Question about IR training

[Snigs]

Hi folks,

I need a bit of advice.

I'm on the road to CPL/IR. I'm happy with my choice of CPL training provider, but I'm not sure about the IR.

I have narrowed it down to two choices. In one, for the IR course I'll spend about 33 hours on a PA28, actually flying, and then 15 hours flying in a Seneca, which (give or take a few hours) will enable me to take an IRT.

On the other hand I could choose the option of 28 hours in an twin IR sim, plus 15 in the aircraft which (give or take a few hours) will enable me to take the IRT.

What do you think will be the best option? Will it be better to fly for all of the training, or will it be better to be consistent with repect to the aircraft that I'll eventually take the IRT in, sim and real?

Thanks in advance to those with experience to help me make up my mind.

Cheers

Snigs

[Delta Wun-Wun]

I had the same convesation with our CFI the other week.His opinion was to do more sim time,because if you needed to practise a certain part of a procedure he could recreate it easier than actually being up in the air.

------------------
GET THE BLOODY NOSE DOWN!

[Tinstaafl]

I agree with the sim. option. More effective use can be made of the time available.

To repeat an approach in an aircraft requires flying how ever many track miles it takes to the IAF. The same exercise in the sim. takes a button press.

If it's a twin sim. you also have the opportunity to be more proficient at asymmetrics since those sort of exercises can be introduced prior to jumping in the twin.

The main problem with sim. rather than a/c is the lack of exposure to real conditions eg radio, weather, ATC requirements, traffic etc.

[Sensible]

I'd go for the sim option too. The sim will go "freeze frame" allowing discussion and a rerun if required from a specific co-ordinate with just a few keyboard strokes. The sim should be substantially cheaper too!

[TooHotToFly]

Bit confused as to why there's 5 hours difference between the PA28 and the SIM - they should add up to the same amount.

The cost difference should be negligable - an FNPT II will be similar to a PA28.

The sim time is undoubtably more useful than the PA28 time, although even if the sim is an exact match to the Seneca, 15 hours in the air is only really just enough, especially if you plan to complete your MEP class rating on a different aircraft. Is there anyway you could get them to part exchange some sim time for the aircraft?

[Snigs]

Thanks for the input folks, I appreciate the insight. I guess my mind is now made up! :)

[eyeinthesky]

Just something else to make your mind up further:

I would not advise trying to do it on two different aircraft types. The PA28 will have different ergonomics and fly at different speeds than the Seneca and the last thing you want is to confuse your maximum drift calculation when outbound in the NDB hold asymmetric in the PA34 with the values for a PA28!

It seems that the offer of flying a PA28 is just a way of learning the procedures, and for the reasons already given, the Sim is a much better option for that.

Good luck. It's not rocket science; you just have to do everything right all the time!



------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"