Important things before first solo

[VNA Lotus]

pprune forum

[Whopity]

It is interesting to note that you are not following the JAA syllabus where first solo is Ex 14!

The student should only be taught normal landings before solo, don't make things any more complicated than they need to be. Demonstrate a glide and a flapless landing, so that if they had any problems they will have had the benefit of observing the correct procedure, but do not teach it!

They should have been taught, and demonstrate that they know what to do in the event of an Engine failure after take off (EFATO) and make sure they have completed the stalling section of the syllabus.

[TSIO540]

Hi,

In the Aussie syllabus most students go solo after 15-20 hours. Before flying solo they will have passed the basic first solo exam, flown stall recoveries, engine failure after takeoff and engine failure on downwind/base for a glide approach and flapless landings (In addition to all the other basic necessary lessons to get to the circuit). Once they've demonstrated competency for all emergencies and normal landings they're sent solo by the instructor who looks away out of fear once getting out of the plane.

Cheers,

TSIO540 :8

[what next]

Hello!

It is interesting to note that you are not following the JAA syllabus where first solo is Ex 14!

It is not as easy as that. There is no such thing as a "JAA syllabus", but every flight training organisation has its own training syllabus based on an outline provided by the JAA and approved by their national authority.

See for example our FTO (we provide training for JAA licenses from PPL to ATPL): Since we are located at a busy international airport, we can consider ourselves lucky if they let us fly one takeoff and one landing there per training flight. All our pattern training is performed at small airfields that are a minimum of 20 flying minutes away (in the C152), the more suitable ones rather 30-40 minutes. So they needed to work out a syllabus based on these circumstances. Our very first training flight already contains the details "cross country navigation" and "familiarisation with controlled airports" (that, in your hypothetical JAA syllabus are probably details no. 25 and 33 or so)! During these positioning flights, we will have done a lot of airwork, stall trainig, practice forced landings and radio-navigation long before the first solo is due. All in full compliance with JAR-FCL / JAA rules. This way, it usually takes around 20 flying hours to get ready for the first solo. But thereafter, the student is nearly ready for solo cross-country flying departing and arriving at a controlled airport!

Regarding the original question: No - glide landings to the runway are usually not trained before the first solo. However, the students will have done around ten PFLs during the positioning flights during their initial training. We practise the engine-out (simulated of course) landings in the brief period between first solo and solo cross-country.

Greetings, Max

[NorthRider]

Our syllabus has a flight with power off touch´n go´s to the runway and a flight to parctise forced landings in the traing area. Those are some of the last flights before the first solo.

I would very hesitant to send a student on his/her first solo if he/she could land the plane without power.

[what next]

Hello!

I would very hesitant to send a student on his/her first solo if he/she could land the plane without power.

In my experience, the chances of an engine failure in a piston single are very small compared to things like electrical failure (= no flaps in the C152 = hard landing / bouncing / potential nosewheel damage), blown tyre (= groundloop or runway departure), gusts/downdraft/windshear, radio failure/mishandling (= very, very nervous student...) and many other potentially dangerous things that are not trained before the first solo. You simply cannot prepare your student for everything within the available timeframe.

Greetings, Max

[VNA Lotus]

pprune forum

[Smeagels Boyfriend]

I always used to say go and drop one long before first solo, especially if flying a 150/152, climbs better. I thought abit of input from a different angle may help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Whopity]

It is not as easy as that. There is no such thing as a "JAA syllabus", but every flight training organisation has its own training syllabus based on an outline provided by the JAA and approved by their national authority.

There is quite definitely a JAA Syllabus that was proposed by the late Ron Campbell from AOPA; it is essentially the RAF syllabus developed by Smith-Barry after the first World War. In the UK it has been known by a number of names including, the AOPA Syllabus, the Pittmans syllabus and the Longmans syllabus; even Cessna got in on the act and produced an identical syllabus. It is published in JAR-FCL1 Section 2 as AMC-FCL1.125. Perhaps it is only the UK that follows it, as it is little different from what we have done for the last 40 years, it seems to be something of a surprise to the rest of Europe despite the fact that it has been published in JAR-FCL since at least 1995.

As this is the basis of he JAA FI Course, everyone should be working to it. The purpose of JAR-FCL was to standardise licence training throughout Europe.

[what next]

Good morning!

As this is the basis of he JAA FI Course, everyone should be working to it. The purpose of JAR-FCL was to standardise licence training throughout Europe.

Yes, you are certainly right. But the full standardisation throughout Europe will take at least one generation, independent from what the regulations say.

I was curious and looked up 1.125 and the appendices in our national (german) JAR-FCL1. As I thougt, at this time it is only a rough outline of about one page, listing the required skills to obtain a PPL. From there it points to "old" national regulations (1.DV LuftPersV) regarding details. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this document from home. Anyway, I strongly doubt that this document has been changed much, or at all, since JAR-FCL was introduced. Which means, as I can tell from my work as an instructor, that our training syllabi have not changed a lot with JAR-FCL (yet!). Maybe the first generation of instructors who learned to fly themselves under JAA rules will bring us closer to an "ideal" standardised world. As of now, we can consider ourselves lucky if all instructors within the same FTO adhere to the same rules...

Greetings, Max

[BigEndBob]

Pre solo i try cover the following besides normal landing.
12E EFATO
13E Goaround
Simulated; Airspeed, Altimeter, RPM gauge failure. Flap failure both zero flap and stuck flap at goaround. Radio failure. Fanstop downwind to glide on xwind r/w. Glide app. from a simulated stuck throttle. Goaround from bounce/balloon landing. And if likely to happen/permitted, extend/obit procedure. Brake/steering failure.

If the student has got into a bit of a rut and pounding the circuit becomes boring then the student usually switches up a gear and starts to perform better.

Rememeber you don't want a student crashing a plane first solo saying i was never shown/taught how to cope with that. Arse covering exercise.
Sign them off in the students log book.

[portsharbourflyer]

Bigend Bob,

Agree totally, infact at the school where I use to teach we kept a "check sheet" for each student detailing all the emergencies on which both the instructor would sign to say the emergency training was covered and the student would sign to confirm that they had received the appropriate briefing/ lesson in the air.

Since the incident at Southend when very sadly a student died; the ability to perform a go around from minimum height and an orbit are absolutely crucial.

[VNA Lotus]

pprune forum

[VFE]

Whopity,

Pre-solo I demonstrate, followed by student practice, Glide Approaches as it certainly gives the student more confidence for the landing phase. Indeed, glide approaches have been used time and time again by myself to overcome a student who struggles with the landing under power!

I understand the idea of not complicating matters (and worry that many instructors do precisely that!) but why skip something that can save endless hours burning round the circuit pre-solo? Not to mention the benefit to the student should the engine conk out...

VFE.

[jamestkirk]

Totally agree with VFE.

I find it unusual that you will not get the student to try a couple of glide approaches and flapless landings. What would happen if they had the unusual incident of an engine failure. Surely knowing they had a go at it in training and maybe got it right could be the difference between success and failure.
Whats wrong with teaching flapless. Especially in aircraft like a C150/2. Its not that much more 'complicated'. And its great practise and raises confidence.

Just a few posts above you talk about advantage of having a syllabus. But how about EX12/13E, dealing with emergencies in the circuit. You just seem to be contadicting yourself. Would you not agree that and engine or flap (if electrical) failure in the cicuit IS an emergency and should not be left to just a demonstration.

In another thread you said that the tapered wing PA28 pitches up when the flaps go down. Initially it pitches down, then up.

[VFE]

Heavens Whopity ole chap, James had the height and the sun right behind him there! This could get messy... :}

VFE.

[jamestkirk]

Then hopefully you'll be my wing man. Don't worry I have an AOPA aerobatic certificate thing so I can do a chandelle or something.

[VFE]

I'll cover yer blindspot then... where the hell is he?!

VFE.

[Miserlou]

Chaps.
Do remember that the aim of the game is training a competent pilot who will gain a licence of some description. It's not about getting them solo as soon as possible.
If one also remembers that hitting the ground is THE number 1 killer in aviation and loss of control following an engine failure the biggest of that group then I find it irresponsible to send any one solo who is unable to cope with anything that may happen in the circuit.

The items mentioned by BigEndBob in 13E should cover most of it.

[Vortex Thing]

A few months ago I was asked to assess a young pilot to see if she was about ready to go solo.

Whilst downwind I asked her what she would if she found the airfield had to close due to an accident or incident. Where would she go and roughly which way was it. She correctly identified the obvious nearby huge military airfield as her alternate unfortunately however.....

....she had no knowledge of the procedures or R/T involved in getting there, did not know how to use any of the navaids in the aircraft so even though she had a serviceable ADF, VOR and DME she could not use them to get to the airfield which has all of these facilities and just to put the icing on the cake she did not even have a map with her as no one had told her that she needed one!

Funnily enough I didn't send her solo even though she was clearly an able pair of hands. This was completely not her fault but the fault of those who believe that "stuff like that can wait until later" (Head of Training) Whilst I agree with the views above that you cannot teach everything before solo sending someone unarmed into an environment as unforgiving as aviation is tantamount to causing the accident yourself it is only by luck that that those not properly prepared come back and eventually, statistically that luck will run out for someones student somewhere. I doubt at that time of the inquest I thought that stuff like that could wait until later will be of little comfort for their kin.

Not withstanding the above not sure how you can in good conscience send someone solo who has never at least once demonstrated a flapless and especially a glide landing. Do you really think they have a chance if they have never even tried one just because they saw a demo! Really well lucky you I assume you instruct at Linton in the Tucano cos most PPL students dont get it right after hours of doing just glides or just flapless.

VT

[VFE]

Okay I'll pick up a few points there VT if I may...

Firstly, one presumes you know the JAR PPL syllabus? Good. Now can you tell me under what exercise number Radio Navigation falls under? Good. Now can you tell me what exercise number the First Solo falls under? Marvellous.

Now, go away and have a think about how the syllabus came to be in that order and why you think you should step ahead before sending your student solo. To help you along your way I will say this:

You may have their best interests at heart VT, but trust me, all that stuff about diversions, RT, radio nav, etc, etc... well... you're simply clogging their brain with unessential things which they will not be able to seperate from the primary task of flying the aircraft. For most, flying the aircraft is about the limit of their abilities at this stage. We do not want to see accident reports of stalls in the circuit due to a student fixation with radio and navaid frequencies etc thank you! Once past Exercise 14 it is amazing how a students capacity to fly and learn new tasks increases.

Please adhere to the syllabus or risk being reported. You have given more than enough information away here to locate your airfield soon enough. Honestly, pompous instructors thinking they know better than years and years of a tried and tested method are dangerous. Would you view your airline SOP's with equal disregard? Of course not. Why so in this case then?

VFE.

[Vortex Thing]

VFE saying that someone needs to do the whole radio navigation lesson to understand using an ADF to go a few miles is akin to saying that after ex 19 they can do procedural approaches or that having done a few EFATOs means that they can avoid doing the PFLs exercise.

As for R/T being able to join and depart the circuit is something that they should have done every exercise i.e C/D, turning, slow flight and stalling so is hardly asking much to change from one frequency to another depart one circuit and join another.

The air law exam that the students pass prior to Ex 14 should tell them about the ANO which requires them to carry and know how at least the basics of how to use a map it further expects them to know about airspace, ATS services and so forth may I therefore suggest it is you who need to revisit the syllabus and stop dumbing it down.

All HM Forces and commercial level courses start with an intensive period of ground school. i.e you do the reading first and only then do you go near a plane. This gives those wonderful ah ha moments as you realize what until then you have only visualized. Even for a driving licence you have to do ALL the theory before you get a provisional licence. The reason for this is simple it is the best way of doing it!

You talk of unessential things, these are essential otherwise why would the ANO mandate them. The numerous highly qualified instructors from CFS who designed my flying scholarship syllabus, my UAS syllabus and my elementary, basic and advanced syllabii all included departing and leaving the circuit as essential PRIOR to first solo in every type I was taught on.

The JAR PPL syllabus IS the syllabus I teach. The differences we talk of here are ones of interpretation and common sense. I believe that is the purpose of this forum. The only thing being disregarded here is your understanding of the necessity to mitigate risk rather than just make a profit.

If you feel that this is clogging their brains then either they have insufficient capacity to yet be sent solo or they are running before they can walk. I am not saying that you must cover every eventuality but someone else points out in this forum comms failures are more common than engine failures. If you send a student solo who does not have any ability to understand what is going on without the radio then it is you who should be reported because they are meant to have passed an air law exam which tests those very things.

It really isn't that difficult and I have yet to ever hear of a student stalling in the circuit whilst trying to select, identify and display an instrument, that should have been done on the ground before they even took off.

If you really thin that you student is so capacity limited then the instructor can do it him/herself and then worst case they can say that that needle points where you need to go if it goes horribly wrong.

I am the product of years and years of tried and tested methods and I don't think it takes too much digging to see where the AOPA and CAA syllabii are formed from. Maybe it is you who is pompous for thinking that you can dumb down the syllabus and then try and bully someone like me into thinking that it is I not you who are clearly in the wrong here.

VT:rolleyes:

P.S. As you have been instructing all of 2 years I would be a little more careful to consider your audience before calling me pompous!

[VFE]

Okay, so that's the nest nicely stirred up!

You make some good points VT, but my overriding concern is that you may still be assuming every student pilot under your instruction is capable enough and has the time on their hands to absorb all this extra detail before your comfort level is such that you can send them solo in this world of the legal eagle. You came up through a very privilaged system of training and obviously have high standards but in the PPL world higher standards do not always equate to safer instruction. Ever heard the pharse "less is more"? The average short term human memory is about 20 seconds. Estimates of the capacity of short-term memory vary – from about 3 or 4 elements (i.e., words, digits, or letters) to about 9 elements. Unless a student starts reading the Communications, Navigation and Air Law subjects from day one they will only have any information provided by you stored in their short term memory and this is in no way sufficient for such topics to be understood, even at the basic level you require, IMHO. Practicalities for most PPL students dictate that they simply do not have the spare time for the ideal level of study you and I both agree on. You state, quite rightly, that a strong classroom grounding works best in the armed forces prior to any airbourne training - I totally agree having undergone the same process during integrated commercial training, however, the PPL student will tell you they cannot devote such time as nine times out of ten they juggle a full time occupation.

In short, you may feel happier dusting over those topics because in your own mind you have 'covered your arse' but in reality that student is still just as green and what is worse, will probably still be at a stage whereby they would quite possibly neglect the primary task of flying the aircraft should such a distraction arise. How many times do you see a student fumble with the radio call first before initiating a go around procedure? It gets in the way of the primary task. Much of the time a student pilot places enourmous emphasis in their own mind on the importance of radio to such a degree that it's often viewed as an authority over flying the aircraft. To be covering more comm/nav detail at this early stage will only exacerbate this risk in my view. Despite constant reminders from myself I still see students time and time again putting radio work first. You say you have not heard of an instance of stalling due to comms being changed but might I remind you that a 16 year old student died on his second solo at Southend merely because ATC asked him to orbit? My advice would be to worry about a blocked runway at the time and be on hand as supervising instructor to notify Linton-On-Ouse over the landline as a relayed Pan call should you require a student to divert there and have your student remain on frequency with you.

What I fear you might also be forgetting or failing to realise is that most PPL students are there because they want to fly and accept the fact that risk is involved. My views on RT procedure and basic radio navigation stem from the fact that I have not as yet instructed at an airfield that was busy enough whereby a blocked runway was actually a genuine possibility, nor one which provided more than a FIS over the radio and usually will authorise in the quieter moments so that the students flying environment is less stressful. Therefore the myriad of conceivable problems which a busy airfield could present for a solo student have never been a problem for me and my own perhaps controversial view is that such airfields are not suitable for initial PPL training anyway, and as such one would not choose to instruct at one.

VFE.

[jamestkirk]

A student does not have to pass an air law exam before going solo.

[Vortex Thing]

JamesT you are right, I agree with you. I am not aware of anything in the ANO stating that Air Law must be passed prior to Ex 14. (I stand to be corrected on this however)

The HMSO online version of ANO2005The Air Navigation Order 2005 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051970.htm#26)

However, when you sign for the aircraft. YOU as the instructor have to satisfy yourself that the student or aircraft are not likely to endanger persons, property, etc It is up to you have to ensure that they have "sufficient" knowledge to complete the exercise safely.

I have taught at many schools from RTFs to large FTOs some of these and none of them allow students to go solo without having completed air law. The reason I assume is not because their "legal" department told them so to cover themselves but more likely because the CFI or HoT decided that this was the easiest way to assess that they did indeed have sufficient knowledge.

Vfe I think that the problem here, as you point out is that you are making certain assumptions about the environment. Many of us teach at international airfields. You say that you have never taught where a blocked runway was a possibility I was teaching at a small airfield years ago when an aircraft over ran the rwy. Airfield was closed immediately with 4 out of the 10 school aircraft having to divert to a nearby large airfield, I have also taught on a day that a twin burst some tyres on landing and was stuck on the RWY. The only RWY again all incoming aircraft either had to hold or divert. This could happen at a grass strip much less a large international airport. In fact the only place where you are safe in these situations is when you have multiple rwys available!

The question you answered was about flying instruction in the UK in general NOT just at small airfields. Look at the procedures for LPL, EMA, BHX, BRI, CDF, etc where many flying schools operate on a regular basis.

If the student does not have the capacity, or cannot invest the time to get sufficient knowledge prior to solo then they should not go solo.

I personally would love it if all my students went solo at the 8-9hrs that the CFS syllabus allows but most are 15-25hrs and many are more than this and not one of my students has ever had an accident or incident whilst solo in/from the circuit. I am happy with the fact that military students and commercial students (modular or integrated) are going to more likely find it easier to retain the information but that does not make much difference when a C152, C172 or PA28 strays into controlled airspace because things went wrong on the day.

Your implication is that these exams and the knowledge required is hard to achieve! You can read the book in a day an pass it the next day if you really wanted to. The knowledge required is actually quite simple enough that 13 year old air cadets can tell you most of it lets not pretend that this is any harder than passing the driving licence theory and there is no way that you would sanction a student driver going "solo" without the requisite knowledge.

RE your other comments they are not thought through IMHO. Busy airfields are a great place to teach PPL because then small airfields are easy as opposed to training at a small field and then being scared of big ones which is an attitude I have had to correct on numerous occasions. You also ask how often I have seen a student initiate a radio call before the go around actions. Well the ones I teach AVIATE-NAVIGATE-COMMUNICATE and don't go solo until they do that in that order every time, so whilst it will happen you drum it out of them until they are safe, this is one of the many things that you assess before sending them solo isn't it!

Bot of thread creep but this is the reason why we have so many airspace infringements because similar attitudes prevail in navigation and students who are not really ready or suitably armed are sent up solo nav because the school doesn't want the "customer"/student to not feel they are progressing fast enough.

It is a dangerous and unforgiving environment your aim should be to make sure that it is never one of your students that the AAIB visit you about now or in years to come.

VT

[VFE]

Well I think we agree on the point that prerequisites for solo work vary depending on airfield. But essentially, I still maintain that radio navigation and anything other than local landmark recognition pre-solo is creating a potentially dangerous distraction for a student given the level of time they devote to their studies and frequency of flying lessons.

It is never a race for me to send students solo either Mr.VT and mine are usually approaching the 20 hour mark but that's just numbers and everyone is different, as we all know. I do not agree with your assertion that the groundschool subjects are passable given a day of study and think you might be suprised yourself if you attempted to take a JAR PPL navigation paper (for example) these days - some of the questions (but more importantly the answers!) are beyond oblique and ambigious. As a ground examiner I make no bones that they're tough as I see regular failures. Air Law, funnily enough being the biggest achilles heel.

You seem to have this concern about a blocked runway during student solo but in reality I think there are far greater potential hazards requiring attention given the confines of the JAR PPL syllabus and many more created by jumping the gun. The capacity a student has for learning post-solo is vastly increased and is largely due to psychology and the fact they believe they can fly the aeroplane. Prior to first solo, you may as well just talk gobbledegook some of the time. The problem you present would be better dealt with on it's own merits should it arise and certainly not with pre-solo radio navigation, however "basic" in your eyes. We shall just have to agree to disagree on that one but I doubt I'm in the minority.

I'm off for some more Glide Approaches. Whopity? Where did he go??

VFE.

[Cap'n Arrr]

In Australia, a Pre Solo Air Law exam has to be passed before first solo (Set by the school). They also need a student licence and class 1 or 2 medical. They also need to be able to, without input from instructor, perform a Glide and Flapless approach, as well as a go around and normal approach.

I cannot believe that any FI who takes their job seriously would be so irresponsible as to send a student solo if they can't go around... it's one of the main points I highlight before I get out of the plane: "If you stuff up the approach, or someone does something stupid like line up in front of you, what are you going to do?" If they can't answer that, then I'm not getting out until we're shut down in the parking bay.

As part of a solo check, I also make sure they have enough common sense to recognise and correct errors. e.g. Too high/low/fast/slow on approach, aircraft in front flying too wide, someone trying to join circuit with potential collision risk etc. I feel a lot better about getting out if I know that, even if they stuff it up, they know enough to correct the situation:ok:

[Vortex Thing]

Vfe being in the minority does not make someone right or wrong!! If it did then little would change in the world and nothing would ever get discovered.

If you cannot see the difference between the whole subject of radio nav and giving someone a fighting chance should the odd thing happen, that I have actually experienced on more than one occasion at different airfields then you continue to dumb down the syllabus.

As for the ground exams being difficult these days. No they are not, they are pretty easy, in fact too easy, I am more than familiar with the syllabus content and have seen if change over the last 24 years that I have been flying aircraft. The exams that I studied for as a 13 year old air cadet old required more study and were more difficult than the JAR PPL exams.

The main problem is that many students want a quick fix and think that if they buy AWFUL books like the PPL confuser and learn the answers from question banks that this is a good thing. The best students learn the theory from first principles and ask questions from those with greater knowledge or experience.

The whole reason so many students fail air law is because they are badly taught! When they actually try to understand the subject rather than just get through it they normally do. It is only a shame that it is not mandatory to do all the exams before even getting in an aircraft as you do for a driving licence. If that means that less people fly well then the airspace will be safer for it and so will those who live underneath it.

Many PPL schools are so afraid of loosing customers that they keep sending people flying because they need the money rather than because they think they are safe enough. I have on numerous occasions seen and heard instructors debriefing yet another airspace incursion or close call and it is patently clear that the student just had been badly taught rather than made an understandable error.

Re the ground school failures may I suggest this is because the student has not studied rather than because the subject matter is difficult. There are not many bad students there are however bad instructors, if a student you prepare for something fails it it is yourself you should look at NOT the student. It is very rare to find a student so academically incapable that they struggle with these exams.

I understand that there is a commercial vs safety balance to be had here but that does not change the fact that you should not be sending someone poorly equipped mentally or physically into the air on their own. You wouldn't send them if they took no action on your fanstops, you wouldn't send them if they could not do 3 consecutively good landings, you wouldn't send them in a strong X wind or close to night fall. Why because all of these things increase the risk of something going wrong!

But hey this is just my opinion I go to sleep at night and know that I have never had any student I taught go solo without meeting my interpretation of the correct standards and I have sent students from all ages, all sexes, all backgrounds solo and none of them have ever had any problem which they haven't been able to deal with and none of them have found their capacity stretched by the simple bits of information that you don't seem to understand are essentials. Is this luck, I think not!

VT

[VFE]

Contradictions a plenty (responsibility for student failures) and the moral high ground inhabited in the way only a former officer of Her Majesty's armed forces could carry off with any conviction - I'm clearly going to be piddling in the wind with you Mr.VT. :}

Not only that but your post marks you out as being so far detatched from the realities of day to day PPL instructing (especially ground) as to leave me questioning your involvement in this side of aviation to any notable degree these days quite frankly.

VFE.

[Vortex Thing]

Did you seriously think that you would bring me round to your way of thinking.

Frankly you expose yourself as an amateur if you think that everyone has to agree with your view of aviation. I have no reservation in having high standards and I am proud to hold the moral high ground, that is what comes from a confidence instilled by the instructors who gave me their time to pass things on that you clearly do not think are important!

You may think that my methods are out of place where you teach but I would be willing to bet that you would have had a few choice words from some of the HoTs and CFIs I have worked for if you disagreed with things that are mandated in some schools.

My students pass their exams and they fly safely. I am not saying yours do not but you are the one casting aspersions as to my methods which work well enough for the schools I teach and have taught at and then incredulously seem to think that having served my country to give people like you the right to have free speech, such as this forum, you would seek to use for your benefit. Did I serve as an officer in HM Forces yep, and your problem with that is what exactly? Are you so arrogant as to believe that only you can have the right way of doing things?

[VFE]

I think you missed my point. Confidence installed during military training is second to none ergo seldom have I ever witnessed someone possessing a commision fail to concede to anyone they perceive as lower, regardless of merits. That is just my observation which you quite rightly point out, you and many others have served to protect, and for which I thank you. Must be a right ole bark to work that hard and have someone question you. God forbid!

Sadly we're getting a little personal now so might I suggest we agree to disagree on the principles I outlined yesterday and allow others to contribute?

VFE.

[Vortex Thing]

I think you miss my point. I do not perceive you as lower in anyway shape or form. As far as I know we both hold professional pilots licenses which in my view makes us equal.

The essence of having a commission is quite the reverse to the way you perceive it. The principles of leadership that I was taught were that I expect questions in fact if someone doesn't question then I would be concerned.

I relish being challenged and questioned because it makes me a better instructor having to find the answer to questions rather than relying on rank or position to be part of some automatic assumption of the validity of my answers. Those who command solely by the rank or position they hold always find themselves very very alone when things get really bad.

I am more than happy to be wrong as it means that I learn something unfortunately on this occasion you have failed to provide anything approaching a convincing argument and it is for this reason that I disagree not just for the hell of it.

[VFE]

Can't say fairer than that.

VFE.

[Tmbstory]

During my Instructing Career, concerns about a Student prior to 1st Solo were very few and far between. It was the 3rd Solo that a students ego may cause a problem or two.

The first solo, is just a repeat of pre solo flying, no variation from the norm, the 2nd, he will think that it is becoming easier and sometimes on the 3rd or 4th solo will think that he has it all worked out and on the verge of acehood!

There can be no forgetting the feeling of your own First Solo.

Tmb

[deejayeh]

A tale from my first solo. Wonderful weather, did half a dozen circuits, stopped at end of runway, instructor spent half an hour explaining about the differences in solo vs dual performance, taxi to holding point, do the power checks, line up, depart at my discretion. Great. Brilliant.

Take off, climb, turn crosswind, turn downwind .... now where is that runway?.

In the interim period since the last circuit a haze had blown in and the runway was not visible from downwind. In fact nor was the horizon .... Downwind check, check compass ... now what was in the books .... turn base, turn final, start descent .... and magically the runway appeared on short final.

Ouch.

First solo in IMC ... wasn't quite in the plan but here to tell the tale. However very grateful the instructor has pointed out a few basic instrument details.