Adding a Cessna 172 rating to my licence

[GS-Alpha]

Hi guys

I'm just wondering whether anyone here has any experience of the minimum training required under EASA to enable me to fly a Cessna 172 on my current licence. I hold a current PPL(A) CPL(A) ATPL(A), with just a 744 IR LV rating on it. Expired ratings include an MEP but I have never held an SEP rating. I did my initial training on Warriors about 17 years ago, but an SEP was never issued.

I also hold a current PPL(H) with an R22 rating so I am up to speed with VFR flight/navigation etc.. Any ideas how much training I might actually need in practice, given that I've not flown a small fixed wing aircraft for over 15 years.

I made initial enquiries to my local flying school a week or so ago, but so far I've not heard anything back as it is not something they have come across before.

Cheers
GS

[MrAverage]

I'd say, if a C of E for SEP was not issued you have never had a PPL. More likely is you've lost that original certificate. There's no such thing as a 172 rating in the UK, or for that matter most parts of the world. (Australia / New Zealand I believe are the only significant exception)


Was your PPL a UK issued JAA one?

[BillieBob]

More likely the graduate of an integrated ATPL course, I'd say.

You will need to complete an SEP(L) class rating course at an ATO or registered facility and pass a class rating skill test. Once issued, the SEP class rating is valid on all aeroplanes within the SEP(L) class with only familiarisation training (e.g. reading the POH) required between types.

[fujii]

No such thing as a C172 rating in Australia.

[flybymike]

17 years ago (pre JAA/EASA) there was no such thing as an SEP rating, only a group A (I.e. single engine) licence, or group B multi engine licence.

My guess is that Billiebobs remarks are correct.

[GS-Alpha]

Thanks for the responses so far guys. Firstly, my EASA licence says it is a PPL(A), a CPL(A) and an ATPL(A), and was given to me more than a decade after I last flew a piston engines aircraft so I'm guessing it is still valid as a PPL. Also I am indeed a graduate of an integrated course from which I qualified with an MEP rating, but never flew one again.

So the consensus is that I need to obtain an SEP rating, and that would enable me to fly the Cessna 172. Does anyone have any idea what the requirements are to obtain that? I know helicopter type ratings tend to be 5 hours.

GS

[GS-Alpha]

Actually, looking more carefully at my licence, it lists the following:

ATPL (A). With a date and then GBR
CPL(A)
PPL(A)

So it may be that the licence is just an ATPL(A), because the CPL and PPL lines do not have a date beside them. I presume I can fly a Cessna under the privileges of my ATPL(A) once I have an SEP rating added?

[porterhouse]

within the SEP(L) class with only familiarisation training (e.g. reading the POH) required between types.

I very much doubt reading POH would be enough as a 'familiarization' training. You will need endorsement for a type (in other words flight instruction in the type) and often other additional practical obstacles would stand in the way (like flying club or insurance requirements). If it was so easy to move within SEP(L) someone could fly 172 and then after 'familiarization' jump into say Piper Mirage or Cessna 210. Anyway, this is how it looks from the FAA point of view and I imagine things are similar in Europe. By the way, no SEP under FAA, it is SEL (single engine land).

[Mustapha Cuppa]

If it was so easy to move within SEP(L) someone could fly 172 and then after 'familiarization' jump into say Piper Mirage or Cessna 210.

.... except that the PA46 and Cessna 210 both require differences training.

[porterhouse]

Much more is required than 'difference' training to jump from 172 to PA46 - that was my whole point.

[Mustapha Cuppa]

No. Your point was that familiarisation training was inadequate.

What over and above differences training do you think is required?

[9 lives]

I very much doubt reading POH would be enough as a 'familiarization' training. You will need endorsement for a type (in other words flight instruction in the type) and often other additional practical obstacles would stand in the way (like flying club or insurance requirements). If it was so easy to move within SEP(L) someone could fly 172 and then after 'familiarization' jump into say Piper Mirage or Cessna 210.

Oh my gosh! I understand that there are some regulatory requirements which may drive this under some authorities, but let's not lose sight of the fact that nearly all of the GA fleet of certified piston single engine aircraft (excepting a few pressurized exotic types) are designed and certified for a competent pilot to READ THE FLIGHT MANUAL and then fly. That's not to say that familiarization training is a bad thing, but the safety of flight for competent pilot does not depend upon it. It is a certification requirement that all of these aircraft NOT require unusual pilot skill or attention - they are not hard to fly, and do not bite a pilot exercising appropriate skill and attention. This premise does not stop at light certified aircraft, even very big aircraft can be flown safely by a pilot who has familiarized them self with the operation - but I agree that opportunity is uncommon.

When you fly a certified plane, you're not the test pilot, that's been done for you already. The test pilot has demonstrated that you don't need to have test pilot skills to fly it! A part of the appropriate "skill and attention" would be to recognize that you're "new" in a type, and take things slowly, without immersing yourself in challenging conditions for the first while. And, keep the flight manual close at hand, and follow checklists found in that manual.

Many times, I have jumped into something I have never flown before, read the flight manual, and off I went. Other times, while flying a modified aircraft, I've flown something which had never flown before, and written a flight manual supplement for it. The only type which tried to bite me was actually not Canadian type certified, and now I know why. Other than that, apply yourself, and follow the instructions.

Insurance companies and regulators can tend to make a fuss out of this, particularly for lower time pilots. Flying clubs can exacerbate this - unfairly to those pilots. By all means, obtain the required training, but recognize that you might be doing that to meet more of a regulator requirement than an actual concern about demonstrated skills.

To cite the example. if you can fly a 172 well, and read and follow instructions well, you could safely check yourself out in a C210, if you give yourself some room, and take it easy for the first while.... Have confidence in yourself - and the test pilot who certified it as not requiring unusual pilot skill and attention!

[GS-Alpha]

Browsing the CAA website, it looks like I need to look at CAP 804, section 4, part H, subpart 1. My wifi connection here is terrible though, so I cannot download it just at the moment.

[porterhouse]

.Oh my gosh

Oh my gosh, what a bunch of nonsense, we are clarely talking about a low time pilots who fly some lowly 172 and then out of a whim decide to jump into Pa42, or PC12, sure just read the POH, yeah, if you think it is easy or could be easily done (or safely) you no nothing about practical aspects aviation.

[foxmoth]

There are a few aircraft (mainly vintage) I have flown where there is not only no one to give me a checkout but there is no POH, there is nothing in the UK to stop you doing this, I believe SA requires a "rating" for individual simple SEP types, but that is the only place I know of that needs this.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Oh my gosh, what a bunch of nonsense, we are clarely talking about a low time pilots who fly some lowly 172 and then out of a whim could youo jump into Pa42, or PC12, sure just read the POH, yeah, if you think it is easy or could be easily done (or safely) you no nothing about practical aspects aviation.

Counting Step as a friend and colleague, I can assure you that he does know quite a lot about the practical side of aviation.

On your points - an SEP class rating wouldn't qualify someone to fly a PC12 or pa42 as they're both turboprops, and the second also a twin. But a C172 pilot could reasonably read their way into a PA28 or T67. Not the best way to do it - but sometimes the only way.

So far as I can see, GS-alpha just needs their SEP Class Rating back, then they can fly what they like. That is going to require training as required - hopefully just a few hours to get their hand back in, and a skill test. With a current PPL (H), and ATPL (A), it really should just be a refresh on handling.

G

[olasek]

someone to fly a PC12 or pa42 as they're both turboprops, and the second also a twin. But a C172 pilot could reasonably read their way into a PA28 or T67. Not the best way to do it - but sometimes the only way.

I have a question for you, can someone who flew only a 172 'read their way' into flying a PA46, it is a piston SEL, no turboprop. Would you advocate such behavior? Would you encourage passengers to fly with such a pilot? PA46 could also have much more complex avionics but I guess a pilot could simply read the relevant 300 pages of docs and go flying...

[rightbank]

I have a question for you, can someone who flew only a 172 'read their way' into flying a PA46

No as it is pressurised and has a VP prop. Both of those require differences training.

[foxmoth]

I think much more relevant than going from a C172 to a PA46 is that someone who had just flown a retractable PA28 then done Tailwheel on a Piper Cub could then legally jump into a Spitfire!

[mrmum]

Not quite, as I think the RR Merlin is a supercharged engine, so differences training would be required for that.