Cessna 172 Type rating
Ashley Vaughan
landings, first two I bounced!!! third one I managed to land with a small
hop!, Any suggestion's greatly appreciated.
I'm used to flying the low wing Victa Airtourer 115 which I did all my
training in, It has a central stick as you can see in the following link,
Getting used to having a steering wheel is probably part of the trouble!!!
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/pages/annldg4.html
Ashley Vaughan
NZ CAA PPL
This link show's the two aircraft I trained in.
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/pages/annldg4.html
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> I started my C172 type rating today
Where does one need a "type rating" for a C172?
> everything went great except for landings, first two I bounced!!!
Well, just the obvious advice...if you bounce, you're trying to
put the plane on the runway with too much energy. Either you're
flying too fast on approach, or you're not waiting long enough
and using up ALL the elevator waiting for the energy to dissappate
so the plane will be happy to stop flying. You can also adjust
your approach speed depending upon the load -- the POH is for
max gross wt, multiply POH speeds by the ratio of your actual weight
to gross weight
I'm not familiar at all with the plane you trained in so can't
comment usefully on any differences.
Cheers,
Sydney
Wdtabor
<ashley_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I started my C172 type rating today everything went great except for
>landings, first two I bounced!!! third one I managed to land with a small
>hop!, Any suggestion's greatly appreciated.
>
You have type ratings for C172's in NZ?
I had the same problem after learning in a Katana and switching to a C172.
Get your approach speed down way out, not at the last minute and, if you have a
long runway, use 20 deg flaps instead of 30 or 40. It's easier to keep the nose
up with 20 when there are just two people in the front seats and you are less
likely to bounce and then come down on the nose wheel, which is the worst thing
to have happen when you bounce one.
WIth 40 deg and two in the front seats, you'll use up *all* of the elevator
getting the nose up high enough to stay on the mains while with 20 deg you
still have elevator left to correct. You'll also use less power on the approach
with 20 deg than full flaps to maintain the same approach speed and glide
slope.
--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> WIth 40 deg and two in the front seats, you'll use up *all* of the elevator
> getting the nose up high enough to stay on the mains while with 20 deg you
> still have elevator left to correct. You'll also use less power on the approach
> with 20 deg than full flaps to maintain the same approach speed and glide
> slope.
Huh. It's been a while, but IME the C172 had plenty of elevator
to flare nicely from a power-idle, 40 degree flaps approach with
one or two people. I agree with "needing less power" with less
flaps if one is following a lower glideslope (nearer to VASI); I've
never seen the point in using full-flaps on a 3 degree glideslope
myself.
I'm not sure what you mean by "elevator left to correct". My goal
landing is always to use up all of the elevator before touchdown.
If I landed w/out the yoke full back my CFI used to ask me if I
was trying to save up to install an elevator in my home *g*.
Cheers,
Sydney
George Black
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gblack/index.htm
"Ashley Vaughan" <ashley_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oj9p9.5611$Os6.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> I started my C172 type rating today everything went great except for
> landings, first two I bounced!!! third one I managed to land with a small
> hop!, Any suggestion's greatly appreciated.
>
> I'm used to flying the low wing Victa Airtourer 115 which I did all my
> training in, It has a central stick as you can see in the following link,
> Getting used to having a steering wheel is probably part of the trouble!!!
> http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/pages/annldg4.html
>
> Ashley Vaughan
> NZ CAA PPL
Make sure that you run the seat up and it LOCKS. C172 seats are contrary
beasts
George Black
news:Oj9p9.5611$Os6.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
I flew two that don't appear to be on your list.
CK CXQ and CK CWB. I flew these at Wellington Aero Club January 1972
Dean Cleaver
every different type you fly - I have type ratings for a 152, 172, Archer,
Twin Comanche and Turbo Seminole.
I guess in the US etc they're referred to as a check-out or something?
Dino
"Sydney D. Hoeltzli" <hoel...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3DA5830D...@swbell.net...
Peter Duniho
news:Bykp9.5757$Os6.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Different terminology used I think, but in NZ you need a "type rating" for
> every different type you fly - I have type ratings for a 152, 172, Archer,
> Twin Comanche and Turbo Seminole.
>
> I guess in the US etc they're referred to as a check-out or something?
In the US, there is no requirement at all for type-specific training in the
case of the aircraft you mention. You could get your Private Pilot
certificate in a 152, and you'd be "qualified" to fly a 172, for example.
You could get your twin rating in the Twin Comanche and you'd be "qualified"
to fly a Seminole.
We do have specific "characteristic" ratings. You need endorsements to fly
high-performance aircraft (more than 200hp) or "complex" aircraft (those
with flaps, retractable gear and controllable prop), for example. There's
also one for flying a tailwheel aircraft. These endorsements show up in the
logbook though, not on the pilot's certificate.
Of course, major differences, such as a single vs a twin, require specific
certification. But in the US, "type certificate" has a very specific
meaning. There are certain kinds of airplanes (mostly turbine-powered) that
do require a "type certificate", and which require type-specific training
and a checkride.
One final note: just because the FAA doesn't require it, that doesn't mean
that the insurance companies don't. Generally speaking, they will require a
certain minimum number of hours in type for you to be insurable. The actual
number depends on the company, the individual policy, the pilot's other
qualifications, the training received, and possibly other factors as well.
Pete
Dennis O'Connor
If I have checked out once in a single engine, fixed gear, fixed pitch prop,
with less than two hundred horsepower, I can under U.S. regulations, fly
anything that meets that description...
Now, having said that it is an excellent idea to at least get an in-cockpit
briefing on the fuel selectors, etc., on any totally new plane you fly...
Some tend to be a bit idiosyncratic..
Regulations will tend to be trumped by your insurance company which will
likely be more demanding, depending upon your rating status...
In our regs a Type Rating is only required for something bigger and/or
faster, such as planes over 12,500 pounds like a 747, and even under twelve
five you will need a type rating for Learjets, War Birds, etc...
And so, even though I could take my multi rating in a Seminole, say, and
under the regs jump right into a 620 horsepower, Ram Baron and blast off, it
could be unhealthy to do so...
Denny
"Dean Cleaver" <dean...@nettech.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Bykp9.5757$Os6.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Larry Fransson
"Dean Cleaver" <dean...@nettech.co.nz> wrote:
> Different terminology used I think, but in NZ you need a "type rating" for
> every different type you fly - I have type ratings for a 152, 172, Archer,
> Twin Comanche and Turbo Seminole.
>
> I guess in the US etc they're referred to as a check-out or something?
In the US, you don't need anything other than your airplane single
engine or multiengine rating to fly anything that fits that description.
For insurance purposes, you'll generally have to spend an hour or more
flying with an instructor to get familiar with the airplane, but this is
not in any way required by regulation.
Type ratings in the US apply only to aircraft with takeoff weights of
12,500 pounds or more, jets, and anything else the administrator thinks
should require one.
--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA
Larry Fransson
"Dennis O'Connor" <doco...@chartermi.net> wrote:
> and even under twelve
> five you will need a type rating for Learjets
Point of information: The only Learjet with a MGTOW less than 12,500
pounds is the Lear 23, at 12,499 pounds, because Bill Lear wanted it to
be certified for single pilot operation. That didn't happen, though.
Judah
an actual Rating by type, which is not required on planes weighing less
than 12,500 lbs (IIRC).
"Legally", once you are certified airplane single engine land, you can hop
into any single engine land airplane weighing less than 12,500 lbs, having
less than 200 hp, tricycle gear, and not complex (ie: not having a
constant speed prop AND retractable gear), and fly around in it without
requiring additional certifications or endorsements.
Then there's reality... The only way you could actually fly off in a plane
type that you have never flown before, without having any kind of
instruction in it, is if you steal it, or buy it used from a guy who
doesn't care. I guess maybe if you have a buddy who owns one and will lend
it to you, that could happen too.
But no FBO, insurance company, manufacturer, sales agent, or even
responsible pilot will let you get into a cherokee and fly off if you've
only flown 172s up until then... Hence the Check Out. But it's not a
rating, and you probably will have a few people tell you all about that...
:)
"Dean Cleaver" <dean...@nettech.co.nz> wrote in
news:Bykp9.5757$Os6.7...@news.xtra.co.nz:
Ashley Vaughan
Larry Dighera
<ashley_...@hotmail.com> (Ashley Vaughan) wrote in Message ID
<Oj9p9.5611$Os6.7...@news.xtra.co.nz>:
>I started my C172 type rating today everything went great except for
>landings, first two I bounced!!! third one I managed to land with a small
>hop!, Any suggestion's greatly appreciated.
Don't overlook the obvious.
First, just sit in the airplane and get an idea of how the "sight
picture" looks when it's about to touchdown. Then, on approach get it
within a foot or so of the runway (you'll know by the "sight
picture"), and keep telling yourself, "hold it off, hold it off, ..."
while maintaining your height with gradually increasing elevator back
pressure.. It will squeak down eventually. :-)
Trent Moorehead
> If I landed w/out the yoke full back my CFI used to ask me if I
> was trying to save up to install an elevator in my home *g*.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney
I was always taught to land with the yoke in my lap too. However, I
did have a peculiar experience with a newly-minted CFI who was giving
me my BFR. As I was flaring, he would tell me to get the nose down. I
asked why and he said, "You would never know if something was in front
of you. You can't see over the nose." I was like, "Ooookay."
I humored him the rest of the review, but I routinely made terrible
landings. Hell, on approach, I can see the ENTIRE runway right up
until the flare. If there was something on the runway, you'd think I'd
see it on approach and the flare only lasts about 5 seconds!
In a C-172, it's too easy to bounce a nosewheel if you land fast and
flat. It's not a good idea.
BTW, this CFI was by far the worst I have ever had. He asked me how he
did at the end (since he was new), and I gave him a pretty harsh
critique. Hey, he asked for it.
-Trent
PP-ASEL
Dean Cleaver
Rating Certificate" under CAA Rule 61 Subpart B. I have the 5 types listed
in there, all with instructor signoffs. I found the regulation on the web,
and it states that any conversion to a "single engined aeroplane operating
on land only" is a minimum of 30 minutes dual instruction, with the one
exception of a Category A Flight Instructor who needs no such instruction.
Category A is our highest (fresh instructors are Category C) so I'm not 100%
sure how that relates to your CFI scales - especially since CFI to us is
Chief Flying Instructor, and is usually there is only one per school, and
they will often do the flight tests or will instruct "problem" students in
case of instructor difficulties etc.
In addition to the dual instruction, you require to pass a written or oral
test on the aircraft systems also - you must know the fuel systems (tank
selectors if applicable, fuel pumps etc) as well as all emergency
procedures, and must correctly perform things like a weight and balance etc
just to show that you can find what you need in that aircrafts POH etc.
Electrical systems are also tested - you must know the procedures for bus
failure etc.
We also have a twin-rating - when switching from singles to twins etc but we
don't have a "complex" rating, because you have to get rated in each
aircraft type individually. Switching from singles to twins is a minimum of
5 hours dual, and then every new twin aircraft is a minimum of 1 hours dual,
plus the oral/written test.
I also think (but don't quote me on it) that if you are rated in a PA28-181,
then you are also rated for the 180, 161, 160 etc... but not the other way
round - a rating in a 160 doesn't cover you for a 181.
Quick question - if I have a twin rating (obviously retract and CSU and in
total more than 200hp, but not more than 200hp per engine) would that cover
me for a complex rating also, or is that another thing all together despite
my twin rating?
Dino
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:uqbofh2...@corp.supernews.com...
Dean Cleaver
Where are you flying from (which school)? I learned at Flightline (what is
now Massey Aviation) and then did some more flying with Future Flight and
Bigglesworth, before they combined and became the Pilots Academy, which has
now closed also...
Dino
"Ashley Vaughan" <ashley_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oIop9.5836$Os6.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Thanks for the advice!!
>
>
Peter Duniho
> Category A is our highest (fresh instructors are Category C) so I'm not
100%
> sure how that relates to your CFI scales - especially since CFI to us is
> Chief Flying Instructor
We don't have grades of flight instructors. Either you are qualified to
teach a specific thing, or you are not. You do need new instructor
certificates for things like single-engine vs. multi-engine, fixed-wing vs.
rotorcraft, and for instrument training.
Interestingly, a non-FAR designation called "Master Flight Instructor" (or
something like that) has appeared. So even though there's no official
distinction between a brand new instructor and one who has had an
accomplished career, as far as the regulations go anyway, more experienced
instructors *can* be recognized now.
By the way, some people in the US will tell you that we don't have any "CFI"
designation either. As far as I can tell, technically speaking they are
correct. :) But as you've noticed, the vernacular certainly does include
the idea of a "certificated flight instructor".
> In addition to the dual instruction, you require to pass a written or oral
> test on the aircraft systems also - you must know the fuel systems (tank
> selectors if applicable, fuel pumps etc) as well as all emergency
> procedures, and must correctly perform things like a weight and balance
etc
> just to show that you can find what you need in that aircrafts POH etc.
> Electrical systems are also tested - you must know the procedures for bus
> failure etc.
Sounds like the NZ regulations have codified what the insurance companies in
the US require. Even though the FAA doesn't necessarily require all of the
above, what you describe is pretty typical of an insurance-required
type-specific checkout.
> Quick question - if I have a twin rating (obviously retract and CSU and in
> total more than 200hp, but not more than 200hp per engine) would that
cover
> me for a complex rating also, or is that another thing all together
despite
> my twin rating?
The "complex" and "high performance" endorsements in the US are two separate
things, in addition to being different from category and class ratings. For
neither would the twin rating automatically cover you, even if the twin's
engines were greater than 200 hp (the total hp isn't relevant...you need at
least one engine greater than 200 hp for the airplane to be "high
performance").
That said, if you are learning in a new type, and do not have an endorsement
that would apply to that type, obviously the instructor would provide the
necessary endorsement once the appropriate training had been done. So, in
your example, presumably if you didn't already have the complex endorsement,
you would receive it as part of the training you did for the twin rating
(assuming the twin qualified, having retractable gear, flaps, and a constant
speed prop).
But no, to answer the specific question, the twin rating in no way
automatically qualifies you for the complex endorsement.
Pete
Dylan Smith
>In addition to the dual instruction, you require to pass a written or oral
What do the NZ authorities do about single-seat aircraft - do they simply
waive the requirement for flight instruction to fly that plane?
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Dean Cleaver
That I'm not sure about. Obviously they can't enforce that part of it, but
they have this in the regs:
For any other aircraft: as specified by the Director
Good catch-all phrase that...
Dino
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrnaqg13e...@vexed2.alioth.net...
Larry Fransson
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
> Interestingly, a non-FAR designation called "Master Flight Instructor" (or
> something like that) has appeared.
That's something that NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors)
came up with a few years ago.
> By the way, some people in the US will tell you that we don't have any "CFI"
> designation either. As far as I can tell, technically speaking they are
> correct. :) But as you've noticed, the vernacular certainly does include
> the idea of a "certificated flight instructor".
Once upon a time, we were "certified" flight instructors. When they
rewrote Part 61 a while back, we became "authorized" flight instructors.
But "CFI" has been around so long, it's hard to get rid of it. Sort of
like when they tried to rename Sea-Tac airport to Jackson International
(after the recently deceased Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson - they were
naming everything in town for the guy). It didn't stick. Kind of like
the Southcenter shopping mall will never be "Westfield Shopping Town at
Southcenter", even if Fergie says that's what it is.
Peter Duniho
news:newsgroups-7F5F6...@netnews.attbi.com...
> like when they tried to rename Sea-Tac airport to Jackson International
> (after the recently deceased Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson - they were
> naming everything in town for the guy). It didn't stick. Kind of like
> the Southcenter shopping mall will never be "Westfield Shopping Town at
> Southcenter"
lol...
Never heard of either of those. Still Sea-Tac and Southcenter to me... :)
Gregory Gritton
"Sydney D. Hoeltzli" wrote:
>
> Ashley Vaughan wrote:
>
> > I started my C172 type rating today
>
> Where does one need a "type rating" for a C172?
>
> > everything went great except for landings, first two I bounced!!!
>
> Well, just the obvious advice...if you bounce, you're trying to
> put the plane on the runway with too much energy. Either you're
> flying too fast on approach, or you're not waiting long enough
> and using up ALL the elevator waiting for the energy to dissappate
> so the plane will be happy to stop flying. You can also adjust
> your approach speed depending upon the load -- the POH is for
> max gross wt, multiply POH speeds by the ratio of your actual weight
> to gross weight
You need to multiply by the square root of the ratio of weights.
If you multiply the speed by the weight ratio you will end up too slow.
>
> I'm not familiar at all with the plane you trained in so can't
> comment usefully on any differences.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney
Greg Gritton