What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-7 Transition Training and Tailwheel?

twilson47

I'm New Here
I'm excited to say I'll be buying an RV-7 next week. That said, I'm a 120hour SEL Private Pilot with no TW time. Insurance is saying I'll need 10 hours transition time and the endorsement. I would like to do my tailwheel in an RV-7 but lools like Mike Seager doesn't have availability until February!

Any recommendations for any instructors willing to do TW and transition in their RV-7 or if near Seattle, in my (soon to be) plane?

Insurance requires the instructor to have 100 hours TW with 25 hours in make and model.

Thank you!
 
I dont want to hijack your thread but I have similar total time 125hrs, 75 hrs TW and am not having luck getting insurance. Who did you get a quote from and did it include hull or just liability?

My trainer is located in central IL so not much help for you there.

Regards John
 
Congratulations!! Does your new plane have brakes on the right side? If you need to do your transition training and tailwheel endorsement in your plane, not all instructors will be willing to do the training without brakes on the right side.

Keith
 
I once lived in Seattle area (I think per your profile your base is SEA). Arlington Airport North of Seattle, when I was there, we had well over a dozen RV's, but that has been almost 20 yrs ago. A drive up there and hang out at he coffee shop, ask around might result in some sage RV ace CFI.

Van's aircraft is nearby south of Portland OR. Mike Seager and other Van approved instructors is on their website. https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-flight-training/

If not already I recommend you join EAA regardless. Your EAA local chapter is a resource for RV flyers, some who may also be CFI's.

Could you get any CFI from the local FBO to fly with you in your RV7? Yeah but I would get one who knows the RV's. Even if they only flew a RV4 or RV6 or RV8 they will be familiar with the RV7. All the RV's fly similar.

As far as being insured DURING your initial experience or training (I am assuming in the plane you are buying), I think the insurance Co. will want to have the details on the instructor (and their time in type and TW time) so they are the insured pilot in that 10 hr period. You can fly in other RV's that are available with CFI (see Van's above).

You or the CFI will need a LODA... Long story best explained by the CFI, but to get training in a EAB (experimental amateur built) airplane you need to apply to the FAA, or CFI needs to apply for it. It does not take long to get approval and is done by email.

I would offer to help as a CFI and RV7 pilot but I am far away. I might suggest you get TW time in another plane like a Citabria to get warmed up, or even get the TW endorsement. There is no min time required to get endorsement, just that the CFI is confident you can handle a TW and annotates your log book.

How good are your cross wind landings in a Trike airplane? If you are very competent it will go a long way in a TW. If you are apprehensive and don't feel confident in X wind ability it will not get better in a TW plane. Go out and practice in a TRIKE when the wind is blowing cross wise and know your side slip. If the downwind wheel is not last to touch you are doing it wrong. At the end of the roll out your aileron should be full into the wind, etc...

The RV series of planes are fairly docile as TW planes go. I equate them to fast Piper Cubs.

Many fly without airframe hull insurance and just carry liability. If you are a competent, current Pvt with 125 hours it might only take 5 hours of dual transition training to get reasonable proficiency and confidence in your RV7. What are you going to do with the next 5 hours?

I don't know if insurance company wants 10 dual or just 10 hours of time. In that case if it is just time, and the CFI signs your TW endorsement after 5 hours, you can go bore holes in the sky solo for another 5 hours, call it good (being uninsured during that initial experience). Of course flying passengers is ill advised until you have time and at least liability insurance. Again if you are current and qualified in Cat/Class aircraft (Medical, Flt Review, 3 T/G's in last 90 days) the FAR's don't restrict you from being PIC but the insurance will not insure you. I am not encouraging you to fly w/o insurance, just pointing that out. Also KNOW THY SELF... If you are comfortable great, but if you feel like you need more dual get it.

If you are going to get dual (and you should) just boring hole in the sky to get 10 hours with a CFI warming a seat, it is a waste. Instructors like Mike Seager I am sure will push the envelope and put you through your paces, not just do 500 T/G's off a 6000' runway over and over on a calm sunny day. I know from Video's Mike shows short field takeoff and landings in real short soft fields. I am a BIG fan of doing air-work away from airport, slow flight, steep turns, stalls pwr on/off/accel, pwr off or simulated engine failure, before pounding out T/G's. Ideally some cross wind landings would be good. Again X wind landings in a TW are not harder than a Trike just a tad less forgiving. If you are an ACE landing a C172 in gusty cross winds you will love the RV. It is very responsive but you must use good airmanship... it is NOT a land-O-matic.

Also some basic intro to Aerobatics might be in order, loop and a roll. If for purposes of instruction the parachute requirement for aerobatics is waved. However if you do Acro with a passenger you both are required by FAR's to have Chutes. Heck if you need 10 hours of dual get the most out of it, not just check a box. Make sure the CFI has a training syllabus and plan. With 10 hours and a plane that can cruise at 190mph, a cross country would be good, with high altitude operations, might as well. RV's can get into O2 breathing altitudes (+12,500msl) easier than a C172. Many RV pilots enjoy going higher and sucking O2. By no means do you have to go say above 8500' or 9500 to get good utility. However flying South or East from Seattle both terrain and or favorable winds made flying flying in the teens a reasonable and efficient preposition.
 
Last edited:
Where is the airplane?
Also, check to see if insurance will accept a CFI with other RV time. They are all very similar, and you expand possibilities for finding a CFI
 
Last edited:
I'm excited to say I'll be buying an RV-7 next week. That said, I'm a 120hour SEL Private Pilot with no TW time. Insurance is saying I'll need 10 hours transition time and the endorsement. I would like to do my tailwheel in an RV-7 but lools like Mike Seager doesn't have availability until February!

Any recommendations for any instructors willing to do TW and transition in their RV-7 or if near Seattle, in my (soon to be) plane?

Insurance requires the instructor to have 100 hours TW with 25 hours in make and model.

Thank you!
Congratulations on the purchase. I predict you’re going to have a blast. Just out of curiosity, is getting insurance, or at least paying for it, going to be a problem for a low-time pilot flying an aerobatic tail dragger? I presume you’ve priced policies…I’m wondering what you found in this crazy environment. I’ve been told that aerobatics, low-time, and tailwheel are the three biggest contributors to high insurance rates.
 
I recently checked out a student in a RV-7. He had just received his pilot’s license and the insurance company wanted a tailwheel endorsement plus 25 hours with an instructor and 50 takeoff and landings. I gave him a tailwheel endorsement in my C-170B and finished him up in his newly acquired RV-7. I incidentally flew this airplane several hours as a result of the pre-purchase inspection prior to his receiving ownership and possession of the airplane.

I will have to admit, being able to fly with a student for that many hours opened up many learning opportunities that he would have not been able to experience otherwise with the safety of a qualified instructor. We, for example, flew into many mountain airports in the central valley experiencing an unexpected 90 degree crosswind and wind shear. We had a night flight that disclosed that his aircraft landing lights were very insufficient and basically required him to learn night landings without a landing light. He picked up the plane in Reno and we flew to his properties in Oregon which required us to fly actual IFR while climbing and descending through the smoke.

Most of my students want to know "How long will this take me" and “How much will this cost" and I don't blame them but there are many learning experiences that seem to be missed that could save both anxiety and incidents with a proper exposure to the elements. I really enjoyed this transition training in a relaxed environment that allowed the student to really learn his airplane and more important his abilities. As far as my student was concerned, he would not have missed it by receiving years of experience in a relatively short time.

Maybe these insurance companies have something after all.

Dale Combs
 
LODA needed, TW training in certified aircraft only

The FAA mandates and updated guidance are clear on training in experimental aircraft.

Make sure if you are going to be transition training in your own aircraft you get a LODA. It is so easy to do, there's no reason not to have your own. Your CFI might have one that covers training, but maybe not.

Also, of great importance, you can no longer earn your tailwheel endorsement in your RV, you must do the training in a certified aircraft.

Seek out your local tailwheel instructor in a commonly available certified aircraft. Champs, Cubs, Super Cubs, Decathalons, etc are great trainers and fill the need. :cool:
 
Guidance explained

Please provide a reference. I do not believe this is correct.

;)

91.319 (h) points us to the 8900.1 guidance, which lists the things that can be done with a LODA in an experimental aircraft.

8900.1 Vol 3, Ch 11, Section 1 paragraph 3-293, B (2):

...LODAs also should not be issued to permit flight training such as aerobatics or training leading to the issuance of an endorsement (e.g. tailwheel or pressurized aircraft, or a complex or high performance airplane). This training is available in aircraft holding Standard Airworthiness Certificates and it is therefore not acceptable to issue a LODA for the purpose of conducting such training.

It goes on to describe what is acceptable. :)
 
;)

91.319 (h) points us to the 8900.1 guidance, which lists the things that can be done with a LODA in an experimental aircraft.

8900.1 Vol 3, Ch 11, Section 1 paragraph 3-293, B (2):

...LODAs also should not be issued to permit flight training such as aerobatics or training leading to the issuance of an endorsement (e.g. tailwheel or pressurized aircraft, or a complex or high performance airplane). This training is available in aircraft holding Standard Airworthiness Certificates and it is therefore not acceptable to issue a LODA for the purpose of conducting such training.

It goes on to describe what is acceptable. :)

Once again the FAA is less than crystal-clear. The above guidance was issued along with the ‘original’ LODAs, now over ten years old. This LODA - still available but not as easy to get as the ones issued 2 months ago - allow for payment to the aircraft owner for the use of the airplane, but for transition training only. The above order is still correct, no endorsements other than ‘transition training given’ are allowed under this loda. The faa really doesn’t want eab owners receiving payment for use of the airplane. The most recent LODAs do not allow the aircraft owner to receive any compensation, but they do allow for the payment to a cfi, for any desired instruction. Two very different things.
 
;)
91.319 (h) points us to the 8900.1 guidance, which lists the things that can be done with a LODA in an experimental aircraft.
8900.1 Vol 3, Ch 11, Section 1 paragraph 3-293, B (2):

...LODAs also should not be issued to permit flight training such as aerobatics or training leading to the issuance of an endorsement (e.g. tailwheel or pressurized aircraft, or a complex or high performance airplane). This training is available in aircraft holding Standard Airworthiness Certificates and it is therefore not acceptable to issue a LODA for the purpose of conducting such training. It goes on to describe what is acceptable. :)
Once again the FAA is less than crystal-clear. [SNIP] LODAs do not allow the aircraft owner to receive any compensation, but they do allow for the payment to a cfi, for any desired instruction. Two very different things.
Interesting. Personally taking a low time Pvt and getting them up to speed (pun intended) in a RV-X I can see taking time. One insurance company is 10 hours another 25 hours.

Two good points you Gents make (and I made the mistake in my post). One don't tell them how long it will take and cost. It is done to proficiency.

The forbidding of instruction of Aerobatics, TW in an EAB is interesting and confusing. Glad you pointed out. I suppose you can petition in your LODA request the reason for the training and see if they approve. However I like a student coming in with a TW endorsement already and get some other TW time. I find the RV will cover up some sins where other TW planes will expose a pilots control deficiency.

The LODA situation is just a mess. I can report I heard on legislation to get it fix is being run through the House or Reps. However this is would only mandate FAA fix it. How long will that take? Years I guess.

Last while student is gaining experience/time in type I'd add HOOD or Simulated Instrument time, may be a lot, 10% or 20%. It of course will sharpen their over all skills, make them better VFR pilots. Second benefit is safety. Flying a plane that can fly high, fast and far, makes weather a bigger factor. Long ago my flight club/school where I taught had Mooney's. The insurance company made an instrument rating required for rental due to a lot of continued VFR into IMC national accident statistic for that make/model. Of course there was min retractable time as well.
 
Last edited:
Firstly thank you everyone for the replies!

@John Kelley, I went through Travers Insurance Hull and Liability. $1,800 which seemed very reasonable. Aopa quoted the same

@Keith, yes luckily I have dual brakes and controls and even dual PFDs

@George, thank you for all of that advice. I agree and have heard similar sentiment on training from some of the RV pilots at AWO. Mike Seager is sadly booked through February so I'm trying to fly sooner but will keep trying! Thank you for the tips and I definitely plan to get some good air work in addition to the landing practice and TW endorsement.

@maccool It did limit my options a bit but found a few good quotes from Travers and AOPA for under $2000

@flyingtiger(AL) Thank you for that info I wasn't aware. I do have a local flight school if I need to train certified I had hoped to do it in my plane to build up familiarity but if the rules say otherwise I do have that back up. Thank you
 
. I do have a local flight school if I need to train certified I had hoped to do it in my plane to build up familiarity but if the rules say otherwise I do have that back up. Thank you

This is getting ridiculous. Please do not believe everything you read here. Consult an aviation lawyer. He will tell you that once you get the new, emailed LODA, you may pay a cfi for instruction, any instruction, in your airplane.
 
This is getting ridiculous. Please do not believe everything you read here. Consult an aviation lawyer. He will tell you that once you get the new, emailed LODA, you may pay a cfi for instruction, any instruction, in your airplane.

Talk to your aviation lawyer and your local FSDO.

When I asked my local FSDO Aviation Safety Inspectors in person here in South Carolina, the answer I shared is the one I got, complete with the regs spelled out.

Pretty crystal clear to me. Best of luck if you decide to make your own interpretation of the regulations.

Maybe best to get your tailwheel endorsement in a certified plane, then pursue your own LODA to get transition training in your RV of choice. Works well for many folks, there's actually some wisdom in going this route.
 
When I asked my local FSDO Aviation Safety Inspectors in person here in South Carolina, the answer I shared is the one I got, complete with the regs spelled out.

Pretty crystal clear to me. .

And again, a problem within the FAA. I had exactly the same experience with the ‘original’, transition training only but for hire in my plane, LODA, ten years ago. “Can’t be done, we never heard of it” was the FSDO’s response. I had to do the legwork, dig out the FAA’s own rules, furnish examples, etc. Basically I had to educate faa employees on what they were supposed to already know. In the end, it all worked out. But not as smoothly as one would hope. The fsdo guys are mostly okay. But they don’t know everything, especially anything out of the ordinary.

Think about it. For years EAB owners and their family have been getting all kinds of paid dual instruction in their airplane. Suddenly a judge says it’s not legal as the FAR’s are written. FAA issues an emergency LODA, saying it restores the status quo. Why is there this debate? (Of course, one could also ask why the faa lawyers couldn’t get it right the first time around, but that’s a different question.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top