PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) (https://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies-14/)
-   -   FNPT I or FNPT II, that's a big a deal ? (https://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/269432-fnpt-i-fnpt-ii-thats-big-deal.html)

sam34 25th Mar 2007 00:53

FNPT I or FNPT II, that's a big a deal ?
Hello everyone,

At the moment i hesitate between two schools not in UK but in France... but that's not the problem.
One school is bigger, with a lot a student and instructors, and with FNPT II like most of FTO today I guess. IR with 40 hours and 15 hours on PA34.

The other school has a few students with few intructors, but it is cheaper with very good atmosphere. But we do IR course on FNPT I (30hours), then 10 hours PA28 complex and then 15 hours on PA34.

So I would like to know you think that is important to do IR on FNPT II ?

I wonder that because for instance we do MCC on FNPT II, so I think that's usefull to have done IR on this simulator before isn't it?

Thank you very much!

combineharvester 25th Mar 2007 06:34


The difference between an FNPT I and II is that the "II" variants have projected visuals. Therefore for the IR course this is fairly insignificant as you are not using the sim to look at the pretty graphics!! There are old and new versions of both simulators. The older ones tend to have actual replica instruments, whereas the newer variety, such as the ones made by Elite etc have a couple of TFT monitors with a graphical representation of the instrument layout. Again having had a bit of experience of both there is not much of a difference.

I would have to say the main consideration when choosing an IR training provider is how the course is split between the aircraft & sim. The FTO where i did mine had a 25/25 split between the sim (FNPTII) and the aircraft PA34. Unless you have previous experience on the multi i would say thats the better split, if not the cheapest option. Just my opinion, i'm sure there will be others who disagree! Out of interest, the school in question (who i now work for, and will remain nameless!!) has a higher than national average 1st time IR pass rate. some would say those statistics reinforce what i have said above.

Hope this helps, and good luck with the course:ok:

High Wing Drifter 25th Mar 2007 11:09

For me, the FNPTII (or I suspect any simulator) was/is, barring perhaps 10-15 of familiarisation, not much help at all. I suspect it is horses for courses, but multi engine, tracking beacons, procedural approaches and holds do not warrant 50 hrs of training. My problem was the constant buggeration factor from ATC and traffic in the now very busy regional airports and surrounding airspace used for the IR. More often than not I would not fly the filed plan. This unpredictability induced a high workload, was never really replicated in sim sessions and, for me, was the cause of my problems. Also, the asymmetric stuff in a sim is a bit of a joke really.

In all seriousness, once you know what you are meant to be doing, you can probably get the same training benefit from mentally flying in a comfy chair.

I'm not an instructor and in the scale of things, very inexperienced, but purely with personal hindsight, barring say 10 hours or so, I suspect it would be better to fly around in an Archer than a sim.

combineharvester 25th Mar 2007 23:49


i agree in principle with what you have stated. My only arguments for the use of a simulator as opposed to using a simple or complex single for the early element of the course is when introducing a new concept to a student as is the case with the IR (in particular when the student has only the minimum experience on instruments) are:

1. The ability to "rewind" and start again at any stage, if you screw up an approach in the air, there is either the climb/return to the beacon or re vectoring to the start of the approach. If you're very unlucky this can start to get expensive, especially if you end up getting re-sequenced behind a lot of other traffic.

2. As you mentioned, in the real world there is real weather and real traffic/communication chatter. In the early stages of the course when all the ideas of the exercises are not ingrained enough to release some spare capacity these will be an unwelcome distraction. As you get further through the course you will develop the capacity to not just be focused on trying to do the one task in hand.

Ultimately there is no substitute for real hands on experience in the real world, after all, you will not be doing your initial IR at least, in the simulator. but for the builiding blocks section at the beginning of the course i believe the simulator is a useful tool.

sam34 26th Mar 2007 00:05

Ok I got your point! thank you very much!

So do you think during the IR course, 40 hours in a FNPT II and 15 on PA34, there are too many hours ?
it is very strange, because we do more simu hours that real hours...

for instance if we do IR before CPL, we have 40 of FNPT II , 15 hours PA34 and 15 hours for CPL! (if we passed all the first time of course..) so 40 of simu and 30 hours of real aircraft.

combineharvester 26th Mar 2007 00:21

In the UK, the IR course is a minimum of 50 hours for a CPL holder, which can be split in various ways: sim/multi; sim/single/multi; single/multi or if you have a licence to print money then you could do the whole course on the multi! for holders of a PPL the course is 55 hours minimum.

UK CAA LASORS publication states a maximum of 25 hours in an FNPT I or max 40 hours in an FNPT II sim as part of the course. There is also a minimum requrement of 15 hours MEP flying as part of the course.

So if you already hold a CPL, the minimum would be 35 hours sim, 15hours aircraft. For PPL holders the 40/15 split you mention satisfies the min aircraft time requirement.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.