Cessna Caravan Endorsement in Melbourne?

[Vpilot53]

Just wanted to know if anyone knew if there is a place in Melbourne or Victoria to do a Cessna Caravan Endorsement if Not where would be the place to go?

[Joker 10]

Do you really need an endorsement for a Caravan, 182 0n steroids ?????

Single engine less than 5700kg fixed gear V pitch prop, pretty simple stuff.

[Lasiorhinus]

But if you try to fly one without an endorsement, :=


For an endorsement, call Meggsy at Latrobe Valley.

[PyroTek]

Joker, only thing stopping it falling under SPEA <5700kg is the turbine engine :ok:

[Victor India]

Joker,

Just to clarify, see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao40/400100.pdf

CAO 40.1.0 Appendix 1A (p.23 of attached) shows a C208 specifically as needing type endorsement, due to its turbine as mentioned above.

Yes it is a Cessna, no its not a Jumbo, but it really is much bigger than a 182.

VI

[VH-XXX]

With all due respect I really don't think Meggsy has a Caravan in his hangar to be able to do an endorsement. Best off finding an aircraft first. Caravan's in Melbourne are moderately scarce.

[AussieNick]

he'd be able to do the PT6 endo, and knows enough people that he'd likely be able to source a van, never hurt to ask

[zappalin]

There's a Caravan down Tooradin way isn't there? A skydiving one, not sure how you'd go about getting some hours in it.

[VH-XXX]

Commando's have been recently using a 208 from further north. It hasn't been there for a month or two unless I am mistaken. The previous 208B is long gone and wasn't available for endorsements.

[Joker 10]

OK so less than 5700 Kg high wing fixed gear most reliable engine in General aviation reqires a type endorsement, unbelievable !!!!!!!

Regulator on drugs

[VH-XXX]

Lets be serious Joker, if you owned a 208 do you think you'd let a snotty nosed fresh 150 hour CPL fresh out of a 182 drive it?

Ummmm. No.

[Victor India]

Joker,

I tend to agree with XXX.

The whole <5700kg thing does tend to 'dumb down' the complexities of seemingly 'simple' singles. The ability of guys to jump from type to type, using generic procedures, often results in poor/unsafe handling UNLESS they have the discipline to study the AFM properly.

I don't see it that the regulator is on drugs.

In fact, in many cases, owners/insurers ar far more conservative than the regulator.

Even if current on a C172, for example, I would be unable to hire a C210 from almost any operator in the country without some training/check.

Nothing to do with the regulator in that case.

So in the Caravan's case, as XXX alludes to, the regulator is simply matching what any responsible owner/insurer would naturally impose anyway.

VI

[WannaBeBiggles]

Lets be serious Joker, if you owned a 208 do you think you'd let a snotty nosed fresh 150 hour CPL fresh out of a 182 drive it?

Ummmm. No

I agree with you there XXX!

I know mates up north flying them needed around 700 hours before being let loose on one, though have heard of some guys with bare CPL and MECIR flying them for sky dive ops up north.

What's a hot section inspection worth on a van these days? :E

[das Uber Soldat]

most reliable engine in General aviation

FALSE.

Garret!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

he'd be able to do the PT6 endo

Ain't no such animal.

[fencehopper]

try and get onto Ralph Presgrave from Australian Skydive at Bridgewater
try this number 1800 557 101.

Also try and get onto "Bowie" from Skydive the Beach at Wollongong his Caravan should be operating around Melbourne by now. 1300663 634

only other i can think of is Sydney Skydivers at Picton, bit of a travel but that Caravan kicks butt with the bigger PT6.
FH

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
most reliable engine in General aviation
FALSE.

Garret!

Amen!

The only thing that gives Garrett Turbine engines a bad name is that most engineers hate (read can't) working on them. They are quite complex to setup well, and are certainly not as easy to work on as a PT6.

Once a Garrett however is well setup (and you've got it started), you can't beat it!!!

[Wally Mk2]

'GG' loved the bit "and you've got it started".............that says it all:-) :D
I know which engine/prop combo I'd rather be struck with during start up (if I where a drunk golfer for Eg) & it wouldn't be a Garret TPE that's for sure!:) Tough donk though:-)

"VI" Although I tend to agree to some extent yr comment jumping from type to type & poor/unsafe handling as a result it's a mindset (professionalism) as well as previous training as to how anyone handles multiple types. Even though I haven't driven a C208 am sure they aren't a space shuttle to drive, 150 hr pilot or not we where all once a 150 hr driver & most would be very capable at the controls of a basic machine like the big Cessna with again proper training. Still insurance Co's dictate much these days.




Wmk2

[Jack Ranga]

I'll bet my left nut that if Joker 10 owned a caravan he would not let anyone near it unless they were endorsed on it :cool:

As old mate said when I did my endo, 'turbines are simple beasts, it's the metallurgy that costs the money'

The Caravan is easier to 'fly' than a C152. It's learning how not to 'toast' the PT6 that the endorsement is about

[VH-XXX]

As elluded to in my OshKosh thread, I came across a guy in an amphibious Caravan whom flew around the world the world in it back in 1990. He was absolutely mad at Dick Smith (no comments please) at the time because back then he was supposedly telling people that flying a 208 is easy and you just "fly it like a 182." Apologies Dick if this didn't happen, however it's something that we often hear around the traps and this guy was adament that this was not good advice.

Boy, what a trip; Around the world in an amphibious Caravan. I think I'd run out of JetA money after a week!

The Caravan is easier to 'fly' than a C152.

Really?

[Joker 10]

Yes REALLY easier than a 152, more mass, stable platform, easy engine management, big wheels, great flaps,a real pleasure to punt about.

Only so called complex bit is emergency engine management bypassing the FCU ,but not at all difficult.

[Jack Ranga]

Triple X,

I can absolutely guarantee you that the 208 is easier to handle than the 152. It is the most stable aircraft I've flown. You point it, trim it and it will stay there. You would really have to try hard to stuff a landing up.

Once you know what you are doing with the turbine it's easier to manage than a piston (especially PJE ops).

But one little mistake can see you fry it, and if you do, it'll cost.

[VH-XXX]

Perhaps the 208 experts can tell me why in Canada and Alaska in such TV shows as Flying Wild Alaska and Ice Pilots NWT they fly with the particle seperator engaged 24x7 when airborne?

[Victor India]

Back to the thread, though...

Also, try Ben at "Sydney by Air". Sorry, Bankstown based but Ben can provide endo training. It's not G1000 equipped.

VI

[tmpffisch]

Perhaps the 208 experts can tell me why in Canada and Alaska in such TV shows as Flying Wild Alaska and Ice Pilots NWT they fly with the particle seperator engaged 24x7 when airborne?

Probably the scenes you're seeing are takeoff or landing sequences; simply repeated over and over again week to week. Or they're flying through known icing or are expecting it.

[SPL-101]

I know im abit late but i found this just now. Airborne Aviation does a Cessna GrandCaravan endorsment.

Turbine Endorsement - Cessna 208 Caravan - Sydney, Australia (http://www.airborne-aviation.com.au/courses/caravan-c208-turbine-endorsement.php)

[Skydiveandy]

I noticed someone mentioned to call Ralph at Australian Skydive.. Yes we do have a C208 and yes we do endorsements.

Send me a PM,

I will email you the details

Andy

[Gunda]

I had 98 Hrs when I did mine. :ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And you got your first real commercial job at 154 hrs in one too, right?:hmm:

And for anyone considering Joker's oversimplified posts seriously, you will be dealing with an aircraft that runs two power buses, six feeder circuits, two avionics buses, primary starter/gen, backup alternator, primary and backup flap actuation systems, around ten different power/ITT/time limit combinations for different phases of flight to be committed to memory, two different certifications of engine control systems and to top it off will cost about a quarter of a million dollars if you f:mad:ck it up just starting the thing.:=

That being said, it's not an impossible aircraft to fly (they let me do it), just a bit more complex than a 182, hence why it requires a class endorsement.

[Pie in my Sky]

So it's been a while since this thread was up and things may well have changed in the last year, so does anyone know an instructor in the Mel area that can do the van endorsement?

If things fall the right way I'll have the a/c just need an instructor

[Dick Smith]

Of course in the USA where the C208 was designed and built a special endorsement is not required. Then again what would the FAA know !

I have not heard of a float equipped Caravan performing a circumnavigation. One did fly from USA to Antarctica and back and was at Oskosh at about that time.

It is a magnificent simple aircraft. I do describe it as a 182 on steroids - but what would I know- my total time in command of a 182 would have to be about 10 minutes!

[Piano Man]

On floats Dick she is a a more poweful and comfortable (although) heavier 182! Canadians and Alaskans are not big fans of them on floats but I have no issue with them!

An old Chief Pilot of mine called it the lazy mans seaplane as they are so easy!

[Skydiveandy]

The caravan is a simple aircraft to fly when you get your head around the turbine side.. Its easier, more stable and certainly a lot more fun than flying a 182.

Ive endorsed pilots with 1000s of hours and one with a few hundred on the C208.. It was certainly a lot easier training the 200hr pilot than the more experienced. But thats typical PMI..

Let me know if you have problems finding an instructor.

Andy