Looking for advice - I think I need a new school

[DJBios]

Evening All,

Some of you will remeber previous posts from me as my NPPL learning has been eventfull to say the least. I was planning to sit my finals Skills test tomorrow based on advice from my current regular instructor, however after a lesson today with another instructor it was clear that my PFL's were not to standard.

I have been learning for about 70 hours, have completed my NST, and cross country but now seem to be going round in circles. I get the impression from my regular instructor that he simply want's rid of me. The lesson today again introduced things that other instructors have not covered.

Given that I have now spend around £9,000 on the NPPL I am begining to think I either need a new school that will help me get where I want to be, or to give it up.

I would be interetsed to hear thoughts of anyway who has changed schools and how this went, I would also like some thoughts around the 70 hours for an NPPL. I know I am a slow learner, but just feel that I am in a loop at the moment, and throwing money down the drain.

I look forward to your replies.

Peter

[Aware]

Hello Peter,

I am a fairly experiened instuctor. I have seen this situation several times. Usually occurs because of bad management skills from the instructor.

You should approach the CFI of the school and explain your feelings. 70 hrs is not unusual. You need to be told exactly whats expected from you in each lesson, pre test lessons can feel a bit pressured, as the instructor is preparing you for the test.

If you are clear what needs to be acheived in each lesson and its reasonable, if you do not not reach the required standard, you need a clear plan of action. If that's not happening, thats bad instruction from the school.

Your experience shows you can progress well, but frustration often shows at this stage of the course. Moving school is usually not the best solution.

I only say that because when we receive students from other schools, it raises questions, usually they have turned out to be difficult to train for several reasons. Not all their own fault.

Could you post detail of what exactly was the issue with your PFLs please, and lets see if your instructors debrief was an accurate description of the lesson standard.

[piperarcher]

Hi

Have you spoken to the CFI there to see what he/she says? Maybe he/she wil fly with you to see if your PFL's are good enough and your ready for your skills test. I had a number of instructors during my PPL, due to a few of them taking employment elsewhere, and the new instructor you fly with invariably has different standards, views or feelings than the previous. Plus they havent had the previous flying relationship established with you and dont know if you have improved or got worse with somethig.

Switching to another school will I think set you back a bit, but who knows if it will set you back more than your current track. As I say, I think the CFI's input might be needed.

PiperArcher

[Genghis the Engineer]

I agree with PiperArcher, this is something that should be raised privately with the CFI.

PFLs are an interesting point however - there are a number of ways of flying them, and it is something that often individual instructors get quite het up about, feeling strongly that their approach is the best/only/vastly-superior way of doing it. I'll admit that I rarely am happy with the way most PPLs I fly with fly their PFLs either.

So, if that is the main issue, I wouldn't discount the possibility that what you're being confused by is a difference in approach between two instructors and that you had trouble with that.

I wouldn't change school myself, but I would talk to the CFI. It sounds like you're very close to your skill test so get that out of the way so that you can go and practice your flying skills on your own, where a lot of the real learning starts.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Genghis and Aware are right - changing a school at this stage is perhaps not the best way forward. It would take a number of hours flying at the new school to bring everyone upto speed. Chat to the CFI and find out exactly what is required


Could you post detail of what exactly was the issue with your PFLs please, and lets see if your instructors debrief was an accurate description of the lesson standard

Thats an interesting one, but I suspect that the thread would rapidly become a my technique is better than yours debate.

[gasax]

And we all have 'off' days - when a straight forward PFL just does n't work.

I would second Genghis words - I revalidated by test a couple of years ago and after several attempts where we would have got into the field - but the examiner was not happy, I said as we climbed up for the third time -"what exactly are you looking for? We made the field and I'm happy I could of landed".

He then described that he was looking for the classic high key, low etc - whilst I was happily flying a near constant aspect. So I did it his way. But of course I have the advantage of quite a lot of experience - some days they just don't work out!

[BackPacker]

my PFL's were not to standard.

The way I see it there's only one single criterium that defines a successful outcome of the PFL: Did you make the field or not?

Someone with a lot of experience (gliding experience helps a lot here) will be able to judge the glide path of the aircraft ahead of time and use a variety of techniques subconsciously to arrive at the threshold of the chosen field at exactly the right height and speed. When you ask them about it later, they really can't give you a good explanation on what they did. They just visualized the required approach path and flew the aircraft, managing energy all the way in. And they probably had time to do a few other emergency drills as well.

Students with less experience may well be helped by a "constant aspect", "high key/low key" or other formal technique but these should be seen as teaching aids only, not as formal pass/fail criteria for a PFL.

I had a club check a while ago where I got a PFL too. The only suitable field had just disappeared under the nose but we were nicely lined up on the centerline. So I lowered the flaps immediately all the way, pitched the nose down, entered a forward slip, and made it to the field just fine. That's in no way a technique that anyone would teach you at the PPL level, and something that I only would do in an aircraft that I'm very familiar with. But I got a pass out of that anyway.

[Mariner9]

One other thing to think about - given the fact that you've got 70 hours in already, and assuming no medical issues, why not go for the JAR PPL instead of the NPPL?

[thing]

My thoughts as well.

[DJBios]

Thanks for all the great replies, I will arrange to chat with the CFI and work on a plan to get my training completed. With regards to the mention of PPL, I would have loved to do that but I have visual problems which restrict me from class 2 medical.

[worldpilot]

It would be short sighted to try to change school because your PFLs are not to standard. I would rather look at the big picture though. What is your overall performance in addressing the dynamics associated with the flight envelope? That's the big picture that is relevant here.

The flight envelope is not a static pattern and you need a diverse skill set to fly it to expectations. If your instructor is not confident in your handling skills, he won't take the responsibility and risks to let go.

After 70 hours of dual training, you should seriously reconsider the risks and come up with a decision that is appropriate with the risks.

The next 70 hours might not enhance your skills to the level that is required to minimize the risks.

I know my perspective is hard, but I've seen too many people pass away because the wanted to be on the left seat.

WP

[421C]

I would have loved to do that but I have visual problems which restrict me from class 2 medical.


If you were told this prior to the EASA Medical rules coming into force, it may be worth revisiting the subject with an AME familiar with the new Part MED. There have been some major relaxations (quite rightly) of older JAR vision requirements that were very restrictive. For example, previously you couldn't get a Class 2 medical whatever your corrected vision if your uncorrected (or pre-operative) vision exceeded certain limits. There are no longer any such uncorrected limits.

Many of the detailed requirements in EASA Part MED are in the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMCs) and not the legally rigid Implementing Rules. The AMCs are one way of complying with the rather vaguely worded rules, but not the exclusive way. Stakeholders can propose alternative means. We are yet to see how this works in medical matters, but just to say that the system now seems to have some flexibility it lacked prior to 8 April this year when the EU laws came into force.

[peterh337]

FWIW, I have yet to see a concession on the old JAA Class 1 audiogram requirement to hold a JAA/EASA IR.

If something has changed, I would be interested in a reference because I know a number of people who can never get a Euro IR because of this.

There used to be a long winded work-around (involving getting an ICAO CPL) but I have no idea if the UK CAA still supports this.

[achimha]

FWIW, I have yet to see a concession on the old JAA Class 1 audiogram requirement to hold a JAA/EASA IR.

I see no mention of audiograms in Part MED (http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/agency-decisions/2011/2011-015-R/AMC%20and%20GM%20on%20the%20medical%20certification%20of%20p ilots%20and%20medical%20fitness%20of%20cabin%20crew.pdf) for Class II (page 39). The pure tone audiogram is only mentioned for Class I medicals (page 27).

[peterh337]

For Class 2, that's how it's always been.

It is the IR that has always required the audiogram, which needs to be passed in each ear.