 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:25 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one |
 |
|
I agree with Tim completely. I have flown probably 8 planes or more in Phase 1. I wouldn't just hop in any plane solo or as a QP. I would inspect it myself before strapping in. If I wasn't comfortable with the plane (recent Texas crash), the engine and fuel system (recent Texas crash) or the owner/builder, then I would refuse to fly it (recent Texas crash). That's why I walked away from that one and refused to fly it. Others I have been willing and happy to fly, both as first flight and as just some of the Phase 1 time.
In the mentioned crash, if the QP (whether qualified by the new AC or not) hadn't had the authority to "take the plane", he likely would not have lived to talk about it.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
www.mavericklsa.com
C: 352-427-0285
O: 352-465-4545
F: 815-377-3694
Sent from my iPhone
| Quote: | On Sep 30, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com> wrote:
I didn't see anything (maybe I didn't look hard enough) that indicated that simply
because you have a QP, that they are automatically also PIC. Is that in there?
I don't think as Builder, that I'd ever let anyone else claim PIC in my plane,
but, I would consider having a qualified person be there assisting me.
I'm sure there are people that would be willing to be there, without being PIC.
Not everyone is so worried that they're sticking their neck out. I would be
willing, in some specific cases, to be someone's RV-10 second pilot on
phase 1 flights, and I would never insist that I be PIC to do it. Of course, I wouldn't
be willing to do this for just anyone, but I'm not going to force them to allow
me to be PIC just so I can help them. Now, if the builder pilot is not really
qualified to fly his own plane, that's another story. Then I'm not only going
to be PIC, but I'd insist on sitting in the seat of my choice for the flight, so
that I'm the most comfortable, because I'm probably going to fly the plane.
I'm not interested in flying along with someone who's not qualified to fly
the plane.
I can see where you are coming from Bob, as a CFI, you'd want to have it be
assumed that if you're there, you're PIC, but I don't see it as cut an dry like
that, and while you yourself may not want to be there without being PIC,
I don't think that's universal. Maybe I read your intentions wrong.
I still think that there are people out there that will stick their neck out for
their friends. If you're just a hired-gun CFI, hired for the purpose of being
a second person in the cockpit to help, I would think that would be a
fairly rare thing. People want assistance on their first few overwhelming
flights, but I don't know that they want the associated P.I.A. of having that
be someone that they have to not only pay, but turn over their aircraft to.
To me, I like the intention of the rules...to ensure that you don't stick people
there just for enjoyment, but find qualified people who can be there for
advice when issues come up, and assistance as needed, to help ensure a
safe outcome. But if this bar is set so high and the very few qualified people
out there insist on taking control of the aircraft to do it, I think the rule
fails miserably and will be useless to most people. Even as it is, I think the
bar is set so high that it will be seldom used. The people who are that
paranoid, are probably not interested in doing the first flight anyway.
I don't think the intention of the rules is to allow a builder to go along on
the first flight, as a casual observer, while turning over control to a qualified
test pilot. If that's what it's about, that's fine, but I think it's more about
encouraging proper use of a second set of eyes, ears, and hands who
realistically will be very good at the tasks.
Heck the checklist is already long enough that I myself will probably
just say screw it and do the hours alone. I would rather take 3 days off
work and fly it off in 3x 9 hour days, and then be free to do as I please to
examine any more details I couldn't do with those first hours.
Tim
> On 9/30/2014 3:17 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>
> Jesse, you are re-writing the definition. If the cfi or QP or whomever has the agreed upon power to 'take the plane', and is the final authority to do so, then by definition he is the PIC. Builder can fly but final authority rests with the QP. What person in his right mind would agree to be QP without being PiC?
>
>
>
> jesse(at)saintaviation.co wrote:
>> I would consider that the owner/builder would be PIC and the QP would be acting as CFI with the ability to "take the plane". That should be always understood from the start. The passing back and forth of the plane would require the standard, "you have the plane" and "I have the plane" exchange.
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>> Saint Aviation, Inc.
>> 352-427-0285
>> jesse(at)saintaviation.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:39 PM, "Bob Turner" wrote:
>>> There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that some training occurs anyway.
>>> One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder, as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
>>> --------
>>> Bob Turner
>>> RV-10 QB
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
Then we are in agreement. If the QP had authority to take the controls, he was in fact the PIC - regardless of who was manipulating the controls.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schmoboy
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:16 am Post subject: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
EAA Webinar on this topic November 25th...
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/973260834
do not archive
| Quote: | Bob Turner <mailto:bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu>
September 30, 2014 at 8:18 PM
Then we are in agreement. If the QP had authority to take the
controls, he was in fact the PIC - regardless of who was manipulating
the controls.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neal.george(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:28 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
Well said, John.
Neal GeorgeSent from my iPhone
On Sep 30, 2014, at 1:25 PM, John Cox <rv10pro(at)gmail.com (rv10pro(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]Bob, that is a great observation and one which always created difficulty when I was a Pilot Examiner. "One Fright per Flight" was the mantra but a buddy out of OAK FSDO was knocked out cold (a strong Left Hook) by the Pilot Applicant when the applicant asked, "Did I pass?" and the Examiner verbally shared observations prior to the applicant landing and shutting down the aircraft.
Physical action from the Owner/Builder/PIC can overcome even the most comprehensive word-crafted document. I was involved in a rebuild of the first RV-12 damaged on a departure stall. The Phase ONE was never logged. The steps of the Phase ONE were never flown. The multiple builders joined in the attitude that it was just like the Factory RV-12 so it must be the same performance. "NO Need".
The Phase One Flight and new Second in Command was to address the need for a measurable reduction in the number of quantifiable discrepancies which have been growing into full blown Incident/Accident statistics. When a builder cuts corners, unanticipated outcomes are encountered. When an Inflight incident arises during Phase I, having a "qualified" Second to reduce the load, share the tasks and objectively provide options can be invaluable. The OFF Field landing will continue to be the 800# gorilla in the room / cockpit (Flight Deck - p.c.). When the Duties of PIC are assumed, the PIC must then relinquish those duties back to the Second. And the Second acknowledges verbally he has assumed the control. If they don't, the Last man as PIC continues stubbornly holding the responsibility. A Second "demanding" authority be given it back verbally from the Owner/Builder/Operator PIC will be interesting to hear the Attorneys in the Room weigh IN. So many dual, high time airline pilots flying with another buddy into C.F.I.T. required a full review of what is needed.
Phase I does not need training provided by the Second. The builder should be fully qualified and capable to "Fly the Intent of the Mission" of each step. The World's Best Second might not have averted the circumstances which came together to take Dan Lloyd to another place.
Additional Training is NOT the intent of approving a Second in the cockpit" during Amateur Kit Built Experimental. At the airlines we call it an OCF - Operational Check Flight and it has a complete "Flightcrew" with no passengers. We do have an approved Airline Check Pilot who is also an approved Test Pilot available for the hairy challenges. He does not proved training during such activity. Lots of documentation is involved before placing the aircraft back into Part 121.
In time, the hope is that the statistics take a more positive turn in the desired direction.
Seek respected opinions, Evaluate their validity, Investigate the potential outcomes and confirm the issue is resolved.
John Cox
#40600
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that some training occurs anyway.
One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder, as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
===========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv10flyer(at)live.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:08 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
John;
All this time I thought you were a regional mechanic!! never knew of your level as pilot examiner [img]cid:C5A7D89A83BD42688230A92F038D8A09(at)pascalPC[/img]
You covered this topic extremely well!
Nice job!
Pascal
From: John Cox (rv10pro(at)gmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:25 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: two pilots in phase one
Bob, that is a great observation and one which always created difficulty when I was a Pilot Examiner. "One Fright per Flight" was the mantra but a buddy out of OAK FSDO was knocked out cold (a strong Left Hook) by the Pilot Applicant when the applicant asked, "Did I pass?" and the Examiner verbally shared observations prior to the applicant landing and shutting down the aircraft.
Physical action from the Owner/Builder/PIC can overcome even the most comprehensive word-crafted document. I was involved in a rebuild of the first RV-12 damaged on a departure stall. The Phase ONE was never logged. The steps of the Phase ONE were never flown. The multiple builders joined in the attitude that it was just like the Factory RV-12 so it must be the same performance. "NO Need".
The Phase One Flight and new Second in Command was to address the need for a measurable reduction in the number of quantifiable discrepancies which have been growing into full blown Incident/Accident statistics. When a builder cuts corners, unanticipated outcomes are encountered. When an Inflight incident arises during Phase I, having a "qualified" Second to reduce the load, share the tasks and objectively provide options can be invaluable. The OFF Field landing will continue to be the 800# gorilla in the room / cockpit (Flight Deck - p.c.). When the Duties of PIC are assumed, the PIC must then relinquish those duties back to the Second. And the Second acknowledges verbally he has assumed the control. If they don't, the Last man as PIC continues stubbornly holding the responsibility. A Second "demanding" authority be given it back verbally from the Owner/Builder/Operator PIC will be interesting to hear the Attorneys in the Room weigh IN. So many dual, high time airline pilots flying with another buddy into C.F.I.T. required a full review of what is needed.
Phase I does not need training provided by the Second. The builder should be fully qualified and capable to "Fly the Intent of the Mission" of each step. The World's Best Second might not have averted the circumstances which came together to take Dan Lloyd to another place.
Additional Training is NOT the intent of approving a Second in the cockpit" during Amateur Kit Built Experimental. At the airlines we call it an OCF - Operational Check Flight and it has a complete "Flightcrew" with no passengers. We do have an approved Airline Check Pilot who is also an approved Test Pilot available for the hairy challenges. He does not proved training during such activity. Lots of documentation is involved before placing the aircraft back into Part 121.
In time, the hope is that the statistics take a more positive turn in the desired direction.
Seek respected opinions, Evaluate their validity, Investigate the potential outcomes and confirm the issue is resolved.
John Cox
#40600
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that some training occurs anyway.
One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder, as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
===========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
| Quote: |
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.11 KB |
| Viewed: |
4696 Time(s) |
![wlEmoticon-winkingsmile[1].png](files/wlEmoticon-winkingsmile_1__872.png)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rv10pro(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:13 pm Post subject: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
You can't fly once you reach 65 at the airlines. You can drop dead on the hangar floor as a wrench from old age. 40+ years of flyibg and lots of friends lost by cutting simple corners for expediency or nickels.
Time to savor the wine & roses.
Teenflight for Vans & One Week Wonder for Zenith shows the need to help the next generation.
Best shows going are well built experimental in the hands of a compassionate pilots. 9 months from following Kelly into retirement and Full Time kit build assistance. On Oct 1, 2014 9:12 PM, "Pascal" <rv10flyer(at)live.com (rv10flyer(at)live.com)> wrote: | Quote: | John;
All this time I thought you were a regional mechanic!! never knew of your level as pilot examiner [img]cid:C5A7D89A83BD42688230A92F038D8A09(at)pascalPC[/img]Â
You covered this topic extremely well!
Nice job!
Pascal
Â
From: John Cox (rv10pro(at)gmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:25 AM
To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com (rv10-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Re: two pilots in phase one
Â
Bob, that is a great observation and one which always created difficulty when I was a Pilot Examiner. "One Fright per Flight" was the mantra but a buddy out of OAK FSDO was knocked out cold (a strong Left Hook) by the Pilot Applicant when the applicant asked, "Did I pass?" and the Examiner verbally shared observations prior to the applicant landing and shutting down the aircraft. Â
Physical action from the Owner/Builder/PIC can overcome even the most comprehensive word-crafted document. I was involved in a rebuild of the first RV-12 damaged on a departure stall. The Phase ONE was never logged. The steps of the Phase ONE were never flown. The multiple builders joined in the attitude that it was just like the Factory RV-12 so it must be the same performance. "NO Need".
Â
The Phase One Flight and new Second in Command was to address the need for a measurable reduction in the number of quantifiable discrepancies which have been growing into full blown Incident/Accident statistics. When a builder cuts corners, unanticipated outcomes are encountered. When an Inflight incident arises during Phase I, having a "qualified" Second to reduce the load, share the tasks and objectively provide options can be invaluable. The OFF Field landing will continue to be the 800# gorilla in the room / cockpit (Flight Deck - p.c.). When the Duties of PIC are assumed, the PIC must then relinquish those duties back to the Second. And the Second acknowledges verbally he has assumed the control. If they don't, the Last man as PIC continues stubbornly holding the responsibility. A Second "demanding" authority be given it back verbally from the Owner/Builder/Operator PIC will be interesting to hear the Attorneys in the Room weigh IN. So many dual, high time airline pilots flying with another buddy into C.F.I.T. required a full review of what is needed.
Â
Phase I does not need training provided by the Second. The builder should be fully qualified and capable to "Fly the Intent of the Mission" of each step. The World's Best Second might not have averted the circumstances which came together to take Dan Lloyd to another place.
Â
Additional Training is NOT the intent of approving a Second in the cockpit" during Amateur Kit Built Experimental. At the airlines we call it an OCF - Operational Check Flight and it has a complete "Flightcrew" with no passengers. We do have an approved Airline Check Pilot who is also an approved Test Pilot available for the hairy challenges. He does not proved training during such activity. Lots of documentation is involved before placing the aircraft back into Part 121.
Â
In time, the hope is that the statistics take a more positive turn in the desired direction.
Â
Seek respected opinions, Evaluate their validity, Investigate the potential outcomes and confirm the issue is resolved.
Â
John Cox
#40600
Â
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:
| Quote: | --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
There is no requirement to hold a cfi, although you do get a few extra points in the qualification rating system. The purpose of phase one remains flight test, not transition training. Although clearly there is some expectation that some training occurs anyway.
One risk I see is if the "qualified pilot" shows deference to the builder, as apparently happened in the China Air 777 crash at SFO recently. I do not know how you write that into the ac. (I see there is a discussion about PiC). Personally if I were the qualified pilot (and I have no plans to do so) I would insist on a written agreement that I was PIC, that there would be no attempt to countermand a decision to land off-airport, etc.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431286#431286
===========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
===========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
b Site -
         -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
|
Â
|
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.11 KB |
| Viewed: |
4689 Time(s) |
![wlEmoticon-winkingsmile[1].png](files/wlEmoticon-winkingsmile_1__134.png)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmaib@me.com
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 455
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: Re: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
This has been an interesting thread. One thing I have not seen mentioned or discussed, is how the insurance companies will weigh in on this. I have been providing RV10 Transition Training for nearly four years and have seen insurance requirements that ranged from zero hours of transition training to fifteen hours of transition training. Frequently, there seemed to be little connection to the hours required and the experience or recent experience level of the individual involved. Additionally, it is not unusual for insurance to require something like five hours of "solo" before they will cover flights with passengers. Of course, that never made any difference for someone who had either 25 or 40 hours of phase 1 to fly before they could could legally put another soul on board. It is also not unheard of to have insurance policies that do not cover the first flight, or the first few hours. The insurance companies could conceivably be more restrictive than the AC.
Should be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rene(at)felker.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:59 am Post subject: two pilots in phase one |
|
|
Insurance....mine was 5 hours of dual with one of two instructors. Also, I
had my CFI on my insurance and he got nothing.....fly from day one, but I
was already out of phase 1. I added another pilot added, 300 hour PP, and
he was required to have a checkout with a qualified CFI (my CFI was okd to
do it) and 5 hours of time in a RV-10 before he could take passengers.
All of this seemed very reasonable to me. I did an orientation flight
before he went with the instructor. Any excuse to fly.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
