Instrument

[Helihead]

Hello, I would like some opinions from people who have flown both the R-22 and the 300. I currently have all my time in the 300 and soon will be working on my instrument rating. Should I stick with the 300 or transition to the 22, the only advantage I can see is that the R-22 time would help me later with the SFAR requirements. If anyone thinks the SFAR will go away over time let me know, I would like to stick with the 300, but hate to limit myself from picking up part time work later down the road in a robbie.(5-10 years down the road I really never plan on flying a 22 for a commercial career but wouldnt be against picking up part time work in one).

 

Thanks again

Edited June 6, 2008 by Helihead

[BlackHwk27]

SFAR might be nice to have, but that'd be up to you as whether its worth it to have that for part time work later on.

 

As far as comparing the 300 to the 22 for the instrument training itself, I'll share what my experience has shown me. Depending of course on where you go for holding, approaches etc, as well as how busy that airspace is, and if you're under a time restriction when you go out for an instrument flying lesson.

 

I've had to go to other airports to do instrument approaches, holding and the like at airports 10-15 miles away. Our general lessons were over a 2 hour block of time. In that time, you could accomplish more in the 22, being able to cruise a bit faster. More time for an extra approach. But, if time isn't the issue, you can probably carry more fuel with the schweizer.

 

In a busy bit of airspace, being able to fly an approach at 90 KIAS in the 22 helps keep up with at least some of the flow of traffic, rather than always getting vectored out of the way, or having to break an approach off early.

 

And lastly, one other consideration is which of those ships you'd be training in has the better IFR equipment? If you've got a ship with a garmin 430 and WAAS capability, that's the future of Instrument flying.

 

- Jeremy

[Helihead]

SFAR might be nice to have, but that'd be up to you as whether its worth it to have that for part time work later on.

 

As far as comparing the 300 to the 22 for the instrument training itself, I'll share what my experience has shown me. Depending of course on where you go for holding, approaches etc, as well as how busy that airspace is, and if you're under a time restriction when you go out for an instrument flying lesson.

 

I've had to go to other airports to do instrument approaches, holding and the like at airports 10-15 miles away. Our general lessons were over a 2 hour block of time. In that time, you could accomplish more in the 22, being able to cruise a bit faster. More time for an extra approach. But, if time isn't the issue, you can probably carry more fuel with the schweizer.

 

In a busy bit of airspace, being able to fly an approach at 90 KIAS in the 22 helps keep up with at least some of the flow of traffic, rather than always getting vectored out of the way, or having to break an approach off early.

 

And lastly, one other consideration is which of those ships you'd be training in has the better IFR equipment? If you've got a ship with a garmin 430 and WAAS capability, that's the future of Instrument flying.

 

- Jeremy

Thank you

[relyon]

I've both received and given instrument training in both and would, assuming avionics/instruments are relatively equal, opt for a S-300 over a R-22 any day. Speed is the last thing necessary when training, particulary instrument training. Building time learning and developing skills is what flight training is all about, not getting anywhere fast. Add to that the fact that faster speeds mean things happen faster which also means there's even more pressure at a time when one is fairly overworked to begin with. The S-300 also has a bit more room and can be trimmed out reasonably well, perhaps further reducing the workload at least a little bit. Of course, YMMV.

 

Flying in busy airspace and getting rushed and/or vectored? You have every right to use the airspace and ATC system like everyone else. It's ATC's problem to fit things together, not the PIC's. After maybe a few initial hours performing basic instrument reference maneuvers, night is the best time to do instrument training. There's less overall traffic if any, what traffic there is can be spotted easier, and night hours are logged at the same time.

 

SFAR 73 is a totally different issue. Even if it weren't a regulation, the hazards associated with low inertia semirigid two-bladed systems are real and it's a good thing to be aware of them. Instrument training is not the time to do that even though that may check the box from a flight time logged perspective.

 

Bob