50 hours dual and too dangerous for first solo.

[A37575]

A student has logged 50 hours of dual and according to his instructors is too dangerous to send solo. What is the solution? Should the flying school CFI:

1. Tell the student to go away (nicely, of course)

2. Ask CASA to send out an FOI to fly with him with the view of advising the student to give up flying for his own safety and possibly others who will share the same airspace. Po-active instead of re-active precaution.

3. Continue to take his money but without any intention of getting him solo because of a well founded fear the student would crash on his own. And what if the student is hell-bent on wanting to go solo and will pay anything to achieve that aim.

This dilemma is one that flying schools occasionally strike. Assuming that several instructors have genuinely tried their best to help the student reach a safe standard for first solo, and all to no avail, then commercial issues (accepting his money) should surely be a lower priority than flight safety issues (a danger to himself and others if flying solo).

In the military the solution is simple. Scrub him when it is obvious he won't go solo within 12 hours. Not so simple in the commercial world where average time to first solo varies markedly between flying schools and is around 15 hours up to 20 hours. With inexperienced instructors teaching new students thus the blind leading the blind in some cases, the time to first solo is often very high. Commercially that is good because the money goes to the school and instructor. Not so good for the student.

But 50 hours is something else and what is the moral responsibility of the flying school operator in these cases?

[rgmgbg01]

Have an honest chat with the student - give him a realistic view of his flying prospects.

If he still wants to spend his money, let him.

[airman1]

The best solution would be to sit down with the student and explain the situation. The average student should reach solo standard by XXX hours, however some students take longer to grasp the flying concepts. With this in mind we are happy to keep training you BUT if your flying skills don’t progress to the solo standard than we will be unfortunately not be able to send you solo.

Have different instructors flown with this particular student? Surely after 30 hrs dual in the CCT and no solo it would need a grade 1 or CFI check to see what area's the student is struggling?

Remember flying isn’t for everyone:E

[jack red]

sue the ass off the flying school. it should have been obvious at 20 hours the student wasn't going anywhere. Commercially that is good because the money goes to the school and instructor. commercially there should have been a duty of care to the student.But 50 hours is something else and what is the moral responsibility of the flying school operator in these cases? they have no morals. if the instructors they employ can't assess a student by 20 hours they shouldn't be in the instructor game.

bloody pathetic.

[Mach E Avelli]

However, in a free country, if some Walter Mitty wants to throw money at flying lessons not being funded by the taxpayer, he/she surely has that right?
There was one infamous guy whose Daddy paid over a million bucks for him to do a sim course and 20 circuits in a B737. After hassling airlines all over the place he couldn't get a job anywhere. No way was he going to do time in the bush with GA as it was deemed too rough a place for our boy, so Daddy thought he would buy him a job by 'investing' in the airline. It still didn't work because prized son was never going to make it as an airline pilot. What's the saying about a fool and his money being soon parted?
The only obligation the instructors have is to tell the person that their progress is not normal and not to the standard required. If there is suspicion that the person will then go to some unscrupulous school and somehow get checked out, a confidential report should be made to CASA.

[Water Wings]

During my time Instructing I came to the conclusion there were three kinds of Students. Those with outstanding natural flying ability (only a very small number), those who picked it up with Instruction (most people) and those who were just never ever going to get it (again a VERY small number). Someone needs to sit down and have a frank discussion with this poor guy.

With hundreds of student names in the logbook I only encountered one person who just couldn't and would never have made a competent pilot. It might be brutual but honesty is the best policy. They have to know the truth.

[Mach E Avelli]

Water Wings, agree they need to be told. But some people (like the guy I described above) just won't accept the truth. May be pride, may be they just...do...not...get...it.

[Tee Emm]

It still didn't work because prized son was never going to make it as an airline pilot.

Thread creep I know, but you are a little too quick to point the finger. For his limited flying hours, the individual concerned actually flew the 737 simulator and real aircraft quite well. Certainly a lot better than more experienced GA pilots who are now in the airlines -and believe me there are some real bogan types who scraped in and are a pain in the neck on the flight deck.
. On more than one occasion this young chap was rubbished at the interview by chief pilots who were obviously surprised at seeing a 737 endorsement on his licence. One arrogant bad mannered oaf (unable to get into an airline himself) told him to piss off because he had a 737 on his licence and it was automatically assumed he he would apply for the airlines once he picked up sufficient hours. That was probably true but hundreds of GA pilots have done the same thing for 50 years.

[Barry Bernoulli]

If a prospective pilot cannot achieve solo in 50 hours, then it is likely that, in the course of an aviation career, they will encounter an abnormal situation in which they will be found wanting.

When that situation arrives, they may die, members of their family may die, associates may die, paying passengers may die or unrelated third parties may die.

Would you knowingly get into a taxi with a driver that took seventeen attempts to get his license?

My opinion is that it is the moral duty of the flying school to be honest with the trainee, advise them against flying and refuse to accept further custom from them.

In my humble opinion.

[Tmbstory]

These type of situations occur from time to time.

In the late 1960's at Bankstown there was a student ( of an elder age ) that took close to 90 hours of instruction before his first solo.

Various clubs and schools on the Aerodrome tried to train him or convince him to not continue his dream. He used to say that he did not care how long it took, he wanted to get to the standard of a first solo and he did and completed three or four solos before he gave it away.

Not everbody wants to go solo, so that they can become an airline pilot.

Tmb

[Tee Emm]

Further to the original post. There are occasions like the one described (50 hours and no solo) when the CFI must take responsibility for this type of student. Much of the time where students are taking an inordinate time to solo ie 15 hours or more, the CFI should be aware of this and in any case should be checking a grade 3 instructor's students by flying with these students to check on quality assurance. Too many times do we see CFI's allowing their instructors to fly on and on with a student when it is obvious from the students progress reports (if the CFI ever takes the time to study them) that either a change of instructor is needed or the CFI should fly with any difficult student himself. CFI responsibility to keep a very close eye on new instructors is often abrogated to a grade 1 or 2.

The 50 hour problem student should have been picked up at the 10 hour mark at least and the CFI directly involved. Often the CFI prefers to be training IFR students himself and lets his grade 3 and 2 have unfettered reign at GFPT students. This is unfair to students who have the right to request a grade one instructor for ab initio flying.

[Ascend Charlie]

Hey, lighten up, Francis! it is the instructor's decision to launch a solo.

I have had 3 students who would never make it.

The first was a lawyer whose company was in charge of a bankruptcy case, and their company ended up owning an R22. Said lawyer decided he wanted to learn to fly, so he came out for lesson after lesson. He never did his homework (far too busy being a lawyer) so his progress was dismal. I informed him continually of his progress, but he wanted to keep going.

After about 70 hours he finally reached the stage where I WAS CONFIDENT OF HIS ABILITY TO SOLO. This will always be the criteria for sending a student off by himself. If he was dangerous, he would not be let loose. All you nay-sayers missed that point - the instructor has to assess him as being safe, and that is why the student referred to is still trying at 50 hours.

The lawyer completed his solo, and with a big smile said, "Thank you, I will quit now and sell the helicopter. I knew I would never be a pilot, but I just wanted to have a go."

The second no-hoper was actually a 26,000 hour 747 captain who owned his own H500 turbine helicopter, had a PPLH with 700 hrs, and wanted to upgrade to CPLH. After about 20 hrs of wrestling the machine through the skies, we went on a nav trip and he was tragic. Great at being a captain and making decisions, but he couldn't fly an unstable helicopter, read a map, make a radio call and divert around weather. In the debrief, he also admitted he was tragic, gave up on helicopter flying, went back to 747s and ended up in a spectacular incident with egg all over his face.

The third student had been at Another Flying School, had 15 hrs up and told me he was ready for solo, according to them. he put $25k in the account up front, but he was TRULY tragic, and had to be taken back to square one and start again. After a month we spent 2 weeks straight in theory lessons, and I told him I was giving back the rest of his money. I couldn't morally take it off him as he would never be able to pass an exam or to be a commercial pilot. He thanked me for my honesty, took the remaining $15,000 and went back to The Other School, and in 2 weeks had miraculously passed all theory subjects with 85% marks, and 2 weeks after that he held a CPLH. Money works wonders over there, it wasn't because he suddenly discovered brain cells that had been lying in wait for an opportunity to display themselves.

He flew into KSA in a JetRanger, filled it with fuel, put 4 beefy pax and their golf clubs and overnight gear and headed off to the hills for a 3000' landing. I was astounded that he was allowed to hire a 206, and more astounded that he got off the ground with this overloaded machine, and most astounded that he actually got back again.

The Other School is still in operation.

But back to the thread, if the student is dangerous, he don't go solo. If the instructor launches him solo, then he is unlikely to be dangerous for that sequence.:sad:

[VH-Cheer Up]

I think a lot depends on the age of the student and their objectives. If this is a youngish person hoping to make it as a CPL/ATPL then they probably aren't going to make it.

If it's an older person who wants to fly VFR for fun and they can afford it, then perhaps objectives need to be set every ten hours or so.

About forty years ago I did my first solo in the UK after some 7 hours instruction taken over about six days (RAF Flying Scholarship, thanks chaps, not a rich Daddy). But that was on top of a bit of earlier dual time in Chippies and a week gliding at RAF Swanton Morley. However, If I was starting out from scratch today, I bet it would take me a lot longer than 7 hours to go solo.

[ReverseFlight]

The original post did not give instances of the student's "dangerous" flying. If it were purely inadvertent mistakes or forgetfulness, then there is still hope for this guy. However, if he repeatedly endulges in reckless or maverick manoeuvres (either intentionally or without regard to his own or others' safety), then he should be quietly and politely canned.

It's all a matter of attitude.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Depends on what you mean by "dangerous". Hopefully the student records would have more detail than "this student is dangerous"..
To my mind, inconsistancy can be the most dangerous, eg we had a charming retired gent who came to us to fulfill a lifetime's dream... Sometimes he would do three perfect circuits, then the next just point the aircraft at the ground and shut his eyes... :eek: sending him solo would have been like playing russian roulette! If someone is consistantly shocking at circuits it's a bit easier to break the news...but as for the morals, if they insist on carrying on after being told that there is litle chance of them ever flying solo, well that is up to them. But it would be wrong to just go on and on without discussing it with them.

[Capt Mo]

A37575, It is hard to say without having ever flown with the student.

I have had a student who had a fantastic attitude, yet struggled with certain aspects. I would regularly mix up the ccts with other GFPT sequences and as this student progressed well through these sequences, would revisit the cct, as requested I began cross country training for the student. As we reached the point of the solo nav check, without fuss, I had the student conduct a session of ccts, which ended with a first solo (45 hours), the following day on 2nd and 3rd solo, and within a week the student went training area and cross country solo, achieving the PPL in about 70 hours - which was an average number of hours for students on that course. That student has since successfully completed a CPL and MECIR.

Another I was given had flown 30 hours, and from the first flight I conducted I could see that the student could not fly basic sequences, lacked basic situational awareness and did not have the potential to continue (would attempt to fly into cloud, would line up on final left of the runway - toward hangars and couldnt recognise this being a problem). Immediately I sent the student for a flight with the assistant CFI who came back white as a ghost - and together we sat down and discussed this with the student, who discontinued his training without wasting his money)

Most recently I was asked to assess a student who had over 50 hours and had not gone solo. Within 3 flights, while the student still had some diffculty, the standard of flying had greatly improved. I took the student to the local area to work on "attitude flying" something his previous instructor had commented on in every cct session he flew. After the third flight I conducted, I assessed that the student had potential to go solo.

To my disgust in both this case and the previous - the training had been conducted by different hour hungry junior grade 3 instructors who did not put these students up for regular senior checks and would just fly with them doing session after session of ccts, wondering why they were taking so long. They were also worried more about the student forgetting the prelanding checks in a C152 than they were about the student not being able to fly straight or level, to climb, use rudder for co-ordination, not looking outside or recognise attitudes.


Assuming that several instructors have genuinely tried their best to help the student reach a safe standard for first solo


This doesnt always help, some places I have been, some instructors dont read previous comments, and despite standardisation within flying schools, instructors have different standards and expectations on a student for solos - personally I look for safety, consistency and a good level of airmanship for the level. I dont look for perfection or a CPL standard of flying, that comes with experience. Flying with too many instructors can put stress on a student as they try to fly a certain way to impress the instructor on the day.

This student needs to be assessed by the CFI as to their basic flying skill, technique, situational awareness, ability to learn and to be either assigned a permanent senior instructor who has the patience and experience to help the student develop, or the student needs to be told that they do not have the potential to achieve their flying goals. Tee Em is right, and it is true that CFIs need to take more responsibility for student progression and thorough supervision of their junior instructors.

Anyway, just from my experience. I dont know this situation first hand, but hope that it can be resolved. Good luck.

Mo :ok:

P.S sorry for the length of the post, but I was trying to illustrate three very different examples of students in this situation.

[timetime]

We had a student that came to hour flying club .He had over fifty hours all the exams with passes of around 95% or better.He had flown with three other instructors including a grade 1 at around fifty hours who told him to try something else and we were told that he was not able to sent solo and was going to kill himself??? He came to us very angry and felt used they said there was nothing more they could do. He had spent alot of money.:ooh:
What to do????
Every body learns differently and this guy had a different style .You had to approach things on a different angle he was very smart but was not a mechanical person.We sat down( instructors and the student) and made a plan with goals and we all new what was expected.
He passed his private pilot licence and was a good student :D
Lessons. He was used for flying /money by the other establishment.He was not assessed by a grade one instructor untill around fifty hours??(bad form)There was no real structure to his training and he was left lacking in many areas by his previous instructors.He had been worn down by bad instructors not giving a dam about the finished product.
We had a very experienced instructor over fifty years flying who had seen his type before
He is still flying and knows his limits he is cautious and safe and it was a pleasure to be able to help him.
Get some help from another instructor from another company and go from there.

[Mach E Avelli]

In my first flying job we had one guy who came to us with a CPL. I had to endorse him on a couple of the single-engine aircraft in the fleet, because in those days each type required a separate endo. He was hopeless and I told the boss this. Anyway, after damaging one aircraft and writing off another he was 'let go' as the Yanks say.
His wife was in tears. Although I was very young myself and not trained to deal with this type of situation, I gently told her that perhaps she should encourage her man to take up Air Traffic Control if he wanted to stay close to aviation.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, a few years later he killed himself and a few others - in a twin.
There are a few people who just don't have it and will never have it no matter how much instruction they receive.

[poteroo]

When we read about how much longer it takes students to solo, it appears todays student isn't the same quality as in the good old days. But - this just isn't so.

When the GAAP location was an 'allover' grassed paddock, the student was nearly always straight into wind. Solo practice was easy and safe. There wasn't the same traffic density, and all you needed to see was a signal light from the Tower - not try to sort out your callsign from a garble of radio chatter. Solo was a piece of cake, and most of my contemporaries achieved it under 10 hrs.

A lot of students have difficulty 'multi-tasking' in these busy GAAP environments. Take them out to a quiet country location with a choice of cross strips - and I'll bet you can halve current solo times.

happy days,

[james ozzie]

I was a many-hour-to-solo student and I respect my FIs erring on the safe side. But in the end I had a confidential chat to the Club Chairmnan who passed it on to the CFI (rightly). Suddenly at my next lesson, there was the CFI, in an uncharacteristically pleasant mood. He took me out, polished a few things and the next lesson met me clutching a hand held (I should have known). Did my solo; reverted to old instructor who promptly would not send me solo again!. So at that point I changed back to the CFI and finished the licence in normal hours. I went on to more advanced types and flew OK (or as good as a weekender usually gets) and passed all my renewal tests without problems. Managed not to bend a plane since.

The problem with the first instructor was that he did not let me make mistakes. Every flight was railtrack perfect with him gently covering the controls, so I never really knew what I was doing - everything was perfect. In contrast, the CFI kept his hands on his lap, mouthing abuse while we bounced all over the sky. He would calmly sit while I nearly went inverted reading a map and then grab the controls at the last minute. I really now knew I was flying!

So it came down to style of instruction. I should have switched at 10 hours but as a student one does not know this. Also not helped by training in a complex airspace environment off a big airport but that gave me heaps of confidence for operating in other airspaces.

[Metro man]

I knew someone who took 83 hours to go solo and 160 hours to get his PPL. He deserved a medal for determination. No one said he was dangerous, just not very good.

[muffman]

Any more than a couple of hours instruction in the circuit is just reinforcing bad habits. If they're not reaching the standard, move on to something else so they don't lose hope and try to work out the problem outside the circuit area.

If they still can't do it, send 'em to the sailing club.

[A37575]

the training had been conducted by different hour hungry junior grade 3 instructors who did not put these students up for regular senior checks and would just fly with them doing session after session of ccts, wondering why they were taking so long.

First of all, thanks for all the thoughtful and very helpful replies. Please keep them coming because I know for sure there are many instructors who read Pprune and although they may not post, nevertheless gain much experience from what they read here.

Of course we will never know the numbers but the point made in the above highlighted paragraph is true. I recall one instructor who flew huge circuits in a 150 in order to (in his own words) allow the student time to settle down. The student was a 15 year old school boy whose parents were happy to pay lots of money for flying lessons not realising the boy could not solo until he turned 16. So his instructor (now an airline captain) flogged the circuit with the kid logging well over 30 hours even though he may have been perfectly capable of going solo in terms of skill.

On another occasion a young woman came to our flying school with over 60 hours of dual. We asked the flying school who had flogged her, for a copy of her progress reports and were initially ignored. A threat to tell CASA finally elicitated a copy of her flying hours but no instructor comments which of course was useless.

On another occasion we had the same problem getting a students progress reports from yet another flying school (student had 25 hours and no solo) and when they arrived the instructors written comments were one liners such as "Mary did better this time" (after 1.1 hours of dual) - or: "Mary- you must check all clear left, centre and right when you do turns" (this after 1.5 hours and that was the only entry in the students sheet. The instructor clearly lack education and had no idea how to describe a students problem. Obviously his instructors course failed to include lectures on the purpose of student records and how to write common sense reports. Of course the CFI should have insisted on a higher standard of report writing, but chances are the CFI never bothered to review his instructors student records for QA purposes.

With some students being given three or four different instructors in the first ten hours of flying lessons and progress reports lacking in a standard hardly beyond primary school English expression, is it any wonder students' flying instruction is a often rip-off. A recent arrival at our flying school revealed she had been taught to "pick up the wing with rudder" in terms of stall wing a wing drop. Pressed to explain, she said the technique taught at her previous school was to push hard on the rudder to skid the 150 around the horizon until the lowered wing gained enough lift to be level. CASA insistence that future grade 3 applicants be tested by a specialised ATO team seemed perfectly justified.

[gas-chamber]

I am thankful that my early instructors were ex-air force types who demanded and got a good PPL standard. Sometimes they seemed a bit harsh (probably thought they were still in the military) which in this touchy-feely age may not go down too well. But they always got first time passes for the PPL test. Done in those days by CAA not the school, so it was more difficult to fudge. The school probably would not have dared to put up a sub-standard student for test.
When I went on to CPL my instructor was a junior who had only just qualified and only had about 100 hours more than me. I did not learn anything useful from this guy, so after a few hours with him demanded to only fly dual with the ex-airforce pilots or I would take my business to the opposition.
When a student is not progressing, an instructor change may fix the problem and so should be automatic at a certain stage. But the really useless ones still need to be removed from the system before they hurt themselves or someone else. With many schools also conducting their own tests, this does not always happen.
One major school in the USA used to advertise 'Pass Guaranteed". A worry.

[HarleyD]

Have had students pretty much like the others mentioned here.

Only two ever got over 40 hrs prior to solo, both were taken over from other instructors who had given up and hand balled them.

Case 1 . Young bloke who just could not do things in the right order, or who would apply the opposite input to what was required. Progress sheets very interesting to read, very keen but seemingly no aptitude at all. Had a very long talk about relative cost for continued progress, and whether he may prefer to by a really nice car and or speed boat etc, maybe even very large cruiser and a Merc to pull it with, but if he really wanted to continue I would try my very best to give him best value for money I could, and maybe even get him solo at which pilont he may wish to accept the solo certificate and then cut his losses and buy a smaller boat with whatever was left of his funds. Told him to go away for a couple of weeks, have a good hard look at it all and come back with the answer (expecting, even hoping, to never hear from him again). He came back keener than ever and we didn’t progress much, despite my trying every passive and active reward scheme and lesson type I could, until I implemented an ‘aversion therapy’ method that involved the fuel dipstick and his knuckles – MIRACULOUS IMPROVEMENT from the first resounding ‘Crack’. Rapid onward progress and ultimately CPL and MECIR! Could hardly believe it myself!! – In general this method is NOT recommended due to potential liability issues and OH&S rules.

Case 2. 80 odd (very odd) year old woman who wanted to learn to fly in her late husband’s tailwheel aircraft. Very fussy and vocally critical old biddy that would only fly with instructor(s) who were family friends. Considered herself genteel and was from landed gentry, the miserable bag. I took her over when her part-time instructor ‘friends’ were utterly exasperated and fed up with her deciding what was going to happen at each lesson. I was not her friend (I was an ag pilot and instructor, I was a tradesman pilot who flew for a living) and I did not need to comply with her directions. I shortened her lessons and observed very carefully her performance and consistency for the next 7 or 8 lessons. Her consistency fluctuated on a regular cycle of three weeks and her performance varied on a normal distribution curve of about 45 minutes duration. I picked the right week and sent her solo exactly 15 minutes into the lesson and the result was one of the most perfect three point landings that I have witnessed, (when not flying the aircraft myself that is). We taxied back to the apron and I congratulated her on her achievement and what an outstanding performance etc. and that now she had ‘become a pilot’ she could return to a happy social circle at the CWA content in a job well done. She said that she always knew she could do it easily and that she intended to continue to PPL with her ‘friends’. Old Bat! She never once said thank you, but then again I suppose you are doing your job properly when the studes think that they have done it all themselves. I went back to full time ag work where I was master of my own cockpit.

I agree that the modern day GAAP environment is a very intense place to attempt to learn to fly from ab-initio. Regional airports that have the facilities but are less encumbered with the traffic, procedures and airspace issues are much better for good initial progress and getting on top of the – Aviate, Navigate, Communicate method, rather than the GAAP Communicate, Navigate, Aviate style

The Moorabbin Mercenaries that arrive in these regional circuits, treat the place like they own it, elbow their way into the circuit, nominate themselves as ‘number One’ when they are completely ignorant of the No-Radio traffic ahead of them, make four or more perfect radio broadcasts, often without listening to anyone else, fly big circuits with looong final legs for T & G landings with a mid field ‘ricochet’ then climb over the top for departure back to the big smoke are not doing their students much good as far as turning out someone that can actually fly, or even speak English for that matter.

Keep yer sausage machines in the cities, we can make real pilots out here and then dip them in the cauldron of GAAP when they have the fundamentals under control and have been into civilized controlled airports a few times ( not a reflection on the GAAP TWR people who have a job I do not envy)
HD

[Trojan1981]

In the military the solution is simple. Scrub him when it is obvious he won't go solo within 12 hours.
By that standard they would have missed out on one of the greatest fighter pilots in RAF history, Robert Stanford Tuck, who solo'd at 13 hours.

We don't want good pilots, but good officers who we can teach to fly
Oh, thats right...

[youngmic]

By that standard they would have missed out on one of the greatest fighter pilots in RAF history, Robert Stanford Tuck, who solo'd at 13 hours

Nice point Trojan!