My [older] kids as STUDENT pilots in my personal C-172?

n2230b

n2230b

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
362
Location
SouthFlatistan/West Slope
Display Name
Display name:
fast eddie
Some of my children want to learn to fly. And thus, I sold my pristine Rockwell Commander 112 TCA and bought a C-172 so they could train with it. The Commander was: low wing-fuel boost pump/fuel mgmt. attention demanding, constant speed prop, turbocharged, A/P, retractable gear & filed at 140 kts TAS at cruising altitudes. A complex single and NOT a primary to learn on outside of a military setting.

The “new to me” C-172 is sweet. Low time, 180 Hp STC with constant speed prop. Never a trainer. Soooooo…..I’m now asking myself: Holy Cow! Are two of my lovely children, (Melissa, 40 yrs old and Christopher, 35 yrs old) going to hurt 48R? Am I nuts? Are the little monsters going to break my airplane? Are they going to beat the gear to death with T & Go’s, landing sideways? Are they going to bust a cylinder with power/prop mgmt? They broke everything in the house when they were little. Am I worrying too much because Cessna 172’s are indestructible?

Observations, critique, advise, diagnoses (pl.), words of comfort and condolences…….Please?!
 
My children don't drive my vehicles. Yep that's my answer.

Once they learn how to land an airplane it *might* be a different story. Let them beat up the training plane at the local flight school.
 
Dale, Do you mean, As in, “No good deed……….?
Oh man, first response and I’m holding my head.
 
I'd say it depends on the kids. I bought into a club for my private and instrument training (now working toward commercial). I started later than many at 31, so my value system was very different than when I was, say, 16. I was/am very conscientious about my landings, trying to baby it in there and preserve the club's plane, but there are other students with my same instructors (school trainers) who...don't have that level of care.

I kind of agree with Dale. Let them beat up the trainers for their first few at least. Once they get to where they can take off and land well (depending on who the CFI is, you might be able to explain the situation to him and solicit unbiased feedback on their actual performance) then let them into your bird. Just remember, even after they get it down, any of us can have a bad day, odd wind gust, etc. and you could be in the same predicament as their first time up.
 
Dale and Preacher, you are both spot on. Maybe the first 6-10 hrs or so should be flown on a flight school airplane. Later on, with some of the early trauma out of the way they can move into the privately owned machine. Good insight and recommendations.
Thanks,
 
That could go either way. How do they drive / take care of their stuff / attention to detail would be my primary considerations. Does your insurance cover them? With the added cost of insurance, it’d probably just be better to spend that money on training costs and let them use your plane after they get their PPL and probably even their instrument rating. Trainers get dinged up and it sounds like you love your plane. If your plane is expensive, maybe consider getting a 25-35k plane just for them to train in and sell it after a year or two.
 
I think it’s more of an instructor question...
 
Tarheelpilot said:
If they were kids I would let them at least solo in a rental. Yours are adults that I am assuming are no longer dependent on you. I would let them use the 172. That’s why you bought it… if you don’t why did you sell the commander.
Click to expand...
That's funny, I'd do it the other way 'round. If they were "kids" I'd let 'em fly my 172 and make adults use somebody else's. Kids have better eyesight and quicker reactions. Adults have pre-conceived notions about how to fly that are all wrong. But unless they were overweight I'd train 'em in a 152/150 instead. YMMV.
 
Don't recall banging up the old man's Cessna 120 too bad when I learned to fly.
n2230b said:
Are they going to beat the gear to death with T & Go’s, landing sideways?
Click to expand...
One could argue that you should have bought a 170 instead to avoid this issue, but when I look at the local flight school 172's in the next hangar - they have a bazillion (plus or minus a few hundred) hours and the gear seems to be OK.
 
I would buy a cheap, but safe, C150 and let them beat the hell out of it until they are in that X/C phase of training then switch them over to your plane...and sell the 150. Likely wont lose any money on the deal if it stays intact through training.
 
Trainers get beat up doing 10 touch & go's per hour for thousands of hours. A couple adults training in a 172 aren't going to hurt it. They're built for the occasional hard landing.

What I'm questioning is the sanity of trading a commander for a 172.

Melissa, Chris....it might be time to start looking for a home for dad....
 
Most important is making sure they have an instructor that won't let them beat the snot out of the plane. A good instructor should intervene before one smashes the gear on impact. No need to race to solo either; make sure they can identify a potential bad landing early on.

Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use a flight school plane when dad bought a plane specifically for them to train in.
 
n2230b said:
Observations, critique, advise, diagnoses (pl.), words of comfort and condolences…….Please?!
Click to expand...
What specific concerns do you have? Otherwise, I agree with the comment below:
Jim K said:
Trainers get beat up doing 10 touch & go's per hour for thousands of hours. A couple adults training in a 172 aren't going to hurt it. They're built for the occasional hard landing.
Click to expand...
.
Most of those flight school planes are flying well past their original expected life-span on their original landing gear and firewalls (front gear attached to the firewall on C-172s).
 
n2230b said:
Some of my children want to learn to fly. And thus, I sold my pristine Rockwell Commander 112 TCA and bought a C-172 so they could train with it. The Commander was: low wing-fuel boost pump/fuel mgmt. attention demanding, constant speed prop, turbocharged, A/P, retractable gear & filed at 140 kts TAS at cruising altitudes. A complex single and NOT a primary to learn on outside of a military setting.

The “new to me” C-172 is sweet. Low time, 180 Hp STC with constant speed prop. Never a trainer. Soooooo…..I’m now asking myself: Holy Cow! Are two of my lovely children, (Melissa, 40 yrs old and Christopher, 35 yrs old) going to hurt 48R? Am I nuts? Are the little monsters going to break my airplane? Are they going to beat the gear to death with T & Go’s, landing sideways? Are they going to bust a cylinder with power/prop mgmt? They broke everything in the house when they were little. Am I worrying too much because Cessna 172’s are indestructible?

Observations, critique, advise, diagnoses (pl.), words of comfort and condolences…….Please?!
Click to expand...
Non RG 172 with constant speed prop. Haven't seen that before. What STC is that?
 
Daleandee said:
My children don't drive my vehicles. Yep that's my answer.

Once they learn how to land an airplane it *might* be a different story. Let them beat up the training plane at the local flight school.
Click to expand...

I agree^^^^^^ So glad I learned to land in a school plane and not in my own. Don't tell anyone but I may have helped destroy the firewall on one of the 172s I learned to land in. Here it is getting replaced. Actually this was months after I learned to fly, I just helped destroy it.
048_1.jpg
 
Jim K said:
What I'm questioning is the sanity of trading a commander for a 172.

Melissa, Chris....it might be time to start looking for a home for dad....
Click to expand...

I didn't go there ... but it is a great question.
 
So it doesn’t sound like you hate this 172. That being the case I have no idea why you’d use it for primary instruction.

but hey - what could go wrong? Other than most everything?
 
Jim K said:
What I'm questioning is the sanity of trading a commander for a 172.

Melissa, Chris....it might be time to start looking for a home for dad....
Click to expand...
But if that happens, they'll have free reign to train in the 172 anyway :)
 
n2230b said:
And I was trying to save them some bucks.
Click to expand...

no good deed goes unpunished.

For unknown reasons you jumped the shark and over-bought, essentially only saving them from retractable gear, but everything else complex is still there.

now go do something right and buy a proper trainer and a case of beer so you can cry about your commander. I hope you saved photos.
 
luvflyin said:
Non RG 172 with constant speed prop. Haven't seen that before. What STC is that?
Click to expand...

It's likely a C-172 XP (coded as R172K), not an STC. I got a high performance sign-off in one that a local flight school had.
 
Part 61 flight instruction allow solo to be delayed until all the required instruction (pre solo, XC, night) has been completed. Even at Part 61 minimums that’s > 27 hours dual before solo.
 
DrewG said:
It's likely a C-172 XP (coded as R172K), not an STC. I got a high performance sign-off in one that a local flight school had.
Click to expand...

The R172K was a separate Cessna model with a Conti IO-360 six-cylinder engine and CSP.

There were (are?) STCs for a 180 hp Lycoming 0-360 engines with constant speed props. Avcon was one, Delair another. Both seem to be orphaned now.
 
I let my GF learn and solo in a rent a wreck archer. Now after a few hundred more landings, I will let her finish her training in my beloved, Pristine archer.
 
Brad Z said:
Most important is making sure they have an instructor that won't let them beat the snot out of the plane. A good instructor should intervene before one smashes the gear on impact. No need to race to solo either; make sure they can identify a potential bad landing early on.

Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to use a flight school plane when dad bought a plane specifically for them to train in.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
I think the instructor will have more to do with how the airplane is treated than anything.
I would recommend you do a flight or two with their instructor. Have him show you how he prefers to teach landings and power management. If you don't like how he does it have a discussion and/or demonstration of what you would do differently. A good instructor will either explain to you why he doesn't care for your system and/or be willing to adapt to your system.

Just because they are low time student pilots doesn't mean the plane is going to be abused. As already mentioned it may mean that it will be treated better than if they had their pilot certificates as they will be being supervised by their instructor and likely you to some extent.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
At ages 40 and 35 they should be able to purchase a C150 or similar for their primary instruction. Unless, of course, they’re still living in the basement…
 
Gary Ward said:
Don't tell anyone but I may have helped destroy the firewall on one of the 172s I learned to land in.
Click to expand...

Ok. I won't post it on the internet if you won't ;)
 
Just make sure there is a few hundred pounds of ballast in the back seat/baggage area and it will fly like a 150. Much less likely to beat the nosewheel to death...
 
Agree with some....this is totally a instructor thing. Plus the kids are older. You will be just fine. Get them started right away and stick to you plan rather than doubting it forever.

I'm a high wing guy but will also throw in a light jab for trading that nice commander for a 172XP.

Get them trained then figure out the next plane!
 
Kids do stuff when they're young that they grow out of by the time they're in their thirties and forties. Did your little monsters grow up or do they still run around breaking everything in their houses? If they do okay with their own stuff now, just tell them they're buying you a new plane if they break this one, and they'll treat it like their own and it shouldn't suffer too badly as a trainer. It's not like it'll be flying hundreds of hours each week or making thousands of landings a month or something with just two students.
 
dtuuri said:
That's funny, I'd do it the other way 'round. If they were "kids" I'd let 'em fly my 172 and make adults use somebody else's. Kids have better eyesight and quicker reactions. Adults have pre-conceived notions about how to fly that are all wrong. But unless they were overweight I'd train 'em in a 152/150 instead. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I started in a 172 at the very mature age of sixteen. No idea who owned that leaseback. I sure enjoyed flying their airplane :)

The airplane was bought for the purpose of training. No reason to change the plan now lol

:cornut::devil:
 
With 180hp and CSP you should still get 125kts true? .. with hopefully a lot less insurance, maint. etc..

Tarheelpilot said:
The airplane was bought for the purpose of training. No reason to change the plan now lol
Click to expand...
100% agree.
Plus you don't have to worry about those renting schedules.

Enjoy the time with your kids in your (their) plane.

..and have them give it a name!
 
Jim K said:
Trainers get beat up doing 10 touch & go's per hour for thousands of hours. A couple adults training in a 172 aren't going to hurt it. They're built for the occasional hard landing.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My son learned to fly in my Cherokee when he was in his early 20s. The only excess wear I could see was a set of main tires replaced early. I do a lot of teaching in owner-flown airplanes, including primary. If an impending landing is going to be a bit rough, the student will learn about go-arounds early. It doesn't take long as a CFI to know when a student landing is going to be a bit on the bouncy side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top