PPL on a complex ...
 

Can an ab initio PPL be trained for a JAR PPL on a complex, retractable single ?

I'm asking from a legal perspective, but I'm sure there must be a lot of opinion as to the wisdom of the venture ...

FF :ok:

The University Air Squadrons undertake ab-initio training on aircraft with a Constant Speed Prop, and send their students solo in similar times to PPL students. (Although the students are selected and probably have greater continuity of training).

Adding the complexity of retractable undercarriage doesn't seem that great a change. On my PPL training, the nmonic I learned for the downwind checks included the Undercarriage.

My reading of LASORS suggests that so long as the aircraft does not require a High Performance Aircraft Class Rating, a complex aircraft can be used for initial training. (See LASORS Sections F Page 2, 6 & 7)

What is an HP class rating? Could a 250HP complex be used?

They have been training PPLs on TB20s in some parts of the world, but that wasn't a CAA/JAA PPL.

Insurance would be a problem - that's the first thing I would check because the person has to go solo at some stage.

That is no problem at all, you can even get your PPL with a dual.

In the usa you don't NEED an insurance, i don't know exactly for European regulations, i always have learned to check the aircraft papers for insurance document, but it could be that insurance is not needed to take off.

JAR-FCL 1.221 High performance single pilot aeroplanes
(a) Criteria. For the establishment of a class or type rating of a single-pilot aeroplane designated as high performance, all the following shall be considered:(b) Listings. Aeroplanes designated as high performance shall be listed as such in the associated administrative procedures within the relevant class or type rating list using the annotation HPA.


It covers things like the Malibu Turbine - but I can't find an actual list at the moment.

OC619

It is a 'bold' owner who will let a student learn in his complex aircraft if hull and liability insurance are invalid.

Lufthansa used to train their cadets on bonanzas in Arizona. Remember a student on solo not being able to get nosewheel down and performed a text book landing. Very well trained they were, could do a figure of eight round an NDB with marvellous precision. Also used to try and sneak into a VOR stack below aircraft who had got there before, bit like leaving towels on the deckchairs I guess :)

I do believe though that UAS's fly under military auspices , and therefore the general rules reagrding ppl flying dont actually apply , IMHO you have enough to contend with during your training without CSP and retractable undercarriage , but as said your DW checks do include undercarriage?????

slim_slag, they are still using bonanzas. just like they are STILL cutting into the stack and flying around using their own freq.....:ok:

Would probably be a little expensive doing ab initio on a complex type. There again it would be useful if that is what you are looking at flying at the end of the day.

There is no restriction on the aircraft that may be used for a PPL(A) but there are 'gotchas' elsewhere in JAR-FCL. If you use a multi, for example, you would still have to achieve 70 hours PIC before the MEP class rating and, therefore, the licence, could be issued.

You could even do a PPL on something like a TBM700 provided that you did it in an FTO approved to conduct the necessary type rating training - now that would be a challenge!!

There is a chap at my local airfield who is most of the way through his PPL A on a Pioneer 300 (CS prop, retracts, Rotax powered). He has had no problems and the instructors seem to find it OK. He will save a lot of money learning on his own PFA aircraft.

Rod1

They also used Great Lakes (bi-plane) for unusual attitude training. The model with c/s prop.