Basic skills
 

What is needed for a PPL is an aircraft to teach the basic skills of aircraft handling and dead reckoning navigation, these are the building blocks of good pilotage and are the skills you will require when the screens on the more advanced aircraft that you will move onto go blank.

There is a very advanced airliner and three hundred people at the bottom of the South Atlantic because an airline crew did not have the very basic skill of flying by pitch and power, don't become one of these pepole by getting carried away by technology and have that technology mask your lack of skil.

So the C152, PA28 or something in that range is what you should be looking at but if you can find one the Piper Cub would be best.

As for the SportCruser if you can find a club offering it as a training aircraft they will have gone bust before you get your PPL half finished.

Ah.. This is interesting. Could you please elaborate on that?

This might be exactly the situation i'm in!

Sportcruisers
 

The problem with the Sportcruiser is the it is built down to a weight, this has had the effect of reducing the structure to a minimum so making it not very robust.

The aircraft is only just able to withstand the treatment that it gets in the hands of experienced private owners and even these guys are having structural issues, put in the hands of students would be inviting financial disaster as the aircraft is not strong enough to take the rough and tumble of flying training.

The latest SB from SC is an inspection of the structure supporting the main landing gear for loose rivets, we have found rivets in this area that have had the heads sheared off, rectification requires the wings to be removed for access to the area, the wings on the aircraft are also showing evidence of the rivets on the inboard of the spar working loose. We have found more serious structural issues with 300 hour Sportscruisers than we are finding with 13,000 hour Cessna 152's that are undergoing the SIDS checks. I have been told of two Sportcrusers that have has the rear stabiliser fold up, one was in the UK and was a home built aircraft the other folded in the air while being demonstrated by the Italian agent for the type, unfortunately the aircraft had not been fitted with a ballistic parachute.

Just wanted to add: If you are on a budget when learning to fly a glider career beforehand might teach you excellent basic flying skills without too much cost. At least in Germany that is an option. However quite a bit of aeroclub work and weekend duties are expected in order to make it that affordable.

And microlights and motor-gliders might be another option below the rental prices of full sized aircraft.

This is really good to know, thanks for the info.

Would it change your mind if the glass cockpit plane was cheaper? Others have said learn on whatever is cheapest etc.


Definitely No. One major reason for glass cockpits is indeed - they are cheaper to built, cheaper to maintain, thus maximizing profit of the maintenance organization. The argued advantage is at first a marketing one, as it won't make you a better pilot. Flying experience will, so there might be some threshold, where it makes sense to eat up a possible price advantage by more hours. As somebody mentioned before - if you scan classic instruments, you don't really read them, but get the feedback almost intuitively, so you, the instruments and the plane get a guts feeling.

I met quite some younger pilots, who never had anything else then a glass cockpit and many of them fly by brain, not by butt&feel. As long as they are in an airliner-style environment it might be ok, but it is definitely not my way. On check flights I always switch off these computergame gadgets in front and let them fly VFR on partial - difference of performance between old-fashioned and computerized pilots is extreme!

I have been in steam driven dial cockpits and hi tech glass cockpits in the last 3 years during course of gaining my licence. Whilst a glass cockpit is nice , give me steam driven any day , certainly as a low time PPL , keep it simple to start with .....less time looking and figuring out coloured and digital indications and more time spent enjoying the flying ......:)

To be honest I've only been in one Sportcruiser and it didn't appear thrashed or badly built/finished , but the technology in the cockpit was a bit daunting needless to say it wasn't the regular type I've learn't in.

I'm sold. Definitely stick to the "steam driven" analogue instruments. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks! Now i just need to find a place to do my PPL. I have one in mind but i'm shopping around!

Steam? Magic telly? Surely you mostly look out of the window? I mean I check my level and heading from time to time, but what's the point in flying if your head is inside the cockpit?

IMO the only criteria for choosing a type of aircraft is whether or not you will fit in it comfortably and that it has enough useful load to carry you, your instructor, and a sensible amount of fuel.

As for the actual act of learning to fly, the aircraft type is pretty much irrelevant. What matters is how good the school and especially the instructor is.

This where it pays to do your homework and research your options. You are the customer and there is no reason you should put up with bad instruction or a disorganized school.

As for the glass vs steam debate, if your instructor is doing his/her job you should only be looking at 4 instruments presolo, Airspeed, Altitude, the ball, and the rev counter. Everything else you need to know about what the airplane is doing, is available by looking out the windshield.

For me the only difference between glass and steam is where I put the post it notes to cover up the gauges the student should not be looking at :ok:

I did part of my training in a classic C152A and the last part in a C172 Nav iii with glass cockpit.
Most of the training in the C172 was done with the Garmin 1000 powered off so you'd need to use the backup instruments, which are like any other classic plane. I don't know if that would be the case in your school too.

In my airfield at least, all the new planes are coming with G1000 as all the old Cessnas from the 60s or 70s are getting retired.

I have flown PA28, C172, C152A, Cirrus SR20 and Tecnam P2002...I have loved all of them either with or without glass cockpit.
From my point of view, it is easier to go from glass cockpit to classic one than the other way around.
It is really up to you (and your budget), just choose whatever you feel more confident with.
Once you know how to fly, you pretty much know how to fly any kind of light aircraft with a bit of adjustment.

My advice would be: fly as many different planes as possible.

I personally don't like PA28 Cherokee. But that's just my own personal opinion :-)

Airspeed, altitude, slip ball and the oil pressure and temperature and the cht for me.
Unless in a glider, of course.
Which is an excellent way to learn all the handling and, even more important, judgement. Of course, you may then find you don't actually want the engine anyway.
Have fun, whatever you choose.

... and fuel gauges (for what they're worth, which varies).

Thanks again for all your replies, i've since found another school which would be a likely contender. They have Diamond DV20s, Diamond DA40s (both with Garmin G1000 Glass cockpits) and also they have the Aero AT-3 with analogue instruments.

This is the school: Pilot and MCC training at Kavala International Airport in Greece - Training College

Any thoughts?

All things in EASA are equal but some are not so equal............ With apologies to Mr Orwell

Not a bad thing once you have your PPL, but I would recommend sticking to the same aircraft until then or you will spend extra hours learning each new machine!

Sir, i havent heard of any PS28 or Sportcruiser folding up the stabilizer in Italy. the accident you are refering to is probably an accident involving a Flight Design CT2K which was being demonstrated well outside its flight envelope.

a PS28 has recently crashed in italy, killing the italian importer and a passenger, but the reason of the accident is still unknown.

regarding the PS28, which is a somewhat different a/c than the sportcruiser, and its inability to be flown by student pilots in the 2040es, i thank God for that.

i am sure none of you drive a 1965 car, even though i heard they were properly built, back then

the fact that most private pilots are nowadays condemned to fly what i consider museum material is just the result of the tireless work of the various CAA, which have contributed to make simple 4 seat airplanes cost like a whole bionic body.

Learn to fly in a nice PA28. Make sure it is new enough that the throttle is modern type on a pedestal and that the trim is on the floor.

more comfortable and if you need some other encouragement, watch, "GOLDFINGER" the movie.

The Aero AT3 is another lightweight beast that doesn't stand up well to the rigours of student bashing in training but then again why would it.
The AT3, the Sportcruiser, the Eurostar are all basically >600kg MAUW lightweight aircraft that were/are not designed for this type of role but due to the sales churn greed of the aircraft manufacturers are being pushed into this role.
It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would expect them to be and then does a type bashing saying they are not as sturdy as a C152.. just unbelievable and obviously shows a lack of understanding of the design role of this type of aircraft.

Shoestring flyer
 

If you are referring to my comments about the Sportcruiser if the aircraft is pushed (wrongly)into the basic training role then it has to be able to take the punishment that it will get and the fact of the matter is the aircraft is not up to that job, the aircraft in the hands of a careful private owner is another matter entirely.

gianmarco

regarding the PS28, which is a somewhat different a/c than the sportcruiser, and its inability to be flown by student pilots in the 2040es, i thank God for that.

Don't worry, the Cessna 152 will still be doing the job !