Adding a Cessna 172 rating to my licence
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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...
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...
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).
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).
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.
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
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).
Last edited by Silvaire1; 13th Oct 2015 at 17:15.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
However I would not advise someone with low time in a small Cessna or Piper nose wheel airplane to self teach.
However to go from a Cessna 172 to say a Piper PA140 is not all that difficult.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 13th Oct 2015 at 17:54.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
the qualifications of being a government certificated instructor may be relatively unimportant for transition training
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The Government rules may say you are legal to fly it...but the Government won't pay for it if you wreck it.
Why on earth you need 50 hours practising moving the gear switch up and down is beyond me.
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.
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.
