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
  #1  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:30 AM
DeltaRomeo DeltaRomeo is offline
unfluencer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highland Village, TX
Posts: 4,181
Default A Stab at EAB Safety/Training Documents

(this posted for Mike Vaccaro)
I participated in several discussions at OSH regarding EAB transition training and flight test and one of the challenges we face is having a sufficient number of qualified instructors in the field to support the growing EAB fleet. One of the keys to effective training is to have a syllabus and objective grading criteria, so as a first step, I wrote a syllabus for transition to two-seat RV types. I also put together an accompanying "grade book" for documentation (which USAF aviators will find familiar).

This type of syllabus could be used to obtain a LODA, or could be used by instructors in the field conducting training in an upgrading pilot's airplane. I think it would be beneficial to generate some discussion and solicit forum comments from instructors, pilots that have undergone transition training and pilots that will upgrade in the future. We can incorporate changes or make corrections as need be.

The sole purpose of this drill is to maintain our privilege to continue to build and operate these great airplanes; and I'm confident with a small amount of work like this we, as a group, can offer some solutions that will benefit the EAB and general aviation community as a whole.

I'll participate in discussion on the thread or can be reached by PM or email at vacntess99 'at' yahoo 'dot' com.

Fly safe,
Vac
Lt Col Mike Vaccaro, USAF (ret)
ATP, CFII Single/Multi
RV-4 #2112
Niceville, Florida
Documents (PDF):
- RV-Type TX Syllabus 1.1
- RV TR Gradesheets
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-07-2012, 06:31 AM
David-aviator David-aviator is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
Default

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?
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-07-2012, 06:37 AM
Vern's Avatar
Vern Vern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Peachtree City, Ga
Posts: 1,061
Default 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!
__________________
Vern Darley
Awarded FAA "The Wright Brothers 'Master Pilot' Award"- for 50 years safe flying

RV-6A N680V / RV-10QB N353RV
Luscombe 8E N2423K 50+years
Hatz Biplane N2423Z soon to be birthed
Falcon RV Squadron Founder
KFFC Hanger D-30
Peachtree City, Ga
770 310-7169
EAA Technical Counselor #5142
EAA Flight Advisor #486336
ATP/CFI/A&P/DAR
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:23 AM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 453
Default 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 Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:08 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 7,355
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:18 PM
Brantel's Avatar
Brantel Brantel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Newport, TN
Posts: 7,509
Default

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.
__________________
Brantel (Brian Chesteen),
Check out my RV-10 builder's BLOG
RV-10, #41942, N?????, Project Sold
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RV-7/TU, #72823, N159SB
Lyc. O-360 carbed, HARTZELL BA CS Prop, Dual P-MAGs, Dual Garmin G3X Touch
Track N159SB (KK4LIF)
Like EAA Chapter 1494 on Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner View Post
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?
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
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:45 PM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,896
Default

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,
__________________
Rv10 Sold
46 years ag pilot/CFI
Air Tractor 502/PT-6
Building RV-12, Wings, fuse, emp complete. FWF in progress.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Scherminator's Avatar
Scherminator Scherminator is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Posts: 63
Default

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.
__________________
Kent Scherm
RV-8 #81651... gone
C150 C-GDGV
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Vac Vac is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Niceville, Florida
Posts: 453
Default 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
__________________
Mike Vaccaro
RV-4 2112
Niceville, Florida

Last edited by Vac : 08-07-2012 at 02:19 PM.
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 06:18 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.