Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Corsican
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1450573
Just a quick sense check, but what are your views on the following:

I have a tailwheel endorsement on my licence. I am getting checked out on another tailwheel (not one I have flown before) by someone who is not an instructor or CRI, but a member of the syndicate which I have joined and I am listed on the insurance. The “checkout” is rather a familiarisation of the aircraft, on which the syndicate member has over 700 hours on that aircraft.

A passing instructor told me that I need to be checked out on that aircraft by an instructor or it could invalidate the insurance cover.

I have not seen anything in the insurance which says anything about an instructor checkout, just that my insurance premium will be higher for the first 25 hours.

Does this make sense to anyone? I just want to be sure about this – I would want the insurance to work if there was unfortunately a reason to call on it.

Thanks!
#1450575
It seems your insurance company have covered it with the 25 hours increased premium. A phone call to them should clarify.
If you were changing to a PA 28 from a 172 would the same problem exist?
#1450578
Corsican wrote:A passing instructor told me that I need to be checked out on that aircraft by an instructor

You don't want to believe 'passing instructors'...they are only on the listen-out for gash work... :wink:
(Perhaps you should have asked him/her to recommend a suitable instructor...)
Rob P liked this
#1450602
welkyboy wrote:Been flying tail wheel types for 55 years and never had a tail wheel endorsement on any licence, is this in EASA land???


I own a tailwheel aircraft, have been flying them on and off for 34 years and never had a tailwheel endorsement on my UK, JAR or EASA licence.
#1450616
Had the tailwheel difference signed off yonks ago and flown a number of types and got a fair tailwheel experience. A lot depends on how current you are and how close the new type is to your experience and, more importantly, the rules.

If anyone joins our group they will be checked out by a tame instructor regardless of hours. It's in our agreement and the insurance company requires it.

I've been checked out by non-instructors in the past, and their skill has been variable... what I find is best is to fly with the instructor first, then with the group member to finish off.
#1450624
Ps: (what the instructor may have been getting at) I'm guessing you will be PIC for the 'training' as the other group member is not an instructor. I recommend you have a good pre flight brief between you where PIC, responsibilities in the event of an emergency and agreement on any handover / takeover of control is all agreed.
seanjd liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1450654
Insurance requirements are generally what the syndicate has agreed with the insurance company. For a passing instructor to assume he knows what that is is, arguably, somewhat presumptious. Ditto his assumptions about the OPs qualifications and experience I suspect. Rather marks the "passing instructor" out as a bit suspect?

A 700hrs-on-type PPL checking out another PPL on an unusual type, where that PPL is already qualified to fly PiC? That has been going on for years, and so long as its done sensibly - it's an exellent idea and not to be frowned upon.

G
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1450674
In my experience, it is seldom the insurance company's idea. It is usually a local rule created by the syndicate / owner / employer that is then declared to the insurer. It is only then an insurance requirement because they accepted it as part of the basis for the insurance quote.

G
Morten liked this
#1450689
flybymike wrote:
If anyone joins our group they will be checked out by a tame instructor regardless of hours. It's in our agreement and the insurance company requires it.

I get fed up with insurance companies inventing their own legislation which doesn't exist in real life.


We do often get 'used' as a healthy means to ensure that any new group members/pilots get a decent 'check out' or a few hours on a new type - if that's by an FI or other group member often comes down to the 'new' pilots history & experience.

Common sense does still prevail in most situations :) and we do know insurance requirements are definitely NOT the same as licence/rating requirements.

You can insure pretty much any pilot on any aircraft if you want to pay the cost :o . A check out or a couple of hours familiarisation flying with suitable P2 avoids the cases of the first take off being the only take-off .

Sounds like sensible flying to me as a pilot :)