checkouts

[Pilot16]

If I havent flown at all for a while and need a check out, say this check out was on a C152, will this allow me to fly PA-28 without another checkout on this particular aircraft type?

thanks.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Legally yes, but it would be very stupid, and no club that I've ever flown with would permit it.

G

[distaff_beancounter]

Is the check-out just a requirement of a school or club, before they will let you take one out on self-fly hire? If so, then there are no fixed rules, it is up to each school/club.

In practice, at the schools that I have hired from, it is a combination of the school's rules & the CFI's descretion.

So, for newly-qualified low-hours pilot, it is more likely that a checkout on each type would be required, especially if the pilot has few hours on the types to be hired.

Where I hire at present, they require me to do 6 month checkouts on the twin. But for SEPs they are happy for a checkout on a PA28 to cover a C150, or the reverse, but then I do have over 600 hours & fly regularly.

[Pilot16]

Right I guess its all up to the FTO.

Thanks :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Hmm.

Place I fly reckons you're current if you've flown within the last 21 days apparently regardless of type.

So one day I booked a plane, was asked whether I was current, said "yes, I did several hours in floatplanes a couple of weeks ago", and was authorised to fly.

Now, whilst the crosswind landing that followed was not my worst ever, it was some considerable way away from being my best, having most recently had the luxury of working out where the wind was coming from and just landing into it. Possibly regarding floatplane time as keeping myself current for landplanes was not a good decision - I'll think twice before trying that one on again.

[MLS-12D]

Legally yes, but it would be very stupid, and no club that I've ever flown with would permit it.I beg to differ.

If someone has, say, 30 hours in PA28, and a like amount in C-152s, I see no particular stupidity in a recurrency checkout in one re-qualifying that person to fly both. After all, they are both simple, easy-fly airplanes ... it's not like Pilot16 is asking whether a C152 checkride will also qualify him to operate a Globe "Super Swift".

I do agree that if someone has never flown a particular type before, it is only common sense to undergo a checkout in that model, regardless of its simplicity.

[Pilot16]

Indeed. Good point. The differences are not major between a PA- 28 and a C152. I have flown both types. And I know Il be confident with a checkout on a 152 to fly on a PA 28, or vice versa.

[J.A.F.O.]

If it is believed that you should be checked out on the actual type to be flown rather than a similar type, how would you ever fly a single seat aircraft?

:confused: Honest question. :confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, maybe I was a little strong in my original post - but my reading into Pilot16s post implied that he had probably not flown for some months and was probably not all that high-hours. If I'm incorrect in that, it clearly changes the position. Mind you I know the PA28 and C152 both pretty well, and would want to fly with an instructor if I'd been out of either for more than about 6 months.


As to single seaters, I've flown about half a dozen, none of which had a direct 2-seat equivalent that I could get checked out on. Firstly you (and the aeroplane owner) have to be realistically honest and happy about your flying ability ON THE DAY. Which means you are current on the nearest available other aeroplane that you could be, and have flown recently and often enough that you've spare capacity to think about the aeroplane. At the same time you need to be pretty intimate with the local geography, airfield procedures, etc - again you need to allow yourself as much spare mental capacity as possible.

Then you need a very thorough briefing from a pilot who knows it, making sure I had the salient points down on my kneeboard.

After a good long sit in, then some protracted taxiing to get a feel for the cockpit, I'd look to do a couple of practice rotations and low hops. Then, a conservative take-off (nothing clever) exactly by the book. Climb to a good safe height in some quiet airspace, and carefully feel around the envelope from stall to Vne, via sideslips, operation of services, simulated approaches, shallow then steep turns - getting a good feel for it (and not forgetting trimming for cruise as well!).

Then I'd come back, fly some very careful circuits, and finally sit down with somebody who knows the aeroplane and discuss the flight and what I'd learned - got right, got wrong.


This is how I've handled all my single-seat first flights bar one. That exception was a test flight on a museum piece where nobody had flown the type for about 10 years. Whilst I'd done a lot of homework about it's characteristics, I had no "expert pilot" to talk to, so had to be MUCH more careful. (But by jove it was satisfying!)

Even more care is needed of-course is the first flight of a new type, but I've not had that privilege yet - only of a few variants.

G

[DubTrub]

Check-outs is all to do with airmanship, prudence, and insurance.

Now there legally be no "differences" training required, but as the owner, I would require that a C152-experienced pilot be checked out (as a miniumum) in the fuel pump/fuel valve system of a Pa28 before it was let to said pilot. Let alone the other handling characteristics.

Any insurance company would also require the same, and might refute liability if a claim was forthcoming, on the basis that the claimant was "imprudent" in his actions.

All owners I know (FTO's or not) always require a check out.

Single seat: the relevant insurance phrase is "or equivalent". So for example, if you purchased a single Pitts, it would be prudent for the pilot to get some S2 time (I doubt whether an insurance company would offer cover without it).

For a single like a Turb (for which there is no two-seater), some "similar" time on type might be appropriate. Like a Cub. Or Jodel. Or any aircraft with the same handling characteristics.

Anyway, you get the idea.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you guys are interested I can provide an instructors point of view

When I am asked to do a check ride ( by that I mean flying with a pilot who allready has type experience, not a checkout on a new type ) ; I always tell them I can pretty much decide if they are safe by the time we have finished the run up, so why don't we use the dual to work on what they percieve as weak areas. Most just want to do the minimum which I think is a shame as your average PPL benefits from the chance to polish his or her flying.
BTW I will not do a check ride without a PFL ( If the flight is going well I usually just fail the engine on downwind )

[MLS-12D]

Any insurance company would also require the same, and might refute liability if a claim was forthcoming, on the basis that the claimant was "imprudent" in his actions.I don't claim to be a definitive authority, but I do have considerable professional experience of insurance law, and I would be quite surprised if any underwriter was able to successfully deny an indemnity on the basis that a pilot had acted "imprudently": which I believe is a vague term, unlike "recklessly", "intentionally" or "negligently".

Aviation insurance policies exist primarily to protect pilots from the financial consequences of their own "imprudence".

[englishal]

From my experiences as a renter....:D (and assumning you have previous time in the aircraft types.....)

Any club checkout in a SEP simple aircraft (PA28 / 172 / 152) will cover the others, BUT they may require 3 touch and go's. So you do a club checkout in a PA28 (even if you've never flown it before), then 3 T/G's in a 172, and you can rent the PA28, 172 and 152.

If you do the same in an Arrow, plus 3 T/G's in a 172, you can rent an Arrow, PA28, 172 and 152.

....or if like my mate you do a stonker of a landing and bounce it three times on landing, that may count as three touch and go's :}