What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

DID YOU KNOW there may be training requirements to fly your builders project?

LRingeisen

Well Known Member
You’ve worked on building your aircraft for years and now it’s finally time to start flying. Don’t let unknown training requirements get in the way of your excitement. Even though quotes are only valid for around 60-90 days, you can request quotes for full flight at any time so you don’t have any surprises when you’re ready to fly. At this time, most of the insurance companies are requiring at least 25 hours tailwheel time for any Vans tailwheel model. If it is a RV-8 that you are building, you may want to get some time in another RV-8 aircraft if possible. This will open up more options for you when you are ready to fly. If you can’t get time in the specific make and model that you are building, it’s best to get time in a similar model. For example when it comes to building a Vans aircraft, get tricycle Vans time for a tricycle gear that you are building OR tailwheel Vans time for a tailwheel model you are building. Let your agent know which models you have time in because some, not all, insurance companies use time in similar models interchangeably.

Another thing to be aware of, when it comes to a builders policy, you can put fuel in the tank and start the engine. Just remember builders policies are always for “Not In Motion” under their own power, so if the aircraft gets away from you it’s not covered.
 
Title is misleading. "DID YOU KNOW there may be training requirements to fly your builders project?" There are no training requirements to fly the airplane, only possible requirements for insurance coverage.

Others may have differing opinions, but even if I was looking to change insurance agents, I would avoid any company with that kind of a shabby come-on.
 
Title is misleading. "DID YOU KNOW there may be training requirements to fly your builders project?" There are no training requirements to fly the airplane, only possible requirements for insurance coverage.

Others may have differing opinions, but even if I was looking to change insurance agents, I would avoid any company with that kind of a shabby come-on.

Pretty harsh!

The folks at Gallagher have been around RV’s for many, many years trying to help us navigate through the minefield of ever changing insurance policies. Leah, as usual is putting out excellent information for our general knowledge of how to not get burned by doing something that negates coverage.

To imply she is trying to scam us with the wording is a bit overboard I think. We have for years had training requirements from insurance companies is most categories of aircraft, and knowing who this thread was started by negates any possibility of a shabby come on.

Come on, Ed!
 
Title is misleading. "DID YOU KNOW there may be training requirements to fly your builders project?" There are no training requirements to fly the airplane, only possible requirements for insurance coverage.

Others may have differing opinions, but even if I was looking to change insurance agents, I would avoid any company with that kind of a shabby come-on.

I am not sure that reply is fair. I highly doubt more than 1 or 2% of the RV population flys without some type of Liability insurance. Therefore it is fair to make that claim. Clearly this post was intended to help and not some type shabby come on.

Larry
 
Title is misleading. "DID YOU KNOW there may be training requirements to fly your builders project?" There are no training requirements to fly the airplane, only possible requirements for insurance coverage.

Others may have differing opinions, but even if I was looking to change insurance agents, I would avoid any company with that kind of a shabby come-on.

???...trying to understand what the "shabby come-on" is.

Gallagher is a pretty well-known insurance broker and this is the first derogatory comment I've ever seen regarding them. I've also worked with Leah on my own policies and have universally found her to be proactive, helpful, straightforward, and honorable.
 
It would be pretty easy to say "...there may be training requirements to <b>insure</b> your builders project for flight." , or "to assure coverage of your build when flying" or any number of other ways of saying it.

I too found the title misleading or at least inaccurate. Insurance is not a requirement, therefore training required for insurance coverage is not "required".
 
I’m in the ‘too harsh’ camp. This is one of those instances where a PM to the OP would almost certainly resulted in a re-write of the title.
 
Title is misleading. "DID YOU KNOW there may be training requirements to fly your builders project?" There are no training requirements to fly the airplane, only possible requirements for insurance coverage.

Others may have differing opinions, but even if I was looking to change insurance agents, I would avoid any company with that kind of a shabby come-on.

Hi Ed,

I'm sorry that you found this title to be misleading. That is not in any way what I was trying to do. I take a lot of time trying to make these little informative messages as accurate as possible. Since I am limited to how many characters I can use in the title, I try to make a quick attention grabber that best matches the information. This way everyone can learn something they may not have know about the insurance market. I apologize for the confusion.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry that you found this title to be misleading. That is not in any way what I was trying to do. I take a lot of time trying to make these little informative messages as accurate as possible. Since I am limited to how many characters I can use in the title, I try to make a quick attention grabber that best matches the information. This way everyone can learn something they may not have know about the insurance market. I apologize for the confusion.

Nicely put.

Peace.

Ed
 
"Another thing to be aware of, when it comes to a builders policy, you can put fuel in the tank and start the engine. Just remember builders policies are always for “Not In Motion” under their own power, so if the aircraft gets away from you it’s not covered."

The best takeaway from this thread.........:eek:
 
I for one found this post confusing. It took halfway through the post to realize this was about insurance, as there was no reference to insurance until then. In fact there was the term "quote" talked about before the insurance revelation. The title only made things worse since it only talked about some sort of training requirement, causing me to speculate this was of a regulatory nature. No problem once discerned. Just understand that it helps to put the main subject somewhere in the title or first line of the post so the reader can tell what it is all about. Insurance.
 
The uproar over this post is very puzzling to me. I guess we all sometimes read things differently.

Since the post was from an insurance broker that is well-known on this website, I assumed even from the title that it was related to insurance requirements, not regulatory. I, for one, am grateful that Leah posts here from time to time. I view aircraft insurance as an important part of my aircraft ownership. I put its value on a par with regulatory information, the difference being that regulatory changes are routinely posted in multiple internet sites, whereas insurance information is quite a bit more in the shadows.
 
The uproar over this post is very puzzling to me.

+1

But truth be known, Leah is my broker so when I saw the post I knew the perspective would be insurance, not regulatory.

For for those of you who are not using Gallagher: Give them a call at your next renewal. <- That IS an unsolicited plug
 
I for one found this post confusing. It took halfway through the post to realize this was about insurance, as there was no reference to insurance until then. In fact there was the term "quote" talked about before the insurance revelation. The title only made things worse since it only talked about some sort of training requirement, causing me to speculate this was of a regulatory nature. No problem once discerned. Just understand that it helps to put the main subject somewhere in the title or first line of the post so the reader can tell what it is all about. Insurance.

Quote and Insurance was mentioned in the 2nd line. The post had 8 lines.

Jim
 
One might expect the subject of the post to actually be in the subject line of the post.

Sometimes when writing things on the internet, we don't all express our thoughts exactly. Likewise, when reading things on the internet, we don't all necessarily understand what we read exactly.
 
You’ve worked on building your aircraft for years and now it’s finally time to start flying. Don’t let unknown training requirements get in the way of your excitement. Even though quotes are only valid for around 60-90 days, you can request quotes for full flight at any time so you don’t have any surprises when you’re ready to fly. At this time, most of the insurance companies are requiring at least 25 hours tailwheel time for any Vans tailwheel model. If it is a RV-8 that you are building, you may want to get some time in another RV-8 aircraft if possible. This will open up more options for you when you are ready to fly. If you can’t get time in the specific make and model that you are building, it’s best to get time in a similar model. For example when it comes to building a Vans aircraft, get tricycle Vans time for a tricycle gear that you are building OR tailwheel Vans time for a tailwheel model you are building. Let your agent know which models you have time in because some, not all, insurance companies use time in similar models interchangeably.

Another thing to be aware of, when it comes to a builders policy, you can put fuel in the tank and start the engine. Just remember builders policies are always for “Not In Motion” under their own power, so if the aircraft gets away from you it’s not covered.

Great advice for those wanting to plan ahead, Leah. I shop my insurance around each year and always end up with Gallagher. Leah is over the top helpful. Thanks for the PSA!

Brian
 
Another thing to be aware of, when it comes to a builders policy, you can put fuel in the tank and start the engine. Just remember builders policies are always for “Not In Motion” under their own power, so if the aircraft gets away from you it’s not covered.

Thanks again Leah.

Also putting a plug in specifically for builders policy awareness. A builders policy truly saved my arse!
 
5hr dual

When I got my RV-3, insurance wanted me to get 5hr dual in RV-3.
Hummmm, ok. I told them I had 10 hr in a Piper Tomahawk and they said that works. Now, this exercise told me a lot about the insurance process. So, I went out and taught myself to fly the RV-3 (only RV3 folks will understand this) and flew for 10 hr. Then I tried the insurance process again and low and behold I got a good rate. Now I self insure with liability + thief and save tons of money.
Full coverage is for the birds in my humble opinion and will one day be unaffordable for most folks.
 
Just understand that it helps to put the main subject somewhere in the title or first line of the post so the reader can tell what it is all about. Insurance.

For the past several years we've been starting all of our posts with DID YOU KNOW, with the hopes that people recognize these from Gallagher. I think we will start to change this up a bit. Maybe Insurance Info or Insurance Tips...is a better start.

Thanks to everyone for bringing this to our attention.
 
Others may have differing opinions, but even if I was looking to change insurance agents, I would avoid any company with that kind of a shabby come-on.

Fine. No Spotted Cow for you!

(The Gallagher staff has sponsored the annual Oshkosh RV Social since 2013. The primo Waukau Ave back yard, and the big white tent? All courtesy Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.)

https://www.ajg.com/us/industries/a...ance-and-consulting/light-aircraft-insurance/

Leah, just keep doing what you're doing...and thanks.
 
Keep your title Leah, it will now get the right attention!!

<snip>

Just remember builders policies are always for “Not In Motion” under their own power, so if the aircraft gets away from you it’s not covered.

A friend was doing first starts and thought it would be ok to just use blocks on his RV14. The tach was off due to setting, ran up the RPM, and pulled the prop. It jumped the blocks and went tearing off towards helpers and veering towards a hangar. Brakes not broken in. ALWAYS tie down for static testing.

Leah's comment here is very important for the unfortunate and unaware. Stuff happens.
 
I have known that the FAR's don't set pilot requirements since the late 1980's. The insurance companies set pilot requirements (if you rent or want insurance on a personal plane). Renting planes at first in my flying career and later as a CFI many planes had additional requirements well above FAR Part 61. I gave many transition training flights as a CFI in T210's, M20J/K's and Twins and tailwheel, for pilots to meet insurance requirements. in almost every case the pilot was qualified per FAR, but not insurance company.

Consider an RV. Any Pvt Pilot (Single Engine Land), with current flt review, medical (3rd or better) can fly any RV Trike (if/as required 61.31(f) +200HP high performance or 61.31(i) tailwheel endorsed) with no prior experience in an RV. Insurance companies can set any PIC requirements they want if you want their insurance.

Three things get insurance companies wrapped up around the axle. High Performance, Retractable Gear, and tailwheel. The RV checks 1 or 2 of these boxes.

Retractable gear adds a level of risk. Gear up is expensive.

Tailwheel? RV is easy to land, like a fast J3 Cub. Insurance claims drive them to charge higher premiums or it's an excuse? Pitts Special is more of a handful, J3 Cub not so much. TRIKE is easer or at least more forgiving.

HIGH PERFOEMANCE - If all you flew was a C172, low time, low recent hours except your first flight review in 5 years, jump into a RV, stick, almost double top speed, constant speed prop, cleaner, less drag, less stout gear, a pilot MIGHT get into trouble without transition training. RV's with +200HP, like an RV10, are considered High Performance. My definition of high performance is based on the differential of speed, climb rate, low drag. Clearly a RV7A with 200HP is high performance relative to a C172. However competent pilot, C172 or Piper, with sufficient ground training can jump in a RV7A and fly it safely. Speed control is key learning curve.

TRAINING is not FAA required, just good common sense. EVERY pilot must evaluate their skills, currency, experience and decide. For me my first RV PIC time was early 1990's. I jumped in and went flying. However I had J3 and Citabria time. I also got two short flights in RV's, back seat RV4 got some aerobatic instruction. The second flight a short RV6 flight w/ a few minutes of stick time, no takeoffs or landings. First flight in my RV was pretty anti-climactic (but fun).

You don't NEED insurance. Up to you. I flew my RV without insurance at one time or another. I figure if I built it I can fix it. As far liability that is another issue. One should protect their assets. There are ways to do that besides insurance. However be careful taking people for rides. Not sure a "hold harmless" agreement pre flight is legal or not. I am not a lawyer. It is one thing to bend or ball up your RV. It is another having major medical bills or being sued by another party for personal or property loss.
 
Last edited:
Pilot Killed on Maiden Flight

Just don't be this guy. He had no PPL, his Sonex was never signed of by DAR. The airplane stalled and spun on maiden flight and thus the sad result. Unfortunately, this accident will be counted as a negative statistic which leads to increasing insurance premium for EAB aircraft. I am not sure transition training or additional training would have helped this guy.

https://youtu.be/pkw07gWqSMg
 
"Another thing to be aware of, when it comes to a builders policy, you can put fuel in the tank and start the engine. Just remember builders policies are always for “Not In Motion” under their own power, so if the aircraft gets away from you it’s not covered."

The best takeaway from this thread.........:eek:

Same here. I never considered that nuance and might have overlooked it when I eventually do first engine start. I figured I'd probably start taxiing shortly after, but it looks like a call to insurance is warranted before I roll those wheels! Also good advice from someone else about tying the thing down instead of relying on chocks.

Thanks again Leah.

Also putting a plug in specifically for builders policy awareness. A builders policy truly saved my arse!

Mind saying how it saved your arse? Did you need to file a claim?
 
Same here. I never considered that nuance and might have overlooked it when I eventually do first engine start. I figured I'd probably start taxiing shortly after, but it looks like a call to insurance is warranted before I roll those wheels! Also good advice from someone else about tying the thing down instead of relying on chocks.



Mind saying how it saved your arse? Did you need to file a claim?

Yep, stupidly left a tool on the air filter and started the engine. Global paid for the repair. Of course they did rake me over the coals a bit when I got a full flight quote but I still made out okay considering...
 
Back
Top