What's new
Van's Air Force

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

How exactly to obtain a LODA?

kbalch

Well Known Member
Having just arranged to fly with Mike Seager in September for my insurance-required -14A checkout, I've been thinking about offering transition training in my airplane once it's out of Phase I early next year (hopefully).

The insurance is an issue (as I've seen discussed elsewhere), but doesn't seem prohibitive, so long as enough guys want to fly with me in Florida rather than make the long trek to Oregon. Other than Mike, I don't think there are currently any other options for those who specifically need to fly a -14A.

So, the question in the title: how exactly does one obtain a LODA? I gather there's an application to make at the local FSDO, but what's actually involved?

Any comments or input on the whole idea would be gratefully appreciated.
 
Send me your email address via a PM. I'll forward you the "application packet". Fill it in, call the FSDO, see if they want you to mail it to them, or if you need to show up in person. These days it should be straightforward (7 years ago I had to educate the FSDO guy).
 
Send me your email address via a PM. I'll forward you the "application packet". Fill it in, call the FSDO, see if they want you to mail it to them, or if you need to show up in person. These days it should be straightforward (7 years ago I had to educate the FSDO guy).

Thanks! Standby for the PM...
 
I'd like to get in on that.

Out of curiosity, could you let us know what you find out about insurance cost?
 
I'd like to get in on that.

Out of curiosity, could you let us know what you find out about insurance cost?

Will do. The first quick take was about double the cost of my personal policy, though I?m still awaiting the official quote on the commercial insurance.
 
Will do. The first quick take was about double the cost of my personal policy, though I?m still awaiting the official quote on the commercial insurance.


Rog. Great you're doing that. I was curious to compare tricycle vs tail-wheel as well when I'm ready.
 
All: I?ve been out all day. I?ll send out the application stuff tomorrow am (pacific time).
Double the normal cost sounds about right for insurance.
 
No insurance.

My opinion on insurance is that you don't need the additional outlay.

Just be very careful as to how far to let the trainee go. Don't let him/her smack the ground before taking over. The extra outlay is simply not worth it.

Best,
 
My opinion on insurance is that you don't need the additional outlay.

Just be very careful as to how far to let the trainee go. Don't let him/her smack the ground before taking over. The extra outlay is simply not worth it.

Best,

Whether or not one steps in quickly during landing practice, one is still conducting training - a commercial activity. Should any claim ensue, maintaining that one wasn't conducting training would constitute insurance fraud. Even if not caught, it's still dishonest. The policy expense is irrelevant.
 
One way to go is get liability only. The hull for training is very high (many thousands a year).

I agree with the comment above, keep them in the middle of the envelope. You can't let them "learn" from their landing mistakes. I wouldn't do training in a fully loaded Oshkosh award winning RV. I missed out on buying a beautiful O-320 fixed pitch basic RV6, which would have been perfect for transition training. It was the classic RV as Van intended, simple, light, inexpensive.

The moral dilemma as a CFI, this is NOT a rating or even an endorcement. They are logging instruction on make and model, typically for insurance requirements. If they were really unsafe I'd refund their money. One way to avoid this is make it a prerequisite they are current. For TG, I'd prefer (insist) they have TG experience/endorsement. You can not fail them. It is just training and hours. It is different teaching in a land-O-matic C-152 or C-172 than an RV.

There was only one student I had to quit. He was checking out in the clubs plane as a new member. He scared me so bad I talked to the owner. He backed me up. This guys check also bounced and his application was full of mistakes... He also told me he was an ATP and he was a Private Pilot. Fraud...

I owned a PA23-160 Piper Apache Twin. It was my baby. I gave some dual in it for people to build hours and some experience but not for a rating. I did not want to do engine shut downs.
 
Last edited:
One way to go is get liability only. The hull for training is very high (many thousands a year).

I agree with the comment above, keep them in the middle of the envelope. You can't let them "learn" from their landing mistakes. I wouldn't do training in a fully loaded Oshkosh award winning RV. I missed out on buying a beautiful O-320 fixed pitch basic RV6, which would have been perfect for transition training. It was the classic RV as Van intended, simple, light, inexpensive.

The moral dilemma as a CFI, this is NOT a rating or even an enforcement. They are logging instruction. If they were really unsafe I'd refund their money. One way to avoid this is make it a prerequisite they are current. For TG. I would prefer they have TG experience. You can not fail them. It is just training and hours.

There was only one student I had to quit. He was checking out in the clubs plane as a new member. He scared me so bad I talked to the owner. He backed me up. His check also bounced... He also told me he was an ATP and he was a Private Pilot. Fraud... never been scared by a student until this one... It is different teaching in a land-O-matic C-152 or C-172 than an RV.

Yep, that all makes sense to me. Middle of the envelope is the perfect place to keep transitioning pilots.

I spent a little time years ago teaching in the T-6 and I could tell a few stories of students with the appropriate certificates, endorsements, and logged tailwheel time whose flying was just horrific. Some scary stuff out there. Don't even get me started on aerobatic and formation ham-handedness. Next to all of that, instructing in a nosewheel RV ought to be a cakewalk.

Hopefully... :D
 
1. Ken (and 2 others), you should find 2 emails from me. You'll see that I agree with GMC's comments (see #3).
2. I prefer to think that Pierre was referring to "going bare", not cheating an insurance company. If your personal circumstances (and financial obligations) allow you to do that, that's an option. The "student" should know and understand what's going on.
3. GMC is absolutely correct - training under a LODA is transition training for otherwise well-prepared pilots. In fact, my LODA specifically does not allow high performance endorsements, tail wheel endorsements, flight reviews, etc. It's expected that stuff that can be done in normally-certified airplanes, will be done in normally-certified airplanes.
 
Bob's packet was exactly what it took to get my LODA for the RV-14A.
You should have no problem getting the LODA.

I agree 100% with only accepting a current and reasonably experienced pilot. I have been lucky in that the few people I have done RV14 transition training for have been real decent and flew pretty well. I have zero interest in taking someone who's got low time, or hasn't flown more than a few hours in the past year(s) because they've been building their plane. If you're not current, get current in another plane.

For me, the insurance simply ended up not being worth the effort, despite my intentions.
I wanted to be able to offer the RV-14 builder the ability to get comfortable in the plane so that their first flight would be a good, and safe experience. Insurance companies SHOULD love that people are willing to give transition training, as it will lower their risk of payout. But what I found is that the add on wasn't "about double", but more like about $2000 add-on. My insurance as a single pilot would be very reasonable, but when you add the transition training coverage it jumps a lot.

In the end, you have to decide if you've got the spare time to do the juggling of schedules to make the customer happy, and the spare cash to risk not making your insurance payment back. When I did my original RV-10 transition training (from Mike and he is very very good), it was 5 hours required. Some people were required 10. Now days I'm finding the requirements are 1 or 2 hours. At that rate, the insurance is a loss for a while. On the flip side, if you are teaching a well experienced pilot, they probably will feel pretty good in 2 hours. The spectrum of what you can experience is huge. The worst landing I've ever seen in a plane of mine was by a guy who said he had 5,000+ hours, and flew Beech Barons as his current plane. It was horrible.

So these days I don't really offer Transition training outright, because it's just not worth the time and risk in most cases. But it's nice to have the LODA anyway, and I'd encourage you to get it, because you may meet just the right person, with just the right schedule, who has reasonable currency, and you can potentially make a difference for his (or her) safety by giving him some flying time in type. Having the LODA at least gives you the option to do it and be reimbursed, without it being illegal. I've spoken with a few LODA holders for the RV-10 though, and the consensus has generally been it can be a lot of money to spend for something that doesn't provide as much satisfaction as they had hoped, for various reasons. If it weren't for the insurance hit, it would be much more appealing.
 
Good info, Tim - thanks!

Should the rate of -14 completions continue to accelerate (with no reason to suspect that it won't do so), it seems reasonable to project that - with approximately half of the country closer to Florida than to Oregon - six "students" per year should be an achievable number.

Perhaps I'm over-estimating the level of potential interest in Florida-based RV-14A transition training, but even half a dozen guys per year flying two hours each would cover expenses (including the extra insurance cost) and my time.

We'll see how all this works out in practice once my plane is flying and Phase 1 has been completed - hopefully by next spring sometime.
 
Good luck with it Ken!

One little twist too, to expect, is that the FAA will require you to do 100 hour inspections on the plane when you use it for transition training. That's not a big deal though. The FAA for me was actually easy to deal with. You have the 100hr inspection clause, no BFR's, no other training other than transition training (for money, that is), and no HP sign offs. It's strictly transition training. The insurance companies were ok to deal with too, other than the rates. They'll want you to have the LODA of course, but otherwise it's pretty quick to actually add the coverage.

I found it valuable, to the people who did it. I think if you're not coming from an RV already, it's definitely worth the time. I also feel that if you ARE an RV pilot already, such as the 9/9A, or 10, and probably the other models too, you may not get much more benefit out of it than you could learn by talking to an RV-14 guy. The plane flies so very closely to my RV-10 that it didn't take me even 60 seconds to be comfortable. The RV-10 however, may be a good idea to get a couple hours in, even if you're coming from a 2-seat RV.

However it works for you, I'm sure you'll have fun with it and it'll be nice to hear your experiences, and nice for the RV-14 building community that there is another person that they can go to. The harder it is logistically, the less people want to get training, and lack of training leads to worse safety records and higher risk, so there is value in your plan.
 
How exactly to obtain a LODA

The issue with training in your airplane and not telling the insurance company is both an integrity one and a practical one. You do not want to be involved in a claim where there is a coverage question. Even if the insurance decides to pay after the investigation, you will go through trauma waiting for the answer. And if you are doing training, and don't pay for the insurance for training, then both of you will have to lie to get paid. So my advice is to tell your insurance broker exactly what you do with your airplane and then pay the appropriate premium. Then you can sleep at night knowing that your airplane is covered.
 
The issue with training in your airplane and not telling the insurance company is both an integrity one and a practical one. You do not want to be involved in a claim where there is a coverage question. Even if the insurance decides to pay after the investigation, you will go through trauma waiting for the answer. And if you are doing training, and don't pay for the insurance for training, then both of you will have to lie to get paid. So my advice is to tell your insurance broker exactly what you do with your airplane and then pay the appropriate premium. Then you can sleep at night knowing that your airplane is covered.

Precisely. I won't lie to anybody, ever. Sometimes that results in a tact challenge, but I'll never be caught out by fraud.

A friend of mine used to advocate passing on trackday insurance and, if there was an incident with his car, would imply that he'd push it into a ditch on the way home and claim that the damage occurred there. Needless to say, that was just one example of his questionable (more like non-existent) ethics and I don't speak to him very much anymore.
 
The problem is how much training will you actually do. How much can you charge people and are willing to pay, while breaking even. Doing the math, say hull insurance is $2000 a year for training. If you do 50 hours that is $40 an hour added to other cost. Flight schools who rent a training plane daily 365 days a year can spread the cost out.

(Wild guess numbers) Say I'll have liability ($500 year). If I do 50 hours of training a year, that adds $10/hr for insurance. Gas/oil/tires/brakes is $50/hr. engine reserves $10/hr. plus instruction $40/hr, $10/hr misc/hanger.. that is $120/hr. That is reasonable. With hull it would be $160/hr. What are people charging? Say you only do 10 hrs/year of training? The math really goes south. Of course bend the plane, have to fix it and/or take the loss.

I'll also get a lawyer to draw up a hold harmless training agreement.
 
Last edited:
The problem is how much training will you actually do. How much can you charge people and are willing to pay, while breaking even. Doing the math, say hull insurance is $2000 a year for training. If you do 50 hours that is $40 an hour added to other cost. Flight schools who rent a training plane daily 365 days a year can spread the cost out.

(Wild guess numbers) Say I'll have liability ($500 year). If I do 50 hours of training a year, that adds $10/hr for insurance. Gas/oil/tires/brakes is $50/hr. engine reserves $10/hr. plus instruction $40/hr, $10/hr misc/hanger.. that is $120/hr. That is reasonable. With hull it would be $160/hr. What are people charging? Say you only do 10 hrs/year of training? The math really goes south. Of course bend the plane, have to fix it and/or take the loss.

I'll also get a lawyer to draw up a hold harmless training agreement.

That all makes sense. Mike Seager is currently charging $90/hr. for his time and $75/hr. additional for the -10 and -14. So, that's $165/hr. and I suspect that his use of the airplanes is largely (entirely?) subsidized by Van's. I'd have to charge $200-$250/hr. all up for it to make any kind of sense.

The real question, market-wise, is how many guys would be interested in flying with me here in central Florida vs. making the trek out to Oregon? Even half a dozen guys per year would make it worthwhile (factoring in non-tangibles such as my own enjoyment at offering the service and participating in the training), albeit not a major profit center.
 
I'll also get a lawyer to draw up a hold harmless training agreement.

Speaking of..

It's my understanding that when there is a hold harmless agreement or liability release, those who sign are the ONLY ones agreeing not to sue if something happens.

Example: There's an accident and the customer is hurt. She / he signed an agreement with you before the flight. He would have a tough time with his law suit against you. But, his wife never signed such an agreement and can file suit. This is why I think insurance is so important. They will step in on your behalf and the plaintiff will have to go through the 1 mil (or whatever) before they go after your personal estate.

The American Beech Society has both the student and spouce sign and the document stored on the ground before any flight training occurs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe an LCC or Inc wont protect you if you are found to be personally negligent.

The good news is that I am unaware of any successful litigation against a CFI. I will try to find the AOPA article on it and get a link.
 
Example: There's an accident and the customer is hurt. She / he signed an agreement with you before the flight. He would have a tough time with his law suit against you. But, his wife never signed such an agreement and can file suit. This is why I think insurance is so important. They will step in on your behalf and the plaintiff will have to go through the 1 mil (or whatever) before they go after your personal estate.

This is certainly true; nobody can sign away another?s right to sue. Unfortunately, the net effect is nearly unlimited liability. Having the spouse?s signature, too, would go some legal distance toward demonstrating the intent of the parties, but it?s hardly bulletproof.

I?ve also been thinking of picking up a Waco YMF and starting a scenic ride operation, so these matters have been very much on my mind of late.
 
That's awesome! I also love biplanes. I think you may also need a "drug testing" program for scenic flights.

When i was out getting a Pitts check out. I asked the CFI how he does airplane rides with out a testing program. His solution was to buy log books in bulk. Everyone who gets a ride, gets a log book with their first hour. Therefore the flight was training and not ridding. Clever
 
Last edited:
Speaking of..
It's my understanding that when there is a hold harmless agreement or liability release, those who sign are the ONLY ones agreeing not to sue if something happens.
Example: There's an accident and the customer is hurt. She / he signed an agreement with you before the flight. He would have a tough time with his law suit against you. But, his wife never signed such an agreement and can file suit. This is why I think insurance is so important. They will step in on your behalf and the plaintiff will have to go through the 1 mil (or whatever) before they go after your personal estate.
This is also why, when I sell an amateur-built aircraft, I have the spouse/guardian sign the liability waiver as well as the buyer.
Nothing is 100% but this should help in a court decision.
 
That's awesome! I also love biplanes. I think you may also need a "drug testing" program for scenic flights.

When i was out getting a Pitts check out. I asked the CFI how he does airplane rides with out a testing program. His solution was to buy log books in bulk. Everyone who gets a ride, gets a log book with their first hour. Therefore the flight was training and not ridding. Clever

True on the drug testing program for scenics. I?ve heard of the logbook ruse, of course, but that?s thin cover should the feds or insurers ever have reason to look closely. I?d rather just sign up for the random testing.

I?ve always loved Golden Age airplanes and have been crazy about the YMFs for almost twenty years. There are a handful of airplanes that always make me think ?That?s what a plane is meant to look like!? The YMF, DC-3, and B-17 are right at the top of the list. All of them just perfectly proportioned.
 
Back
Top