Retract time? HUH? Insurance BS...

[Danos]

I'm doing my comlex training right now. They said 10 hours dual was the minimum, but the first thing the instructor asked me was how much Mooney time I had. I'm assuming if I had any they would cut back on the dual. Also, I need the 10 hours of instruction for Commercial so it worked out for me anyway. The last school I was at didn't allow you to solo the R.G.

 

[Paul Allen]

Corpse-hauling?

Now that's funny!

 

[EdFred]

Then you must already have more than 10 hours of complex time (14 CFR 61.129(a)(3)(ii)). In any event, 14 CFR 61.195(i) prohibits CFI's from self-endorsing.

I was referring to Ghery's must fly with a CFI 180 w/in 180 days insurance requirement. I always fly with a CFI - me. And I'm not talking about FAA endorsements, and the cfi "signoff" for his club isn't a 61.195 issue.

My question to Ghery is, what if I am a CFI in the club? Ok, I'll go fly with a CFI - ME!

 

[poadeleted20]

My question to Ghery is, what if I am a CFI in the club? Ok, I'll go fly with a CFI - ME!

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.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

 

[EdFred]

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.

I was actually surprised at one of the FBOs in Ann Arbor last year. I got checked out in the Arrow, and they said I was good to fly everything there except the 182 and the twin (I didn't have a HP, nor AMEL at the time). Every other place I ever rented from you needed a checkout in each plane.

 

[nosehair]

I guess all that just doesn't count in the pea-brain minds of insurance companies. Can anyone make any sense of this for me? Are there any CFI's out there who will stand up for students? B)

</rant>

All responses appreciated.

"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."

S'matter? Someone step on your ego?

 

[Ghery]

I was referring to Ghery's must fly with a CFI 180 w/in 180 days insurance requirement. I always fly with a CFI - me. And I'm not talking about FAA endorsements, and the cfi "signoff" for his club isn't a 61.195 issue.

My question to Ghery is, what if I am a CFI in the club? Ok, I'll go fly with a CFI - ME!

Excellent question, and one that I do not have an answer for. I haven't seen that addressed in any of the notices to members. And not being a CFI it didn't really occur to me to ask. As I noted, I avoid the whole thing by making sure that I stay current in the eyes of the insurance company.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was actually surprised at one of the FBOs in Ann Arbor last year. I got checked out in the Arrow, and they said I was good to fly everything there except the 182 and the twin (I didn't have a HP, nor AMEL at the time). Every other place I ever rented from you needed a checkout in each plane.

The "downward checkout in class and make" of which there are a number of variations, is not that uncommon.

 

[HarvardTiger]

"Me thinks thou doth protest too much."

S'matter? Someone step on your ego?

Nope.

I have no ego flying.

But the "requirements" for renting airplanes has become absurd. And I am not too shy to point out the absurdity.

For example, I have 50+ hours in C-152's. I have more than 10 hours in a particular, specific 152 at this particular FBO. I have been checked out in all the Pipers and the 172 and, since I haven't flown the 152 in a few years, they want me to get checked out in it again!

Regardless, that's absurd.

 

[gprellwitz]

Nope.

I have no ego flying.

But the "requirements" for renting airplanes has become absurd. And I am not too shy to point out the absurdity.

For example, I have 50+ hours in C-152's. I have more than 10 hours in a particular, specific 152 at this particular FBO. I have been checked out in all the Pipers and the 172 and, since I haven't flown the 152 in a few years, they want me to get checked out in it again!

Regardless, that's absurd.

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!

 

[jesse]

Nope.

I have no ego flying.

But the "requirements" for renting airplanes has become absurd. And I am not too shy to point out the absurdity.

For example, I have 50+ hours in C-152's. I have more than 10 hours in a particular, specific 152 at this particular FBO. I have been checked out in all the Pipers and the 172 and, since I haven't flown the 152 in a few years, they want me to get checked out in it again!

Regardless, that's absurd.

So you haven't flown a C-152 in a couple of years and you are upset that they want a checkout to fly it? I think you are being unreasonable--not the fbo.

I've flown at a FBO that required you fly every 60 days. Guess what? No one bent their airplanes. Ever. They've been around longer than I've been alive.

Get to know the FBO. If you demonstrate that you are a competent pilot and don't whine about every detail you'll find that they might cut you a break. There are some really incompetent pilots out there. You need to demonstrate that you aren't one of them.

 

[TMetzinger]

Again, insurance drives a lot of this. I find that most FBOs will let you fly a "lesser" aircraft (i.e. a 172) if you're current in a "greater" aircraft that is similar (i.e. a 182). However, if you've been flying dissimilar aircraft for a while, risk goes up.

I'm current in all of my FBO's airplanes because I fly the "greatest" airplane every 60 days to stay current. I'm comfortable in the Trinidad and the Cessnas as I've got lots and lots of time in them and I fly one of them fairly frequently. But I'm also considered current for the Archer, which I haven't flown in 2 years and have less than 20 hours total in.

Now, if that was the only plane available, would I fly it? Sure I would. But my own risk management worksheet would get a higher score because I'm low time in the airplane, and low recency of experience in it. End result is that I might cancel a flight in the Archer that I'd take in a Cessna or the Trinnie. And if I took the flight in the Archer, I'd be primed to take my time and be extra careful. I have a very strong memory of sitting in it once wondering why we couldn't get it started (and this was with a CFI), and finally realizing we'd never turned the mags on (me because I forgot, and the CFI because she never suspected I'd be that stupid).

So, Jesse, if you've flown a cessna with them recently, I'd be surprised that they would want you to get a checkout with them in the 152 (unless you're doing aerobatics in it). But if you've been flying other types and haven't flown a similar airplane recently, I can see their point.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you were only flying the 152, and hadn't flown the 172 in some time, I could see a need for a 172 check. But if you've been flying their 172's regularly and recently, and were checked out in their 152 in the past, I see no reason for another 152 checkout before you fly their 152 again. I appreciate the need for recent experience as a safety precaution, but I don't see the 172 recent experience as nontransferrable to the 152 for a pilot qualified in both -- they just aren't that dissimilar.

 

[jesse]

If you were only flying the 152, and hadn't flown the 172 in some time, I could see a need for a 172 check. But if you've been flying their 172's regularly and recently, and were checked out in their 152 in the past, I see no reason for another 152 checkout before you fly their 152 again. I appreciate the need for recent experience as a safety precaution, but I don't see the 172 recent experience as nontransferrable to the 152 for a pilot qualified in both -- they just aren't that dissimilar.

Call me crazy but I think a 172 is way easier then a 152.

 

[TMetzinger]

OK, you're crazy.

 

[jesse]

OK, you're crazy.

Which one will spin no problem? Which one will require way more skill in gusty crosswinds?

 

[TMetzinger]

Hey, I wasn't arguing... you just said to call you crazy. But, what the heck... Which one lets you carry three others, thereby doubling your potential for liability to your pax? Which one weighs more, thereby increasing the energy to dissipate when you crash into a schoolyard?

 

[KennyFlys]

Regardless, that's absurd.

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.

Either way, it's the rule. Such rules are almost always meant to insure you're safe and proficient. It never hurts to be looked over for skills. It's a never-ending event in military flying.

The more accident reports I read, the greater the meaning of the line in my signature. A great many pilots die while still falling in the left side. But, it's the right side of the equation that will keep you and your passengers alive.

 

[jesse]

Hey, I wasn't arguing... you just said to call you crazy. But, what the heck... Which one lets you carry three others, thereby doubling your potential for liability to your pax? Which one weighs more, thereby increasing the energy to dissipate when you crash into a schoolyard?

None of those equate to more difficult to fly. Sure it might have a little more weight but not really enough to matter that much.

In normal everday flying conditions a 152 requires more skill than a 172.

 

[poadeleted20]

Call me crazy but I think a 172 is way easier then a 152.

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.

 

[tonycondon]

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.

chips extra 300 was lighter on the controls and less trim dependent than the 172s i fly and i certainly wouldnt say that it was easier to fly

 

[HarvardTiger]

I've been a pilot for 25 years. Been flying at this FBO off and on for ten years.

Just got a complex checkout where the instructor said I need absolutely no more airwork (told the FBO this) and that I handle the airplane very well. He argued for me that I should be able to count previous glider retract time.

I, on the other hand, seek out new ratings and experiences where my skills are tested. Notice that I said, skills. Very different from judgement. I have nothing agains being reviewed, tested, whatever. As I said, I seek it out.

But I do have a problem with the ticky-tack crap (use of the word very intentional) that goes on with certain FBO's. Following all the minutia of rules does nothing to make a better pilot, in my humble opinion. It just all adds up to make an overly-inspected pilot constantly trying to satisfy the whims and personal preferences of a never-ending stream of FBO's, instructors and insurance dogma. That, in and of itself, makes a timid and reactionary unsafe pilot. And a pilot who begins to think of skill (and confused of the actual definition of "skill" after all the variations and permutations) as more important that judgement.

I would also argue that "lack of skill" is way too often the easy deduction after an accident or incident rather than looking at a lack of judgement. "Skill," or lack thereof, is far easier for the skill-focused to quantify and write in reports.

I want you, my fellow pilots, to understand that I did not start this thread to bash reasoned and effective requirements. I would be the first to argue that the FAA regs don't begin to cover practical, real-world skill development--especially in new airplanes with increased workloads. But I hope you will agree that a lot of it really makes no sense and can even lead to a false sense of security. Or, worse, it creates a pilot who constantly questions himself over a plethoria of minute skill tasks.

As for the 172 vs. 152 debate, let me add this: If a pilot actually needs constant review in each plane to be able to handle them safely, I think it's obvious you do not have a pilot. Rather, you have a very narrow-minded trained monkey at the controls. I expect to be taught How To Fly, generally, and not how to fly a particular airplane--especially among such like performance and flying characteristics.

 

[KennyFlys]

As for the 172 vs. 152 debate, let me add this: If a pilot actually needs constant review in each plane to be able to handle them safely, I think it's obvious you do not have a pilot. Rather, you have a very narrow-minded trained monkey at the controls. I expect to be taught How To Fly, generally, and not how to fly a particular airplane--especially among such like performance and flying characteristics.

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.

But, if they happen to be flying a Cirrus...

 

[Clark]

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. It is not for me but I am not complaining about my carriers requirements nor the premium.

 

[gprellwitz]

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. 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! Not sure I like this (admittedly sarcastic) advice! Someone might actually think that it is an acceptable situation

 

[midlifeflyer]

Heck, no pilot certificate, while you're at it! 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.

 

[poadeleted20]

The endorsement part is not acceptable, but the avoidance of insurance minimums might be for 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.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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."

 

[gprellwitz]

Depends on the depth of your pockets. [...] Pilot has liability only -- no hull.

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!