New Rule on Complex Time

texasclouds

texasclouds

En-Route
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
3,907
Location
Bryan, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Mark
With this new rule, should someone like me training for PPL rent a 172 G1000 for at least 10 hours to kill two birds with one stone?

I have about 17-18 hours right now and am working on dual cross country right now. Our flight school has analog 172 for $129/hr and G1000 172 for $139/hr. I generally choose the analog because of the lower price and I kinda like the gauges.

Here is an article on the rule:
https://galvinflying.com/faa-new-ifr-currency-rules-and-changes-in-complex-requirements/
 
I still laugh at the whole concept of throwing a glass panel in a plane and calling it technically advanced and then thinking that panel adds a level of complexity equal to the traditional complex plane. In a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear, you have more complexity to actually manage whereas with a non complex plane with a glass panel, all you really have is a different manner in which the same info is displayed in a traditional panel.

Now I understand the benefits the change offers to flight schools and commercial students due to complex trainers being harder to find but it seems to be a bit of a dumbing down and a false equivalency to replace complex time with TAA time and calling it equal.
 
texasclouds said:
With this new rule, should someone like me training for PPL rent a 172 G1000 for at least 10 hours to kill two birds with one stone?

I have about 17-18 hours right now and am working on dual cross country right now. Our flight school has analog 172 for $129/hr and G1000 172 for $139/hr. I generally choose the analog because of the lower price and I kinda like the gauges.

Here is an article on the rule:
https://galvinflying.com/faa-new-ifr-currency-rules-and-changes-in-complex-requirements/
Click to expand...
I assume you're thinking of getting a commercial certificate eventually. Personally, I'd concentrate on getting my PPL in whatever I could best afford. Logging time in a TAA doesn't really get you anything of real value IMO. After getting your PPL and building time becomes the mission at hand, I'd get at least ten hours in a complex airplane first over a TAA since you can get an endorsement for complex out of the way. Get TAA time anytime you got cash to burn but you'll need complex time to make some money eventually. Same thing for high performance--you'll need it eventually. My priorities would be PPL, IA, complex, high performance, TAA, Commercial, Multi. Just my take.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I still laugh at the whole concept of throwing a glass panel in a plane and calling it technically advanced and then thinking that panel adds a level of complexity equal to the traditional complex plane. In a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear, you have more complexity to actually manage whereas with a non complex plane with a glass panel, all you really have is a different manner in which the same info is displayed in a traditional panel.

Now I understand the benefits the change offers to flight schools and commercial students due to complex trainers being harder to find but it seems to be a bit of a dumbing down and a false equivalency to replace complex time with TAA time and calling it equal.
Click to expand...

I think the same thing about allowing commercial Multi tests in planes with counter rotating props and less than 250 hp engines.
 
If I'm reading the new rule correctly, doing 10 in an advanced aircraft is an alternative to having to use a complex for the commercial training and test. A complex endorsement is still a complex endorsement and doing 10 hours in an advanced cockpit does not get you a complex endorsement. Again that's if I'm reading correctly. So the reg change just makes it easier to get the commercial cert. But having a complex endorsement (and experience) provides employment options that a pilot without a complex endorsement won't have. Better to get a complex endorsement and experience IMO.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I still laugh at the whole concept of throwing a glass panel in a plane and calling it technically advanced and then thinking that panel adds a level of complexity equal to the traditional complex plane.
Click to expand...
Complex = 1 gear handle + 1 prop knob. TAA = at least 4 extra buttons.
 
texasclouds said:
With this new rule, should someone like me training for PPL rent a 172 G1000 for at least 10 hours to kill two birds with one stone?

I have about 17-18 hours right now and am working on dual cross country right now. Our flight school has analog 172 for $129/hr and G1000 172 for $139/hr. I generally choose the analog because of the lower price and I kinda like the gauges.

Here is an article on the rule:
https://galvinflying.com/faa-new-ifr-currency-rules-and-changes-in-complex-requirements/
Click to expand...

Me personally the G1000 172 just being $10 an hour more I would fly that plane anyway. You've got the traditional six pack under your belt for almost 20 hours, I'd finish out with the other.
 
To answer your question: yes
 
Generally, I’ll say it depends. If the OP doesn’t plan to hit the IA and CSEL anytime soon, I’ll say the decision point for me would be based on things like availability of steam vs glass where I’m currently renting from and where I plan to rent from unless buying an aircraft along the way.

If buying is in the equation, then unless it’s a G1000 bird you’re going to buy I’d wait it out.

If IA and CSEL are immediate follow ins, I’d look at what those aircraft are equipped with and stick with that.
 
@texasclouds ... I see your interest in saving time and money by using a TAA early in your flying to comply with the new rules.

However, think about the practicality of it all if your overarching goal is to be a professional pilot.

As a pro pilot, very, very few aircraft you would operate will be "stiff legs". So at some time, you will be spending money and time learning how to operate an aircraft with complex gear. Based on my recent experience learning to fly a Bonanza V35, 10 hours is where you just start getting dangerously comfortable flying such a plane. So more time and training budget will be needed to become competent.

My opinion on your question is to not worry about this topic at this stage. Go out there and learn to fly using the six-pack equipped airplane you can afford and finish with the largest amount of your training budget remaining as possible. Don't burn any additional money on "frills". Goal #1 is to gain the PPL, then Goal #2 is to get the additional hours to get you past the "danger hours" of new pilot and build the qualifications for IFR.
 
AggieMike88 said:
@texasclouds ... I see your interest in saving time and money by using a TAA early in your flying to comply with the new rules.

However, think about the practicality of it all if your overarching goal is to be a professional pilot.

As a pro pilot, very, very few aircraft you would operate will be "stiff legs". So at some time, you will be spending money and time learning how to operate an aircraft with complex gear. Based on my recent experience learning to fly a Bonanza V35, 10 hours is where you just start getting dangerously comfortable flying such a plane. So more time and training budget will be needed to become competent.

My opinion on your question is to not worry about this topic at this stage. Go out there and learn to fly using the six-pack equipped airplane you can afford and finish with the largest amount of your training budget remaining as possible. Don't burn any additional money on "frills". Goal #1 is to gain the PPL, then Goal #2 is to get the additional hours to get you past the "danger hours" of new pilot and build the qualifications for IFR.
Click to expand...

If your interested in making it a career your going to need the CMEL, so you'll get the complex at that point anyways. I don't see why you wouldn't pay the extra $10/hr to fly the G1000 and knock out the "10 hours TAA".
 
SkyDog58 said:
I still laugh at the whole concept of throwing a glass panel in a plane and calling it technically advanced and then thinking that panel adds a level of complexity equal to the traditional complex plane. In a plane with a controllable prop and retractable gear, you have more complexity to actually manage whereas with a non complex plane with a glass panel, all you really have is a different manner in which the same info is displayed in a traditional panel.

Now I understand the benefits the change offers to flight schools and commercial students due to complex trainers being harder to find but it seems to be a bit of a dumbing down and a false equivalency to replace complex time with TAA time and calling it equal.
Click to expand...

From what I’m hearing and reading from reliable sources, commercial operators -including the regionals and majors are more concerned about the lack of understanding that new hires have of glass cockpit technology than they are concerned about new hires not knowing how to operate a controllable pitch constant speed propeller and landing gear.

It takes just a couple of hours to learn how to operate a constant speed propeller. Maybe less.

It takes many many hours and considerable study to thoroughly understand (and to be able to use in the real world) glass cockpit.
 
RalphInCA said:
From what I’m hearing and reading from reliable sources, commercial operators -including the regionals and majors are more concerned about the lack of understanding that new hires have of glass cockpit technology than they are concerned about new hires not knowing how to operate a controllable pitch constant speed propeller and landing gear.

It takes just a couple of hours to learn how to operate a constant speed propeller. Maybe less.

It takes many many hours and considerable study to thoroughly understand (and to be able to use in the real world) glass cockpit.
Click to expand...

Yea that same info has been echoed on the Aviation Careers Podcast as well.
 
Note - depending on your DPE and their interpretation of the rules.

10 hours in a Complex in pursuit of 61.109 is not the same as 10 hours in pursuit of 61.129.
 
RalphInCA said:
From what I’m hearing and reading from reliable sources, commercial operators -including the regionals and majors are more concerned about the lack of understanding that new hires have of glass cockpit technology than they are concerned about new hires not knowing how to operate a controllable pitch constant speed propeller and landing gear.

It takes just a couple of hours to learn how to operate a constant speed propeller. Maybe less.

It takes many many hours and considerable study to thoroughly understand (and to be able to use in the real world) glass cockpit.
Click to expand...

TAA honestly, is systems knowledge. If the airlines are having problems with systems knowledge by someone THEY trained on THEIR equipment, then airlines are not training the right way.

I’m guessing it’s train to pass the type check, not train to somewhere way up high on Blooms taxonomy.
 
OP is asking the wrong question.
Getting the 10 hours of TAA/Complex on the to the 250 hours required for commercial can happen at any point.
What matters is you goal and how quickly you want to get there. That can determine if you should stay analog or switch to glass.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
thanks for the suggestions. I want to pursue a full time career as a pilot, and I plan to work on IFR next. I'm not sure it it will be at our local flight school or via an instructor at our local flight club. I like the idea of going ahead and getting some G1000 experience so I will probably go ahead and start booking it. I really would like to buy a plane to build hours and to simply enjoy with family/friends. I will not be dropping the coin required to buy a G1000 equipped plane. Sub $100k is max I would consider.

This 2005 Maule trike with a nice GPS caught by eye this week: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...MXT-7-180A&listing_id=2164068&s-type=aircraft

display-asset


display-asset
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top