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]

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.

[GS-Alpha]

Genghis, the problem I have is that I cannot 'get my SEP class rating back', because I have never possessed one...

Having finally managed to download CAP 804, there actually isn't any information for acquiring an SEP rating. There is only information for revalidating one, or acquiring other ratings such as MEP... I suspect I do just need to 'get my hand back in', and then demonstrate it with a skills test, but it is not actually specified; presumably because it is assumed everyone had an SEP rating when they first obtain their licence? I know guys from my course who just paid a fee and had the SEP rating added without the need for any official retraining, but that was back before EASA came along.

I guess I need to give the CAA a call.

[foxmoth]

Quote:
mrmum
Not quite, as I think the RR Merlin is a supercharged engine, so differences training would be required for that.
Not if the PA28 was turbo charged you wouldn't.

I did not think I would need to specify that, maybe I should have!:rolleyes:

[9 lives]

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.In my early days, I was a pilot who was trained to be vary of different types... Oooo, that's a Warrior, you were trained in a 172... I was not trained to be confident about my skills - flying club training.

Then I helped out with the DC-8-63 full simulator which the airline who employed me (not as a pilot) had for pilot training. I was tasked with shutting it all down and locking the door at midnight, when the crews were finished training. With all evening, and a complete set of manuals available, I learned about DC-8's. I was about a 200 hour 172 pilot. I read and read. With unrestricted use of the simulator after midnight, I trained myself to fly it. I always left it neatly parked at the button of the runway, as I had found it. I had no problem with this, I read the manuals, memorized the speeds, and followed the procedures. When the Chief Pilot found out, after 30 hours or so solo, he threatened to type endorse me - but sadly, there was no practical reason to do this on a PPL.

It is great for pilots to be cautious when flying new types. Read and understand the flight manual, get training if you can. But still be confident in your careful approach to flying something new - it's not that hard (or it would not be certified)!

The first time I flew a Piper Navajo solo, I had never flown one before. Similarly the Cessna 206 and 210, as well as Piper Tomahawk, Bellanca Viking, Maule M3, and Tiger Moth. For the Tiger Moth, I did have to get back out, and ask a couple of questions of the maintenance guys before my first flight, as there did not seem to be a flight manual to explain a few things (and they were backwards!).

I'm not advocating wild irresponsibility, taking innocent passengers for your first "new" flight, nor planning a hard IFR flight for your first experience with a new type. But neither am I suggesting that experience on a new type should be feared or avoided for lack of confidence.

Among the attributes of a good pilot is the ability to carefully learn or refine a skill "to the next level". Whether it's learning to neatly tuck that 172 into a really tight grass runway, or flying a whole new type, you recognize that you should be lining up all the other factors (weather, load, runway dimensions, distractions) to be in your favour, while you learn a new skill. It could be as simple as retracting and extending landing gear as required, or adjusting the blue knob so the engine is not revving so high - the flight manual will tell how to do it, and, how to handle a failure!

Honestly, there's probably more to learn in flying the G1000 version of a 172, than going onward to a 210!

[On Track]

Hello foxmoth. New Zealand also requires type ratings for SEP aircraft.

As has already been mentioned, Australia does not.

[piperboy84]

ST, you sure it was an M3

The first time I flew a Piper Navajo solo, I had never flown one before. Similarly the Cessna 206 and 210, as well as Piper Tomahawk, Bellanca Viking, Maule M3,

I fly both an M7 and an M4, the M4 being one of 12 built in 2007 as a 50th "anniversary" edition of Mr. D B Maules introduction of the original M4. I assumed there could have been earlier models (M1-3 etc) but have never seen one or heard of anyone refer to one until your post. Do you recall any specs/info on the version you flew ? . I'm a Maulaholic.

[3bars]

I'm fairly certain you just need a PPL skills test, but check with the authorities

[fujii]

This is another of those unnecessary threads. The phone company used to have a slogan, "let your fingers do the walking." In other words, pick up the phone and call a flying school. This sort of stuff is their everyday business.

P.s. A previous post mentioned Merlin engines being turbocharged when they are actually supercharged.

[arelix]

GS Alpha, you just need refresher training and skills test, a few hrs and can be sorted at your local flying school.
You need to submit a course completion certificate, application form and examiners report to CAA.(the application form contains all the info, just need the other 2 forms to satisfy CAA "requirements"!)
I know, I did it a couple of years ago when I retired from airline flying!
Regards
Pete

P.S. a ppl licence "contains" an SEP, used to be called group a in my day, you just need to renew it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis, the problem I have is that I cannot 'get my SEP class rating back', because I have never possessed one...
I guess I need to give the CAA a call.

So far as I know, that doesn't really change anything much. Just paperwork and the inevitable CAA fee to add the SEP class rating to your licences.

G

[GS-Alpha]

arelix, you're just the person I was looking for. Excellent, thanks - now I just need to convince my flying school...

fujii, please read the last sentence of my original post. I did 'let my fingers do the walking', but it would seem it is not every flying school's bread and butter.

Cheers guys

[Thud105]

I'm with Step. A 172 is little more than a four seat 152, to suggest anything else is arrant nonsense. Read the POH and pick your day obviously, but its not an F-104 Starfighter is it? In fact I believe Cessna designed it as a sort of 'flying car' - why do you think they called the landing gear 'Land-o-Matic'??

[olasek]

to suggest anything else is arrant nonsense. .
And who is suggesting that? :ugh:
172 is enough different form 152 hence all flying clubs I ever belonged to required a checkout with instructor when transitioning from one to another, the same goes for Warriors, Archers, etc. to suggest that it is not true or that it is easy to circumvent the process (legally) is precisely the arrant nonsense. I suppose if you are flying outside of flying clubs, getting into aircraft ownership, caring less about carrying insurance, you will have more opportunity to be your own flight instructor but list is long of pilots who perished this way. There was a fellow who was flying IFR but he never got his IFR ticket - he was succesful for about a year (surprisingly long) with ultimate tragic end.

however you would also require a sign off for the complex systems bit,
Oh, too bad, I thought that just 'reading' would be enough. :}

[9 lives]

required a checkout with instructor when transitioning from one to another, to suggest that it is not true or that it is easy to circumvent the process (legally) is precisely the arrant nonsense.

If the owner of the aircraft requires you to be "checked out" across the Cessna single engine piston product range, that's a commercial issue between you and the owner, not a "legal" requirement (at least in North America - taildraggers excepted in the US).

Pilots wishing more training to boost their confidence in transitioning to other types should certainly obtain that training. Pilots who are skilled and confident should feel comfortable that the "next" certified type will be safely manageable with proper flight manual review, once any legal or commercial requirements are met. The responsibility of the pilot is to build and maintain piloting skills which keep them sharp. This means regular practice of airwork and emergencies review.

All aircraft certified since the mid '70's will have controls, instruments and handling which meet a common standard, exactly to take the type transition mystery out of it. Sure, some additional systems or technique knowledge may be needed, which is why the flight manual review. The authorities have gone to quite an effort to assure these aircraft are free from surprises to the new pilot. Being aware is great, being "concerned" should not be necessary.

Bear in mind that there are some GA types for which experienced "instructors" in the normal sense are practically non existent. At best you'll find a mentor pilot if you search.

[Thud105]

Step is (again) correct. 'Conversion training' is a flight school thing Olasek, its not in the FARs and is not a legal requirement. Of course, the irony is that anyone who can fly knows that 172s are actually easier than 152s!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Going back to the Original Posters question I would think that if you have an ATPL you would automatically have the legal authority to fly a C 172 because as was pointed out earlier the ATPL rolls up all of the permissions of lesser licenses and then adds the ability to act as PIC on large aircraft to them.

However I live in North America where things are pretty sensible. The weirdness that is the European regulatory framework defies understanding :ugh:

With respect to the checkout in a C 172. From the details provided it appears that the OP has been flying the heavy metal. For someone who has been out of little airplanes for a long time, I would suggest that a checkout is essential.

My experience with very experienced big jet pilots going to light aircraft after a long absence is that all have initially struggled because of the very different sight picture on landing. In particular they all initially tried to flare at such a high distance from the runway, a stall and heavy landing was inevitable. After a few goes they got the picture back and then all was good.

Piston engine handling also took a little while to come back for most, particularly remembering to lean appropriately and use carb heat.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In EASAland BPF, we have a class rating, and if required a type rating. Generally speaking, light aeroplanes don't require a type rating.

Class ratings need you to pass a skill test in the first place, then revalidating every 2 years: for the SEP class rating that's 12 hours in the second of every 2 years: of which at least 6 hours have to be PiC and 1 hour with an instructor (not the same as an FAA BFR, as the instructional flight doesn't need to be passed, just flown).

As the OP's never passed a skill test, AND not flown one in over 2 years, he's not got a valid SEP class rating.


You could certainly make a case that somebody sufficiently qualified to fly a 747 should be trusted to display sufficient good judgement to decide what "lower" class they're competent to fly, and what training they need to become competent. However, there are sufficient accident reports from before this became mandatory to demonstrate that that's not true.

I suspect that the OP has already demonstrated sufficiently good judgement, to make sure he does things right. But others haven't, and the rules now are what they are because of people with poorer judgement in the past.

G

[Radix]

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

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't speak for any other flight school, but the two I instruct at part time would both I'm quite sure be perfectly happy to do it.

Why wouldn't you want to have the pleasure of flying with an experienced pilot to get them into flying for fun as well as work? Less likely to try and kill you than some students, enjoyable flying, worthwhile tick in the box.

G

[olasek]

Thats where you show your ignorance to such matters, because actually you can just read about them then be theroretically tested
Understood little of my post. :bored:

[BEagle]

arelix wrote: P.S. a ppl licence "contains" an SEP, used to be called group a in my day, you just need to renew it.

It does NOT! Neither does an ATPL or CPL include SEP privileges unless it includes an SEP Class Rating. There's an awful lot of incorrect information in this thread....:rolleyes:

GS-alpha needs to complete training for the initial issue of an SEP Class Rating, which incudes an SEP Class Rating Skill Test (not a 'PPL' Skill Test), then apply to have it included in his pilot licence.

There is, surprisingly, no mandated content for the SEP Class Rating course, only for the PPL/LAPL on SEP/TMG aircraft. So the RF/ATO needs to detail the 'refresher flying' deemed necessary to prepare the applicant for the SEP Class Rating Skill Test when application is made to the CAA for inclusion of the Rating in the applicant's pilot licence.

[Pilot DAR]

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

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. :ok:

[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]

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]

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 :ugh:

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.

[9 lives]

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.

With one proviso, I agree with the foregoing. That proviso would be the substitution of "Mentor pilot" for "Instructor". I challenge that there could be many types, for which, yes, there would be an experienced mentor pilot to be found, but a pilot with an instructor rating and experience on type could be much more a hunt.

There would be many experienced "instructors" who could figure the new type of plane out themselves, and the train in it adequately, and similarly "mentor pilots" who could do the same, inversely, there would be many instructors and pilots in general who should not be let near it. "Instructor" in and of itself is not an assurance of skills on a type, but I hope it should be an indicator that that person would be better to train themselves safely, as I have suggested a competent pilot should be able.

However, I continue to assert that if a pilot is not confident to cautiously go to the next type, and build outwards their experience, they should build on their basic skills. I accept as a disappointment that a 172 pilot would have trouble handling a 182. From the example presented, I view that pilot's failing not so much as not being able to figure out the 182 safely, but taking on too much at once, by loading it up, and to the forward C of g. A good pilot will build their experience with the iterative approach, take it bit by bit, rather than all at once.

When I fly something new, I take my time, and absolutely do not assume that I'm flying my same old mount. I put as much in my favour as I can. Like anything we do in a plane, there are times to take a breath an say to one's self "I'm doing something a little different now, so I need to be slow, and extra cautious, until it's more natural to me." This could be a new type, flying IMC for the first time, or flying in very busy and unfamiliar airspace. The 172 pilot who could not figure out a 182, would likely have trouble in the 172 in some other unfamiliar circumstances.

I do endorse type or differences training, and I do my fair share for other pilots. The point I would like to make is not that the pilot should not seek out that training, it's that the pilot must open their mind to embrace an attitude toward safely handling new circumstances, be they a new type (with a flight manual!), new airspace, or different conditions. Get out of the rut - which may be flying something different!

[FullWings]

Beautifully put, Step Turn.

If I may be so bold, I would like to put forward that there are two types of pilots in the world: One sort, that flies everything by numbers and expects/needs to be trained in every aspect of operation. Then the other kind, that seeks out enough information to be confident but at the same time is able to deal with the novel, interesting and surprising by applying logic and basic skills.

Both are able to fly, it's just that they take a different route towards “competence”.

I’m a glider pilot as well as a power one and we have exactly the same issues when it comes to conversions, etc. I heard someone giving advice to a new-ish pilot who had just bought a sailplane with retractable gear to leave it down for the first couple of flights! FFS! It’s just a lever you use twice a flight: up after you take off and down before you land. No mystery at all and the sooner you get used to doing it properly, the better.

Basically, if you fly your current aircraft well, using appropriate levels of airmanship, then after browsing the POH for quirks you should have very little problem with a similar type, i.e. same number of engines, wings, etc. Newton’s laws and those of aerodynamics apply to all aeroplanes, whether you’ve flown them before or not...

[n5296s]

Some odd remarks here. As far as the FAA is concerned (no idea about other countries), an ASEL is an ASEL, as long as it is under 12500 lbs. Well, not quite true, but once you have complex (retract/variable speed prop) and high power (>200HP) endorsements, it is true. So you can get your endorsements in say a 182RG, and then legally hop into a PC12 or TBM850 and off you go.

The fly in the ointment is insurance. Nobody will insure you to do that (obviously). So regulation is actually enforced by the insurance companies. If you want to be insured to fly your PC12, you will probably need something like 500 hours, IR, 50 or 100 hours in type, and recurrent training. And even then it won't be cheap. And even if you're rich enough that flying around in an uninsured $3M aircraft doesn't worry you, you will still (in fact, especially) need liability insurance.

For sure nobody (or club/school) will let you fly THEIR aircraft without you showing them you know how to do it, and having some appropriate experience. Typical for a modest aircraft like my TR182 would be 500 hrs, 50 hrs retract, 10 in type.

In the US there's no such thing as "differences training", it's a phrase I've only ever seen on Pprune. There are the two endorsements I mentioned above, plus another for tailwheel. They are just written into the back of your logbook by an instructor.

That said, you'd be nuts just to hop into a different type without a bit of dual and at least a verbal "yep, you'll do" from an instructor, unless you are really super experienced (as I'm willing to believe Step Pilot is, but that's seriously the exception to the rule).

[Silvaire1]

Nobody will insure you to do that (obviously). So regulation is actually enforced by the insurance companies. If you want to be insured to fly your PC12, you will probably need something like 500 hours, IR, 50 or 100 hours in type, and recurrent training.

For lighter types like the Cessna 172, assuming the pilot/owner has a few hundred hours in total, the US insurance requirements are not so extreme. I think I needed 2 hrs dual as owner in my highly unusual but relatively simple type. Other qualified pilots with 500 hrs and my permission did not need any dual in type. I'd imagine the insurance company has experience to indicate that owners regardless of their own experience don't let incompetents fly their plane, and that owners have good enough judgement to figure out who is qualified without their intervention.

Also, insurance is not required for a light aircraft in the US, so depending on personal circumstances and risk tolerance, transition training can be carried out entirely legally minus insurance. For a light type at a rural airport, in an unpopulated area, this may be fine.

For sure nobody (or club/school) will let you fly THEIR aircraft without you showing them you know how to do it, and having some appropriate experience

But of course that isn't relevant if you just bought the plane but haven't yet flown it.

That said, you'd be nuts just to hop into a different type without a bit of dual and at least a verbal "yep, you'll do" from an instructor, unless you are really super experienced (as I'm willing to believe Step Pilot is, but that's seriously the exception to the rule).

As discussed in this thread, many think the qualifications of being a government certificated instructor may be relatively unimportant for transition training into lighter types relative to having a high level of overall piloting experience, time in type, and being available. Some such non-CFI pilots may even have extensive instructing experience in addition to a level of experience much higher than the typical CFI, for instance ex-military instructors and those with foreign credentials.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

In the US there's no such thing as "differences training", it's a phrase I've only ever seen on PPRuNe. There are the two endorsements I mentioned above, plus another for tailwheel. They are just written into the back of your logbook by an instructor.

In Canada we do not even have a " Tail wheel " endorsement.

However I would not advise someone with low time in a small Cessna or Piper nose wheel airplane to self teach. :O

However to go from a Cessna 172 to say a Piper PA140 is not all that difficult.

[olasek]

relative to having a high level of overall piloting experience
Again, as n5296s correctly pointed out this is rather an exception than a rule, it definitely doesn't apply to vast majority of my flying buddies in clubs I belonged to. And very competent instructors were always on hand at weirdest times of day/night so yet another argument that somehow you have to travel far to find the right instructor is just a bunch of double-talk. If you fly something exotic and live in weird places that could be true but it doesn't apply to 99% of cases.

[Silvaire1]

Again, as n5296s correctly pointed out this is rather an exception than a rule, it definitely doesn't apply to vast majority of my flying buddies in clubs I belonged to.

Community and ownership does outperform regimentation and rental, with that I'd agree. Where I fly there is little flying club activity and a very useful community of owners, often with huge experience. Seven hundred aircraft stored at my base, mostly individually owned, and its very much the rule for the more experienced to help the less experienced. Flight instructors are certainly available locally but most of them aren't that qualified, and in any case the paper qualification doesn't add a lot of value (if any) to transition training into simple planes.

[Above The Clouds]

And most you are discussing instructor availability in the USA, here in the UK the instructing system has been gradually going down the pan since they more or less abolished the self improver route to gain a professional licence.

Now the large majority of would be commercial pilots bypass the instructing element of their career in favour of parents will pay for everything just so i can sit in a 737 with approx. 300 hours route.

So ultimately the experience level of instructors is diminishing, either due to retirement or because those who cannot afford to pay everything in one hit for a commercial licence use instructing as a very brief stepping stone.

[n5296s]

the qualifications of being a government certificated instructor may be relatively unimportant for transition training
I agree, so substitute "instructor" for instructor - i.e. anyone who can competently instruct you to fly this particular aircraft, regardless of whether they're a CFI or not. As long as at least one of you has the necessary endorsements, it'll be legal.

My insurance has an "open pilot" clause which iirc says anyone with 500 (maybe 1000) total time, 50 retract, and 10 in type can fly it. Anything less requires them to be added by name to the policy. But I'm pretty sure if it was a PC12 or P-51, it would be a lot higher.

As it happens one of the schools I know has a plane pretty much identical to mine. Their requirement to fly (solo) it is: 350 Total hours, 50 retractable, plus either 25 hours make and model, or 5 - 10 hours dual to proficiency with an approved instructor.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The lesson to be learned here is when in doubt ask your insurance broker what is required.

The Government rules may say you are legal to fly it...but the Government won't pay for it if you wreck it. :E

[flybymike]

50 retractable
Why on earth you need 50 hours practising moving the gear switch up and down is beyond me.

[n5296s]

Why on earth you need 50 hours practising moving the gear switch up and down is beyond me.
You don't. You need 50 hours remembering to move it down. I guess you either have a lot of retractable time (too much to remember the overload at the beginning of flying a relatively complex aircraft) or none.

[Big Pistons Forever]

With one proviso, I agree with the foregoing. That proviso would be the substitution of "Mentor pilot" for "Instructor". I challenge that there could be many types, for which, yes, there would be an experienced mentor pilot to be found, but a pilot with an instructor rating and experience on type could be much more a hunt.

There would be many experienced "instructors" who could figure the new type of plane out themselves, and the train in it adequately, and similarly "mentor pilots" who could do the same, inversely, there would be many instructors and pilots in general who should not be let near it. "Instructor" in and of itself is not an assurance of skills on a type, but I hope it should be an indicator that that person would be better to train themselves safely, as I have suggested a competent pilot should be able.

However, I continue to assert that if a pilot is not confident to cautiously go to the next type, and build outwards their experience, they should build on their basic skills. I accept as a disappointment that a 172 pilot would have trouble handling a 182. From the example presented, I view that pilot's failing not so much as not being able to figure out the 182 safely, but taking on too much at once, by loading it up, and to the forward C of g. A good pilot will build their experience with the iterative approach, take it bit by bit, rather than all at once.




I certainly did not want to imply that an instructor rating was a prerequisite for someone who is going to do your checkout. Rather I guess my exasperation was with posters, especially one regular, that are continuously going on and on about how instructor ratings are useless.

The only advantage an instructor rating has is that it is training in how to teach. As a general statement if there are 2 pilots of approximately equal experience, then I believe the one with the rating is more likely to give effective instruction. It will also be easier to get the time recognized by the insurance company, although this not is that big a deal as training from an appropriately qualified non instructor pilot will almost always be approved on application.

The bulk of the flying instructor course is how to teach the foundation flying skills. When doing checkouts on low time and/or rusty pilots I find that in addition to teaching the airplane, I will usually end up providing a bit of a tune up of the pilots basic flying as there is almost always areas that need a bit of improving. This I think speaks to Step's second point.

Confidence comes from a secure mastery of the basic handling skills, but it is also good to stretch yourself. A checkout in a new type with an effective instructor can be a way to achieve both aims, improvement of the critical foundation skills and a broadening of the personal experience base.