C152 vs Tecnam 2002
You must be Joking or someone is ripping someone off? A simple aircraft to a simple aircraft with 5 hrs conversion time!!!
You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.
You can almost do a single to multi engine in that time.
I have flown the Tecnam with 9 students/customers with various degrees of experience.
I would have signed off only two of them for solo rental after one (45min-1 hr) flight. One is a 10K hr Airline pilot the other has 600 hrs of which 200 hrs Pitts.
One student I flew with i would have soloed in the thing with another hr of instruction. He had 27 hrs and just soloed on a DA-20.
The remaining six would have needed anywhere between an additional 3-6 flights prior to solo rental. And yes these 6 are all rated "pilots" with either a PPL or PPL+ IR.
One of them got me in a spin entry after a botched panicky stall recovery.
The Tecnam is NOT a benign aircraft like the C150-152 series. It has light "twitchy" controls and drops a wing with very litle provocation.
It has very little enertia due to its low weight so speed is lost very rapidly in steep turns when distracted. Same applies for landings and go-arounds.
Despite the fact that it looks like a toy aircraft it is perfectly capable of killing you.
I have spoken at lenght with a rep from the insurance company, his verdict:
people that do a 1hr check-out we will hear from garanteed, people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
So I was being kind with 5 hrs.
Until you have actually taught ab intio it is hard to appreciate how quite simple small changes can initially discombobulate a new student.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
Was not sure what you meant by that quote until I read " In a good sense "
What is this Tecnam a space shuttle?
You can do a multi engine rating for half that time so am I missing something
I am sure while it maybe light or even twitchy 12 to 15 hrs is ridiculous.
Maybe I come from the old school where you were thrown a set of keys to a complex single and told "take that"! on an aircraft you had never flown before and expected to get on with it! And yes flying different singles raw was common to me.
Of course it suits the hirer to sell you 10 plus hours on a so called requirement ?!? not our fault gov caugh up!!!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 1st Feb 2012 at 14:24.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they actually look a half decent trainer if they will stall properly.
The nose gear looks beefy enough, sprung gear, only issue would be the rotrax engine. Which for some in the UK would be an issue.
The nose gear looks beefy enough, sprung gear, only issue would be the rotrax engine. Which for some in the UK would be an issue.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by B2N2
I have spoken at lenght with a rep from the insurance company, his verdict:
people that do a 1hr check-out we will hear from garanteed, people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
So I was being kind with 5 hrs.
people that do a 1hr check-out we will hear from garanteed, people that are smart enough to do a 12-15 hrs transition training course we will never hear from again (in a good sense).
So I was being kind with 5 hrs.
I've never flown the P2002, but if I ever do - I'll really check what all that fuss is about. If people can solo (ab-initio) Tommy in 10 hours, why would conversion to a quite similar type take even longer than that? And we aren't talking about some fast high-workload turboprop, just the usual spamcan with its own tricks. Maybe you can talk EASA into requiring a differences training for P2002 if it's that different from the usual SEP spamcan (like the one you need for RG, VP, EFIS, SLPC, ...), in case proposition for type-rating requirement for P2002 wouldn't go through.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown the P2002JF a couple of times. It is a thoroughly pleasant aircraft with no real vices. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that our OP is talking about the new Tecnams at Newtonards. Considering the fact that the club used to do the vast majority of their PPL training on 172SPs, the Tecnam is by far a better aircraft for ab-initio students to learn on. I will also stick my neck out and, having looked at the Ulster Flying Club website, I note that a student has recently solo'd after a total of 8hrs on the 152 and only 3hrs more on the Tecnam. Unless someone wishes to accuse the instructor of being reckless, I would suggest that this is evidence enough that the Tecnam is a very good aircraft for student training.
Paraphrasing Pace's thoughts - it is a simple single engined aircraft. Sometimes we try to complicate things that don't need complicating.
Paraphrasing Pace's thoughts - it is a simple single engined aircraft. Sometimes we try to complicate things that don't need complicating.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have over 400 hours instructing on tecnams from a 400m tarmac strip, before that we had rallyes. I think they are great training aircraft and would highly recommend them
A few students and PPLs found the transition a bit of a challenge but the majority were cleared in about 3 hours
My advice - GO FOR THE TECNAM !!
A few students and PPLs found the transition a bit of a challenge but the majority were cleared in about 3 hours
My advice - GO FOR THE TECNAM !!
J'ACCUSE......
What's up with this hang'em high attitude around here.
I quoted (ver batim) an agent from our insurance company.
He said (and I will repeat for those who are hard of reading);" ..those who chose to do a 12-15 hrs transition course we (as an insurance damage adjuster) never hear from again..."
As in those who feel that 1 hrs is enough they sooner or later roll a Light Sport/Ultralight/Microlight into a ball.
Not my words..HIS.
Before we get into the whole FAA vs JAA debate (FAA training is better hands down) I had a chuckle reading this:
Air Accidents Investigation: December 2011
My side of the pond equally sobering:
The Light-Sport Safety Record - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com
http://www.eaa72.org/announcement_fi...SATri-fold.pdf
No surprise, the majority are not even "complex, "real" airplanes but "simple" spamcans like ultra light, micro light, light sport or whatever the flavor of the day is for these "are not a space shuttle". Apparently they are hard enough to keep the pointy bit in front and the oily side down.
Most of you are no astronaut or Chuck Yeager material either that's for sure.
Source: Light-Sport Chronicles: CSI Insurance: Excogitations On LSA Crashes, Part 1 - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com
*** Drinks at the bar will be accepted in lieu of formal apologies ***
What's up with this hang'em high attitude around here.
I quoted (ver batim) an agent from our insurance company.
He said (and I will repeat for those who are hard of reading);" ..those who chose to do a 12-15 hrs transition course we (as an insurance damage adjuster) never hear from again..."
As in those who feel that 1 hrs is enough they sooner or later roll a Light Sport/Ultralight/Microlight into a ball.
Not my words..HIS.
Before we get into the whole FAA vs JAA debate (FAA training is better hands down) I had a chuckle reading this:
Air Accidents Investigation: December 2011
My side of the pond equally sobering:
The Light-Sport Safety Record - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com
http://www.eaa72.org/announcement_fi...SATri-fold.pdf
No surprise, the majority are not even "complex, "real" airplanes but "simple" spamcans like ultra light, micro light, light sport or whatever the flavor of the day is for these "are not a space shuttle". Apparently they are hard enough to keep the pointy bit in front and the oily side down.
Most of you are no astronaut or Chuck Yeager material either that's for sure.
The second surprise: Accident-wise, how well are LSA pilots stacking up against general aviation pilots? The answer is...not so well. “We’ve determined the frequency of loss in tricycle-gear LSA to be twice as bad as the general aviation fleet. Compared to Cessna 152s and 172s, Piper Cherokees, Grummans and so on, an S-LSA has the potential for an accident twice as often as a general aviation airplane.” Furthermore, Adams reported, tailwheel S-LSA models have a frequency of loss 4.5 times as bad as their GA counterparts
*** Drinks at the bar will be accepted in lieu of formal apologies ***
Last edited by B2N2; 1st Feb 2012 at 19:15.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA training is better hands down
http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...ml#post6993918
You get good and bad instructors with both systems and also useless knobs that can't fly aircraft as well.
As for the LSA types I am really not suprised, you just have to look at the amount of metal involved with the landing gear on alot of them and its a matter of when not if an accident will happen.
As for the amount of time to cross over. Well its not set in stone. If the pilot has been taught to fly properly in the first place there won't be much of an issue. If they have got through so far by the skin of thier teeth and the fact that the cessna is such a docile wet fish of an aircraft they are going to struggle going to something that needs to be flown poperly or even semi properly.
Saying that I can quite believe that the insurance companys will see a difference. 10-15 hours is enough to cover exercises 1-14 again funny that.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...TE%2004-10.pdf
So this was a nose-gear related incident 5 months after it was replaced.
34 hours (of which 7 were on type)
Last 90 days - 7 hours
Last 28 days - 7 hours
Last 90 days - 7 hours
Last 28 days - 7 hours
He reported that the nose gear leg had been replaced approximately five months before
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, read the full report and don't just quote a few select sentences from the student pilot. To me, this is a loss of control due to incorrect pilot technique. Abandoning one method of directional control before the other becomes effective is just asking for trouble.
Interestingly, this isn't the only loss of control on take-off at Old Sarum. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EP%2003-09.pdf
One might wish to take a look at what is being taught rather than immediately zeroing-in on the aircraft.
Interestingly, this isn't the only loss of control on take-off at Old Sarum. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EP%2003-09.pdf
One might wish to take a look at what is being taught rather than immediately zeroing-in on the aircraft.
No, read the full report and don't just quote a few select sentences from the student pilot. To me, this is a loss of control due to incorrect pilot technique. Abandoning one method of directional control before the other becomes effective is just asking for trouble.
The nose gear assembly is weak, the DEALER told us specifically to tell students not to turn and brake at the same time.
Also 7 hrs on type.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@CAVOK2012.
You refer to "the C152" (singular) at the other place, and "the Tecnams" (plural) at the current place. Perhaps aircraft availability might be better where you are? 50H checks, tech issues, other calls on that single aircraft mean you are fighting more than the weather while trying to stay current.
Similarly, when comparing places, how much of the flying time will be spent going to/from a training area, stuck at the hold, etc? Will the airfield be shut for most of the winter?
Less currency means more hours to PPL, ie extra cost. In my limited experience of PPL costs, the cost per hour has a smaller impact than total hours flown*.
-----
*You could argue that those extra hours are not ultimately wasted, but I suspect few PPL students put much faith in that!
You refer to "the C152" (singular) at the other place, and "the Tecnams" (plural) at the current place. Perhaps aircraft availability might be better where you are? 50H checks, tech issues, other calls on that single aircraft mean you are fighting more than the weather while trying to stay current.
Similarly, when comparing places, how much of the flying time will be spent going to/from a training area, stuck at the hold, etc? Will the airfield be shut for most of the winter?
Less currency means more hours to PPL, ie extra cost. In my limited experience of PPL costs, the cost per hour has a smaller impact than total hours flown*.
-----
*You could argue that those extra hours are not ultimately wasted, but I suspect few PPL students put much faith in that!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geneva
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The club I fly with uses Tecnams for ab-initio. Out of the fleet of three not a single one has had issues with nose-gear failure, and they see pretty intensive use on a grass runway.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not an expert in the US system but my understanding of the US LSA system was that you have an aircraft design code allowing up to 600kg, a reduced licence requirement and a reduced medical. In the UK the US LSA design code is not used, we do not have a reduced licence equivalent to the LSA licence. In Europe we do have a VLA design code – CS-VLA – which allows up to 750kg. A C150 is 730kg, and would probably pass CS-VLA. Using US LSA accident data to criticise European VLA’s is totally flawed. Many US LSA aircraft have been modified to pass CS-VLA and are sold under the same name as used the US. One of the arrears often modified is the landing gear.
My own personal transition to my aircraft – which was tested to CS-VLA – took about 30min. Six years later I have not rolled her into a ball, had nose gear failure or any sort of accident or incident at all. There are at least 8 “VLA” aircraft at my strip, and non-have had an incident. This is operating off an licenced grass strip.
From the factory web site;
The P2002 (JAR/VLA) is the factory produced certified aircraft and the P2002 SIERRA (LAA permit VLA kit) represent the latest development of the Tecnam P96 Golf resulting from on-going improvements and the experience gathered from hundreds of aircraft and prolonged use over many years operating in a wide variety of conditions.
Rod1
My own personal transition to my aircraft – which was tested to CS-VLA – took about 30min. Six years later I have not rolled her into a ball, had nose gear failure or any sort of accident or incident at all. There are at least 8 “VLA” aircraft at my strip, and non-have had an incident. This is operating off an licenced grass strip.
From the factory web site;
The P2002 (JAR/VLA) is the factory produced certified aircraft and the P2002 SIERRA (LAA permit VLA kit) represent the latest development of the Tecnam P96 Golf resulting from on-going improvements and the experience gathered from hundreds of aircraft and prolonged use over many years operating in a wide variety of conditions.
Rod1
Last edited by Rod1; 8th Feb 2012 at 10:52.
As a slight digression, I've been told as a new PPL that it would be likely to take over 10 hours to transition to the C42 - again insurance-driven.
I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.
I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.
Approx 1H flying, and 1-2H working out how to climb in and out of it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the joke about the guy standing at an airport with a potential girlfriend admiring a Military Hercules coming into land.
The potential girlfriend asked the guy what he flew?
Raising his RayBans he looked at her at pointed at the aircraft.
" See that its a C130 I fly a C150"
Pace
The potential girlfriend asked the guy what he flew?
Raising his RayBans he looked at her at pointed at the aircraft.
" See that its a C130 I fly a C150"
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the original poster, despite the fact that I am a staunch supporter of the honest C152 as a trainer (much better than a PA28, imo), I would definitely recommend giving the Tecnams a go.
As for conversion times, how does that work for single seaters? There's no dual time at all...
As for conversion times, how does that work for single seaters? There's no dual time at all...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also been told that most people take 2-3 hours to be checked out on a C152 - having previously only flown PA28 & 38.