For what it's worth, nobody has mentioned the primary reason why most basic training is done in C152s/PA28s etc...

...they're cheap (in aviation terms)! At the end of the day, there's at least a minimum number of hours that have to be completed, and invariably both student and flying school have strong incentives to keep the cost of those hours down as low as possible. If it were cheaper to buy and fly an A320 per hour than a Warrior, I strongly suspect that flying schools would be full of 'em!

That aside, a good basic trainer IMO should --

• Be a relatively stable platform
• Have good stall characteristics -- i.e. displays textbook warning signs and breaks positively and predictably
• Have just a hint of jeopardy if mishandled
• Have an appropriate instrument fit for the mission
• Have appropriate performance characteristics for the level of training

A light SEP like the C172 or PA28 works well at a basic stage because they are nice stable platforms with decent visibility, they don't go too fast (there's no advantage to bombing around the sky at 300 kt to learn the basic principles of flight, and the faster you go the more difficult navigation becomes -- especially when navigation means charts, whizz wheels and looking out of the window) and, again, they're relatively cheap to run and to fix. It might be argued that the Warrior, in some respects, is almost too docile to be a good basic trainer -- from what I gather it's very hard to get one to actually stall properly, for instance, and mostly they will just mush down with stick full back and nose up rather than breaking properly.

On 18/03/2017 at 6:27 PM, Chock said:

I still find it unbelievable that many countries do not teach this as part of their PPL syllabus, instead teaching 'spin avoidance', where you never actually get to do a spin recovery, but instead get taught that a spin is some kind of 'bogey man' which you should never approach.

Unfortunately whilst it would probably be ideal, I think the UK CAA at least decided there were just too many PPL student/instructor fatal accidents resulting from deliberate spins (and also in aircraft not really designed with spinning as a primary purpose) occurring. Better, arguably, to do some proper spin/aerobatic training with a proper aerobatics instructor, in an aeroplane designed for the job rather than a "utility loaded" C172. The FI rating covers spins, but I'm not at all sure a UK/EASA CPL requires spinning.

The question of digital vs analogue displays is an interesting one. For my part (as very much a virtual instructor running a basic FS flying course rather than a real one) my preference is for 'steam' gauges as I think the traditional layout of analogue gauges helps promote a solid scan technique, far more so than glass, and enables much easier practice of limited panel work. However, the counter-argument is that glass is the way everything, even GA aircraft, is going, it poses its own challenges and issues and if you are training people ultimately to pilot glass-cockpit airliners then it is better to get them accustomed to that sort of instrumentation from the get-go. Certainly that seems to be the view of many of the big commercial flying schools these days.

Yup, although cheap is of course relative. In the UK it costs about 180 quid for an hour of dual in a Cessna 150 (maybe a bit less if you look around and block book some time). We'll probably start to see flying schools using stuff like Diamond DA 20s and Tecnam P2002 Sierras before too long (many already are), since they make good training aircraft and have way better VFR visibility than older Pipers and Cessnas do, so they are far safer to use in a busy training circuit, that and the fact that many Cessnas and Pipers have four seats, which means for training, you are using a lot of fuel to haul around two empty seats and a larger airframe.

Lots of flying schools use three axis Microlight stuff such as the Ikarus C-42 and the EV-97 Eurostar, since you can convert a Microlight PPL at a later date with some hours behind you, which makes it a cheaper way into GA flying. Both the EV-97 and the C-42, and indeed similar light sport types, are very good aeroplanes, although I personally think naming an aircraft after Icarus, and all the conotations that has, was not the best idea, might as well have called it the Crashmaster lol.

Whilst the initial cost for one of those modern types will probably be higher than buying a used Cessna or a Piper, more modern composite aircraft with a less thirsty engine and only two seats are vastly cheaper to run and maintain than any aging Cessna or Piper is ever going to be, especially since those more modern types typically use a Rotax 912, which is vastly easier and indeed cheaper to run and service than either a Continental or a Lycoming which you would typically find in older GA aeroplanes. Fuel prices and servicing are of course not womething likelly to worry a flight simmer, but if that flight simmer is looking at progressing to flying lessons, they'd do well to get some simulator hours in on the types they are likely to learn on for real in the future, in order to familiarise themselves with the typically lower speeds of more modern training types, and their avionics layouts.