Commercial ME initial, using 2 aircraft

T

The Gardener

Terrafirma Phobic
There is a particular flight school in Az that is issuing Commercial initials by conducting the flight portion in both a 172 and a 172RG. In the 172RG they are completing the 180 power off approach and the emergency gear extension. All other requirements are being completed in the 172. An examiner I want to use (for a ME add on applicant) claims that this is not a valid checkride and the original Commercial certificate is not valid.

What is your thoughts?

*edit* the title should read Commercial Single Initial... dohh!
 
I haven't done it, so I don't know what tasks would need to be done in the complex, but I know that using 2 aircraft for the ride is completely legit. I'd check the commercial PTS.
 
Its valid. Is that what you're asking. You can do the maneuvers in the 172 and the gear related stuff in the RG.
 
Codyjp said:
All other requirements are being completed in the 172. An examiner I want to use (for a ME add on applicant) claims that this is not a valid checkride and the original Commercial certificate is not valid.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the examiner finds objectionable. If he doesn't approve of doing any of the checkride in a C172, then I would avoid this examiner: he doesn't know the PTS.

This section further requires that the aircraft must:
1. be of U.S., foreign or military registry of the same category, class, and type, if applicable, for the certificate and/or rating for which the applicant is applying;
2. have fully functioning dual controls, except as provided for in 14 CFR section 61.45(c) and (e);
3. be capable of performing all AREAS OF OPERATION appropriate to the rating sought and have no operating limitations which prohibit its use in any of the AREAS OF OPERATION required for the practical test; and
4. be a complex airplane furnished by the applicant, unless the applicant currently holds a commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine or multiengine class rating as appropriate, for the performance of takeoffs, landings, and appropriate emergency procedures. A complex landplane is one having a retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable propeller. A complex seaplane is one having flaps, floats, and controllable propeller. Airplanes equipped with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system are considered to have a controllable propeller.​
 
tgrayson said:
Depends on what the examiner finds objectionable. If he doesn't approve of doing any of the checkride in a C172, then I would avoid this examiner: he doesn't know the PTS.
This section further requires that the aircraft must:
1. be of U.S., foreign or military registry of the same category, class, and type, if applicable, for the certificate and/or rating for which the applicant is applying;
2. have fully functioning dual controls, except as provided for in 14 CFR section 61.45(c) and (e);
3. be capable of performing all AREAS OF OPERATION appropriate to the rating sought and have no operating limitations which prohibit its use in any of the AREAS OF OPERATION required for the practical test; and
4. be a complex airplane furnished by the applicant, unless the applicant currently holds a commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine or multiengine class rating as appropriate, for the performance of takeoffs, landings, and appropriate emergency procedures. A complex landplane is one having a retractable landing gear, flaps, and controllable propeller. A complex seaplane is one having flaps, floats, and controllable propeller. Airplanes equipped with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system are considered to have a controllable propeller.​
Click to expand...

Would you agree then that if the complex aircraft was used for
1) the emergency gear extension
2) the 180 degree acuracy landing

then it is valid? I believe that is what you are saying. His case is the S in the word LANDINGS
 
Codyjp said:
His case is the S in the word LANDINGS
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the examiner. My interpretation is that all landings need to be in the complex aircraft, certainly more than one. But it doesn't follow that any checkride already completed is invalid. I think the most that would occur is a friendly chat of the FSDO with the examiner if it came to their attention. I suspect that very few checkrides are invalidated.
 
If you have your 10 hours of complex, which you must per the regulations, then you are obviously able to fly the complex aircraft. Why the heck not just do the maneuvers and take the ride in the complex, is the 30-40 bucks saved for the 1.5 hour flight really worth the hassle?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but you can do all the maneuver practice and prep, with the acceptation of the the required 10 hours, in a 172. Then go up for an hour or 2 in the RG using similar power settings and your resulting maneuvers will be nearly identical. This plus the checkride cost will add a total of 100-150 bucks to the flight training, assuming the complex is about 50 more an hour than the 172.

In the RG for chandelles I use prop full MP 18-20 for about 110 - 120 knots starting. For Lazy 8's I use 18"/2200 to 20"/2400 depending on the day and altitude aiming for about 110-120 start speed again. Your entry speeds will be slightly faster in the RG, but the rest would be the same.

I personally wouldn't risk doing my commercial in a non complex aircraft, even if nothing comes of it there is still the possibility of much unnecessary hassle IMO.
 
dasleben said:
Sounds like Riddle. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Webster, I have a riddle guy at my FBO that swears on squared. I want to slap him upside his head and he is an assistant chief.

His reason, "anything past squared is bad for the engine."

Edit: I shouldn't be so negative towards Riddle here because webster also taught squared for the most part. Only some of the more experienced instructors and my wanting to understand the engine/prop systems made me go this route. They taught it this way in my aerodynamics class (the more efficient non squared way), just many instructors there fell into the "squared" basket.
 
I did my maneuvers in a 152 and my complex in a 172RG on the ride, worked out great! Pretty standard.
 
shdw said:
Webster, I have a riddle guy at my FBO that swears on squared. I want to slap him upside his head and he is an assistant chief.

His reason, "anything past squared is bad for the engine."

Edit: I shouldn't be so negative towards Riddle here because webster also taught squared for the most part. Only some of the more experienced instructors and my wanting to understand the engine/prop systems made me go this route. They taught it this way in my aerodynamics class (the more efficient non squared way), just many instructors there fell into the "squared" basket.
Click to expand...

higher m.p then rpm?
 
That's nothing; I used a *Seneca* for the complex portion of my Com ASEL ride, and a straight-leg C-182 for the rest. Then before the toner had even cooled on the temp cert, I did the AMEL add-on. It was sort of a combined/back-to-back Com ASEL/AMEL ride.
 
I did my commercial initial in 2 airplanes. Way cheaper! I used a cirrus and an arrow. I did pretty much everything in the cirrus and then one trip around the pattern in the arrow.
 
I spoke with the FAA inspector who is the POI for me/examiner/school. His opinion is that what Shebly's is doing isn't the greatest idea overall but the certificate is valid and acceptable.

I'm in no way suggesting that doing this is a good idea, it is just a situation I got put into. The pilot that is training with me however is very sharp and incredibly prepared so I was relieved.
 
OregonTrail said:
very interesting thanks for the link. I have always thought in a non-turbo that high mp low rpm was bad but it is in-fact good (within specified limitations)

Now i have another question, on a turbocharged engine how come the high mp low rpm setting is so predominant? are the engines built stronger because they are made to have a turbo to handle the higher mp?
Click to expand...

The MP is given a redline value, procedure is typically hold the breaks, apply takeoff power, check you receive the expected power, and then release the brakes. As long as you keep the MP below that redline value then you are fine.

Yes these engines are typically built to withstand larger differences between MP and RPM. These limiting differences for continuous will be found on that sea level and altitude chart I posted on the other forum.

Just to make a note here, this chart cannot be found in any POH that I am aware of. You will need to locate the engine operating handbook for this information.

Stomp: thanks for getting that
 
Some our examiners allow this, but one rouge FSDO POI of one of our examiners expressly forbids it. I guess it just depends on what the good ole boys in town decide is proper.:banghead:
 
I did my Commercial Single in a 172 and flew one trip around the pattern in a c-210. The examiner charged an extra $50 because it would take longer, but was definitley cheaper in the long run.
 
mojo6911 said:
Some our examiners allow this, but one rouge FSDO POI of one of our examiners expressly forbids it. I guess it just depends on what the good ole boys in town decide is proper.:banghead:
Click to expand...

F'in squares! First you can't pierce your ear now this, wonder what's next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top