The first aircraft I flew more advanced than a C172/PA28, was a PA32R (6 seats, constant-speed prop, retractable gear and 300 hp). I did that at 100 hrs and the training took 2h30.
On a different note – my training on a Columbia 400 took 4.5 hours and 30+ landings, coming from a Turbo-Saratoga, because it was so different and after years on sponge-like yoke controls on Pipers i could land one of those on a dime, but had to re-learn some generic landing skills.
I basically flew circuits until i was comfortable and confident, the instructor would have let me off a bit earlier, but i just didn’t feel good enough yet.
The SR22TN transition was an hour and 5 landings, job done. That was because when i did it the basic landing issues were fixed already, and i had flown a lot in the months before.
It all really is highly dependent on individual circumstances. Hence i find minimum hours requirements a bit silly. But not as silly has carrying print outs of information you do not need…
I guess the hours difference can be put down to “being familiar” vs “able to operate it somewhat proficiently”. The Mooney control crispness and landing characteristics are the main gotchas when transitioning from Piper /Cessna.
Speed and descent management are completely new when one transitions from the average PA28, even the Dakota or the Lance. Pipers cruise at 110-120 knots, versus a pattern speed of 90. Descent is a matter of throttling back. Throttle back in a Mooney and point the nose down and you’ll see between 160 and 180 ground speed… and it won’t slow down.
Avionics can get some time to get used to -always better to have a second set of eyes when you go “what does this button do”. For the sort of mountain airfields I fly into i found the Piper throttle a lot more user friendly than the plunger type. Unlike the Piper there is no tolerance for tailwind, and demo’ed x-wind is 13 vs 17 (and the difference shows).
Other than that it flies like any other plane :-)
As this is my aircraft and the school I work with for transition training for new pilots I feel I have to give some information here.
I got to work with this school (as a customer) since 2009 and I am very happy with the professional and organisational level of their FI’s as well as the organisation itself. I did my recurrency for my expired SEP with them on the Mooney then and it took me (VFR) a good 8 hours to get ready to take the flight test for the SEP which was required after 10 years of inactivity. I went to the revalidation check ride well prepared and ready, prepared by an FI who flies a large biz jet as day job and does this because he loves to do it. The owner is a A330 captain, most of the staff are either airline or professional pilots. All of them are IR rated and most are also IR instructors.
When I bought the Mooney of them, a few of the former pilots wanted to carry on flying it, to which I readily agreed as it helps with the costs. For their purpose we kept the rules and regs as the FTO has it, with the only difference that they pay me for the use of the airplane, same price, same procedures, same people. Workes very well. When we got new people, we introduced them the same way, that is they did their type familiarisation with one of the guys from the FTO. That is what we still do today and it has proven to be very effective. Until now, people who did the familiarisation came away confident and familiar with the specialities of this airplane.
For the reason that Vladimir has already mentioned, we do the landing training at one or several of the airfields which offer very good conditions for this near the border. Being based in Zürich, we can’t train here obviously. We get a lot of advantages out of this: The flights from / to are about 30 minutes each (which they also would be if we went to train in Switzerland), the landing fees are a fraction and during those flights systems and procedures can be trained. Most pilots new to the airplane take 2-3 such sessions and are done. We usually do the initial flight to a field with a good sized runways and also include one with short field runway and a flight with maximum weight during these sessions. Also, we can fuel duty free when we go abroad, which reflects in the cost also for the user. All in all, using those airfields rather than some here will be at least cost neutral but in most cases saving the student money.
I do require the familiarisation for several reasons. First of all, the M20C has a few features which need a proper introduction to for people who have no prior experience on Vintage Mooneys. The manual gear and flaps systems are the first thing that even someone transitioning from a M20J found useful to be properly introduced to and doing landing training with. Secondly, we do now carry a rather complex avionic suite with the S-Tec 55X AP, Aspen PFD and GNS430W. If people want to use this installation properly, it will take a good introduction and practice to do it. The FI who drew up the procedures (including the ones Vladimir mentions) and I took quite some time coming up with the new operating procedures which allow all of us to operate the airplane in the same fashion, which also means we find the aircraft properly configured whenever we take it over. We then asked all existing pilots to do one introduction flight with that FI in order to get familiar with the new systems, including the other FI’s of the training organisation, all of which are airline or professional pilots. All of them came away quite happy with the result and were also open with the fact that it was in the end much easier for them to experience and to get used to the new equipment that way. And finally, I want to get a feel for the persons flying skills who will take my airplane on extended trips and I can honestly say that it leaves me a much happier owner knowing that they were properly introduced to this airplane and it’s operation.
About the briefing docs in paper form, I can’t really say why they do it like this, but I think it is much easier for everyone if FI and student are on the same sheet so to speak. I also notice that if I have to prepare a multi crew flight (which a dual flight is) that it is easier and quicker if both use the same charts and same briefing docs. It may well have to do with the airline background these people have. The way I recall, paper docs are also required for the proficiency check flights here, so chances are that they do that because of that. For me it has never been an issue as I use homebriefing anyway (I was in the beta test team for a while) for my pre-flight stuff in VFR. I am sure that the FI which is assigned to Vladimir will be happy to discuss this with him. He is the guy who drew up the new Mooney procedures with me and also has extensive experience on the aircraft.
I have a very high regard of the people in the school in question for their professional work and the way they instruct. Otherwise I would not have stayed with them. I will also do my IR revalidation with them. They are also not expensive at all, actually I think there is no more economical way to do a PPL at the moment than with that school.
Hope that puts things a bit into perspective.
Thanks for the clarification Money_Driver. For me almost all of those points were clear. What people seem to find too much if I understand correctly is the 4-5 hours, although all my familiarizations have been about that range. Probably sometimes it works with less but as already mentioned, it depends on the person, what he has flown and what the difference is.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
it is much easier for everyone if FI and student are on the same sheet so to speak
It would be nice to see the FI urge people to use new and better solutions (you yourself use a planning software) but on the other side legally they might need to stay with that (mentioned in the thread). Also they probably have the same briefing sheet for everyone (from first flight pilots to experienced pilot for yearly checks only) and maybe it’s better for new pilots to start on paper and see how it works before they move to EasyVFR or SkyDamon.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The way I recall, paper docs are also required for the proficiency check flights here, so chances are that they do that because of that.
I did my last checks (MEP, SEP, IR, CPL) all with only electronic materials with the exception of the company flight plan. The FOCA expert, whom I didn’t know, was absolutely OK with that. Also although I haven’t had that yet, I am assured that a tablet weather preparation is absolutely OK when you get a ramp check. And having the autorouter weather, coming from London, is official enough to replace skybriefing. By the way, I also have a skybriefing membership, but downloading all the charts and NOTAM from them requires an eternity in comparison with the briefing pack from autorouter and you get the same materials or even less.
First of all, it is of course reasonable for an owner to expect any pilot they give their aircraft to to be proficient to their satisfaction, and in all cases where I rent aircraft I have always been trained by, and in effect assessed by, an instructor of the owner’s choice. Training went on until both I and the instructor where happy, then it finished.
My main objection to the way it is done in this case is that it perpetuates two of the four big issues I (both as pilot and instructor) see in the training industry
1) “minimum hours/fixed syllabus” versus “training as required”
2) perpetuating antiquated, paper based procedures
(the other two – not preparing for real life flying, and training wrong technique and speeds, do not apply here)
Let me take them in turn
1) minimum hours vs. training as required
Even for initial training, fixed hours requirements are highly dubious. PPL/IR fought long and hard to get the “competence based IR”, which still has minimum hours, but not the silly 55 hours, regardless whether the candidate is a 100-hour-rookie or a 1000+ hour IMC rating holder. I also personally know an experienced B737 pilot with extensive G1000 turboprop experience who had to do the same type rating course for a Citation Mustang as the 500 hour, MEP-only CPL holder next to him. Silly.
The goal of training is to achieve a certain standard. As long as the standard is met, and is examined / checked / observed, minimum hours serve no useful purpose, but have a downside:
2) Perpetuating antiquated, paper based procedures
Every pilot should use the best available tools to prepare their flight. In ancient times, these were the whizz-wheel, PLOG forms, and FAX/Phone weather and NOTAM briefings.These days these are end-to-end workflow apps such as Skydemon (other products exist).
The best way to ensure all the pre-flight items are done is to allow the pilots to use the (appropriate) tools they like. From observation, I can see that those pilots who use a tool do a NOTAM and met briefing, and those who do NOT use a tool tend to be “forgetful”, in particular about NOTAMs and W&B.
Schools should teach about these tools and encourage their use, not prohibit them and force their students in the stone age.
And more on the paper point: there is no requirement for private flights to have on board a NOTAM or weather briefing at all, only to perform one.
Cobalt wrote:
“minimum hours/fixed syllabus” versus “training as required”
There are no minimum hours in this case (I never said there are) but “approximately expected needed hours”.
Vladimir wrote:
It would be nice to see the FI urge people to use new and better solutions (you yourself use a planning software) but on the other side legally they might need to stay with that (mentioned in the thread). Also they probably have the same briefing sheet for everyone (from first flight pilots to experienced pilot for yearly checks only) and maybe it’s better for new pilots to start on paper and see how it works before they move to EasyVFR or SkyDamon.
I for one did show all my students SkyDemon, and the only reason I also taught manual paper was to prepare them for the less enlightened examiners. They were not allowed to take these things on the flight, though…
And, BTW,
Vladimir wrote:
It would be nice to see the FI urge people to use new and better solutions (you yourself use a planning software) but on the other side legally they might need to stay with that (mentioned in the thread).
Why don’t you discuss this with him once you meet? As far as I know he is well aware of autorouter. Frankly, I can’t see much sense in discussing their operational decision to require this of their students in an open GA forum without at least asking why and whether it is an universal requirement they do with anyone or whether it is the general one they wish their PPL students to adhere to? I can’t and won’t comment on that either as I simply don’t know. But you have his and my e-mail and phone to find out.
Vladimir wrote:
There are no minimum hours in this case (I never said there are) but “approximately expected needed hours”.
It would be news to me as well. I think however you will find that the approximate hours indicated are pretty much what someone who has never flown a Mooney as well as most of the equipment in there will need. As far as I can see, it is pretty much the average which previous familiarisations have taken.
