Pilot check out

[redlaser]

I recently applied to an insurance company for a quote to insure my amphibious aircraft, although I have in excess of 20,000 hours as PIC on 20 or more aircraft types with SMELS ratings the quote came back requesting that I be checked out by a commercial or airline pilot before being allowed to go solo on my aircraft, Also the person giving the checkout must have a seaplane amphibous rating. Just wondering what kind of people insurance companies are hiring these days?

[JasonE]

The worst part is, they usually don't specify any time on type. I had to have a checkout with an instructor once to fly a friend's plane as per insurance. The instructor has zero experience with the aircraft but it met the requirements.....I did an informal checkout with the owner first!

[digits_]

Did you ask to get the checkout requirement removed? They'll usually always have a checkout requirement on the first quote. Even so, just getting a quote on an amphib aircraft is pretty impressive these days!

[Bede]

Pretty standard. I once had to have my wife check me out on a plane. At that point I could check her out. Pure idiocy.

[tractor driver]

Not sure what a seaplane amphibious rating is. I’ve done numerous insurance check outs over the years on amphibious float equipped airplanes with pilots far more experienced than I. Sometimes you had to wonder about the rationale. Always a pleasure to meet and fly with an aviator starting out on a new adventure.

[Squaretail]

Pretty standard. I once had to have my wife check me out on a plane. At that point I could check her out. Pure idiocy.

Frequently insurance check out requirements are like the old saying about breeding rabbits. If you have no rabbits, you can’t make rabbits. If you have some rabbits, you can make lots of rabbits.

[trey kule]

Is there actually an amphibious sea plane rating? I flew them for years with a plain old sea plane rating..SMELS.

[photofly]

Pretty standard. I once had to have my wife check me out on a plane. At that point I could check her out. Pure idiocy.

I don't think it's idiotic, and if you do then I think you're missing much of the benefit of a checkout. It's not a pass/fail test, because the insurance company doesn't ask for anyone to "pass" a checkout, merely to fly one. And it's not an instructional session, because there's no syllabus or content specified by the insurance company. The benefit lies in having the person being checked out think carefully and seriously about the flying they're doing in a new or less familiar plane.

Why an instructor? Because they have some experience of watching and judging the performance of other pilots.

Think about the difference between playing a piece of music to yourself, or to and in front of a music teacher - even if they're less experienced than you.

[digits_]

Pretty standard. I once had to have my wife check me out on a plane. At that point I could check her out. Pure idiocy.

I don't think it's idiotic, and if you do then I think you're missing much of the benefit of a checkout. It's not a pass/fail test, because the insurance company doesn't ask for anyone to "pass" a checkout, merely to fly one. And it's not an instructional session, because there's no syllabus or content specified by the insurance company. The benefit lies in having the person being checked out think carefully and seriously about the flying they're doing in a new or less familiar plane.

Why an instructor? Because they have some experience of watching and judging the performance of other pilots.

Think about the difference between playing a piece of music to yourself, or to and in front of a music teacher - even if they're less experienced than you.

You don't think someone jumping in a plane for the first time by themself would be careful and prepared? I know I would be. More so than with an instructor. With an instructor I would have the mindset of "ah well, he is here, he will teach me what to do". By myself it would be "better get this right or I might die"

It might not be a formal pass/fail, but I am pretty sure you would have a hard time keeping insurance if your instructor calls the insurance company and tells them you are unsafe and incompetent.

[fish4life]

I’ll add to that an instructor with no time on type isn’t going to be if any use of knowing where the limits are on that particular aircraft

[photofly]

You don't think someone jumping in a plane for the first time by themself would be careful and prepared? I know I would be.

I think the rules are that if you want insurance, you play by the insurance companies' game. Given that you have to play the game, you might as well see if there's some value you get out of it.

Or, you can sit at home and believe that you know better and that underwriters who assess risk every day for a living know nothing about pilot competencies, or how to reduce aircraft damage, because after all you're a pilot who's obviously never ever going to damage an aircraft, and therefore you must know better.

It's a glass half full / half empty scenario, but bitching online about how checkouts are stupid just makes the person doing the bitching look closed minded.

[digits_]

You don't think someone jumping in a plane for the first time by themself would be careful and prepared? I know I would be.

I think the rules are that if you want insurance, you play by the insurance companies' game. Given that you have to play the game, you might as well see if there's some value you get out of it.

I'm not disputing that. Only saying that your justification doesn't make sense to me.

Or, you can sit at home and believe that you know better and that underwriters who assess risk every day for a living know nothing about pilot competencies, or how to reduce aircraft damage, because after all you're a pilot who's obviously never ever going to damage an aircraft, and therefore you must know better.

It's a glass half full / half empty scenario, but bitching online about how checkouts are stupid just makes the person doing the bitching look closed minded.

Checkout requirements can often be waived just by asking for it. So no, there is not always a real reason for it. It gets added because people still accept the policy with the requirement, and often don't think about asking for a waiver. If it was such a critical instrument, it would never get waived, and especially not for free.

An insurance company stipulating an impossible requirement for the checkout pilot (amphibious rating), does indicate they do not always know what's going on in the industry -although one could argue an impossible to meet check out requirement on a paid policy would be the ultimate insurance policy-, and sometimes pilots *do* know better.

it's a bit like complaining about your salary. It won't change anything right away, but it will let other pilots know what they think is acceptable and what not. In the long term, that could affect things.

[photofly]

Checkout requirements can often be waived just by asking for it. So no, there is not always a real reason for it. It gets added because people still accept the policy with the requirement, and often don't think about asking for a waiver. If it was such a critical instrument, it would never get waived, and especially not for free.

Nobody said it was critical. I just said that it's not idiotic. If you see no value in one pilot "checking out" another, I think that says more about you than about the underwriter.

[digits_]

Checkout requirements can often be waived just by asking for it. So no, there is not always a real reason for it. It gets added because people still accept the policy with the requirement, and often don't think about asking for a waiver. If it was such a critical instrument, it would never get waived, and especially not for free.

Nobody said it was critical. I just said that it's not idiotic. If you see no value in one pilot "checking out" another, I think that says more about you than about the underwriter.

What does it matter if I see value in it. That's not relevant to what I'm writing and/or quoting.

If the insurance company is willing to drop the checkout requirement for no extra money (which happened twice to me soo far), would that not imply *they* don't see significant value in it?

[Aviatard]

An insurance company stipulating an impossible requirement for the checkout pilot (amphibious rating), does indicate they do not always know what's going on in the industry

I wouldn’t assume that’s what the insurance company actually asked for, given the OP’s past inability to understand the requirements for audiograms. There’s every possibility that they did not ask for this.

[PilotDAR]

I have ridden many checkouts, and provided many too. I find it to generally be a valuable process. Sometimes I have bee checked out by a pilot who had much less experience than I, 'didn't mean I didn't learn something... The process can seem odd sometimes, and I won't pretend to understand what some insurance companies are thinking, but how can it be bad to oversee each other a little from time to time?

I used to have the privilege of borrowing a 182RG from a friend. Over five or six years, I flew about 100 hours in it, to his 500 over the same period. The he sold it - 'shame, nice plane. A decade later, he bought another, and I ferried it home to him. I was not asked to fly a checkout, jump in and go. Yet, he would not be insured until I checked him out. I did, no problem, his skills returned quickly. He had much more time on type than I, but I had more recent time on class in the mean time, the insurer thought this through.

I support the notion of refresher training. I've flown with pilots who desperately needed it. They didn't seem to know they needed it, until I set up a few abnormal situations, and they struggled. One pilot, memorably, after 19 hours of dual on a high performance single, could not master the plane. the slightest abnormal, and he was completely behind the plane. I cautiously declined to write a letter to the insurer (which had been requested), and explained to him why. he thanked me, climbed in, took off, and flew it home - as far as I know, with no insurance. I did not respect him, and hope he got more training with someone else, I never heard. But, it was an odd type, so I wonder...

If you think you need a checkout, you do. If your insurer wants you to have a checkout, you should. If you can't find a competent check pilot, that is a problem. The proper pilot to check you out may not necessarily be an instructor.

I had a friend out west, who privately owned an uncommon, brand new helicopter, and with a PPLH, was type endorsed on it. The local police force bought the same type, and asked if he could do the checkout training. He was certainly competent, but with only a PPLH, could not provide a type endorsement - but there was apparently no other local type training available. Apparently, TC agreed that Mr. PPLH could recommend for type endorsements for the police pilots by special permission....

[BGH]

I am in the process of renewing currency in my 185 after having not flown it for over 4 years.
The minimum requirement of the check pilot was 500 hours in type & current in that aircraft.The same qualifications will be required when this aircraft goes to Amphibs later this year.There was no mention of an amphibious rating just the minimum time in type on the aircraft’s current configuration.
It doesn’t mater how much total time you have - it’s the time in type & current configuration that insurance companies want to see.

Daryl

[digits_]

It doesn’t mater how much total time you have - it’s the time in type & current configuration that insurance companies want to see.

Total time is definitely a factor and may trump time on type. Talk to your broker and don't accept the first quote thrown at you.

[PilotDAR]

Total time is definitely a factor and may trump time on type.

Let's call it total experience, but yes. I have been insured on some types I had never before flown, and without a checkout, because I had experience on similar types, and no check out was available.

[BGH]

Not going to argue with any previous statement but my buddy after retirement wanted to go back on my insurance to use the plane on floats - they asked for me to sit right seat for a couple of hours just to make sure he was ok.He had over 35,000 hours total & over 4000 hours in 185’s on floats - insurance company wanted it so we complied.

Daryl

[digits_]

Not going to argue with any previous statement but my buddy after retirement wanted to go back on my insurance to use the plane on floats - they asked for me to sit right seat for a couple of hours just to make sure he was ok.He had over 35,000 hours total & over 4000 hours in 185’s on floats - insurance company wanted it so we complied.

That's a different situation because they know it's highly unlikely you will change to another company just for the requirements to check out a second pilot. You have more leverage when applying for a new policy.

Did you ask if the checkout requirement for the second pilot could be waived? Then again, it would probably look really suspicious if the current owner doesn't want to fly with the second pilot for 2 hours.

[cncpc]

Not sure what a seaplane amphibious rating is. I

I was wondering about that too. I know there is a seaplane rating, but I've never heard of a subcategory for amphibs.

[cncpc]

Pretty standard. I once had to have my wife check me out on a plane. At that point I could check her out. Pure idiocy.

Why an instructor?

That is a bit odd. You don't need an instructor to instruct for the seaplane rating, same as multi or IFR.

[redlaser]

I must add this to my original post, I was insured with the same insurance company last year which included my GF who is also a commercial pilot, last year i checked her out on the Amphibian aircraft, last year the insurance company did not ask for any check out, not for me nor my GF, Just wondering if the coronavirus had anything to do with it, Maybe agents working from home makes them more stupid in their thinking.