What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-12 Training/Flight School

WingedFrog

WingedFrog

Well Known Member
It bothers me that there is a restriction on E-LSA training that allows training only on an E-LSA you own. That prevents me to receive training before my plane is built. Even worse: this restriction prevents the RV-12 to benefit of the fantastic promotion provided by flight schools offering instruction on this plane to future owners.
Here is an idea: What about creating a flight school based on shared ownership of an E-LSA RV-12. Let's say that I create an LLC with 70 shares at $1K per share. If anyone wants to learn flying my RV-12, he just buys one share and then he can be trained on "his" RV-12. The training rate per hour could be calculated so that the initial investment could be made up after a predefined number of hours of training... or not as after training, the owner of a share could sell it to a new student in need of training.
As the builder of the plane and initial 100% owner, I could, if this scheme works, start a flight school by selling just one share to one student. I may even let the student/co-owner chose his CFI and take care of the insurance related to instruction as I will have to do myself when my plane is ready to fly.
Am I missing something? :eek:
 
Hmmmmmmm

Would everyone ( as an owner ) have to purchase insurance ? Would everyone have to be listed as the builder ? Interesting, but certainly needs lots more leg work.

John Bender
 
I don't think the insurance issue is different in a multiple ownership than in single ownership, each pilot has to have his own insurance because each pilot is a different risk. The issue of insurance during training has to be addressed in either case and is a different animal because it's temporary and related to the instructor's qualification and experience. Could it be solved through the CFI's insurance in addition to the regular insurance?
 
Pertnership Insurance

After 5-6 partners the insurance company will get difficult, there was an article a while back with I believe 8 partners on a 12 and they had a diffiult time initially getting insured.

I imagine your insurance rate would be based on the least common denominator in the group, that is the 0 time pilot.
 
That's correct. For an owned airplane (ie not a rented) you buy insurance on the airplane, not the pilot. Partnerships of more than about 5 or 6 are difficult. Above about 5 parteners, it becomes a flying club, and priced almost like a commercial risk - ie 2-3X the private pleasure and business rate. With experimentals, it's even more difficult to find an insurer that will play - maybe one.

For something like a 70-way partnership, forget it.
 
It is understandable that the rate would increase with the number of users. The question is: once the "flying club" insurance rate has been divided by the number of pilots is it a palatable rate per pilot compared to a single owner rate? After all, if flying clubs manage to get insured, the rate per pilot has to be reasonable else Flying clubs would be no more. On the other hand I agree that this extreme partnership would hardly be appealing to any insurer. Could it be turned into a Flying club and keep the concept of member/owner that allows E-LSA training?
 
A Data Point

Here's a data point on flying club insurance:


My flying club with 65 members pays $5K/year for a 1975 C172 with an insured value of $50K.

Not apples to apples with an ELSA, but a datapoint on flying club insurance rates.
 
Flying Club idea

I think you my have something there, if the Flying club were established as an LLC with members "buying" a share of the club and the plane maybe it would work,

Frankly I have enough trouble getting time to fly one of the two LSA's at my school with 6 or 7 students waiting for it. I am either forced to schedule a moth in advance or fly in the heat of the day, a bubble canopy really is no fun in 105 temps sitting on the taxiway behind a learjet :(

I think with 70 people and a popular airplane you would not like the scheduling issues.
 
club or group..

WingedFrog said:
The training rate per hour could be calculated so that the initial investment could be made up after a predefined number of hours of training... or not as after training, the owner of a share could sell it to a new student in need of training.
As the builder of the plane and initial 100% owner, I could, if this scheme works, start a flight school by selling just one share to one student. I may even let the student/co-owner chose his CFI and take care of the insurance related to instruction as I will have to do myself when my plane is ready to fly.
Am I missing something? :eek:
Click to expand...

I like the idea. When I was looking to get my tailwheel signoff, one of the options I considered was a traditional tandem LSA that was set up as a multiowner airplane. A bit different than what you are talking about, but similar in that non-owned tailwheel instruction is fairly tough to get, so folks think about other methods for getting the job done, just as you are.

For the tailwheel priveledges, entry was buying a share, then getting insured to fly it. I don't recall if the insurance was on the airplane or the individuals, but I recall it was going to run about $500 a year. The manager/CFI would fly with you, you'd pay gas and oil and the CFI's rate I seem to recall. Once you got signed off, it was fly to your hearts content (without the CFI). The manager/CFI charged significantly more to buy in than $1000, but said you could sell out anytime for the full amount. I seriously thought about it, but found another solution.

Here's a thought on the insurance problem. Double your suggested up front buy in, then you've got the initial capital and the replacement cost. That increases initial cost of entry, but then the group can self insure on the hull. For liability, maybe there would be an unbrella liability product or individual renters liability that folks could find. Rental rate could be set such that the self insurance kitty could grow. Not sure how it would all shake out, as members are in effect insuring each other, so there might be some "policing" going on :D... but that's not all bad as long as things stay friendly.

If you go for it, budget for "pro" help. There are FAA, IRS, and probably state biz law potential minefields that a FAA expert, you accountant, and attorney could sort out.
 
5 hour transition training

I think and i may be wrong, that it is more a standard to do about 5 hours transition training with a new plane as a safety measure.

When one of the students at my school crashed the Remos I was flying (unhurt) i switched to the Sportstar and did 3.5 hours before she signed me off again for Solo, with the school it was a checkout requirement but i would have done it anyway, the two fly much differently.

I plan on taking 5 hours from Mike then flying my own first flight at least for now.

I think someone else was mentioning that the insurance companies "could" start requiring transition training as a pre-req to being insured.
 
Great brainstorming!

nomocom said:
Here's a thought on the insurance problem. Double your suggested up front buy in, then you've got the initial capital and the replacement cost. That increases initial cost of entry, but then the group can self insure on the hull. For liability, maybe there would be an unbrella liability product or individual renters liability that folks could find. Rental rate could be set such that the self insurance kitty could grow. Not sure how it would all shake out, as members are in effect insuring each other, so there might be some "policing" going on :D... but that's not all bad as long as things stay friendly.
Click to expand...

A few very good points which inspired the following idea: no need for hull insurance, just double the share price and use two planes. In case of damage there is still one to fly while members repair the damages. In case of total loss: tough luck but the partnership would still survives on one plane. Considering the cost for getting a Sport Licence a $2K entry fee's only down side is that the money is needed upfront rather than being paid weekly, a lesson at a time. Liability insurance still needed.

All this looks like a pipe dream but I can see two builders each with one plane joining to start this venture with little need for capital if they own their plane initially. They could actually use the capital influx from members to start building more planes and so on...:cool:
 
Transition Training

The point is not the insurance, the point is the transition training. It isn't necessary to get it in an RV12. It is necessary as many have pointed out that you get some training in a light aircraft. It can something as simple as a Champ or a Cub. They are lighter, have lower wing loading and behave differently than the heavier, high horsepower planes...not worse! different!
Be prepared.
 
Peterk said:
The point is not the insurance, the point is the transition training. It isn't necessary to get it in an RV12. It is necessary as many have pointed out that you get some training in a light aircraft. It can something as simple as a Champ or a Cub. They are lighter, have lower wing loading and behave differently than the heavier, high horsepower planes...not worse! different!
Be prepared.
Click to expand...

Pete,
Is a C152 similar enough to make a reasonable transition aircraft? I think it has about the same wing loading and horsepower, although it probably handles differently and is a bit heavier.
 
not really. go lighter...in weight and controls. you would be better off flying an ultralight. An RV12 just gives a much better feel of what the airplane is really doing than a 152 does.
 
Peterk said:
not really. go lighter...in weight and controls. you would be better off flying an ultralight. An RV12 just gives a much better feel of what the airplane is really doing than a 152 does.
Click to expand...

Thanks Pete, that's useful to know. Looks like I'll have to shop around, but I've still got plenty of time. Only just starting the AST.
 
The issue is learning, not transition

If the RV-12 is to become what it was meant to be: "a plane for all reasons", we will see more and more people with a profile different from current owners. I believe that I am representing this new profile: people who learn to fly and build at the same time. I interpret "for all reasons" as: reasons to build and reasons to fly. So far my little experience (Empennage completed and RV-12 flight tested) tells me that easy to build and easy to fly are indeed "all reasons". I expect more people to find out in time and therefore a change in the RV-12 owners profile from what it is today. This is why I started this thread because there is a specific need for training new pilots that are also new builders. I would add that when this happens, the concept of LSA will have met its goal to revive sport aviation both as an industry and as a hobby.
 
WingedFrog, you are doing a great service in having started this post. It is encouraging to see the many replies with suggestions for solving this issue. I have long thought co-ownership makes sense for owning an airplane. Even if a person has the funds to write a check, it often makes no sense in tying up such large sums in a (relatively) seldom-used machine. TheAPA.com website that facilitates finding potential co-owners is a step in the right direction. TaxAdvocates has made some noise about putting together the necessary docs for co-ownerships of Light Sport and less expensive aircraft (versus the top-dollar jets and multis) for a reasonable fee, but so far I feel it is more noise than substance. When someday someone (or some entity) makes it simple to purchase, co-own, finance (if needed) and insure a plane, personal aviation will have a chance to take off in more ways than defying gravity.
 
Bad news for E-LSA training

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-16_lodas.asp
EAA is right, FAA is wrong. Given what I am spending on flight training, I suspect S-LSA flight schools are on the FAA side. The best route now is for VAN's to start producing S-LSA RV-12s but I'm not sure they want or even can go this way which is a different business than producing Kits. The main issue might be that the design and technology used in RV-12 is intended at making manufacturing easy (if not fool proof!). Easy manufacturing is not the same as cost effective manufacturing. May be a third party located in a low cost country (guess where :eek:)? Thinking of it, it looks like VANs has already, with it's quick built kits, an embryonic organization for doing that.
Will they go all-the-way with the RV-12?:cool:
 
Another option: S-LSA

I think there is another possibility. You could become the manufacturer of an S-LSA based on an RV-12 kit. You would have to conform to all of the ATSM standards for a S-LSA manufacturer, but those are not impossible for a small group of dedicated airplane enthusiasts. I haven't read the ATSM standard myself and I don't have a copy of Van's RV-12 license agreement, but I think this option is possible. Van's wouldn't like it, but I suppose they also don't like people buying RV-4 tail kits and then turning them into Rockets either. But they don't prohibit it.

Bill Swatling
 
Partial Ownership

I used to own an experimental Yak-52. I got my transition training before the plane arrived, and it was done in the manner you suggest. The "corporation" that owned the trainer had me buy a non-voting stock share that made me a part owner. The insurance was set up to require a named CFI to be onboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top