Learning to fly in the USA

[B2N2]

First question; why is this not in the instructor forum?
I''l be the first one to admit that there are truly miserable schools on both sides of the pond.
As for my experience? I started with my PPL at a flying club where some instructor tried to solo me after 4.4 hrs. I quit and went to a small school across the field. This was in Europe.
In the USA I have seen the resultt of both, very good and very bad.
Uk and non Uk, European and non European ,US and non US.
Hours don't really mean that much to me anymore.
I have seen truly exeptional low time pilots and horrendous high time (>700 hrs)
PPL's.
I have dealt with Europeans that would not be able to pass a US checkride no matter how much training they get. People that have held a European license in excess of 10 years.

In any case I think one of the problems is the time spent on getting the license and staying proficient.
Somebody will earn his/her license in the US in about 4 weeks.
That is all their vacation time for the year gone. Back to their home country and work and family.
Sometimes it will take these people months to get around to finding a suitable club/school and get back to flying again.
After learning a skill in 4 weeks do not expect to be even at solo standard after not flying for 2-3 months.
Check-out instructor at home should not expect this also.
You cannot compare a fresh PPL who hasn't flown in 3 months with somebody who just got their license at your club.


**** edited for beer-induced spelling errors*****

[Esperanza]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Sometimes it will take these people months to get around to finding a suitable club/school and get back to flying again.

B2N2. Some very good points raised by yourself. To answer your initial question, I chose to write on the Private Flying Forum because I wanted to address my thoughts regarding intensive/ largely Florida based training to the PPL community. With hindsight I feel that I have intruded into this forum and will remain clear in the future.
My thoughts on the topic have not changed. However, I believe that you have highlighted one of the major difficulties created by intensive training. Like you say, by the time that an average student has used up all of their holiday leave and spare cash there is more often than not a huge gap between gaining a licence and getting back into regular flying practice. This naturally means that their flying skills will require refreshing.
I hope that you all have a safe and fun summer.

[Paris Dakar]

Esperanza,

I feel that I have intruded into this forum

Your original posting was aimed at one school in particular, not the 'largely Florida based training' your last post suggests. If you really believe that 'umpty gazillion' of the folk that pass through their doors are poorly trained, then the fact is that some of those umpty gazillion will stand up and disagree with you.

You are perfectly entitled to your views and opinions about the said school but that won't stop hundreds of aspiring UK pilots heading to the US (Florida in particular) to do their training and hour building.

[potkettleblack]

If you are of the opinion that the UK GA scene is in a pretty sad state at the moment imagine what it would be like without people heading out to the US or further afield to get their licences.

If you go to any overseas FTO you will see a complete cross section of society from young wannabees aspiring to go commercial to mums and dads and older folks that have saved hard to learn to fly. The only thing that they usually have in common is that they can't afford the prices in the UK nor have the time to spend up to a year getting a licence. These people will all need checkouts to fly the club hack or group aircraft, possibly add an IMC or multi rating on their return and give the UK some much needed cash. So go and b*tch and moan about them if you want to but I would suggest you don't bite the hand that feeds.

[EastMids]

I don't think that there will ever be a winner in the UK vs USA debate. Some will always claim that learning in the USA means not learning the British way or in British weather conditions, or that the training isn't as good because of the instructors, or because there's pressure to get people passed, or whatever. Others [like me] will always regard the British system as flawed, because people don't fly for three weeks or more (due weather maybe) and end up taking three steps forward at each lesson and two back inbetween, or worse are forced to repeat certain exercises (stalls, etc) if they aren't done for a certain period of time meaning you go over the same ground over and over again. Likewise, there are too many stakeholders with vested interests to draw a really objective conclusion - British schools and instructors regarding the USA as doing them out of business, US schools claiming they offer a good service for those on a budget or with a limited amount of free time, people who might not otherwise even get into GA.

Its impossible to really assess the results of the USA versus UK, because evernone learns at their own pace and its not possible to train the same person through each system from scratch. Equally, post training there's no mandatory checks in the system for two years (by which time some will have dropped out, and those still in GA will have changed to some degree), which means any overall generalisation about the raw output from flying schools either side of the pond cannot be reliable. I am certain, as suggested above, that each system generates its fair share of good and not so good pilots at the end of the process.

Training in the US showing no signs of going away, no matter how much some people don't like the idea. Whether training in the USA or the UK turns out good or not so good pilots, surely the objective post qualification is not to bitch about the system that produced them, but to keep them in GA, keep them flying, and keep them safe.

Andy

[B2N2]

Very well put East Mid.
That's actually what I meant to say, however I am not as eloquent as you...

[englishal]

One thing to bear in mind, if the student goes to a JAA approved school in the USA then the examiner is *probably* a Brit / European who examines outside of the FARs i.e. as far as the FAA is concerned, the flight is probably an instructional dual flight unless the JAA examiner is also an FAA examiner - they would have to be IMO at least an FAA FI. This means the FAA has no control over the standards of students passing a JAA flight test in the USA.

Therefor the blame should lie wholely with the CAA for not enforcing proper standards are met during their (expensive) approval inspections and they should call suspect examiners in to answer for it.

If the PPL is FAA, in my experience FAA FE's are very stringent in the examinations (it is their neck / income on the line) and will only pass a student who meets the FAA requirements. FAA PPL syllabus is different to JAA, and includes night flying as well as other ground reference manouvres and their log book may reflect this.

[Kengineer-130]

Esperanza,
not interested in my offer then?

[Monocock]

I brought this subject up four years ago and was slated for my observations on the UK / USA differeces.

I persoanlly have no issue with Brits going to the US to do a condensed course as long as they are prepared to come back and have a PROPER assessment of their ability and take any necessary further training that might be required to fly seafely in UK airspace.

My biggest gripe is the people who go to the US, spend their £5k, return to Blighty and then moan about the age/condition of the a/c they have to hire to stay current. If more £5k's went inot our club's coffers might we all benefit from better hardware and therefore a more flourishing industry?? I don't know but it must be a contributor to the issue.

[Lower the Nose!]

If more £5k's went inot our club's coffers might we all benefit from better hardware and therefore a more flourishing industry??

I doubt it, because 5k is only the start if you want to fly in the UK. I have learnt to fly in the US where I have been living for the past few years. But I have no intention of flying in the UK when I get back. I can't bring myself to spend so much hard earned on rotten old planes, under a regulatory regime that clearly doesn't want me there, flying into airports which charge me the earth for the privilege. You need a sea change of regulation and financing (hypothecation of taxes: you spend the tax money, you get it back in direct state spending) in the UK, which is never going to happen. I fear GA in Europe will eventually be only for the super rich.

[speedbird676]

If it wasn't for the USA I would never have learnt to fly an aeroplane and gained my PPL. I spent £3.5k when I was learning and got my license in 4 weeks. If I had tried to learn in the UK I would have been constantly slowed down by the weather and would have probably spent £10k+, getting out of it a very similar license and a lot less experience.

I learnt to fly in Pennsylvania, not reknowned for it's good weather. I learnt to cope with haze, rain, high temperature and humidity, thunderstorms, things that I would likely not encountered in the UK. I also flew in and out of Lancaster airport, a proper tower controlled field visited frequently by commercial traffic and a lot of GA. During my cross country flights I got practice at landing on loads of very short and narrow farm strips as well as full blown commercial airports, in amongst the Boeings and Airbus's. I learnt to fly close to restricted airspace above New York and Washington and was able to be under constant air traffic control. Since there were no landing fees to worry about I could practice as many landings as I wanted, often being signed off by my instructor to go and fly the pattern for the afternoon, practicing varying techniques on the two tarmac runways at Lancaster. When I got my license I then got to fly into Philadelphia International, albeit with a friend and experienced pilot next to me. Personally I think that I now have more experience in my 50 hours logged than if I'd flown at the weekends in and out of a grass strip in the UK. Oh, and I've got a lot more money left in my back pocket for my next flying trip.

When the fuel tax in the UK is cut and landing fees are abolished then maybe, just maybe I'll consider flying here on a reguar basis.

[EastMids]

Originally Posted by Monocock

My biggest gripe is the people who go to the US, spend their £5k, return to Blighty and then moan about the age/condition of the a/c they have to hire to stay current. If more £5k's went inot our club's coffers might we all benefit from better hardware and therefore a more flourishing industry?? I don't know but it must be a contributor to the issue.

There we go again with an attitude that suggests pilots who trained in the USA owe UK GA something? Most people who go to the USA to train don't do so just for the sake of it - they go there because the USA can offer them something that the UK can't or won't offer, typically a fast paced course in pretty much guaranteed weather, or lower prices. I learned in the USA for exactly one of those reasons, and its UK GA's loss that it couldn't offer what I needed - sorry, but I think its called globalisation or something like that! Sure its a difficult problem to fix, but it isn't just going to go away. I don't feel embarrassed that I cut UK GA out of my training needs, but on the other hand I believe I've supported UK GA in the 11 years since I got my PPL by consistantly putting money into it week in week out, year in year out. Without the initial training in the USA, I doubt UK GA would have had any of that money.

At the club I use, the rental fleet is to a large extent isolated from the training fleet, so unless there's some cross-funding involved, I fail to see how people who learn to fly in the US cause the rental fleet to be old and tired. Clapped out rental aircraft in the UK aren't the fault of those who go to the USA, but they may well be contributory reasons why pilots don't stay in the system and provide UK GA with a steady income when they get back. Again, instead of criticising those who go there to train, those who train in the US need to be embraced by UK GA and encouraged to stay in the system and provide ongoing income on a regular basis.

I am of the opinion that with ever increasing costs, the UK training and club scene has got to do something radical if it is to last - I don't think it can just go on hiking prices for ever ageing Cessnas and Pipers. Without ongoing income its difficult to see where the funding for improvements comes from, so if those who train in the USA come back and provide some of that income, I see no reasons for UK GA to complain about that.

Andy

[IO540]

I think there is nothing wrong with doing one's PPL in the USA rather than the UK.

If one spent the £8k+ (£5k is rather optimistic, for most locations and the average ability pilot) at the local UK airfield, this is likely to result in yet another flying school opening up, having yet more "just passing through" ATPL hour builders sitting on the sofas thumbing through the airline ads, so that nobody is actually going to make any money.... In most cases of several fixed-wing schools in a given airfield, one could shut all but one and everybody would be better off.

The thing which would make a real difference would be if one could attract even a tiny little bit more of the very copious money which is splashing around the world outside GA; attract some people with realistic budgets into flying, and then everybody would benefit from extra traffic, extra landing fees, extra tea and chocolate cakes sold, and the holes in the WW2 runways might finally get patched up because anybody with a half decent plane doesn't want to wreck in in a pothole.

I am sorry to say this but there is nothing to be gained supporting the decrepit PPL training industry as it stands. It is a sausage machine, churning out PPLs, of which nearly all chuck in the towel nearly right away. Banging around circuits is of no long term benefit to UK GA. It's not a sustainable business. It is the "bit after that" that needs addressing.

[neilcharlton]

A nice bit of Esperanza bashing there. Esperanza was merely expressing his observations . He is an experienced instructor , he's taught in the US and the UK and he finds many pilots that are taught in the US under par. So unless your an instructor and regularly teach these people how are YOU qualified to express an opinion ?

Yes there will always be exceptions to the point and I’m sure there's a lot of well trained pilots from US schools.

How do other instructors find US trained pilots flying in the UK?

[unfazed]

neilcharlton

How do other instructors find US trained pilots flying in the UK?

An interesting question but one with an interesting opposite

Q- How do US instructors find UK trained pilots flying in the US ?

Nothing like a bit of balance....

Let me suggest that most would need an hour or two of dual to get up to speed with
Local area
Airfield specifics
Radio
etc

This would also be true when changing clubs in UK hence why clubs require a dual check flight. I fail to see the point of the question.

[Mercenary Pilot]

So unless your an instructor and regularly teach these people how are YOU qualified to express an opinion ?

You dont need to be an FI to know what awful/gash/dangerous flying looks like.

[Kengineer-130]

still no answer to my offer on the previous page

[scooter boy]

US vs UK flight training

I was trained in fixed wing at Van Nuys CA in 1994 (IR Louisville KY 2000) and rotary in the UK in 2002.

Without a doubt aviation is more evolved in the USA and far more user friendly. I would say that standards of training are comparable and that it is not possible to generalise...

But in my experience (he says generalising massively...):

In the US you have to learn to get slick on the radio fast. There were often 5 or 6 aircraft in the pattern - many commercial a/c and jets.

When I returned to the UK I really couldn't believe the number of miserable old farts involved in flying here - generally older men who were very quick to criticise the US system despite having had no experience of it themselves - the anti-GPS brigade. Jealously guarding their rusting ill equipped elderly cessnas. The US is generally younger (aircraft and pilots), more positive and has a far more "can do" mentality.

In the US getting a temporary airman certificate on the day you pass your test so that you can go flying immediately beats the hell out of waiting for the license in the post before you can fly.


As I previously stated we should not generalise though - experience on both sides of the Atlantic is valuable and should be respected.

[172driver]

Originally Posted by scooter boy

When I returned to the UK I really couldn't believe the number of miserable old farts involved in flying here - generally older men who were very quick to criticise the US system despite having had no experience of it themselves - the anti-GPS brigade. Jealously guarding their rusting ill equipped elderly cessnas. The US is generally younger (aircraft and pilots), more positive and has a far more "can do" mentality.

Exactly. And then they wonder why not more people are partaking in GA in the UK

In the US getting a temporary airman certificate on the day you pass your test so that you can go flying immediately beats the hell out of waiting for the license in the post before you can fly.

And at the end the CAA hand you a stack of paper that can seriously impact your W&B

[meditek]

Just a passing thought but in the UK I got the impression that natural ability, intelligence and confidence gets you labelled as 'overconfident' with subsequent extra hours to eliminate it while in the US they are more likely to get excited by it and nurture it. Americans admire success in other people - Brits mostly hate it.