PA28 to Bonanza

[Montoya]

Hi,I got my PPL a few months back flying a Piper Cherokee PA28-140 and have a total of 88 flying hours now.I"ve been thinking of getting a conversion onto a Beechcraft Bonanza,is this too big a step up from flying a 140,and should I perhaps wait and built a bit more experience before doing the conversion?Advice appreciated:ok:

[dirkdj]

I am right now in the process of helping a brand new PPL (about 80 hours) getting checke d out in a Turbo Normalized A36. There are no bad habits to unlearn yet, only new habits to learn, much easier.
You need someone really familiar with the Bonanza, it is not a difficult plane at all but needs experience managing the extra speed and weight.
I would say it would take about 5 hours of local training, and maybe 5 or 10 XC flights to get up to speed.
One thing: we don't do touch and goes in Bonanzas, only full stop and taxi back.
If you can, get in touch with BPPP, via the American Bonanza Society, they can recommend specialized instructors.

[Maarten]

Out of curiosity, why no T&G's?

[dirkdj]

no T&G:

because on pre-1984 models the gear switch is on the right and flaps on the left, on post-1984 models gear is left and flaps are on the right.

During touch and goes, a lot of things happen while traveling down the runway at high speed, usually flaps are fully down and the pilot will be in a hurry to retract them for the next take-off..

If the gear handle is moved to the up position, and the squat switch on the gear is not working then the gear motor starts to turn, it takes about three turns before the nose gear unlocks and can be pushed in with two fingers (when on jacks). Full 50 turns from fully down to fully up takes between 4 and 8 seconds depending on model year, so you can calculate how many seconds for 3 turns before the nose gear is unlocked.

Never touch anything on the runway except the flight controls and throttle, leave flaps and all other switches until clear of runway.

BPPP forbids T&G during training and for good reason. Too many avoidable and expensive gear mishaps.

[jabberwok]

When I had about the same number of hours as you I was offered a check out in a Mooney. I turned it down for the same reasons as you offer - and I regret it to this day. At the time I'd only flown C150/C172/PA28 aircraft and thought it too big a step with so few hours.

25 years later I now have 28 types in my book ranging from the lovely DH82 to a PA31 but I never got the chance to fly a Mooney again..

Yes, the aircraft is more complex, it goes faster and your thinking has to gear up to this. It's your instructor who will tell you if you are pushing beyond your own limitations - you can't guess this beforehand.

Go for it.

[IO540]

I think the business of converting to a "complex" and faster type is often very much over-done.

If the pilot is going to fly a lot (say 100+hrs/year) then it will all snap into place, probably in 20-30hrs. Especially when he arrives at destination with 10 nm to run, 5000ft to lose and still doing 150kt with a 60kt tailwind :)

If he is a perpetual low time pilot (say UK average, 10-20hrs/year) then it will probably never snap into place, no matter how good the instructor is.

If he has poor understanding of technical matters then it will also never snap in. I know of some pilots who were perfectly OK at the VFR bimbling level, then got loads of money (loads) and bought something with serious kit in it (not to mention doing 200-300kt) and, 100-200hrs later flying with an instructor (he enjoyed it, going all around Europe) had to chuck it in.

A Bonanza is not a rocket; thinks just happen a little bit faster at 150kt than in a C152, and one needs to actually understand how the stuff in it works. Most people get a PPL in say a C152 without ever understanding anything about avionics, radio nav, engine management, speed management, etc.

I never did circuits in the TB20. It's bad for the engine. The gear-up situation is OK if you have somebody in RHS watching it, but you wouldn't ever want to knacker your own engine.

[stevef]

Quote: no T&G:
because on pre-1984 models the gear switch is on the right and flaps on the left, on post-1984 models gear is left and flaps are on the right.

I helped recover a Bonanza at an airfield in Africa where this very thing happened. The pilot (apparently very experienced) raised the 'flaps' on the landing roll and the nose gear retracted. No one hurt, fortunately.

[Zulu Alpha]

Converting from any fixed gear/prop to variable speed retractable is relatively easy. Remember to use checklists.

I think the biggest difference I noticed was the higher speeds for cruise etc. This means everything happens much more quickly. Unless you have practised then it is easy to spend ages doing checks and find you've travelled further than you thought.

I do agree that 5 hours dual is a reasonable time to convert and solo but you'll spend the next 10 hours or so getting ahead of the aircraft.

Once used to it you'll find the variable speed prop is much easier than fixed pitch as it does almost everything automatically for you.

One warning...going back to a fixed pitch/fixed gear will seem so slow and uninteresting.

[Miserlou]

So what do you do if you have to make a missed approach after touching down?
The Bonanza, when training two up, has plenty of excess power to get off with full flaps and this situation should be part of the check-out curriculum anyway.
For touch and goes the check pilot should select the flap and let the checkee stick to the standard procedures. The system works fine in the airline industry where new engines cost a darn sight more than a new Lycoming.

I reckon it's an excuse for juicing the customer for more money by trying to mystify and complicate what is not mysterious or complicated.

Bonanza is a nice aeroplane though.

[Miserlou]

It's an IFR term; means go-around. (IFR means instrument flight rules.)

Doesn't make a speck of difference what you call it but there is a point where, in case of unforseen circumstances, it is quicker and safer to get airbourne again than to stay on the ground.

[jabberwok]

Doesn't make a speck of difference what you call it but there is a point where, in case of unforseen circumstances, it is quicker and safer to get airbourne again than to stay on the ground.

Like when you spot your wife standing outside the clubhouse with arms folded.. :}

[Miserlou]

Ha, ha, ha. So what do you do if you have an FAA IR and you lose visual contact or become unstabilized after DA/MAP? Or are unhappy about something (crosswind or gust) just before touchdown? Or touch down and find yourself skidding due to a contaminated runway? Or a vehicle or animal or other FOD enters your path?

Not completing a landing after an instrument approach means only one thing. You are still in the air and are following the MISSED APPRAOCH procedure. It's as simple as that either landed or missed approach.

[Miserlou]

So we can agree then, that (using IFR terms) the discontinuance of a landing is a missed approach. Whatever circumstances then permit you to do is irrelevant. You may terminate the missed approach by making a visual approach or be radar vectored for a new instrument approach but until anything else is agreed (cleared) you're on the missed approach procedure.

[Islander2]

Miserlou, you may just like to pause and reflect on why it is the BPPP, possibly the largest type-specific GA training organisation in the world, strongly disagrees with your position ... as dirkdj says, their Bonanza/Baron instructors do not permit routine touch-and-go training operations.

There have been various examples in GA where training for a possible scenario has proven statistically more dangerous than the scenario itself - spinning and actual (as opposed to simulated) single-engine failure on a twin are two such cases where mandatory training has been outlawed by various regulatory authorities.

Bonanza/Baron touch-and-go training very much falls into this category. The fact is, for many years the flap and undercarriage lever positions on these otherwise superb aeroplanes were reversed from the norm in the industry. Perhaps worse still, in 1984 (for the Bonanza), they rectified the problem! I purchased my Bonanza in 1992 not long after its first owner had raised the undercarriage instead of the flaps on a landing roll-out ... he'd previously owned an earlier model where the levers were located around the other way!

I also personally know two Baron instructors that have succumbed to the same problem.

My advice to Montoya is this. If you have the opportunity to start flying a Bonanza, do. There is no earthly reason why you cannot easily master this type with a little help from a competent check pilot, assuming your aptitude is not significantly below average for an 88-hour PPL - and you'll never, ever want to fly a PA-28 again! So don't be put off by this thread, BUT DO NOT PRACTICE TOUCH AND GOES, AND NEVER RUSH TO RAISE THE FLAPS ON THE LANDING ROLL-OUT.

Islander2 - not yet an undercarriage-up statistic, but fully appreciative of how easy it is to become one!

[dirkdj]

I would like to add: the 'gear collapse on the runway problem' can be easily avoided.

I have never had it, but I caught myself one day with my hand on the gear handle during rollout. It was only a fraction of a second and I didn't move anything but it made me realise how easy it is to get caught. FWIW I have many thousands of hours and 34 years of experience on the BE36.

On the runway, keep your right hand on the throttle and your left hand on the yoke.

[Sleeve Wing]

Montoya.
Shouldn't be a problem.
A few very relevent points raised here but the MAIN things to remember are these.
Sure its a faster aeroplane, so when you're approaching your destination, SLOW DOWN.
There's no point in hurtling into the circuit in ANY aeroplane.
The trip is virtually over and you will need to finally get back to your THRESHOLD speed eventually, besides needing to observe your Gear and Flap speed limitations.
DON'T RUSH once you're near your airfield. Besides a lot of other traffic is slow anyway and you won't want to cut them up, will you ? Also gives you more thinking time.
WRT gear and flap misidentification after a landing/T&G, as dirkdj so rightly advises, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF UNTIL YOUR AIRCRAFT IS STATIONARY.
Finally, follow the advice of Zulu Alpha too.
USE THE CHECKLIST.

Oh, and know how to get the Gear down in an EMC............

Bonanza ? You'll love it.

[Miserlou]

Thanks, Islander2. I have paused and I have thought and I still reckon it's a cop out on their part. As pointed out by the previous two posters have pointed, the procedure is to not touch either item until clear of the runway when you have time to give them the proper attention. And, if their is no loose gravel around, what is so bad about taxiing all the way to the apron with the flaps down?

No, I still can't see why, if you have briefed the task properly, the check pilot can't raise the flaps to make a touch and go. Works perfectly well for us both on the jets and the turbo-props.

It's a good few years since I have flown either a Bonanza or a Travelair but aren't the levers also different shapes too?

Sorry, sounds more like they are trying to avoid any kind of liability claims (in addition to the previously mentioned reasons) or that they don't trust their instructors.

[Montoya]

Thanks for the advice guys,I'm definetly looking into it,it's a plane I really want to fly after flying the cherokee for quite a while now.All I need to do is to try get hold of 1.Also,ive been told that insurance will be pretty high as I still have low hours.

Also,with the touch and go problems,how will the conversion probably work?How many hours of landing practice will likely be involved?

[Miserlou]

Have fun, It's a nice aeroplane.

[Islander2]

No, I still can't see why, if you have briefed the task properly, the check pilot can't raise the flaps to make a touch and go. Works perfectly well for us both on the jets and the turbo-props

From the AOPA Air Safety Foundation "Safety Review - Beechcraft Baron" (the Baron has identical u/c and u/c retraction system to the Bonanza):

"With respect to the Baron experience of inadvertant gear retraction, the NTSB conducted a detailed review in 1980 of all inadvertant landing gear retraction accidents occurring from 1975 to 1978. The Baron comprised only 16% of the light-twin fleet, but they were involved in 54% of this type of accident. It was determined these accidents occurred because the pilot was attempting to put the flap control up after landing and moved the landing gear control instead. The inadvertant movement of the landing gear control was often attributed to pilots being more accustomed to flying aircraft in which the landing gear and flap controls were in exactly opposite locations."

FWIW, since it's hardly statistically significant, the two Baron instructors that I know that have 'enjoyed' this experience (in both cases, long after the NTSB survey) were both acting as check pilots supervising touch-and-go landings. And in both cases, there was a lively post-flight debate as who it was that actually raised the gear!

[Miserlou]

The few pilots I know who have suffered the indignity of failing to lower gear or raising the gear instead of flaps accept that it was a 'stupid' thing to do. I didn't want to be backed into this (rather judgemental) corner but let's face it, it IS a stupid thing to do.
That's the point of having a procedure like the check pilot identifying and putting his hand on the flap selector as soon as the landing flap has been selected. Refusing to allow t & g's is rather like refusing to let people retract the gear for fear of them failing to lower it again.

As a check pilot I'm sure it's hard to feel good about having only one task and screwing it up.

I wonder if those who have made this mistake on the Baron actually have sufficient time on BOTH models types for confusion (type reversion) to be a genuine reason.

Quote, "...there was a lively post-flight debate as who it was that actually raised the gear!"

Is that to say they couldn't remember whether they touched something or not? The only selection to make on the runway is to raise the flaps to the take-off position and this should be done by the check pilot as it not 'normal operating procedure'.
Did they brief who would do what and did they fly what they briefed?

[dirkdj]

The only reason people do T&G after initial training is to get more landings per hour of flying time. If you make full stop landings and taxi back for take-off you will have less landings per hour but the educational value per landing/take-off will be higher because you will be more concetrated on the landing and take-off if they are not merged into one.

Doing missed approaches on IR training is something else entirely and needs to be practiced often.

[Miserlou]

To begin with, sorry for the thread drift.

Dirkdj,
Rather don't agree with you on that one. The reason for doing t&g's after initial training is to practice LANDINGS with few exceptions. The 'go' and following circuit is just a way to get back to the landing again. Exceptions being aircraft which require excess work due to configuration changes or specific handling techniques.
Examples which spring to mind are taildraggers where take-offs can be as challenging as landings, and aircraft with specific systems such as the Pilatus Porter. Here it is essential that the checkee completes the before take-off checks properly because the Porters without the aural warning and electric trim (if there still are any) need two hands to keep the stick forward and a third to operate the trim. Also, the check pilot raising the flaps or adjusting the trim would interfere with the checkee.

It is the setting of the power, propeller and mixture which require work on 'complex' types. You don't need to make multiple take offs to practice this. In fact it is much safer, cheaper and less stressful to practice them in the air by setting up the climb, then setting up the descent, climb, descent, climb descent. When it comes naturally, then you can introduce the ground.

The JAA rules also states quite specifically 'differences' training. Rare is the aircraft which taxies or flies straight and level differently from all the rest. The philosophy should be to teach the differences; you can't avoid covering the sames at the same time.

[Islander2]

As a check pilot I'm sure it's hard to feel good about having only one task and screwing it up.

I wonder if those who have made this mistake on the Baron actually have sufficient time on BOTH models types for confusion (type reversion) to be a genuine reason.

When the NTSB review was undertaken, there weren't any Barons (or Bonanzas) with the the flap and undercarriage levers located in the 'conventional' layout, so confusion between models could not have been the "genuine reason" (excuse?) in any of those incidents. Instead, the NTSB's conclusion was an argument for better standardisation between types, that is to say it was typical of the ergonomics argument that has been a driver for improvements in all manner of man-machine interfaces over many decades, not just in aviation.

Regarding my two examples, I cannot say definitively, but what I would observe is that one of them could be characterised, in terms of relevant experience, as fairly typical of the mainstream GA multi-engine instructor; the other had a truly substantial number of hours on the actual aeroplane involved and overall would, I believe, be ranked amongst the most experienced of pilots that participate in this forum.

Which serves to underscore the fact that all of us, regardless of competence, experience and currency, are quite capable of doing, in your words, "a stupid thing."

So either a) we put our faith exclusively in training, briefing and the belief that it really isn't very difficult, regardless of the statistics; or b) we acknowledge that human factors play a hugely significant role and therefore act to ensure that training risks are 'designed out' wherever they are disproportionate to the benefit.

It seems clear, Miserlou, that we sit in opposite camps on these two alternatives. What will not be so evident, I imagine, is the respect I have for your position, albeit for somewhat different reasons!

[Miserlou]

It is also important to remember, Islander, that I do not necessarily agree with the arguments that I put forward.
There are indeed many ways to design risk out of a system and I support any measure to this end. But I feel it is wrong to over-regulate as this detracts from the respect, and thereby the effect, of the system as a whole; just look at the state of society.
However, as I hoped to have demonstrated, it is possible to simulate the after take-off and pre-landing actions in a much safer yet real environment, a bit further away from the ground.

By the way, I never said anything about 'believing that it really isn't that difficult' but since you mention it... flying really isn't that difficult.
It just takes training and a state of mind which allows you the freedom to perform your tasks.

Buy us a pint and I'll explain more fully.

[IO540]

My view, for what it is worth (zero time in a Bonanza but do about 150hrs/year in a TB20) is that T&Gs are not worth a great deal.

Unless done on a very long runway (in this context, say over 2000m) allowing a virtual stop, they are a high workload situation in which the pilot usually ends up pouring with sweat, and I don't think most people learn much in that condition.

It's better to concentrate on how to do a good approach, and a good landing. If the landing is going badly then it's aborted early on, not when you are halfway down the runway.

I would say this about a lot of PPL training. The pressure is piled on as if it was some sort of RAF selection course ... see who breaks under the pressure. The difference is that the RAF would chuck you out, or make you a navigator, whereas a PPL grinds on. Actually this "RAF" analogy is close to the truth because of the origins of most the regulators in this game. The pilot spends most of his 50-60hrs not in the aircraft but somewhere behind it.