Sure; if you select the clientele appropriately, you could do ab initio in an F16 
It is just a machine after all, and training initially in say a C172 is going to be a complete waste of time. It is just cheaper to sort out the insufficiently able pilots in the cheaper machines…
There’s great benefit in training in the aircraft you will be flying
Massively so IMHO.
I just wonder if there is anything in EASA regs preventing any of this. How, for example, would you structure a PPL in a Jetprop?
I started my flying in Yak52 (360 HP) for the first 20 odd hours. It’s certainly doable, and if the owner wants to fly the plane after his license, why not? No big deal.
My concern would be that if you start pilots in sufficiently complex, procedures-driven aircraft they will never learn to fly. On the other hand, maybe they never need to do so… Friends who fly aerobatics (e.g. in unlimited category) seem to have a lot of fun taking USN F/A-18 pilots flying and seeing how they do I’ve watched the procedure several times and the post flight conversation is interesting: the jet trained pilots are apparently incapable of flying something like an Extra through maneuvers, although familiarity with Gs is not an issue.
When I was learning to fly in a Luscombe, a friend who was an F/A-18 squadron commander told me that he thought it would take longer to get somebody off the street safe to fly circuits in the Luscombe than in an F/A-18 (based on his many hours in both) According to him the jet planes of that type are tools made to do a job, and stick and rudder aspects of flying need to be as easy as possible to do that job effectively. I like the idea of flying simple, unforgiving stick and rudder planes first, then moving through a number of types. That’s what I’ve tried to do.
Re Yak 52s, there have been several people local to me who have bought them and learned to fly in them. The guy who taught me to fly years ago is one of the instructors that insurance companies like for that job. He apparently only had one such student who he simply couldn’t teach, but told me that the guy’s main problem was that he simply wouldn’t listen.
The F/A-18 and similar front line aircraft are designed to be stable weapon platforms. Anecdotes of fighter pilots, include display pilots, struggling in a Pitts are legion.
I started my flying on AS202 Bravo and T34 Mentor, the first is a SEP that has a fixed gear but due to variable pitch one would qualify it as complex, the second is a SET, I did solo circuits and nav on both faster than it took me to do solo PPL circuit in a C152 (I had two 3km runways to land the AS202 but only one 600m grass strip for the C152 )
So, I am not sure if the comparison to military is that relevant for PPL/IR/CPL syllabus: when you have a 5km runway whole airspace and one controller for yourself I don’t think aircraft or mission complexity matters that much 
, it still does not mean you can fly A to B as does a PPL/IR in a SEP
started my flying on AS202 Bravo and T34 Mentor, the first is a SEP that has a fixed gear but due to variable pitch one would qualify it as complex, the second is a SET
I suggest you checkread all of that…
boscomantico wrote:
I suggest you checkread all of that…
Which part?
Peter wrote:
you could do ab initio in an F16
An F-16 is a very bad example since it is very easy to fly. The F-35 is even easier. They are war machines after all, made for dropping bombs and missiles accurately and shooting down enemy planes. They are designed for that purpose, and idiosyncrasies of aerodynamics and stability are handled by computers. The pilot can focus on winning the war, not fighting the aircraft.
The Norwegian Air Force use Saab Safari. It’s a simple aircraft, although a bit more complex than a C-172 and much more maneuverable. The purpose is twofold: To teach pilots the basics of flying and to weed out those not fit for duty (or simply to pick the best). The national Flight Academy use C-182. One of the instructors there is also an instructor at my club, and he always talks warm about the 182, similar to a Safari in complexity.
I think you can learn in anything, it’s mostly a matter of cost. With a simple aircraft you will however focus on the basics of flying – stick and rudder type of flying. Learning in a glider is probably the best way of doing that IMO. A C-172 is too easy to fly, it’s too stable, too slow reacting, too well behaved to really learn stick and rudder type of flying IMO. A typical military trainer SEP is much better in that respect, or a Cub (also easy to fly, but much more maneuverable and the tail wheel requires proper landing technique). A microlight is also much less stable and more twitchy than a C-172.
But I mean, if flying a C-172 kind of plane is all you are going to do, why learn to fly anything else? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
The problem with the F16 is it goes many many times faster than a 172 up, down and forward.
Long story short I got friendly with a couple of German Air Force F4 Phantom pilots. They had brought their machines from Germany. I had my Chipmunk. They wanted a flight. I obliged and it was one of the most hair raising escapades of my life. They flew the Chipmunk like an F4. I was truly afraid and I eventually took control off the first guy. He also could not land it. We tried a number of times but kept flaring way to high. Told me he had initially trained on 152’s. The military must have beat it out of him.
