Complex/TAA aircraft

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Post Reply
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Complex/TAA aircraft

Post by Rich »

A recent conversation on Facebook brought up the details of using a Technically Advanced Aircraft in lieu of a complex aircraft to satisfy part of the commercial license experience and flight test requirements. It brought to mind a few things.

The requirements for complex aircraft are comical:
1. Controllable-pitch (satisfied by constant-speed) propeller
2. Retractable gear.
3. Flaps.
4. (In reality) Engine monitoring of MAP and RPM

Then the TAA requirements are altogether different, and have none of these. Not one. Basically primary electronic flight instruments and GPS/moving map.

So what the heck is the point of this, anyway? I always wrote it off as demonstrating experience in dealing with more operational complexity. But really?

1. In the DA40, I typically tweak the prop control 3 times in a given flight.
2. Granted. You don’t want to screw this up.
3. Really? Almost no one trains in flapless aircraft.
4. Duh.

In the real world, there is so much more complexity to be dealt with. Some examples I’ve dealt with:
1. Cowl flaps
2. Fuel management (especially with auxiliary tanks)
3. Turbocharging (overboost/cool down)

Now for TAA. I’m confused. I thought this stuff was to simplify the environment, not add complexity. And magically all the previous stuff is off the table. Presumably a J-3 with all the electronic gizmos is cool. I’ve seen posts where LSAs are being used to satisfy the TAA requirement.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
Jroseund
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:38 am
First Name: Jonathan
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N526AE
Airports: KBFF
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Complex/TAA aircraft

Post by Jroseund »

I can definitely agree with the annoyance of the TAA category, especially with those pesky insurance companies.

I recently finished recurrent in the PC-12NG in October at FSI. The training gives you a 61.56 flight review, and pretty much all of 61.57 (PIC Landing currency for day & night, instrument currency and an IPC).

After I got back I was told I had to go and get an IPC done in the SR22.....even though it to is single engine and way less advance than the PC-12....but the SR22 qualifies as a TAA aircraft. I hate insurance companies :scream:
DiamondMike
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:04 pm
First Name: Mike
Aircraft Type: DA20
Aircraft Registration: N40SE
Airports: W29
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Complex/TAA aircraft

Post by DiamondMike »

Rich,
As strange as it sounds, I recently signed off a pilot for his Commercial certificate in a Van's RV12 LSA. And, he took the Checkride in the same airplane. He passed.
Mike
CFI
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: Complex/TAA aircraft

Post by Rich »

DiamondMike wrote: Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:48 pm Rich,
As strange as it sounds, I recently signed off a pilot for his Commercial certificate in a Van's RV12 LSA. And, he took the Checkride in the same airplane. He passed.
Mike
CFI
I can see that. Everything ships with glass these days and I assume it has an autopilot.

What actually prompted this was a discussion on a Facebook group about whether a C172 with an autopilot, a pair of G5's and a GNS430W would qualify as a TAA. My take on it is no:

- The STC/AFMS for the G5 specifically states it is NOT primary for Airspeed or Altitude, but secondary/backup, so the "Primary" flight instruments requirement is not really fulfilled.
- The GNS has a "moving map"? You call that a map?

Several posters have found they actually get different responses on this very thing depending on which DPE or FSDO office they talk to. They have found they blindly invested in G5 upgrades assuming it would be OK.

Now I figure in reality the G5/GNS deal probably fulfills the intent of the allowance, so it probably should be allowed. This whole thing is an issue due to the scarcity of rental aircraft meeting the definition of "complex".

I have no dog in this fight, as I got my commercial so long in the past I don't even remember the check ride.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
DiamondMike
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:04 pm
First Name: Mike
Aircraft Type: DA20
Aircraft Registration: N40SE
Airports: W29
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Complex/TAA aircraft

Post by DiamondMike »

What is even more bizarre is that after completing your 10 hours of TAA time in a Light Sport aircraft, you could show up for your Commercial Pilot practical test in a Piper Cub with:


Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following in- struments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine
using pressure system.
(6)
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each
air-cooled engine.
(8)
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quan-
tity of fuel in each tank.
(10)

(11)
....
User avatar
midlifeflyer
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:44 pm
First Name: Mark
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N226PA
Airports: KTTA
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Complex/TAA aircraft

Post by midlifeflyer »

LOL! I guess you haven't flown with pilots who don't understand what their tech systems are capable of except on a very rudimentary level. Even in the early GPS days, people were talking about how GPS made the execution of a task easier but the set up more difficult. That shouldn't be a surprise. I know people who even after decades of use, haven't quite figured out that the menu in all Windows programs are essentially the same.

When I give recurrent instrument training to someone with anything at least as new as a Garmin GNS, I try to toss in a realistic situation to see how the pilot handles it (I have a short list). You'd be surprised how easy it is and how often I get a deer in the headlights stare. As far as I can tell, G1000 DA40 is much more complicated than a round dial Arrow.

Besides, complex singles suitable for training are disappearing.
Post Reply