No Complex Required for Commercial or CFI checkride

[MidlifeFlyer]

If the available tools to meet the standards are obsolete to the point of being dangerous, then how does that increase safety?

There are a lot of 172RGs and old Arrows that are 20 years past the time they should have been scraped. Remember this all came about because a relatively low time, and presumably well maintained PA-28R had a wing snap off.

CMEL pilots will still train in complex aircraft and 99% of CFIs spend virtually all their time in fixed gear airplanes (unless they are MEI).

Arguably, the timing of DOT finally okaying publication as a "regulatory reduction" under current Administration policy might have been promoted by that event, but this changes was originally published as a proposed rule in 2016, and discussed seriously since at least 2012.

 

[killbilly]

If I had the time and inclination, I'd like track the used retractable piston-single market (PA28s, Mooneys, 172/177RGs, etc) starts to bottom out as a result of reduced demand because of this.

My club's PA-28 is pretty well-maintained (I say this while awaiting a new plug wire to be installed by tomorrow) but the age of the airplane is showing. The motor is getting real close to TBO and we're going to decide soon whether or not we are going to get a new motor for it or make a different decision for the club. This is now going to be a factor in those decisions.

 

[USMCmech]

If I had the time and inclination, I'd like track the used retractable piston-single market (PA28s, Mooneys, 172/177RGs, etc) starts to bottom out as a result of reduced demand because of this.

Remember big screen tube TVs 10 years ago?

 

[killbilly]

Remember big screen tube TVs 10 years ago?

Yeah, I was having a similar thought about that.

You've been teaching and flying a long time, and you've seen primary students in TAA (at least, 172s with G1000) vs. primary students learning in low-tech taildraggers. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[ahw01]

I'm working on fixing... almost all that.

Any details? I got my MES in spruce creek FL. Awesome G-44.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

If the available tools to meet the standards are obsolete to the point of being dangerous, then how does that increase safety?

There are a lot of 172RGs and old Arrows that are 20 years past the time they should have been scraped. Remember this all came about because a relatively low time, and presumably well maintained PA-28R had a wing snap off.

CMEL pilots will still train in complex aircraft and 99% of CFIs spend virtually all their time in fixed gear airplanes (unless they are MEI).

I've heard that school of thought before...

An old boss once said - out loud in front of everybody - "the aviation business would be such a great business if we could just run it without pilots and airplanes."

If this decision really came about because a new-ish Arrow broke up in flight, this is probably amongst the most ridiculous and non-germane responses to a problem I've ever heard.

First rule of problems, when trying to solve one, don't create more!

If this decision came about due to old haggard aircraft in the fleet, that's a different story. Yet, then my answer would revert to BUY NEW AIRPLANES! (see pp 1, above).

Too many aviation businesses are milking 40-50 year old aircraft. They're like slot machines. Amortized 20 or 30 times already. Don't put a dime into them. Just let the students keep plugging them with coin.

As to your safety argument... Is it really increasing the margin of safety by having students do their training (your 99%) in busted down old chitboxes, and then having them do their checkrides (your 1%) in something else??!? So they're safer for 1% of their commercial training experience, and then don't demonstrate their proficiency in the complex aircraft... is that the benefit, or am I missing something??

Let me reiterate the first rule of problems: When you're fixing a problem, don't enact a "solution" that creates new problems. Yeah, yeah, I know... big picture, systems thinking is required. Where's the short-term profit in that? Probably out of scope.

 

[Karnage]

The realities of the aging and changing of the fleet aside, dealing with the buttons, dials, bells, whistles, and potential information overload of a TAA is arguably more complicated and subject to distractions and errors than moving a gear handle up and down and pushing a prop control forward fir landing.

This, this, this, a thousand times this. I managed to get a certificate to fly a complex twin 8 hours after getting my private and never gave it much thought. Admittedly I had about 100 hours in said complex twin before I did my commercial but the complexity of two extra levers and a gear handle were, quite honestly, insignificant and immaterial to my ability to control the plane, perform maneuvers to standard, or perform the other tasks required for a commercial.

As an instructor I watched pilots with ATPs and type ratings nearly kill themselves and/or get themselves a certificate violation in rental checkouts for Cessna 172s because a G1000 was overwhelming them and they got behind the plane. I still see it in the airline world where it's not the complexity of the plane itself that causes people to get behind or into bad situations but instead it's the inability to process information and deal with time and task management (including automation management) that becomes the problem. I like seeing more of a focus on time/task management and dealing with the threats caused by information overload and poor automation management. It's good to still require time in a complex and to require a complex endorsement prior to obtaining a commercial certificate, but the fact that one can fly a complex airplane solely based on an instructor's sign off to me makes it less of a determining factor in whether one is capable of being a commercial pilot than other items specifically testing in the ACS.