I think two areas
the equipment, which needs more tech understanding even for simple VFR
the ~50% higher speed, which needs planning descents etc
I don't think the CS prop, gear, etc are meaningful anymore. Maybe they were when people were transitioning from Tiger Months...
What prompted me to start this was yesterday's flight. On arrival, I had ~30nm to run, 4000ft, to started a slow descent to end up at 1600ft at a VRP at ~2-3nm (the usual procedure for a base join where I am based).
ATC reported a Cirrus inbound also. About 10nm to run I saw him in front of me (well, I saw a Cirrus, you never know if it is the same one) doing ~160-170kt straight towards the airport, ~3000ft. I reported "visual", saying he is a lot closer to the airport than I am. Looking at him on TCAS he was still high at 2-3nm and way past a reasonable point where he should have radioed for a join. ATC asked for his range... after a pause the reply was "less than 5 miles". Well, it certainly was less than 5nm. He made it OK to final albeit (I wasn't looking at that point) probably with a sharp dogleg.
I doubt he got the ATIS because he would have known the join and would have been aiming for a left base or whatever, not for the middle of the runway.
If one is flying at say 100-110kt, and at the usual 1500ft-2000ft where most UK GA flies, one can just enter the circuit straight from cruise, drop the revs a bit, and land.
Descent planning is something that is not taught on the PPL course in my experience. It's something that you learn for yourself after getting caught out the first time ;)
But it's not very complicated if you give it a bit of thought.
For me, I worked it out as commence descent at 5nm per 1,000ft that I want to lose, and maintain a constant 500ft per minute descent rate. It allows me to keep plenty of power, so to protect the engine, and gives an easy way of checking that the desent is on track.
It's something a that a Cirrus pilot should have covered in their checkout though, as they would probably need significantly more distance.
Not much is really taught on the PPL course ;-)
When I first got the Cirrus, this was exactly my biggest problem – the descent planning. On my fist flights I'd arrive home with +180 kts in the descent and way too high and had to di two three sixties to to be able to join the pattern. Now I start the approach 25 miles out, reduce power to 30 percent ten miles out and arrive at the pattern with 100 kts ...
I really UNDERestimated the difference coming from the Piper Warrior ..
Yep, not taught on the PPL course for me eitger. For me I go on the basis that maintaining an airspeed of 110kts in a descent, that I will near enough travel 2 miles a minute. I will descend at a minimum 500ft a minute (though tend to go for a 1000ft in clear air).
So if I need to lose 8000 ft, thats 8000/500 = 16 minutes. At 2 miles a minute I need to begin the descent about 32 miles before the target altitude.
And to answer the original point, I do think CS prop and undercarriage still define complex. I dont fly a complex, but I have flown in them a number of times, and it really doesnt seem 'complex'. But for both, speeds are important to take into account and need to be built into any memory procedure so I dont have a problem with additional training for that and getting the additional signoff. Sure, a Piper Arrow is far from complex (generally) compared to a Cirrus or anything with a lot of reliance on technology.
PiperArcher, ... the Piper Arrow is of course a bit more complex than the SR22 with the retractable gear and CS prop... but don't forget all those other systems. Altogether most SR22s are FAR more complex than any Arrow (Glass Cockpit, TKS, Skywatch, Stormscope, EGPWS, Oxygen system, CAPS, ....) Just have a look at all the features of a DFC90 or GFC700 autopilot ....
Hello!
I think "complex" is more related to the pilot/operator than to the machine operated. I would define "complex" any task that requires more than a certain percentage (say 80 to 90) of my capacities. It also depends a lot of recent/current experience and to a certain amount also on daily fitness.
One of the (for my limited capacities) most complex machines that I have operated to this day was an excavator. I rented it for a weekend a couple of years ago to perform some earthwork in our garden (install a rain water cistern and bury the telephone and electricity wires). My trial lesson in a R22 was children's play (for me!) compared to that. Very humiliating when you think that these things are normally operated by people who couldn't finish school...
And regarding descent planning: Over the years I get more and more convinced that this must be some kind of natural ability rather then something you can learn or teach. Or the other way round: Some people, no matter how much experience and training they have had will never get it right. Like one of my colleagues who has been flying for more than ten years now and who miserably fails to perform a proper descent nine out of ten times, even when he uses the "VNAV" function of the FMS...
Regards max
what next, I think so too ... many things you just can't learn, either you have it or you won't. But when you have flown a fuel to noise converter like the Warrior for 18 years it's really a step to an SR22. I didn't think it's that big, but it is. When I trim my Warrior for descent it acclerates from 105 to 120 knots ... when i go into the descent from cruise in the SR22 it accelerates from 160 or 170 to over 200 in no time ... scared me a bit first, but i'm getting used to it now. Whatever, I now use the VNAV feature of the GNS430 for descent planning, and that works really good
Peter, the attributes you mention are more related to "High Performance" than "Complex"....a C172 RG is a complex aircraft, but clearly not HP... As you know the FAA makes this distinction
Descent planning is something that is not taught on the PPL course in my experience.
I learned it during the IR training. There is a Vertical Navigation Page on the GPS which can be used to to plan the descent. Really easy...
