Notes on our Syllabi, Training, Instructors and other Points:

[George Wehrung]

Another excerpt from a post I made on LancairTalk.net

Since I am also a LOBO Board member, as a Co-Director of Safety and Training, please let me illustrate a few points, if I may:
1.       The syllabi that we use were developed by Jeff Edwards.  It has been reviewed and validated by the FAA.  Jeff is open to having it modified, we just need to go through the process with the FAA. He recognizes that it is not a perfect training syllabus, but it’s what we will use until someone goes through the revision process. 
Now let’s address why we need several flights to qualify a pilot new to Lancairs.  Any sophisticated aircraft will require a certain number of flights.  I remember years ago when I wanted to rent a C210, the insurance company and the flight club I belonged to both insisted on 10 hours of dual even though I was a retired military pilot, having flown everything from F-18, KingAirs, to B707s and others in between.   The KingAir requires a lot of flights in its training syllabus and I am sure your TBM had similar requirements for minimum SIM/flight time.  When you break down any of the Lancair models with retract gear, pressurization systems, air conditioning, and modern avionics, you note they are fairly complex machines for their size.  That includes planes with pressurization, hydraulics, complex turbo-charged engines, multiple electrical systems (none are standard), avionics, and autopilots. These systems require more than a passing reference for any new pilot to the airplane to gain and demonstrate competence. 

2.       Our instructors:  If your wife and kids are going for a ride in a Lancair with a new pilot, who would you want to have trained that pilot: the young instructor guy/gal with no significant time in a Lancair, doesn’t own, regularly fly one, (no understanding of the community), but is a qualified Part 61 CFI?  Or would you want to have a professionally trained flight instructor (someone that has gone through a military or a commercial Part 41 flight training program)?  The instructors we seek are professionally trained as an instructor, own and operate their own Lancar, and have been employed as a professional or military pilot.  We feel that combination is the baseline needed in our instructor cadre to keep improving the safety record for the Lancair fleet.  More importantly, Matt Speare and I want instructors with the right approach to training.  What does that mean?  We recognize that we are not training Lancairians to be military or professional pilots, that they may have little flight experience, or that they may be aging and with skills that are starting to erode.  Those examples do not mean the pilot is unsafe, but that we have to ensure they are safe to conduct flights in VFR or IFR with their loved ones and friends.  We also want pilots to not only be competent but confident in use of their piloting skills. If they are confident, they will fly their airplanes competently and have a great time!!!!!  

3.       Time and Costs:  First, I have not trained anyone in recent history that said that the six flights in our initial training syllabus was too long/too much.  I have recently trained test pilots, fighter pilots, basic GA pilots, and airline pilots.  This view unanimous among them.  The two-flight recurrent training syllabus is the same.  Secondly, we want people to come prepared for recurrent training by having recent flight experience and practice approaches.  An IPC is not to get someone current; it’s to check proficiency and make sure they will be competent in IMC conditions. We accept that pilots will state they only fly VFR and won’t fly IMC; then end up as a statistic in a weather-related accident. We do have a VFR only syllabus, but if you are instrument-rated we insist on taking you through the IMC portion of the syllabus-in your Lancair.  If you are no longer going to use your IFR rating, consider turning it in? 
None of us are charging any more than a commercial flight school would charge.  In fact we were recently told that our current prices are the same that Pete Z was charging 20 years ago….. And yes, it is common practice to charge for travel if we go to your location. 
4.      Creating more instructors:  This is at the top of our priority list; especially for the two-seat models.  Again, they have to be the right instructors.  We could care less about gender, (and you can stop that WOKE CRAP, no one else in the world cares except for 2% of US citizens).  Being a good aviator or instructors has nothing to do with gender.  In addition to the qualities above, we fly with candidate instructors and review their background to ensure that their experience and capability meet our standards.  The Board reviews and approves each instructor recommendation.
And guess what, if there’s an incident, our instructor’s background and performance will be investigated by the FAA and questioned by the underwriters before any settlement of a claim.  Equally important: we want our Lancair clients to have a great training experience.

5.       We believe that the more people that take training, the more likely underwriters will be willing to write policies.  We also believe that as the pool of Lancair owners that have taken and continue to take training grows, there will be more underwriters willing to write policies for Lancair aircraft.   

6. Let’s address that insurance conspiracy.  I agree that there are underwriters that gouge clients. This is due, in part, to the fact that they are the only ones writing policies for certain models of Lancair. I will tell you I saw the same thing when I was selling Diamond aircraft.  Some of the bias was age of the pilot and/or qualifications, and time in model.  Some underwriters would not touch the twin Diamonds.  Unbelievable, since Diamond aircraft are arguably some of the safest aircraft in the GA fleet (stall/spin resistant and crash survivability).  Another issue is that some brokers are contractually tied to a few underwriters whereas Wings seems more open to presenting clients to all of them.  From the underwriters perspective in my view, they should require  all their clients to take training; and quality training at that.  Referring to point 3 above, I am always astonished when I get a call that states the underwriter requires only a 2-hour check out in something like a 360 or a IV-P.  Just because they were a test pilot, flew F-14s and are now a 30,000 SWA captain doesn’t mean that they are competent to fly a Lancair as PIC after a couple hours of flight instruction. I say that because they likely haven’t flown very much GA in the last 20-odd years but in their retirement they still want a fast airplane.  I am happy to train them, but I explain that they will need to complete our training program.  But, but, but, I don’t care whose program they use (I am fond of ours but I am aware there are others that are based on a series of flights with specific training objectives). Just complete a program that consists of a series of flights with instrument training, emergency procedures (HYD/Landing gear, electrical, engine, avionics failures, etc.), and is scenario-based (checks ADM).

Lastly, we as instructors have seen a number of non-current pilots, unairworthy aircraft and poorly documented inspection/maintenance.  That is why we ask for our trainees to complete a series a questions and send copies of certain documents before we show up to train.  We have seen: non-current medicals, non-current instrument approaches/holding, non-current conditional inspections, non-current IFR Certifications, missing Special Airworthiness certificates, INOP equipment (air-conditioning is a must in a pressurized aircraft except in winter), non current registrations—and many other issues that directly affect our ability to train. Other issues relate to plane operation but the owner “hasn’t gotten around to fixing it”.  My opinion is that I am in the “people tube” and I don’t want to fly in unairworthy or questionable aircraft.  Although our plane is not painted (still doing airframe mods “may west”) I take great pride in having a really nice plane to fly and put a lot of sweat equity into making sure that it is the best maintained plane on the airfield.  I even earned my A&P and fly my work.  We instructors expect fellow Lancair owners to take pride in taking care of their aircraft if for not themselves the other people they fly.  


In summary: Passengers don’t have a say, they are along for the ride when things don’t go well.  Let’s not put them at risk because we choose not to take care of our planes, keep ourselves current/proficient, or take quality training.

[Richardgom]

Source:

-

[George Wehrung]

Hi Richard,

I wrote that on Lancair Talk in response to a post that Paul Miller wrote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk