What qualifications must a CFI have to train me to fly "my" Cessna T182T

midlifeflyer said:
Funniest version of the “similar aircraft” I’ve encountered was when a friend wanted to have me as an approved pilot in his Ovation. With zero time in type, I placed an asterisk on the “0” and disclosed my other Mooney time and my A36 time (same engine) on the application.

I was hoping to reduce the checkout requirement to something manageable.

To my shock, the underwriter approved me outright. I thought they were nuts.
Click to expand...
When I got my Ovation, I had commercial, instrument, about 975 TT, 87 retract, and 1.0 in a similar type (M20J). No time required, just an instructor signoff. I asked them to do a full BFR and IPC, but it wasn't required. I was also surprised...

hypoxia said:
CFI rating without high performance experience. Is that a thing? Wow.
Click to expand...
RussR said:
Of course. Nowhere in any of the requirements for any of the ratings leading up to CFI (or even ATP for that matter) is there a requirement for experience in >200 hp airplanes. The pilot mills probably churn out such CFIs every day.
Click to expand...
There's this feeling when you're a new pilot that a CFI must know everything about aviation, and have lots of experience, because INSTRUCTOR, right?

This reminds me of a (former?) PoAer that the old-timers here will know, Chip. Chip had gotten his CFI after flying for quite a while, and he'd owned a J-3, Super Cub, Citabria, and an Extra over the years, so plenty of tailwheel time. Thus, at his home drome he became known as the tailwheel CFI.

A local pilot bought a C180 and asked Chip to come with him to purchase it and start checking him out in it on the flight home. About 45 minutes into the flight home, the new C180 owner turns to Chip and says "So, how much Skywagon time do you have?" Chip looks at his watch and says, "Oh, about 0.8 now." :rofl:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
When I got my Ovation, I had commercial, instrument, about 975 TT, 87 retract, and 1.0 in a similar type (M20J). No time required, just an instructor signoff. I asked them to do a full BFR and IPC, but it wasn't required. I was also surprised...
Click to expand...
In mine, not even a checkout that first time around. I had a lot more Mooney hours than that, which I suppose was part of the reason. But between the time I applied and was approved, I got about a hour or so in the Ovation and, while I was fine, I saw it as a very different animal than the C and J models I was very familiar with, or even the K. Bigger, heavier, faster, and a very different touchdown picture. If I were an underwriter, I wouldn’t have approved someone with my profile without at least a checkout.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In the one I'm describing, I didn't have zero time. I was

"a properly certificated and rated flight instructor having the minimum flight experience required by the Open Pilot Clause "​
​
It sounds ridiculous, but both examples illustrate how different standards can be applied to an "open pilot" and one who is specifically named in the policy
Click to expand...
what is the purpose of named pilot in the policy if they are not the insured or an additional insured?
 
StraightnLevel said:
????
What does the wingspar AD have to do with CS prop and retractable gear?
Click to expand...
It is/was getting harder and harder to find “inexpensive “ to rent retractable aircraft. Insurance costs for renting were climbing and climbing. Plus the gear mech gets cycled a lot in training which drives even more mx costs.
 
Clip4 said:
what is the purpose of named pilot in the policy if they are not the insured or an additional insured?
Click to expand...
This may be more than you want or not answer it at all ;)

One is in the piece you quoted. Different standards for protecting the policyholder.

Basics: The open pilot clause is a promise by the policyholder to the insurer to only allow pilots who meet that level of experience fly the airplane (in most, act as PIC). Policy holder breaches the warranty and an accident results there's no coverage. Not for any policyholder liability and not for any hull damage.

A pilot who has been approved/named has been vetted by the insurer and may be subject to less restrictive minimums. With my Ovation example, in addition to total and retract time, the open pilot clause required 25 hours make/model experience. As an approved pilot named in the policy, they required zero of me to protect the policyholder.

Contractually speaking, both the qualified open and named pilot, protects the policyholder, not the pilot. In most, it does provide some minimal protection to the open/named pilot against third party claims. But the open/named pilot is legally liable to the insurer for hull damage they cause (that's subrogation).

Being listed as an insured protects the pilot from most subrogation claims. It can get a bit fuzzy on that score and I'm not keeping up with national trends on that one. On the one hand, there is case law that an insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured. Because it's a bit fuzzy, many (especially CFIs) will insist on a specific waiver of subrogation to end all doubt.

The other piece is a matter of process more than contract. It may be a result of that bit of fuzziness over their status, but, as an underwriter said to me a few years ago, when they specifically approve a pilot, they don't like to subrogate against them. That gives named pilot a leg up over the open pilot even if not listed as an insured.
 
StraightnLevel said:
????
What does the wingspar AD have to do with CS prop and retractable gear?
Click to expand...
The FAA stopped requiring complex aircraft for commercial checkrides on 4/24/18, the ERAU Piper Arrow crash was on 4/4/18, tell me they're not related :rolleyes:
 
dmspilot said:
Not typically, but wings falling off an airplane during a commercial checkride isn't typical.
Click to expand...
One would hope not, but the checkride doesn't put any massively unusual load on the plane, does it? The pilot may be over-stressed by the checkride, but not the wings.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
One would hope not, but thw checkride doesn't put any massively unusual load on the plane, does it? The pilot may be over-stressed by the checkride, but not the wings.
Click to expand...
Those wings were toast long before the checkride. The "how" they got there is what's subject to a lot of discussion. Some of the rumors include ERAU pilots doing stupid stuff that over-stressed the wings, shoddy maintenance and least likely (IMO) a design defect in the PA-28 wing.
 
midlifeflyer said:
To summarize…

The FAA says CFI ASE with a high performance endorsement.

Your insurer may limit that. That limitation will typically be in the same paragraph that says you require 10 hours. (As with most insurance questions, read the contract.) Also, insurance can change the requirement for specific CFIs based on such things as related experience.
Click to expand...
The FAA says the CFI must have ASEL on both their pilot certificate and CFI certificate. 61.193(a) which only requires "A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings ..." . The high performance endorsement is required to act as PIC but is not a rating. If the student already has a high performance endorsement and can act as PIC, the CFI can provide instruction having only flown in a C172. Not smart, but legal. Like you indicated, the insurance companies set the real rules.
 
John Collins said:
The FAA says the CFI must have ASEL on both their pilot certificate and CFI certificate. 61.193(a) which only requires "A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings ..." . The high performance endorsement is required to act as PIC but is not a rating. If the student already has a high performance endorsement and can act as PIC, the CFI can provide instruction having only flown in a C172. Not smart, but legal. Like you indicated, the insurance companies set the real rules.
Click to expand...
ASE, not ASEL. On CFI cert.

I did not need an additional add-on to my CFI/CFII/MEI to be able to teach single or multi engine seaplane after I got those ratings.
 
M20K said:
Check with your insurance company to see if they have requirements. But do you want to get transition training from someone that can legally teach in the plane, but does not know much about it???

Spend the time and find someone that has a lot of time in a 182. And one that knows about the Turbo will even be better. They'll be able to give you more tips about flying at higher altitudes and power management.
Click to expand...
I agree, flying probably won't be hard but somone who can teach you accurately about managing the turbo engine and can help you understand new failure modes you might see and how to handle them (stuck open wastegate so making less power? Stuck closed wastegate so need to be very careful with power levels?) how to handle descents. is takeoff full throttle or is it to a specific MP limit? What TIT do you need to avoid (limitation) and what lower number might you want to "prefer" for normal operations.

All that plus don't drop the nose on landing and figure out the G1000.
 
MIFlyer said:
I agree, flying probably won't be hard but somone who can teach you accurately about managing the turbo engine and can help you understand new failure modes you might see and how to handle them (stuck open wastegate so making less power? Stuck closed wastegate so need to be very careful with power levels?) how to handle descents. is takeoff full throttle or is it to a specific MP limit? What TIT do you need to avoid (limitation) and what lower number might you want to "prefer" for normal operations.

All that plus don't drop the nose on landing and figure out the G1000.
Click to expand...
Good news is that turbo system is very easy on T182T. Fully automatic absolute pressure controller that works. So you can set and forget MP.

That said you still have to know failure modes including most importantly in a turbo the assumption that sudden failure to maintain MP is a possible indication of a high potential for engine compartment fire since something meant to produce or contain the pressurized air is now open.

And of course the noted stuck wastegate symptoms. Mouse milk is your friend.
 
Steamflyer said:
That said you still have to know failure modes including most importantly in a turbo the assumption that sudden failure to maintain MP is a possible indication of a high potential for engine compartment fire since something meant to produce or contain the pressurized air is now open
Click to expand...
That happened to one of my favorite airplanes. Very sad.
 
Subsonicflight said:
After much shopping, studying, and research, I'm on contract to buy an '06 Cessna T182T. I'm actively reading the pilot/owners manual, but not certain whether my Insurance company may want me to have type-specific training.

Q: Can any CFI with experience in say a standard normally aspirated, steam gauge 182 teach me to fly a G-1000 equipped Turbo 182 to get the required 10 hrs for Insurance?

If I must find a CFI with that specific (T182T) type experience, any CFI recommendations/schools are much appreciated. I'm in Central (Space Coast) FL, the plane is awaiting my prebuy scheduled 10 days from now, in Indiana.
Click to expand...
One other thought - the 2006 model has the KAP140 autopilot. This is a rate based autopilot not attitude based like the Garmin GFC700 in later models.

It works very well, but requires making sure that the cable tensions are set correctly, presumably by checking at each annual. Also, if the TC starts to slow, so will the AP, so if it seems to start to wander, include the potential of the TC being ready for overhaul in the troubleshooting. Just time a turn left and right and see if it's still two minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top