Adding a Cessna 172 rating to my licence

[Pilot DAR]

There's an awful lot of incorrect information in this thread....

I think that makes the discussion worthwhile then, we'll all learn from the correct information being presented....

[condor17]

Guys , Arlix and Beagle have it right . We have done several like you this summer ....If I read it correctly ; you have Easa ATPL , CPL , PPL , Living in the UK .
To gain an SEP rating , a recommendation would be a few hours training in an SEP a/c ...possibly 1 hr hour G/H .... stalls , steep turns , PFLs , settling back into a light a.c .
1 hr ccts , full flap , F0 , Glide , Bad wx , EFATO , G/A s .
1 hr setting cse on short navex , unplanned diversion , mock test of G/H + few ccts .
If all's ok , an SEP Class rating test [ about 1 hr + examiner fee ] , cse comp cert [ SRG 1107 or SRG 1119D ] + application for SEP [ SRG 1119A ] rating to the CAA plus .... money . = SEP rating on your licence .
If not done on a 172 , then club hiring 172s will probably ask for club checkout on type .

If you are down in Wessex , may I commend Abbasair at EGHA Compton Abbas , ...... yes i do instruct there part time , and we do have few understanding retired heavy drivers instructing [ from various uniforms ] ; as well as some youngsters . And several serving heavy drivers aviating on days off [ again various uniforms ]. Any of which could give you further info if needed .

rgds condor ,

P.S. Boeing keys handed back in 2009

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When you rent a car do they ask for a Ford rating or a Chevrolet rating or a Honda rating?

[porterhouse]

When you rent a car do they ask for a Ford rating or a Chevrolet rating or a Honda rating?

yeah, that's the beauty of cars, you can jump from Prius to Porsche GT2.

[BEagle]

When we rented some crew hire cars for a detachment in Hawaii, I told the rather tasty little lady at the desk that my UK licence was only valid on Corvettes and Camaros in the US....

"Oh, gee, sorry sir. We don't have those - but we can let you have some T-birds if you like?"

Yes please! Actually, it turned out that the typical US tourists didn't like squeezing their 2 cubic yards of turquoise crimplene clad hamburger-backsides into the back of a 2 seat car, so the Thunderbirds were going for a song! Nice cars, but rather gutless.

Anyway, back to the plot - GS-alpha, if there's an RF/ATO such as Abbasair specialising in adding SEP Class Ratings to ex-airline pilots' licences, it'd be well worth contacting them.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

yeah, that's the beauty of cars, you can jump from Prius to Porsche GT2.

Witch makes going from say a Piper to a Cessna easier because they come with a detailed flight operating manual that is written in a manner you can find the relative issues you need to know.

[porterhouse]

they come with a detailed flight operating manual that is written in a manner you can find the relative issues you need to know.

I don't agree, flight manuals do not list/discuss idiosyncrasies of aircraft, there could be a gap between info in the flight manuals and the practical skills needed to handle the aircraft. Also reading about something and actually doing it with confidence - two vastly different things, you can read Stick and Rudder but this doesn't necessarily translate to improving your flying skills.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

We all have our own personal opinions based on our own backgrounds and our own comfort with flying different aircraft.

I am only expressing my personal opinion regarding the differences between a basic Piper single engine airplane and a basic single engine Cessna.

The differences in flying characteristics between the two is not so different that most pilots could not self check out in them using the airplane pilot operating manual.

I am not suggesting everyone else will feel the same.

[thing]

I'm not a vastly experienced pilot but I would feel happy climbing into a new type armed with the pilot's notes as long as there's nothing weird about it. I reckon if you can fly Cessna types and Piper types then you can fly just about anything mainline SEP with a trike gear with no need for conversion training. Differences training maybe if it's wobbly prop or retract but if you have those anyway then no need to go through them for another type. All you need really are the numbers for the different flight regimes. It's not rocket science, no one would blink an eye if they had to get in a car they had never driven before.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Differences training maybe if it's wobbly prop or retract but if you have those anyway then no need to go through them for another type. All you need really are the numbers for the different flight regimes. It's not rocket science, no one would blink an eye if they had to get in a car they had never driven before.

Exactly.

[9 lives]

I don't agree, flight manuals do not list/discuss idiosyncrasies of aircraft, there could be a gap between info in the flight manuals and the practical skills needed to handle the aircraft.

This point of view interests me, as I see it differently. It is the stated objective of the certification process of aircraft, and the drafting of the flight manual, to specifically prevent this situation. Anything which is unusual about an aircraft (which is certifiable) is supposed to be explicitly described in the flight manual. The aircraft and the flight manual should be "figure out able" for a pilot qualified on that class. Sure, the new pilot may not fly it like an ace right off, but simply safely should not be in question.

Primary systems are required to be straight forward, right down to the position of instruments and controls, and their motion and effect. Very old aircraft could differ, though really not a lot, for my experience, and secondary or emergency systems can vary quite a lot, so reading the flight manual is pretty important for those. But flaps, landing gear and C/S prop, in their primary function are totally straight forward, If you do nothing it will still fly safely (other than landing with the wheels up). Do you need to train a pilot to know to extend the wheels for a land landing? If you do, the pilot's reading the flight manual and checklist will be that training.

The six tank fuel system of the Cessna 310 comes to mind. It's not common - indeed rather odd. But, it, and it's operation are very well described in the flight manual. You can be trained to use it, or you can just read the flight manual, and follow the instructions.

Of course, the forgoing is predicated on a well trained pilot. If a landplane pilot is trying out an amphibian, they should be getting training for that different class of aircraft. Not that the flight manual for the amphibian is necessarily lacking in describing its operation, but the operating environment is different, and that is beyond the scope of a flight manual in some cases. The same would be the case for the 172 pilot taking it into IMC conditions - the plane is the same, but the environment sure isn't, and special training is required for that operation/environment.

Speaking of idiosyncrasies, the Cessna 303 was AD'd prohibited in icing conditions - even though certified for known icing, and equipped. This is definitely "Need to Know" stuff (ask me how I know!). An idiosyncrasies of the highest importance, but well explained in the flight manual supplement for the aircraft, and presented in a placard - training not required.

Without being argumentative, I'm interested to hear examples of idiosyncrasies or gaps between the flight manuals and the practical skills needed to handle the aircraft, for a given class of aircraft - perhaps there is something I should be learning.....

[Radix]

............

[Silvaire1]

the regulator doesn't make that (false) assumption and thus prescribes a one for all solution that involves differences training, no?

If mandatory differences training for individual light aircraft types is what you're addressing, your "regulator" apparently doesn't work for the FAA, which promotes individual judgment, seems quite competent in doing so, and thereby regulates more pilots than other administrations.

[MrAverage]

Thanks be to Beagle.

I've been waiting for an email answer - from the big grey building - on this very subject for several months. (In the meantime I probably lost two potential SEP customers who held ATPLs.) Now I know why they didn't answer and what to say in future!


GS-Alpha

If you need a solution near London please send a P.M.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

Without being argumentative, I'm interested to hear examples of idiosyncrasies or gaps between the flight manuals and the practical skills needed to handle the aircraft, for a given class of aircraft - perhaps there is something I should be learning.....

I can think of on example. A fellow I knew owned an old square tail C 172. He traded it straight across to a guy with a newer C 182 that wanted to downsize. They did a test flight on each others airplanes but the C 182 owner did the landing.

The deal gets done and the new owner jumps into the C 182 with his quite large son to fly the airplane home. On arrival the owner is unprepared for the much higher pitch forces in the flare with a forward limit C of G. As well he was used to the view out the low instrument panel the old C 172's have, not the very high dash on the C 182 which blocks out the view entirely if the aircraft is in the proper landing attitude.

The result was a heavy nose wheel first landing and a bent firewall. A damage scenario very common in C 182's.

The pilot was fully legal to fly the aircraft and the aircraft was legally loaded, although right on the forward C of G limit. I would suggest this is an example where, for this relatively low time pilot, while the flying characteristics of the C 182 are fully compliant with the certification requirements, they were sufficiently different from what he was used to in the C 172, that he was caught out.

When I did a checkout on the C 182 I made sure to emphasize this point as well as the extra care the engine demanded over your bullet proof 4 banger in a C 172/Pa 28

Obviously the more experience one has the easier it is to just jump in and go, however I would suggest it is always a good idea to get some familiarization with a new type regardless of how good you are.

However the rub is the instructor has to actually know something about the real world operation of that models. This is problem when the average flight school instructor will likely never have seen anything but the C 152/172 or Pa28. So a bit of digging may be required to find the right instructor to get the most out of a checkout.

[Silvaire1]

However the rub is the instructor has to actually know something about the real world operation of that models. This is problem when the average flight school instructor will likely never have seen anything but the C 152/172 or Pa28. So a bit of digging may be required to find the right instructor to get the most out of a checkout.

Yes, the mindless fallacy of certification meaning competence is a big problem. My experience in that situation was buying a certified aircraft of which there were eight on the FAA register. Nobody within 1000 miles of the aircraft had ever flown one, notwithstanding the fact that its not too challenging if you have your head on straight. The best person to fly it, and later help get me up to speed, was a friend who competes in unlimited aerobatic competition and has flown almost literally every light aircraft under the sun. He's not an certified instructor. After I was up to speed I had another friend who is an instructor (and a 767 pilot for a living) sign me off for insurance purposes, after I showed him I could fly it. All parties agreed with the approach, and obviously it worked out fine without extra 'help' from inflexible and ineffective regulation.

[Above The Clouds]

BPF
However the rub is the instructor has to actually know something about the real world operation of that models. This is problem when the average flight school instructor will likely never have seen anything but the C 152/172 or Pa28. So a bit of digging may be required to find the right instructor to get the most out of a checkout.

Now theres a point that is worth exploring, mainly for the EASA pilots but I suppose equally for FAA licence pilots operating in Europe.

Lets keep the example outside of the flying school aircraft environment;

Does the pilot checking out the pilot with no experience on type have to be an instructor, or can the check pilot be a none instructor so long as he/she is experienced on the type.

Example, pilot purchases say a C182 from an owner, pilot buying the aircraft has only flown Pipers, owner of the C182 has 500 hours on type, no instructors around with C182 time, is it wiser to get the owner to do the checkout or an instructor with no experience on type to do a checkout ?

Aircraft types could be any variation just used the above as an example, and assuming everyone is appropriately licensed.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Example, pilot purchases say a C182 from an owner, pilot buying the aircraft has only flown Pipers, owner of the C182 has 500 hours on type, no instructors around with C182 time, is it wiser to get the owner to do the checkout or an instructor with no experience on type to do a checkout ?

Lets examine this question to find out the pit falls one can fall into when making this choice.

Legally a licensed flight instructor with no experience on type may only have around three hundred hours total time as a pilot, the selling owner could have thousands of hours as a pilot.

I know who I would chose.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Above The Clouds

Example, pilot purchases say a C182 from an owner, pilot buying the aircraft has only flown Pipers, owner of the C182 has 500 hours on type, no instructors around with C182 time, is it wiser to get the owner to do the checkout or an instructor with no experience on type to do a checkout ?

.

It appears to me that the underlying assumption to the above paragraph is the facile and tired reduction of the issue into a binary choice

Flying instructor = automatically inexperienced and not competent to perform the checkout

500 hr on type PPL = automatically in all respects ready to give a comprehensive effective check out

While there are plenty of not very good instructors out there there are also plenty of 500 hr PPL's on type with marginal flying skills and an impressive collection of bad habits. There are also a discouragingly large number of pilots who are too cheap to pay for a good checkout even though a good instructor is available locally

My 02 cents

1) Regardless of how much experience you have a check out from an experienced instructor before flying a new type is a good idea. The extent of this checkout is obviously proportional to the amount, relevance and recency of your experience.

2) For almost every pilot, flying almost every type, in almost every place, it will be possible to obtain the services of a good instructor with relevant experience. This however may involve some research to find out who is out there and some extra costs to bring in someone who is not local. Whether you chose to do that is up to you, but to say there is nobody competent to teach you is not likely to be the case, you have simply chosen not to find them.

[GS-Alpha]

I rang the CAA with the question about obtaining an SEP class rating under my circumstances, and they actually do not know the answer! I've never held a PPL(A), and so even though my EASA licence now automatically lists that I have a PPL(A) due to holding an ATPL(A), it does not automatically mean that I hold an expired SEP. Indeed, they checked and confirmed that I have never held one. As a result, my reading of CAP 804 is correct and the requirements for me to obtain an SEP class rating are not covered by the document. They were therefore unable to advise me!

I was instead guided towards emailing a specialist department, which I have done but it seems I could be waiting anything up to 30 days for an answer. Something tells me it will be longer...

I'll ring Abbasair in the morning, and see what they have to say on the subject.