What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Can I give instruction???

Desert Rat

Well Known Member
My friend is in the process of buying a new to him RV6A. He used to own an RV6 but has never flown a 6A. Due to a change in underwriter or something, the insurance company is requiring 5 hours of dual before it will cover him.

I've never flown an RV, but due to several thousand hours in the big book, including a ton of instruction given, he's telling me that he can get me covered with a simple checkout from the current owner (also a CFII), with the goal of me giving him the 5 hours of dual on the way home from picking it up.

I'm lukewarm to the whole idea, but before I decide one way or the other, I need to understand my privileges and limitations in this scenario.

I've got a call in to EAA to clarify this, but in the mean time I though I'd throw it out here;

Once the insurance company blesses me, can I give this guy dual instruction in his airplane without any other exemption? To I need any sort of minimum time in type?

Not saying it's a good idea, just want to know what the legalities are.
 
Wouldn?t do this to a friend or anyone else - period! The purpose of the insurance company requiring a ?minimum? of five hours dual transition instruction is safety. If you?ve never flown an RV aircraft how can you think that you could effectively teach someone to safely fly one?

Pardon my frankness but I can?t even understand how you could ask the question much less consider the idea.
 
Because he has close to 100 hours in a RV6, but no time in an RV6A. It's a strange scenario. Once again, I'm not saying it's a good idea, just need to understand if there's some kind of loophole here.

In the certified world, I know what the rules are. Here I'm not so sure. Seems odd that an insurance company would allow me to do a 1 hour checkout and then give somebody transition training, but that seems to be the case. That's why I'm asking the question.
 
You may legally give him dual instruction in his airplane.
 
Last edited:
No CFI?

With just an MEI & CFII and no CFI, you don?t have privileges to instruct in an ASEL. Or am I missing something?🤔

Tim
 
I have a CFI, CFII etc.

Don?t want to get into a big argument, but just so we?re clear: for certificated SEL airplanes that don?t require a type rating, there?s no requirement that you have ANY time in a specific model before giving dual in it. Heck even for multi or helicopter, you?re only required to have 5 hours make and model.

That?s the law, but in a practical sense, it?s driven by insurance. I?m unsure if the waiver requirements for experimental and it seemed odd that insurance was willing to bless me with such a superficial check, so I thought I?d ask

Thanks for all the replies
 
I have a CFI, CFII etc.

Don?t want to get into a big argument, but just so we?re clear: for certificated SEL airplanes that don?t require a type rating, there?s no requirement that you have ANY time in a specific model before giving dual in it. Heck even for multi or helicopter, you?re only required to have 5 hours make and model.

Terry,

Yes, I?ve always found that odd. Similar to an A&P having such a wide range, as well.

Hey, add CFI to your signature. :) I?ve seen some Military Comp pilots with a CFII and MEI, or just a CFII and no CFI. That?s strange too.

To your original question... For me it would be very dependent on the pilot you?d be giving dual. I?ve seen some pilots with a small pilot resume, but are great pilots. Solid skills, solid ADM, etc. And others with a lot of stuff on their resume but their skills/thought process... not so good.
 
skills

If you have solid teaching skills and a good feel for aircraft control, I don't see a problem. Keep the curriculum simple until you both add experience in the type. They are very simple planes... much less twitchy than the Luscombes and other tail draggers of past times. It will be a learning experience for both pilots. Knowing how far to extend the envelope and when and where to call it a day.... is something that a log book does not indicate.
I am sure air chair experts will demand to know how you can even think about such a thing. I suspect they have limited real world aviation background but don't hesitate to type away on the forum.
Anyway, good thing you are doing homework, and checking around. That indicates a fair measure of caution already. Have fun too.
 
Okay, here are the rules:
If you have a cfi-SEL and comm (or atp) SEL, then the faa and fars don?t care. They say you?re good to go.
If the insurance company says they?ll cover you, then get it in writing or on tape.
You may charge the new owner for your services, once he owns the airplane. BUT, the current owner may not charge you for checking you out. The distinction is whether the cfi provides the airplane (not allowed for EAB) or the pilot being checked out provides the airplane (allowed, he doesn?t rent it to himself). *
Now, whether or not you feel comfortable and competent giving dual, after an hour of instruction from another cfi, is a question only you can answer. IMHO a nose wheel RV is not a particular difficult plane to fly (does it have dual brakes?).
* If the current owner has a waiver to allow dual for hire in his plane, you may be able to pay him, if you have a legitimate need.
 
My friend is in the process of buying a new to him RV6A. He used to own an RV6 but has never flown a 6A. Due to a change in underwriter or something, the insurance company is requiring 5 hours of dual before it will cover him.

I would get your buddy to push this issue a bit harder with the underwriter. Seems pretty rediculous to require 5 hours of dual when he already has 100 hours in that make / model. I can't believe there is a real risk to them because his time is in a taildragger. I might understand it if he was going from a 6A to 6. Seems pretty common knowledge that nose wheel aircraft are generally less accident prone in the landing phase. All other aspects of flight are identical.

Larry
 
Last edited:
While I was typing away Bob beat me to it.
I think the big point to take away here is who owns the airplane during your checkout and work accordingly from there.

Mel, I am curious if you could expand on your input.
Assuming both the OP and the buyer (let's say for this question that the buyer is now the legal registered owner of the EAB aircraft) are otherwise fully current and qualified in all respects in the eyes of the FAA and not withstanding any insurance requirements, is it your opinion that a CFI could never charge the owner of an EAB aircraft for instruction or is it something about the OP's particular sales/checkout scenario?
 
While I was typing away Bob beat me to it.
I think the big point to take away here is who owns the airplane during your checkout and work accordingly from there.
Mel, I am curious if you could expand on your input.
Assuming both the OP and the buyer (let's say for this question that the buyer is now the legal registered owner of the EAB aircraft) are otherwise fully current and qualified in all respects in the eyes of the FAA and not withstanding any insurance requirements, is it your opinion that a CFI could never charge the owner of an EAB aircraft for instruction or is it something about the OP's particular sales/checkout scenario?

Actually I misspoke in my original post. The CFI can charge for his instruction. There can be no charges for use of the aircraft itself.
 
Actually I misspoke in my original post. The CFI can charge for his instruction. There can be no charges for use of the aircraft itself.

It?s actually a bit stricter. If a cfi is being paid to give instruction in an airplane which he provides, the faa presumes that the airplane is being used for compensation. From time to time someone suggests an agreement along the lines of ?$150/hr for instruction, the airplane is free?. That doesn?t cut it with the faa.
 
It?s actually a bit stricter. If a cfi is being paid to give instruction in an airplane which he provides, the faa presumes that the airplane is being used for compensation. From time to time someone suggests an agreement along the lines of ?$150/hr for instruction, the airplane is free?. That doesn?t cut it with the faa.

Bob is correct. My statement was based on the assumption that the "student", not the instructor, owned the aircraft.
 
Because he has close to 100 hours in a RV6, but no time in an RV6A. It's a strange scenario. Once again, I'm not saying it's a good idea, just need to understand if there's some kind of loophole here.

In the certified world, I know what the rules are. Here I'm not so sure. Seems odd that an insurance company would allow me to do a 1 hour checkout and then give somebody transition training, but that seems to be the case. That's why I'm asking the question.

I apologized for my original comment. You didn?t mention he had ?close to 100 hours? in an RV6 in your original post. I ? *** u me?d a total lack of RV experience not 6A experience.

I?m a little sensitive to this subject because of my own initial transition with a very low RV time CFI. Didn?t do my own due diligence and it came back to bite me. You might say I?m self taught when it come to flying RVs. My transition instructor was learning at the same time I was and my total experience level was much higher than his. Insurance requirements met but safety definitely compromised. However I will say that now having flown my RV7A for almost five years these are very forgiving airplanes. Eventually we all have to gain experience in the plane?s we fly to be truly safe.
 
No apology needed. I said in the original question that he used to own a rv6, so I thought that it was evident that he wasn't a rookie, but I probably wasn't clear enough.

I understand where you're coming from. If you fly long enough, sooner or later you're going to be more experienced than the check airman and it's a little weird. Sort of like the first time you realize your doctor is younger than you.

For what it's worth, I've passed on the opportunity. Turns out the guy selling the plane is an 80 year old CFI who's close to hanging it up and my friend wanted to fly with me just because I think it's a comfort thing. I told him if it was me, I'd want to fly with the guy who owns the airplane and has hundreds of hours in it.
 
You may legally give him dual instruction in his airplane.

Plus + 1. You answered your own question. It is legal. Insurance is another question. Yours and his judgement call.

I have been asked to fly in owner SEL planes for Flight reviews. or Inst Comp Checks.. in SEL planes I have never flown.... It really depends on many factors. Some I recall Tri-pacers, Bonanza, Grumman Tiger.

Only have significant time in RV-4 and RV-7 but would consider acting as CFI in all RV model (RV-4 through -14) with some study. It also depends on the students experience.

Before I fly with someone in their plane, I have a sit down and talk to the owner and go over all the numbers and the airplane. In other words they teach me.

As stated Multi you have to have 5 hours PIC in make and model to act as CFI ME... I have time in 5 or 6 twin models: Piper, Cessna, Ted Smith. However due to complexity and lack of my currency in those planes, I would not consider it, unless I did a lot of ground study and a check flight by qualified instructor first...
 
Last edited:
You would think someone is flying a Mig 21 for the first time!
The Vans especially the 'trainer' version A is one of the most basic benign machines ever designed! I'd never flown a Vans of any description b4 I bought my 8, flew a Rocket, a 200 HP 7 with the owners onboard, pussycats all of them! The Boogyman doesn't exist in a Vans, (other than Insurance Co's) just the old wives tales! :D
 
Last edited:
You would think someone is flying a Mig 21 for the first time!
The Vans especially the 'trainer' version A is one of the most basic benign machines ever designed! I'd never flown a Vans of any description b4 I bought my 8, flew a Rocket, a 200 HP 7 with the owners onboard, pussycats all of them! The Boogyman doesn't exist in a Vans, (other than Insurance Co's) just the old wives tales! :D
I agree with you 100%, but... Not all pilots have your experiences and skill. RVs are very low drag and fast. The sink rate can get breathtaking at slow back side airspeed while feeling controllable (which is why Van's RV's are amazing). However if all they flew was a land O matic C172 you can see a pilot might get in trouble.... Landing an RV is piece-O-cake if on speed and attitude and sink, but see above low drag... plus nose gear fragility.
 
I agree with you 100%, but... Not all pilots have your experiences and skill. RVs are very low drag and fast. The sink rate can get breathtaking at slow back side airspeed while feeling controllable (which is why Van's RV's are amazing). However if all they flew was a land O matic C172 you can see a pilot might get in trouble.... Landing an RV is piece-O-cake if on speed and attitude and sink, but see above low drag... plus nose gear fragility.

My 'skill' was a 100 hrs T/W on a 7ECA. I've personally watched a C172 get destroyed on landing, pilots are meant to be able to adapt as no two landings are ever the same.
Still each to their own, confidence also plays a good deal in A/C handling.
I still maintain that the Boogeyman is alive and well out there :D
 
I agree with you 100%, but... Not all pilots have your experiences and skill. RVs are very low drag and fast. The sink rate can get breathtaking at slow back side airspeed while feeling controllable (which is why Van's RV's are amazing). However if all they flew was a land O matic C172 you can see a pilot might get in trouble.... Landing an RV is piece-O-cake if on speed and attitude and sink, but see above low drag... plus nose gear fragility.

Just my opinion, I think the RV(A) is easier to land than a 172, at least at flare and touchdown. It's nice when the plane does what you tell it, rather than think about it for a bit and then react.
 
Back
Top