I suspect that the CFI must be current per club rules in order to act as a CFI for the club's purposes. If so, both you and your CFI would be violating the club rules if you flew "together" while you were out of club currency.
Not necessarily. There are some rental FBOs that treat people with different certificates and ratings differently. EdFred's may be perfectly happy with him playing with himself in an airplane more than 180 days apart.
Not necessarily. There are some rental FBOs that treat people with different certificates and ratings differently. EdFred's may be perfectly happy with him playing with himself in an airplane more than 180 days apart.
The "downward checkout in class and make" of which there are a number of variations, is not that uncommon.
"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."
S'matter? Someone step on your ego?
I don't know about absurd. It depends on what's included in the re-checkout. If it's going up and doing one turn in the pattern and doing a quick review of quirks particular to that plane, I think that's prudent, not absurd. If, OTOH, you're required to do a full 2-hour checkout or something like that, I might agree!
Is it a pain? Sure, it is. But, that may be how they keep insurance costs down. It may be how they get extra CFI revenue but I doubt it.
I concur with Tim -- you're crazy (you asked for it). The 152 is lighter on the controls, less sensitive to cg differences, and less trim-dependent -- all in all, IMO, easier to fly.
This is a good description for those who become incredibly dependent on an autopilot in IMC. Then, along comes the time the AP fails... at a minimum.
It is not for me but I am not complaining about my carriers requirements nor the premium.
Heck, no pilot certificate, while you're at it!You don't have to put up with all the insurance company rules or the FBO rules for that matter. Just stick your long arm in your deep pocket dig out the cash, then go buy your own plane and fly it. As long as you are not ramp checked or get in an accident the FAA will not know you don't have a complex or high performance check or BFR.
No-Insurance and no-hassles.
Not sure I like this (admittedly sarcastic) advice! Someone might actually think that it is an acceptable situation
The endorsement part is not acceptable, but the avoidance of insurance minimums might be for some people.Heck, no pilot certificate, while you're at it!
Depends on the depth of your pockets. An elderly pilot crunched his Bonanza on a hard landing (and I mean CRUNCHED -- broke off the nosewheel completely, bent spar and fuselage, engine/prop are toast, etc) at SSI last week, and it's an obvious total loss. Pilot has liability only -- no hull. One wonders if the insurers were jacking up his rates due to age (they do that a lot for over-65's, and this guy was in his 70's) and he chose to accept the risk himself. Now he's out maybe a quarter million. Sure, he'll get a bit back selling the instruments and radios and the like, but the airframe, engine, and prop are all scrap.
Exactly why I said "some people."Depends on the depth of your pockets. An elderly pilot crunched his Bonanza on a hard landing (and I mean CRUNCHED -- broke off the nosewheel completely, bent spar and fuselage, engine/prop are toast, etc) at SSI last week, and it's an obvious total loss. Pilot has liability only -- no hull. One wonders if the insurers were jacking up his rates due to age (they do that a lot for over-65's, and this guy was in his 70's) and he chose to accept the risk himself. Now he's out maybe a quarter million. Sure, he'll get a bit back selling the instruments and radios and the like, but the airframe, engine, and prop are all scrap.
That's his decision, and is not having no insurance. Were he to hit MY plane, not have liability, and not have deep enough pockets to make me right? that's unacceptable!
