Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Flying the C172 with Centurion 2.0

Mooney_Driver wrote:

40 hours …

Sarcasm

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

40 hours to train the use of a VP? Where does that come from?

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Bosco, I’m pretty sure the VP requirement is void for the Centurion installation through the SPLC requirement.
There is no prop control so nothing a pilot can do with it, hence there is no requirement to train on “square”, “over square”, “feathering” or any of that in the traditional sense, but it is covered in the SPLC training as it is part of that set-up.

If you train on a DA40 and want to fly an Arrow you will need to go through the rigors of the VP training (all 40 hrs of them) and on top of that there’s the complexity of a retractable gear (so another 40 hrs of flight training) – plus you probably have no experience from conventional instruments and avionics (another 40 hrs at least).

All in all, don’t learn to fly different aircraft, it’s far too complex.

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

Andi wrote:

was pleasantly surprised how few oil they burn on average.

Did they provide you with any numbers?

LFPT, LFPN

Andi wrote:

Do difference trainings have to be recorded in the license?
No. but in your log book.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Apparently one needs a theory training first at this club before being allowed to fly the diesels…. Safety first. On the other hand the training coordinator was quite certain that I do not need a variable prop difference training BECAUSE of the single lever ops. So I guess he also thinks there is none needed for the single lever. Do difference trainings have to be recorded in the license?

I had a quick intro to the pre flight differences and was pleasantly surprised how few oil they burn on average.

EDAV, Germany

On the other hand, it takes nothing to get these endorsements and they’re valid forever. Any FI can issue them.

boscomantico wrote:

these “categories” are a bit daft

A bit? It’s completely insane. “Any person” can categorize, sort, place things in tables and see that “this one is different from that one”. It’s also easy for “any person” to come up with all kinds of reasons for why training and ratings are a good thing. By the looks of it “any person” has done so.

Stuff like this is OK for two categories of flying:

  1. Commercial flying to be reasonable sure that pilots do things according to some common procedure and a common level of proficiency, then adjust the procedure, training if needed.
  2. Club flying – basically for the same reasons as above, but to cut cost of repairs and insurance, and so that all pilots can be reasonable sure other pilots know how to handle each aircraft, so they don’t abuse it.

For private flying in a private aircraft, this is nonsense. Microlights have all the categories above except pressurized cabin, there is no ratings for any of them. If you don’t understand that doing some training to fly a sea plane is a good thing, then you shouldn’t be flying in the first place. If you fly a sea plane with no training, and do it with no accidents, then you are reckless, but a good pilot. If you do it and have an accident, then you are both reckless and a bad pilot. With all these ratings, how will we ever know and get rid of all the reckless and bad pilots?

Not reckless and a good pilot = OK (obviously)
Reckless and a bad pilot = not OK (obviously)
Not reckless and a bad pilot = OK enough
Reckless and a good pilot = OK enough

I don’t know if this makes any sense to people here, but all this babysitting for no real and practical reason cannot be good in the long run.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

boscomantico wrote:

Do you have a reference for the opposite? It’s what it is: a variable pitch propeller.

Nope. It never occurred to me the VP variant would be required.

Did I mention yet that these categories didn’t make too much sense?

I don’t know. I would need to re-read the long thread I believe we had here about variants a while ago I certainly think all these variant stuff is totally absurd and the discussion we are having now about VP for Centurions is a good illustration of that.

LFPT, LFPN

Do you have a reference for the opposite? It’s what it is: a variable pitch propeller.

Did I mention yet that these categories didn’t make too much sense?

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany
22 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top