The New Wings Program

[AuntPeggy]

Hubby & I were talking this morning about the old vs. new Wings program. It is our understanding that only about 3% of pilots participated in Wings before the changes and that one of the reasons for revamping it was to get more pilots into the program.

Our very informal discussions with other pilots would indicate that, with the new Wings program, even fewer pilots are participating. We really enjoyed the wings program and looked forward to learning new things from it. But not now. We have cut back on participating because of officious bureaucratic rules. And, we don't get the pins any more.

 

[TMetzinger]

Incorrect - you DO get pins for completing a WINGS phase! (bronze/copper for Basic, silver for Advanced, and Gold for Master)

And the website is improving, although I'll be the first to admit it has a ways to go. The program as it is today requires internet skills - but if you can manage to post here, you'll be able to manage the FAASafety.gov site.

Part of the problem is the vast amount of misinformation circulating, usually from CFIs who haven't bothered to LEARN the new program before they start to TEACH it.

You can earn WINGS credit for lots of AOPA ASF courses, King Courses, and there are online FAA courses as well. There are still live seminars being given, too. The flying portion is even easier if you're proficient - I completed the basic phase in just over an hour of dual instruction with a CFI.

If you have questions about the program, PLEASE post them or PM me. I'll get you an answer and put you in touch with a local FAA Safety Team Representative. I'd particulary like to know more about the "officious bureaucratic rules". The program has gotten a bit more structured to address specific topics, but I don't feel it's more bureaucratic. Perhaps it's a local issue.


-Tim Metzinger
FAA Safety Team Representative
Washington FSDO.

 

[dmccormack]

I'll second the "it's improving" theme.

What would help immensely in drawing in more pilots would be some real insurance rate reductions, and perhaps even (gasp) credit towards biennial or even CFI renewal.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Aunt Peggy: I was Wings Level VII when the new program came out. I haven't participate in the new program; may reconsider. Tim may be aware of new changes I haven't kept up with.

I was an approved instructor for ground courses; attended several training sessions a year that qualified including SIMCOM. Where FAA used to review the syllabus and approve, they changed it to where the pilot or provider had to go through everything, show where it fit the FAA criteria and spend a lot doing that. SIMCOM and other providers I worked with wouldn't do that extra work. I spent over an hour on their site just to try to figure out how it all worked and finally walked away disappointed when it was just taking too long and wasn't clear. Extra time is a resource some of us just don't have. We train a lot in the little bit of free time we get and get frustrated when it doesn't easily transfer.

I laud Tim's effort and hope it continues to improve, but I'm just not inclined to spend hours on top of attending training going thorough training materials and clunky web sites. We had a lengthy discussion on the AvSig web site about this an almost everyone participating there dropped out of the program. I hate to see leaders like this not participate. It would do FAA well to do something where folks like this become instigaters and promoters again as they were before.

Best,

Dave

 

[TMetzinger]

I'll second the "it's improving" theme.

What would help immensely in drawing in more pilots would be some real insurance rate reductions, and perhaps even (gasp) credit towards biennial or even CFI renewal.

Wait, a WINGS phase STILL counts as a biennial flight review.

 

[mikea]

Hubby & I were talking this morning about the old vs. new Wings program. It is our understanding that only about 3% of pilots participated in Wings before the changes and that one of the reasons for revamping it was to get more pilots into the program.

Our very informal discussions with other pilots would indicate that, with the new Wings program, even fewer pilots are participating. We really enjoyed the wings program and looked forward to learning new things from it. But not now. We have cut back on participating because of officious bureaucratic rules. And, we don't get the pins any more.

I got to Wings Phase 5 and then struggled through the new Wings "improved" program, where I guessed the answers to the online ground training course, among others, the scenario of being a multi-rated CFI with a IR, none of which I am - but the program is "tailored to my needs."

I'll never do a Wings again, but hey, I'm getting lots o' email that my "credits are expiring."

Even if they have more pins, they can keep them.

 

[skyflyer8]

I got really bored yesterday - a rainy day - and did a whole bunch of Wings credit programs on faasafety.gov.

I have no problem using the online program, but I think they could stand to simplify things by putting more info directly in-line with the course, rather than having you download so many PDFs on the side.

 

[McMath]

I started this conversation with my wife and she has made it public so I feel some responsibility to answer your private request for gripes about the Wings program publicly. While I know some of these will make me sound iconoclastic and possibly even Luddite-like, I have reached the natural age of "grumpy old man" and feel no need to apologize.

Here are my specific problems with the new Wings program:

1) It is my understanding that the program was redesigned because of the underutilization by pilots. It seems to me that making it more complicated does not necessarily make it more appealing -- indeed, quite the opposite.


2) It requires Internet access. Some pilots still have dial-up making use of the Internet painful; some do not have access at all. I do not believe the FAA has mandated Internet access for pilots (yet).

3) There is a privacy issue in that you must register and the FAA keeps track of all that info for you. How handy. Trust me to keep my log book honestly. Trust me to keep my Wings honestly. But don't ask me to trust the FAA.

To be more succinct, I don’t want to log into a government site and leave personal data there. If the FAA wants to see my logbook they must ask me for it. You may say that my personal data is safe with the FAA but I may say that my personal data was safe with IBM and they are now paying through the nose because they “lost” some tapes.

4) I have been told by several FAAST team members that there would no longer be any annual pins. It's nice to know there are pins for "phases," whatever those are. My phase is currently set to stun.

5) There is no incentive to learn yet more bureaucratic meanderings of a government agency that seems less and less concerned with safety and promotion than making new rules and changing old ones apparently "because they can" (new IFR currency and 51% rule leap to mind).

6) The old program was nice and relatively unstructured. An hour of landings and hour of stuff and another hour of approaches. It was fun. After one landing to convince a CFI that it was possible to use the airplane again, we could go out and do advanced stuff. I tried to get a different CFI every year. One was a mountain flying expert for CAP, another was an ex-Air Force jock. They all (mostly) had some wonderful thing to teach me that wasn't on any syllabus or PTS. Now I'm stuck with BFRs in which I fly a CFI friend 40 files to lunch and get a signature. Sure it's fun, but it doesn't stretch me and it doesn't teach me anything and it doesn't make me a better or safer pilot. It only makes me a legal pilot.

While you may argue that the more structured requirements will make me better or safer I will argue that those are your rules, your requirements and your assumption on what will make me better. I'm not a professional pilot. I do this for fun and to visit grandchildren. Don't take away my fun.

You may also argue that I can still go out and rent a CFI to "stretch my wings" (as it were). And you would be correct. And I will. But other than my own edification there is, again, no impetus to do so.

7) My wife and I both attend numerous safety meetings and seminars. Most offer Wings credit. We used to just pick up a card. Now we have to scoot through bureaucratic machinations. It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

And, in a nearly unrelated subject, ALL of the people I have ever met who work for the FAA have been helpful and dedicated and who do good work in an environment that is sometimes fraught with people like me.

 

[Joe B]

The flying portion is even easier if you're proficient - I completed the basic phase in just over an hour of dual instruction with a CFI.

Whaaa? No more three-hour minimum? This is interesting. Tell us more.

(Sorry, teacher, I was snoozing during that part of your talk at W29 as I'd just finished my BFR a week earlier and was feeling pretty smug. But now I remember I'm no better than pond scum...)

 

[wsuffa]

Whaaa? No more three-hour minimum? This is interesting. Tell us more.

(Sorry, teacher, I was snoozing during that part of your talk at W29 as I'd just finished my BFR a week earlier and was feeling pretty smug. But now I remember I'm no better than pond scum...)

Correct...

It's now task-oriented rather than time oriented. We knocked off the tasks as part of/during my BFR.

 

[dmccormack]

Wait, a WINGS phase STILL counts as a biennial flight review.

Sorry, I was not clear.

I meant that a pilot should be able to apply some WINGS credits, even if he/she has not completed a phase yet.

 

[TMetzinger]

I started this conversation with my wife and she has made it public so I feel some responsibility to answer your private request for gripes about the Wings program publicly. While I know some of these will make me sound iconoclastic and possibly even Luddite-like, I have reached the natural age of "grumpy old man" and feel no need to apologize.

Here are my specific problems with the new Wings program:

1) It is my understanding that the program was redesigned because of the underutilization by pilots. It seems to me that making it more complicated does not necessarily make it more appealing -- indeed, quite the opposite.

2) It requires Internet access. Some pilots still have dial-up making use of the Internet painful; some do not have access at all. I do not believe the FAA has mandated Internet access for pilots (yet).

3) There is a privacy issue in that you must register and the FAA keeps track of all that info for you. How handy. Trust me to keep my log book honestly. Trust me to keep my Wings honestly. But don't ask me to trust the FAA.

To be more succinct, I don’t want to log into a government site and leave personal data there. If the FAA wants to see my logbook they must ask me for it. You may say that my personal data is safe with the FAA but I may say that my personal data was safe with IBM and they are now paying through the nose because they “lost” some tapes.

4) I have been told by several FAAST team members that there would no longer be any annual pins. It's nice to know there are pins for "phases," whatever those are. My phase is currently set to stun.

5) There is no incentive to learn yet more bureaucratic meanderings of a government agency that seems less and less concerned with safety and promotion than making new rules and changing old ones apparently "because they can" (new IFR currency and 51% rule leap to mind).

6) The old program was nice and relatively unstructured. An hour of landings and hour of stuff and another hour of approaches. It was fun. After one landing to convince a CFI that it was possible to use the airplane again, we could go out and do advanced stuff. I tried to get a different CFI every year. One was a mountain flying expert for CAP, another was an ex-Air Force jock. They all (mostly) had some wonderful thing to teach me that wasn't on any syllabus or PTS. Now I'm stuck with BFRs in which I fly a CFI friend 40 files to lunch and get a signature. Sure it's fun, but it doesn't stretch me and it doesn't teach me anything and it doesn't make me a better or safer pilot. It only makes me a legal pilot.

While you may argue that the more structured requirements will make me better or safer I will argue that those are your rules, your requirements and your assumption on what will make me better. I'm not a professional pilot. I do this for fun and to visit grandchildren. Don't take away my fun.

You may also argue that I can still go out and rent a CFI to "stretch my wings" (as it were). And you would be correct. And I will. But other than my own edification there is, again, no impetus to do so.

7) My wife and I both attend numerous safety meetings and seminars. Most offer Wings credit. We used to just pick up a card. Now we have to scoot through bureaucratic machinations. It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

And, in a nearly unrelated subject, ALL of the people I have ever met who work for the FAA have been helpful and dedicated and who do good work in an environment that is sometimes fraught with people like me.

I'll try and address your points:

1). Cost-effectiveness was a part of the new program - the old program had low participation and high costs, with postage and printing charges. The new program HAD to eliminate those costs as much as possible, hence:

2). It IS internet based. Participants must have internet access - either their own, or at a library/FBO/work/other. Programs are often given in person, but everything about that seminar is donated, and the only way for people to find out is if they are registered or by word of mouth.

3). The FAA knows so much about you already (residence with history, medical info, driver records, etc) that I don't understand how giving them an e-mail address (and it can be a hotmail/yahoo/other "free" address) is increasing your risk of identity theft.

4). Pins already addressed. Avemco sponsors them. Once you complete a phase, you claim your pin, and it shows up in the mail in a week or so.

5). Not sure how your dislike over the 51% rule relates to WINGS. It sounds to me like you just dislike the FAA being in a position of authority over you and your flying. I understand that, but I'm not King, so (as you hinted in your final paragraph) I must do the best I can within the rules as they are set.

6). If you did one landing and then did other stuff under the old program, your old CFI lied when he endorsed you doing one hour of takeoffs and landings. The FAA really did expect you to go out and do a full hour of different types of takeoffs and landings, because so many pilots come to grief in the approach and landing. Mixing in short field, single engine, engine out, and other stuff related to the approach and landings would have been ok, but it sounds like you did something else. So I don't think your comparison is valid. There is MORE freedom now to do elective flight training - your CFI can create a flight syllabus for one of the elective credits on pretty much anything he wants, and you can get credit for it. Before, it was fixed at the takeoffs and landings, manuevers, and hood work. You can now also get flight credit for CAP checkrides, type clubs (like the Mooney ASF) proficiency programs, the formation flying training, and other stuff.

7). Under the new Wings program, getting credit for seminars is even easier. If you play within the system and register, and then register for a seminar, you just check your name off on a roster when you attend the meeting, and your credit is issued by the FAASTeam rep giving or supervising the program. You also get notified of upcoming sessions within your area automatically.

I'm sorry that you find wings isn't a good fit for YOU. Participation is voluntary, and I am not trying to convince YOU to change your mind. I am trying to present an alternative view so that others can make up their own minds.

Best wishes,

 

[Cap'n Jack]

2). It IS internet based. Participants must have internet access - either their own, or at a library/FBO/work/other. Programs are often given in person, but everything about that seminar is donated, and the only way for people to find out is if they are registered or by word of mouth.

How do you register?

 

[TMetzinger]

Whaaa? No more three-hour minimum? This is interesting. Tell us more.

(Sorry, teacher, I was snoozing during that part of your talk at W29 as I'd just finished my BFR a week earlier and was feeling pretty smug. But now I remember I'm no better than pond scum...)

No problem, we'll get you from pond scum to jellyfish in no time!

The flight portion of the new WINGS program is broken up into three credits. Core credits are driven by top accident causal factors, and electives are, well, electives and can cover a wide range of things.

So for a basic phase, here's a core syllabus:

ASEL-Takeoffs, Landings, Go-arounds
A-FAASTEAM-W-070405-F-002-07
From the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards for Airplane
Area of Operation IV, Task A: Normal and Crosswind Takeoff and Climb
Area of Operation IV, Task B: Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing
Area of Operation IV, Task D: Soft-Field Approach and Landing
Area of Operation IV, Task F: Short-field Approach and Landing
Area of Operation IV, Task L: Go-Around/Rejected Landing
When these tasks are completed to the standards specified in the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards for Airplane, the following endorsement should be entered in the pilot's logbook.
I certify that (pilot's name), holder of pilot certificate No. 001234567, has satisfactorily demonstrated proficiency in all tasks as outlined in the WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program, activity number A-FAASTEAM-W-070405-F-002-07 on (date).
Instructor Name, Certificate Number, Expiration Date, and Signature


So, you can pretty much knock that syllabus out in four or five trips around the pattern, if you are up to standards. Maybe .5 hours, or less? Heck, do a soft/short field combo and take LESS time!
Bottom line is that you can knock out the flying portion in less dual.
A tailwheel or high performance endorsement is a valid elective credit, and more stuff gets added all the time.

 

[TMetzinger]

How do you register?

go to www.faasafety.gov, and you'll see the link to get registered on the left side of the page, right below the logon block.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks!

 

[Everskyward]

1) It is my understanding that the program was redesigned because of the underutilization by pilots. It seems to me that making it more complicated does not necessarily make it more appealing -- indeed, quite the opposite.

I tend to agree with you. In order to educate myself a bit I went to the Wings site and had a look. My question to Tim and other advocates of the program is, if you are trying to sell it to a new pilot, what would you tell them the incentives are to doing the Wings program over staying current on their own and getting a BFR? (Please don't tell me pins....)

 

[TMetzinger]

The FAA safety program and WINGS isn't about pilot proficiency per se, at least not the "fly the plane" part of proficiency. Let's face it, the amount of flight time under the old program or new program isn't a lot.

It's about reducing the accident rate. What the program will offer is an incentive to spend more time thinking about aviation from a safety perspective. It's about fostering an attitude, promoting a culture change within GA. Just as the AOPA ASF and others do, the FAA Safety Team and WINGS program is a way to get some additional safey training and some (in our case) structure around that training.

The fact that a Wings phase counts as a BFR is a side effect, not the point, of the WINGS program. You can get a BFR done with much less of an investment in time.

As a professional pilot, Mari, you get recurrent training and evaluations in a fairly structured format. You also operate within a tighter set of constraints on what type of equipment you fly and how you fly it. All of these are contribute to your culture, and are considered to be big factors in the excellent safety record of flying for hire.

I see the FAA Safety program as a way to offer some of that structure, and foster a similar culture, for part 91 fliers. What I'd like to be able to say in 10 years is that WINGS participants have shown a lower fatal accident rate than the GA population in general. THAT will be the real benefit to participants. Because WINGS is an online and automated system, we should be able to gather data to see if it's true or not. As more data becomes available, I expect more insurers to take notice. On the other hand, if we DON'T see any improvement, then the FAA might just pull the plug, since they'll not be getting any return on their (small) investment.

Any pilot can "roll their own" safety program - using AOPA/ASF and other resources. WINGS is one more option, with a few minor perks thrown in.

Oh, one other thing. If you're gonna operate within 60 miles of the DCA VOR under VFR, you MUST, by Feb 2009, take an ADIZ course - and the easiest place to take it is faasafety.gov. But you must register to do so. There will be some in-person classes, I believe, but they will STILL collect the same info at the classes so you can get your certificate of completion.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

That's one of the biggest issues; if one flies quite and already does a lot of extra training, there isn't any incentive to participate. One used to be able to go up with a CFI and he'd quickly check basic PTS stuff and then ask what else one wanted to work on. That was usually after explaining systems to him, how one flies that plane and why, etc (since not many CFIs here have a lot of P-Baron time). Now, rather than take more advanced skills and training into consideration, let's all go back to PTS basic training. No incentive at all to work on areas where one knows they need to concentrate.

Unfortunately, many of the folks that need that training aren't participating in all the extra training others are. The participant accident rate may not be the standard by which you should judge.

Personally, I attend SIMCOM each year and do an annual flight review and IPC in between with a CFI. In addition I attend and give a lot of classes through our flying club and the American Bonanza Society. I'm certainly not saying I can't improve, but, as I said before, some of us don't have a lot of extra time; what we do have, we really want to get the most out of.

Now, let's see, you want me to add practicing take offs and landings to that, right?

Best,

Dave

 

[TMetzinger]

Dave,

You've obviously rolled a very good safety regimen on your own. But you're not describing the WINGS program accurately - a FAR 135 checkride given by a check airman counts for a TON of stuff, as do other things, like your IPC. I'd be surprised if SIMCOM stuff isn't given some credit - there's no FEE to have credit granted, you just need to spend some time (not a lot) describing your course and correlating it to causal factors.

And again, under the old program, you were NOT supposed to go up with a CFI and work on whatever you wanted (you can do THAT as part of BFR). Under the old WINGS program, you were supposed to spend one hour on takeoffs and landings, one hour on manuevers, and one hour on hoodwork - period.

This has been useful - we're having our yearly FSDO safety program get-together this month, I'll bring up some of the comments here and I'll pass along any new things I learn about where the program is going.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Thanks Tim. I really appreciate you explaining all of this. I don't mean to be negative, but one size fits all training isn't something I'm real excited about. I would like to participate. Don't mind someone quickly checking basic skills if necessary, but let's move on if I'm safe there and direct that time to areas than can really help the participant no matter the level of training and experience.

I see your task as monumental: keep good folks interested; then, try to get the folks that aren't flying or training to participate.

My past training didn't skip everything, but the CFI would move on very quickly if it was apparent it wasn't productive or needed. Some of the BPPP CFIs are charging $50 per hour from the time they show up at the hanger. My plane costs about $400 per hour to run. Other guys in turbines and jets can be more. It's not that I can't afford it, but I do want it to be productive and these aren't my thoughts alone that I'm passing on.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

I'll bring up some of the comments here and I'll pass along any new things I learn about where the program is going.

Great straight lines are hard to come by.

 

[dparter]

if you are trying to sell it to a new pilot, what would you tell them the incentives are to doing the Wings program over staying current on their own and getting a BFR?

I'll take a stab at helping Tim answer this, from my perspective as a pilot (not a CFI):

For the Flight Review:

Both Wings-as-a-FR and a flight review have two components: knowledge and flying.

The flight portion may be equal, so there is no cost or time savings there. And since the CFI has flexibility for the FR, what you cover may or may not be the same. One potential advantage for the Wings program is that (depending which flight options you pick) the pilot knows exactly what the flying skills and standards are (just like a checkride, but without the nervousness?)

For the knowledge portion, instead of a ground school session with a CFI, which does cost money, has to be scheduled, and may or may not be well organized, there are many options that are free and relatively painless. If you can deal with the online courses, they aren't bad (they could be better, of course). Manyh safety seminars also count.

In theory, the Wings training and flying skills are tailored to the pilot's flying. I don't think it is as tailored as a good FR with a good CFI, but it is not the one-size-fits-all of the old Wings program, and it looks like it is getting a little bit better as more options are added.

One idea of the Wings program is to have the training be continuous throughout the year, not just at flight review time every two years. Good idea, but I suspect that many (like me) will realize shortly before their flight review is due that they need it, and end up doing all their training then, instead of spread out over the year.

For me, the choice was easy -- my CFI said she would rather that I did the wings program, and it wasn't a big deal either way to me, so I did it.

For staying current on their own:

Anything any pilot does to stay current is good. Wings provides a structure and syllabus (as confusing as it is at first), which I would guess many pilots are lacking. My advice as a pilot would be if you don't participate in the Wings program, look at it for ideas on what to refresh in your self-directed currency program.

Does that help?

--david

 

[AuntPeggy]

I'd particulary like to know more about the "officious bureaucratic rules". The program has gotten a bit more structured to address specific topics, but I don't feel it's more bureaucratic. Perhaps it's a local issue.


-Tim Metzinger
FAA Safety Team Representative
Washington FSDO.

Oops. My question was whether participation has decreased. Hubby offered his thoughts on why his participation has decreased. I offered mine on why I can't participate at all any more. I ask again, has participation increased or decreased?

 

[jesse]

Call me lazy--call me unsafe--or whatever you want. But I've always considered Wings to be too much work with no real gain for me. I kick my own ass when it comes to training.

I'd rather continue to push myself to be a better pilot, fly with those that are better pilots to learn whenever I possibly can, and do a BFR every two years to make it official.

I don't need all that complicated structure to stay safe.

 

[KennyFlys]

Nothing says you have to participate strictly online. As far as I know, you can still attend the seminars in person, have a notice of attendance mailed to you. Then, seek out a CFI and do the flight portion. Send a copy of the notice and the endorsement in your log book to the local FSDO safety officer and they will make a permanent record as well as issue a set of wings.

However, Jesse makes a good point. Just attending seminars or doing the online courses alone will not make you a safer or better pilot. It's putting that and those recommendations into effect that will start along with some help from your local, seasoned CFI.

But, the incentive to having it online is the access to so much more. There's a tremendous amount of information available online that will never be given at seminars. It's well worth the effort.

While you can learn a lot from very experienced, fellow pilots, I'm not sure I can encourage you to go that route. Something about my own responsibility making recommendations as a CFI? Never the less, let your choices be wise ones.

 

[SkyHog]

Call me lazy--call me unsafe--or whatever you want. But I've always considered Wings to be too much work with no real gain for me. I kick my own ass when it comes to training.

I'd rather continue to push myself to be a better pilot, fly with those that are better pilots to learn whenever I possibly can, and do a BFR every two years to make it official.

I don't need all that complicated structure to stay safe.

I'm with you. To me, getting a pin isn't worth taking the time to attend a seminar, or do a bunch of online classes, and then still have to pay for a CFI to teach me stuff that I practiced on every flight anyways (that being basic maneuvers, landings, takeoffs, etc.).

I always kind of saw the wings program as being something for older folk to use to keep their mind sharp on pilot stuff. Making the internet a necessity seems to have taken away the primary user, I'd bet.

I think the FAA is just trying to give themselves one less thing to focus on.

 

[TMetzinger]

Nothing says you have to participate strictly online. As far as I know, you can still attend the seminars in person, have a notice of attendance mailed to you. Then, seek out a CFI and do the flight portion. Send a copy of the notice and the endorsement in your log book to the local FSDO safety officer and they will make a permanent record as well as issue a set of wings.

I do not think that is true - I will check at our meeting.

 

[TMetzinger]

Oops. My question was whether participation has decreased. Hubby offered his thoughts on why his participation has decreased. I offered mine on why I can't participate at all any more. I ask again, has participation increased or decreased?

I think it's too soon to tell. Participation in the seminars I've given has been good, with seats filled and extra folk showing up. But the "new" program is still in early days, with lots of vacancies for SPMs and reps across the country. Ask again in a couple of years and we should have an answer.

 

[Ted]

Add me to the list of people who haven't participated yet, and who kicks his own ass in training.

Not saying I wouldn't benefit from it, but in the past year I've received close to 80 hours of dual (186 hours total), two ratings, and am working on my third written.

That said, I need to go and register so I can do the ADIZ course. That is definitely information I need since I'm sure I'll be have reason to fly into it before long. That is the kind of information that I would want out of it, though.

 

[wsuffa]

I went ahead and got credit for Wings as part of my BFR. Turned out that the bigger deal was getting CFI participation (it IS a somewhat bigger hassle for the CFI since he not only has to endorse the logbook but he also has to go online). Courtesy of a FAAST rep (thanks, Tim!), when the CFI didn't come through with the online endorsement, I had someone else verify the endorsement.

Additional hassle: yes.

By the way, with the ability to allow insurance companies to access your participation, I wouldn't be surprised to see the insurance community push folks to go the Wings route.

 

[TMetzinger]

I went ahead and got credit for Wings as part of my BFR. Turned out that the bigger deal was getting CFI participation (it IS a somewhat bigger hassle for the CFI since he not only has to endorse the logbook but he also has to go online). Courtesy of a FAAST rep (thanks, Tim!), when the CFI didn't come through with the online endorsement, I had someone else verify the endorsement.

Additional hassle: yes.

By the way, with the ability to allow insurance companies to access your participation, I wouldn't be surprised to see the insurance community push folks to go the Wings route.

For folks who want high-dollar coverage in airplanes like Mooneys, Bonanzas and light twins, the Insurers are pushing for Wings every year or another form of structured training. When you get into turboprop/turbines, they usually ask for recurrent sim training.

 

[dmccormack]

Add me to the list of people who haven't participated yet, and who kicks his own ass in training.

Not saying I wouldn't benefit from it, but in the past year I've received close to 80 hours of dual (186 hours total), two ratings, and am working on my third written.

You might as well sign up and get credit for all that.

You're not in the target population, though -- WINGS is meant as a recurring training for those who have been outside the training regimen for a while.

 

[Ted]

You might as well sign up and get credit for all that.

When I go and sign up to take the ADIZ course I'll enter all of that in. I didn't use the old one and haven't used the new one yet.

You're not in the target population, though -- WINGS is meant as a recurring training for those who have been outside the training regimen for a while.

I definitely understand that. Given my goals, it's pretty unlikely for me to be out of the training regimen for a while, unless I just decide to give up flying (which also seems somewhat unlikely). I do understand that I'm probably in the minority there for a number of reasons, and that I'm not the target audience, I was just speaking from my perspective.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ted, as you progress, you should seriously consider becoming a FAASTeam rep. You've got the technical and interpersonal skills to be a good one.

 

[Everskyward]

For folks who want high-dollar coverage in airplanes like Mooneys, Bonanzas and light twins, the Insurers are pushing for Wings every year or another form of structured training. When you get into turboprop/turbines, they usually ask for recurrent sim training.

If participation in Wings would lower your insurance rates that would be an incentive to participate. I vaguely remember filling out insurance forms which asked if you were a Wings participant (I am not). I'm not sure if it made any difference or not. At the time I was flying a larger single and a small twin in a Part 91 job so I didn't have any organized recurrent training, just BFRs and instrument proficiency checks which I had to arrange myself.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Oops. My question was whether participation has decreased. Hubby offered his thoughts on why his participation has decreased. I offered mine on why I can't participate at all any more. I ask again, has participation increased or decreased?

Tim can give you the official figures; the folks I'm communicating with have almost to a person declined to participate and most did in the past. We didn't do an official survey, but one CFI after another commented that they didn't find the new program attractive.

Best,

Dave

 

[TMetzinger]

If participation in Wings would lower your insurance rates that would be an incentive to participate. I vaguely remember filling out insurance forms which asked if you were a Wings participant (I am not). I'm not sure if it made any difference or not. At the time I was flying a larger single and a small twin in a Part 91 job so I didn't have any organized recurrent training, just BFRs and instrument proficiency checks which I had to arrange myself.

I believe Avemco offers a direct discount. Others take it into account when rating you. If you're a GA pilot and you do WINGS every year the insurance companies GENERALLY see you as a lower risk than someone who gets a BFR every two years.

I know some pilots who have put in their own structured regimen - IPC every six months, formal class/seminar yearly, and they see lower quotes as well.

 

[dmccormack]

I believe Avemco offers a direct discount. Others take it into account when rating you. If you're a GA pilot and you do WINGS every year the insurance companies GENERALLY see you as a lower risk than someone who gets a BFR every two years.

I know some pilots who have put in their own structured regimen - IPC every six months, formal class/seminar yearly, and they see lower quotes as well.

AOPA renter insurance certainly doesn't (it's not even a question on the application).

 

[TMetzinger]

AOPA renter insurance certainly doesn't (it's not even a question on the application).

True. They're through AIG.

Renter's insurance typically won't do this kind of stuff, because they're covering you for a wide range of airplanes (mine is single engine, non-pressurized, non turbine, less than 450 HP and fewer than 7 seats). So they don't bother to rate you individually the way they'll rate a pilot/aircraft combination.

I did get a 10% discount for my "good flying record", though.