Adding a Cessna 172 rating to my licence
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
Last edited by 9 lives; 10th Oct 2015 at 04:02.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ST, you sure it was an 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.
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,
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
P.s. A previous post mentioned Merlin engines being turbocharged when they are actually supercharged.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: British Isles
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by arelix; 10th Oct 2015 at 10:04.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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'??
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to suggest anything else is arrant nonsense. .
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,
Last edited by olasek; 10th Oct 2015 at 13:00.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
However I live in North America where things are pretty sensible. The weirdness that is the European regulatory framework defies understanding
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.
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
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
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
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
arelix wrote:
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....
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.
P.S. a ppl licence "contains" an SEP, used to be called group a in my day, you just need to renew it.
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.
