|
What's the difference SEP to SET?
I have been wondering for some time the difference between: SEP (single engine piston) rating with Turbo differences, and a SET (single engine turbine) rating (in EASA land...).
After doing some digging it seems that most of the HPA (high performance aeroplanes) tend to require a SET with SP (single pilot) HPA rather than a SEP with turbo differences and SP HPA. For instance, the Cessna Caravan, TBM930, PC-12...etc... Require SET type rating, despite them having an engine with a propeller. (in my mind that means Turbo-Prop - rather than Turbo-Fan). Yet, to fly a turbo arrow, or a Saratoga, or an SR22T... You only need a SEP with Turbo differences. Would it not make sense for it just to be on the SEP with SPHPA (where SEP would mean Single Engine Prop) Alternatively, wouldn't it make sense for these other turbos (PA28RT, SR22T, PA32....etc...) to also require a SET instead? Anyway - probably too logical an argument! But I'd be glad to have a little light shed on this! |
IMHO it's the difference between a turbine "jet" engine and a Turbo-charged "piston" two totally different beasts, in simple terms.
|
As PA28181 says, you're getting your engine types mixed up Alex. An SEP with turbo differences training is just what it says - a single engine piston.
The turbo differences training is about turbocharging on that piston engine. Nothing to do with turbines, which are jet-prop engines. .........the turbine is an integral part of the jet engine, whether pure jet, fan jet or jet-prop. .........the turbocharger is an ancillary added to a piston engine, as on many cars, as an alternative to a supercharger. They are sometimes referred to as exhaust superchargers. |
But don't worry, you're not alone in being confused. There have been a number of cases of turbo Cirrus SR22s being fuelled with Jet A1 instead of Avgas in the US when the fuel guy saw the Turbo markings. :uhoh:
|
The requirement for training in turbine powered aircraft as distinct from piston, is because principally, the methods of starting, operation, possible exceedences, and limitations are very different. Turbocharged piston engines are just a little bit different in most cases. The requirement for differences training is a good idea.
|
It's an SET Class Rating to be exact. Requires an approved training course and test to add the Cass Rating. The non complex SET Variants are grouped such as the Cessna SET Rating allows you to fly Andy Cessna SET and you do differences training between the variants. You can move between different non complex SET by training as required and a skill test.
Multi engine turbine is always a Type Rating. I run loads of these on various SET classes all the time. Caravan last week and this week Dornier Type Rating Courses. |
Thank you everyone!
I think - the confusion / issue is probably stemming from the training I received when I did my differences training (some time ago now...) I was definitely handed a sheet outlining engine function which in fact is jet-prop and not a turbo similar to the turbo in a car! How strange! I was explained the basics of a jet-prop instead of a standard turbo, then plonked me into a PA28RT and given different start instructions (different from carbureted and from fuel injection engines I had flown) so I just assumed (to this day) that this was how the engine ran! How naive is that!?! I blame my training... Although looking back if that's the only difference, why require differences training at all! Thank you for helping me understand my idiocy! (without killing me!) Actually thinking of it now... There were no mention of engine cycles, there was however mention of hot starts and other elements that also allude to the instructor teaching turbine rather than turbo... |
The starting of a turbocharged piston engine will be the same as for the normally aspirated version of that engine - indeed, I have ferried home aircraft with seized turbos, they ran fine, other than you just had no boost. The turbo in a plane may require some pilot "management" depending upon how that specific system works, unlike the turbo in a car, which is entirely transparent to the driver in its operation.
Turbine engines are an entirely different thing. In most cases, they are easier to start, but if you get it wrong, you can make it very bad very fast. A piston engine will at worst have a carburettor fire, melted starter motor, or just a flat battery. A turbine engine, other than very modern FADEC controlled engines, is always vulnerable to pilot abuse, more so than a piston. Both types can be abused, but there will be one or two orders of magnitude difference in cost for the damage done by abuse. |
The differences training was not where I learnt to fly. Let's just say an ATO on the South Coast... Perhaps it was just the instructor having a bad day. He came highly recommended.
I do not wish to name any names |
It isn't the first time that I received incorrect information from instructors.
I was once told (again no places, no names) and given several sheets about a particular aeroplane I wished to rent, stating that the plane had long range tanks installed. I checked the POH which did not highlight wether or not it was fitted with one or the other giving performance figures for both. The aeroplane did not have any markings either in the aeroplane or on the wings with regards to the quantity held in the tanks. So I assumed that this was correct, until the day (about 2 or 3 rentals later having never fuelled up more than just a little top up) - only about 10 hours after I passed my PPL. When I noticed neither of my gauges were fluctuating wildly anymore (as they always did), my calculations including safety buffer stated that I had just over an hour of fuel left in the tanks after a long day trip, but on the side of caution re-ran the figures with the normal range tanks (as the lack of fluctuation made me doubt the quantity left) stating that I only had about 10 minutes left (thankfully only 2 minutes from my destination which happened to be the closest airport). Upon landing I found that the plane did not in fact have long range tanks and only had a few litres of AVGAS remaining. Thankfully I had a friend with me during the checkout ground session who vouched for the information given, but I really had to fight my corner!! This event had taught me to be wary about information given, but when someone comes highly recommended, and charges you a bob or three. Also boasts about doing people's type ratings in many HPA over a cup of tea. And gives you printed literature (which I found by the way) stating black on white that I will be flying a turbine engine driving a propeller... I didn't want to argue! To be honest - I didn't really care what was inside the engine providing that it would fly me a little bit faster to my destination & knew which temp gauges to look out for on start, during flight and shut-down as well as how to use the digital engine management system the rest didn't really matter... I now know I've been made a fool twice!! These people are people who you trust, and the only reason you're paying them is to impart a small amount of their wealth of knowledge. So you do have a tendency to trust them... Perhaps a little older and a little wiser now - I will learn to only trust the people who have earned my trust! |
When receiving more advanced "type" training, it's wise to understand the experience of the person offering the training - what has that pilot flown? How many hours? If less than 100 hours turbine time themselves, they really have little standing to be training it in any detail.
For fuel capacity, for any GA 'plane I can think of, it is a type certificate data sheet requirement that the fuel capacity be placarded near the tank filler, and in the flight manual. 'May also be at the fuel selector. If that information is not there, the plane is not airworthy. Don't always take as gospel what you are told, do some research (like asking here) to verify what you think you have learned! |
Step Turn - Nope... There was a faded number/letter which was illegible on the top side of the wing in red. I assumed that was the old sticker stating AVGAS. Fuel selector didn't have any real markings, just a faint engraving of Left, Right and Both. Perhaps you are right - perhaps it wasn't airworthy! I have heard that this particular plane was flown accidentally without CofA for 2 days because nobody else checked the documents. I did have a look at all documents I could get my hands on (especially after landing) but was unable to find anything re: fuel tank types.
TangoAlphad - it was her bigger sister... 172! Sounds like you made the right call!! Scary how both the too much fuel, and the not enough fuel situation is a potential killer... I completely agree with you - had you, or I crashed as a result of the information given to us, something tells me that this would be put down to pilot error, and not implicate any third party despite it clearly being a combination of faults. Neither you, nor I had any accessible means in knowing this information, so in my mind the instruction on check-out is at fault! (I heard stories about solo flights during training ending in disaster due to incorrect instruction - including one at Biggin where the instructor didn't drain the water from the fuel tank before flight, nor did the student, and I believe that the student pilot ended up in a tree just off the runway at Biggin. Not sure what the implications to the instructor were, but I doubt it was as severe as was deserved!) |
What type of fuel did the differences instructor say you should use?
Just curious? |
I'll be honest - it has been a long time since that day! I cannot remember what was said about the fuel type. The sheets state JET A1, but having never fuelled that particular plane, I have absolutely no idea. I am (especially now) assuming that it must have been AVGAS in the tanks - and not JET A1!
Thanks to my new acquired knowledge, and a little Google... It seems improbable that a PA28 was in fact fitted with a turbine / jet-prop engine. (a good pilot never stops learning right?) |
just as well you did not put jetA1 into a turbo piston engine, it would have really spoilt your day.
|
Ha! Can you imagine had I rented that particular plane!? Unless it was clearly written on the tanks - I could very easily, and innocently filled it with JET-A1!!! Now THAT would have been interesting! I wonder what the insurance company would say to that accident...
|
Alex90;
Back in the 1980's several aeroplanes were filled with the wrong fuel exactly because of confusion over "turbo" stickers on the side. That's why we now have to have coloured labels with the type of fuel to be used either on or very adjacent to the filler caps. SND |
SND,
I have flown at least 4 different aeroplanes in the last 18 months which had neither colour, nor lettering suggesting the required fuel type... Stickers fade / get destroyed and seem seldom replaced by some owners / maintenance facilities. This type of attention to detail is often also reflected on the inside of the planes, where the interior is falling apart, the seats are damp / wet due to the seals not being watertight anymore, instruments are only partially working yet still carried... I actually remember my entire left side being soaked and partially frozen after going through a raincloud on the way to VFR on top. They are called spam cans for a reason - and that is my reason for not flying in these particular machines anymore. But that was a very good idea! |
They are called spam cans for a reason - and that is my reason for not flying in these particular machines anymore. If you choose to fly an aircraft with defects, it's all up to you, you accepted that plane. Your preflight inspection is your opportunity/obligation to determine that the aircraft is airworthy, and that you understand what you need to to operate it safely. This might include a review of the maintenance records. If you are not satisfied, don't fly it! If an operator consistently has their airplanes on the lower edge of airworthy, and all of their renters decline to fly until they are brought up to spec, they're going to be maintained. Pilots accepting compromised aircraft are not working toward better maintained aircraft. In every late '70's and since Cessna, and most other types, the flight manual, in section 2, limitations, will present every placard which should be legible on/in the aircraft. The aircraft is not legally airworthy if all of those placards are not in place. If you feel that you can manage a safe flight without that information, you might choose to take the plane, but you accept the responsibility. Light aircraft do not come with approved minimum equipment lists, so the pilot has very little wiggle room to justify taking an aircraft with a known defect. The best example would be a day flight with a known burned out nav light bulb - you're probably okay. But if you have a fuel exhaustion accident, you as the pilot are on the hook, more so if you flew the aircraft with missing placards for the fuel quantity. Failure to maintain an aircraft is not an offense. Flying an unmaintained aircraft is the offense. The only way that a pilot can fly an aircraft with an obvious defect, and not be responsible is if there is a false or misleading maintenance entry for its rectification. We've drifted from the topic of powerplants, but we are solidly in the theme of instructors not teaching new pilots what they are actually responsible for when flying. Assuring an airworthy aircraft prior to flight is a pilot responsibility. Not actually doing the maintenance, but at least noticing the obvious things, and reviewing the maintenance entries for the aircraft. An aircraft provider who rents out "lesser" condition aircraft, may have instructors who find this to be normal and acceptable. It is not. Pilots must be trained that acceptance of defects should be a rare and considered exception, not a norm! |
If you fly a self-sustaining glider with a jet engine then no special qualifications are needed. HPH Shark is an example - details below. Full FADEC control.
Shark SJ, MS & eS | HPH Sailplanes UK |
Step Turn,
Apologies for the use of the term "they" - I meant it entirely for the particular set of aeroplanes that I was referring to in my response. These are old, badly maintained, and not looked after either by pilots, or by the club / ATO, or by the maintenance facilities, or by the owners. The aeroplanes you mention are clearly NOT spam-cans by the general meaning of the term. From your explanation, they are well maintained, classic aeroplanes (meant in the term "well looked after antique", rather than "classic design"). This does not conform to my meaning of a spam-can! It is very good to hear that some people out there do look after their aeroplanes, and do spend the money to have a nice, well working machine. I think this "spam-can" stems (specifically in the UK) from the fact that the clubs / ATOs no longer own the aeroplanes they operate in many cases. The company who own the planes, do just that, own the plane and lease it out for as much money as they can, for as little cost as possible which invariably means as little maintenance / looking after as is possible. The pilots make complaints to the ATO/Clubs about the state of the aeroplanes, occasionally at their costs. The ATO / Clubs then occasionally make complaints about the state of the aeroplanes they fly, and the leaser does the absolute minimum to adhere to the contract, and refuse to do any further changes (or occasionally offer the ATO/club to pay for their upgrades which they naturally decline - why pay for someone else's upgrades). Then you end up in this vicious circle whereby the pilots have no control over the planes they fly. The clubs / ATOs have no control over the planes they operate. The owners / leaser is the only one who profits. In my mind, this all started with a few companies offering to lease the ATOs/Clubs newer aeroplanes for less than it was costing them to operate their own, with less up-front costs, and hence (at least in the short-run) higher profit margins. The catch as we all now know all but too well, is that there is no such thing as a free lunch! When the planes are cheaper, there must be a reason, the leaser isn't going to make a deficit just for the sake of providing a good service (otherwise they'll disappear soon enough). Hence, as they must make a profit, something has got to give, in this case, the maintenance, serviceability, etc... All the terms that we have come to know leading to a spam-can. I once taxied one of said spam-cans over to the maintenance facility, as the ADF wasn't working, the display on the secondary radio wasn't working, the VOR/DME seemed about 20 degrees off and the main radio (which looked ancient) was intermittent. All of which had been in the tech-log for over 20hours, and brought to the maintenance facility several times over the course of the past few weeks. We get there, the engineer takes out the main radio, blows a little on the back and pops it back in, tells me the ADF won't be working, puts a sticker on it saying INOP, looks at the secondary radio and tells me that I won't need it but leaves it in there. Tells me that the radio now works fine, and that the plane is serviceable for flight. I grumble a little with him saying that it isn't acceptable to continue like this, anyway, one of my (good) instructors comes by and says that he'll come up with me free of charge just in case. Needless to say, within about 15 minutes into the flight, the radio started playing up again, managed to get back into the circuit before the radio completely failed where after being told to orbit downwind until advised due to incoming jet traffic, we did around 10 orbits before realising that the radio wasn't going to come back on, no matter how much we fiddled with it and followed no radio procedures. I complained profusely with the club, and the maintenance facility stating that I wasn't going to be paying for my ruined flight as a result of shoddy maintenance works, especially if this level of "looking after" is the level which the airframe, and engine are also being maintained to. (that's at around £200 per tacho hour + landing fee & fuel surcharge!) needless to say, I lost, and paid for the flight, the landing fee, and the taxying to and from the maintenance facility twice! The bigger problem, is that this is the case everywhere I have been, and everywhere my friends learnt / are learning to fly. Little by little I am going around all the clubs in the vicinity of London, but have found very little difference between the clubs' quality of aeroplanes available. A friend has been waiting 2 months for his first solo as a result of radio failure, suction failure, electrical failure, rattling noises coming from the engine making him abort the takeoff amongst other issues! (different club, different aerodrome, different company, different leaser). So if ALL you have ever known is to fly in a run-down aeroplane, agreeing to fly and paying huge amounts of money per hour to fly these old, badly maintained spam-cans. You simply don't know what it is like to fly anything but these old, beaten, badly maintained aeroplanes. I had no idea that it was a legal requirement to have fuel type and quantity written on the wings because I simply have not seen it on all the spam-cans I learnt on. If pilots are to be taught this, not fly if not perfect behaviour. The instructors should be the first point of call for this instruction. But the instructors have two sides to the story, one is the fact they need to fly every hour they can for their tiny pay. Second if they complain too much and refuse to fly too often, (i have seen this) the club/ATO normally has a word with them about their behaviour towards flying their aeroplanes, and if they disagree (as I have seen a couple of trainee instructors) they get shown the door. Their arguments were quite often too sound to reason with - such as "I am not going to risk my life, and the student's life, flying an un-airworthy plane due to its lack of maintenance", yet after having had a word, another instructor (generally someone who has been there for decades) takes over the lesson, and goes flying anyway. (scary really!) [I was once told about an instructor who did take-over another instructor's lesson due to said reason, just after takeoff they lost one of their main wheels (it just fell off)] Until I flew in NZ, where the club owned the planes, and a maintenance facility to make sure they were top standard. I had NO idea what it was like to fly a proper, well maintained, well organised, serviceable club aeroplane. How could I? Step Turn - from your figures, it sounds as though you're in the USA where there might just be a larger set of options for your to choose from than us in the UK (on this tiny island...). From what I have read, there is also a much higher level of satisfaction required for people to make purchases (and quite rightly so), there is also more demand, and hence, more competition, which is great! Although unless the plane had substantial sentimental value, or is kept as a classic aeroplane, is it really worth spending more 1.5 times its new cost for the 182? (actually asking - not questioning the logic) I think the topic really is: instructors should teach many more aspects, than just the flying and perhaps shouldn't be trusted blindly rather than power-plant questions! Jim59 - interesting! That looks like a really cool machine!! :-) Have you flown one? |
is it really worth spending more 1.5 times its new cost for the 182? I'm in Canada, where yes, I think the larger "inertia" for GA enables a broader choice. Several of the flying clubs I know keep their 152s and 172s in beautiful condition. There are complaints backward about the club spending the money on new interiors and avionics, and the rental pilots treating them poorly, so it goes both ways. It just requires rental pilots and the airplane provider to commit together to raise the quality of airplane condition, and respect that once you get there. Not easy, I agree! Your observations about instructors "enabling" their students flying defective aircraft is unfortunately too true. The instructor has little motivation to not fly! However, they are responsible for their candidate truly understanding "airworthy", and when to, and to not compromise! If nothing else, be observant, snag aircraft as appropriate, and maintain notes on aircraft condition, so if anything maintenance related ever happens, you have some records to support yourself with. |
I think this "spam-can" stems (specifically in the UK) from the fact that the clubs / ATOs no longer own the aeroplanes they operate in many cases. The company who own the planes, do just that |
I think you will find the term comes more from the fact that these are made of tin rather than the general wood and fabric of earlier aircraft, add in the fact that they are relatively easy to fly so what is inside the tin can can be fairly mediocre and you get the term! But I have heard it used by many people to mean those planes that are purposefully run into the ground for a quick profit. Which coincidentally happens to also be club planes which are easy to fly, generally made of metal, and often flown by people with little/less experience (wether that be due to instruction, ability, number of hours or otherwise). |
I think you will find the term comes more from the fact that these are made of tin I could not find a reference to the use of 'spams' as a slang word for Americans, which surprised me. It's certainly quite common on the Military forum here. |
The term Spam Can was orignated in the US in the early post WWII years as a mild put-down of new-style aluminum structured aircraft, generally having nose wheels and focused on the mass market. Comparing that type of aircraft with a round engined tube and rag classic, it's easy to see why those with a more romantic soul weren't attracted to them. Regardless of that, C172s and the like were in reality the most utilitarian planes to date and they sold like crazy for that reason... 'spam can' or not.
The term is still commonly used among US 'antiquers' today to describe newer aluminium structured planes. |
Silvaire1,
That's interesting. I had always assumed it was purely a UK usage. I've been in Canada for a long time and I don't think I've ever heard it here. Slight thread drift, but I've always thought the Silvaire is such an elegant aircraft. http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contri...nBill/8538.jpg It's hard to believe it dates back to 1937. In Britain, most new private aircraft were still biplanes! It would be very rude to call a Silvaire a Spam Can! |
JET A1.
easy difference. |
Silvair is a stunning machine. Can you call a classic aeroplane in beautiful condition a "spam-can"? I wouldn't have thought so....
GulfStreamAviator - I am not sure about your statement.... there is an increasing number of "diesel" powered aeroplanes which consume JET-A1 but are very much piston engines. The AE300 and AE330 spring to mind! I was also under the belief that most jet engines could also drink AVGAS, albeit only for a short number of hours. So the "which fuel" argument might not be a sound one. (I could well be wrong) |
JET A1. easy difference. I've flown piston aircraft which operated on Jet A1. And some turbine engines can be operated on Avgas, with limitation. It's the engine type which defines SEP to SET, not the fuel type! |
I don't think even a dyed in the wool tube and rag flying antiquer would call a Luscombe a spam can... unless maybe it was one of these Luscombes ;) Nose wheel landing gear is somehow part of the equation.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%...i-Luscombe.jpg http://www.aero-news.net/images/cont...e11e-0502c.jpg |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:07. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.