Hours needed for a PPL [Archive]

Tacitus

13th Sep 2005, 08:37

Hello , i'm new to the forum and i don't know if this subject has been raised before . I'm going to start my training for a JAA/PPL in a month and i'd like to know what was the average time it took you to complete your training , for example total hours , hours for the first solo etc .Also if someone complete his PPL , for example , after 60 hrs of training does it mean that he is and a lousy pilot ? Thanks in advance for your help

Blueskyrich

13th Sep 2005, 09:25

It's really a case of how long is a piece of string.

Firstly, the regulations. From memory, the requirement stipulated by the CAA for a JAA-PPL is a minimum of 45hrs total time which must include a minimum of 25(?)hrs dual time, 10hrs solo of which 5hrs must be solo navigation time. On top of that, obviously you've got your ground exams and the RT licence to complete, along with the skills test.

Personally, it took me 64hrs to bag my PPL (mainly because of the switching of schools and aircraft type) and went solo after 13hrs. I really wouldn't worry about how long it takes to get to certain points - taking longer doesn't mean you are necessarily a bad pilot. For instance, your first solo will only happen when your instructor feels you are able to on the actual day and if conditions allow. Even if you're the best pilot in the world, you could fly your first 5-7hrs without fault, but find that the day that you thought you may bag your solo, you have a stinker. It happens to us all. Combine that with weather restrictions and it can drag out a bit, but you really shouldn't worry.

The most important thing I can stress is enjoy it. If you want to take your flying further, then I think enjoying your PPL is a must. During your PPL you'll learn the basics that will set you up for the rest of a future career and there is no better way to do that than being chilled out, calm and happy in what you are doing.

Finally, the best of luck :)

Bluesky

wbryce

13th Sep 2005, 10:44

Took me 49 hours, but again....a lot of factors can influence how long it takes anyone! some factors may be in your control, others wont.

I started my PPL in February 2004 and passed my skills test on the last day of October 2004.

stue

13th Sep 2005, 11:43

It took me about 55hours. Dont worry how long it takes you, that doesnt matter. What matters is that you enjoy yourself.

Happy Flying!:D

llien14

13th Sep 2005, 11:51

It took me about 55 hours as well, partly because when I totalled 45 hours I didnt have enough solo time (you need 10, as someone else mentioned).
I agree with the others that you should enjoy it dont worry about how long it takes.

Good luck

c_jephcott

13th Sep 2005, 12:04

I was bang on 45 hours when I passed my test, back when I was 17!

tacpot

13th Sep 2005, 12:37

You definitely shouldn't worry about the time to get your license. As others have said the number of variables that affect this can mean that a 'bad' pilot gets his license after 45 hours and a 'good' one after 90.

A lot of what delivers a quick pass is aptitude and regularity of training. But when you get your license there should be very little difference between your ability and judgement compared to any other recently qualified PPL, irrespective of how long it took you to pass. If you pass, you are good enough to be let loose on your own.

BTW: I passed my PPL in 1981 (aged 17) when it could be done in 35hrs. I took 38, but had gone solo in under 6 hours. Time to solo means nothing. I understand that time to solo is very age dependent.

Good luck with the PPL.

tp

Dave Bloke

13th Sep 2005, 14:00

It involves a combination of factors. If you go for a big push to complete the licence in a month, you will take fewer hours than if you were to fly one day every other weekend. In practice, you are unlikely to achieve the licence in the minimum 45 hours due to such things as weather delays or your own availability affecting your continuity. If you are an average student flying every weekend, 55-60 hours is probably a reasonable total. However, as everyone learns at different rates, you may take more or you may take less.

Either way, enjoy.

MyData

13th Sep 2005, 17:13

Agree with all the sentiments here. I'm coming up to the 40hr mark and *should* pass on the scheduled 45 hours but probably won't because of the stop start weekend nature of my flying. I only have a target in my head (~50) as something to aim for - i.e. a schedule of what I want to achieve in the next 10 hours.

However another way to look at the question is... If I'm at 'x' hours and not making progress then is it time to stop? One of my previous instructors talked about another student. He was on to 35 hrs and still hadn't mastered the flare. The instructor had a sit down with him and said that perhaps flying wasn't for him and that he didn't want to take any further money from him as it was wasted.

I guess therefore that there must be a limit whereby if you aren't ready for QXC or the skills test then it is time to reconsider.

Whirlybird

13th Sep 2005, 18:22

One of my previous instructors talked about another student. He was on to 35 hrs and still hadn't mastered the flare. The instructor had a sit down with him and said that perhaps flying wasn't for him and that he didn't want to take any further money from him as it was wasted.

I find that attitude a little worrying. I would have suggested he fly with someone else, as different people can respond to different methods of teaching. It's not uncommon to stick at a particular point, and sometimes a fresh approach or way of teaching can cut through that. I know of THREE instructors who were told at some point in their early training that they'd never make it! :eek: :( :{ Luckily they didn't listen.

helicopter-redeye

13th Sep 2005, 18:47

There was a AAIB report this week that quoted a recent survey that PPLs take (on average) 75hrs to qualify.

:eek:

nick14

13th Sep 2005, 19:22

well it took me 45hrs including the flight test, solo-ing after 8hrs.

What i wud say is relax and enjoy that way you are more likely to take in what you are being taught and probably learn quicker.

The PPL imho is a licence to learn. The course teaches you how to pass the test and then you realy learn how to fly.

One of the draws to flying is that you are constantly learning if you are a 45hr PPL or 10 000 CPL, IR , ME, MCC, FI and any other rating under the sun!

Just a little note: PPL requirements

45 hrs total time,
25hrs dual instruction, to include: 2hrs spin stall awareness and 2hrs instrument,
10hrs solo to include 5hrs cross country and a cross country of greater than 150nm with 2 full stop landings (at different aerodromes to your base)

Enjoy mate

Buckle up
Nick:ok:

Gertrude the Wombat

13th Sep 2005, 19:46

52 hours.

I didn't exactly get the "flying isn't for you" speech from an instructor, but I did get a concerned instructor worrying that I was wasting my time as I couldn't get the flare right ...

So I reassured him that this was precisely where I was expecting trouble, as it was hand-eye coordination and real-time calculus stuff that I wasn't very good at (I'd never been able to catch a ball as a kid), and I didn't think I was wasting my time and money, and we just carried on for another couple of hours until I got it.

EGTC

13th Sep 2005, 20:34

One of the draws to flying is that you are constantly learning if you are a 45hr PPL or 10 000 CPL, IR , ME, MCC, FI and any other rating under the sun!
The thing with me is that I'm very thorough, so I tend to think about and question things that most perhaps wouldn't. So because of this I always think I need to be a really really fantastic pilot before I'm allowed a PPL, but because learning continues even after getting the license perhaps I shouldn't worry so much. I'm sure that anyone with a PPL considers themselves a better pilot than they were the day they passed the skills test, just because of more experience. In the same way that my flying is much better now than it was on the day of my first solo.

Bravo73

14th Sep 2005, 11:18

heli-redeye,

Wasn't that AAIB report (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/bulletins/september_2005/robinson_r22_beta__g_tgrr.cfm) refering to PPL(H)s?

Generally speaking, a PPL(H) is trickier to achieve than a PPL(A) (flamesuit on!) so the hours required would obviously tend to be higher.

B73

helicopter-redeye

14th Sep 2005, 11:30

Correct, 70 for H.

What is the national average for A?

h-r:)

MyData

14th Sep 2005, 12:00

As is the case many times with pprune... I didn't put the context around my earlier posting.

The student in question had been to previous flying schools and had various different instructors. He was an amiable chap and passionate about flying but just couldn't get to grips with it. Surely it is better to be honest about his ability rather than milking him for £££ week after week?

Whirlybird

14th Sep 2005, 16:18

Surely it is better to be honest about his ability rather than milking him for £££ week after week?

Now you've mentioned all the other factors, I'd agree...well....possibly. But I'm not certain. 35 hours isn't all that long; quite a lot of people take longer than that to go solo. And changing schools and instructors has its own problems - lack of continuity, different circuits, different ways of teaching. Yes, I know that appears to contradict what I posted before, but actually it doesn't - I'm just pointing out that there can be all sorts of reasons, apart from complete lack of ability, why someone can't learn a particular manoeuvre. And I'm not sure that any flying instructor can be certain that someone won't make it. It might be expensive for the person concerned, but that's a different issue. People take years to pass a driving test, and some of those are quite good drivers in the end, so I'm told. Slow learners aren't necessarily non-learners.

So by all means be honest, say you think it'll take a long time, and maybe not be possible at all, but don't state it as a certainty...because I don't think it can be. Any instructors who disagree, please say, as this is an interesting point.

The only time I'd think someone definitely shouldn't carry on would be if their attitude was all wrong, or if they were dangerous and looked like that was something they couldn't change.

splatt

15th Sep 2005, 10:34

As a current PPL student I can't give any personal experience of the whole course yet but I have something to contribute that relates to the question:

I started mid August this year and progressed rapidly through the General Handling phase onto Circuits. All going great and getting lots of praise about my ability as a pilot. One day my usual instructor is not available and so the CFI steps in his place (not as a presolo check but out of courtessy). This is only the 2nd lesson I've ever had on circuits and I've 7hrs TT after the flight with the CFI. The CFI tells me to write the airlaw exam the very next day and I can go solo the next day too! I was seriously chuffed about how fast I had achieved the go ahead for solo flight.

But then...

I didnt think I could write the airlaw so soon so I held off and booked another lesson with my usual instructor. For various reasons on this lesson, and for the first time in any of my lessons, my instructor found fault with my flare during the landing. This experience seriously knocked me and now I'm sitting at 15hrs still not having gone solo and I've spent loads flying with the same guy doing nothing but looking at the flare. I realised after a while that this was just the way it was going to be if I stuck with that same instructor so I organised a lesson with another instructor. Low and behold I can suddenly flare properly again! The new instructor had taught me more in that one hour lesson than the I had learnt in the previous 7 hours focussing on the flare alone. We did all sorts of things, not just the flare and that helped take my mind off overthinking and obsessing about the flare. I will no longer try to stick with the same instructor, in fact I will try and get the input of as many instructors as I can. Having input from many sources can only be to your advantage as a student pilot - its the same as having read widely vs just a single textbook.

So from my experience some of the hours that people take to complete the course can actually be influenced by the instructor/student relationship. I dont believe its ability alone that determines how long it takes you to complete the course. Annoyingly it cost me quite a bit and wasted a lot of time for me to learn this!

G'luck with your flying.

splatt

Whirlybird

15th Sep 2005, 16:37

So from my experience some of the hours that people take to complete the course can actually be influenced by the instructor/student relationship. I dont believe its ability alone that determines how long it takes you to complete the course. Annoyingly it cost me quite a bit and wasted a lot of time for me to learn this!

Very good point, and quite a common experience. I had something similar happen, and it took me far longer than it took you to realise that I needed to change instructor.

I wonder how many people that sort of thing happens to, how many are told by an instructor they won't make it, and how many get disillusioned and give up altogether. :eek: :{

Mike Cross

15th Sep 2005, 23:37

PPL after 32 Hrs 40 mins
Solo after 9 Hrs 20 mins

Mind you that was with a dispensation for having a gliding "Bronze C" qualification and it was at a time when there was no Navigation Flight Test and the total requirement was 40 Hrs not 45.

Whether or not you are a good or lousy pilot bears no relation to the number of hours you took.

The training and exams are not designed to make you a good pilot, they are designed, like the driving test, to ensure that you are reasonably competent to be let loose on your own.

Mike

Gerhardt

16th Sep 2005, 01:29

Whirlybird

16th Sep 2005, 07:22

I wish people would quit bragging about how few hours it took them to solo and to pass their checkride, and then go on to say that it's not the number of hours, etc. It tends to skew the perspective of student pilots perhaps making them think that they're not as capable. Please folks, leave the first part out...I've known some great pilots that took forever to solo and a LOT of hours before they got their licenses.

OK, shall I redress the balance somewhat? Around 48 hours to first solo. :{ Not helped by an instructor who made things worse rather than better, and a lifelong difficulty with depth perception - but once I recognised that problem, I could work on it and overcome it.

90 hours to PPL(A) issue. Convinced I must hold the world record for number of hours; soon discovered that wasn't anywhere near the case - three figures to PPL issue is not that uncommon.

Decided to get a PPL(H).....nearly 60 hours. And there was I thinking I'd do it in minimal hours as I had a PPL(A), liked the instructor, so what could go wrong? Well, nothing specific really, but I don't learn new things that fast.

CPL(H) - just a a few extra hours. Ditto for FI rating. I guess I'm just a slow learner where aviation is concerned, but I get there in the end. :ok:

Am I a good pilot? No idea. Some people seem to think so, maybe some don't. I think I'm safe and know my own capabilities and limitations, and I'm still learning and will be for years and years. Am I a good instructor? Probably not yet; I don't have the experience. But I think my own difficulties, plus a lifetime of working with people, mean that I'm better than most at understanding students' difficulties. And everything looks very different a few years on in aviation.

So if all that helps someone, well and good. But ultimately, when learning to fly, you have to learn about yourself and trust yourself, and while you must take advice, don't assume someone else knows it all. It's a complicated business. A bit like life really.

And if anyone wants to think any the worse of me for all my extra hours of learning, feel free. :)

Mike Cross

16th Sep 2005, 08:42

Gerhardt

Don't be a git. Tacitus asked a specific question and was given a specific and truthful answer to it. Would you prefer we told lies or refused to answer?

Mike

slim_slag

16th Sep 2005, 09:02

Tacitus actually asked a very wooly question but I suspect his first language is not English.

what was the average time it took you to complete your training , for example total hours , hours for the first solo

The average time for the total population to complete their training is about 55 hours. Average time to first solo for the total population is about 15 hrs. FAA figures.

Individuals within the group will have their own time which depends on all sorts of factors, and it's pretty irrelevant. People with apparent low times to solos have, in my experience, unlogged time. You get the occasional whizz kid who has never been in a light aircraft before and just 'gets it' within 10 hours, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Also if someone complete his PPL , for example , after 60 hrs of training does it mean that he is and a lousy pilot ?

Absolutely not.

Tacitus - a better question to ask would be how much is it going to cost to solo/get a licence/continue flying. You can then plan accordingly for your personal goal, but the answers are varying amounts of 'a lot'.

Gerhardt

16th Sep 2005, 16:14

A git? That's a new one for me so it's entirely possible I'm a git.

"Would you prefer we told lies or refused to answer?" Someone truly concerned would treat the subject much like he would if his wife asked if she looked good in an outfit she'd just picked from her wardrobe. No need to lie, but perhaps accentuate the positive without detracting from someone else.

I just think that it's ill-conceived to tell an aspiring pilot "I'm a he-man and passed my test in the minimum time...but I won't think any less of you if it takes you longer."

BRL

16th Sep 2005, 23:06

I just think that it's ill-conceived to tell an aspiring pilot "I'm a he-man and passed my test in the minimum time...but I won't think any less of you if it takes you longer." I know Mike and have met him several times too. He is a top bloke. That comment quoted above is not the Mike Cross I/we all know. Mike would never dream of thinking along those lines and so would never even dream of being like that with someone. I think you may have crossed wires somewhere along the lines.

Mike Cross

17th Sep 2005, 06:33

Thanks BRL.

Gerhardt
Apologies for my ill-chosen flippant choice of words. It resulted in my post being taken the wrong way. Time to solo and PPL were in my case affected by the fact that I had a fair amount of gliding P1 time which qualified me for an hours reduction and helped reduce my time to solo. To put it in perspective, minimum hours to PPL at the time were 40 or 20 for the holder of a Bronze C. I did it in 32 Hr 40 which is 12 Hr 40 or over minimum or 163%. On todays minimum of 45 Hr that would be equivalent to doing it in over 73 Hr, hardly he-man stuff, and I had one less written exam and one less flying test than is required today.

Tacitus' question is remarkably difficult to answer other than on a superficial level. I think the point all of us have tried to make in our own way is that hours to solo or PPL are not an indicator of whether or not someone is a "good" pilot. How do you define "good" anyway? The nearest I can get is "A good pilot clearly understands the limitations of himself and his aeroplane and does not allow himself to get into a situation which might lead to them being exceeded." This has nothing to do with what machine he flies, what licenses and ratings he holds or how many hours he has amassed.

Mike

Flyin'Dutch'

17th Sep 2005, 07:14

Parbleu Mike,

I just hate it when people shy away from a bit of a scrap!

Why do you have be so reasonable!?!

:}

Anyone needing more than the minimum is obviously not worthy of slipping the surly bonds, and can not possibly be a he-man or she-woman and must be a failure, not only in flying.

:yuk:

Next thing is that people start flying when there is less than a 25kt X-wind.

I mean what is this nancy-pancy talk doing for our image?

Exactly!

Tacitus

17th Sep 2005, 07:40

First i would like to thank you all for your interesting replies and secondly i apologise for not beeing articulate enough . My basic concern , regarding the total hours , is about competence and ofcourse the financial viability of the whole training process . Maybe , as related from the posts , someone who completed his PPL training in 60hrs is a safe and competent pilot ( which is very encouraging ) but on the other hand this means that the total cost for the training is going to be more than 7000 pounds ( or 11000 euro ) , which is an inhibiting factor . So if you want to spent a reasonable ammount for your training wouldn't be wise to quit if it takes you more than 20 hrs , for example , for your first solo? Furthermore , a PPL is just the beginning and an IR would be the logical next step ( from my own point of view ) , so the bottom line appears to be that regarding of the total hours at the end you gonna be a good pilot but having spent a significant amount of money first and that if you want to continue you can , but spending more than the average student for your IR .

Gerhardt

17th Sep 2005, 10:37

Once you've got your PPL in hand and have made a few trips really for no reason other than for enjoyment you'll be much more relaxed. At that point your perspective will change from "can I really afford this luxury?" to "what do I have to do to come up with the $ to pay for this?!!!". For me, airplane flying didn't become fun until after I had my license. At that point, to my wife's dismay, cost wasn't an issue anymore.

As for the instrument rating...they're not for everyone and don't let people pressure you into thinking you need one if you're really not interested. There's a lot of good fun VFR flying to be done.