Hello and Advice for a New PPL Trainee......

[Orville The Duck]

Hi to all who read this.

I'm pretty new to the flying game. Caught the bug out of the blue this summer at age 35 and managed to persuade the good lady wife that learning to fly would be a "good thing" (still think she is just humouring me, but the kids are on my side).

Went on a trial lesson with my local school, nearly got blown out of the sky by a thunderstorm, scared the c**p out of myself, then booked my first proper lesson!!!!!!!! Done 4 hours 40 mins so far and just had my class 2 medical today.

I'm trying to decide now whether to continue my training over here or go for the cheaper, quicker option of training in the US. I have been very happy so far with the standard of training I have received, although my school is only small and has fairly limited facilities. The main problem is the good old weather, and now the nights are pulling in flying after work is going to become impossible.

The main concern is that if I train in calm and sunny Florida skies, I might end up providing the wife with a nice life insurance payout on attempting my first crosswind landing back here in the UK. I've read a lot of conflicting threads here about the pros and cons, so I will just have to make a decision one way or another and stick to it.

The main reason I am posting this thread is to ask if anyone could offer any advice on hour building after the PPL is obtained (by no means a given, based on my performances so far - especially on the ground - APPARENTLY THE CONTROL COLUMN IS NOT A STEERING WHEEL).

If I do get the license, the money will be pretty much gone, and I am trying to figure out how on earth I will build hours to move on to other qualifications (the soul has already been sold to the loan sharks). I haven't been able to make much sense out of the regulations, other than I will not be allowed to charge people for my flying. Could I take people on pleasure flights, with them paying for the hire costs, fuel etc? As long as I am not charging them for my services as a pilot, would this be acceptable? Alternately, could I sell aerial photography, again not actually charging for the flying? Are there any other ways around the restrictions imposed on the PPL which might make things a bit easier financially (how about the world's first airborne massage parlour - not too sure about the space in a C152 though)?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Regards
OTD

[SD.]

Hi


Could I take people on pleasure flights, with them paying for the hire costs, fuel etc?

The rules are that you must pay an equal share of the costs.


Below is what the bible says.............

Privileges:
1) Subject to paragraph (2), the holder of a Private
Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes) shall be entitled to
fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of an aeroplane
of any of the types or classes specified or
otherwise falling within an aircraft rating included
in the licence.
2) He shall not -
a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of public
transport or aerial work save as hereinafter
provided:
i) he may fly such an aeroplane for the
purpose of aerial work that consists of:
aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if his
licence includes a flying instructor's
rating, class rating instructor rating,
flight instructor rating or an assistant
flying instructor's rating; or
bb) the conducting of flying tests for the
purposes of this Order;
in either case in an aeroplane owned, or
operated under arrangements entered
into, by a flying club of which the person
giving the instruction or conducting the
test and the person receiving the
instruction or undergoing the test are
both members;
ii) he may fly such an aeroplane for the
purpose of aerial work that consists of -
aa) towing a glider in flight; or
bb) flight for the purpose of dropping of
persons by parachute;
in either case in an aeroplane owned, or
operated under arrangements entered
into, by a club of which the holder of the
licence and any person carried in the
aircraft or in any glider towed by the
aircraft are members;

[Whirlybird]

Orville,

Welcome to the wonderful world of flying. :ok:

You can't charge people, as SD said, you can only share costs. In a four-seater aircraft, this means you could only pay 25% of hire charges. Aerial photography is a grey area, but probably illegal; someone will come on here and say for certain....and probably criticise me for not knowing for sure! You CAN drop parachutists and tow gliders. This is about the only sort of free flying that's legal with a PPL.

However, you can also save on costs by buying a share in an aircraft, or converting to microlights or some PFA types which are far cheaper to run. There are lots of threads on here about this, and you have plenty of time to do the research. In any event, it certainly needn't cost you what you're paying now.

As for your other question, if you're happy with your flying school, I'd suggest you stay there. Why go to the US? What's the rush? Does it matter if you get your PPL next year, or even later? Especially if money is tight.

As for "moving on to other qualifications", you don't have to. I know reading PPRuNe you can get the impression that if you don't have an IMC and night rating you'll be for ever groundbound, but this is not the case. My feeling would be - chill out and accept that training may take a while due to the good old British weather, get your PPL, then enjoy it and see what happens.

[Mad Girl]

Hi Orville

I appreciate you're asking about hours building, a subject on which I know nothing.

However... There are some things I know LOTS about and this is one...

APPARENTLY THE CONTROL COLUMN IS NOT A STEERING WHEEL).

Apparently.... you can stop yourself doing this :ok: (and if you ever find out how to stop it consistantly - even in crosswind taxying- let me know (26 Hours student) !!!)

I'm sure my instructor will now be laughing his head off!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mazzy1026]

Hi Orville - welcome aboard, there is no turning back now ;)

I remember a couple of years ago when I was making my first posts here on prune, and I used to make exactly the same comments as you have, even askinng the same questions (now take a look at me) :{

I will echo Whirly's comments (how could anyone not?) about staying in the UK - I know I made the correct decision about not going to the states and I believe I am a better pilot for it, for the reasons you state such as the weather etc. The most important thing is not to rush, and use your training as something you enjoy (it kept me sane going through university) and before you know it, you'll get your ticket.

How are you getting on with the exams?

Best of luck, and let us know how you get on...

Maz :ok:

P.S

Apparently.... you can stop yourself doing this :ok: (and if you ever find out how to stop it consistantly - even in crosswind taxying- let me know (26 Hours student) !!!)

I stick my left hand on the (dashboard/firewall/top of instrument panel?) and keep my right hand on the throttle - stops me acting like a racing driver :p

[Darth_Bovine]

Welcome to the (often expensive but massively fun) club!

As many have said, you can spread your flying training out over a year (or more) if required. I did it that way and found that I picked up things reasonably quickly, yet didn't upset my bank manager. As many have said before me: there's no rush! You'll be flying just the same whether you're P1 or PUT.

Regarding the hours building: hours building is only really required if you want to get an ATPL... so if you're not mad keen to head down that route then I wouldn't put yourself under pressure to add hours onto your license. I like to try to fly about once every 4 weeks or so. This way I keep current and don't need to spend too much. Others might advise more/less frequency after qualifying. It's all down to the individual really. I probably spend about £1500 to £1700 a year on flying. At least that's what I think... I'm too afraid to go and count up for sure! :hmm:

After qualifying, find yourself a flying buddy and head off on small trips to other airfields until you build up your confidence. If you fly a leg each, you'll get effectively get twice the experience for the same cost as flying on you're own. Of course you'll not be able to log the time your mate is flying but unless you're sleeping, you'll pick up wee bits of experience. :ok:
Have fun with the course and congratulations on taking the step to start! Many people talk about it but always make an excuse and end up never doing it. :=

-DB.

PS: re taxiing (or taxiying or whatever the current preferred spelling is)
This is my least fav bit of flying. I still enjoy the challenge but for me it's just the bit before and after taking to the wing really. It is definitely an art form which you'll find comes after a while. Keep at it! After a while you'll forget about the "steering wheel" altogether and have your instructor bellowing about into wind ailerons! :O

[gcolyer]

on attempting my first crosswind landing back here in the UK.


You will get some pretty good cross winds in Florida as well. If you do go I would aim between December and March. It will be cooler and and not near hurricane season (well December is at the back end).

[DRJAD]

I trained at Sherburn, probably not all that far from you Orville.

I definitely ruled out going to America for training, and found that the weather situation (started in August, gained NPPL at end December, JAR-PPL in April, and IMCR in October - i.e start to end for JAR-PPL was August-April), presented no significant problems. In 2002-2003.

So, a a leisurely period of PPL training. Some lessons were cancelled owing to weather, but those were opportunities to take a ground examination. I was not particularly aware of wasted time, since, even after all the ground subjects were completed, there was still plenty to be learned from asking questions of the occasional passing instructor, or in discussions with other students and qualified pilots.

The benefits were, of course, training in UK weather conditions, UK R/T, UK airspace. I have not regretted the decision to train in the UK, through a winter period.

[Kirstey]

I did my PPL in the UK and can thoroughly recommended.. I did my IMC in Florida and can thoroughly recommend that too! It IS much cheaper out there, the instruction in both countries can be excellent it can also be sh1te!!

It won't take you long to acclimatise to UK conditions either!!

Why not give it a few months in the UK ( you need to get the hurricane season out of the way anyway!) and then with 10/15hrs under your belt have another think about it.

[Orville The Duck]

Thanks for the welcomes and advice. Definitely veering towards staying in the UK - it's only a grand or two different anyway, not a great deal in the grand scheme of aviation.

I thought doing the PPL quickly to progress to other qualifications might be better taking my ancient 35 years into account if I was going to use flying as a career. I don't think I will actually ever take it to the level of CPL / ATPL etc though due to cost, and the fact that by then I would be over 40 and broke (and probably divorced). If anything, I am thinking more along the lines of instructor (my own school would be nice, as I don't think I could make being employed as an instructor pay, based on what I have read here). Maybe one day, we'll see - just started research into what would be involved.

On the subject of exams, got the Pratt Air Law book 2 weeks ago. Not done much yet but it looks incredibly daunting. Do I have to memorise the lot or are there bits which are just in there for padding. Don't want to cheat as I would like to become a safe pilot, but I don't think my brain is capable of storing all the information (when I start reading the Articles of the Chicago Convention I find my mind wandering off into "wonder what's for tea" mode).

Cheers.

[mad_bear]

On the subject of exams, got the Pratt Air Law book 2 weeks ago. Not done much yet but it looks incredibly daunting. Do I have to memorise the lot or are there bits which are just in there for padding. Don't want to cheat as I would like to become a safe pilot, but I don't think my brain is capable of storing all the information (when I start reading the Articles of the Chicago Convention I find my mind wandering off into "wonder what's for tea" mode).


I don't think we're allowed (by the CAA) to discuss the contents of the exams but, having just taken Air Law, I can confirm that the questions are sufficiently broad as to cover most of the content of the textbook. Sorry about that. But, to be fair, I found that the questions weren't that difficult, in the sense that I wasn't asked to recall fiddly technical details just for the sake of it.

Some people like to use sample Q&A books to prepare for these exams (e.g., PPL confuser). I have one, but have mixed feelings about how useful it is.

[DRJAD]

Personally, I'm not in favour of what I understand to the the idea of the Confuser, though I hasten to add that I have never seen a copy.
To my mind, the vast majority of what you are asked to study for the PPL is common sense anyway - provided you keep in mind the subject on which you are being tested. Thus, Air Law, for example, is a legislative framework to keep us apart from one another in an orderly fashion. There is also some discussion of what has lead to the shaping of our UK and European legislative framework in the context of international aviation law. That is to be expected given the subject.
Equally, the ground examination for, say, Human Factors is intended to test your knowledge of physiological and mental factors affecting your performance as a pilot. It is basic stuff, and also common sense. Thus, provided you keep in mind what hinders your performance of complex skills and what assists, you should find it easy to study.
The Thom texts all have a selection of questions at the conclusion of each chapter, I would not be surprised to be told that the Pratt texts have similar. These were more than sufficient to give the idea of the kind of questions to be expected in the examinations. The examinations themselves are of the 'multiple choice' format, which makes careful reading of both the question, and the selection of possible answers vital. Again, keeping in mind the thrust of what they are testing keeps the mind on the subject, and guides one to the correct answer.
In other words, don't fear the subjects or the examinations.

[mad_bear]

Personally, I'm not in favour of what I understand to the the idea of the Confuser, though I hasten to add that I have never seen a copy.
To my mind, the vast majority of what you are asked to study for the PPL is common sense anyway - provided you keep in mind the subject on which you are being tested.

I respectfully suggest that quite a lot of the Air Law subject is not really common sense. For example, the rules regarding terrain clearance are not common sense. It's common sense that the minimum ground clearance is not 5 feet or 5 miles, but common sense won't tell you whether it's 500 ft, 1000 ft, or 1500 ft. Common sense won't tell you what two black balls hanging from a mast means, and you couldn't reason it out even if you knew what one black ball hanging from a mast means, because the meanings are unrelated. You could probably infer what a steady red light signal meant (something to do with stop?) but what about a flashing red light signal? And its obvious that if one plane has to overtake another, there should be a rule that it should overtake on one side and not the other. But is it left or right? And it isn't common sense that the rule is different for aircraft on the ground, and for gliders.

And so on.

Personally, I find this kind of stuff hard to remember. I find the idea of learning the theoretical subjects from the Confuser and such-like a bit scary, in that you could end up with very narrow knowledge. But it has to be said that the questions in the confuser are much more like the style of the questions in the real exams than the questions in the textbooks, and better at testing whether you can answer the you-either-know-this-or-you-don't kind of question.

People seem to get a bit heated about this subject. I've heard a lot of discussion along the lines of ``Do you want to learn the subject or just pass the exam?''. Surely you want to learn the subject and pass the exam?

Just my two penn'th, of course.

[Mad Girl]

I find the idea of learning the theoretical subjects from the Confuser and such-like a bit scary, in that you could end up with very narrow knowledge. But it has to be said that the questions in the confuser are much more like the style of the questions in the real exams than the questions in the textbooks, and better at testing whether you can answer the you-either-know-this-or-you-don't kind of question.
I Agree with Mad Bear.

Do NOT LEARN from the confuser.

Learn the subject from the text books and practice mock papers from the confuser.

The confuser identifies areas of weakness... so back to the text books and work harder at those areas... and then back to the confuser to retry an exam.
The confuser also helps you build up speed so that you can do the bulk of the questions "flat out" which will give you more time to go back and "Mull over" any that you missed first time through.

Pre soloist with 5 papers down - Air Law was my "bug-bear" took me 40 minutes and I got 80%.
The other 4... not less than 90% - and took me less than a third of the allowed time to complete - IMHO There is NO substitute for understanding the subject.

Happy Swotting:ok:

[Whirlybird]

Air Law is NOT common sense. Avoiding other aircraft and the ground obviously is, but as mad bear says, not the relevant figures. And the details of the Chicago Convention? Is anyone telling me that's common sense, or even that making PPLs learn it makes sense?

Read and learn from the book; use the Confuser to make sure you can answer what are often some rather convoluted exam questions. Learning a subject and exam technique are separate; related, but not the same.

[tangovictor]

Orville its seems that your getting ahead of yourself, why not, just get your ppl, ( nppl ) is even cheaper, then see if you wish to progress, to instrument flying etc etc,
be realistic, only you know your limitataions regarding learning and the cash required to progress beyond ppl / nppl,
I will be quite happy flying a decent fixed wing u/l with a nppl m

[DRJAD]

I respectfully suggest that quite a lot of the Air Law subject is not really common sense.

You have, of course, a valid point. However, my point concerned all of the syllabus, not just Air Law - though personally I did not find recalling a few arbitrary facts from a read through the Thom text to be difficult, and nor, it seems, did many of the other students contemporary with me with whom I discussed the examination afterwards.

It is fairly obvious, from the text, which of those arbitrary facts in Air Law are important for practical use in the air - and one could argue that if the examinations are insufficiently weighted towards a pass being obtainable on the basis of the practical portions as opposed to the subject hinterland of information, then they are not worth bothering with. I believe, though have not rigorously analysed them, that such a balance does pertain.

Air Law is NOT common sense. Avoiding other aircraft and the ground obviously is, but as mad bear says, not the relevant figures. And the details of the Chicago Convention? Is anyone telling me that's common sense, or even that making PPLs learn it makes sense?
Read and learn from the book; use the Confuser to make sure you can answer what are often some rather convoluted exam questions. Learning a subject and exam technique are separate; related, but not the same.

Whirlybird, I think, on the whole, we agree. I certainly concur with all those who point out that learning the subject is more important than precisely which technique one uses to pass the examination, and superlatively more important than merely memorising answers in order to pass such an examination. (Though I've always found the the best 'technique' for examinations is to read the question, think, and then select or write down the answer.)

My point about common sense relates, in the case of Air Law to my comment further up this particular response. In that those aspects of Air Law which relate to practical flying are fairly obvious, and should be committed to memory. (I would argue that those with the usual burning interest in flying will tend automatically to memorise those facts, anyway, without further effort.) Those of lesser practical use, such as the date of ratification of the Chicago Convention belong in the hinterland of Air Law knowledge.

[mad_bear]

It is fairly obvious, from the text, which of those arbitrary facts in Air Law are important for practical use in the air - and one could argue that if the examinations are insufficiently weighted towards a pass being obtainable on the basis of the practical portions as opposed to the subject hinterland of information, then they are not worth bothering with. I believe, though have not rigorously analysed them, that such a balance does pertain.


Well, you won't hear me arguing for a PPL confuser on every desk, as I've said. I am rather uneasy about such things.

On the other hand, I've been involved in higher education for ten years, and vocational education for another five, and I've learned a horrible truth over that time: people can know a subject intimately and still fail exams. Sad but true. People can fail because they are unfamiliar with the style of the examination, or the pace, or because it was never made clear which subject areas were considered most important for examination purposes. I often had students crying in my office because they had failed something or other, when they knew, and everybody else knew, that they had a good grasp of the subject. Slight tangent: in the university world, the problem was usually pace. Students often think that the 2-3 hours of typical university examinations is a long time, but when they actually sit down to take the paper, they consistently ran out of time because they don't work fast enough. :(

Practice examinations -- where the questions are of the same type, style, and pace as the real thing -- are helpful to a great many people. But that doesn't change the fact that trying to study a subject by reading past papers (from any source) is anything but a mugs' game.

[DRJAD]

mad_bear: I take the point, and in certain areas of endeavour would agree with what I think is the thrust of your argument.
I suspect, though, (and I further suspect that this may prove to be an unpopular point of view), that in this particular field of endeavour - flying - what the regulator should be looking for in assessing suitability for the grant of a licence is not simply knowledge measured either by physical prowess or by theoretical subject testing, but mainly aptitude.
Aptitude, I suggest, consists of many elements, one of which is the ability rapidly to take in data relevant to the activity, and to commit it accurately to memory. Such absorption of the theoretical subjects at PPL level, tested in quite simple questions, should be straightforward for someone with sufficient aptitude. (Some would say, of course, that the PPL examination questions are themselves insufficiently rigorously couched.) It could be said that demonstrating aptitude in this respect during this aspect of training forms part of the development of an aptitude for taking in a large quantity of data in real time from differing sources whilst flying, filtering those data for relevance to a problem in hand, and using them to synthesize a rational course of action to mitigate the problem.
I think that early aptitude often goes hand in hand with enthusiasm for the subject - but this is by no means always the case. I'm sure we can all think of cases, in flying and in other endeavours, where an enthusiastic person demonstrates no aptitude whatsoever for the subejct of their enthusiasm.
The question is whether there is a place in aviation, as, indeed the same question arises in other fields of endeavour, for a candidate with insufficient aptitude for the subject.

[Piltdown Man]

May I be really horrible and suggest that if you want to go powered flying you are going to throw horrible amounts of folding stuff at Flight Training Organisations, where ever they are on planet earth. And regularly as well! But here is a solution: If you like flying, how about dumping the engine? Polling a glider is, in my opinion, just a little bit more fun than dealing with a nastly lump of metal made by Mr. Lycoming. And you'll find that you can take the missus with you to a gliding club where you will both be welcomed. Then, if you really want to, convert to power at some stage in he future. Believe me, at gliding clubs you will meet all sorts of "interesting" power pilots and should you wish, you'll be able to get into powered flight via the back door, having lots of fun on he way!

Best of Luck.

PM

[mad_bear]

mad_bear: I take the point, and in certain areas of endeavour would agree with what I think is the thrust of your argument.
I suspect, though, (and I further suspect that this may prove to be an unpopular point of view), that in this particular field of endeavour - flying - what the regulator should be looking for in assessing suitability for the grant of a licence is not simply knowledge measured either by physical prowess or by theoretical subject testing, but mainly aptitude.


I don't think that the idea that there is a thing called `aptitude', and that it should be of a particular standard, would necessarily be unpopular.

The problem, surely, lies in determining what are suitable indicators of aptitutude.

If you ask a person to learn some subject matter, then subject him to an examination of a type, style, and pace with which he is completely unfamiliar, one of the things you are testing -- perhaps the main thing you are testing -- is that person's ability to handle a stressful and unusual situation in a short time. The ability to do this might be a necessary part of a pilot's aptitude (I wouldn't know, myself -- I'm not enough of a pilot). But, even if it is, you might as well set a prospective pilot an unseen examination on (say) topiary -- knowledge of the subject matter will contribute less to the score than will the handling of the situation.

If you feel that there are certain qualities of a pilot's aptitude that need to be tested -- such as the information processing you mention -- surely the proper thing to do is to devise specific tests for that particular quality? The theoretical knowledge tests are designed to measure retention of theoretical knowledge and, while there may be more important skills for a pilot to demonstrate (for all I know), surely using the theory tests as a medium for their assessment is not really scientific?

But all this is moot, in a way, I think -- because I'm sure that the CAA folks know perfectly well that there are all sorts of study aids available for the PPL exams, and that the performance expected in the exams (i.e., the pass mark) reflects that. So if you don't use all the study aids that are available to you, all you're doing is putting yourself under an unnecessary disadvantage with respect to other candidates, no?

[Whirlybird]

I suspect, though, (and I further suspect that this may prove to be an unpopular point of view), that in this particular field of endeavour - flying - what the regulator should be looking for in assessing suitability for the grant of a licence is not simply knowledge measured either by physical prowess or by theoretical subject testing, but mainly aptitude.

Forget all the long words. Someone gets a PPL when they can prove to an examiner that they can fly well enough and have enough basic knowledge not to kill themselves or someone else. And that's as it should be. :ok:

[DRJAD]

What long words? I merely write as I speak.

Mad_Bear's witticism about topiary is relevant on both sides of the discussion, I think. I believe, personally, that there should be some abstract test of the thinking process, both rapidity of data assimilation and synthesis. Discussions of topiary, and many other topics, might well be used to test a candidates ability rapidly to think and to marshall a cogent response.

[high-hopes]

Common sense won't tell you what two black balls hanging from a mast means, and you couldn't reason it out even if you knew what one black ball hanging from a mast means, because the meanings are unrelated.


Passed the Air Law exam 3 months ago.
What do those hanging balls mean again ? lol
:p

[Whirlybird]

I believe, personally, that there should be some abstract test of the thinking process, both rapidity of data assimilation and synthesis.

Oh come on now! Let's get this in perspective. We're merely making sure someone can safely pilot a small, fairly forgiving light aircraft around the skies in daylight, with someone on the end of the radio to help him/her if need be. It's not rocket science. It doesn't require a Mensa level IQ.

Back in the early days of flying, people jumped in a twitchy taildragger and taught themselves to fly. In the second world war, they were sent off to cross the sea and get shot at with barely double digit training hours. Even after that, if I remember rightly from what I've read, getting a PPL involved far fewer exams and flying hours than it does now.

We're gradually adding more and more to what we demand from the new PPL. Why? What is to be gained from more tests, or different tests? What are we going to achieve?

[Hampshire Hog]

Coming back to the point about aerial photography:

This appears to be a grey area because:

1)strict interpretation of the law means that you would need a CPL or ATPL to make a flight for the purpose of aerial photography, which classifies as 'Aerial Work' and does not fall within the exemptions (glider towing and dropping parachutists@);BUT

2) if you make the flight for pleasure purposes, happen to take a few photographs and then sell them - ex post facto (after the fact), it all becomes much harder to prove a breach of the PPL licence. The difficulty is you could probably only get away with it once or twice. Once a pattern of behaviour is established, flight - involving low flight and circling over areas photographed, followed by sale of photographs taken, the CAA would probably ask a court to consider that flights are, in reality, knowingly and deliberately being carried out for the purposes of Aerial Work. "Take him down!"

It's not worth risking your licence. Secondly, unless you're going to take a good photographer to take the pics, you will find aerial photography more difficult than you might think. I have found taking a pic with a digi camera and flying the plane responsibly at the same time is really tricky, and that's without trying to focus on any specific point on the ground.

HH

[DRJAD]

We're gradually adding more and more to what we demand from the new PPL. Why? What is to be gained from more tests, or different tests? What are we going to achieve?
Surely, by 'raising the bar' for entry, as in other fields of endeavour, we would be setting an environment where greater skill at flying became a new norm, and so onwards.

Why settle for either the 'lowest common denominator' or for static standards?

In fact, our occasional flight reviews by instructor, rather than being a simple inspection of our ability, or otherwise, not obviously to endanger ourselves, could become assessments that, in the intervening time from our last review, we had honed and improved our skills to a new level acceptably in advance of that former review. Were this to include a reassessment of theoretical knowledge and power of cogent thought under pressure, it would be welcome.