Which aircraft is best for intial training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A6
Age: 41
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which aircraft is best for intial training
For a person with zero prior flying experaince, I think a Cessna 152 or 172 would be the best fit for flying, however, i would like to know if a person can start learning to fly in a much larger aircraft, such as the Pilatus PC-12 or the Piper Meridian.
What are the rules and regulations that restrict a private pilot from flying a havier aircraft? I know you need to move up the ratings to fly in IFR, but what about in VFR with a much larger aircraft.
thanks
What are the rules and regulations that restrict a private pilot from flying a havier aircraft? I know you need to move up the ratings to fly in IFR, but what about in VFR with a much larger aircraft.
thanks
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, it is a cost issue mainly.
2ndly, for the PC-12 you'd need a type rating beforehand, but can get one after you have for example a PPL-IR.
You could also train on a Beech Baron or similar, but would need to get a PPL multi.
To be honest, with zero flying experience you'll be sufficiently busy dealing with a Cessna 150, so I wouldn't worry about bigger, more complex planes just yet.
2ndly, for the PC-12 you'd need a type rating beforehand, but can get one after you have for example a PPL-IR.
You could also train on a Beech Baron or similar, but would need to get a PPL multi.
To be honest, with zero flying experience you'll be sufficiently busy dealing with a Cessna 150, so I wouldn't worry about bigger, more complex planes just yet.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A long way from home
Age: 44
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I'm not sure that there are any legal limitations (up to the limitations imposed by the license itself. The Meridian and the PC12 are both turboprops which in JAA require a type rating. You can only get a type rating after getting a license.
Practically though (speaking as an instructor) larger aircraft are generally harder to fly for a number of reasons:
1. Inertia. Think how difficult it is for the big oil tankers to manoeuvre. It takes ages for them to stop / change direction etc. This means that the pilot has to anticipate the need to change direction well in advance. Conversely, a canoe can turn on a sixpence.
2. Systems. Large aircraft (almost) always have more systems. Even the simple ones have more stuff going on to bamboozle the pilot. In stead of simply learning how to fly, he also has to learn what to do if the landing gear doesn't retract, what the limitations are if a suction pump fails etc.
3. Speed. 95kts (110mph) may seem pretty slow... until you try navigating for the first time! That's basically 2 miles per minute. As a PPL, you're allowed to fly with 3km (about to 2 miles) visibility. Since you're only navigating by what you can see out of the window, it can get ugly very quickly. Larger aircraft generally go faster. Oh, and they have many more "limiting speeds" for example the max speed you can operate the flaps on a C152 is 85kts for any flap setting. On larger aircraft it may have different limiting speeds for each flap setting. So there's much more to remember (going back to systems)
4. Ruggedness. Traditional training aircraft are generally designed to take a hammering (and trust me, you'll give it a hammering with more than a few of your landings to start with!) They're also going slower, so any impact is slower (I'm not talking about crashing into stuff, but dodgy landings which aren't quite straight)
5. Airfields. Big aircraft need big runways. Part of the fun of learning to fly is going to obscure places.
In short - walk before you can run!
So which aircraft is best? I've instructed on C152 / C172, PA28 and AA5.
The Cessnas are great reliable little workhorses, but I don't like the high wing as it gets in the way of a good lookout.
AA5 is great to fly, it just feels like you're connected to the aircraft. They've also got a great view. However they're less reliable than the rest so the cost is higher. Also, there's not many of them around, so after learning on that, you'd have to do a few hours difference training on something else.
My favourite's the Piper. Plenty of room, good view, comfy (except when it's raining... but that goes for most old aircraft!) reliable. Oh, and they're available everywhere. Their success is for a reason!
I can't comment on any of the new fangled wizardry that's available as I haven't flown them (Diamond, sport cruiser etc.).
I'm not sure that there are any legal limitations (up to the limitations imposed by the license itself. The Meridian and the PC12 are both turboprops which in JAA require a type rating. You can only get a type rating after getting a license.
Practically though (speaking as an instructor) larger aircraft are generally harder to fly for a number of reasons:
1. Inertia. Think how difficult it is for the big oil tankers to manoeuvre. It takes ages for them to stop / change direction etc. This means that the pilot has to anticipate the need to change direction well in advance. Conversely, a canoe can turn on a sixpence.
2. Systems. Large aircraft (almost) always have more systems. Even the simple ones have more stuff going on to bamboozle the pilot. In stead of simply learning how to fly, he also has to learn what to do if the landing gear doesn't retract, what the limitations are if a suction pump fails etc.
3. Speed. 95kts (110mph) may seem pretty slow... until you try navigating for the first time! That's basically 2 miles per minute. As a PPL, you're allowed to fly with 3km (about to 2 miles) visibility. Since you're only navigating by what you can see out of the window, it can get ugly very quickly. Larger aircraft generally go faster. Oh, and they have many more "limiting speeds" for example the max speed you can operate the flaps on a C152 is 85kts for any flap setting. On larger aircraft it may have different limiting speeds for each flap setting. So there's much more to remember (going back to systems)
4. Ruggedness. Traditional training aircraft are generally designed to take a hammering (and trust me, you'll give it a hammering with more than a few of your landings to start with!) They're also going slower, so any impact is slower (I'm not talking about crashing into stuff, but dodgy landings which aren't quite straight)
5. Airfields. Big aircraft need big runways. Part of the fun of learning to fly is going to obscure places.
In short - walk before you can run!
So which aircraft is best? I've instructed on C152 / C172, PA28 and AA5.
The Cessnas are great reliable little workhorses, but I don't like the high wing as it gets in the way of a good lookout.
AA5 is great to fly, it just feels like you're connected to the aircraft. They've also got a great view. However they're less reliable than the rest so the cost is higher. Also, there's not many of them around, so after learning on that, you'd have to do a few hours difference training on something else.
My favourite's the Piper. Plenty of room, good view, comfy (except when it's raining... but that goes for most old aircraft!) reliable. Oh, and they're available everywhere. Their success is for a reason!
I can't comment on any of the new fangled wizardry that's available as I haven't flown them (Diamond, sport cruiser etc.).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A6
Age: 41
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks...But another option?
Thanks both for your replies, however, i must stress that both of you are thinking from a point of view of a cash strapped trainee.
What if cost is not an issue and the person wants to buy a high performance aircraft with a range of around 1000-15000 nm and would like to start his training in it. is that something that is possible, citing FAA and JAR regulations? i know you need IR and TR to go to the bigger ones, but is it allowed to follow VFR, and start training with these high performance aircrafts?
Thanks
What if cost is not an issue and the person wants to buy a high performance aircraft with a range of around 1000-15000 nm and would like to start his training in it. is that something that is possible, citing FAA and JAR regulations? i know you need IR and TR to go to the bigger ones, but is it allowed to follow VFR, and start training with these high performance aircrafts?
Thanks
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would you learn to drive in a porsche/ferrari?
I think the issue is not about the performance of the aircraft but performance of the person learning to fly. Even fighter pilots learn to fly on light single engine pistons. Once you have got the basics squared away, then move on up.
With regard to legalities, I think it will depend on whether the aircraft is approved, i.e. it needs to be public transport category in the CAA. My advice - go to a flying club that feels right, with instructors that feel right and learn the pitfalls of flying. Treat them with respect then you will have the platform on which to do differences training for any high performance aircraft that you may wish to purchase.
Personally I have instructed on cessna 152's 172s, Piper PA28s, 38s, Robins, but not the latest trainers eg Katanas.
My favourite aircraft for instructing and learning, easily the PA38 tomahawk. Since then I have flown Fireflys, Bulldogs, Yaks, Caps, Dassault Falcons, Boeings and the Airbus. I still utilise the basics learnt on the PA38.
I think the issue is not about the performance of the aircraft but performance of the person learning to fly. Even fighter pilots learn to fly on light single engine pistons. Once you have got the basics squared away, then move on up.
With regard to legalities, I think it will depend on whether the aircraft is approved, i.e. it needs to be public transport category in the CAA. My advice - go to a flying club that feels right, with instructors that feel right and learn the pitfalls of flying. Treat them with respect then you will have the platform on which to do differences training for any high performance aircraft that you may wish to purchase.
Personally I have instructed on cessna 152's 172s, Piper PA28s, 38s, Robins, but not the latest trainers eg Katanas.
My favourite aircraft for instructing and learning, easily the PA38 tomahawk. Since then I have flown Fireflys, Bulldogs, Yaks, Caps, Dassault Falcons, Boeings and the Airbus. I still utilise the basics learnt on the PA38.
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi OLT,
Yes it is. The singles turboprop are in the category of High Performance Aircrafts, and you can learn to fly on it and then take your PPL exam and HPA extension with the actual rating (PC12, Meridian, whatever...). The thing is that you can but you will not be able to actually, because of all the kind of training that it is required for PPL, it will be very hard. Add to that zero flying experience and it goes nowhere. So I would suggest, as everybody else here, to start with a light single, could be cessna, piper, diamond... to get the basics of flying and navigation. Once the PPL is achieved, you can start thinking about it... but it will be a looong training in VFR only, therefore low altitude flying in most places, high fuel consumption, high speed at low altitudes...you will be using maybe 20% of aircraft capabilities...but it is possible
Bye!
is that something that is possible, citing FAA and JAR regulations?
. Add to that zero flying experience and it goes nowhere. So I would suggest, as everybody else here, to start with a light single, could be cessna, piper, diamond... to get the basics of flying and navigation. Once the PPL is achieved, you can start thinking about it... but it will be a looong training in VFR only, therefore low altitude flying in most places, high fuel consumption, high speed at low altitudes...you will be using maybe 20% of aircraft capabilities...but it is possibleBye!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A long way from home
Age: 44
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under JAR, you need a license before starting a type rating. And turbo-props require a type rating (not so under FAA). Under JAR you could do the PPL on something like a Malibu (non turboprop version of Meridian)
Training in a "high performance aircraft" (there is no such category in JAR, this category exists under other regulatory authorities) would probably take longer than starting in a nice simple aircraft, getting a license and only then moving on.
P.S. I'm sure you'll find a flight school somewhere which will tell you otherwise and happily releive you of your "limitless funds"
Training in a "high performance aircraft" (there is no such category in JAR, this category exists under other regulatory authorities) would probably take longer than starting in a nice simple aircraft, getting a license and only then moving on.
P.S. I'm sure you'll find a flight school somewhere which will tell you otherwise and happily releive you of your "limitless funds"
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rome
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi welliewanger,
JAR-FCL 1.251 Type, class ratings for
single pilot high
performance aeroplanes
– Conditions
(See Appendix 1 to JARFCL
1.251)
(See AMC FCL 1.251)
(a) Pre-requisite conditions for training: An
applicant for a first type or class rating for a
single-pilot high performance aeroplane (HPA)
shall:
(1) have at least 200 hours total flying
experience;
(2) have met the requirements of
JAR-FCL 1.255 or 1.260, as appropriate; and
(3) (i) hold a certificate of
satisfactory completion of a pre-entry
approved course in accordance with
Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.251 to be
conducted by a FTO or a TRTO; or
(ii) have passed at least the
ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge
examinations in accordance with JARFCL
1.285; or
(iii) hold a valid ICAO ATPL(A)
or CPL/IR with theoretical knowledge
credit for ATPL(A);
Bye!
Training in a "high performance aircraft" (there is no such category in JAR, this category exists under other regulatory authorities)
single pilot high
performance aeroplanes
– Conditions
(See Appendix 1 to JARFCL
1.251)
(See AMC FCL 1.251)
(a) Pre-requisite conditions for training: An
applicant for a first type or class rating for a
single-pilot high performance aeroplane (HPA)
shall:
(1) have at least 200 hours total flying
experience;
(2) have met the requirements of
JAR-FCL 1.255 or 1.260, as appropriate; and
(3) (i) hold a certificate of
satisfactory completion of a pre-entry
approved course in accordance with
Appendix 1 to JAR-FCL 1.251 to be
conducted by a FTO or a TRTO; or
(ii) have passed at least the
ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge
examinations in accordance with JARFCL
1.285; or
(iii) hold a valid ICAO ATPL(A)
or CPL/IR with theoretical knowledge
credit for ATPL(A);
Bye!
Under JAR, you need a license before starting a type rating.
And turbo-props require a type rating
Training in a "high performance aircraft" (there is no such category in JAR....
Whilst this is all very welll in theory, the bottom line, as has already been stated, is that it is usually not practical and/or financially viable to learn on anything more complicated than an SEP. If, however, you wished to buy a high performance aircraft, and you could find a suitably qualified instructor and approved training organisation (it couldn't be done in a Registered Facility) prepared to take you on, there is nothing to prevent you doing so. Whether it would be a wise thing to do is quite another matter.
Is it not the case that a student pilot can be authorised by the instructor to fly a particular aircraft type? Subject to competency of course. That's how it works in Oz & USA. After all, even a piston single requires an entry of some type in the licence before a PPL may fly it but that doesn't stop students being sent solo.
Was never an issue for me getting a UK ATPL 'cos I was converting from another licence so not sure of the intricacies of JAR's for a student.
As for the thread's questioning title: Whichever aeroplane has the best instructor. A good instructor can adapt and do a good job even with a less-than-ideal aircraft. A poor instructor starts with a disadvantage.
Was never an issue for me getting a UK ATPL 'cos I was converting from another licence so not sure of the intricacies of JAR's for a student.
As for the thread's questioning title: Whichever aeroplane has the best instructor. A good instructor can adapt and do a good job even with a less-than-ideal aircraft. A poor instructor starts with a disadvantage.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A long way from home
Age: 44
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BillieBob and I-2021,
I stand corrected. Does this mean that there's a single HPA endorsement, or is it that certain class / type ratings are considered high performance classes / types?
I stand corrected. Does this mean that there's a single HPA endorsement, or is it that certain class / type ratings are considered high performance classes / types?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A6
Age: 41
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all
Thank you all for contributing!
My question was: wheather it is possible for a person with ZERO flight experiance to start flying on a trubo prop, provided funding and instructors are both available.
I guess the answer is YES! there are no regulatory restrictions on trying to obtain a PPL with a turbo prop. However, it is highly unadvisable since the learning curve would be steep and it could also be dangerous.
So in the end, it is a choice of preferance rather then the demands of the law!
My question was: wheather it is possible for a person with ZERO flight experiance to start flying on a trubo prop, provided funding and instructors are both available.
I guess the answer is YES! there are no regulatory restrictions on trying to obtain a PPL with a turbo prop. However, it is highly unadvisable since the learning curve would be steep and it could also be dangerous.
So in the end, it is a choice of preferance rather then the demands of the law!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions to ask:
Who would authorise newbie to do first solo in a turbo-prop?
Which insurance company would insure newbie to solo in a turbo-prop?
For newbie to solo in an insured aircraft and to be solo authorised by a FI, newbie would have to learn to fly a simple SEP
Who would authorise newbie to do first solo in a turbo-prop?
Which insurance company would insure newbie to solo in a turbo-prop?
For newbie to solo in an insured aircraft and to be solo authorised by a FI, newbie would have to learn to fly a simple SEP
Pay them enough and insurance companies will insure just about anything. Military have been using turbines for ab-initio trainers for years so it's no unfeasable - just expensive.
