What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Flight Instruction or ride in RV-12

S

Stan Bahrns

Active Member
Hi
I am about to finish my RV12 and my boy and I would like a ride or some dual in one if we don,t have to go too far to get one. We built an RV7-A & have flown it about 350 hrs but would feel a little better about the first flight if we had a little instruction in one. I had a liver transplant in June haven't flown for a little over a year. I live in (southern) Illinois & don't know anyone close with a 12. If there is someone interested please give me a name & phone number.

Thanks,
Stan Bahrns
RV7-A N868B
Effingham IL
 
We are located in southern ohio, might be a quick jaunt in a 7. We are finishing up our annual condition inspection now.
 
We are at OVO in Southern Indiana. Eagle's Nest One, built here in the high school, is available, along with an instructor. Give me a call if you don't find anything closer. Ron has soloed three in it this year, so he knows the plane well. 812 701-5454

Bob
 
Last edited:
No charge at all for a ride. Not a CFI if you were looking for log time. For that you need an LOA which Jetguy on the forums has. Or the vans factory demo -12. The LOA is required if the instructor is charging for the time.
 
Last edited:
I'm in southern Ohio (Dayton area) also

HIGHLY recommend some time with an instructor familiar with the -12. It has some characteristics (very low approach speed, nose -high attitude at touchdown) and a LOT of pitch trim required when flaps are raised/lowered) that a -7 doesn't have. Not to mention care and feeding (warmup time) of the Rotax.

Wayne 120241/143WM
 
KALEWIS said:
No charge at all for a ride. Not a CFI if you were looking for log time. For that you need an LOA which Jetguy on the forums has. Or the vans factory demo -12. The LOA is required if the instructor is charging for the time.
Click to expand...

Actually this is not correct.
The LOA is only needed for the aircraft, if an Experimental cat. aircraft is being supplied for a fee (rented per hour to the person receiving training).

An instructor can be paid for their time giving primary instruction or transition training in any experimental.
 
Yep

Rich, the LODA is for the airplane, as Scott points out. The Letter Of Deviation Authority waives the regulation that says an experimental cannot be used for commercial/training purposes.

I used my -6A for 5 years and 75 or more transition training students.

During the same time and now, I signed off many guys in their own RV's.

Best,
 
RFSchaller said:
Scott,

That's an interesting interpretation. Has FAA ever made that clarification in writing?

Rich
Click to expand...

I don't know of anything official I can direct you too but it is a pretty common / accepted truth.

An LODA mean Letter of Deviating Authority. In this context it is a letter authorizing a deviation from the operating limitation of no use of the aircraft for compensation or hire.

If you use an airplane for training and only compensate the instructor for his teaching services, then no one can say the airplane is being used for compensation or hire.

It is totally legal (and it has been done many times) for someone to build their own experimental and then pay an instructor to teach them to fly in it.

The key is whether anyone could say that money is changing hands for the use of the (experimental) airplane. If not, then there is no LODA needed.

Edit: Looks like Pierre beat me to it....
 
The fact still remains that for official "transition training" goes, I know of only two mentioned before. This includes compensation of airplane and instructor.
 
Makes sense. I had always known about getting instruction in your own experimental, but never really thought about the intent of the payment when the plane does not have a LODA and is not owned by the student.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
It is totally legal (and it has been done many times) for someone to build their own experimental and then pay an instructor to teach them to fly in it.
..
Click to expand...

Actually it is quite rare, since phase 1 operating limits forbid two people on board, in most cases. Someone could hire a commercial rated pilot to fly off the phase one hours, then hire a cfi to instruct him in his airplane. Clearly no charge would be made for the aircraft in such a case. But in most cases, the builder wants to fly off phase one so he needs to rent someone else's airplane to get transition training first, which is where the waiver (LODA) comes in.
 
BobTurner said:
Actually it is quite rare, since phase 1 operating limits forbid two people on board, in most cases. Someone could hire a commercial rated pilot to fly off the phase one hours, then hire a cfi to instruct him in his airplane. Clearly no charge would be made for the aircraft in such a case. But in most cases, the builder wants to fly off phase one so he needs to rent someone else's airplane to get transition training first, which is where the waiver (LODA) comes in.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider rare.
I know of quite a few instances.
Yes, a qualified pilot had to do the phase one flight testing.
Keep in mind... this is the RV-12 forum, so my comments were aimed specifically towards that context. An E-LSA RV-12 has only a 5 hr phase one test requirement.
A number of the instances I know of were partnership projects where one member was a pilot and completed the phase one and then the other began their flight training.
 
Now THAT is a new one on me. Every time this discussion comes around, there seems to be a different twist. Do you have a reference for that one Mike? So he can "borrow" a friends plane and give instruction, but not in his own? Depending on the wording, maybe he could register his to his wife or brother and then borrow it to legally give instruction? Obviously you can "use" Vans and that is legal, right?
No wonder we have a dismal "first flight accident" rate in experimental aircraft, some "catch 22" always gets in the way of something as simple as instruction or transition training..
Michael Seager said:
The fight instructor cannot provide the plane for the training unless it has a LODA Mike
Click to expand...
 
Mike is correct. The FAA uses a broad definition of compensation to include more than direct cash. In the case of a cfi providing his plane without direct charge for the airplane, the cfi is nonetheless getting something - in this case flight instruction business - out of the "free" airplane, so it is a form of compensation ("getting business"). Of course if the cfi doesn't charge anything at all for anything, including his services, then it's okay. If a spouse offered a plane for free so that his/her better half could instruct in it, the FAA might argue that she/he received compensation in the form of higher household income.

BTW, the FAA has made getting a LODA easier, as word has made it around the FSDO's. It is the aircraft operator (usually owner) who gets the LODA, often but not necessarily a CFI. But the real problem are the insurance companies. If an individual with a LODA wants to actually use it for giving dual instruction and at the same time keep his plane insured, it is relatively expensive. (I have a LODA for my -10 but am not actively using it, because there is not enough demand to justify the over $1K increase in insurance costs.) So if you want to blame someone for a 'catch 22' which makes transition training difficult to come by, I would point my finger at the insurance industry.
 
Last edited:
I remember one year at OSH when the FAA was trying to call smoke-system oil compensation. The Airshow provided it to the warbird guys for the daily show. Eventually FAA let it go, but it certainly makes one wary of how the Feds will view things.
 
You are probably very correct. I knew the insurance for a LODA plane was unrealistic, I would think better served if the insurance was by the hour of instruction, rather than assuming that it was being used day and night.

BobTurner said:
Mike is correct. The FAA uses a broad definition of compensation to include more than direct cash. In the case of a cfi providing his plane without direct charge for the airplane, the cfi is nonetheless getting something - in this case flight instruction business - out of the "free" airplane, so it is a form of compensation ("getting business"). Of course if the cfi doesn't charge anything at all for anything, including his services, then it's okay. If a spouse offered a plane for free so that his/her better half could instruct in it, the FAA might argue that she/he received compensation in the form of higher household income.

BTW, the FAA has made getting a LODA easier, as word has made it around the FSDO's. It is the aircraft operator (usually owner) who gets the LODA, often but not necessarily a CFI. But the real problem are the insurance companies. If an individual with a LODA wants to actually use it for giving dual instruction and at the same time keep his plane insured, it is relatively expensive. (I have a LODA for my -10 but am not actively using it, because there is not enough demand to justify the over $1K increase in insurance costs.) So if you want to blame someone for a 'catch 22' which makes transition training difficult to come by, I would point my finger at the insurance industry.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top