What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV Transition Training

C

civengpe

Well Known Member
I am posting here, because of something I read / posted over at AOPA's forum.

It seems to me that on one hand the FAA is telling us that we need to get a handle on the accident rate of E/AB or they will, while on the other are putting up road blocks to our getting training. Has anyone ever heard of any organization actively lobbying the FAA to waive the essential crew restrictions during Phase I for some transition training?

It would make sense to me to be able to have a test pilot / CFI fly with me for the first 10-20 hours to not only run the plane through it's paces together, but to also gain some valuable experience flying my particular aircraft at the same time.

I am still at least another year from my first flight :cool:, and may be way off base here. What do you guys think?

Shannon
 
Shannon, I agree. A side change would be to allow a test pilot (non-owner) to allow an instructor along to get up to speed on RV flight characteristics. Then that instructor could go up with the pilot/owner.

Perhaps you need five hours or so to verify basic airworthiness. Better than 25-40.
 
This is just my opinion. It is only worth what you paid for it.

I think transition training and flight testing are two very, very different things and shouldn't happen at the same time. It seems to me that flight testing should follow transition training.

Having additional souls on board during testing only increases risk. If the builder isn't qualified to do the testing, I believe he should hire it done by someone who is. These are fairly well understood aircraft in principle, but they actually vary a lot and the test period if for testing, not training.
 
civengpe said:
It seems to me that on one hand the FAA is telling us that we need to get a handle on the accident rate of E/AB or they will, while on the other are putting up road blocks to our getting training. Has anyone ever heard of any organization actively lobbying the FAA to waive the essential crew restrictions during Phase I for some transition training?

It would make sense to me to be able to have a test pilot / CFI fly with me for the first 10-20 hours to not only run the plane through it's paces together, but to also gain some valuable experience flying my particular aircraft at the same time.
Click to expand...

I think you are talking about two different, but related issues.

Requesting a CFI to fly with you implies that you may need additional training. If that is the case, then have somebody that is experienced in the airframe fly off Phase I. I'm currently flying a Cherokee 6 to get HP and constant speed experience. I've also flown four RV-10s. I will also be taking transition training as well. There are ways to get experience before your first flight.

However, having a crewmember to assist you in Phase I in a technically advanced aircraft is a good idea. Somebody needs to fly and look out the window, while the second crew member programs and test the various devices in the panel.

There have been conversations with our local FSDO about this and at least one individual is supportive and recommends a second crewmember for this function. My concern is that the FARs appear to be pretty back and white for SEL prohibiting additional crew members. I'm sure than Chartis won't care what the local FSDO says if it isn't documented in the FARs.
 
Transition training thoughts

They are two separate issues. Do not seek to get training in a new unproven airplane. A non-RV proficient CFI would not be of much use either.

I actually had a required insurance checkout in an RV I was delivering cross country with their "approved" CFI who I found out as I was taxing out with him had never been in an RV while I had several hundred RV hours at that time! What an intelligent use of "training requirement."

What is needed is to allow CFI's with RV's to train others and get paid for their plane expenses and time with less hassle than occurs now.

Many RV builders are not very current and could benefit from any flying / rides to up their general airmanship, currency on airspace, local procedures,radio procedures,traffic patterns used, etc. before hoping into their new birds and to review the landscape around the airport they will soon be test in flying their new bird from.

Just where is the best spot to land if it quits about here? Better to have seen that spot recently!
 
Not an opinion; It's a regulation!

This subject comes up time and time again, and as others have pointed out, Phase I flight testing is just that. It's sole purpose is to test the aircraft.
This is absolutely no time to involve pilot training of any kind.
Transition training needs to be accomplished in a "proven" airplane, period.
 
I agree with Guy, Vern, Mel, et al.

As read Transition training is valuable for a couple of reasons and it should be done in a proven airplane with a trainer experienced in that airplane. Testing the new airplane is risky business because of the defects in the airplane, inexperience on the part of the test pilot, weather and maintenance errors during the test period.

It is good to recognize you limitations and take steps to mitigate risks but take care of your own situation, don't bind all builders and pilots by the limits of your sphere. Maybe something could be done to categorize acceptable test pilots but that would be a mess. I personally like it the way it is. Perhaps too many people are building airplanes these days?

Bob Axsom
 
Weak links

Mel said:
This subject comes up time and time again, and as others have pointed out, Phase I flight testing is just that. It's sole purpose is to test the aircraft.
This is absolutely no time to involve pilot training of any kind.
Transition training needs to be accomplished in a "proven" airplane, period.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with Mel. Mixing an untested aircraft with a non-current or untrained pilot receiving instruction is asking for trouble. All airplane crashes are the product of a chain of events. In the suggested scenario you are starting out with two weak links.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
I agree with others who say that transition training and flight testing are two different things and should not be mixed. I would also add that being the builder and receiving transition training doesn't necessarily make you a competent test pilot either.

As someone who just received the "pink slip" and have transition training scheduled for early Oct, this weighs heavily on my mind and I will be looking into ways to place the odds more in my favor or else I'll let someone more competent take the first couple of flights.
 
Guys: I agree that transition training and flight tested should be separate operations. I would not recommend getting transition training with any CFI who doesn't fly the type of aircraft you are building. I personally would not be satisfied with any CFI with less than a 100 hours PIC in a tail dragger or nose wheel RV, depending on the model you are building. There are numerous CFIs out there, scattered all over the country, who do training in their own RV aircraft, nose wheel and tail dragger or both, and many are the owner/builders. Just Google RV transition training and add tail wheel or nose wheel and you will get several hits, hopefully one close by or a short hop on an airline. Take the wife/girlfriend (please not both, bad form) and make a long weekend of it. A variance on a Safety Officer's wall I once saw, "If you think transition training is expensive, try to imagine the costs of an accident in Phase I". Just one man's opinion on the subject. BTW, you are all invited to the R cubed at my hangar next month. Dan
 
I am getting close to making a first flight and have been giving all this great consideration. I am a fairly low time pilot and know that there is no way I am qualified to make a first flight, and probably not even to make the first few flights. Even though I will be taking transition lessons from an experienced CFI, those 5 or 6 hours could not possibly give me the confidence to make a first flight safely. A man has to know their limits, and I don't know that I have the experience and confidence to get me out of a problem that might not even draw a bead of sweat from an experienced test pilot.

Having someone else do the entire 40 hour test program is unreasonable and not what I want to do. Ideally, for me, a test pilot would make the first couple of flights to ensure the plane is safe enough for someone like me to fly, then he would take me up for a few flights until I have the confidence to fly it on my own. After that, I could complete the flight testing on my own.

Some might say this approach violates the FARs regarding non-essential crew members. However, as even Van's says in the builders manual, there is some gray in the FAA rule, and that taking up someone to provide additional - note I said additional - transition training in your own aircraft might be acceptable. One can certainly argue that going up with the test pilot after the first couple of flights to "hand over the reins" and do a checkout in the aircraft is essential for safety.

So, my plan/hope/desire would be to get transition training from a CFI in their own RV-xA (most seem to be a 6A); have a test pilot approved by my insurance company make the first couple of flights solo in my own aircraft; and when they feel I can handle it, take me up for a check out so I can complete the testing.

The question would seem to be if there is an accident, will the FAA hold me in violation, with a secondary question being would the insurance company cover it?
I guess rules are rules and they could take a hard line approach, but I would argue that going up with the test pilot following a successful first flight or two is indeed "essential" for safety.
 
Jeff R said:
However, as even Van's says in the builders manual, there is some gray in the FAA rule, and that taking up someone to provide additional - note I said additional - transition training in your own aircraft might be acceptable. One can certainly argue that going up with the test pilot after the first couple of flights to "hand over the reins" and do a checkout in the aircraft is essential for safety.
Click to expand...

Unless you can get the DAR to specifically OK that in writing in your Phase 1 limitations, I think that would be a risk. Imagine a ramp check or an accident investigation. It would hurt when they drove the nails in...
 
Jeff R said:
Having someone else do the entire 40 hour test program is unreasonable and not what I want to do. Ideally, for me, a test pilot would make the first couple of flights to ensure the plane is safe enough for someone like me to fly, then he would take me up for a few flights until I have the confidence to fly it on my own. After that, I could complete the flight testing on my own.

Some might say this approach violates the FARs regarding non-essential crew members. However, as even Van's says in the builders manual, there is some gray in the FAA rule, and that taking up someone to provide additional - note I said additional - transition training in your own aircraft might be acceptable. One can certainly argue that going up with the test pilot after the first couple of flights to "hand over the reins" and do a checkout in the aircraft is essential for safety.

So, my plan/hope/desire would be to get transition training from a CFI in their own RV-xA (most seem to be a 6A); have a test pilot approved by my insurance company make the first couple of flights solo in my own aircraft; and when they feel I can handle it, take me up for a check out so I can complete the testing.

The question would seem to be if there is an accident, will the FAA hold me in violation, with a secondary question being would the insurance company cover it?
I guess rules are rules and they could take a hard line approach, but I would argue that going up with the test pilot following a successful first flight or two is indeed "essential" for safety.
Click to expand...


No gray area here. What you are describing is a flat out violation of the regulations, and the FAA will always see it as such. So will your insurance company.

Find another way to enjoy your new plane! :)
 
Jeff R said:
Having someone else do the entire 40 hour test program is unreasonable and not what I want to do. Ideally, for me, a test pilot would make the first couple of flights to ensure the plane is safe enough for someone like me to fly, then he would take me up for a few flights until I have the confidence to fly it on my own. After that, I could complete the flight testing on my own.

Some might say this approach violates the FARs regarding non-essential crew members. However, as even Van's says in the builders manual, there is some gray in the FAA rule, and that taking up someone to provide additional - note I said additional - transition training in your own aircraft might be acceptable. One can certainly argue that going up with the test pilot after the first couple of flights to "hand over the reins" and do a checkout in the aircraft is essential for safety.

So, my plan/hope/desire would be to get transition training from a CFI in their own RV-xA (most seem to be a 6A); have a test pilot approved by my insurance company make the first couple of flights solo in my own aircraft; and when they feel I can handle it, take me up for a check out so I can complete the testing.

The question would seem to be if there is an accident, will the FAA hold me in violation, with a secondary question being would the insurance company cover it?
I guess rules are rules and they could take a hard line approach, but I would argue that going up with the test pilot following a successful first flight or two is indeed "essential" for safety.
Click to expand...

There have been people, including a few FAA inspectors who have interpreted the "rule" as you describe.
However, this has also been discussed very extensively with the FAA guys in Oklahoma City.
Their interpretation is that this is NOT a gray area.
It needs to be noted that an FAA inspector cannot "override" the FARs. If he authorizes you to do something that is not in accordance with the rules, YOU are still responsible for compliance.
And If you want an insurance company to cover you under these circumstances, ask for it in writing!
Good Luck.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
Unless you can get the DAR to specifically OK that in writing in your Phase 1 limitations, I think that would be a risk. Imagine a ramp check or an accident investigation. It would hurt when they drove the nails in...
Click to expand...

The DAR does NOT have the authority to override the regulations!
 
I think that just about anyone, who has been flying slower Cessnas, Pipers, etc...........are going to have some jitters when thinking about their first flight of an RV. I certainly did! I'd conjur up the idea of just barely getting off the ground, and cut the power for the first flight or two.

A friend of mine, who was our local EAA president at the time, convinced me to get a fair number of hours in his 9A. Since my plane has a C/S prop, it was helpful that his did too.

For about two months, in which my 6A had already been signed off with it's pink slip.......we practiced in the 9A as much as possible. I had already determined that the first flight was mine. If I wasn't ready, the plane just wouldn't fly. In the meantime, I picked up a few more hours in a 6A too.

The first flight, was in a way, like a first solo. Nervous before airborne, but much more confident once off the ground. After a few pattern laps, I brought it in for a landing. Probably let the nose down too soon, as I got some shimmy. After a checkout, and readjustment of the nosewheel nut torque................I took this plane to an airport approx. 100 miles away. It's mostly over desert (the Bonneville salt flats), and was good for running the engine hard for break-in. This distant airport was included in my phase one ops. The 9A followed me.

So yes, my transition training wasn't from a hired instructor, but it was very beneficial. I got past the idea of doing short hops. I think that others on this forum, who are hesitant and with "jitters", will feel a lot better, after picking up a fair amount of hours in an actual RV.

And if your plane has it's pink slip, and you "don't" feel ready, but would like to see it fly.............then by all means, get someone else for that first flight and possibly more.

I go along with Mel and others on this. We don't need two people aboard, before the 25 or 40 hours are up. If your confidence & experience level is still low, then train in someone elses aircraft.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
civengpe said:
I was reading AC No: 90-109 and found this interesting quote:

"If you built the airplane yourself, consider obtaining this training from the kit vendor or owner?s group, preferably in your airplane":confused:

Here is the link to the AC:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/90-109.pdf
Click to expand...

No problem. To do it "in your airplane" find a current and qualified pilot to fly off the Phase 1, then get transition training from a current and qualified CFI and you are done.

The AC is poorly worded, but clearly not a way around the FARs.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
John Clark said:
No problem. To do it "in your airplane" find a current and qualified pilot to fly off the Phase 1, then get transition training from a current and qualified CFI and you are done.

The AC is poorly worded, but clearly not a way around the FARs.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

I figured that. it was just something that popped out at me when reading it. :D

My plan, as it stands today is to get some serious training from Alex, then perhaps have someone much more experienced with the -10 to fly off the initial few hours / flights, just to make sure everything is working well.

My only point in the initial post, besides soliciting this boards sage advice, was that I would feel much more comfortable if I was able to take a couple of flights with that experienced pilot in my plane after his initial flights.
 
Transition Training for RVs in a -9?

seeking opinions on whether offering transition training in a FP 160 hp RV-9 (yes a straight -9, i.e., with a tailwheel) would be greatly beneficial to new RV drivers and be accepted by insurance companies as required dual in taildragger RVs. if so, i might start offering it (after i get a letter from FAA) in south texas in our -9...

this would be starting first of the year, most likely, after i have a hundred or two hours of RV-9 time under my own belt. comments?
 
don.olandese said:
seeking opinions on whether offering transition training in a FP 160 hp RV-9 (yes a straight -9, i.e., with a tailwheel) would be greatly beneficial to new RV drivers and be accepted by insurance companies as required dual in taildragger RVs. if so, i might start offering it (after i get a letter from FAA) in south texas in our -9...

this would be starting first of the year, most likely, after i have a hundred or two hours of RV-9 time under my own belt. comments?
Click to expand...

I think it's a good idea for those seeking 9 training. I wish there were more offering 9A training. The 9 wing/flaps definitely fly different than the 6 & 7 models. I don't want to pay for training and than be told not to fly the 9A like I was just trained in the 6A.
 
don.olandese said:
seeking opinions on whether offering transition training in a FP 160 hp RV-9 (yes a straight -9, i.e., with a tailwheel) would be greatly beneficial to new RV drivers
Click to expand...
I hope I'm not your only "perfect" customer, but since I'm working on a FP 160 hp RV-9, I would be interested!
 
Definitely.

don.olandese said:
.....this would be starting first of the year, most likely, after i have a hundred or two hours of RV-9 time under my own belt. comments?
Click to expand...

Don, I've trained many guys in my -6A who had -9A's and to a man, they all said the -9 was so much easier than my -6A.

I did have one guy who had some time in a friend's -9A and he was all over the place in the -6 because of the much more sensitive and quicker roll rates, so be careful going from a -9 to a -6 or -7 in your training.

But yeah, I think you'd have quire a few takers.

Best,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top