Should the c150/152 be used for training?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the c150/152 be used for training?
Just food for thought, but given the issues that can easily occur with MTOW & mass&balance, is it right to use the c150/152 and a 2-up trainer?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, most two-seat light aircraft don't have enough payload to carry full fuel and two average male (by 2011 standards). The way I see it, you have 3 choices:
a) fly with less-than-full fuel, which means you have to refuel after every lesson or even make a fuel stop during cross-country flight
b) find a different instructor-student combination that will allow you to takeoff with full tanks
c) accept all the risks involving the over-weight aircraft (but do make sure the CG is within limits) and fly the aircraft accordingly
a) fly with less-than-full fuel, which means you have to refuel after every lesson or even make a fuel stop during cross-country flight
b) find a different instructor-student combination that will allow you to takeoff with full tanks
c) accept all the risks involving the over-weight aircraft (but do make sure the CG is within limits) and fly the aircraft accordingly
Option C is not an acceptable way to operate an aircraft. A & B, however, are quite normal considerations for just about every aircraft. Not many aircraft can take a bum in each seat and full fuel and still be legal. Even fewer if you include baggage too. Deciding between payload & range is a normal part of operating an aircraft.
Nothing like starting students with it from the beginning for it to become habitual.
Nothing like starting students with it from the beginning for it to become habitual.
Moderator
Yeah, it's probably okay to use the world's most common primary training aircraft for training. Aside from people's personal weights seeming to increase in more recent times, nothing else has changed from the inception of the 150 to make it any less ideal as a trainer. Like all aircraft, the 150/152 must be maintained properly, and flown within their limitations. As said, few aircraft can fly within limits with full tanks, and full fuel. Even the Cessna 310 I used to fly fell into this category.
My opinion is that the 150/152 are weight limited because of performance, not structure. I hold this opinion because both can have gross weight increase with no structural change, but an increase in power.
Therefore, it would be very unwise to fly these aircraft overweight. Think of it as an excellent incentive to keep one's weight "normal". Perhaps the 170 pounds per person of the design criteria might be a bit optimistic, but when two of you and full fuel won't work anymore, there may be a message in there for the occupants.
My opinion is that the 150/152 are weight limited because of performance, not structure. I hold this opinion because both can have gross weight increase with no structural change, but an increase in power.
Therefore, it would be very unwise to fly these aircraft overweight. Think of it as an excellent incentive to keep one's weight "normal". Perhaps the 170 pounds per person of the design criteria might be a bit optimistic, but when two of you and full fuel won't work anymore, there may be a message in there for the occupants.
Solo? I doubt that's a problem, only dual with an instructor in my experience.
I have no issue with either as a training aeroplane - I'm only say that schools using them are forcing their instructors and students to check fuel and W&CG between flights, and probably to refuel between flights. I can't honestly see this as a problem, nor probably flying 1 hour instructional sorties with only 105ish minutes of fuel on board which is a small but acceptable safety margin most places.
G
I have no issue with either as a training aeroplane - I'm only say that schools using them are forcing their instructors and students to check fuel and W&CG between flights, and probably to refuel between flights. I can't honestly see this as a problem, nor probably flying 1 hour instructional sorties with only 105ish minutes of fuel on board which is a small but acceptable safety margin most places.
G
Its questionable that some schools send studes solo on runways which when the public transport factor is applied make them performance restricted
AERODROMES
6 The base aerodrome, and any alternative base aerodrome, at which training is being conducted
shall meet the following requirements.
(a) Have at least one runway or take-off area that allows training aeroplane to make a normal take-off
or landing at the maximum take-off or maximum landing mass authorised, as appropriate:
(i) under calm wind (not more than four knots) conditions and temperatures equal to the mean
high temperature for the hottest month of the year in the operating area;
(ii) clearing all obstacles in the take-off flight path by at least 50 feet;
(iii) with the powerplant operation and the landing gear and flap operation (if applicable)
recommended by the manufacturer; and
(iv) with a smooth transition from lift-off to the best rate of climb speed without exceptional
piloting skills or techniques.
(b) Have a wind direction indicator that is visible at ground level from the ends of each runway.
(c) Have adequate runway lights if used for night training.
(d) Have available a means of air/ground communications acceptable to the Authority.
6 The base aerodrome, and any alternative base aerodrome, at which training is being conducted
shall meet the following requirements.
(a) Have at least one runway or take-off area that allows training aeroplane to make a normal take-off
or landing at the maximum take-off or maximum landing mass authorised, as appropriate:
(i) under calm wind (not more than four knots) conditions and temperatures equal to the mean
high temperature for the hottest month of the year in the operating area;
(ii) clearing all obstacles in the take-off flight path by at least 50 feet;
(iii) with the powerplant operation and the landing gear and flap operation (if applicable)
recommended by the manufacturer; and
(iv) with a smooth transition from lift-off to the best rate of climb speed without exceptional
piloting skills or techniques.
(b) Have a wind direction indicator that is visible at ground level from the ends of each runway.
(c) Have adequate runway lights if used for night training.
(d) Have available a means of air/ground communications acceptable to the Authority.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, let me put it another way, you're asked to instruct in a c152. The fuel is as it is, you have no means of lifting fuel out but with 2 on board, you're out of limits. Do you take the lesson?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me put this another way. You are asked to operate an A320 over it's max authorized Take Off Mass just to get a few passengers out or to avoid a fuel stop on the way home, do you take it?
Bearing in mind that we are talking about a training flight here what sort of example do you want to set for your new students who, one day may be faced with the decision in my opening paragraph.
To answer your question, NO I WOULD NOT TAKE THE LESSON.
Bearing in mind that we are talking about a training flight here what sort of example do you want to set for your new students who, one day may be faced with the decision in my opening paragraph.
To answer your question, NO I WOULD NOT TAKE THE LESSON.
...and as part of your operational procedures you don't just have the plane automatically filled after each flight without knowing what the next load will be. Jeez, after a few demonstrations it's not that hard to get a student to calculate how much fuel they
A: Need
B: Can load
Where I first instructed we did the fueling ourselves. More accurately, the *students* did the fueling, under their instructor's supervision. After 1st solo they were allowed to taxi over & fuel without direct supervision. Can't recall that we had many issues with W&B in the aircraft.
Some larger students preferred to, or had to, learn in a C172, but most students were accommodated in the C152s.
A: Need
B: Can load
Where I first instructed we did the fueling ourselves. More accurately, the *students* did the fueling, under their instructor's supervision. After 1st solo they were allowed to taxi over & fuel without direct supervision. Can't recall that we had many issues with W&B in the aircraft.
Some larger students preferred to, or had to, learn in a C172, but most students were accommodated in the C152s.
When I learned to fly (many years ago) the school only had C150s as trainers (the C152 wasn't yet invented). Before that, they taught in Aeronca C7s and Piper Cubs.
When I got my Commercial, we used the 150 for spin training.
When I got my Commercial, we used the 150 for spin training.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the only female Instructor, and weighing at least a few stone less than my male colleagues (and taking up less room in the cockpit), Trial Lesson bookings were sometimes quickly reallocated to me when a large customer walked through the door.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 point: so by not taking the lesson, how do you explain that to your cfi? Dont get wrong, I fully support your decision, but does this scenario place a large burden on an instructor that's struggling to make ends meet at the best of times - could customer choice dictate you no longer fit working there as you can't fly the 150 ?
Tins: you suggest your school would dictate the a/c type to the student and therefore cost of training based on this (totally agree btw)?
May point is that I have seen this occur - that the limits are "forgotten" in order to sell the work. Ie the choice is cost-lead by the customer & the instructor under pressure to remain employed. Hence my question, should a/c like this, that gives this potential, be an a/c destined for 2-up work
I guess where this question ces from is my generalised view that for
Most light singles, take 1 of the seats out and you're generally good to go (ie: in limits with enough fuel to actually do something!) - so I've extended thus generalisation to question the use of a 2-seater like the 150 knowing that a) limits are easily stressed/exceeded b) little option to manipulate fuel quantities & c) a low-rate,pay-on-use employment Market that's placing a high degree of pressure for the instructor to fly or make himself unemployed
Wouldn't it be better all-round if training was done in a/c less likely to create the above.
During my training, it was all c172 so never got into all this as that was the a/c at my school. These days I see that cost of training over-rides the sensible choice
Tins: you suggest your school would dictate the a/c type to the student and therefore cost of training based on this (totally agree btw)?
May point is that I have seen this occur - that the limits are "forgotten" in order to sell the work. Ie the choice is cost-lead by the customer & the instructor under pressure to remain employed. Hence my question, should a/c like this, that gives this potential, be an a/c destined for 2-up work
I guess where this question ces from is my generalised view that for
Most light singles, take 1 of the seats out and you're generally good to go (ie: in limits with enough fuel to actually do something!) - so I've extended thus generalisation to question the use of a 2-seater like the 150 knowing that a) limits are easily stressed/exceeded b) little option to manipulate fuel quantities & c) a low-rate,pay-on-use employment Market that's placing a high degree of pressure for the instructor to fly or make himself unemployed
Wouldn't it be better all-round if training was done in a/c less likely to create the above.
During my training, it was all c172 so never got into all this as that was the a/c at my school. These days I see that cost of training over-rides the sensible choice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lh-oab: oh, I get that a lot at my school. For trial lessons, we ridgely hold to a weight limit but this can mean certain instructors loose out. With students, however, it appears far less enforced, and when taking into account the Market right now, it's hard to see an instructor turn away students because they can't be paired up because the 150 is in play! Either certain instructors loose out or, due to pressure, go with it. I'd just rather see it out of favour. Choice is c172/pa28 et al. 150 for cheap self-hire. Just a thought!
Big B., yes, at times we had to disallow a large student training in the C152. There were several factors though.
* I and one other were 57kg/130lb skinny guys so we usually got heavier students. If that wasn't enough then:
*We'd reduce the fuel load as low as 1 hr + the legally required 45 min reserve. Fuel consumption was based on what the aircraft achieved in service, not book planning figures. We used calibrated dipsticks prior to every flight so fuel quantity was known accurately.
In some cases the student decided he or she preferred the C172 after trying both aircraft on the ground. Sometimes the sheer discomfort of an oversized body squeezed into a C152 led to the student making the right choice, other times their (and the instructor's) inability to make full control movements, or carry sufficient fuel (with &/or without instructor) meant that we'd have to explain to the student that this aircraft wasn't able to meet the training needs for him/her.
Most students did their navexs in the C172s although some stuck with the C152s. There was only about $10 /hr difference anyway so the 20+ to 30+ hrs ab-initio stage wasn't hugely onerous to the student over the entirety of their training.
* I and one other were 57kg/130lb skinny guys so we usually got heavier students. If that wasn't enough then:
*We'd reduce the fuel load as low as 1 hr + the legally required 45 min reserve. Fuel consumption was based on what the aircraft achieved in service, not book planning figures. We used calibrated dipsticks prior to every flight so fuel quantity was known accurately.
In some cases the student decided he or she preferred the C172 after trying both aircraft on the ground. Sometimes the sheer discomfort of an oversized body squeezed into a C152 led to the student making the right choice, other times their (and the instructor's) inability to make full control movements, or carry sufficient fuel (with &/or without instructor) meant that we'd have to explain to the student that this aircraft wasn't able to meet the training needs for him/her.
Most students did their navexs in the C172s although some stuck with the C152s. There was only about $10 /hr difference anyway so the 20+ to 30+ hrs ab-initio stage wasn't hugely onerous to the student over the entirety of their training.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 8th Aug 2011 at 22:01.
To be fair CG is rarely an issue, and weight is less severe. But as a flight safety researcher, and more recently as an instructor, what sort of example would I be setting if I fly knowingly out of limits.
(Mind you, if you are writing flight test reports which include weight and balance data, that you know will eventually be read by CAA, it concentrates the mind!)
Yes, it's a pain, but hardly an incurable one. Solutions include shorter sorties, careful fuel planning, not refuelling after flight only before, and a C172 !
G
Moderator
The fuel is as it is, you have no means of lifting fuel out but with 2 on board, you're out of limits. Do you take the lesson?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BB; I am the CFI and I'd expect my instructors not to fly the aeroplane out of limits. I'd certainly support their decision not to fly in the circumstances you describe.
Part of my responsibility is to pair up students with suitable instructors; a bit of sensible management should ensure that nobody flies outside limits and nobody looses out in the long run.
Happy landings!
Part of my responsibility is to pair up students with suitable instructors; a bit of sensible management should ensure that nobody flies outside limits and nobody looses out in the long run.
Happy landings!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the requirements Whoops
Here is part of the common sense -from CAP 793
2 Aerodromes (Including Helicopter Sites) to be Used for Flying Training
2.1 Clearly when student pilots are receiving ab initio instruction towards the grant of a
licence, it would be inadvisable to expect them to be able to operate from short strips
or confined area sites that would challenge experienced pilots.
Plus
Light Aeroplane
(<2730 kg MTOM)
The greater length of 1.25 x
Take-Off Distance Required or
1.43 x Landing Distance Required,
And there is more-from CAA Safety Sense Leaflet no 7
(Note this information is aimed at experinced pilots)
8 SAFETY FACTORS
a) Take-off
It is strongly recommended that the appropriate Public Transport factor, or one that at least meets that requirement, should be applied for all flights. For take-off this factor is x 1.33 and applies to all single-engined aeroplanes and to multi-engined aeroplanes with limited performance scheduling (Group E).
c) Landing
It is recommended that the Public Transport factor should be applied for all flights. For landing, you should multiply your calculated landing distance required by a factor of 1.43.
Beware of those who quote or operate to 'minium requirements' as they can only be the starting point for a good safe professional operation!
Here is part of the common sense -from CAP 793
2 Aerodromes (Including Helicopter Sites) to be Used for Flying Training
2.1 Clearly when student pilots are receiving ab initio instruction towards the grant of a
licence, it would be inadvisable to expect them to be able to operate from short strips
or confined area sites that would challenge experienced pilots.
Plus
Light Aeroplane
(<2730 kg MTOM)
The greater length of 1.25 x
Take-Off Distance Required or
1.43 x Landing Distance Required,
And there is more-from CAA Safety Sense Leaflet no 7
(Note this information is aimed at experinced pilots)
8 SAFETY FACTORS
a) Take-off
It is strongly recommended that the appropriate Public Transport factor, or one that at least meets that requirement, should be applied for all flights. For take-off this factor is x 1.33 and applies to all single-engined aeroplanes and to multi-engined aeroplanes with limited performance scheduling (Group E).
c) Landing
It is recommended that the Public Transport factor should be applied for all flights. For landing, you should multiply your calculated landing distance required by a factor of 1.43.
Beware of those who quote or operate to 'minium requirements' as they can only be the starting point for a good safe professional operation!
Last edited by Pull what; 9th Aug 2011 at 23:52.