Using An Experimental Aircraft For Training & Check Ride?

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name

Display name:
Geico
The question came up at the local airport and no one here knew for sure, so I want to ask the knowledgable POA crew. I have a student pilot buddy that wants to buy an RV-"X" A. This would be a "legal" side x side, 2 place aircraft, dual controls, nose gear.

Can you use an experimental aircraft for flight training & check ride?

Thanks in advance for your insite.
 
Last edited:
Legally, yes -- you can take instruction and the PP practical test in your own Experimental with no problem. He'll just have to make sure it meets all the requirements to take a PP checkride (comm radio, electronic nav system (VOR or GPS), dual controls, sufficient flight instruments for the basic instrument portion, etc).

Practically, there are potential issues. Not all CFI's are comfortable getting in an amateur-built airplane unless they know who built it or have other assurances that it is safe to fly. In addition, RV's are slick planes, and you'll want a CFI with either RV or Grumman AA-1 Yankee experience (the RV kit mfr recommends AA-1's for fam training prior to getting in a single-seat RV). Finally, he may have to shop for a DPE willing to do the test in an amateur-built plane.
 
As Ron said, you can do it legally. Ron also correctly pointed out some problems. I'll point out more:

Your student pilot buddy may not be able to get insured on an RV-X because it's amateur built and because, as a student pilot, he's got low hours, and minimal experience. When I was looking at some Lancairs, I was talking to a guy who had about the same experience as me at the time (~120 hours, no IR), and he said that the requirements to get insurance in the plane were 100 hours of dual with an instructor who had 100 hours himself going into the training. Granted, I think Lancairs have a worse reputation than RVs, but the point is similar. My instructor, with 5000+ hours in everything GA from 172s to Comanches to Navajos to King Airs to... you get the idea, can only get liability on his Acrosport.

My suggestion to your friend (as someone who wanted to do something not so different as a student pilot) is that your friend finish up his PP in a standard trainer, and perhaps at that point think about getting the RV, and go through IR training in that, among other things. My goal since I started flying was to get a twin. Once I started looking into the practicalities of it (namely insurance), I decided I was better off getting some more training in more standard aircraft first. Now, at 190 hours TT and an IR, is it beginning to become a little more feasible... but I still need more training.

That said, part of my decision was based on the fact that I have such nice and inexpensive aircraft available to me for use. If I didn't, I would probably have pushed to get my twin sooner. I would still suggest your friend go through private and getting his check ride in a standard trainer, even if he purchases the RV before he gets his PPL. Really, the amount of time he's likely to take in searching for and buying the plane (figuring good pre-buy inspections and doing his due diligence on research to make sure the plane he's buying is in good condition) is probably going to take him past his PPL anyway.
 
Legally - Yes. I did 90% of my IR training and IR checkride in our RV-7A.

Ideally - No. The RV series in particular, as previously mentioned, is a very slick/touchy airplane. Those short stubby wings provide for some interesting flight/stall characteristics much different than the standard 152/172 trainers. After logging over 250 hrs PIC in the RV-7A, I would NOT want to try to learn from scratch in that thing. While it is a very stable and manageable aircraft once you get the feel for it, I wouldn't want to be trying to learn how to 'feel' an aircraft for the first time in it.

With that said, if your friend has already been bitten by the RV bug, then there is no way to talk them out of doing whatever the heck they want to do. If a 'trainer' RV is on the horizon, make DARN sure that their CFI has some training in RV's before jumping in right-seat. I was out working on my own CFI training (flying RV from right-seat) and we were working on cross-coordinated stalls. While the 172 usually just wallows down into a stable stall, the RV flipped inverted quicker than we could sneeze. Granted, once it went inverted and the wings were flying again (after dropping 1000'), it became a stable platform that could easily be rolled out of the situation, but I would hate for that to happen to TWO people inexperienced in the a/c. My CFI is used to the characteristics of the 172, and he acted incorrectly on initial recovery and I ended up flying us out of the situation - just a matter of time in the a/c.

Is the RV a good a/c? YOU BET! I wouldn't trade my RV time for anything at this point. Is the RV a good initial training a/c? No. Is it possible? Yes - but there are more constraints on who should be providing training in them than most a/c on the market.

Good luck to your friend!!

(P.S. If your friend waits a few months, I hope to have my CFI done and am hoping to 'specialize' in RV training. ;))
 
I was out working on my own CFI training (flying RV from right-seat) and we were working on cross-coordinated stalls. While the 172 usually just wallows down into a stable stall, the RV flipped inverted quicker than we could sneeze. Granted, once it went inverted and the wings were flying again (after dropping 1000'), it became a stable platform that could easily be rolled out of the situation, but I would hate for that to happen to TWO people inexperienced in the a/c. My CFI is used to the characteristics of the 172, and he acted incorrectly on initial recovery and I ended up flying us out of the situation - just a matter of time in the a/c.

time for a new CFI...;)
 
(P.S. If your friend waits a few months, I hope to have my CFI done and am hoping to 'specialize' in RV training. ;))

Knowing what I know about Chris, I would highly suggest your friend consider this offer.
 
As everyone has said the answer is yes. However make sure the Phase 2 limitations have the proper statements. Some experimentals are Day VFR ONLY. Some are not.

Most of the new limitations will state; "After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with § 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. "

The Phase 2 limtations have to be written to allow IFR and there may be other limitations. Make sure and go over the limitations with the DAR or FAA inspector before you sign them. The limitations allow for owener input.
 
Note that a "Day VFR" limitation will only prohibit the 3 hours of night training -- you can do all the other training and the practical test in an airplane with that limitation, and find another plane for the 3 hours of night work.
 
Back
Top