When I was doing my PPL in Scotland the weather closed in and a storm chased student and instructor several hundred miles. Icing. IMC. From what I heard the instructor wouldn’t have made it without the student’s help: it was a close run thing.
In the UK I wouldn’t want to fly a training aircraft with an hour’s endurance more than a few miles from the circuit. But we spend what, 75% of the time doing circuits and basic handling?
I think this amplifies the old debate about whether PPL training should train pilots, or just sell an item on the price list called a “PPL”.
For the latter, electric planes might work well enough to reduce the school’s costs.
The risk is substantial, however. In the days of the Thielert bankrupcy and their big reliability issues, FTOs operating the diesel DA40s and DA42s were struggling to keep a few planes in the air, but most had plenty of money to throw at it. PPL schools don’t generally have much spare money. Most avoided the diesel saga by not having diesels in the first place. If an electric plane is widely adopted and then creates problems, it could finish off a school.
My club has ordered a Pipistrel Alpha Electro (supposedly paid for with grant money and a private donation) and are planning on using it for basically for pattern work only. They’ve purchased and taken delivery of a Virus SW to compliment this and use for …the rest of the ppl syllabus?…
Can’t see a problem at all with this, in fact I’m pretty sure that many schools will start using these machines once they become widely available. Where I am based, the nearest training area is about a 10 min flight away, so plenty of time for a typicl ab-initio lesson.. It may even be beneficial if a student does not have to deal with engine management (not that there was much of that on a PA28 or C152) at the very beginning. You can do airwork, general handling and landings nicely in an electric trainer and then transition to a piston version for x-country. IMHO a big selling point for an electric trainer will be the availability of an identical / very similar piston version to allow for a smooth transition.
kwlf wrote:
When I was doing my PPL in Scotland the weather closed in and a storm chased student and instructor several hundred miles. Icing. IMC. From what I heard the instructor wouldn’t have made it without the student’s help: it was a close run thing.
If it was that bad, then someone didn’t check the wx before the flight. Nothing to do with electric airplanes.
172driver wrote:
Can’t see a problem at all with this
Neither do I. It’s a pure economical/organizational thing. A school will do the math, if it shows less cost with electric planes it will go for it. Countless people have learned to fly in gliders. 2-10 minutes flight before landing. No problem whatsoever.
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/22557-pilot-training-school-turns-electrical
…and the effort of switching types is not that high.
In Germany, pre EASA there was a requirement to fly a second type (typically a four-seater) solo as part of the PPL. So you would fly a C150 or 152 most of the time, and around 3 hours in a PA28, for example.
Engine management is – for better or for worse – not really an issue, either. The only concern would be carb heat (if the cross country aircraft even has it, and perhaps a dummy carb heat lever in the electrical aircraft would work. And leaning in the circuit is not really done in any trainer.
As you all probably know, I am highly scepticall about the “going places” utility – both now and in the long term – of purely battery-electric aircraft because of the laws pf physics and chemistry. But there is no problem in using them as a local trainer from an instructional point of view, bar a bit of extra conversion training.
And there are plenty of people who are happy trundling about locally for 45 minutes at 60kt after qualificaton
If it was that bad, then someone didn’t check the wx before the flight. Nothing to do with electric airplanes
Or the weather forecast wasn’t accurate… Some places have far more variable weather than others. The instructor knew that a front was due and was keeping an eye out for it, but it came in faster and sooner than predicted and he didn’t manage to get back to the airport before it. It’s true that his judgement could have been better, but the margins that the Tomahawk provided meant that a misjudgement that may have been fatal in an aircraft with a short endurance was survivable.
None of us are perfect pilots; in a training aircraft, tolerating misjudgements without imposing the death penalty is a desirable characteristic.
I’m currently staying with family in Australia and I would far rather fly an aircraft with an hour’s endurance here than within the UK.
Jujupilote wrote:
Why don’t EASA create an SEE class ?
Isn’t that exactly what they are busy doing? That’s what I’ve heard.
How hard can it be? Really should be differences training, there is not much difference compared to a “SLPC” engine – in fact, a bit simpler in management compared to a dual ECU DA40 TDI with manual failover (such as the Thielerts)
In FAA-Land, ASEL (Aircraft Single Engine Land) should cover it.
Jujupilote wrote:
The main difference in flying is the lack of engine management (which makes a lot of our tasks). So that has to be taught after the electric hours
When I was involved in the certification testing of the Lycoming IO-360 powered DA-42, the flight test pilots from Daimond (Canada) with whome I flew were mostly diesel DA-42 and Diamond jet pilots. There was a learning curve for the Lycomings, particularly the nuances of starting them. It worked out fine, but yes, some mentoring was beneficial.
That being said, there will be a considerable portion of student pilots whose career path will be SE_ to DA-42 or other non gasoline airplane, and onward to turbo prop, they won’t really be too worried about lack of gasoline powered airplane experience if they can’t get it easily. Things are going to change from what GA has known for the last 70 years….
