"Supervised" solo flight

[joyrider]

Had a chap rock up here with an American PPL (H) who had gone through the whole syllabus over there and NEVER ACTUALLY FLEW SOLO.
His "solo" flights always included his instructor, presumably some insurance thing. They called it "supervised solo flying" which strikes me as a contradiction in terms. The standard of his flying was also not up to our level and it was only after a further 15 hours of training here (RSA) that we sent him (unsupervised) solo.

How common is this practice among US flight schools and is it actually legal?

[svtcobra66]

No, if he has a PPL and he didn't solo then something is wrong, "supervised" solos aren't solo flights per the regs, normally I would think of supervised as when an instructor watches you do patterns.. not that he would actually be in the cockpit with you, then it's not solo. Sounds like someone got ripped off, I have no idea how an examiner would let that one by unless they didn't know. From my understanding it is certainly not legal, and definitely not common practice. CFI supervision under most insurance policies simply means that the CFI approves each flight, the student can solo as long as the CFI has approved it.

[R1Tamer]

Joyrider,

If it was April 1st I would have assumed this was an April fool.

I think he has been feeding you something still steaming. If he's truely are a PPL(H) holder then he'll know his way around the FAR/AIM and will probably have a copy. Have him find and read out to you the requirements for a PPL(H) especially the section detailing and defining the solo flights and have him explain why he hasn't done any?

In the meantime you may wish to advance read - ss 61.109 (c) and ss 61.87a

Then maybe you'll visit the FAA website and confirm with some basic details whether the fellow in front of you legitimately holds the licence or has "borrowed" it.

From my recollection a "supervised solo" usually meant your instructor was present at the airfield whilst you did a few circuits as opposed to being off on a cross country where he had little ability to watch your actions.

IMHO the flying skill requirements to obtain an FAA PPL(H) are a tad more challenging than the JAA requirements given the solo cross country elements.

[rotorspin]

"Supervised Solo"? :eek:

Ok, heard everything now.....

[Needlesplit]

:} :} :} :} :} :} :} :}:} LMFAO:ugh: :D :D :D :D

[mikelimapapa]

Joyrider,

If what he told you is true, then it is impossible for him for hold a FAA PPL. You're required to have 10 hours solo time; solo time defined as being the sole occupant of the aircraft. Of that 10 hours, 3 hours needs to be x-c, with one flight greater than 100nm and landing at 3 points.

Supervised solo usually means instructor went up with student for first pattern(circuit), then instructor gets out of helo and watches student do 3 or 4 more on his own. Supervised solos are only done once or twice, then students are set free, with the only requirement being they get an endorsement from instructor before going x-c.

[rudestuff]

What school/DPE did he use? I want to go there for my next rating!!

[Martin1234]

Interesting that it was in RSA where I got an offer regarding gyrocopter training where "solo" flying was with the instructor on board due to insurance requirements! Never did any gyrocopter training..

[rotornut]

I recall a Rotorheads(?) thread some time ago where a student went for his commercial flight test in Canada in a 206. When the examiner looked at his logbook he saw that all or most of the "solo" time was in a 206 with an instructor because of insurance requirements. He therefore didn't meet the minimum requirements and I seem to recall that he was denied the flight test. I don't know how it ended but it must have come as a shock to the unsuspecting student.

[Head Turner]

So I can enlist onto a flying course, do a number of hours flying then go to McDonalds/Burger King etc in the high street and get a license just on my say so. No forms to fill in, no licensed examiner, no check on medical or proof of meeting minimum requirements.........wow!!!...is this normal, the FAA way with many back doors from which students are able to get licenses. Could be a language problem of course in that 'solo' in American means something different to the English meaning. Trouble with us in the old world, we get behind the times and have standards which we cling to.

This dubious student must have been particularly dumb, firstly to pay out for the training and secondly to believe that there was no requirement to do any study. Had he ever got the manuals out he might have come across some rules and regulations.

A pretty sharp outfit that he trained with....probably was paid up front and did a couple of hours and sent him away with a license.

I could have got a university degree by just writing to an address in the USA, are flying licenses just a complex?

[HillerBee]

It's totally against the rules. Solo means "sole occupant of the aircraft".

The only way this could have been done is the instructor didn't sign for dual instruction. This is a very serious offence, the details of the school and instructor should definitely be forwarded to the FAA. The examiner checks the logbooks but from the logbook he can't tell whether the guy was really flying solo or not.

When you fill in the application for the checkride form 8710, where you give a breakdown of hours, you sign and declare telling the truth. The instructor has to sign as well, and he commits fraud as well.

[dougdaniel]

US Federal Aviation Regulations require 20 hours as the sole occupant of an airplane before a student can take his PPL check ride. It is not possible for a private pilot to have never flown solo.

Doug Daniel, Certified Flight Instructor, Airplanes, Single and Multiengine, Land, Instruments

[BHenderson]

It may shock some here to know that the same has happened with JAR licences. No names obviously.

[Gordy]

Not possilbe

US Federal Aviation Regulations require 20 hours as the sole occupant of an airplane before a student can take his PPL check ride. It is not possible for a private pilot to have never flown solo.

Doug Daniel, Certified Flight Instructor, Airplanes, Single and Multiengine, Land, Instruments

Doug..

You might want to go read the FAR's again. Try starting with FAR 61.109.

Here (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=40760189a03dfea0b501608f33820a45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.5.1.5)

[the beater]

Might I suggest that we ask about how important members of the Royal family obtained their licences?
Of course there are people who have never flown 'solo'.
They don't need to!
Does anyone believe that Prince Andrew flew solo around the Faulklands?
Can anyone provide a photo of any of the royal princes flying solo? :mad:

[EESDL]

the beater
wayward example I think......
not sure how far down the ppl(H) route HRH is likely to go - and I doubt he'll ever use it for starting point towards a career in rotary, if he indeed holds a licence blah blah.
What our Royalty do with their train set is up to them and the powers that be and I doubt they have ever tried to use any PPL/cpl/atpl priveleges.......
does that make sense as I'm still laughing at state JAR/FAA/EASA/JAA have got into re licences/contradictions LASOR bible of contradictions etc etc

[the beater]

EESDL.
OK, you've got a point; but I'm sure that there are people out there that think that the more senior members of the Royal Family have actually gone through what the rest of us have had to in order to get a licence.
They do actually believe that Prince Andrew did something other than fly in the opposite direction to the action with an RAF instructor. The only royal that I know of that has flown solo is Sarah Ferguson.

[Daysleeper]

In the UK an instructor was prosecuted recently for something like this... I'll try to find the link.

[airborne_artist]

Does anyone believe that Prince Andrew flew solo around the Faulklands?

He was P2 in an ASW Sea King, which was always a two-pilot aircraft, plus an Observer and a crewman.

He did solo, however, on Bulldog (fixed-wing) and Gazelle.

[BHenderson]

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/283797-instructor-prosecuted-false-log-book-entries.html#post3409151

[ShyTorque]

#15
the beater
Might I suggest that we ask about how important members of the Royal family obtained their licences?


Which licences do you mean?

[nathan_m]

I know for a fact they were doing it at one of the large flight schools in queensland, Australia until CASA found out!

[darrenphughes]

The only time I've heard the term supervised solo before is on the first 2 solo flights. But the CFI isn't in the chopper. They will be outside watching,

The first solo, as i'm sure you all know is the hover solo with the CFI watching on and giving hand gestures such as, pick up, set down, hover left, etc.....

The second is the pattern solo with the CFI watching on and possibly in radio contact.

Some places refer to this as "Supervised Solo". Maybe this is what the guy was talking about.

[Whirlygig]

The first solo, as i'm sure you all know is the hover solo
Mine wasn't! I was straight into the circuit. If I had done a hover solo first, I might have had more appreciation about the difference my instructor's couple of cwt made!! Perhaps there was a weight and balance issue and that school had run out of sandbags!

I have heard of this "supervised" solo thing before from an FAA PPL(H) but didn't believe it.

Cheers

Whirls

[GS-Alpha]

Slight thread drift, but are the 10 hours solo towards the PPL(H) usually charged at dual instruction rate or self hire rate?

[parabellum]

Charles, the Prince of Wales did a wings course, Prince Andrew did a complete flying course and by the time William checks out as a qualified SAR pilot so will he have done a wings qualifying course. Just what is your problem? Or are you another annoying little republican?

[Whirlygig]

are the 10 hours solo towards the PPL(H) usually charged at dual instruction rate
Dual instruction rate as the instructor is still "on duty" and at hand in case.

Cheers

Whirls

[GS-Alpha]

I thought that would be the case. Thanks. I think I will be going solo any time now. :)

[Bravo73]

The solo x-country flight and a 'regular, unsupervised' flight were charged as SFH.

In which case, TS, you were pretty lucky. The QXC flight is still a 'supervised solo' flight and you were effectively flying on your instructor's licence. If anything had gone wrong, it was his/her licence which was on the line. :uhoh:



(Edited to add: My initial comment was on the presumption that your initial training was under the JAA system. However, after having had a quick look at your profile, I'm guessing that you might have first trained under FAA. My comment applies to JAA.)

[Runway101]

The solo x-country flight and a 'regular, unsupervised' flight were charged as SFH.
In which case, TS, you were pretty lucky. The QXC flight is still a 'supervised solo' flight and you were effectively flying on your instructor's licence. If anything had gone wrong, it was his/her licence which was on the line.

Common practice (in the USA) is to charge for self hire, unless your instructor sits down at the pattern watching you.

[Bravo73]

Thanks, Runway. I figured that it might be like that in FAAland. (Hence my quick, 're-edit' disclaimer! :O)

[Swamp76]

The Canadian military has 'supervised solo' system in place for very spcific conditions. I would expect other militaries to have similar systems in place. There were no 'hours requirements', merely a syllabus to complete.

I have never seen a civil school operate this way (they do not operate under conditions that should require it). Clearly, as others have mentiond, it is not legal in a civil environment.

[imabell]

there has been many instances of pilots in australia having done no solo time prior to issue of their licence, i have met a few.

although there is no requirement for supervised solo, (instructor watching from the ground), in australia, i make a point of doing a couple of hours on the ground to look for accuracy in the circuit, and make videos of the student flying, they get a kick out of it.

[Phil77]

Out of the FAA regs:
Although I couldn't find the definition of "solo flight" under § 61.1 Definitions and Abbreviations (as if it isn't clear enough :ugh:), but we do all agree that one need to do 10 hours of solo flight under § 61.109 right? The examiner will check if the applicant logged those ours in his logbook and at least here is where it's getting interesting...

How can somebody have a different interpretation of "sole occupant of the aircraft"?:


§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
[...]

(c) Logging of pilot time. The pilot time described in this section may be used to:

(1) Apply for a certificate or rating issued under this part or a privilege authorized under this part; or

(2) Satisfy the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

(d) Logging of solo flight time. Except for a student pilot performing the duties of pilot in command of an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember, a pilot may log as solo flight time only that flight time when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft.

[chopperpilot47]

I have never heard of supervised solo in the USA. I own a flight school in the USA and you are either solo or you are not. If someone says they obtained a certificate without actually flying solo that should be reported to the FAA for investigation. In my school if you are solo you pay the solo rate.

Regards,
Chopperpilot47

[wesp]

Supervised solo is another JAA invention to make more money.

[bluestack]

where I'm based (US), supervised solo is purely and simply, observing from the ground with a handheld, anything more is doing the student a disservice in the long term, and is also ILLEGAL!!

We charge dual time for it, as correctly stated earlier, you're flying on the instructors licence and they're spending time on the ground observing.

What an arrogant post from Head Turner that I can only attribute to dangling the bait, as I hope no-one holds that view in reality.