Commercial Complex Question

J

J. Taylor Stanley

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
58
Display Name
Display name:
Taylor Stanley
I know the rule recently changed so that you no longer are required to get your checkride done in a complex. But the 10 hours of complex training are still required. So my questions is, training for what? If I am doing the checkride in a Cessna and used an Arrow for my endorsement (already have), what am I suppose to do for those other 8 hours? I don't think I'll be doing the commercial maneuvers because the speeds, power settings, checklists will all be different. It doesn't make much sense for them to remove using that as the check aircraft, but still require you to train in it. It actually seems like it puts MORE work and cost MORE money for the applicant. Am I missing something, or is just "typical FAA" stupidity?
 
Still a FAR so you have to have 10 hours. Until they do a NOPR and changed the reg, ya gotta do it. I wouldn't say it was stupidity on the FAA's part, at least they changed the requirement for check rides. Hopefully the reg will get changed too.
 
The decision was made because of the lack of availability of complex aircraft. Many schools only have 1 (or none), and they're mostly old Arrows and 172RGs. Applicants were waiting for months to take their checkride because that 1 old airplane would go down for major maintenance. It's also an acknowledgement that newer technically advanced aircraft in the training fleet may not be complex, and that nobody is making suitable retract trainers. I don't think this is a case of FAA stupidity at all. It's one of the rare instances where they seem to have made a really good decision in support of pilots.

I think you'll find that doing the maneuvers in the Arrow will be good practice, and similar enough to the 172 as not to matter that much. You'll pick up speed a little quicker on the downhill side of maneuvers, but learning to adapt to a new airplane is good training.
 
What you're saying sounds good on paper, but in reality I think it is just the opposite. The flight school still needs to provide you with a complex to do the 10 hours, so it doesn't change the availability issues at all. But now instead of just 10 hours in the complex, it will also require you to probably log an additional 5-7 hours dual in a 172 in order to get proficient in the type of aircraft you will actually do the checkride in. It sounds good on the surface but when you look at it closely, it looks like a way for flight schools to make more money off of you, and put a larger burden on the applicant. They also said you can do it in a technically advanced aircraft in lieu of a complex, meaning MFD, moving map and 2 axis autopilot. That means the flight school is going to need to pour at a minimum of 30K into a 40 year old Cessna typical at a flight school, or buy a g1000 cessna that will probably rent out for more than an older Arrow. It sounds like the cheapest and easiest way might be to just take the checkride in a complex still. I still think it sounds like a stupid govt half measure that does nothing to fix actual problems and probably just causes more problems than it fixes, but hey, it looks like they are doing good when you read the letterhead of the document. I guess my main gripe was I thought I was about to get to go log a little time in a faster airplane and go have some fun, but it sounds like I will be doing more pattern work and maneuvers over the same field for the 1000th time at the same airport. I honestly think I would probably get more out of it if I was just out logging some cross country in the airplane by myself.
 
Learn how to walk and chew gum.

Making a complex really sing takes more than a checkout flight. Personally I think expecting a aspiring professional pilot to be able to smoothly operate a complex isn’t asking much.
 
James331 said:
Learn how to walk and chew gum.

Making a complex really sing takes more than a checkout flight. Personally I think expecting a aspiring professional pilot to be able to smoothly operate a complex isn’t asking much.
Click to expand...

The two have nothing to do with each other. The point is that this new requirement is suppose to make it cheaper and easier, but in actuality, it makes me spend more money on dual instruction in an airplane that I don't need to demonstrate in the check ride, then make me become proficient in the airplane I would. I do agree that it probably won't take much to get proficient in the 172. But like I said, I could just do the checkride in a complex like a million others have and save a little money. One thing that is interesting is that in our club (over 600 members), the 172s and 152 are busier than a cucumber in a woman's prison, and very hard to schedule less than 2 weeks out, but the arrow and 172 rg go days without getting flown. The more I think about it, the more I think this new reg doesn't do anyone any favors. It seems like a knee jerk reaction coming directly on the heels of that Arrow having a wing fall off and killing that examiner.
 
RussR said:
You are no longer required to have any training in a complex airplane for the commercial, but the alternative is for it to be in a Technically Advanced Aircraft, TAA, meaning an aircraft with a PFD, moving map GPS, and a two-axis autopilot. So this option may or may not help you.

More discussion here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/part-61-revisions-are-here.111862/
Click to expand...

Yea, we have a 172 with 430 waas and dual g5, but no autopilot. The only airplane we have that would qualify for that would be a little LSA. The autopilot requirement is another funny thing. Any CFI, CFII I've ever gotten instruction from would never let me touch an autopilot if the plane even had one....So what is it suppose to do to help me learn the commercial maneuvers. Also, any DPE I've ever met would have that thing fail before you even taxi'd out on the runway, so it wouldn't be of any use on the checkride either.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
The two have nothing to do with each other. The point is that this new requirement is suppose to make it cheaper and easier, but in actuality, it makes me spend more money on dual instruction in an airplane that I don't need to demonstrate in the check ride, then make me become proficient in the airplane I would. I do agree that it probably won't take much to get proficient in the 172. But like I said, I could just do the checkride in a complex like a million others have and save a little money. One thing that is interesting is that in our club (over 600 members), the 172s and 152 are busier than a cucumber in a woman's prison, and very hard to schedule less than 2 weeks out, but the arrow and 172 rg go days without getting flown. The more I think about it, the more I think this new reg doesn't do anyone any favors. It seems like a knee jerk reaction coming directly on the heels of that Arrow having a wing fall off and killing that examiner.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, adding gear and prop and cowl flaps and all into the mix and being able to make it all a extension of yourself, IMO that’s expected in a professional pilot.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
The flight school still needs to provide you with a complex to do the 10 hours, so it doesn't change the availability issues at all.
Click to expand...

Well, that is true.

But now instead of just 10 hours in the complex, it will also require you to probably log an additional 5-7 hours dual in a 172 in order to get proficient in the type of aircraft you will actually do the checkride in.
Click to expand...

I kind of disagee with that. If one is able to get all the maneuvers down pat in just the 8 or 10 hours of Complex time, I see your point. But if one is building time, one can get proficient in the commercial maneuvers in a simple plane during that time.

It sounds good on the surface but when you look at it closely, it looks like a way for flight schools to make more money off of you, and put a larger burden on the applicant.
Click to expand...

I guess that is where I disagree. But it depends on how the program is structured. In a 141 environment, what you suggest just isn't an issue. And I don't think it is THAT much of an issue in a 61 environment. But that is pretty much just an opinion on my part.


That means the flight school is going to need to pour at a minimum of 30K into a 40 year old Cessna typical at a flight school,
Click to expand...

You and I both know that isn't going to happen.

or buy a g1000 cessna that will probably rent out for more than an older Arrow.
Click to expand...

Very possible.

I still think it sounds like a stupid govt half measure that does nothing to fix actual problems
Click to expand...

Well, I think they addressed one problem without really thinking much about the other one. Maybe they will fix that at some point. But I will still continue breathing in the meantime.
 
Don't know how giving you a choice where none existed before is going to force you to spend more money, your complaint is illogical and unproductive.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
The two have nothing to do with each other. The point is that this new requirement is suppose to make it cheaper and easier, but in actuality, it makes me spend more money on dual instruction in an airplane that I don't need to demonstrate in the check ride, then make me become proficient in the airplane I would. I do agree that it probably won't take much to get proficient in the 172. But like I said, I could just do the checkride in a complex like a million others have and save a little money. One thing that is interesting is that in our club (over 600 members), the 172s and 152 are busier than a cucumber in a woman's prison, and very hard to schedule less than 2 weeks out, but the arrow and 172 rg go days without getting flown. The more I think about it, the more I think this new reg doesn't do anyone any favors. It seems like a knee jerk reaction coming directly on the heels of that Arrow having a wing fall off and killing that examiner.
Click to expand...

Why is it supposed to make it cheaper and easier? It's already too easy as it is.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. 10 hours in a complex is what, $100-200 more than in a 172? And you said the availability is better. What exactly is the issue you have? You can do the 10 hours in TAA, complex, or any combination of the two.
As far as I'm aware, FAA has said nothing about making things easier or cheaper. They have said that "demonstration of proficiency in an airplane that is electronically complex will be comparable to the demonstration of proficiency in an airplane that’s mechanically complex."

I'd be very cautious about a "commercial" pilot who has never flown anything but a 172.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
If I am doing the checkride in a Cessna and used an Arrow for my endorsement (already have)
Click to expand...

Can you clarify this statement? It seems that you said that you already have your complex endorsement, but need another 8 hours? Did you get an instructor to endorse you after only 2 hours? Most places have an insurance requirement of 10 hours of complex dual before you can be signed off.


J. Taylor Stanley said:
The point is that this new requirement is suppose to make it cheaper and easier...
Click to expand...

Whoever gave you that impression was mistaken. The rule change was intended to address a bottleneck in the process of applicants completing checkrides and to address the fact that TAA are replacing complex aircraft in the GA fleet.

They gave you an option that's better than it was before, and you're complaining that it's not the option you want.
 
Eric Gleason said:
Can you clarify this statement? It seems that you said that you already have your complex endorsement, but need another 8 hours? Did you get an instructor to endorse you after only 2 hours? Most places have an insurance requirement of 10 hours of complex dual before you can be signed off.
Click to expand...
There is no minimum hour requirement to get the endorsement sign off. The insurance requirement typically is for 10 hours of dual to be covered by insurance. But they cannot dictate a minimum hour for the sign off.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
There is no minimum hour requirement to get the endorsement sign off. The insurance requirement typically is for 10 hours of dual to be covered by insurance. But they cannot dictate a minimum hour for the sign off.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said? :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If a person doesn't have 10 hours of complex yet and is going to do the commercial, then why not just go ahead and do the check ride in the complex since you just did 10 hours in it? Use those 10 hours for the maneuvers and go take the check ride in the complex.

My situation is that over the years I'd accumulated over 10 hours in complex planes, so now that I'm going for my commercial I'm just doing it in a 172 which is much cheaper for me. But if I didn't have the 10 hours, I'd find a complex, do the 10 and then take the check ride in the complex regardless of the new rule.
 
BrianNC said:
If a person doesn't have 10 hours of complex yet and is going to do the commercial, then why not just go ahead and do the check ride in the complex since you just did 10 hours in it? Use those 10 hours for the maneuvers and go take the check ride in the complex.

My situation is that over the years I'd accumulated over 10 hours in complex planes, so now that I'm going for my commercial I'm just doing it in a 172 which is much cheaper for me. But if I didn't have the 10 hours, I'd find a complex, do the 10 and then take the check ride in the complex regardless of the new rule.
Click to expand...

Yea, that is kind of what I was planning, if it was just 10 hours of complex time, that would be cool. I'd do a cross country or two and call it done, but they want 10 hours of dual time when it would make more sense for the student to get the dual time in the plane that They'll actually do the check ride in. What this will all eventually do is just raise the price. Because I can rent an IFR Arrow for about $130, but g1000 172s are around $160.

And as far as the new regs trying to fix bottle necks, I don't see that being the issue where I live. The complex airplanes sit for days or a week without getting flown, but the 172s are getting 100 hours every 3.5 weeks. It is probably more a case of Garmin and Cessna lobbying so that every flight school will have to upgrade atleast one 172 in their fleet to g5s and a GFC500 autopilot, or buy a g1000 equipped airplane.

Either way, it isn't that big of a deal, I just think it is funny that everyone on the internet is acting like this is going to be a big relief on flight schools and pilots. It really doesn't change anything.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
Yea, that is kind of what I was planning, if it was just 10 hours of complex time, that would be cool. I'd do a cross country or two and call it done, but they want 10 hours of dual time when it would make more sense for the student to get the dual time in the plane that They'll actually do the check ride in. What this will all eventually do is just raise the price. Because I can rent an IFR Arrow for about $130, but g1000 172s are around $160.

And as far as the new regs trying to fix bottle necks, I don't see that being the issue where I live. The complex airplanes sit for days or a week without getting flown, but the 172s are getting 100 hours every 3.5 weeks. It is probably more a case of Garmin and Cessna lobbying so that every flight school will have to upgrade atleast one 172 in their fleet to g5s and a GFC500 autopilot, or buy a g1000 equipped airplane.

Either way, it isn't that big of a deal, I just think it is funny that everyone on the internet is acting like this is going to be a big relief on flight schools and pilots. It really doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? How does this raise the price?
You still have the option of doing it in an Arrow. Just like before. But now flight schools that don't have an Arrow can also do commercial training.

And yes, every commercial pilot should have at least 10 hours dual in a complex (either TAA or traditional complex).

No-one has said this should make the training easier or cheaper. It just affirms that a TAA can be as complex to operate than an Arrow.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
And as far as the new regs trying to fix bottle necks, I don't see that being the issue where I live.
Click to expand...

And clearly, because that is the case at your club, it's the same everywhere ;-)

BrianNC said:
No. :)
Click to expand...

Somehow "Most places have an insurance requirement of 10 hours of complex dual before you can be signed off" is different than "The insurance requirement typically is for 10 hours of dual to be covered by insurance"?

:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mtuomi said:
What on earth are you talking about? How does this raise the price?
You still have the option of doing it in an Arrow. Just like before. But now flight schools that don't have an Arrow can also do commercial training.

And yes, every commercial pilot should have at least 10 hours dual in a complex (either TAA or traditional complex).

No-one has said this should make the training easier or cheaper. It just affirms that a TAA can be as complex to operate than an Arrow.
Click to expand...

Because the 50 year old $50,000 Arrow at $125 an hour would no longer be an option. The flight school would more than likely sale it. That will require me to get those ten hours in their $250,000 G1000 172 at $165 an hour. As far as a TAA 172 with a glass panel and autopilot being complex, they are pretty much the easiest plane on the planet to fly. But I came up on video games and computers, so it is pretty intuitive. I could imagine for someone my parent's age, it would be pretty daunting.
 
Eric Gleason said:
Can you clarify this statement? It seems that you said that you already have your complex endorsement, but need another 8 hours? Did you get an instructor to endorse you after only 2 hours? Most places have an insurance requirement of 10 hours of complex dual before you can be signed off.
Click to expand...

Notice what you said in the bold above. You used the word endorse. An endorsement isn't 10 hours. 10 hours is an insurance requirement. The endorsement is just for flying a complex plane which only takes a few hours, not 10. It was the way you said it, and he responded the way you said it. His answer to you was correct, and it isn't what you said up there.
 
Look at it this way. Get your complex endorsement, then find a complex / high performance airplane to get the high performance endorsement. There's most of your ten hours there. Then build the rest of your hours (or a significant amount) in whatever type you're planning on taking the checkride with. At least this is my plan.
 
LoLPilot said:
Look at it this way. Get your complex endorsement, then find a complex / high performance airplane to get the high performance endorsement.
Click to expand...

I did it all in the same plane. I found a 182RG and got them both at the same time.
 
BrianNC said:
I did it all in the same plane. I found a 182RG and got them both at the same time.
Click to expand...

I thought about going that route but my CFI told me that his students usually do the complex in 3-5 and the high performance in a couple, or the combination in 5-6. I figured since I need 10 hours in complex I won't stack them. This gives me the opportunity to adjust to the complex and THEN to the greater weight / power. Then whichever one I like better I spend a few hours in the practice area with and I have those hours.
 
LoLPilot said:
I thought about going that route but my CFI told me that his students usually do the complex in 3-5 and the high performance in a couple, or the combination in 5-6. I figured since I need 10 hours in complex I won't stack them. This gives me the opportunity to adjust to the complex and THEN to the greater weight / power. Then whichever one I like better I spend a few hours in the practice area with and I have those hours.
Click to expand...

It's not that big of a deal really. At least not for me. I did it all in the 182RG in 1.1. I think he may be overestimating that a bit. Of course he is an instructor that gets paid to do that.
 
J. Taylor Stanley said:
Because the 50 year old $50,000 Arrow at $125 an hour would no longer be an option. The flight school would more than likely sale it. That will require me to get those ten hours in their $250,000 G1000 172 at $165 an hour. As far as a TAA 172 with a glass panel and autopilot being complex, they are pretty much the easiest plane on the planet to fly. But I came up on video games and computers, so it is pretty intuitive. I could imagine for someone my parent's age, it would be pretty daunting.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it's a better business for the flight school to rent the Arrow for $125 an hour. The G1000 172's are horrible for business, but they are required because of the market requirements. The Arrows usually give better profit margins for the flight schools.
Try flying an Arrow. You'll see they are easy too.
 
mtuomi said:
The G1000 172's are horrible for business, but they are required because of the market requirements.
Click to expand...

My old flying school has a G1000 172S that rents for $165/hr. I love that plane. Its wheels are hardly ever on the ground. I can't believe at that price and frequency it's "horrible for business."
 
AndrewX said:
My old flying school has a G1000 172S that rents for $165/hr. I love that plane. Its wheels are hardly ever on the ground. I can't believe at that price and frequency it's "horrible for business."
Click to expand...

Most of the time they barely break even. They are $150k planes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top