|
|
Jeff -- This is a personally biased and admittedly long-winded response to your posting about HPAT.
One of the things I find most useful about LML is that most issues generate substantive responses that are seldom universal. Witness the recent exchange on a certain CA engine builder. One ES driver expresses his disdain and backs it up with factual assertions. Others join in. Still others present their experiences which are equally factual and diametrically opposed. Result: potential customers are informed and left free to judge having read evidence on both sides of an issue.
What's this got to do with HPAT. The pattern appears to be the same. Except that it seems to me that the "goods" far outweigh the "unacceptables".
Let's all remember that it was Pete Z., the hardest-working-corporate-and-test-pilot-in-show-business, who worked tirelessly with Joe B. to put together a training+ program to get our insurance rates down. Sadly, let's also remember that Pete lost his right hand man this year in a crash -- not that those or any other conditions are excuses for sub-standard services. They are just germane facts.
We all are empathetic when fellow Lancair drivers have problems like yours. In my experience, however, yours seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Pete has bent over backwards to be accommodating to me both in scheduling annual recurrency at Sebring and working out personal sessions for my instrument recurrency and BFR needs. My personal, three-year experience weighs strongly in on the positive rather than the negative side on Pete Z. and HPAT. None of us knows all the nuances of your particular situation, but all of us need more qualified, concerned pilots to help us stay safe. And whatever else you may have unfortunately experienced with HPAT, I doubt that anyone would or could counter that Pete is anything but a gifted pilot and instructor.
MY BOTTOM LINE: Not only have I had no scheduling or administrative issues, but in his annual hours of beating me up on sloppiness and demanding sharpness in technique, I can unequivocally state that Pete and his HPAT have made me a better, safer pilot.
End of soliloquy.
Jeffrey Liegner, MD wrote:
I have had a terrible time getting HPAT recurrency training, and wonder if anyone else has experienced same?
We are encouraged to get recurrency training, and now my AIG insurance requires it for full coverage. Yet to have my In Motion insurance coverage in effect, which I've paid for, I must wait until I get the training and remain grounded until then.
I have chosen not to sit for months (and it's been months) while I wait for an HPAT reply (that hasn't come) and then scheduling the training (sometime in the complicated future). In fact, sometime ago, I had scheduled with an HPAT instructor but he cancelled at the last minute, leaving me "high and dry."
So I fly "bare" without insurance that I paid for. Not a sensible situation all around. I'm safe, but there is value in recurrency training that I have not been given the opportunity to benefit from.
ListServ replies should focus on the problem with scheduling training through HPAT, not my decision to fly "bare."
Note that Not in Motion hull coverage still requires recurrency training for liability coverage "in motion."
Also, regardless of my insurance coverage interest, we should all receive recurrency training even if we "self-insure."
Perhaps I'm the only one experiencing this obstacle.
Jeff Liegner
-- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/
|
|