Jump to content

Looking for transition training in Texas or Florida


TheEngineer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm in the process of purchasing a 2018 CTLSi that's currently based just outside of Houston. I'm looking for a CFI with CTLS experience to help me with the 4 hours of training required by my insurance. Does anyone know of a flight school in Florida that runs a CTLS? Or any CTLS experienced CFIs in Texas?

 

Thanks in advance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I’m looking to start flight training in tge Houston area and would like to train in a SW or a CTLS. Andy, I saw that you’re in the area. If you’re interested in taking on a new student please let me know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you bring an airplane, then I'm interested.  I don't use my own CT for training and there aren't any others for rent/training in the area (or any other light sport I know of.).   Always open to getting together for a little flight time, in it though, if you want to come down to Pearland (KLVJ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the quick reply. I’m currently at the very beginning of speaking with someone about purchasing a 2012 CTLS, so me being able to bring at plane to train in is definitely a possibility. I haven’t seen it yet, but I plan to fly to go see it within the next two weeks. I’d be more than appreciative I could meet with you and look at your SW and would be over the moon if you took me up. I’m more than happy to drive to Pearland to meet with you. I work downtown and live just a few miles west. Just a heads up, I’m new to this forum and forums in general, so please excuse my lack of knowledge of how this all works. How can I get in touch with you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to point out to check with your insurance policy. While a lot of policies will in general cover instructors in an owner's aircraft for things like 172's, Flight Design is presently on the less than desirable list for a lot of insurance companies, and is more stringent on requirements.

A lot of policies use "standard airworthiness" as a phrase in their policies too in a few key areas which can complicate matters. I had someone with their airplane down in maintenance, whos policy would not cover borrowing my flight design because their policy said "standard airworthiness" in the paragraph that would normally allow the policy to extend to other aircraft as a substitute while the covered aircraft is being maintained. The underwriter heard about the aircraft type to be borrowed and sent back a hell no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Anticept said:

I just want to point out to check with your insurance policy. While a lot of policies will in general cover instructors in an owner's aircraft for things like 172's, Flight Design is presently on the less than desirable list for a lot of insurance companies, and is more stringent on requirements.

A lot of policies use "standard airworthiness" as a phrase in their policies too in a few key areas which can complicate matters. I had someone with their airplane down in maintenance, whos policy would not cover borrowing my flight design because their policy said "standard airworthiness" in the paragraph that would normally allow the policy to extend to other aircraft as a substitute while the covered aircraft is being maintained. The underwriter heard about the aircraft type to be borrowed and sent back a hell no.

Thank you for the heads up. I definitely want to stay within the coverage. 
 

What were you referring to when you said, “ Flight Design was presently on tge less than desirable list for a lot of insurance companies?” What happened to cause this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anticept said:

High accident rates

Interesting.  Can you cite your basis for this statement?  High accident rates compared to what?  Other LSA?  Other GA aircraft?  Other aircraft in general?  

I've heard various explanations for FD insurance rates, including low numbers of the make and model which means the actuaries have a low confidence that their rates are correct.  Have also heard of higher costs of repair as many are not familiar with fiber glass repairs.  I guess I'll email my broker and see what she says.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a long chat with my broker of 19 years experience today.  She is obviously not the actuary at an insurance company, but she shared some of her observations.  The following should be considered as about as reliable as any other hangar talk.

If I understand her correctly, actuaries look at aircraft of similar type.  They don't compare your FD CTSW with every other LSA or even every other FD.  Because the numbers are so few, any accident is a greater percentage of the population, compared for example with a C172.  Apparently, low numbers make actuaries nervous and they pad the rates to try to avoid taking a big hit if someone in that aircraft pool has a claim.

She shared that insurance companies like to see 25 or more hours per year.  Her impression was that as pilots age, AIG is the most friendly company.  Some companies use the dual only provision to try to force pilots out without actually dropping them.  Interestingly, she shared that two dual only pilots doesn't cut it.  The second pilot has to meet the open pilot clause or other company criteria.  Apparently you can't take two guys with a bad leg and make them a race winner (that's a joke).

It may well be that accident rate is part of the equation, but there are other factors as well, including the size of the pool of that airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the insurance topic, I also think that high repair costs are part of the issue.  When I was renting my airplane as a trainer, a rental pilot hit a bird and punched out an elliptical 3 inch hole in the canopy.  Since the canopy is integrated into the airframe, it ha∂ to be cut out, requiring composite work and painting to replace.  In my case, there wasn't a canopy available in the U.S. and it took us ten weeks to get a new one and get it put in.  The total bill came out to about $10K (though $2K involved transportation costs that could have been largely mitigated if I had been able to ferry the airplane to the repair site, which I was incorrectly told I couldn't do "because the canopy was part of the structure".  The hit was right at the left edge so the area appeared to be structurally stable and there was only one small crack stretching out  from the "hole" which I thought we could have stop-drilled and then taped the whole thing over for a ferry flight up to Tulsa from Houston. Once the mechanic got to the airplane and saw it, he asked why I hadn't flown it up after being the one who told me not to do it after I sent him pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...