Archie wrote:
So in essence the regulator thinks one is safe “enough” with basically zero experience on “type”.
For certified aircraft, I work to this standard. When flight testing an aircraft, the regulator will assess the handling of the aircraft against the standard of “must not require unusual skill and attention…”. Based upon the opinion of the evaluation pilot, the aircraft itself has a margin of controlability which enables a “safe” flight even with some pilot errors or delays in response.
An example: It is well known that many C 172’s bear a placard which states: “Avoid slips with the flaps extended”. This is become some 172 models have a wake off the outboard end of the extended flap, which may impinge on the H stab, and affect controlability just enough to cause alarm to a low skill pilot. A high skill pilot can manage. If the aircraft were to be “unsafe” in a slip with flaps extended, it would not pass certification, or, in a certification oddity, slips with flaps extended would be prohibited. They’re not prohibited, just “avoid”. So the FAA knows that because they required the placard, if a pilot who’s never flown a 172 climbs in with no training on type, that pilot will have the placard to inform them of an oddity of the type.
Another example: Spins. A 150/152/172 can be safely spun (172 C of G considered). They have demonstrated compliance to the utility spin recovery standards. A pilot who has been trained to recover spins in any type, can recover a spin in a 150/152/172. However, if the 172 is loaded aft of the “Utility” C of G limit, it may not recover a spin according to the standard for “utility”, but rather will recover according to the standard for “normal”. Normal category single engine airplanes can be spin recovered also (it’s required), but it’s not as easy as it would be in the “utility” condition. A 172 loaded with a C of G behind the aft limit for “normal” may not recover from a spin at all. A C 208 can be spin recovered, I’ve done it a number of times, and the flight manual describes how to do it – but it’s prohibited to enter a spin, as the margin of safety is not there for an pilot not well experienced on type. A practiced spin recovery in a C 208 will take you so close to speed and G limitations, that there is inadequate margin of safety, and so it is with most singles. They can all be spin recovered, or they would not be certified, but the non type familiar pilot may exceed a limitation doing it – not safe.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Sure, a high time on type pilot could make the plane do things with smoothness and ease I could not demonstrate, but for either pilot, the flight would be safe.
Across the Single-Engine Aeroplane class under 5,700 kgs the regulator doesn’t require any cross"type" training at all, other than that the general competency rule applies. I.e. the PIC is responsible that he is suitably qualified to take the aircraft airborne.
So in essence the regulator thinks one is safe “enough” with basically zero experience on “type”.
Now then, to get onto an aircraft that requires somewhat of a "type"rating, the C208 Caravan, you’d get the license in 2.7 hours training and 0.3 hours flight review…
A ‘good pilot’ will be safe in any aircraft, and note this is not due to his Manual Aircraft Control!
It’s because of his outstanding level of soft-skills/Threat&Error Management.
The soft-skills in the list below are: Situational Awareness, LTW, COM, Workload Management, Problem Solving Decision making
Pilot_DAR wrote:
allow themselves a little extra time and space to account for unfamiliarity
LimaVictor wrote:
But if you make a cross country flight with your family, will you be a better pilot in the 172 with 2000 hours or in a new plane ?For sure its caricatural but I think that if the only objective of the pilot is to multiply experiences on many planes he will never become current and safe on any.
In respect of certified GA aircraft of the same class, a pilot who is current, with 2000 hours, who has read and understood the flight manual and its supplements, will be safe to make a cross country flight in that aircraft. Their 2000 hours experience will tell them to allow themselves a little extra time and space to account for unfamiliarity with systems. Many was the time decades back that I’d be sent to ferry a plane home of a type which I had never before flown. I’d read the flight manual, take things slowly, and never had a problem. Those flights were safe. Sure, a high time on type pilot could make the plane do things with smoothness and ease I could not demonstrate, but for either pilot, the flight would be safe.
Many was the time I was sent to flight test an aircraft with a modification on it, which was believed to affect the flying characteristics. That became a new type – no one had flown one before. I’d take my time (including waiting for ideal conditions), write a good test plan, and follow it, and never had a problem. Later I would have to train the client pilot on the differences of the type. Often, I would fly with a pilot with thousands of hours more time on type than I had, who was more smooth, and systems familiar than I, but we both were able to fly the plane safely.
On the other hand, a pilot with 2000 hours on one model of aircraft will be bored and complacent in that plane, and an increasing danger to themselves, unless their vigilance increases against complacency, as their skills increase.
In my opinion, a pilot who only flew one or two types, and had accumulated 2,000 plus hours on a type, would have plateaued in skills development on that type, and probably has become more an increasing risk in complacency and not practicing emergencies
Then keeping those skills current is the answer?
I guess we could discuss what “really knowing the aircraft” means… I’d say with your definition of never exploring the corners, you’d have seen it all in a couple of hundred?
I agree with Archie’s POV. Operating in an envelope of 10 degree pitch down, 20 degree pitch up, 60 degree bank, and Vno-1.2 Vso – will provide hopefully thousands of hours of safe operation-but is not necessarily developing a real understanding of the type. Although the corollary of this is that only a competition aerobatic aircraft can provide a true education:)
Pilot_DAR wrote:
if a 172 pilot with 1950 hours on type, were to plot their next 50 hours of flying, will they be a better pilot if they fly that next 50 hours in a 172?
Of course I agree that multiple experiences add to your skills.
But if you make a cross country flight with your family, will you be a better pilot in the 172 with 2000 hours or in a new plane ?
For sure its caricatural but I think that if the only objective of the pilot is to multiply experiences on many planes he will never become current and safe on any.
Haha, that’s gold. I agree with you that these things build experience. Would be nice if we could include those in a PPL/CPL syllabus and get them through the regulator!
Archie wrote:
the pilot thinks he has plateaud in skills development and “has seen it all” where there are still a few unexplored corners out there.
Of course at 2,000 hours a pilot has not seen it all. But, going the heart of the question, if a 172 pilot with 1950 hours on type, were to plot their next 50 hours of flying, will they be a better pilot if they fly that next 50 hours in a 172? Or another type? If the 172 pilot is planning to finally hone their skills to perfection in a 172 at 1950 hours on type, something’s been missing for a long time in their flying thus far!
There are remarks referencing flying spam cans, or otherwise substandard aircraft. In terms of building my flying skills (excluding things like learning avionics, or practicing radio work and navigation), some of my greatest skills development has come when flying a really odd, or defective plane, that’s where to learn ‘cause you had to work at it! Taking a G1000 172 for a hundred dollar hamburger really won’t build your handling skills as fast as flying a plane which is out of rig, has poor nose or tailwheel steering, poor braking, or an engine control which is misbehaving. Yes, you may find one or more of these challenges in your “only fly this” plane, but you’ll get them faster flying a selection of planes!
Examples: I learned the really poor directional stability at cruise speed of a Cessna 310, which was required to be ferry home gear down. I learned the really gentle touch required to ferry home a Cessna 150, with one exhaust valve stuck open (so running on only three cylinders – could not be fixed where it was). I learned the ease with which a Piper Cheyenne 2 will fly home on one engine following an emergency shut down. I learned (twice) that you can land an amphibious floatplane in ice with one side’s gear up, and the other side’s gear down, and not damage it. I learned the sound that a float cross bracing wire makes just before it breaks in flight, and how to land later without the plane collapsing off the floats. I learned the altered pitch stability of a 172 whose tail was damaged having hit a deer on takeoff, and had to be patched to be ferried back for proper repair. I learned the terrible instability of a pre mod Cessna 303 which had accumulated some ice on the tail (that was nearly life ending!). I learned the startling feeling of control force reversal in pitch in both the turbine DC-3 and Siai Marchetti 1019. I learned the effects of a stalled stabiliator in a Piper Arrow. I learned the huge control forces required when the pitch trim is rigged to the wrong limits on a Cessna 206. I learned fuel management when a flush fuel cap on a Cessna 177RG was replaced carelessly, and fuel was streaming out. And, I learned that I’d lost a fuel cap from my C 150 the day before, and not lost any fuel!
I think back to the things I have learned on “other” types, which I simply could not have learned on one type. Of the foregoing types, I only have more than 2,000 hours on the 150, but even a dozen hours on something else, or in a defective condition taught me valuable flying skills.
Of course one would never fly 110% Vne other than in official test pilot capacity.
Ordinary PPL pilots test Vne in every homebuilt aircraft that is built.
I admit that I always stay well away from Vne as forces increase exponentially with speed
Not exponentially, but by the square of the speed. It’s usually flutter that limits the speed though.
I know it’s different in commercial aviation but AFAIK a first officer become captain after about ten years in the right seat (confirmed by FI/IR instructor who is about to become captain at Air France).
So it’s about 5000 hours in CAT.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
In my opinion, a pilot who only flew one or two types, and had accumulated 2,000 plus hours on a type, would have plateaued in skills development on that type, and probably has become more an increasing risk in complacency and not practicing emergencies. When I felt complacency creeping in many years back, I took helicopter training, that sure opened my eyes!
That’s why I still agree with the statement
Archie wrote:
you need at least 2,000-3,000 on type to really know the aircraft
I like your methodical approach to exploring the corners of the envelope in the first few flights though! Most type ratings don’t cover a lot of these items. Of course one would never fly 110% Vne other than in official test pilot capacity.
I admit that I always stay well away from Vne as forces increase exponentially with speed – and thus the loads on the let’s say decades old frame of the aircraft… So there’s a corner I’m yet to explore with my 1,900 hours on type…!
