If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote: "xyzzy" wrote in message ... Newps wrote: Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5 hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may need to require more. If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a Skyhawk they are just making money off you. I think the pertinent question is what model 172 requires this 3-5 hour checkout? A fuel injected 172 does not require priming on a normal day. Ever sit and watch unfamiliar pilots try to start a 172SP? Prime, grind, grind, grind, grind pause grind, grind, grind, grind pause grind, grind, grind. How many seconds should a 172's starter be engaged before a cool-down time is needed? How many minutes should one wait to attempt a restart? Mixture lever in or out when attempting to start? The flight school where I trained actually had a CFII (not from that school) recently get "stuck" at a nearby airport because he could not start a 2003 C172SP equipped with a new battery, new starter, and full fuel. He killed the battery trying to start it! Upon speaking to the flight school manager, he claimed that the aircraft and maintenance were to fault, not him. The flight school sent maintenance and a CFII to the airport to recharge the battery and rescue this person (who, somehow convinced the school he didn't need a complete checkout). The aircraft fired right up. What about the new 172s equipped with Garmin G1000 flight displays that are beginning to appear at US flight schools? You will need probably a minimum of 10 hours of check-out time to fly one of those. I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model. Since the OP did say they were buying older model 172's the G1000 is a none issue as far as this thread is concerned. Both of the other items your mentioned could easily be covered in a pilot orientation meeting followed a 1 hour MAX check ride. In that case if the check pilot saw that the checkee had a problem it would be easy have them not sign off and give the further instruction as needed. And Peter if it would really take you a couple of hours of flight time to figure out how to use the carb heat I have to ask... How long did it take you to solo? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:
Since the OP did say they were buying older model 172's the G1000 is a none issue as far as this thread is concerned. OK, I got a bit carried away there. Both of the other items your mentioned could easily be covered in a pilot orientation meeting followed a 1 hour MAX check ride. Are you are saying that a pilot orientation meeting and 1 hour MAX is all that is needed to transition from a Warrier most likely equipped with basic avionics and no AP to a fuel injected C172SP equipped with an autopilot and IFR GPS? I totally disagree. However, if you remind me of your flight instruction qualifications and how many students you have successfully transitioned from a Warrier to a C172SP within this one hour familiarity flight, then I will concede since my opinion is only based on my familiarity with this model Skyhawk. And Peter if it would really take you a couple of hours of flight time to figure out how to use the carb heat I have to ask... How long did it take you to solo? LOL! What's in your pants is bigger than mine? Is there some correlation between number of hours to solo and the aptitude, skills, and proficiency of a pilot post-solo? My point was that given my unfamiliarity with something that has caused a lot of pilots grief (based on the high number of suspected carb ice incidents and accidents in the NTSB reports), I certainly recognize my limitations and would want to be sure I completely understood the usage of carb heat before launching on an X/C flight in IMC with my family. But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Peter R. wrote:
But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo. In a? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote:
xyzzy wrote: Newps wrote: xyzzy wrote: I personally don't like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both types (which is an added expense and hassle), If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172. True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's agree? Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a 172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than that is just money grubbing. Where I rent has their own definition of current based on their insurance policy. To be "current" for insurance and to be allowed to fly solo you have to have flown in the last 60 days in a particular aircraft type or higher similar type. Time in a 172RG or 182 counts for a 172 but not for Pipers for example. Once around the pattern is sufficient to check off the square. If you are not "current" by these standards it is around the pattern at least once with a CFI (or more if you hose up). -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Darrel Toepfer wrote:
But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo. In a? A 2001 C172SP. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter R." wrote in message ... Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote: Since the OP did say they were buying older model 172's the G1000 is a none issue as far as this thread is concerned. OK, I got a bit carried away there. Both of the other items your mentioned could easily be covered in a pilot orientation meeting followed a 1 hour MAX check ride. Are you are saying that a pilot orientation meeting and 1 hour MAX is all that is needed to transition from a Warrier most likely equipped with basic avionics and no AP to a fuel injected C172SP equipped with an autopilot and IFR GPS? I totally disagree. Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't and again I wans't talking about SPs And Peter if it would really take you a couple of hours of flight time to figure out how to use the carb heat I have to ask... How long did it take you to solo? LOL! What's in your pants is bigger than mine? Is there some correlation between number of hours to solo and the aptitude, skills, and proficiency of a pilot post-solo? My point was that given my unfamiliarity with something that has caused a lot of pilots grief (based on the high number of suspected carb ice incidents and accidents in the NTSB reports), I certainly recognize my limitations and would want to be sure I completely understood the usage of carb heat before launching on an X/C flight in IMC with my family. But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo. I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of the accidents caused by carb ice were with pilots who trained and flew aircraft with carb heat. Peter I really don't think it would take you one our of training to figure out carb heat. Actually I don't think it would take you ANY flight time to figure out. Actual flying time is really a terrible place to learn things like that. On the ground you can learn when carb icing is an issue and then you have to remember when you are in a plane that has a carburetor that it is an issue. No number of hours IN an airplane with an instructor is going to help with that. And for the record the transition time for me from 172 to Archer was 10 minutes on the ground playing with the radios and a 10 minute hop from one air port to another. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Newps wrote: xyzzy wrote: Newps wrote: xyzzy wrote: I personally don't like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both types (which is an added expense and hassle), If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172. True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's agree? Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a 172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than that is just money grubbing. Where I rent has their own definition of current based on their insurance policy. To be "current" for insurance and to be allowed to fly solo you have to have flown in the last 60 days in a particular aircraft type or higher similar type. Time in a 172RG or 182 counts for a 172 but not for Pipers for example. Once around the pattern is sufficient to check off the square. If you are not "current" by these standards it is around the pattern at least once with a CFI (or more if you hose up). Which is completely sensible. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
("xyzzy" wrote)
5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc. We also have 152's, which are such low-end trainers that hardly any non-student pilots fly them, and Mooneys, and there are some members that fly both Warriors and Mooneys. Most members just fly one type though, because each type caters to a different market. 200+ members - 4 wariors. Hmm, something's not right. Now I see 152's and Monneys. Ahhh, better :-) Got a club link? Montblack |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:
Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't Don't get hung up on my mention of the SP model. The OP mentioned "newer (but not brand new)" C172s. Thus, I assumed post-1998 models, which are all fuel injected and most contain more advanced avionics than a typical, older Warrior. In order to accurately reflect my experience, I used SP since that was what it was, but I certainly could have included the R model in my assumption about how long a checkout would take when going from a Warrier to either of these models. and again I wans't talking about SPs You weren't? Then why didn't you say so when you first stated, "If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a Skyhawk they are just making money off you." Instead, you made a blanket statement that seems to imply all 172 models. Given the "newer (but not brand new)" quote from the original post, you were no more at liberty (and therefore no more right or wrong) to assume a pre-1998 model than I was to assume a post-1998 model. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:00 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |