Returning to GA

G

GauzeGuy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
376
Location
KBJC
Display Name
Display name:
GauzeGuy
I've returning to flying after a ~3 year hiatus. I've been sticking with the PA28 thus far to keep everything consistent. I've been checked out in everything from a C152 to a PA44 in the past. Considering I'll probably need to limit my hours going forward, I'm debating the utility of faster models for longer XC flights vs. sticking with one model that I have the best shot at maintaining proficiency.

For those who have been in a similar situation, how many hours have you needed to realistically stay proficient with multiple aircraft types? And for that matter, at what point is one best to stick with a forgiving aircraft like a non-retract PA28 / C172 and leave it at that?
 
I think it varies by person and how much overall time you have. Jumping between the same type of aircraft shouldn’t be a big deal, unless they have different panel layouts or avionics to acclimate to. C152 vs PA44 is a different story imho. I’d want at minimum an hour a week to truly stay proficient in the twin.
 
RyanB said:
I think it varies by person and how much overall time you have. Jumping between the same type of aircraft shouldn’t be a big deal, unless they have different panel layouts or avionics to acclimate to. C152 vs PA44 is a different story imho. I’d want at minimum an hour a week to truly stay proficient in the twin.
Click to expand...

I've pretty much written off flying the Seminole again for that reason. Fun to fly, but single engine procedures are a very perishable skill.
 
These days, IMO, it is more about dealing with the different avionics than the different airplanes.

I fly my Mooney (GTN-650Xi, Aspen 1000), CAP 182 (Garmin 400, steam gauges), CAP 182 (G-1000), rental Citabria (minimal panel). The different aircraft have different nuances, but the avionics are all over the place.
 
Pinecone said:
These days, IMO, it is more about dealing with the different avionics than the different airplanes.

I fly my Mooney (GTN-650Xi, Aspen 1000), CAP 182 (Garmin 400, steam gauges), CAP 182 (G-1000), rental Citabria (minimal panel). The different aircraft have different nuances, but the avionics are all over the place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you are not a 600-hour pilot. You are high time and used to flying a number of different aircraft, so it comes easy for you.

I don't have any idea how many different types I have flown. I guess all of the single-engine Pipers and Cessnas other than Malibu, Meridian, etc. and Caravans. Never flew a Baron, but other Beechcraft, up to and including the Twin Beech (no King Air or Beech Jet time). Since I have beaucoup hours and fly about five days a week, it doesn't concern me.

But I think the OP has the right idea to stick with something that he can maintain proficiency in, and not worry about getting somewhere quickly.
 
Last edited:
GauzeGuy said:
…how many hours have you needed to realistically stay proficient with multiple aircraft types? And for that matter, at what point is one best to stick with a forgiving aircraft like a non-retract PA28 / C172 and leave it at that?
Click to expand...
Two thoughts come to mind. First, what’s the riskiest mission you fly? Long XC at night in IMC with family onboard is much different that the riskiest mission being a pancake breakfast.

Second, what’s the limiting factor? Time, money, access to plane?

That may drive what the riskiest mission is you feel proficient to complete.
 
TCABM said:
Two thoughts come to mind. First, what’s the riskiest mission you fly? Long XC at night in IMC with family onboard is much different that the riskiest mission being a pancake breakfast.

Second, what’s the limiting factor? Time, money, access to plane?

That may drive what the riskiest mission is you feel proficient to complete.
Click to expand...

I have access to a ton of airplanes, and I have enough time to hit the books to keep the brain engaged. Money is the major obstacle. Flying 150hours/year isn't an option like it used to be several years ago.

The mission is usually long XC, usually day VMC under IFR with the occasional IMC thrown in (popping thru a layer). I'd like to get back to Angel flight missions. I'm not doing many of those with a PA28, but I'm debating with limited hours if it's advisable to spread my available flight time too thin. A straight leg C182 would be the ideal platform, but it's something else to stay current in. A PA28R is more capable and in some respects similar to a P28A, but again there are systems differences.
 
If that's generally your mission, I'd pick the aircraft most capable to do it and maintain proficiency in just that aircraft. That way you're not spending money jumping between aircraft and you can focus on that sole airplane.
 
GauzeGuy said:
The mission is usually long XC, usually day VMC under IFR with the occasional IMC thrown in (popping thru a layer). I'd like to get back to Angel flight missions. I'm not doing many of those with a PA28, but I'm debating with limited hours if it's advisable to spread my available flight time too thin. A straight leg C182 would be the ideal platform, but it's something else to stay current in. A PA28R is more capable and in some respects similar to a P28A, but again there are systems differences.
Click to expand...

Piper Arrow. Better speed, more fun, etc. C-182 is also a great choice. Probably less expensive if you are a renter.
 
I love the Piper Arrow, and I’m getting tons of retract / complex time. I read that a lot of posters on the forum are afraid about the retractable gear, I don’t think there is any need to be, do your GUMPFS and you really get in the habit to confirming everything, you can do this check on all aircraft that you fly (even fixed gear). If you land gear up, well oopsie, make sure you paid your insurance premium. I don’t think you’ll be hurt physically, just your pride/ego.

The Arrow is fun to fly, the extra speed and better fuel consumption compared to a C172 is very good. At higher altitudes you can easily lean the mixture to getting 6-7gph. Usually I’m probably averaging 8gph.

It would be nicer to have something that is faster and with slightly more fuel, but the Arrow is a solid pick.
 
For Angel flight, a 182 is easier to get people with limited mobility in and out of.

As for an Arrow versus Cherokee, they are both PA-28s. They fly very similarly. Same with most Cessnas. 182 takes a stronger pull to flair, especially without someone in the back, but otherwise it flies like a 172. The Cardinals are different feeling that other Cessna Singles.

Yes, I have more hours and more types, but it is not like the OP wanted to stay proficient in a Phenom and a Warrior. :D Or trying to stay proficient in 4 or 5 different aircraft.

And again, especially with even light IFR, the avionics differences are harder to deal with, even with different generations of Garmin, much less throwing different manufacturers.
 
GauzeGuy said:
…A straight leg C182 would be the ideal platform, but it's something else to stay current in...
Click to expand...
Drop everything else and stay proficient, not just current, in the 182.
 
mandm said:
I read that a lot of posters on the forum are afraid about the retractable gear, I don’t think there is any need to be, do your GUMPFS and you really get in the habit to confirming everything, you can do this check on all aircraft that you fly (even fixed gear).
Click to expand...

Its not the fear of retractable gear, its the insurance cost and availability.
 
Concur about the systems and avionics requiring the most effort. You can get PC based sims for many of those. Adapting to the various handling characteristics will come natural - you get immediate feedback from control inputs and most SEL fixed gear spam cans don't vary much. A 182 is a decent, if not great, IFR platform. Handles like a pig, but is pretty stable. A 152/152 feels sprightly compared to a 172, a 172 seems nifty compared to a 182, etc. But you could jump from one to the other and be OK. It's the panels that can be all over the place - glass is so capable, but the operation is always klunkier and more labor intensive than steam - for some, they are less intuitive. If the airplanes you'll travel in have an AP that can lighten the load.
 
Pinecone said:
For Angel flight, a 182 is easier to get people with limited mobility in and out of.

As for an Arrow versus Cherokee, they are both PA-28s. They fly very similarly. Same with most Cessnas. 182 takes a stronger pull to flair, especially without someone in the back, but otherwise it flies like a 172. The Cardinals are different feeling that other Cessna Singles.

Yes, I have more hours and more types, but it is not like the OP wanted to stay proficient in a Phenom and a Warrior. :D Or trying to stay proficient in 4 or 5 different aircraft.

And again, especially with even light IFR, the avionics differences are harder to deal with, even with different generations of Garmin, much less throwing different manufacturers.
Click to expand...

All good points. It's certainly worth looking at things from a systems prospective. Many of these aircraft have similar v-speeds, avionics, etc. Switching from a PA28 to a C172 with similar engine and avionics is far less of an issue than switching between a C172 that's fuel injected with a KLN94 and another that's carbureted with a G530.
 
Harry Callahan said it best, "A man's got to know his limitations." I kept that in mind after a 3-year hiatus, getting re-current (along with a biennial flight review) in a C-172M finally just last week. My biggest challenges were getting used to a GNS 430 and an Aspen EFD100 PFD and incorporating them into my workflow. I'm starting off easy for a while, solid VFR only until I get used to the swing of things and take on more workload.
 
FYI, it is no longer a BFR, just an FR. :D

3 years is a nap. I took 20 years off from flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top