Ted.P wrote:
I’ve now been flying the same aircraft (Robin HR100/285R) for 35 years, about 60hrs per year.
Oh, interesting Ted. The HR100 has always been a plane which has fascinated me due to its quite generous range and cabin. Is this the Tiara one ?
But for the topic:
I think that it is useful if one gets to know a few different types over the first couple of years certainly. Not only will that open a pilot’s mind about what airplanes are out there, it also trains a certain systematic which then can be applied universally. I would not want to miss the opportunity to have flown different airplanes from small to big, having had an insight in multi engine and jet operations as well as various small airplanes. But I very often encounter people who have never gone beyond a simple 172 or PA28 and whose whole mindset is coupled to those popular planes. While it can be fine for some, not having peeked into other planes eventually may prove any change in type challenging, e.g. when a rental organisation gives up a particular type or a pilot needs something else after long years on only one type. I must say, I second Flyer59’s feelings about that, like him I did have the chance to sample quite a few planes during my own time as a journalist, the smaller ones usually life, some bigger ones (Airbus/Boeing/Douglas) in airline operated full flight sims. It certainly opens your eyes to some things which people who never go beyond a fixed gear and prop plane will never experience.
Personally and at this stage I am however happy to stick to one airplane (not even airframe, but particular plane) where I know every switch, know what every box does and how to work it and know the systems well enough. While I don’t have the experience of such a long ownership as Ted has, I feel comfortable in my own airplane now. Whether that makes me a better pilot, I don’t know. But I am certainly more relaxed and confident with an airframe I know what it can do and what it stands for than if I had to change around every time I go fly.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Is this the Tiara one ?
Yes. The engine has some unusual features which take some getting used to. It has a hot fuel injector for starting for example, you need more than the standard number of arms to start it (until you get used to it of course).
I would add to my earlier post that being the sole pilot on a plane helps a lot. Generally speaking things will be the same as when you left them, saves a lot of time. I do need to be extra careful after maintenance though. Getting into the plane feels like putting on a very comfortable pair of old boots.
I think this is a little like another question recently.
If you havent flown a wide range of types then inevitably you will probably feel it doesnt make for a better pilot.
The assumption that low time pilots are more prone to an accident than high time pilots are not substantiated in the accident statistics. Does it seem logical that a pilot will have less competency and control based on less familiarity?
USFlyer wrote:
The assumption that low time pilots are more prone to an accident than high time pilots are not substantiated in the accident statistics.
Actually, the theory goes that it is not the lowest time pilots but those who have just gotten enough experience to THINK they know what they are doing and get careless. I’ve heard the “window” of between 200 and 500 hours in safety circles. Can’t say if that is substantiated.
Personally I feel that it is not a fixed window, but any overconfidence which leads to carelessness. That can happen to 50 hr PPL’s as much as to 5000 hr ATPL’s. At the same time, currency is one of the big ones. Someone who flies only the minimum required hours is evidently more prone to mishaps than those who fly regularly.
USFlyer wrote:
Does it seem logical that a pilot will have less competency and control based on less familiarity?
I’d think this depends on how the training was conducted and when they get released, as well as how familiarity is kept up with currency.
Ted.P wrote:
The engine has some unusual features which take some getting used to.
Ah… here lies an element of being exposed to many different types. The features might not seem unusual, when your basis of comparison is widened by experience on more types. While doing flight testing on the Lycoming powered DA-42’s, I was accompanied by a Diamond pilot who had lesser familiarity with the Lycomings, and in particular starting them – to him, they were unusual. On the other hand when I flew the diesel version (afterward), it was unfamiliar to me a propeller powered aircraft, which could be feathered and unfeathered, but had no propeller control. I became enlightened…. I’ve never flown an NG version, perhaps it’s different yet again…
Here is a real-life story how flying different types made me a better pilot (or less bad, as it turns out).
For several years/100s of hours, after initially flying a few different types, I pretty much flew only Piper. PA28, PA28R, PA32RT. Was quite current, very comfortable, going in and out of short fields all the time. Thought I knew how to land an aircraft….
Then I switched to the Columbia 400. Flying and handling a delight, nothing to report, but the landings….. turns out, i had forgotten how to land properly. I was so used to ONE kind of aircraft, but had forgotten the basics (where to look, how to generally judge the flare, etc.) so my initial landings were safe, but ugly. And let’s not talk about the PFLs / gliding… The entire “conversion” training took 5 hours and over 30 landings, as I had to re-learn some generic flying skills.
A year later, I moved to an SR22TN. 5 landings and a bit of airwork, and I was done (a lot more time was spent on systems etc.). And a couple of other types since were easy as well.
C.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
I’ve never flown an NG version, perhaps it’s different yet again…
(related to DA42NG)
Same thing provided you have the de-feathering accumulator. I thought it was a standard feature, but I have read in some documentation that the accumulator is an option.
Then I switched to the Columbia 400. Flying and handling a delight, nothing to report, but the landings….. turns out, i had forgotten how to land properly.
Exactly.
If you want to learn how to land an aircraft fly some time in a tail dragger.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
My first 20 hours were in a Yak 52. I finished my training in a 172. The transition was horrible, I suspect if you’re 100 hours/yr or less, you’re probably better off in one plane
But the Yak 52 and C172 are really pretty different aircraft.
During my training I flew a C152, a C172 and a 200hp Beech Musketeer. The transition was completely trivial — but the difference between a Musketeer and a C152 is much much less than a Yak 52 and a C172.
