A Stab at EAB Safety/Training Documents

(this posted for Mike Vaccaro)

Mike,

A most professional and well written program.

Thanks for contributing your expertise in making this advocation safer. It is an indication to the NTSB and FAA there are very qualified people who care a great deal about improving the safety record of experimental aviation.

This program certainly could be used to acquire a LODA. It is most comprehensive. Is it available for such use with your permission?

Thanks for this document!

This is a great document. Thanks for all the hard work. I need to review it for my own flying.

The positive is that is based on a military-type program where resources are plentiful and continuity of training is available. That is also its downside in that it is so comprehensive that it would overwhelm non-military flyers and those limited in resources.

There are probably many commercial operators who did not have so comprehensive a checkout.

But, if followed, it would certainly raise the bar in our RV world! It would produce desired results.

Again, thanks for this!

Use of documents

David,

You are welcome to use and edit as you see fit. I tried to include a full spectrum of operations, which may be beyond what is required in some cases--a prime example is aerobatic flight. In other words, pick and choose the portions you consider applicable to your task.

Keep in mind it would take an experienced pilot already proficient in tail wheel operations and, likely, with prior aerobatic exposure to complete all events to desired levels in five hours. Everyone learns at their own pace, so the syllabus and grade sheets are only designed to serve as a guide. Modify as you see fit.

I've already started to receive some very helpful input, so eventually we'll incorporate that as discussion continues.

Fly safe,

Vac

Mike,

You clearly put a lot of thought and effort into this, nice job.

[I think I will, since you said it's okay, use this with modification (I don't do spins in the -10) if I decide to continue giving transition training. Right now I'm not sure, due to the high cost of insuring the plane for this operation.]

I would like to put something out here for discussion:

You have a pilot prerequisite of 100 hrs PIC-airplane. By coincidence, I have a LODA from the local FSDO for an RV-10, and in my FAA paperwork I quoted the same, 100 hr PIC-airplane number as a prerequisite.

I have had inquiries from builders who did not have the 100 hrs PIC-airplane. One had significant glider time. My question is, what to do? I turned them away, citing my FAA paperwork agreement. But they did not go out and get more experience; instead they went looking for another instructor. Or decided to fly without any type training if they could (I get the feeling that these pilots would not have sought training at all except they could not obtain insurance, at any price, without the training endorsement in their logbook).

So my question is, by enforcing the 100 hr PIC airplane minimum, am I making the RV community safer, or less so? I sadly think the answer is less so, but at the same time I don't want to give the impression that I think the average pilot is ready to fly the RV-10 with less than 100 hrs PIC-airplane. Of course, every pilot thinks he is the exception to the rule.

Comments?

I think anytime that you start applying a minimum hour requirement on stuff like this you are missing the mark.

There are people out there with 15 hours that have the ability to fly an RV just fine. There are also people out there with 20,000 hrs that should never be allowed to be PIC of an RV.

Each person is different and should be evaluated appropriately.

BobTurner said:

So my question is, by enforcing the 100 hr PIC airplane minimum, am I making the RV community safer, or less so? I sadly think the answer is less so, but at the same time I don't want to give the impression that I think the average pilot is ready to fly the RV-10 with less than 100 hrs PIC-airplane. Of course, every pilot thinks he is the exception to the rule.

Comments?

Click to expand...

Yup - it is a huge dilemna.

We had a similar discussion with the FAA Rep at Oshkosh, and no one has a good answer - since there is no legal requirement for a minimum number of hours to do a first flight (for instance), if you refuse to give the person training, then they can just go do the flight without training. It is a moral dilemna that is hard to solve, even with regulations since most of our regulations are really enforced voluntarily (there is no FAA Cop checking paperwork at the runway).

Paul

I'm also in disagreement on the minimum 100 hour PIC requirement.
Of the 80-90 guys I transitioned in my -6A, many had less than 100 hours, the lowest had 50 hours total, the ink barely dry on his PPL. This guy outflew many much higher time pilots and 4 hours later was taking his new-to-him -9A back to Florida.

On the flip side, a guy with 700 or so hours, put his -7A on its back shortly after leaving here. I think it would simply be a matter of a few extra hours if the trainee needs more, rather than ask for minimum time.

Thanks for all the good work preparing the syllabus!

Best,

I am also of the mind that total PIC time is of less importance than getting the right transition training. After all, what does it matter if you have 90 hours PIC or 9000, IF you can fly the transition syllabus? Once safely completed, the low time pilot will be MUCH better equipped to safely add many more hours to their logbook.

Also, a request to one of the mods - please consider making this thread a sticky.

This is an excellent beginning. Thanks Vac.

Reasonable standard

Syllabus design has to assume a certain set of standards and the 100 hours derived from industry and military standards for "experienced" when transitioning from another type. There is no one right answer. The lowest standard would be valid PPL, current and qualified, but keep in mind the intent was a five hour program for an "average" pilot--in other words, it is designed to accommodate the meat of the bell curve. There are folks out there that will do well regardless of previous time and those that will need extra instruction.

The real bottom line is that any Instructor can modify this to accommodate any particular student or set of circumstances, but I had to start somewhere! Even if you ensconce a number within your LODA package, it should be waiverable with proper coordination via the FSDO.

Great inputs and discussion and baseline numbers are certainly on the table for consideration.


Fly safe,

Vac

Need condensed summary sheets

Wow, that's a lot more detail than I remember... push the knobs forward to take off, work the foot thingies to go straight, point the nose with the holdie what's it.

It would be good to have a condensed summary format that captures the highlights without elaborative detail... Perhaps a single page summary with single page flight card sheets.

Well Done!

Vac.

This was written as if you've suffered through at least one major staff tour, most likely in the puzzle palace..am I wrong?

Obtaining a LODA for RV8 training is on my agenda (once I figure out rear seat brakes).

I agree 100 hours PIC is a good starting point but I'd prefer to base the initial experiement requirements in line with the quality of experience vice quantity. Did the prospective student fly the same hour 100 times in the pattern? Or did the 30 hour PIC student venture out on cross-countries, fly in congested airspace, fly at night, etc... What airplane did they fly during primary training? Maybe they learned in something with more performance and complexity than an RV...such as a T-34C

Thanks for the great work!

vr

Spank
CDR (ret) USN
CFI/II airplane/rotary

Vac said:

Syllabus design has to assume a certain set of standards and the 100 hours derived from industry and military standards for "experienced" when transitioning from another type. There is no one right answer. The lowest standard would be valid PPL, current and qualified, but keep in mind the intent was a five hour program for an "average" pilot--in other words, it is designed to accommodate the meat of the bell curve. There are folks out there that will do well regardless of previous time and those that will need extra instruction.

The real bottom line is that any Instructor can modify this to accommodate any particular student or set of circumstances, but I had to start somewhere! Even if you ensconce a number within your LODA package, it should be waiverable with proper coordination via the FSDO.

Great inputs and discussion and baseline numbers are certainly on the table for consideration.


Fly safe,

Vac

Click to expand...

Ah, the ever present "Bell Curve". The very nature of standards and regulations dictate that we MUST teach to the middle of the curve. Any outliers are to be, well, lets see, they should be. . . umm, hmmmm, well they should be??? Oh, I know, lets just ignore them. Throw those out, yeah, that's the ticket.

That is the way statisticians treat the ubiquitous Bell Curve. Get that standard deviation within reason and we have a winner! But, come on, really, is this a good way to treat decisions concerning who should or should not be considered "worthy" of training in these machines?

Vac, I get that you are coming from a military training background. I think some of the military discipline can be very productive in a training environment but I do not think the military manner in which an individual is "allowed" to participate should be a starting point. Others have already commented on the 100 hour prerequisites. I agree with them. the 100 hour prerequisite will only cause some to avoid the training all together. Others will either wing it, fake it, or, at best, end up with sub-par training because they could not initially meet that arbitrary number of hours. If there is something special to offer with this training, why start out by restricting who can benefit from it based upon some arbitrary beginning "experience" number?

The military is an Exclusive club that one must join if one hopes to participate in the benefits offered. If we really wish to change the training regime for civilian pilots I think we should be thinking about an Inclusive club that welcomes and supports everyone who asks.

Hi Steve,

I completely agree with inclusion for recreational aviation! We need MORE pilots and RVers in the future, not less. I just wanted to explain the thinking behind syllabus design and point out that we can adjust the baseline wherever we see fit. As for standards, there are minimum standards of performance. Those are contained in the practical test standards for the license and rating held. Some of the objective standards in this draft are for advanced maneuvers, but you might note that those are required to be graded "safe," not "proficient".

As an instructor, I treat each student individually and modify this type of syllabus based on that assessment. We all learn at our own pace, but as a group we still have have have some form of "average performance.". Some folks could successfully fly this type of syllabus in three or four hours, others might require more time. That's a given.

I would never suggest that we adopt a one-size-fits-all solution that only accommodates a portion of RVers. Nor would I suggest we establish a bar so high that only a certain portion of folks could complete training.

I hope we're on the same sheet!

Kind regards,

Vac

I wholeheartedly endorse and applaud your well thought out drafts.

While I'm no expert in aviation training specifically, I have a bit of background in an industry that is risk-averse and conservative to the extreme, and for very good reasons. Procedures and structured training provide the very groundwork for any safety related system that wants measurable, repeatable, and positive results. Even the best of the best understand that they require structured training that measures their performance against defined goals (hey, that's why they are so good).

Look at the airline's structured programs and their safety record. Look at the corporate scene - the same. GA's safety record, and experimentals in particular compare poorly because of the glaring omission of structured periodic training. Okay, I'm off track now, and have turned a discussion of transition training into one of periodic. One step at a time...

A pro-active, voluntary, and self-regulated training program such as this would be trend setting.

Please consider that for a moment. Instead of poking the bear, coddle him back to sleep while we drive down our share of the statistics.

Vac said:

Hi Steve,

I completely agree with inclusion for recreational aviation! We need MORE pilots and RVers in the future, not less. I just wanted to explain the thinking behind syllabus design and point out that we can adjust the baseline wherever we see fit. As for standards, there are minimum standards of performance. Those are contained in the practical test standards for the license and rating held. Some of the objective standards in this draft are for advanced maneuvers, but you might note that those are required to be graded "safe," not "proficient".

As an instructor, I treat each student individually and modify this type of syllabus based on that assessment. We all learn at our own pace, but as a group we still have have have some form of "average performance.". Some folks could successfully fly this type of syllabus in three or four hours, others might require more time. That's a given.

I would never suggest that we adopt a one-size-fits-all solution that only accommodates a portion of RVers. Nor would I suggest we establish a bar so high that only a certain portion of folks could complete training.

I hope we're on the same sheet!

Kind regards,

Vac

Click to expand...

I hope I did not sound too critical of your training plan. I applaud it actually. It is just the issue being discussed of the entry requirements that stuck in my craw. I think all of us in aviation tend to be a tad bit too elitist sometimes. I know many of my non-aviation acquaintances think so anyway. Also, I have spent a great deal of my adult life studying that stinking Bell Curve issue and all the statistics associated with it. Especially in terms of the statistical analysis of psychological testing as it relates to education. When looking for the AVERAGE, by all means we need to look at the middle of that curve. However, if we are to strive to be better than average we need to get away from what lies in the middle and think about poking around the fringe and seeing what happens.

Off my soapbox. My .02 that I know no one asked for.

defensive instructing

Thanks to all the replies. Now, for a different perspective:

What is a transition training CFI's responsibility? Is it to provide stick and rudder training appropriate to the aircraft? Along with systems, weight and balance, etc.? Or does it go further? Does the CFI have an obligation to inform, cajole, forbid (not possible) the pilot undergoing training that he is very lacking in practical experience? For example, a 50 hour pilot checking out in an RV-10 will have very limited cross country experience. Is it the CFI's job to encourage him to (a) use caution when the weather suddenly turns, or (b) fly a slower airplane offering more time to evaluate the situation until he gains more experience? And how do you enforce this?
Or is none of this his job? After all, the pilot in question already has an FAA license.

The answer is, the CFI is risking his entire financial future to even consider giving such training. Judgement is one of the hardest things to judge, because everyone is on their best behavior when with the CFI. But most CFI's have encountered students that set off a 6th sense. Nothing concrete, but we're worried that as soon as they're turned loose they're going to take their friends up and buzz someone's house. And for sure, if there's an accident soon after training, there will be a law suit. Can you hear the lawyer: "You attempted to train this guy in this fast plane when he only had 50 hours, are you always this careless? Do you know that the normal insurance companies wouldn't touch this guy?" And so on. And even if you win, you still have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees.

So I have done what I call defensive instructing. I follow the lead of the insurance companies. I use the bell curve. Anyone with less than 100 hours is too risky. If they're too risky for the usual insurance companies, then they're too risky for me. BTW, I talked this over with my insurance agent and she suggested 250 hours and an instrument rating would make more sense to her, as a prerequisite for the -10, because that's what the insurance companies wanted.

This approach makes me sad. I would rather give instruction to anyone, regardless of experience, than have them fly with none.

But I also decided it was unfair for me to risk my wife's retirement savings on my hobby (instructing).

I would be happy to hear solutions to my problem. Or if it's all in my imagination.

I think if we were to train to a fixed curriculum, then having a threshold number of hours could make some sense.

But in the civilian world, we tend to train to proficiency - whether it takes 5 hours or 50 hours, the training is intended to make sure the required proficiency level is reached. Given that, I don't think a minimum number of hours is appropriate.

That said, the I thought the syllabus and grade book work was thorough and very well done. It would be easy to make changes to reflect individual CFI preferences.

Dan

pierre smith said:

I'm also in disagreement on the minimum 100 hour PIC requirement.
Of the 80-90 guys I transitioned in my -6A, many had less than 100 hours, the lowest had 50 hours total, the ink barely dry on his PPL. This guy outflew many much higher time pilots and 4 hours later was taking his new-to-him -9A back to Florida.

On the flip side, a guy with 700 or so hours, put his -7A on its back shortly after leaving here. I think it would simply be a matter of a few extra hours if the trainee needs more, rather than ask for minimum time.

Thanks for all the good work preparing the syllabus!

Best,

Click to expand...

I think you can, in no small part, attribute those two instances to the low time pilot being fresh from a relatively structured training environment where bad habits were corrected quickly.

I flashed through the elements and while at first reading it may seem like a ton of maneuvers, if you really look at it it is nothing more than a commercial checkride (except the aerobatics) and the commercial ride is really nothing more than a private ride to slightly tighter standards and a couple extra maneuvers. So what I am saying is, anybody who holds a PPL should be able to perform nearly everything in the maneuver list. There should not be any great surprises.

In the Ground Operations you mention calculating performance data. I am going to freely admit my ignorance here because I am just starting to build and have never previously owned an EAB aircraft. Do the operating limitations actually have performance data?

I did have a couple minor comments in the maneuvers.
The Lazy 8. If the student will not be doing the aerobatic elements for whatever reason is taking it all the way to 90 degrees bank a good idea?

The unusual atitude recovery from a nose low position. Somewhere in there should be a power reduction to avoid running beyond Va and through Vne.

In several of the aerobatic elements there is reference to setting MIL PWR.

I think you have done an outstanding job.

Performance Data

Outstanding point regarding performance data!

One of the challenges that the EAB community faces is that there isn't extensive performance data for every airplane flying. When I purchased my RV-4, it came with very little information of any kind, and it took some extensive flight test to derive usable data.

The briefing in the syllabus addresses this and I attempted to include some "RVisms" as all RV's (especially those of identical mark) have similar characteristics. One of the things an instructor can do is emphasize the factors affecting performance. You may not have specific data for an airplane, but it is possible to teach density altitude effects (e.g., use of a Koch chart), and other factors affecting takeoff and landing performance. Similarly, it's possible to address weight and balance issues as well, both in terms of limits and effects on handling characteristics.

One bit of data we do have is Van's factory performance numbers, weight and balance and ops limits, so there is at least a baseline from which to start. For one example of how this can be applied, if you look at the performance section of the handbook I posted on the POH section of VAF, the takeoff and landing data section discusses using estimates derived from AC 90-89A and comparing those data to Van's factory numbers--in other words, establishing a usable estimate to which safety factors can then be applied (wet surface, runway slope, tailwind, etc.).

Sorry about the reference to MIL power (old habits die hard)--what I meant to say was full throttle! I'll check your other references as well and correct as required.

Fly safe,

Vac

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

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.

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

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]

Updated Syllabus

An updated version of the draft syllabus is available at:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8EIT6g2n8o_cjN6Z2FhakVXUFU

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!

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

JordanGrant said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Vac said:

An updated version of the draft syllabus is available at:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8EIT6g2n8o_cjN6Z2FhakVXUFU

Click to expand...

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,

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_Transition_Training_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

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.

Excellent point, Bob.

Hopefully, the FAA may be open to revising policy as they work to comply with NTSB recommendations.

I've decided to add "tracks" to the syllabus. The most fundamental of which would be basic transition. This covers takeoff, landing, basic air work and emergency training. Add some basic confidence maneuvers and aerobatics, and you'd have the "advanced" transition track. It's also relatively straight forward to offer "advanced top-off" track for folks that already have a basic qualification and "recurrent" (think biennial flight review) and instructor upgrade tracks all derived from the same baseline syllabus. This would be an efficient way to address multiple training situations, but under current policy, as you mention, may not prove to be practical. Again, I hope that the benefit of providing increased options for training in EAB aircraft (and, hopefully, improvement in safety as a result) will engender a reasoned response by the folks working on policy.

V/r,

Vac