VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:43 AM
kbalch's Avatar
kbalch kbalch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post
One way to go is get liability only. The hull for training is very high (many thousands a year).

I agree with the comment above, keep them in the middle of the envelope. You can't let them "learn" from their landing mistakes. I wouldn't do training in a fully loaded Oshkosh award winning RV. I missed out on buying a beautiful O-320 fixed pitch basic RV6, which would have been perfect for transition training. It was the classic RV as Van intended, simple, light, inexpensive.

The moral dilemma as a CFI, this is NOT a rating or even an enforcement. They are logging instruction. If they were really unsafe I'd refund their money. One way to avoid this is make it a prerequisite they are current. For TG. I would prefer they have TG experience. You can not fail them. It is just training and hours.

There was only one student I had to quit. He was checking out in the clubs plane as a new member. He scared me so bad I talked to the owner. He backed me up. His check also bounced... He also told me he was an ATP and he was a Private Pilot. Fraud... never been scared by a student until this one... It is different teaching in a land-O-matic C-152 or C-172 than an RV.
Yep, that all makes sense to me. Middle of the envelope is the perfect place to keep transitioning pilots.

I spent a little time years ago teaching in the T-6 and I could tell a few stories of students with the appropriate certificates, endorsements, and logged tailwheel time whose flying was just horrific. Some scary stuff out there. Don't even get me started on aerobatic and formation ham-handedness. Next to all of that, instructing in a nosewheel RV ought to be a cakewalk.

Hopefully...
__________________
Ken

RV-8 N118KB (#81125) - Sold
RV-14A N114KB (#140494)
Standard kit begun 5/18 - FWF & panel in progress
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-19-2019, 12:45 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 5,911
Default

1. Ken (and 2 others), you should find 2 emails from me. You'll see that I agree with GMC's comments (see #3).
2. I prefer to think that Pierre was referring to "going bare", not cheating an insurance company. If your personal circumstances (and financial obligations) allow you to do that, that's an option. The "student" should know and understand what's going on.
3. GMC is absolutely correct - training under a LODA is transition training for otherwise well-prepared pilots. In fact, my LODA specifically does not allow high performance endorsements, tail wheel endorsements, flight reviews, etc. It's expected that stuff that can be done in normally-certified airplanes, will be done in normally-certified airplanes.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:56 AM
TimO TimO is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 482
Default

Bob's packet was exactly what it took to get my LODA for the RV-14A.
You should have no problem getting the LODA.

I agree 100% with only accepting a current and reasonably experienced pilot. I have been lucky in that the few people I have done RV14 transition training for have been real decent and flew pretty well. I have zero interest in taking someone who's got low time, or hasn't flown more than a few hours in the past year(s) because they've been building their plane. If you're not current, get current in another plane.

For me, the insurance simply ended up not being worth the effort, despite my intentions.
I wanted to be able to offer the RV-14 builder the ability to get comfortable in the plane so that their first flight would be a good, and safe experience. Insurance companies SHOULD love that people are willing to give transition training, as it will lower their risk of payout. But what I found is that the add on wasn't "about double", but more like about $2000 add-on. My insurance as a single pilot would be very reasonable, but when you add the transition training coverage it jumps a lot.

In the end, you have to decide if you've got the spare time to do the juggling of schedules to make the customer happy, and the spare cash to risk not making your insurance payment back. When I did my original RV-10 transition training (from Mike and he is very very good), it was 5 hours required. Some people were required 10. Now days I'm finding the requirements are 1 or 2 hours. At that rate, the insurance is a loss for a while. On the flip side, if you are teaching a well experienced pilot, they probably will feel pretty good in 2 hours. The spectrum of what you can experience is huge. The worst landing I've ever seen in a plane of mine was by a guy who said he had 5,000+ hours, and flew Beech Barons as his current plane. It was horrible.

So these days I don't really offer Transition training outright, because it's just not worth the time and risk in most cases. But it's nice to have the LODA anyway, and I'd encourage you to get it, because you may meet just the right person, with just the right schedule, who has reasonable currency, and you can potentially make a difference for his (or her) safety by giving him some flying time in type. Having the LODA at least gives you the option to do it and be reimbursed, without it being illegal. I've spoken with a few LODA holders for the RV-10 though, and the consensus has generally been it can be a lot of money to spend for something that doesn't provide as much satisfaction as they had hoped, for various reasons. If it weren't for the insurance hit, it would be much more appealing.
__________________
Tim Olson - CFI
RV-10 N104CD - Flying 2/2006 - 1400+ hours http://www.MyRV10.com
RV-14 N14YT - Flying 6/2016 - 325+ hours http://www.MyRV14.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:53 AM
kbalch's Avatar
kbalch kbalch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 407
Default

Good info, Tim - thanks!

Should the rate of -14 completions continue to accelerate (with no reason to suspect that it won't do so), it seems reasonable to project that - with approximately half of the country closer to Florida than to Oregon - six "students" per year should be an achievable number.

Perhaps I'm over-estimating the level of potential interest in Florida-based RV-14A transition training, but even half a dozen guys per year flying two hours each would cover expenses (including the extra insurance cost) and my time.

We'll see how all this works out in practice once my plane is flying and Phase 1 has been completed - hopefully by next spring sometime.
__________________
Ken

RV-8 N118KB (#81125) - Sold
RV-14A N114KB (#140494)
Standard kit begun 5/18 - FWF & panel in progress
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:22 AM
TimO TimO is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 482
Default

Good luck with it Ken!

One little twist too, to expect, is that the FAA will require you to do 100 hour inspections on the plane when you use it for transition training. That's not a big deal though. The FAA for me was actually easy to deal with. You have the 100hr inspection clause, no BFR's, no other training other than transition training (for money, that is), and no HP sign offs. It's strictly transition training. The insurance companies were ok to deal with too, other than the rates. They'll want you to have the LODA of course, but otherwise it's pretty quick to actually add the coverage.

I found it valuable, to the people who did it. I think if you're not coming from an RV already, it's definitely worth the time. I also feel that if you ARE an RV pilot already, such as the 9/9A, or 10, and probably the other models too, you may not get much more benefit out of it than you could learn by talking to an RV-14 guy. The plane flies so very closely to my RV-10 that it didn't take me even 60 seconds to be comfortable. The RV-10 however, may be a good idea to get a couple hours in, even if you're coming from a 2-seat RV.

However it works for you, I'm sure you'll have fun with it and it'll be nice to hear your experiences, and nice for the RV-14 building community that there is another person that they can go to. The harder it is logistically, the less people want to get training, and lack of training leads to worse safety records and higher risk, so there is value in your plan.
__________________
Tim Olson - CFI
RV-10 N104CD - Flying 2/2006 - 1400+ hours http://www.MyRV10.com
RV-14 N14YT - Flying 6/2016 - 325+ hours http://www.MyRV14.com
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:24 PM
pilotyoung pilotyoung is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 128
Default How exactly to obtain a LODA

The issue with training in your airplane and not telling the insurance company is both an integrity one and a practical one. You do not want to be involved in a claim where there is a coverage question. Even if the insurance decides to pay after the investigation, you will go through trauma waiting for the answer. And if you are doing training, and don't pay for the insurance for training, then both of you will have to lie to get paid. So my advice is to tell your insurance broker exactly what you do with your airplane and then pay the appropriate premium. Then you can sleep at night knowing that your airplane is covered.
__________________
John D. Young, RV-12 Owner
Serial Number 120022, N6812Y
Bought it as a flying airplane in Feb. 2018
Just passed 200 hours flight time in RV-12, and 10,000 hours mostly in corporate jets. I am a CFI; CFII; MEI; and a advancd Ground Instructor, CFIG; and hoping to be able to help new RV-12 owners by doing some transition training for new builders and owners in RV-12's.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:32 PM
kbalch's Avatar
kbalch kbalch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotyoung View Post
The issue with training in your airplane and not telling the insurance company is both an integrity one and a practical one. You do not want to be involved in a claim where there is a coverage question. Even if the insurance decides to pay after the investigation, you will go through trauma waiting for the answer. And if you are doing training, and don't pay for the insurance for training, then both of you will have to lie to get paid. So my advice is to tell your insurance broker exactly what you do with your airplane and then pay the appropriate premium. Then you can sleep at night knowing that your airplane is covered.
Precisely. I won't lie to anybody, ever. Sometimes that results in a tact challenge, but I'll never be caught out by fraud.

A friend of mine used to advocate passing on trackday insurance and, if there was an incident with his car, would imply that he'd push it into a ditch on the way home and claim that the damage occurred there. Needless to say, that was just one example of his questionable (more like non-existent) ethics and I don't speak to him very much anymore.
__________________
Ken

RV-8 N118KB (#81125) - Sold
RV-14A N114KB (#140494)
Standard kit begun 5/18 - FWF & panel in progress
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-25-2019, 09:52 AM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,918
Default

The problem is how much training will you actually do. How much can you charge people and are willing to pay, while breaking even. Doing the math, say hull insurance is $2000 a year for training. If you do 50 hours that is $40 an hour added to other cost. Flight schools who rent a training plane daily 365 days a year can spread the cost out.

(Wild guess numbers) Say I'll have liability ($500 year). If I do 50 hours of training a year, that adds $10/hr for insurance. Gas/oil/tires/brakes is $50/hr. engine reserves $10/hr. plus instruction $40/hr, $10/hr misc/hanger.. that is $120/hr. That is reasonable. With hull it would be $160/hr. What are people charging? Say you only do 10 hrs/year of training? The math really goes south. Of course bend the plane, have to fix it and/or take the loss.

I'll also get a lawyer to draw up a hold harmless training agreement.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767

Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 06-25-2019 at 09:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-25-2019, 10:54 AM
kbalch's Avatar
kbalch kbalch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clermont, FL
Posts: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post
The problem is how much training will you actually do. How much can you charge people and are willing to pay, while breaking even. Doing the math, say hull insurance is $2000 a year for training. If you do 50 hours that is $40 an hour added to other cost. Flight schools who rent a training plane daily 365 days a year can spread the cost out.

(Wild guess numbers) Say I'll have liability ($500 year). If I do 50 hours of training a year, that adds $10/hr for insurance. Gas/oil/tires/brakes is $50/hr. engine reserves $10/hr. plus instruction $40/hr, $10/hr misc/hanger.. that is $120/hr. That is reasonable. With hull it would be $160/hr. What are people charging? Say you only do 10 hrs/year of training? The math really goes south. Of course bend the plane, have to fix it and/or take the loss.

I'll also get a lawyer to draw up a hold harmless training agreement.
That all makes sense. Mike Seager is currently charging $90/hr. for his time and $75/hr. additional for the -10 and -14. So, that's $165/hr. and I suspect that his use of the airplanes is largely (entirely?) subsidized by Van's. I'd have to charge $200-$250/hr. all up for it to make any kind of sense.

The real question, market-wise, is how many guys would be interested in flying with me here in central Florida vs. making the trek out to Oregon? Even half a dozen guys per year would make it worthwhile (factoring in non-tangibles such as my own enjoyment at offering the service and participating in the training), albeit not a major profit center.
__________________
Ken

RV-8 N118KB (#81125) - Sold
RV-14A N114KB (#140494)
Standard kit begun 5/18 - FWF & panel in progress
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-25-2019, 04:02 PM
flyinhood flyinhood is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 52F
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post
I'll also get a lawyer to draw up a hold harmless training agreement.
Speaking of..

It's my understanding that when there is a hold harmless agreement or liability release, those who sign are the ONLY ones agreeing not to sue if something happens.

Example: There's an accident and the customer is hurt. She / he signed an agreement with you before the flight. He would have a tough time with his law suit against you. But, his wife never signed such an agreement and can file suit. This is why I think insurance is so important. They will step in on your behalf and the plaintiff will have to go through the 1 mil (or whatever) before they go after your personal estate.

The American Beech Society has both the student and spouce sign and the document stored on the ground before any flight training occurs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe an LCC or Inc wont protect you if you are found to be personally negligent.

The good news is that I am unaware of any successful litigation against a CFI. I will try to find the AOPA article on it and get a link.
__________________
46 Luscombe 8a Rag Wing, Armstrong starter

RV-6, IO-320, Catto, G3X Panel (Thanks Walt!)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:32 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.