I guess I’m not convinced that it’s “common English usage” to include the letter or dash variant in “type.”I guess I don't include common English usage in the "their own meaning for words" categoryNow if they defined "red" as "PA-32R-301T," that would be a different story.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think the English definition of the word "type" (not to mention the FAR 1.1 definition) is broad enough to encompass the difference between a fixed pitch, fixed gear 172 and a constant speed retract like a 172RG. but maybe not.
Or complex aircraft.
Actually, I learned in Denver. We didn't have anything over 200 HP until you got to the twins. The school taught in 152s and 172s for most stuff and Cardinals for complex work.
There is no requirement for HP or complex time for a commercial or CFI certificate
??? I thought that there was a complex requirement for commercial. Not HP, but complex and/or TAA.
I spent 20 years in Denver, about a dozen of them as a CFI. Where I was, a lot of primary and instrument training in 172s; mostly Cutlasses for complex. But most of the flights schools had at least one 182. (The Piper equivalents too, but there seemed to be more Cessnas for primary)
Right. But with TAA being an alternative and many training fleets acquiring TAAs, there are plenty of new CFIs who don’t see complex until they start multi training.
Hmmm.... It seems like it would be a fairly steep learning curve to take a newly-minted PPL and drop them straight into retract, CS props, and multi all at the same time. I would think that you'd want to take it a step at a time...but it's not my circus, and they're not my monkeys.
The complex / TAA thing is only a checkoff both in training and for the ride. You don't need to drop a "newly minted" one into it, just one near checkride time. Most complex training (and even some people's checkrides) are done in things like 172 for cost and simplicity reasons.
It's -or-. A guy can get his ATP never having flown a complex. Frankly, in this day and age it should be complex *AND* TAA. But this rule wasn't made by common sense, but rather lobbying by the training industry.
You don’t start off with an engine failure on the first takeoff.
I’d still be happy with it if it resulted in a decent understanding of how to operate a TAA panel.
???? How do you get complex training in a 172? I don't think I've ever seen a CS prop on a 172, much less retractable gear..... TAA, sure....but that's not exactly useful for flying even an Arrow, much less a Bonanza or Aztec.
It's being done. And lack of complex time doesn't necessarily mean lack of CS prop time there's been quite a bit of training in the DA40 in recent years.
You don't. I didn't say that. I said most training. You can do all of your manouver training, etc... in the 172. You only need a complex for the ten hours called out in part 61. I was wrong. You don't need either a complex for any checkride tasks anymore.
Or go for a single-engine ATP. Yeah, not typical, but possible.
Yup, that’s probably why we had a thread recently about ditching a Twin Comanche…somebody thought remembering to put the gear down was all that was necessary for training the system.
How about somebody who gets their Commercial Multi in a Seminole, and their ATP in a jet, which is neither high performance nor complex? We’ve seen quite a bit of that in recent years.
I think the FAA’s decision was based on very practical considerations. If you are going to fly a complex airplane, you need training and an endorsement, which you don’t need for avionics.
A Seminole doesn’t have flaps, a controllable prop, and retractable gear?
If they did the Comm MEL in a Seminole, they would have complex experience regardless of how they did their ATP. Your point about high performance is valid, but I think that was the point I was trying to make - that ATPs without high performance experience are fairly common, while those without complex experience are far less common.
Yeah, my bad…I’m a Beechcraft guy.
I had a similar experience getting insured on a piper Cheyenne that had a couple STCs installed that made it somewhat unique on paper but not really that special in real life. The owner eventually threw his hands up and told me to fly it around uninsured until the insurance company was happy. This was after the checkout at Simcom. Insurance companies are special.
Correct.
Maybe, but civilian training not being the same as your background, I'm pretty sure a significant number of rookie CFI's could find a way to bend that 182 pretty quickly, and the insurance companies know it...
This is 100% my experience as well. It's important to remember that for civilian pilot training, the only selection factor is the size of their wallet (and really not even that, since you can get loans).
As discussed, it was.
You are correct. At one time the commercial landing tasks needed to be accomplished in a complex. Most did the whole checkride in a complex, but some chose to split the ride between two airplanes.
That goes back to before the big Part 61 rewrite in 1997. The 61.31 endorsement was “high performance” and it coveted both what is now “complex” and what is “high performance.” I got my “HP” endorsement in a 180 HP Cutlass. They were separated out in 1997.
Yes it was.
Further, when they added the TAA, that only was for the ten hours to get to the checkride. It's not currently required to have a complex or TAA for the checkride. You use to have to do at least some to's and landings in the complex (you were free to do the rest of the ride in a fixed gear).
