"Average" hours

[bones1972]

Hi all,

Just wondering if you guys would give me an idea of your flight hours to complete your PPL - (FAA or JAA.)
Just so I can plan my finances with a bit more realistic flight time requirements than all the quoted averages from the flight schools

Remember - its a marathon not a sprint!!!!

Cheers all,

Bones:O :O

[nulian]

Well, I have an FAA fixed-wing license, and am about to take the checkride for my helicopter add-on. I have 40 helicopter hours, and you strictly need 30 for the add-on.

The main reason for going over was not planning time very efficiently, but I wasn't too pushed about getting it right at 30 anyway - hours are hours, and I love to fly.

Generally speaking, I think people tend to complete the rating (either initial or add-on) with about 10 hours over what's required. Some take less, some more.

Are you planning on taking an intensive course, or the old 'once or twice a week' approach?

Peter

[Mikeb]

I completed my PPL(H) this April at around 70hrs. During my training I did quite a few cross-country trips to different places around the UK. This added quite a few additional hours that were not really needed but I love flying and wanted to get some experience of flying cross-country.

My instructor told me I was ready for the flight test in December 2002 but due to bad weather and the one of the airfields on the cross-country route is only open Friday/Sat/Sun I had to wait until April to do my cross country solo. I burnt up quite a few hours waiting for the solo cross-country.

One of the guy's who was training at the same school passed his flight test on 45hrs... He had to do a few hours on the morning of the test as he was short on hours. (He had some previous experience in micro lights)

If you have the time to fly a couple of times each week and the weather is on your side. (Helps in the UK) You can do it in 45hrs no problem....

[Whirlybird]

I'm not quite sure about this, but I'm getting the impression that it depends to some extent on both the instructor and the school, as well as all the above. Now, whether this means that schools or instructors whose students on average take longer are more thorough, or just don't teach as well and want extra money...bit of a minefield there, and I really don't know.

[rotorboater]

Just checked my log book and it took me 60hrs including the qxc and gft from never having flown before.

I started in November and passed in May and had a lesson a day booked, lost about 70% of these due the weather, I reckon if you learn in the summer or a better climate, you will learn faster.

Some guy's though, are only booking a lesson a week and it seems to take them ages to learn, I suspect a lot give up on the way if they don't see any progress, I found the more you do it, the easier it gets and then one day, without you realising, you can fly it, well sort of!

My only tip would be to make sure you can afford to do it in as short a space of time as possible.;)

[Ascend Charlie]

Bear in mind that the minimum hours were set to cater for the Genius ace from space who was born to fly, and who does a lesson or two every day. He/she is at the absolute top end of the bell curve of populations. 98% of the world's people reside below this person.

Therefore, do not plan on getting through on the minima. An average person will take the averge time, 10 or 15 hours more than the genius. I flew with a retired airine pilot, 20,000 hrs+, who owned his own H500 and had 700 hours on a private licence. He was UNABLE to meet commercial standards and gave up.

Another student pilot was a successful lawyer (and therefore perhaps not too stupid) and he took 70 hours to go solo.

So, don't blame the schools for having bad instructors or for being greedy, just because you aren't in the top 2% of the world and passed your test in the minimum hours. They will put you up for a test WHEN YOU ARE READY FOR IT. Any Chief Flying Instructor who does less is not performing his duties correctly.:E

[Helinut]

You can ask for others experience but there are so many variables that make a difference:

The training schedule
Significant breaks takes a lot of extra flight time to review and revise exercises
The latent skill levels of the student
The degree of application of the student
The skill, experience and application of the instructor
The relationship between the instructor and student
The school arrangements
The weather

[Whirlybird]

All of the above is of course absolutely true. But I know of one school where pretty well all students take at least 60 hours, usually more (sometimes a lot more), and another where a high proportion get through in the minimum hours. I'm in no way saying the second school is better; in fact, I know someone who did a PPL(H) there, after flying f/w for years, who reckons they rush students and cut corners. But is the first one better, or just slower? And is the second better, or do they leave things out. Or is neither of the above true? Or is it impossible to know?

Sorry to complicate the issue so much. :(

[bones1972]

Thanks for the info.

I am hoping to go over the big pond for a full-time PPL this winter time - obviously Florida , Long Beach or California will be a bit warmer than our dismal effort.

Seems then that if I have "average" ability and get my head down and put lots of hard work in - with all things been equal I might just get the license in Minumums + 10 ish hours.

Interesting to see the difference between full-time and part-time students, this sort of confirms what flight schools have been saying to me.

But I have this nagging doubt about flight schools that use their own Examiner - surely the temptation will be for these to fail a student in the hope of getting extra hours off the student? Or is this a cynical attitude that should be discounted?

One of the schools I'm interested in (Mazzei) has a "guarenteed" PPL in 40 hrs. Now to me (the uneducated) this seems too good to be true, and in my experience that's usually exactly what they turn out to be - not true.

Love to get some feed back off those that have done the intensive flight school route and judge their hours compared to the part-timers. Keep 'em coming....

Cheers,
Bones

P.S. Whirlybird - any chance you could name the schools you mentioned - PM if possible, and I promise not to gossip!

[nulian]

Any school that pushes you out the door at 40 hours gauranteed is one to avoid, in my opinion.

Best advice is to get referrals to a good school.

[Barannfin]

I finished my Pvt. at 80hrs, but I was also going to school full time at that time. How often you can fly and devote to studying really effects what you end up finishing in. I was flying once every other week for a long time, and in early stages of training, that meant that i was relearning most of the same stuff lesson to lesson. The average for the school that I am at is probably about 60hrs.

[The Nr Fairy]

bones :

Have you worked out the cost of turning the FAA licence into a JAR one on your return ? If not, it may make sense to do the JAA one in the US, which would restrict your choice of schools to one or two.

[Crashondeck]

I did it in about 60 hours, doing a block of two weeks, flying everyday, two weeks off and then finishing at the end of another 2 week block. I was later told that I was taken for a bit of a ride on hours - too many cross countries. But I didnt really mind that - nice to have a bit more experience under the belt.

Learnt in Feb and March in Blackpool. Alot to be said for learning to fly in winter in this country - prepares you for real life. Nice to learn to fly in hot sunshine and blue skies, but it makes the first time you are presented with a Metar that reads 6000 BKN012 a little uncomfortable.

Also wherever you go, if you dont like your instructor, tell the boss and get another one. Alot depends on the relationship between you and your tutor.

[Ascend Charlie]

Hi Bones,
Your doubts about the integrity of a school that has its own testing officer are true to some extent, but in the opposite direction.

If they have their own testing officer, they can push a no-talent student out the door in the minimum hours, even if he/she is not up to the standard required. (They wouldn't give that person a job, though....... )This improves their statistics, and people might go there because they feel they will pass on the minimas and it will save them money.

But only some schools do this. Go visit them, talk to them. And don't go to a school just because they are the cheapest. In many cases, WYPFIWYG*.




*What you pay for is what you get.

[jamestlowe]

I got my PPL(H) in just short of 69 hours.

By all accounts, it seems that frequency of lessons is a large factor in how long you take. I tried to go for two a week. Annoyingly (and probably bad planning?), I was ready for the qualifying cross country stuff in December/January (2001/2) and the weather conspired against me... it wasn't until mid-February 02 hat I managed to do it!

I think a f/w licence (or other) might help in some cases, as you don't have to learn too much in the way of airmanship - r/t, rules of the air, etc. Whereas I'm sure some of my time in the air was concentrating on such things. That said, I was in a conversation with my instructor last year, and he had a student with PPL(A) that really struggled to grasp a lot of the different helicoptery things - hovering and PFL I think was specifically mentioned
:)

[HOGE]

From my own experience the only way to learn to fly is to have an intensive course. Far cheaper in the long run. (And when you are flying a couple of hours everyday, you don't have time to forget things!)

[whirlycopter]

Just a quick note re mazzeis 40hr guaranteed course - the guarantee is not that you will pass on 40 hrs but that you pays your money and then get as many hours as you need to reach the standard. The only catch is that you have to start paying for your housing if you go overtime.


When I went to mazzei's I opted for that course but was talked out of it by the schools owner as he obviously thought I looked like a bit of a liability.

That said I ended up passing on 37 ish hours so it all worked out ok.

Cheers

[bones1972]

Whirlycopter - Thanks for putting me straight on the Mazzei guarantee - that makes far more sense now I've re-read it, cheers. Hopefully you'll get some spare time to answer that interogation I've PM you - I'll owe you a beer.

60 hrs in four weeks in sunny Blackpool? Now that really does sound "intensive". No spare time time for kiss me quick hats, soggy chips, Russ Abbott...........

Seems the chooses are full time or long time.

Cheers all for your responses,
Bones

:ok: :ok: :ok:

[gonedeaf]

I agree with Ascend Charlie, the minimum 45 hours is unrealistic for the normal joe bloggs that walks in of the street.
If you break down the 45 hours,

10 hour solo,
5 hours instrument training

Leaving 30 hours dual training

Which doesn`t leave much to learn the basics, navigation etc etc

Obviously everyone is different but i think 60 - 70 hours is more realistic.

[cap21]

In my experience taking frequent lessons really helps. Once a week is minimum, twice a week is better, more is even better (if you can afford it).

I did fixed wing first. It helps with airmanship and getting used to how things look from the air, what a shallow and steep should look like approach look like, basic eye-hand coordination, etc. With the f/w experinence I found it not being that hard to get the heli add-on in the minimum time required.

solo-airplane: around 15 hours, PPL(A) around 65 hours, CPL(A)+IR another 50 to 60 hours, solo heli a bit over 10 hours, CPL(H) a bit over 40 hours. (all Dutch licenses)

Also, make sure you get a good instructor. If the two of you don't get on, try someone else.

[groundcushion]

Bones

I started last April and passed 12 months later with just over 50 hours.

Weather and frequency is the major consideration. I was flying twice a week to start with which made a huge difference in terms of general handling and familiarisation. I managed to sneek the cross country in at the end of September and then didn't fly again for months due to the weather.

So, I'd suggest that you make sure you have the funds available upfront and that you start the training earlier in the year to allow you to make the most of the weather (obviously less relevant if you train in the States)

Best of luck....it's the best thing!!:D

[DBChopper]

Bones1972,

Even if you don't end up doing a complete intensive course, then at least try to start it that way. I did about 10hrs in the first week and it was the best thing I ever did (I had about 25hrs fixed-wing from 10 years previously, which helped a bit). I got the licence with about 42hrs, and that was only due to a delay in waiting for the medical. Don't worry too much if you fly with different instructors - due to illness I had a few in that first week and learned something new from each of them. Just make sure you get some continuity though, as I did, as it helps in the long run.

DBChopper
:cool:

[Helinut]

And its better to have a small number of big breaks than lots of small ones ...........

[boffo]

35hrs in summer 1998. Two/three lessons a week initially.

I already had a Fixed-wing PPL with about 350hrs - so that helped with the RT,Nav,Wx etc..

Was I ready? Probably not ;)

Now a part-time helicopter FI(R) with about 400hrs.

Boffo.

[footlock]

Finished 2 weeks ago and i did it in 88 hrs. I started last Oct and it was mean't to be full time . The weather wiped out Oct,Nov,Dec and some of Jan.It was a very frustrating time ,i nearly opted to go abroad but read an article from the british heli association ,see there web page. If i remember rightly ,it was advising on the pro's and cons of training abroad.Thus i completed in the U.K.
The reason it took me so long was that i created a sort of phobea that made me not trust the flown heading .I wanted to know exactly where i was all the time in ref to the map. My instructor must of been banging his head every morning when he got up .no not him today !!!The problem was that i could fly really well but could not navigate ..
Well ,all done and dusted now ,going flying today.i'm going to enjoy summer flying and then do commercial module over winter.Weather will play a major factor on your training.
Never posted here before but read articles daily.Thanks for sharing your experiences to a beginner.
Good luck Bones - its worth it !

[groundcushion]

....should have said, make sure you get your medical before you spend ANY money on flying. No point being able to fly like a hero if the docs won't sign that crucial piece of paper.

[bones1972]

You must be a mind reader groundcushion - decided to get medical first and initially booked up with my optician for a thorough eye exam.

And found out my left eye is F**K*D!!!!! What a blow - I've only just managed to pull myself together after six days of kicking the cat.

I've now booked myself up with a specialist for a second opinion - so keep your fingers crossed for me.

Cheers all,

Bones :{

[pa42]

a little anecdote to prove that on-staff examiner probably an OK way to go:

Background: In 1999, when the first-time-pass rate for ALL CFI candidates in Orlando, FL FSDO jurisdiction was about 85% (in the ballpark of what FAA likes to see), the Orlando office decided the quality of instruction being administered was not as good as they would like.

(Sampling instructional quality is done by the occasional FAA-inspector retest of recent student graduates, and of pilots involved in incidents/accidents where pilot error is major factor.)

Main Event: So Orlando SUSPENDED all initial CFI issuances by Designated Pilot Examiners (the non-FAA-inspector examiners at schools & independent). All (Orlando Area, or most of Florida) initial CFI practical tests were performed by FAA inspectors.

Punch Line: The first-time-pass-rate for initial CFI tests DROPPED from 85% to 40%!!!

Conclusion: (drawn by everybody) was that the Designees had been being too easy on candidates. Which suggests that the school-employed examiners were giving easy tests to CFI's (and, by extension, their other graduates).

That was 3 years ago. I have no data, but the implication is that everybody now gives about the same level of challenge in practical tests, the Designated Examiners having been rapped on the knuckles by implication.

[Helinut]

Thought provoking story, but I am not sure that it necessarily proves that non "Fed" examiners accept lower standards of those being tested. It may be a bit more complicated than this.

When I started examining ab-initio PPL(H)s a while ago, I was astonished at how worked-up some candidates could get. This caused them to fly very badly, much worse than I had seen them fly previously. By changing the way that examiners deal with candidates, they can very much affect the performance of the person they are testing. A more sympathetic approach can cause a pilot to perform as well as he/she can - you don't change the standards that you accept, but how the pilot performs.

With the boot on the other foot, so to speak, I have been tested by many examiners over the years myself. I have found some quite intimidating and flew a lot less well than with other examiners.

[KevBac]

I did my PPL(H) in 54 hours over the space of a year. This included a 4 month break. I wanted the experience of spending that sort of money to last a while.

[RW-1]

My pvt doesnt count, as it was an add on to my fixed wing licence.
Did it with appox 37 hours.

The question of average time always bothers me, as it sets up the student into comparing him/her self to an imaginary standard.

Unfortunately we do have the minimums for the ratings as just that, so my answer to (future) students will be to ourtline the minimums, but point out that other factors already outlined here will determine how long it will take them.

If pressed, I agree with 60-70 hours as a general range to give out.

Here's a question on the same topic, how long will you go with a student whom you just know is not going to be able to fly to standards? IE, will likely not solo, let alone go to the checkride.

I have seen such a situation here, wanted input from others, but can say that no one here blindly after a period just kept taking that students $$$, etc. Choices were offered.

[Crashondeck]

RW-1

I agree, the ppl is not a race. Mind when you are paying the bill yourself, it is all too easy to get "houritis". Budgeting for 60 -70 hours seems sensible.

As for those who will never manage it.... I've had students who I felt were never going to get there and I simply had a quiet chat to tell them that they were struggling. I gave them the option of flying with another instructor, but most just said that they enjoyed it too much to give up and would just keep taking lessons. Ah to have that much money....

[Shawn Coyle]

Would having a reasonable simulator / training device that would let you brush up on techniques following a layoff from flying help?
What else would / could you do with such a device?

[rotorboater]

I have never had the chance to fly in a helicopter simulator, I have tried a plank one but I would be supprised if any simulator (at a reasonable cost) could really replicate a real helicopter.
But my mind is open, I still think 'hours is hours'
RB;)

[The Nr Fairy]

rotorboater :

The top end helicopter simulators are reasonable enough that the CAA allow training to be carried out on them.

I also know of a small simulator for which approval is being sought, and which costs less than $100,000. There are others already approved but they're quite costly.

[Helinut]

Shawn,

Simulators are a practical and useful thing for some sorts of flying - I would love to have access to even a decent PC simulator to keep some sort of currency in instrument flying these days. However, that is a bit different from the sort of simulator that would be of much use at the basic ab-initio/PPL training level.

When I used to do ab-initio training I would suggest that students spent time in the cockpit with the helicopter in the hangar: there would be some benefit to this and a pretty good hourly rate too ............


Crashondeck

In the self-selecting PPL(H) training world, the only qualification for most students to start is that they want to learn to fly and think they have a big enough bundle of money. It is therefore inevitable that a few will fall into the "very slow" or "unsuitable" category. I think the important thing is for the instructor to keep communicating with the student: being candid about their progress, listening to how the student feels.

People come in all sorts of different ways to learning to fly and are driven by different goals. What you say is right (in my experience), but very occasionally you do get a student who is (effectively) a hopeless case, combined with a large dollop of stubbornness (and a fairly hefty lump of disposable income too). I recall one guy who had somewhere around 80 hours and had not gone solo, because he was not ready and it would not have been safe. We tried different instructors, we kept talking to him about his (lack of) progress - effectively suggesting he should try some other pastime, but he would not give up. He did not prepare himself well either - knackered from world travel, unfit and stressed up. He stayed with us for 18 moths + and then went to another school but never progressed.

Another similar case, eventually went to another school, eventually got his licence and then crashed a helicopter on virtually his first self-fly hire trip- then he gave up!

I got immense pleasure from successfully teaching "slower than average" students - seeing the satisfaction they got from making progress finally was a great reward. But I used to really worry about these extreme cases which were rare but extremely difficult. In the end I had two principles that I used to stick to:

- Keep telling them about my assessment of their progress;

- Don't let them go to the next stage until they were safe

[RW-1]

The Cicare simulator,
http://www.helis.com/timeline/cicare.php
Look at the SVH-3
which is a rotax powered heli held within a "frame" is very nice for giving the beginning student feel for the controls, etc. (The 22 is much more responsive, but you still get a good working knowledge of control relationships without the chance of killing yourself and bending metal)

I used it myself in my advanced stages of commercial prep just to do "stuck pedal" situations, whirling around madly without fear, which then, after letting me experience its yaw rate in a full power tail rotor loss, let me concentrate on recovery procedures, and how one can manage throttle in said situations, etc.

Then there is the fly - it sims which as pointed out, are good for inst training without incurring the cost of the heli itself.

I am also a strong advocate of "chair flying" (but NOT armchair logging of time :) ) sitting either in the cockpit or out of it and imagining where you are and what you are doing can also work for a student of any type.