VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-10-2012, 06:39 AM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 491
Default Update

I've received some very useful input and will be making some revisions to the syllabus when time allows. Thank you very much to all of the folks who took the time to post or write. I'd also encourage continued discussion, since collective input is extremely valuable, and we can make this better if we continue to put our heads together.

Instructors that would like a word version of the documents for editing, please drop me a line via PM or the e-mail address in the original post of this thread.

Fly safe,

Vac
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-12-2012, 03:36 PM
JordanGrant's Avatar
JordanGrant JordanGrant is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 324
Default Awesomeness

Vac, I've been wanting this to happen for a while now. I'm a current F-15 guy and a former T-38 IP, so this syllabus and concept is very comfortable to me. I'm also working on cleaning up my civilian ratings (commercial and CFI) and I'd like to eventually instruct in the RV community. So I think the syllabus is very good, and I want to suggest an even bigger vision for the concept. As you, I, and others start to use this program, I think we should set sights on:
1) getting buy-in from major insurance providers. My provider originally only required 10 hrs in type - they didn't care about quality as much as quantity. I think getting a discount or other incentive from insurers for successful completion of the program would go a long way to motivate folks to execute such a formal and comprehensive training regimen. And it would be far more effective than the 10 hrs of basic time I got in a friends RV7 before I was cleared hot in my -6. For insurers to do that, the syllabus and the instructors executing it would have to build a large amount of credibility. Thus, we need to
2) eventually build an IPUG (Instructor Pilot Upgrade) syllabus and program, with an end benefit being an LODA for the upgradee. As i understand it, The FAA's LODA piece is primarily paperwork - a real upgrade process would ensure the IPs have the necessary knowledge and experience to teach the syllabus you've designed.
3) the next step in the upgrade train should be a Flight Test qualification (pair this with the EAA's flight advisor program). I'm sure the USAF test pilots in the community could be a great source of data to build a little mini Test Pilot School syllabus for the RV community.

I know there are a few transition training programs, and they all seem to be good at what they do, but there is much potential value in standardization among them. I think Vac's syllabus is a giant positive step for safety in our community.

Vac: once I get my CFI ticket done here in Vegas, I'll be very interested in collaborating with you on an equivalent program here on the West Coast.
__________________
Jordan Grant
RV-6 N198G
Monthly donation started Mar '20
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-14-2012, 09:59 AM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 491
Default Big Picture

Jordan,

There is a follow-on instructor standardization (techniques and procedures publication) that goes with this syllabus, but it's not quite ready for prime time.

The other two ideas associated with this project are exactly what you specified:

1. A set of resources for the conduct of Phase I test. This would include a "how to" guide, test cards, a generic POH "strawman," and sufficient software for data crunching. This would be web hosted and available to anyone that wishes to use the resource. This will take some help from our brothers and sisters in the developmental test community.

2. A limited transition instructor authorization. A change to FAR 61 or a new rating developed through the rule making process would be (likely) too cumbersome. This would have to be administered with the concurrence of the FAA by (likely) a type club or under the auspices of a national organization. This would represent, essentially, a delegation of authority to designated field representatives to conduct an "IPUG" (instructor upgrade) check and issue a letter of authorization for conducting training IAW a standardized syllabus using a set of published techniques and procedures.

Hopefully, an effort of this type will catch the insurance industry's attention as well as assisting the EAB community and FAA in addressing some of the concerns of the NTSB regarding EAB safety. Incidentally, it would be practical (with enough support) to develop programs like this that address the other categories (design characteristic groupings) of EAB aircraft addressed in 90-109 as well.

Fly safe,

Vac
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-20-2012, 02:29 PM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 491
Default DR Request

Doug,

Could you please drop an e-mail to my address in the first post? I'd like to forward an updated syllabus, but I apparently don't have a good e-mail address for you.

v/r,

Vac

[ed. Done. dr]
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida

Last edited by DeltaRomeo : 08-20-2012 at 03:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-20-2012, 07:41 PM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 491
Default Updated Syllabus

An updated version of the draft syllabus is available at:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8E...jN6Z2FhakVXUFU

Substantive changes are in red for easy reference.

The "100 hour" requirement is removed from this draft, since the syllabus is "train to proficiency" and actual hour REQUIREMENTS will be established by insurance companies on an individual basis. The baseline qualification is Private Pilot, single-engine, land no minimum time-limit specified. Recommended currency requirements remain unchanged.

It has been suggested to separate "aerobatics" from the syllabus, however I chose to simply change the nomenclature to "advanced maneuvers." These maneuvers may or may not be appropriate for each training situation, so it will be up to individual instructors to determine whether to apply them or not. Objective grading criteria for all advanced maneuvering remains "practice" vs. "proficient."

Anyone is welcome to download the syllabus for their own use. Please drop an e-mail to the address in the first post, and I'll be happy to provide a word version.

I'll continue to work on an accompanying "instructor's guide" as time permits and will post a draft when it is finished.

Again, if you have any input, please feel free to post!

Fly Safe,

Vac

P.S. Doug, thanks for the technical assist!
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-19-2012, 07:50 AM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 491
Default Bump to keep post active

Copies of the draft syllabus are available to anyone that wishes, just drop a line. Comments are definitely welcome!

Similar to the thread regarding revised ATSM standards for certification, the policy wheels are also turning as regards training, testing and documentation of EAB aircraft; so it would be of maximum benefit to collectively pursue pro-active improvements to the existing status quo. There is a great deal of diverse talent available within the VAF universe to contribute to these efforts to preserve our privilege to build and fly these great airplanes. As the landscape of general aviation changes, these initiatives represent opportunities to help maintain vibrant sport flying activity and are well worth any effort expended.

Fly safe,

Vac
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida

Last edited by Vac : 09-19-2012 at 08:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-08-2013, 10:56 PM
Chris Hill Chris Hill is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Del Rio
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanGrant View Post
Vac, I've been wanting this to happen for a while now. I'm a current F-15 guy and a former T-38 IP, so this syllabus and concept is very comfortable to me. I'm also working on cleaning up my civilian ratings (commercial and CFI) and I'd like to eventually instruct in the RV community. So I think the syllabus is very good, and I want to suggest an even bigger vision for the concept. As you, I, and others start to use this program, I think we should set sights on:
1) getting buy-in from major insurance providers. My provider originally only required 10 hrs in type - they didn't care about quality as much as quantity. I think getting a discount or other incentive from insurers for successful completion of the program would go a long way to motivate folks to execute such a formal and comprehensive training regimen. And it would be far more effective than the 10 hrs of basic time I got in a friends RV7 before I was cleared hot in my -6. For insurers to do that, the syllabus and the instructors executing it would have to build a large amount of credibility. Thus, we need to
2) eventually build an IPUG (Instructor Pilot Upgrade) syllabus and program, with an end benefit being an LODA for the upgradee. As i understand it, The FAA's LODA piece is primarily paperwork - a real upgrade process would ensure the IPs have the necessary knowledge and experience to teach the syllabus you've designed.
3) the next step in the upgrade train should be a Flight Test qualification (pair this with the EAA's flight advisor program). I'm sure the USAF test pilots in the community could be a great source of data to build a little mini Test Pilot School syllabus for the RV community.

I know there are a few transition training programs, and they all seem to be good at what they do, but there is much potential value in standardization among them. I think Vac's syllabus is a giant positive step for safety in our community.

Vac: once I get my CFI ticket done here in Vegas, I'll be very interested in collaborating with you on an equivalent program here on the West Coast.
I am very skeptical that insurance agencies are going to give a rebate for completing this training. I do envision them making it a requirement as soon as they get their eyes on it, but instead of giving you a rebate, I fully expect them to say "pilot stan must complete this training syllabus before we will insure him." As it is now, most insurance companies simply require a specified amount of time in type before they will grant insurance.

My RV8 is 1300 per year for me to insure. If my insurance co knocks off 100$ per year because I spent an extra 2,500 dollars getting this transition training by the syllabus, have I really saved any money? After 25 years, sure. Its all about the margins and I really doubt the insurance companies are going to give an inch, but they will take a mile.

I'm always very wary of the good idea ferry as she usually does a double back flip to bite you in the rear. I would take Vac's syllabus as it is: a great guide for CFIs looking to provide some structure to their transition syllabus.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-09-2013, 12:48 PM
boomer's Avatar
boomer boomer is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ladonia,Tx
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vac View Post
An updated version of the draft syllabus is available at:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8E...jN6Z2FhakVXUFU
Vac, you've obviously done a lot of work and have produced a good document. As a graduate of USAF pilot training, there is lot's of nomenclature that I recognize. ;-)

A few thoughts from an old trainer and someone who has gone through Alex D's fine transition course in the past couple of years.

1. My recommendation is to get rid of most of the private pilot practical test maneuvers and leave what needs to be taught in basic handling to instructor discretion. They probably have better ways of teaching the RV handling. What you do when you put them all in and say that you have to meet a certain grade level in all of them is to say that one cannot pass the course if he/she didn't do timed standard rate turns, or something similarly non-critical. Just require those maneuvers which are really needed to fly safely and let the instructors fill in what else is needed on a case-by-case basis.
2. "Advanced Maneuvers". Is this really practical given the gross weigh acro limits of the RV's? Two normal sized (which today is 200+#'s each) guys with two parachutes barely leaves enough fuel for a trip around the pattern.
3. Chase pilot. IMO, not a good idea. If you can't do dual training until flight safety and acceptable landing skills are achieved, don't send someone up solo with a chase aircraft. It's just not a sufficiently controlled enviornment to insure safety for someone who is going to have aircraft control problems, particularly if the student pilot is not formation qualified and doesn't understand the dynamics involved. Besides, where is the greatest danger? On takeoff and landing where chase isn't particularly effective. Better is to just do training in a -6 or -7 no matter what the end RV. Alex put me in the right seat of his -7, and I had no trouble with my-8. They flew exactly the same.
4. Experience Requirements. You have previously mentioned the tension between making training too hard (and the pilot not doing it) and making it effective. I think you might look here and ease up on a few of the requirements for entering the program. For example, why require a 3rd Class Medical and a BFR when the student pilot isn't flying as PIC? Similarly, why the 150 hoursepower requirement? What is magic about that number given that the course is designed to teach you to fly an aircraft with 150-200 (or more) hoursepower. Some type of currency may make sense, but there is nothing wrong, IMO, with getting that currency during the training course, even if it extends the number of flights. For instance, I finished my tail wheel endorsement in a 80 HP L-3 about three weeks before starting RV transition training. In fact the L-3 is harder to fly (tailwheel-wise) than Alex's RV-7. I also think you should look at the requirement to get all this training in the 30 day's prior to starting the course. Given the number of RV instructors and the number of folks wanting to check out in RV's, scheduling is a nightmare even if the weather is kind. Having to do everything withing 30 days will often not be practical and may result in the pilot just blowing it off. My advice is to require the Private Pilot certicicate and the tail wheel endoresement (if applicable) only and let the instructor work everything else out.

Final Airspeed. You mention 1.3-1.4 times stall for final approach airspeed. Alex taught it differently (95 MPH on final till landing was made) and claimed that was what Van's recommeneded. I agree with you, but decided to do it his way since it was his course and his airplane. Either will work, but you might want to check that final approach speed out for standardization purposes.

Good job and keep up the work. We need stuff like this.

-John
__________________
John Banister
RV-8 Engine (IO-360), Prop (CS)
Flying Since Aug, 2011
2017 Dues Paid
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-10-2013, 12:34 PM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 491
Default

John,

Thanks for the input and keeping the discussion energized! This continues to be a work in progress and I'm currently reorganizing things to accomplish a "what's required" as a baseline and "what's nice to do when practical" approach--I just don't work real fast (my wife will vouch for that)...

You are correct--the limitations imposed on maneuvering as a result of weight and balance limitations, make accomplishment of "advanced handling/maneuvering" problematic. I'm a small guy (155 with a parachute), so I've got more tactical flexibility than larger instructors. A combination of carefully crafted optional confidence maneuvers designed to remain within appropriate G-available and with sufficient CG (static) margin can assist with proper "upset training" vs. full-up aerobatics. Please note my use of "optional," I realize "what's required" in many cases is the ability to safely takeoff, land and perform basic aircraft handling skills (straight and level, climbs, turns, descents and slow-speed flight).

I concur that the use of a chase airplane is a special circumstance that merits careful consideration before execution. Foremost, it requires an instructor proficient using this technique of instruction. It also depends on the upgrading pilot's background and proficiency level, either one of which can make use of a chase feasible or non-feasible. I agree that it's a poor way to teach basic takeoff and landing skills; but if it's the ONLY means of accomplishing that, it's better than the alternative (no training). It does, however, have more applicability for later stages of training (i.e., after takeoff and landing skills have been demonstrated).

Experience requirements are entirely negotiable!!! The ONLY purpose they serve is to provide a reasonable probability of success within time allotted for an "average" pilot; but time allotted is purely at the discretion of the upgrading pilot and the instructor. Requirements could be eliminated entirely at the discretion of the instructor. As you state, all "proficiency" flying can be incorporated in the course in the form of increased flying time. For the purpose of a syllabus, there has to be some assumptions made and the five hour requirement is simply a WAG at what might be insurance industry standard for a requirement. As an instructor, I can jam more "good stuff" into training if the student is well-prepared and proficient. We could also spend the five hours simply getting airborne, executing basic flight maneuvers and landing. Either option is viable. I'll look at tweaking requirements by developing the multiple tracks alluded to in the first paragraph--I think that makes sense. By the way, I fully agree that any tail wheel equipped airplane is sufficient for ground handling characteristics training, the 150 HP requirement came only as an effort to more closely mimic RV power-loading considerations.

1.35 to 1.4 Vs is the Van's Factory Syllabus recommended speed for Vref. here is a link to the reference:

http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/RV_Trans...g_Syllabus.pdf

Since each pitot/static system is unique, the only universal standard would be either expressing speed in proportion to demonstrated stall speed for a particular airplane or a specific AOA. I'm not familiar with the technique that Alex is teaching, nor am I familiar with the thinking behind it. Obviously, if it works, it's valid! I do reference some speeds in the syllabus, but only as a point of reference due to differences between individual airplanes. I also realize that I've built in some RV-4 bias, and that needs to improve as well.

I really appreciate you taking the time to articulate your thoughts. Hopefully we'll keep this ball rolling.

All the best,

Vac
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-10-2013, 05:55 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 7,856
Default

Experience requirements. My FSDO has taken a very strict interpretation of my LODA waiver. I can do transition training, only. Basic proficiency training, flight reviews, "bring pilots up to speed", tailwheel training, etc. -- anything which could be done in a certified aircraft -- I may not do in the RV.

Just something to consider.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:58 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.