Will we have PPLs limited to Electric Aircraft? Like Driving Licences limited to Automatic Gearbox vehicles if you sit the test in one, while a Manual Gearbox test pass is unrestricted.
Peter wrote:
The big Q for the training model remains of how to deal with cross country flights. Maybe these flying schools will organise the operations so a freshly charged plane is reserved for those flight
If not, what is wrong with a combo Sun Flyer / C172 for PPL training? Sun Flyer for the ab initio part, C172 for the navigation exercises etc.
Having said that, flight simulators are becoming more and more attractive. Costs 70,000 incl. motion. A combo Redbird / C172 is maybe just as good as a Sun Flyer / C172 combo.
Maoraigh wrote:
Will we have PPLs limited to Electric Aircraft?
Electric aircraft should be a class of their own like SEP, MEP, etc.
Why?
In the US system, they would just be ASEL (aircraft single engine land).
In Europe, surely the most appropriate thing would be differences training, either when going from electric to piston or the other way.
Cobalt wrote:
In the US system, they would just be ASEL (aircraft single engine land).
Because SEP means “Single engine piston”.
I also think that having one of these electric planes for the circuits and such and having a SEP for other stuff is not going to work, because – especially within PPL training – currency on type is really crucial and changing the plane part-way will easily cost you 20 hours. This figure is based on people I know who for some reason had to change the type (myself included). They will probably handle very differently.
Aviation ops, whether flight training or airports, are quite focused on asset utilisation and on convergence, which is one reason why TOTAL’s 91UL initiative failed so badly (airports were not interested in carrying two fuels especially as 91UL would have reduced their 100LL volumes and thus increased the buy price). If they do training in a mixture of electric and avgas planes, their operating costs of the avgas ones will rise.
Electric aircraft should be a class of their own like SEP, MEP, etc.
Because SEP means “Single engine piston”.
So they should change it. The flight characteristics and power response of an electrical aircraft are not really that different from the same thing with a piston engine.
The requirement for new ratings should be based on a genuine need, not semantic hair-splitting.
It’s bad enough we have to tolerate the de facto single engine turbine type rating, and type ratings for some pressurised singles.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Electric aircraft should be a class of their own like SEP, MEP, etc.
But maybe they haven’t discovered electric aircraft.
Overarching is the “general competency requirement” i.e. you are authorised to use your license only if you are competent.
p.s. a Cessna Caravan is covered under the same flight review as a Cessna 172 
Archie wrote:
At least in Aussie it is “single-engine aeroplane class rating”
Maybe, but not in Europe.
Interesting link local copy says we need to achieve 500Wh/kg for aviation electric propulsion to kick off.
These guys think they might get to 750 Wh/kg by 2023
Current status quo:
Pipistrel Alpha Elektro: 167 Wh/kg
Tesla: 300 Wh/kg
