Comments on: A Complex (Airplane) Question

By: Matthew Stibbe

Matthew Stibbe — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:12:35 +0000

I did my FAA commercial two years ago in Florida. I fly a Cirrus SR22 normally, which I regard as ‘complex’ because of its sophisticated avionics and capabilities. However, I had to do my training on a PA28 Arrow. The two Arrows at the dreadful flying school I attended were so dilapidated and unreliable it was a constant problem to actually do the hours and complete the course. They had one working nav radio between them and no autopilot. But, yes, they had retractable gear and a VP propeller. I did learn a lot about flying more accurately and so on, but really I felt like the whole course could have been so much more useful.

Instead of learning to remember to lower the gear and adjust the prop lever, I could have learned advanced techniques for using GPS, how to use an autopilot more effectively, advanced aeronautical decision making, how to create and use checklist and company operations manuals etc. etc. The stuff that would make me more of a *professional* pilot.

I think that the COPA Cirrus Proficient Pilot Program is a model for how the commercial licence could be enhanced.

By: Robert Mark

Robert Mark — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:14:06 +0000

Absolutely he gained something from the experience in the Arrow Ron. No question about it.

When I did my commercial, I spent 15 hours in a Cardinal RG, which meant I performed all the maneuvers and took the checkride in the airplane.

The way the FSDOs seem to interpret the complex element today is that you need only check the box. I think that’s a crime to charge people that kind of money when it is irrelevant to the Feds.

Easy for them. They don’t pay the bill.

And then, of course, there is the problem of finding an airplane. Piper deliver one single Arrow last year … one.

OK, I’ll get off my soapbox.

And it is just fine to disagree here … in fact, bloggers just live for that. It makes us feel loved!

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:51:54 +0000

To play devil’s advocate, perhaps your student gained something from the four or five hours spent in that retractable. Gear extension/retraction procedures, emergency gear extensions, dealing with squat switches, gear motors, hydraulic reservoirs, etc. Maybe it was nothing more than dealing with a higher workload of learning a new aircraft type.

I’m not saying I disagree with you. But perhaps he did gain something. In addition, I find that I always gain something from flying a new airplane, even if I only get a few hours in it.

By: Robert Mark

Robert Mark — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:24:25 +0000

I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find a complex airplane for a commercial student of mine to include in his training.

Somehow though, it seems silly to force this man to spend four or five hours learning the complexities of a Piper arrow when we’re training in an SR-22.

Like so many elements of flight training that haven’t evolved with the rest of the world, we MUST simply check off the box for the flight test.

By: Brian Futterman

Brian Futterman — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:21:22 +0000

Many flight schools looking at fleet replacement or modernization, including the collegiate program I am currently in, are stuck when it comes to getting that complex signoff for the commercial certificate.

As you mentioned, Piper’s venerable Arrow is the only reasonable trainer short of a Money Mooney or a Billionaire Bonanza. And once Piper scrubs the 28R, the days will count down faster for any remaining training fleet that exists at the mercy of insurance underwriters and cost of parts and service.

Consider this a possible solution: If the closest you can get to complex is a constant-speed prop and flaps with fixed mains and a castering nosewheel, just stick a functioning gear lever in the cockpit with three lights in the panel and a conniving instructor with a finger on some “fail gear” button. The only reason you fly a retractable gear airplane is to get used to lowering the gear and to learn how to troubleshoot the system. You can still accomplish that this way with ZERO risk of a gear-up landing.

Wait, was that…did I just say…ZERO risk? In aviation? Wow.

I’ve heard the idea in discussions several times. It would be nice to see this in an NPRM.

Keep up the great work,

Brian