From Memory..

Tail Wheel.
Turbo's
Cs props
retractable
Glass if trained on steam instrument
Steam if trained on Glass
Pressurisation.
single lever to double (fadec machines without a mixture)

I think are all the differences but I may well have missed one or two out

For the record, FAA Complex aircraft (SEL) must have all of Flaps, retractable gear and CS prop

"Wednesday, she worked with Federal Aviation Association (sic) officials on the crash report."


No. The student pilot took the photos.

Complex:
 

A quick bit of Googling brings me to:
EASA Flight Standards
Glad she got out alive!

Looking at the map http://goo.gl/maps/1cJSx (ignore the driving directions) she started at "A", was meant to go to "C" but ended up at "B". So she followed the river, but headed West instead of North. It does sound like she was feature crawling and not using a compass! The obvious waypoint would have been Bighorn Lake, and a lack of it should have raised even more alarm bells...

"I was supposed to follow water" - upstream or downstream?

First rule of mountain flying before following a terrain feature (river, valley, road) - identify it by heading...

Looks like instead of following Bighorn river that runs +/- north south she followed the roughly east/west running smaller tributary that flows into Bighorn close to the airport...

Here in Germany a "complex" machine means, as far as I recall from my Air Law exams, being equipped with 2 out of the following 3:

1) C/S Prop
2) More than 200hp (turbo or normal)
3) retractable undercarriage.

hence a C182 is considered complex whereas a Cirrus SR20 isn't. That's not to say the rules don't change across the world, this is just for Germany.

Germany has the same rules as the rest of Europe with aviation.

SO if all of Europe considers a C/S prop complex (for who knows what reason?!), that would presume that some extra instruction would be appropriate for flying that aircraft type.

So if a person is a student pilot on a complex aircraft, would it not be natural to assume that the additional instruction [for the complex element] is included in the basic flight training on that type, and everything is okay anyway? I expect that there would be an extra 5 minutes of ground briefing, and extra two minutes in a lesson on how the blue knob makes the sound change, and you're on to the regular training again - no big deal...

Or is there a rule that you are not permitted basic training on complex aircraft?

No rule against training ab initio on a complex.

And it's really beyond the point of this accident anyway. I'm puzzled as to how she couldn't make it over the ridge - if it is indeed a 210hp plane with one on board it shouldn't have been a problem.

Not to mention that if you plan for 7500 and have to climb to 8500 and barely clear the trees it should prolly be an indication you're flying up the wrong valley...

Downdrafts?

FBW

Probably though she makes it sound as if the plane lacked climb performance even before the gust hit it.

As I fly quite a bit in that part of the country, I can tell you that winds can be very strong. It is not uncommon to see winds gusting over 30kts. Additionally, if you throw in high density altitude (ISA +35 is not rare on really hot summer days), and strong winds going the wrong way across a mountain ridge, you could quickly be in a lot of trouble.

Pilot DAR - see my quote from EASA (which overrides local European rules) above. Complex is now nothing to do with having a Constant Speed Prop.

And I completed my Ab Inito training on a 200hp aircraft with a Constant Speed Prop (although a welded undercarriage) in Scotland. Other than not allowed to have a type rating, there are no other restrictions (as far as I know) in what you can do your Ab Initio training in. If you were made of money, you could do it in a twin and get a MEP rating without ever having an SEP rating...

Or in a PC-12 :)

Mountains can rise faster than aeroplanes even C130s

Did she say she descended to gain airspeed and then use that airspeed to climb?

Not quite, but close... a proper VP prop ground briefing takes an hour at least [undercarriage indeed 5 minutes... but I make them read the POH before I do that and just ask questions!]; also you have to spend a bit more time on how the red knob makes a change in the bank balance ;-) and on what to do if the white knob does not put down the black things from under the wings.

A recent student of mine bought a PA28R Arrow [T-Tail] and took delivery basically a few days after his first solo in the PA28. He needed about 4.5 hours to go solo in his aircraft; I would guess that if I had trained him in that from day one 3.5 of that would not have been required - allowing one hour for the extra bits & the T-tail arrow being a bit difficult in the flare.

What was much more interesting was the cross country flying - all the school's standard routes were too short to teach meaningful navigation (the legs were just to short at 130kt) so we did some interesting trips.

All in all, anyone who starts in a "complex" [FAA-speak] aircraft will probably have fewer hours, but higher cost, than someone who starts in a C152 and then upgrades. And MUCH more enjoyable training...

This was only after she compensated for drag by reducing airspeed

A high DA accident where you wonder why the pilot didn't see it coming.

I would agree with that. I bought a P28R as a 15 hr Student with a view to finishing my training in it. Needed 2hrs to solo in it and to do the CSU and retract endorsement, which was a briefing and then emergency procedures, runaway prop, emergency gear extensions, engine failures etc. Learnt very quickly to pull the prop back on an engine failure, with the gear out and prop full fine it glides like a brick.

The school I'm with plans for 2hr navs, in the PA-38 it is an out and back exercise, with the Arrow you get to see a lot more of the country and sample a lot more remote airports, which I feel is better training.

In my view the Arrow is a fantastic trainer, complex enough to be a bit of a challenge but it doesn't require lots of expirience, if you fly the numbers it easy but if you don't it lets you know without being dangerous, fast enough to be useful but not too fast so you arrive at your destination at the same time as the aircraft.

Also I normally see a TAS of 135knts, which with the prevailing winds here most often give me a GS of 120knts. Makes navigation easy, 2nm per minute.