Instrument Proficiency Check

[ahramin]

You're not allowed to land the plane on any grass runway unless you have landed on a grass runway with one of the ftu's instructors.

[Cat Driver]

Wow...

...has it been dumbed down to that low a level?

...Wow..

..Incredible...

[pelmet]

Jokes aside, the schools have an hour to go through silly exams with prospective renters without actually trying to find out if they have any decision making skills or systems knowledge. They have an hour to fly around which should hopefully tell them whether or not a pilot can fly a plane, but apparently tells them so little that they aren't sure if the same pilot can fly the plane with people in the back seat. It's not a question of time as they are already spending far more time than necessary. I've seen schools with enough time for the on duty flight instructor to make weather decisions from the ground for every pilot flying that day, as if the weather is the same everywhere and never changes.

In one cases I did 10 hours of flying with a renter before letting them go. In the most recent case less than an hour was plenty to determine that the pilot had no problem handling the aircraft, and another hour was sufficient to make them familiar with the peculiarities of the aircraft.

Currency is a big issue with renting people aircraft. Hard and fast rules that take little to no account of past flying experience and currency outside the school are a joke. If someone is new to an aircraft type it doesn't matter how much experience they have, they need some time on it in a short period to get comfortable with the aircraft. One flight every 60 days is not nearly enough. My aircraft is quite particular so I insist that once someone is cleared to rent they do 3 flights in the first 30 days and I debrief them fully over the phone after each one. "How did it go? Any questions? What went wrong? Any problems with the aircraft?" I have never seen a school bother to do this no matter how inexperienced or rusty the renter is. Instead they say "You must fly our C-172M every 60 days or you aren't current". After the first 3 flights my renters are on their own to ask for a phone briefing or a ground refresher or a quick flight if they haven't flown in a while and feel rusty. That would certainly be difficult for a school to accept due to the volume of renters but there are many ways of doing due diligence that would lower the risk without the silly "You must fly our C-172M every 60 days or you aren't current".

Schools have loads of time to check your licence every time, check that you have done your weight and balance, check that your medical is current, check that you have initialed the safety memos, but no time to actually do anything towards assuring the proficiency of their renters. The one good thing they do - and that maybe I should do - is require an annual check. The times I have done them with a flight school was always a good refresher and I have always learned something. But then the school takes all that information and boils it down to pass/fail, you can/cannot rent the aircraft without making use of it. If someone goes through the checkride with no issues, that should mean something. If someone is struggling because of proficiency, they need more training. If they are struggling because of currency, they need to fly more often.

I had the opportunity to speak to someone last week who started up a flight school recently. I was able to ask what the insurance insisted on for currency: "Nothing, they just asked if we had currency rules in place". His rules seemed eminently reasonable to me. Time will tell if this is a bad idea but I don't see how they could end up with a worse track record than the schools we are discussing.

Having done a bunch of checkouts over the last three years, I have to say that this is about as common sense a policy as I have ever seen. That being said, some places are quite large schools and I would think at some point, it becomes very difficult to follow up with everybody leading to a blanket policy.

The 30 day policy is frustrating for me as I will likely be out of town for more than that. Experience should come into play and I have gotten one place to more than double it for me(hint: fly with the CFI several times as he/she has influence). On the other hand, a simple 1 year currency policy is great for me. In one place I am going next week, I fly two aircraft. One is an LSA that has a strict 30 days while the other is a complicated Mooney that has one year. I will be 4 months since I did the Mooney checkout and I will be very careful and review my notes well(which for me is critical in remembering what much of the little stuff). Admittedly, there are higher risks in some areas of LSA operation.

Your idea of shorter initial currency requirements is a great idea with extensions as experience increases. A phone follow-up is a great idea too. I like to ask the instructors during the checkout and later what has been going on at the airport/flight school that is of interest or what things people have been doing that they shouldn't have been doing so I hopefully won't do them myself.

From the point of view of letting someone use an aircraft I own, the experience and a reasonable amount of skill are of course important(perhaps not experience for a flight school) but by far the most important thing is the most difficult thing to analyze....good judgement. Will the person know when to say that this is not a safe thing to do. It can vary significantly based on a person's experience and being an old hand in one area doesn't mean that you aren't a newbie in a new airplane or geographic area. In reality, it can be impossible to know if some person you are checking out has good or poor judgement as they may behave differently once on their own.

I am now starting to make a list of what insurance companies are used by what schools in order to see if I can identify a company that allows for longer times between recurrency flights. I might end up making a suggestion of changing companies if I can see one that is too restrictive in my opinion.

[photofly]

Look that's all very well, but it's time to get off the fence and answer the central question. Do you, or do you not approve of grass checkouts?

[pelmet]

Look that's all very well, but it's time to get off the fence and answer the central question. Do you, or do you not approve of grass checkouts?

Is this question directed at one of the last three people posting on this thread. If so or if not, you may want to identify who you are asking?

From what I remember, most schools I have been renting from don't allow landing on grass or at least require some extra instruction from an instructor. Whether that is because of the insurance company or school policy, I am not sure.

To give an idea of restrictions, a couple of months ago I was thinking of taking a rental aircraft to a cool airport but it was less than 3000 feet long and the rental agreement says 3000 required unless special approval is given. So I didn't get there that day, but it is in the plans.

[fixedpitch]

Every school I've rented from had restrictions for grass strips. They usually don't allow it unless it's with an instructor and never solo.

Why? Too many accidents.

[ahramin]

So how come the instructors don't have accidents on grass runways?

[fixedpitch]

Because they've done grass fields checkouts and fly more often than your average renter. Although I suspect you know that....

[Cat Driver]

Landing and taking off on a grass runway that has been approved as an airport runway and properly maintained is easier and safer than landing and taking off on a paved runway.

[digits_]

Landing and taking off on a grass runway that has been approved as an airport runway and properly maintained is easier and safer than landing and taking off on a paved runway.

It's a non-event, but I wouldn't really call it easier. There is still the (small) risk of potholes, birds, small animals, limited braking and usually a shorter length as well. Why would it be easier ? From a typical C172 FTU point of view.

[fixedpitch]

It's a non-event, but I wouldn't really call it easier.

Agreed. Especially if you're heavy, it's hot and the grass is wet and the field is at a higher elevation.

[Cat Driver]

O.K. , no problem if some of you think landing on grass is not easier than landing on pavement that is no big deal.

I guess it all depends on ones background and experience landing on different surfaces. I am only giving my personal opinion having landed on a lot of different surfaces over the last sixty three years.

Looking back I remember how tricky it was landing the DC6 on wet ice in a X/wind in Coppermine NWT.

Actually keeping the thing going straight was no big deal it was getting it stopped that took a bit of skill.

[fixedpitch]

I guess it all depends on ones background and experience landing on different surfaces

Exactly. Your average renter at your average flight school or flying club isn't going to have 60 years experience (not usually anyway). They generally average 50 hours a year.

I love grass strips but the reality is certified versions are rare. There are registered ones in the CFS but who knows what you're getting unless you're really familiar with it. From the FTU's POV the risk of a prop strike with a bouncing nose wheel on a rough grass strip isn't worth the risk to them.

It's the same with tailwheel trainers. They are rare because students and renters wreck them. Why bother with the hassle if you've got a business to run?

[Cat Driver]

From the FTU's POV the risk of a prop strike with a bouncing nose wheel on a rough grass strip isn't worth the risk to them.

Having owned a FTU that was both fixed wing and rotary wing approved I allowed renter pilots to use grass strips that were approved by my school and never ever had damage done to my airplanes.

It's the same with tailwheel trainers. They are rare because students and renters wreck them. Why bother with the hassle if you've got a business to run?

Yes, it seems today's poorly taught students and renters wreck them, however there was a time some decades ago when flying tail wheel airplanes was the norm and they did not wreck them..

Light certified tail wheel airplanes only require training using the rudder during take off and landing they are not fire breathing dragons to fly.

The problem is the lack of flight instructors that can fly them.

It never ceases to amaze me when I talk to class one flight instructors that can not teach on basic certified tail wheel airplanes.

[Shiny Side Up]

[quote="Cat Driver"]

Having owned a FTU that was both fixed wing and rotary wing approved I allowed renter pilots to use grass strips that were approved by my school and never ever had damage done to my airplanes.

So wait, you didn't let renters go to any and all places they wanted to go with your airplanes? You had like RULES about which ones they could use? That sounds like some kind of "flight school thing".

Just busting your chops there. I mean after all if even you had some sorts of restrictions on rental use, then surely one could understand the typical stuff that may seem like "bullshit FTU stuff" now sounds reasonable if you're on the other side of the equation.

Having rented airplanes to people for decades now, (and I can unfortunately use decades in the plural) the base of people renting airplanes has certainly changed. The crowd of self sufficient people who were going to take care of the machine has dwindled, and the number who demand essentially a turn key service has increased. Anyone remember when you rented a plane you fueled and put oil in it yourself? Unheard of these days. As are things like tying them down or putting them away.

At the end of the day its all about time and money. Most rental rules came about not due to safety concerns but due to utilization ones. For example, I can remeber when we decided to stop allowing rentals into grass fields, it was the day one of the birds came back covered in cowshit... and consequently lost half a day's worth of bookings to be cleaned. Every rule that I have posted on the sign out sheet I can think of the string of incidents (all involving lost utilization and angry customers) that spawned the rule. Note that the cowshit incident wasn't the first time, merely the most notable and last. At the end of the day, many infringements on the percieved freedom renters have about their rights to use the aircraft only come from a small fraction of the customers. While one dude may be pissed off about not being able to do something he dreams of in a rental plane, its peanuts to the losses of revenue and bitchfest that happens when the majority don't get the plane when and how they want.

[fixedpitch]

The problem is the lack of flight instructors that can fly them.

Maybe. But the instructors who do teach conventional gear are usually highly experienced. Many of them have been flying tailwheel for decades and are ex-military or retired airline types (at least in my experience).

I think the problem with TW planes from an FTU's perspective is that they are inherently easier to bend and renters bend them. Again... why bother with the hassle?

[lazyeight]

Landing and taking off on a grass runway that has been approved as an airport runway and properly maintained is easier and safer than landing and taking off on a paved runway.

I disagree.

But then again you're Cat Driver and will probably start listing your years of experience and argue this till the death.

[Aviatard]

Landing and taking off on a grass runway that has been approved as an airport runway and properly maintained is easier and safer than landing and taking off on a paved runway.

I can see why a tail wheel aircraft might be easier on grass (more tolerant of yaw on landing possibly) but do you think a nose wheel aircraft is also easier and safer? And why or why not?

[Shiny Side Up]

With all other factors being equal, a grass runway will be easier to land on than a paved one with a nose dragger for the same reasons it is for a tail dragger. Taking off might be otherwise, given the greater distance required, but no more harder, if adequate distance is available and, again, all other factors being equal.

That said though, rarely are all other factors equal. Most grass runways I know of, have an assortment of other challenges that aren't present at your typical stretch of pavement. Most are quite a bit narrower, shorter, and have obstacles, to name a few. For typical renters who barely fly more than a dozen hours a year (and frequently chafe at the idea that they need to be more current) said challenges may be disasterous. I can think of many instances, but thankfully not with my planes.

[Cat Driver]

The comparison I am making is grass is easier than pavement to operate off of.

It is grass versus paved....

It is the surface, not its width or length....I am comparing a good grass surface and a good paved surface.

[lazyeight]

Where is there a "good grass" surface anywhere in the GVRD? Last time I flew out in that area and went to Hope I was dodging holes everywhere. Langley is not much better as it sees very little use and not much mx.

[digits_]

The comparison I am making is grass is easier than pavement to operate off of.

It is grass versus paved....

It is the surface, not its width or length....I am comparing a good grass surface and a good paved surface.

But why ? What exactly is easier on grass according to you ?

[ahramin]

I was in Hope last month. No holes to dodge.

[cgzro]

[quote]But why ? What exactly is easier on grass according to you ? [/quote]

Grass allows a little bit of slip which makes errors in yaw less of a problem especially at touch down.

This is especially helpful for tail draggers in strong cross winds which of course can ground loop if you let the yaw get too far out of whack.

Some of the planes at Vintage Wings really really prefer grass (Finch, our previous Moth and Fox Moth) and protest loudly on pavement if you don't get it just perfect.

[pelmet]

Grass versus paved. I think it is like so many other things in aviation and elsewhere.....it depends.

I used to do quite a bit of flying to small airports back in the '90's and it was not uncommon for me to go to grass strips. I was much more cautious in planning a flight to a grass runway. While it was very rare that I called ahead to an unfamiliar paved runway airport and asked about the runway conditions in advance, I always tried to for a grass or other non-paved runway Especially in the springtime, I want to know what the moisture has been like but this is a consideration at any time of year. Has it been quite wet recently. Remember, just because it has been dry where you are doesn't mean there wasn't heavy thunderstorms not that far away. What about the general surface of the runway. Some have depressions where it might be soft and wet in those areas. Or what about the general roughness if operating a tricycle gear aircraft in there. A new groundhog hole is going to be a problem for almost any aircraft.

Each strip should be assumed to be unique and don't count on a notam from these small airports if there is a problem. Another thing to keep in mind is that different grass airports can have significantly different types of soil meaning it takes much longer to dry out. I used to drop skydivers at an airport that was like a marsh in some areas in the spring and I did see a guy dig a prop into the ground with a 182 as he thought taxiing over soft ground quickly would help. Meanwhile, another airport a couple of hundred miles away where there was not much snow that winter and has good drainage might be fine on the same day as the weather has been good and a nice breeze over the last while helped dry things out.

It was important to try and talk to the right person for a field condition report. Best off, a pilot who has been operating off the strip, not necessarily person answering the phone at the airport with no significant flying experience. That being said, the grass cutting guy might be the most knowledgeable about the conditions.

Goderich and Port Elgin were two locations close to each other that I flew to several times that had grass runways but they were very different situations. Both Port Elgin Airports(actually there were three of them) had only a grass runway. The first one was a private field so the owner/pilot was the guy to talk to. The city airport was different. They had a city employee working there but aside from getting info from that person on whether aircraft were flying there and perhaps second hand info, I wanted to talk to someone that has been flying there recently to hear their experience and know what type of aircraft as I was frequently using a heavier twin. If only taildraggers were flying, perhaps it was because it is too risky for the local guys using tricycle gear aircraft right now.

At Goderich, there were two paved runways and one short grass runway that would likely only be used with a strong southwest wind. So who to talk to? Not necessarily the average 172 owner using just the paved runways but probably an instructor at the flight school who is hopefully actually operating off that runway and around the airport quite a bit and more familiar with day to day happenings. Then you might get some good advice such as the runway is good but don't use the first 300 feet of the west end or the left side of runway 22 or whatever other info he might have. Of course for a runway that I was not familiar with, a flyby for a visual inspection was done.

Taildraggers were a different story and the overall preference without all the extra considerations is for grass. While roughness, holes, and soft spots(especially soft spots) are a concern, grass tends can make a big difference in directional controllability for landing especially if brakes are marginal or nil. For a given crosswind, a grass runway is preferable. Plus, it is much more forgiving of a landing that is not straight(if that ever happens to anybody).

Length of grass can be another big issue of course for takeoff performance. And of course proper technique. Depending on runway conditions, failing to use proper technique for takeoff and landing on a grass runway could cause nosegear damage, which of course is less of an issue for the properly paved runway.

In the end, I probably did 40 or so grass landings in tricycle gear aircraft(plus some more at a skydiving outfit) with few issues but there were a couple of events that happened. The only time I considered myself to have caused some damage to an aircraft was a foolish mistake I made while taxiing on from a grass area to a paved ramp(long story but it was actually at a paved runway airport). It is not uncommon for a bunch of stones(perhaps from winter clearing) to be near the edge of a runway/taxiway/paved ramp. I got myself in a situation where I was stopped and needed high power to get moving again and picked up a stone with the prop. It was filed out and left a large indentation area that I suppose met the minimum requirements and it was used for a long time after that but I suspect did not allow the prop to make it past its next overhaul(never did find out). Many years later, I encountered a similar situation trying to get up a slope onto a paved runway from an adjacent grass landing area in a little taildragger and did the wise thing of shutting down and pushing the aircraft. Be careful of the stones.

One time I landed in at a private strip with trees at both ends on a warm day. Due to some miscommunication, we had lots of fuel and were fairly heavy. The reasonably strong wind had died off and I discovered that the grass strip that I had been to a few times already and could not get an updated report was actually quite wet and soft. So I made the passengers go to another airport 45 minutes away and flew out of there myself as it just seemed to tight. Another thing I did was after noticing that my gear had left some noticeable impressions in the runway especially where I turned around, I spent about 20 minutes using my feet to smooth out the ground where I had left the deep tire tracks so that it wouldn't dry out that way and cause a problem for someone else later on.

So there are definitely more considerations in my opinion for grass runways. For example, I used to take the airplane down for maintenance to a very short grass strip which definitely required at least some braking. I made sure to never arrive in the morning when there might be dew on the grass and possibly no braking action available.

Best grass strip I ever landed on....a sod farm where the owner/pilot using it as an airport as well.