Would you be happy for a loved one flying with a brand new PPL?

[vabsie]

I have a flying related question - hope that's acceptable looking at some of the more recent threads ;)

Subject says it all really, and I ask the question mainly because a PPL is often referred to as a license to learn - so when has someone in your book learnt enough to fly your dearests around?

Cheers

Vabsie

[Cusco]

As soon as the instructor deems the pilot fit to attempt the PPL test and the examiner deems the pilot fit to pass.

Cusco.

[iwrbf]

Hi,

I would prefer a "fresh" PPL over a Flown-for-20-years-12-hours-a-year-in-the-pattern-Know-it-all... Hands down!

Kind regards,
Peter

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It is sometimes said that the examiner during the skills test asks himself "would I be happy if this guy's next flight was with my kids as passengers?"

If so, then pass, if not, then fail.

[Pilot DAR]

Any new pilot has an immense amount to learn. Any experienced pilot still has lots to learn, so they're all licenses to learn.

New pilots who use their modest skills to choose the conditions best suited to their skills, are probably fine - in those conditions. Then, as long as the new pilot remembers that for many passengers, simply being off the ground at all is very impressive, so additional efforts to impress (steep turns and zero G) are not necessary, and probably actually counter productive to a fun time, things should go well.

A young fellow I knew decades ago, had the free use of his dad's fleet of a dozen or so various aircraft. So did I, so I really appreciated the privilege. I took care to be a very respectful pilot in those aircraft - he, not so much. When he was 16 (and very skilled, though yet to be fully licensed) he used to "borrow" the Aerobat, and take his girlfriend flying. I caught him once looping and rolling her. The poor girl was scared speechless when they got down (I was waiting). I told him that if I caught him again, I'd have his parents ground him. I caught him again (I was surprised that he got her to go again), and had him grounded. He drove her on dates for a while after that. Oh, by the way, that young fellow is now a national aerobatic champion - I guess he showed me!

Pilots, particularly new ones, think that what they do is impressive. The rest of society, probably would like to think about flying being more safe and enjoyable, than impressive. New pilots will do us all a favour by giving their passengers a ride they really enjoy, and feel is safe. That makes for good impressions, and good will. Aviation needs all it can get of that!

[AN2 Driver]

Would I be happy if a loved one would go flying on his/her brand new PPL?

Yes. I'd keep an eye on what and under which conditions, lend a hand as a somewhat more experienced aviator, but by all means a new PPL not only should but must spread her wings in order to get experience. It's difficult to do so if you're not flying.

Once had an interesting case where a wife of a fresh PPL would refuse to fly with him on the grounds that he was "clumsy at home so how should I trust him to fly an airplane safely"... apparently she had agreed to let him have lessons fully expecting he would fail and give up. Well, he's flying with someone else now :ok:

[goldeneaglepilot]

Without reservation - If my loved one has completed her PPL then I would trust her ability to conduct a safe flight, knowing that she has demonstrated her ability and has has shown the neccessary ability to judge if the flight can be conducted safely based on her personal limitations

[peterh337]

I think it depends on his instructor. In the UK, too many people get PPLs not knowing some preflight basics. I would want to make sure myself that he/she knows the planning etc. Also, only recently, a student got killed when given an orbit for spacing by ATC, which is totally out of order.

[Fuji Abound]

You read of few serious accidents involving low hours pilots and bearing in mind there are more new than old pilots (most of the new pilots give up before they become old pilots) they cant be doing too bad.

There is i think some evidence it takes a few hundred hours before you become really dangerous! Survive those years and you should be ok.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd just like the new pilot to have done a few solo hours to get used to flying without an instructor breathing down their necks.

But after that, fine.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Hi Peter,

What is so unusal about a student pilot having to make an orbit for ATC seperation? At one place I instructed, that was common place, as was the instruction to take off 33, turn right or left for downwind for the intersecting runway. All of this was of course when calm(ish) and would often use any of the 4 runway directions at the airport to help integrate the training aircraft into busy commercial traffic using the main runway. In addition to that prior to first solo the student had to be taught how to navigate to another airport and do a non radio join and landing. Just in case they had a radio faliure while solo and needed to leave the control zone, which was standard procedure in the event of a radio faliure.

Genghis - most of my students had done 15 to 20 hours solo by the end of the PPL, some of it just as time to get to the minimum hours for their ppl application. It was not uncommon to send a student off to do a couple of hours out of the control zone to the south just to build hours / experience.

[Genghis the Engineer]

But you were still there overseeing their flying. In my opinion it's useful just to get them away from the instructor's umbrella a little.

I thought Peter's point was not about being asked to orbit for separation, but losing control and crashing in the doing so.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Towards the end of their PPL the degree of instructor interaction would have diminished to "go and do a couple of hours to the south" and a signature to authorise the flight. If they needed any greater brief then they were not ready!!

Equally if a student could not safely complete an orbit on a solo circuit then they should not have been cleared to go solo.

[custardpsc]

When I was a student I trained at a field where orbits for separation for students were practiced and a useful technique. I also recently flew somewhere where a student decided to do an orbit of their own decision, unfortunately at about 600ft on final ! The ATCO dealt with it very well but it wasn't just the traffic confliction, I did think it was more of a stall/spin potential problem. If students are well trained and know the limitations then arguably its better to know how and when to do this type of thing than guessing. I wish someone had given me the opportunity to depart a runway and make the remainder of a circuit to an intersecting runway more often, it would have been a good confidence booster I think.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In my opinion it's useful just to get them away from the instructor's umbrella a little.

a signature to authorise the flight

My recollection of being a student is that I nonetheless use the instructor's signature as something of a "am I really safe to go" backstop. A few unsupervised solo hours got that out of my system.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Custardpsc

I agree - a great confidence builder for the student, it also stopped them flying the circuit by rote!! they had to adapt the flying circuit dependent on which runway direction they were given. It was a high workload for the student and resulted in first solo times that were on average 8 - 10 hours later than students at a quiet airfield. However it did give them an ability to rapidly adapt to changes in the circuit.

[thing]

Must admit as a new pilot I've never had anyone worrying about flying/having a loved one flying with me. I've even cured my daughter's phobia of flying. But then I'm a belt and braces type of guy, never use more than ten degrees of bank (and surprisingly you don't have to) when flying pax unless essential. Have you ever driven home with a pint of milk in the footwell of the car? You know how careful you have to be to stop it falling over, I always think of non aviator pax as pints of milk in the footwell. Every single person I've flown has always wanted another flight. Not down to my piloting skills I'm sure, it's just treating them like eggs and being thorough with everything.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Thing

Spot on attitude!! In my experience the person who tries to impress their friends and family by silly deeds is the least impressive. All it serves is to bolster the ego of the pilot rather than demonstrate skill and consideration

[mad_jock]

Its not the brand news you need to worry about.

Its when they are about 100 hours or a year after they have passed that they are more likely to have an incident.

Everything is fresh in their heads and still feel slightly under confident. After that they need to scare themselves a few times and then they settle down again.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

Confession: I dont understand the phrase 'orbit to an intersecting runway'. It's not something I have come across. Could someone clarify. Thanks

[Pace]

Charlie Delta

in some places you may fly an instrument approach to one runway and break off that approach to land on another runway.

You may also do what the FAA call a Circle to land off an ILS where the winds favour the other end of the runway.

As far a the PPL flying VFR ATC may decide to change runways and could offer you the chance of doing a circle from your presnt position onto the new runway.

I think that was what he was talking about when he said orbit.

It is really about spatial awareness and being able to have a good mental picture of where you are and where you want to be.
In that sense its good practice to chop approaches around a bit so that you do not fixate on one circuit pattern.

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

I think in the context of this thread the expression orbit refers to a 360 degree rate 1 turn from your current position in the circuit (in the direction stated by ATC) at a constant height until advised to continue in the circuit by ATC.

The reference to intersecting runways can best be described by following the example of ATC instructions (its only for VFR circuit work).
"G-ABCD Cleared takeoff 33, after departure turn right down wind for 24".

"G-ABCD Cleared touch and go 24 after touch and go position for left hand downwind for 33".

"G-ABCD take up one right hand orbit in current position for traffic seperation. After one orbit continue down wind left hand for 33 - Call turning base leg"
Not only has the runway changed but also the circuit direction, which was common practice at Birmingham Airport for VFR GA circuit Training on locally based aircraft on a calm day in the late 80's. At the time there were four training organisations based at Birmingham airport with approximatly 15 aircraft resident for training

[Pace]

I dont understand the phrase 'orbit to an intersecting runway'

GEP

I agree with what you are saying re an orbit! Orbit in your present position makes sense to maybe let IFR traffic land and gain spacing but orbit TO an intersecting runway would be very odd ;)
Circle to an intersecting runway would make better sense.

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

I dont think I mentioned orbit to an intersecting runway??? To me the next runway direction and circuit may change after a touch and go, but not through an orbit to change runway direction or circuit direction.

For ease - this is BXH back then

http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa438/dh12554/BHX1999.jpg

[Pace]

I dont think I mentioned orbit to an intersecting runway???

You didn't ; ) He did !! Ie the author of the question

Pace

[Private jet]

Answer for original question; It depends on who the instructor was and who the examiner was. Some are more "thorough" than others.

[custardpsc]

CDU - two separate things here but related by the same point about being useful but students not always taught/get to do them. Orbiting for separation - "charlie delta make/request one right orbit present position" and repositioning for another runway = departing from say rw 31 and immediately being on right base for rw 18 or right downwind for rw 27 say.

As mentioned the positioning for adjacent rw is a useful thing and it does bring the confidence/ability that rote flying the circuit doesn't give. It also does make one ready to deal with runway changes on the fly as required without unduly increasing workload

Orbits are imho slightly more contentious - sometimes necessary when requested by controller, sometimes a good idea when requested by pilot, but never great when someone decides to do an unannounced one on finals. Also low and slowish and I can imagine the tendency to try and keep the turn tight and there is a stall/spin brewing ... The USA seems fonder of them than the UK. Hope this clarifies

[CharlieDeltaUK]

I guess this is thread drift but I hope you won't mind continuing my education...

"G-ABCD Cleared takeoff 33, after departure turn right down wind for
24".

If you depart on 33 and turn right, won't you be going upwind on the deadside of 24?

"G-ABCD Cleared touch and go 24 after touch and go position for left hand
downwind for 33".

So, assuming 24 is a left-hnd circuit, would you climb, turn leftso you are now late downwind for runway 33?

[CharlieDeltaUK]

I think this is persuading me that I don't yet have the experience/practice to do the mental gymnastics required. So, if this was me in receipt of such instructions, I guess the safest course of action is to 'fess up to ATC about not understanding and suggest that you depart the circuit and re-position from outside the circuit once you have got sorted out.

I haven't done anything like this, which perhaps confirms what one of the posters was saying about it being good experience. Is this a shortcomning in a new PPL? If so, I'll do something about it before I cause any grief for real.

[mad_jock]

Not really, your solution is more than sensible.

In fact quite alot of highly experenced pilots would do the same thing after getting scared ****less trying to help out ATC and getting their bums well and truely burned in the past.

One of those ones where experence and cunning means not having to use advanced handling skills to sort a problem out.

[dont overfil]

I see our local schools regularly circling to position on a different runway. It is a three runway field. Last weekend it was being done through necessity as the wind was periodically swinging 90 degrees. Good practice!

If confused, or the circuit is getting congested, clearing the circuit is absolutely the correct thing to do.

Orbiting at a controlled field is OK but a no no at an uncontrolled field as you could be orbiting into the path the following aircraft.

Back to the origional post I would say usually yes but I would want to know the pilot reasonably well and make my judgement based on personality.

D.O.

[riverrock83]

After marrying my instructor's daughter, I know that I wont be allowed to get my licence until he's confident that I'm safe! :8

[CharlieDeltaUK]

If your future father-in-law sends you solo in a gale after 6 hours, that might tell you something!

Your wedding speeches are going to be good.

[goldeneaglepilot]

No - if your father in law sends you solo in 6 hours in a gale he's giving you a small chance. If he sends you solo after 20 hours with a 200 foot cloudbase and a 600m RVR then he hates you!! And he's sadistic to boot.

With regards the situation at Birmingham in the late eighties, there was never a "deadside" Joins were always by ATC instruction and NEVER an overhead join. The circuit direction was not fixed and was dependent on the traffic and the conditions. It could change several times in one session. Students learnt to be flexible and think on their feet, hence why it took longer than average to get them solo.

With respect to an orbit done low - the only time that is likely would be on finals at an uncontrolled field and that is stupidity. If you can't maintain seperation then a missed approach and back into another circuit is the correct thing to do. A Low, slow orbit in approach configuration is asking for an early appointment with the grim reaper.

At a controlled airfield the only leg a controller will ask to an orbit is on the down wind leg, he will have already planned the VFR approaches to slot in with the IFR and/or heavy traffic (for wake seperation) if he has an emergency and your on base or finals he will tell you to go around or go away!! If your on base leg and in a typical club aircraft you will be having a good look at where the heavy touchs down before you and be aiming to land past his touch down point to keep above any residual wake turbulance.

[airpolice]

ffs, why would you assume that?

So, assuming 24 is a left-hnd circuit, would you climb, turn leftso you are now late downwind for runway 33?

Turns are always made in circuit direction.

[mad_jock]

At a controlled airfield the only leg a controller will ask to an orbit is on the down wind leg

Nope I have had one that told a first solo to do that at 300ft agl on final.

[goldeneaglepilot]

MJ, that warrents reporting!!

Controllers do make mistakes, they are human, however when they place someone at risk then that is unacceptable. I trust you had words! Especially as the instructor will have spoken to ATC and advised that it was a first solo.

It's almost as bad as IFR traffic being told to maintain visual seperation with the VFR circuit traffic

[Squawk_code]

Seeing people orbit on the downwind leg gives me the jitters! ATC instruction or not!

As for flying with new PPL's...well why not! They've proven to an examiner that they are safe and competent. I do think that they may need a close eye kept on them if possible, but this isn't always the case. You could compare it to a new driver passing a driving test. I'd prefer someone to fly with a new PPL then a new driver any day!

And I can't agree more with some of the posts about students/new PPL's being given a bit of breathing space. I can remember doing an hour of circuit bashing, both instructor and me getting more frustrated with my lack of landing finesse...and then him getting out and telling me to go and sort it on my own! It worked 100% and not having the stress of him watching my every move was a key factor!

[mad_jock]

IFR traffic once you accept a visual only has to be passed traffic. And when your talking to tower its the same. Its pilots not knowing the rules which creates the problems. Your on your tod once your start speaking to twr.

I had told the twr that they were first solo and I did speak to the SATCO afterwards who came over and apologised to the student. Although to be honest that particular student was a gliding conversion so if it had to be anyone I was glad it was him.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

ffs, why would you assume that?





Quote:




So, assuming 24
is a left-hnd circuit, would you climb, turn leftso you are now late downwind
for runway 33?


Turns are always made in circuit direction.


I was assuming a left hand circuitwith all turns to the left. Nobody mentioned a right hand circuit. So, climbing out on 24 and then turning left would surely put you roughly parallel with 33 (which will then be on your left) and going more or less downwind. Happy to be told the error of my ways so I can understand the 'FFS' preamble to your reply.

[vabsie]

Don't mind the thread drift thanks for all the posts - find it useful, although some of it seems tricky.

One additional question that I feel may be relevant: Apart from the current Orbit topic, what is the one thing (if any) you wish you were taught as part of your PPL but you weren't?

Vabsie

[CharlieDeltaUK]

I don't think there is just one thing that I wish I had learned. It's more a matter of recognising that the PPL experience was a little sample of most things, without in depth experience of many of them. I didn't do much in full ATC airfields, for example. So i just recognise that I need to build that experience.

I never had an SVFR experience so thats something which is on my mind for getting some experience. But I have no idea whether most PPLs would get experience of an SVFR clearance.

Flying over mountainous areas is another.

And, of course, the whole notion of going foreign isnt something one does at PPL. Well, I didn't.

[mad_jock]

Its very linked to geographical postion in the country what some people are lacking and others get exposure to.

For example way up north flying through hills isn't an issue, but stick them on the easy down to Gatwick and send them off round the London TMA and that may cause issues. And vice versa.

Nothing special about SVFR most PPL's get exposed to it while doing a night qual if done at an airport in controlled airspace.

And the going foreign again is regional. Once you get away from the south coast/west coast to Ireland not may of the instructors will have done it either.

[b2vulcan]

I can remember doing an hour of circuit bashing, both instructor and me getting more frustrated with my lack of landing finesse...and then him getting out and telling me to go and sort it on my own! It worked 100% and not having the stress of him watching my every move was a key factor!

Hmm, that sounds familiar but I doubt the solution would work for me, nor would it be offered.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I think that a lot of things which should be part of a pilots development might get missed. Birmingham did seem well located. It was busy airspace, it often needed a SVFR clearance to enter or exit the control zone, students had a busy time in the circuit and most instructors seemed to enjoy going with the student towards the end of the PPL for lunch in France.

MATZ crossing and penetration techniques was easily dealt with by a cross country to the east, a trip into Wales dealt with appreciation of hilly terrain and the route to Le Touquet from Birmingham built confidence.

Birmingham was / is not unique, it just takes a CFI who thinks out of the box rather than just working to the syllabus minimums and plans some interesting "points" to enhance the PPL course.

It was not uncommon to see someone after finishing the PPL have enough confidence to plan a weekend trip with their mates to Jersey or Dublin.

Of course a good club will always be keen to hone a PPL's skills after the licence is granted, group flying trips to interesting airfields in the club aircraft, planned weekends away, club lunch runs, treasure hunts etc all add to make a "club" rather than just a pure commercial venture. In my opinion that is more likely to be a long term sustainable business entity and will encourage spending of money post PPL.

[peterh337]

The problem with discussing what should be taught but isn't (lots IMHO) is that the majority of people who do a PPL are doing it to tick a "lifestyle achievement" box; a bit like walking up Kilimanjaro, getting laid (if you are 16), etc. They give up as soon as they've got it.

The schools need that business, and they would resist any broadening of the syllabus.

Otherwise, I would teach people how to fly A to B around Europe. It's not exactly hard. But look how many forum posts there are with subjects like "what's the best route from Blackbushe to Southend"? Makes you want to shoot their instructor :ugh:

[mad_jock]

The PPL is OK for a License to learn and the syllabus is just enough for 90% of the pilots.

The problem is that you can setup advanced courses but nobody wants to pay for them.

There are no books on going "international" so people come on the forums and ask for advice.

Maybe that could be your next project Peter you do seem to have a flare for writing these things up. Then publish it on a Kindle or as an ebook.

[Pace]

I would really like to see an aerobatic element chopped into the PPL later in the course as it worries me that too much is taught to incipient and not enough outside the envelope.
I worry that nowadays we are taught to be aeroplane drivers not pilots.


Maybe that could be your next project Peter you do seem to have a flare for writing these things up. Then publish it on a Kindle or as an ebook.

I would second that as Peters knowledge and attention to detail as well as his desire to help others is amazing

Pace

[CharlieDeltaUK]

...a bit like walking up Kilimanjaro, getting laid (if you are 16), etc. They give
up as soon as they've got it.


Not sure about Kilimanjaro, but I think quite a lot of poeple do carry on with the other after they have got it ;)

[mad_jock]

as it worries me that too much is taught to incipient and not enough outside the envelope.

My gut feel is the same as yourself. But the safety case for not doing it is compeling. There were silly amounts of accidents training.

My view now is to teach proper attitude flying and get the student to know the danger pictures out of the front and how to correct them when they see them.

Its the fixation on airspeed being the controlling factor in stalling which needs to be changed. Get the students thinking in terms of angle of attack and attitude and understanding whats going on seems to produce better results.

[MartinCh]

I got my lady to go up in glider. I'd have flown with her, but the club rules and only few non-instructors authorised to fly the two seaters. Even old K13 isn't given to me, not just twin astir.. She's not too into flying, but she'd like to go up with me, to share some good time.

Regarding taking her up in helicopter, hm. Maybe briefly. We Robbie pilots know that things can go wrong at NO notice and despited being licensed instructor and having great maintenance, I still find it elevated risk compared to bimbling around in glider.

Fixed wing/aeroplane? Yeah, letting someone else fly my family/close ones, I'd like to have some 30-40 hours post-PPL in their logbook. I know how I was and felt. Not to green, not to cocky/laidback. Obviously, it's all case by case basis.

mad_jock,
we agree on this topic of unusual attitudes training, not just avoidance etc. Funnily enough, I wanted to practice actual spins in glider in one US club last year during checkout flight, but we only did it towards incipient and recovered. No emergencies (bar cable breaks) and no aerobatics. I'd not be let go solo in the UK on glider without spin and stall training or recurrent training after long time not flying solo.

Just how the hell are people going to deal with stuff if it really happens? Aggresive spin does freak out first handful of times. Coming to think of it, I've never done full on spin in SEP. I was up for it if enough safety altitude and clearing area, but probably partly due to instructors and partly due to school owner we didn't. How hard could it be in 172? Or Cub? Dang, the 150/152 recovers itself if let go.

[Cobalt]

she'd like to go up with me, to share some good time.

Not a good idea. See this (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001212X18632&key=1) NTSB accident report.

[mad_jock]

I would say attitude training ie looking outthe soding window and knowing what the aircraft is doing.

The whole object though is it not to happen. As much as people would like to think it aids safety training for it, it actually used to kill more people than it saved.

[Pace]

Mad jock
I came to flying after car racing in my early 20s
Driving a car at high speed and out of shape as well as spinning and crashing the things made me very comfortable with a car now and those skills saved my bacon on a number of occasions since.
I am sure you get my jist regarding planes?
Ok you may have to specify types for aerobatic training to avoid training accidents but incipient is a dangerous route to take !
Bad vis looking for the runway and incipient becomes real .
Aerobatic training may just give you the skills to save your bacon ; )


Pace

[mad_jock]

I used to think the same as you but... One instructors seminar later and having a look at quite a few threads on here.

In a very very few cases it may help, but the boffins in the know crunched the numbers and found that it kills more people training for it than it saves.

Just a look at the AIBB reports over the last 10 years shows that folk stalling/spinning it in on finals doesn't carry a heavy butchers bill.

Now coming in to fast and sliding off the side or off the end so I would say the problem is to much energy rather than not enough to remian in controlled flight.

[ShyTorque]

I would trust a person with a brand new PPL as much the same as I would trust someone with a brand new driving licence.

For me, it's as much person specific as licence/hours specific.

Not just PPL holders, though. I've watched some rotary winged CPL hours builders fly "Pleasure Flights" at various events. I wouldn't want to be in the same aircraft as some of them, let alone play for the "pleasure".

[Pace]

Mad jock
I am not suggesting that students go spin training in terror hawks but would recommend a few hours in a competant aerobatic machine.
I appreciate no two aircraft or even aircraft of the same but different weight or distribution will all spin in a different way but it's more about being a handling pilot rather than a driver!
It's the confidence you can only get by knowing what lies beyond the normal envelope.
I used to have examiners who would do full stalls with me in twins at 10 k in all configs and I am sure I am far better for that than the new ways!
In a way it's like flying in extremes. Extreme winds, shear , crosswinds and knowing you can handle the worst rather than only going out when the winds are max 10 it's

Pace

[ShyTorque]

I recall one accident in a light twin where the prop came off one engine, spun over the top of the airframe and ripped off the other engine. Instant, massive, aft C of G change, loss of airspeed and spin entry.

The pilot was ex-military; he recovered from the spin and landed in a field.
No "recovery at the incipient stage" training would have saved his bacon.

You can be trained to avoid "spinning" in a car. But if someone clonks your car into a skid, you'd be better off knowing how to deal with it. Everyone agrees that "skid pan" training is a good idea, don't they?

The thought of trying to recover from a spin in an aircraft without having been trained how to do it, or perhaps even without having seen it?....... no thanks.

I'm pleased to have been able to learn how to ride a motorbike and drive a car in wet, muddy farm fields, where skids were just part of the deal. Similarly, my military flying training introduced spinning quite early on in the syllabus (actually, it was still formly in the syllabus of the PPL back then in the early 1970s, which I completed).

Then almost every military GH training sortie included at least one spin. Pilots are of course also trained how to avoid them. You'd need to be very lucky to recover from a spin on short finals, flaps and gear down, etc. Irrespective of who trained you.

Rotary training also included full down EOL autos. You needed to be good at it because the rules prohibited re-engaging the engine for go-arounds once the throttle was closed. Again, not many PPLs get to do these to the ground.

[custardpsc]

Interesting question. My 2p worth...

Things I wish I had done more of on my ppl training:

Actual short field/soft field
More short solo x-c as confidence builder
Circle to alternate runway stuff as above
Go/no go weather analysis
Dead reckoning
'mission based' training - eg deliver an aircraft for maintenance and collect it as a solo navex - forcing trip to possibly more difficult/challenging destination, not joining 'by rote' to a regular x-c destination.

Things I was lucky to do and would recommend:

Train in a few different countries
Go foreign - my first long dual x-c blackbushe schipol
Do an actual IMC trip
Fly into big airports (APCH-TWR-GND-ATIS) as well as uncontrolled
Do some longer x-c

[pudoc]

Personally it would depend on the person. If I knew the person well, I knew he was intelligent, level headed and sensible I'd be fine going up with him even if he only had 45 hours. But if it was somebody who was a bit rebellious, had a very lazy attitude or was a bit of a joker, I'd think twice.

At my club there's a PPL holder I know, has about 100 hours but you couldn't pay me to fly with him. I've heard him on the radio and as the saying goes, true or not, if you sound **** people assume you are ****. But it's not just that, I have witnessed myself the dangers he can be to others. I was speaking to our A/G operator and he told me be careful when he's up and about.

This one guy who was joining the circuit to land, not only did he approach for the wrong runway (thankfully our A/G was on the ball) it sounded like he had no clue what he was doing. He wasn't sure if he was joining crosswind making an overhead join. You could hear the uncertainty/confusion in his voice and our helpful radio guy sorted him out.

No disrespect to him, but that's someone I would never go up with. In his defence he hadn't finished training I think he was on a QXC or a solo land away. Scary his instructor let him tbh! It's probably not even the students fault.

And contrary to that, I've come across some inexperienced pilots who seem to have a very good grasp of what they're doing. I'd fly with them any day despite the lack of experience.

There's more to making a good pilot than training. Greater training does provide better pilots but there's more too it. Willingness to be good, intelligence etc. To be a good pilot you need to have the right personality as well. It's not just about passing tests. I'm sure most of you have seen Top Gun, Maverick was quite clearly a good pilot but he just had the wrong attitude. Quite clearly highly trained, but I wouldn't fly with him...even though it is just a film.

[mad_jock]

If its with a competent aeros instructor then yep it will be useful. Not many of them about. Just a load of FI's that have spun a C152. And then there is getting a decent machine to do it in which is on a schools books.

Will it decrease accidents?

Well the statics say no. You actually increase the number of training accidents.

Its not me you need to argue with its the statistics boffins. Which is why I doudt it will ever be back in.

[thing]

At my club there's a PPL holder I know, has about 100 hours but you couldn't pay me to fly with him. I've heard him on the radio and as the saying goes, true or not, if you sound **** people assume you are ****. But it's not just that, I have witnessed myself the dangers he can be to others. I was speaking to our A/G operator and he told me be careful when he's up and about.

But why is he allowed to do that? Isn't there a CFI around? He wouldn't get off the deck at my place, qualified or not. Apart from anything else ATC would have him in for a no tea and biscuits talk.

[thing]

Will it decrease accidents?

Well the statics say no. You actually increase the number of training accidents.

I'm reminded of the asymmetric training in the RAF during the 50's on twins like the Meteor and Canberra. The training killed far more pilots (and instructors) than any actual engine loss on final ever did

[MartinCh]

Rotary training also included full down EOL autos. You needed to be good at it because the rules prohibited re-engaging the engine for go-arounds once the throttle was closed. Again, not many PPLs get to do these to the ground.

full down autos are not normally done in PPL training. The insurance stuff mainly, not to mention the suitable experience of instructors for teaching them. Robinsons are also easier to crash/ding in full downs, so again, insurance. But you know all this anyway. Just FYI to other readers.

[NicoPH]

Getting back onto the original subject of the thread.

YOU should be ready to take loved one with you once you've got your PPL. But, are THEY ready to go out with you, and what about you if they are not?

I'm fairly close to the PPL now, i.e. waiting for the weather and me to click to do my qualifier (with the current weather, if feels like I could wait years!). My wife is a very adventurous and enthusiastic person, but I felt that she was a bit anxious at the idea of going out with me. As she is fairly brainy, I thought it would be a good thing for her to take a (real) trial lesson so that she understood how things work. Now, she was never sick in an airplane, so we both forgot she tends to be sea sick... and she became air sick during the trial lesson and came back all wobbly and gray faced.

Now, I am glad I won't have to discover this on my first flight with her with my fresh PPL, as I have the intuition it would have pushed me above my processing threshold, with the attached risk: in the air dealing with sickness; but imagine a landaway, putting her on the train back home, then getting back to the airfield and flying back with extra fatigue; or worse (a very, very bad idea IMO) shoving her back into the plane to fly back after she was sick on the way out.

Someone said above that examiners are thinking whether their kids will be safe with us... but are they thinking about the same kids sick and crying? I'll have to ask :-). Maybe training should include doing a landaway with our instructor messing around in the cockpit instead of seating nicely still and silent!

Anyway, the conclusion of the story for me is that acertaining the level of readiness of your loved ones can only be a good thing. They can take a trial lesson, or fly as passenger with you and your instructor in the front seats (which I'm sure I'll do). All this should also help decrease your own stress level at showing your newly acquired skills off. Reducing stress is everything that PPL training is about after all, so I'm voting for adding "exercising with loved-ones" to the curriculum!

[flyinkiwi]

My wife was adamant that the first passenger I took up who wasn't a pilot was her, and I obliged. Fortunately for me, she is a tough sort who loves turbulence more than I do!

I have also flown my sister, my brother in law, my sister in law, my nephew and my niece without incident. Their parents trusted me with their child(ren) and I had less than 100 hours total time when I took them up for the first time. I really like the eggs analogy, because I have the same attitude. Flying in poor visibility or severe turbulence can cause even the most ardent aviation nut to want to call it a day, so why expose non fliers to that environment? I try to shoot for the best weather possible. Aviation is there to be shared and enjoyed by all, and nothing gives me a greater buzz than seeing non fliers break into a smile and ask me when they can go up again just after I shutdown.

As for the thread drift question:

Apart from the current Orbit topic, what is the one thing (if any) you wish you were taught as part of your PPL but you weren't?

I would have loved to have done VOR/ADF/DME tracking, and I guess I still could, but where I fly it is not a part of the PPL syllabus. I did however do a lot of other extracurricular flying, and I strongly recommend to all low time pilots to seek out as wide a range of flying experiences as possible, even if it is one where you are not hands on. I learned a heap of useful stuff just sitting in the back watching a lesson in progress (flying in the back seat of a twin IMC asymmetrically and a night VFR trip for someones CPL were the two real eye openers for me).

[liam548]

I don't think any pilot ever stops learning.

I got mine my PPL in 2009 and have completed my night and IMC rating since then but I feel, and I am in reality, still just starting out..


I would never do anything that I considered a bit dodgy or dangerous. I am not in the game to cause injury to myself or anyone else.

I think its a case of getting your PPL and just pushing little bits at a time. I've never had to do a SVFR flight, I've never flown internationally (although I did a few hours in Crete whilst on holiday). But these are things that, even if never actually trained by an instructor to do, you can pick up enough detail and read enough online to get through.

I've made some daft errors but it is about learning from them and making sure they don't happen again, that bag full of luck does not last forever.

If new pilots could afford to fly as much as they wanted they would soon get real good quick IMO.

One of the main reasons I am a good driver is because I do it so much and it does not cost £120 per hour to practice. But recognising that it will take longer to get really good at flying is all you need to do and take small steps at a time.


Liam

[Pace]

I think whether you are a new pilot or old hand there is one rule for all.

That is to fly within your own limits and the aircraft limits and above all to know what those limits are.

As for things going wrong with passengers and giving you distractions use your judgement! If your a new PPL with an untried passenger just do a circuit or two keeping close in.

An instructor friend took up a person who appeared to be relaxed and giving him the controls the guy froze on the controls with an iron grip refusing to let go. He literally had to hit him.
If your a new pilot take things slowly! Some new pilots are excellent some old hands I wouldnt have sent my kids up with.

Pace

[peterh337]

Of course one never stops learning.

On most long trips I do I could list half a dozen things I learnt, and this is at 1500hrs.

The real Q is whether you are still learning basic stuff like watching the speed during relevant phases of flight. If yes then you will quite possibly kill yourself before you learn it. But then who the hell was your instructor?

[Pace]

Peter

The old saying " a PPL is NO more than a licence to start learning".

having now lost 7 good friends to aviation most of them good very experienced pilots it makes you realise what a cruel mistress aviation can be even to the best!

Your instructor is probably a young guy with a few 100 hrs your real instructor is YOU!!!

Pace

[peterh337]

"The old saying " a PPL is NO more than a licence to start learning"."

Yes, but don't you think that sayings like that are just a good excuse for crap training?

I think that that saying is totally meaningless anyway, because if I had paid say £10,000 for a PPL then I would jolly well expect to be able to plan to fly from A to B and execute it correctly.

The fact that so many people do a PPL just to tick a lifestyle box and then give up is what enables the business to deliver such a crap product.

The RAF wouldn't do that because all of their expensive hardware would end up crashed.

[Pace]

Peter

I think maybe you are expecting too much from training. Its a bit like teaching someone to drive a car. You give them the fundamentals but then they are on their own to start building experience which cannot be taught.
The idea of an instructor conjures up the grey haired pilot passing down his years of experience to those he instructs.
That is very different from the low hours instructor who does not have that experience but teaches the fundamentals by the book. There is no soul in that!
Dark night on your own in IMC , turbulence and icing and there is the scared you and the other guy in your head working it all out! How much do you learn in such experiences more than any instructor could ever do!

Your biggest instructor is YOU!!! Fly with your soul!!!!!!!

Pace ;)

[abgd]

The RAF wouldn't do that because all of their expensive hardware would end up crashed.

Funnily enough I once met an ex-RAF pilot with several hundred hours who had very rudimentary navigational skills... He'd spent a lot of time instructing in the local area, and was used to following vectors from ATC. I got the impression that he was good at not-crashing though.

[peterh337]

Regarding the navigation I can completely understand that. I met a Hawk instructor c. 2005 who said they do dead reckoning only. They also used military ATC support heavily and the uk's extensive 121.50 support is a lot to do with that (not for civilian use primarily, apparently) and same for the LARS network. And anyway it's obvious that GPS has dramatically reduced the use of these facilites for navigational assistance.

I am sure the new RAF hardware has the gizmos ok but ISTM that historically the fighter jet fleet had very poor nav capability compared to what you get in a half equipped IFR tourer today or even 15 years ago.

In 2002 I bought a Skymap 2 GPS which even then was a piece of junk. Skyforce stopped making them officially c. 2006 but around then some bit of the military reportedly bought about 100 of them. I thought... :

It's a good job the Russians never invaded :)

[Pace]

Peter

Please read my post above as I had a think and added to it!!! Forget the Gizmos or at least dont give them such importance fly with your own instructor your soul!!!

Pace

[Maoraigh1]

Going back to the original question, if the new PPL is renting the aircraft, it is likely they will have good advice (even restriction) on where they go, regarding weather and runways.
If the new PPL has already bought his own plane, the risk is greater.

[peterh337]

That may or may not be so, both ways.

Post PPL, the stuff I was renting was absolute crap, with duff avionics etc. I used to fly with a handheld radio tuned to the current freq in case I got a comms failure, and to back up the VOR receiver.

When I bought my own plane, less than 1year post PPL, that was the best thing ever.