners, usually syndicates with new members. I make a point of working out who matters - owner / syndicate chairman / etc. and asking for a very clear statement from them of what standards they want to see. Some are happy with "average PPL", some want a lot better, a few are really not all that worried. That is absolutely their call, but it's important that I know the answer - if the standard is to be significantly higher than PPL pass standard, I've no problem with that, but it's important that everybody knows.
An interesting recent experience was a bizjet Captain with about four times my hours, who bought a share in a vintage Aeronca. He really struggled with the handling of the aeroplane, but had a great learning attitude It took about 10hrs, and he was totally happy and relaxed about it - a learning attitude like that is an absolute pleasure to fly with. He's still flying the aeroplane, and very safely. I have had less experienced pilots who also struggled, and got very unhappy or even aggressive about it - that can be a lot more of an issue.
G
An interesting recent experience was a bizjet Captain with about four times my hours, who bought a share in a vintage Aeronca. He really struggled with the handling of the aeroplane, but had a great learning attitude It took about 10hrs, and he was totally happy and relaxed about it - a learning attitude like that is an absolute pleasure to fly with. He's still flying the aeroplane, and very safely. I have had less experienced pilots who also struggled, and got very unhappy or even aggressive about it - that can be a lot more of an issue.
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 860
From: Here 'n' there!
Well, I had never seen such poor flying but, above all, such a dreadful attitude! Once we'd debriefed we "agreed" that I'd not let him near any of our aircraft let alone in one unless his attitude changed markedly and that he then got to at least somewhere near a PPL standard!!! He stormed off ranting "Well, there are 2 other clubs on the field! They'll sign me off!". Both Clubs rang me back after his visits - one thanking me for warning the instructor so he was better prepared for when the guy tried to kill him on one approach and the other didn't even let him get in an aircraft!
We all agreed it was for the best as we really didn't want him in our planes ........ nor anywhere near "our" airfield come to that!
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 5
Likes: 2
From: Lisboa
Attitude is everything. Be prepared to listen and act.
Last year I did a UK CAA PPL to EASA PPL conversion course with an ATO in Portugal. After having retaken my Air Law and Human Performance exams it was time to move on to the practical side of things. The practical side was 2 hours with an instructor and then the skills test. I had not flown in 18 months (long story) , but I was not overly concerned as I knew someone who just used to renew his licence just by doing a test every 2 years.
Well I got a horrible shock during the 2 hours. The instructor quite rightly pulled me up on a lot of things that were not up to scratch. If I had had a bad attitude to what he was saying I would not have gotten anywhere, and I would have failed my test. We had a detailed debrief after the flight. I have to say, that I agreed with everything that he pulled me up on. We agreed that I would repeat the 2 hours. This went much better, and I later passed my Skills Test! I bumped into my instructor after my test, and he did say that he had been hard on me. I did not have a problem with that as it obviously did the trick.
If you are being checked out for any reason, and you get some bad news that you were not expecting, you have to be prepared to take it on board, and act accordingly.
Well I got a horrible shock during the 2 hours. The instructor quite rightly pulled me up on a lot of things that were not up to scratch. If I had had a bad attitude to what he was saying I would not have gotten anywhere, and I would have failed my test. We had a detailed debrief after the flight. I have to say, that I agreed with everything that he pulled me up on. We agreed that I would repeat the 2 hours. This went much better, and I later passed my Skills Test! I bumped into my instructor after my test, and he did say that he had been hard on me. I did not have a problem with that as it obviously did the trick.
If you are being checked out for any reason, and you get some bad news that you were not expecting, you have to be prepared to take it on board, and act accordingly.
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 852
Likes: 22
From: Bressuire
I try to avoid doing insurance checkout for private pilots
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
So if a UK Private Pilot buys an airplane which they have never flown the insurance company is just going to cover them with no requirement to have any type of training on that airplane ?
Joined: Jun 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 7,177
Likes: 297
From: Nanaimo (CAC8)
Most of my power flying these days is aero towing gliders in Alberta. My club requires a Spring checkout, once the snow has gone. In the case of our current towplane, a Pawnee, that requires another tow pilot observing my landings. 😄
Almost all of my other power flying has been renting from training organizations and so there were dual checkouts.
Two years ago I started flying a friend’s C182. Since I had over 100 hours in 182s, his insurance company only required a flight and some circuits with the owner, who then OK’d me with the insurance company.
Almost all of my other power flying has been renting from training organizations and so there were dual checkouts.
Two years ago I started flying a friend’s C182. Since I had over 100 hours in 182s, his insurance company only required a flight and some circuits with the owner, who then OK’d me with the insurance company.
Thread Starter
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
My earliest experience was with the flying club where I learned to fly, and rented post PPL. I kept myself current by flying their 172RG at least once a month. It was offline one day when I went to take it, and I told the dispatcher that I would take one of their many 172's instead. I was told across the desk (and in front of my passenger to be) that "I was not checked out in a 172". I immediately had a chat with the manager (who had done my PPL flight test the previous year) and followed my patronage of the club. He quietly gave me a blue card, and said present this, you won't be asked about your currency here again, keep yourself checked out.
I have had all kinds of experiences with checkouts, but most memorable are the checkouts which were very brief, or not requested at all, rather than being burdensome. I think to the many things I have not been asked to demonstrate, if a checkout was even asked, compared to what I want to see when I fly a check ride for someone else. It tends me to think that these other check pilots are either awesome at extrapolating their understanding of what they do know about my flying skills, or, they are simply doing a wave off.
Here in Canada, seasonal changes in flying become a checkout issue, in the spring, many float pilots need a spring float check ride. I used to do those, after I checked myself out first! In the winter, ski operations, for the pilots whose planes came off floats in the summer.
With the right check pilot, I have always viewed a checkout as not only a time to assure my continued skill, but also to perhaps learn something, and I have always tried to be the source of some added knowledge when I have done a checkride, so the pilot comes away feeling that it was a beneficial, rather than punitive flight. Nearly always, I have been able to learn something, though occasionally had to dig a little. If the checkride is going short, I try to think of some questions I can ask about the new type for a post flight debrief.
In Canada, many decades back, while I flew as a PPL the Aztec and Cessna 310, both being over 4000 pounds, they were type endorsed on my license - type signoffs no longer exists in the Canadian licensing system for fixed wing under 12,500 pounds. Land/sea, and multi engined are endorsements, and I'm aware of a "high performance" signoff/endorsement, but am not familiar with that - but certainly agree! But, as I encountervery advance new avionics systems in otherwise simple airplanes, and consider the Diesel powered DHC-2 Beaver I'm involved with testing, I consider the gap between trained (and maybe stale) grass roots pilot knowledge, and the knowledge which should be there for the new systems. Should these new systems be checked out/endorsed to the candidate pilot? Is this an insurance or licensing driven need?
Last November I had to test fly a (new to all of us) 182 amphibian, with a new combination mods (the reason I was test flying it). The insurer just asked for my pilot report, and insured my. No checkout whatever. I find that this airplane has a combination of mods, and background systems which are quite demanding in terms of pilot interaction, and, in my opinion, requires pilot familiarization. Fortunately, in this particular case, I will be writhing a custom flight manual supplement for the airplane, and probably flying some pilot familiarization for the two pilots who will fly it. But I see a new horizon of technology and differences in our legacy types, which I think requires a review in thinking about checkouts and post PPL pilot training for these systems.
I have had all kinds of experiences with checkouts, but most memorable are the checkouts which were very brief, or not requested at all, rather than being burdensome. I think to the many things I have not been asked to demonstrate, if a checkout was even asked, compared to what I want to see when I fly a check ride for someone else. It tends me to think that these other check pilots are either awesome at extrapolating their understanding of what they do know about my flying skills, or, they are simply doing a wave off.
Here in Canada, seasonal changes in flying become a checkout issue, in the spring, many float pilots need a spring float check ride. I used to do those, after I checked myself out first! In the winter, ski operations, for the pilots whose planes came off floats in the summer.
With the right check pilot, I have always viewed a checkout as not only a time to assure my continued skill, but also to perhaps learn something, and I have always tried to be the source of some added knowledge when I have done a checkride, so the pilot comes away feeling that it was a beneficial, rather than punitive flight. Nearly always, I have been able to learn something, though occasionally had to dig a little. If the checkride is going short, I try to think of some questions I can ask about the new type for a post flight debrief.
In Canada, many decades back, while I flew as a PPL the Aztec and Cessna 310, both being over 4000 pounds, they were type endorsed on my license - type signoffs no longer exists in the Canadian licensing system for fixed wing under 12,500 pounds. Land/sea, and multi engined are endorsements, and I'm aware of a "high performance" signoff/endorsement, but am not familiar with that - but certainly agree! But, as I encountervery advance new avionics systems in otherwise simple airplanes, and consider the Diesel powered DHC-2 Beaver I'm involved with testing, I consider the gap between trained (and maybe stale) grass roots pilot knowledge, and the knowledge which should be there for the new systems. Should these new systems be checked out/endorsed to the candidate pilot? Is this an insurance or licensing driven need?
Last November I had to test fly a (new to all of us) 182 amphibian, with a new combination mods (the reason I was test flying it). The insurer just asked for my pilot report, and insured my. No checkout whatever. I find that this airplane has a combination of mods, and background systems which are quite demanding in terms of pilot interaction, and, in my opinion, requires pilot familiarization. Fortunately, in this particular case, I will be writhing a custom flight manual supplement for the airplane, and probably flying some pilot familiarization for the two pilots who will fly it. But I see a new horizon of technology and differences in our legacy types, which I think requires a review in thinking about checkouts and post PPL pilot training for these systems.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
Experience doing checkouts does help. When I started my flying career as an instructor, the large flying club I worked for insisted that every renter pilot did a 1 hour recurrent training flight annually. I did a lot of these and used the Private Pilot Flight Test report form as my training record. After awhile I started filling out the form including scoring all the in flight maneuvers before we took off based on what I had seen on the preflight, start up, taxi and runup. My initial scores for the inflight portion were often surprisingly close to what I observed as skill deficits due to unfamiliarity, lack of recent practice or sloppiness on the ground usually translated to the same in the air. However looking back at that time I did the club members a disservice by treating the flight as a test instead of as a learning opportunity
Fast forward 40 years later and I am now the safety officer at my gliding club. The Soaring Association of Canada requires member clubs to have a Spring training program but leaves the content of that training to the club. I revamped our clubs training to include a formal ground portion and an inflight portion that is the Transport Canada Glider Pilot Flight Test. The logic is that every pilot should meet or exceed the standard for the issuance of the license. Crucially, however the flights are not "tests" they are conducted on a train to proficiency model. That is if a particular maneuver is below standard it is practiced until proficiency is attained then the they move on to the next maneuver. I emphasize that there is no "right" number of flights needed to complete the spring training and even if the instructor is happy with the members performance additional practice is encouraged if the member feels that would be beneficial.
Finally as was alluded to in some of the above posts a positive attitude on the part of both the instructing pilot and the pilot being instructed is very important to achieve the maximum value from the exercise.
Fast forward 40 years later and I am now the safety officer at my gliding club. The Soaring Association of Canada requires member clubs to have a Spring training program but leaves the content of that training to the club. I revamped our clubs training to include a formal ground portion and an inflight portion that is the Transport Canada Glider Pilot Flight Test. The logic is that every pilot should meet or exceed the standard for the issuance of the license. Crucially, however the flights are not "tests" they are conducted on a train to proficiency model. That is if a particular maneuver is below standard it is practiced until proficiency is attained then the they move on to the next maneuver. I emphasize that there is no "right" number of flights needed to complete the spring training and even if the instructor is happy with the members performance additional practice is encouraged if the member feels that would be beneficial.
Finally as was alluded to in some of the above posts a positive attitude on the part of both the instructing pilot and the pilot being instructed is very important to achieve the maximum value from the exercise.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
Most of my power flying these days is aero towing gliders in Alberta. My club requires a Spring checkout, once the snow has gone. In the case of our current towplane, a Pawnee, that requires another tow pilot observing my landings. 😄
Almost all of my other power flying has been renting from training organizations and so there were dual checkouts.
Two years ago I started flying a friend’s C182. Since I had over 100 hours in 182s, his insurance company only required a flight and some circuits with the owner, who then OK’d me with the insurance company.
Almost all of my other power flying has been renting from training organizations and so there were dual checkouts.
Two years ago I started flying a friend’s C182. Since I had over 100 hours in 182s, his insurance company only required a flight and some circuits with the owner, who then OK’d me with the insurance company.
