Do I change flight school 37hrs into training?

[phiggsbroadband]

10 mile XC

.
Well I tried to figure out how long a Circuit really is, and depending upon length of runway, I think it could be between 5-8 miles long.


Or another way to calculate this 10 mile XC is to think how long it would take in a 100 kn aircraft... = 6 minutes.... Not my idea of an XC.
Maybe he missed a 0 off... 100 mile XC seems more likely.
( Aren't most XCs a triangular route, with two TPs?)
.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Barton, runway 27L or R, 4 statute miles for a 'correct' circuit. Can be flown tighter. Some make it more like 10 miles!

[Mach Jump]

Scroll back to post #17:

...my next lesson is my first solo nav where I am expected to fly ten miles from my airfield and then back (sorry for any confusion guys)

Not a huge XC, but a slight loosening of the string attaching the student to the base airfield, enabling him/her to practice leaving and rejoining the circuit, without getting too far away.


MJ

[Grob Queen]

I am not sure having lots of different instructors would suit me as I like the personnel touch and I'm sure each instructor have there own way of teaching studes? So maybe this might not help? I don't know?

Hey best of luck with it all :-) my hat is off to you for dedication and determination

Thanks Wingman, well, determination is certainly what I have (need...) in bucketloads and resolve to get the damned licence whatever stands in my way (and there has been a lot).

As to nmerous FIs. I was like you, for three years, I stuck to one, as hes a great friend and as you say, each FI has a different way of teaching. I used a couple of others (one of whom is a friend now as well) and although they were good, it just wasn't the same. Then, after some badgering from my FI and the folks over on the other forum I decided to have a secondary FI. This has really worked as I now (funny old thing) can quite often either have two trips a week or at least when FI number 1 is not around then FI number 2 usually is (atlhtough it hasn't worked like that this month).

I understand totally your issues about different teaching methods, they do, everyone is different and perhaps are picky on different things. For instance FI number 2 really wants me to hit the numbers every time I land, whereas FI number 1 is pernickity to the point of OCD on keeping the compass on teh horizon, whereas FIs 2 and 3 are not... FI number 3 has a slightly different nav technique but its very helpful as its easier! But at 150 odd hours in, its not that much of an issue, in fact I now try a mixture of all three when i fly. For you, it may help too, as a different person may be able to pick up on something your usual chap hasn't noticed as its familiarity between you two. Also as I have become good friends with FI number one, its like two mates going flying whereas, although FI no 2 and I are becoming friends, I suppose I ..ahem...concentrate more! Mind you, ts got to the stage now where a lot of the time I don't need an FI in teh cockpit,a s I need to get solo hours in and solo confidence up!

Then enter FI number three. He is a good friend who I have known for years. An ex-RAF pilot, he also happens to be a Civvy FI. I asked him as a favour to fly with me to boost my confidence...he did, and yer know what....it worked! he and I flew my QXC route and the confidence boost was huge. Then he gave me the final kick via email to get up there and fly my QXC solo. The weekend after that email, I did it. So, I know having a good friend go flying with you to put you straight or give a confidence boost is not usual, but my point is, maybe TRY flying with someone else. Believe me, I didn't want to and put off flying with someone else regularly for years. Now I only wish I had done it sooner!

HOPe this helps, good luck, and PM me if you want to chat. I'll try and drop by this site more often......

Happy landings

Ps, how close is Bath to Brize? hmm, Wilts/Oxon.... Probably not doable for you, but it was just a thought, they have a Flying Club and i am in contact with their CFI if you were interested.

[LostYetAgain]

Wingman,

I would caution against doing several lessons a day as has been suggested. It's not something that works for everyone, and is more problematic once you get to the longer nav lessons which will require a lot more planning on your part. If you are going to try significantly increasing the frequesncy of your lessons, I would suggest starting at one lesson a day to see how you get on with that.

Having more than one instructor is fine at your stage, so long as they talk to each other about your training progress/needs. In my experience, your student notes are unlikely to provide a sufficient handover from instructor to instructor, and you really don't want to be the communication channel between them.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

In my experience, your student notes are unlikely to provide a sufficient handover from instructor to instructor, and you really don't want to be the communication channel between them.

Agree about the notes (how relevant are they anyway?), but I found having different instructors a bonus - you see more than one way of doing things and decide which is for you.

I recall never being the communication channel between instructors, but being the customer extracting what I wanted from each. The next guy would jump into the 150 I'd pre-flighted with "where are you up to? What do you want to do?".

That may be anathema to some, but I loved it. The CFI was keeping an eye on overall progress, while I got to manage my own navigation of the syllabus.

Worked for me.

Solo PDQ, PPL in a couple of hours over minimum. Taught one to be 'in charge' as well. Isn't that what Captaincy is all about?

PS: Should add it didn't come easy to me, this flying lark. And I thought it would. I was initially a nervous student and never felt really at home in the air 'till well after PPL. Flying (immediately post PPL) an aeroplane that handled properly (dH Chipmunk) as opposed to the rubbery thing I'd done the PPL on (C150) was big help with that!

To this day (35 years later) I cannot understand how so many pilots are 'OK' with the appalling handling of spam cans.

[ChickenHouse]

I confess, I am confused.

With 37 hours in training a pilot2be should be ready to fly independent of any individual FI. In contrast, at this stage she or he should have encountered the difference of maybe three FI at least. For me, the insight that flying is YOU and every FI and pilot flies an own style should have come to mind.

I remember my first switch when I was starting to believe me stupid. At about 15-20 hours I was so hard struggling to flare (as everybody?) that my FI told me to switch instructor "to keep learning what piloting really is". In the end my mistake was to assume that there is a "right" way to fly and that this correctness would be connected to some kind of procedures (when I recall, this was due to my FI being an airliner and used to follow approach procedure - at 2 miles be 800ft high at 400 ft/min descent ... which may be ok for a 737, but definitely not the right way for a C172). I switched from that airliner friend to one of these old bushies, who hardly ever looks at instruments. He taught me to "fly by butt".

I had 7 FI switches until license and I have to admit - that was one of the greatest things to have all these different ways of flying. At one of the last of my frequent checkflights with FE to document the learning progress, he was talking into my flying and when I told him to shut up I had to concentrate, he had the biggest smile and said "now you are almost ready for exam". I repeat, flying is all about YOU and YOU alone, enjoy and nurture this feeling, even at training already.

[worldpilot]

With 37 hours in training a pilot2be should be ready to fly independent of any individual FI

Well, I would say, it depends on several factors, mostly human variables, such as life experience and personal capabilities, which really boils down to motivation and skills of both the student and instructor.

Both the instructor and the student must work together to establish a sense of understanding of the flight training initiative. Each flight training must be undertaken as a unique perspective. Essentially, the flight training approach taken by the instrutor determines the success or failure of the flight training endeavor. Whatever approach is chosen by the instructor whose responsibility is to lead such an inspiring process will involve introducing and implementing systematic processes aimed at encouraging the aspirant to bring together the personality and skills necessary to successfully engage with aviation and sustain target and outcome achievement.

The ultimate target is attaining or earning a pilot certificate but it is imperative to also achieve the outcome which is having the skillset to confidently be at the controls. Most of the time the focus is on the first (get the paper or card) with the second as an afterthought.

So, it shouldn't be a surprise to see the process of becoming a pilot take longer than anticipated or expected. If the journey takes more time and effort as usual but attains the target and outcome, then the time and resources invested have served the purpose.

WP

[Heston]

Whoa! Grade A management consultant speak from Worldpilot there!


But the point is good - the instructor should be able to get the best progress from his/her student by motivating appropriately and by adjusting the teaching technique to suit the student's attitudes, abilities and objectives.


And best progress shouldn't mean (IMHO) getting the qualification as soon as possible - it should mean whatever is needed to help the student to be a safe and responsible pilot.

[9 lives]

Taught one to be 'in charge' as well. Isn't that what Captaincy is all about?

I very much agree. As a pilot, you will fly different aircraft, and with different people aboard with you. A competent instructor will climb in with you, and within minutes of the onset of each phase of flight, figure out where your skills need work. Fly with different instructors.

To this day (35 years later) I cannot understand how so many pilots are 'OK' with the appalling handling of spam cans.

Thread drift warning...

I do not accept this somewhat elitist statement. EVERY airplane is a compromise in some or many ways. The biggest compromise commonly seen being toward simplicity and low cost. To this day (38 years later), I have flown 81 different types of aircraft. From this I have learned that every one lacked something the others had. Some lacked more, others lacked less. I have flown two types which were pretty well all round not very nice to fly, but they were both excellent rough runway cargo haulers, and that was what they were designed for - one being the giant spam can DC-3.

There are some truly delightful, well harmonized aircraft out there - the RV-4 comes to mind. Beautiful to fly, but you can't carry anything bigger than a lunch bag in it.

Both of my planes are massive compromises, and certainly not the nicest planes to fly, but each, in it's own way, does the job well. One is the second most prolific GA aircraft ever, and is cheap and easy to maintain and repair (if ever needed, but never had to). No vices, and when I stick a mainwheel in the mud, or snow, I can lift it out by the wing all by myself. The other is a total misery on the runway, and fairly poor in the air - just not nice to fly. It really keeps my flying skills sharp. But when you feel the keel kiss the water perfectly, and you bump the mainwheels safely up to a previously unvisited rocky shoreline, the plane has just done exactly what it was designed to do well, its compromise worked.

I've never flown a Chipmunk, though would jump at the opportunity. I'm sure that it's a delight compared to the Tiger Moth, which I know well - a compromise to get pilots well trained in that era.

So I'm OK with the appalling handling of some aircraft, the appalling performance of others, the incredible cost of some, and the hidden dark corners of others (kinda reminds me of dating). Because at the end of it, I learn which compromises I'm willing to make, and I can choose what I want. I have recently finished 75 hours of flight testing, development, and training on a Cessna 182 amphibian, whose final cost exceeded $900,000, and costs $700+ an hour to operate in its homeland. A truly magnificent plane - which I simply could never afford myself. But, for the last six years, I've compromised, and flown my amphibian, whose value is less than 10% of that 182, to many of the same places (and I've worried a lot less about scratching it on a rock!).

Pilots of the world if you're in the air, you're safe, and within your budget, be proud of of what you're flying! I've been the proud owner of a C 150 for 27 years.....

Rant over.....

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Continuing the thread drift...

Step, it's not elitist, it's a factual statement. There is absolutely no reason Mr Cessna couldn't have given his high-wing trikes ailerons that are effective and nice to use. Likewise the rudder.

I take your point about aeroplanes being compromised in order to excel at a particular role - lifting heavy cargo out of short rough strips, for instance. And I wouldn't expect Mr Boeing or Mr Airbus to put 'nice handling' very high on the design requirement; safe handling and fuel efficiency would be, though.

My comment wasn't aimed at 'working' aeroplanes such as transports, but at what most on this forum (GA) will be doing - flying for fun!

You really must try a Chippy if you get the chance - the opposite end of the handling scene to the appalling Tiger Moth (which I found to be worse than a spamcan!). But like all aeroplanes it is compromised.

It is noisy in the cockpit. There is NO room to stow anything. You will get oily hands and clothes when you pre-flight it. It has a ludicrously short range (only 18 gallons of fuel). It is expensive to maintain. During aeros (it does graceful basic manouvres superbly) it loses height due the fixed pitch prop (lots of throttling back to stay withing rev limits) and the measly 145 bhp. And it is realistically only a VFR aeroplane. Oh, and with a cruise of 90 kts it is slow.

But its handling.... is sublime! I have flown very many types, and none come close. I know of no-one who has flown one who would disagree with that. And surely, if you are 'flying for fun', for the pure joy of flight rather than to get ASAP from A to B, then sublime handling is the no.1 prerequisite?

[9 lives]

You really must try a Chippy if you get the chance - the opposite end of the handling scene to the appalling Tiger Moth (which I found to be worse than a spamcan!). But like all aeroplanes it is compromised.

I am entirely willing to believe that the Chipmunk is the nicest handling aircraft ever.... It is Canadian . Would I want to own one? Maybe as my fourth or fifth aircraft, as the other more important roles I would like to fill for my recreational flying are fulfilled. But before then, My 150 can keep me proficient at the most simple aerobatics in a sloppy way, and, I can fly my wife, a bit of baggage and two folding bikes to the Bahamas from Canada in two days, and land and takeoff on a 500' long stretch of beach for a picnic on the way. If I dent it, or wear it out, I can get (or make) parts more easily than any civil type on earth. That keeps cost and down time to a minimum. For that, I willingly compromise sloppy ailerons (which, by the way, are noticeably better with the STOL kit I have installed).

I don't present any plane as being superior to another. Just pick the one which will do your job best overall. I DO get grumpy when someone tries to infect new pilots minds with the notion that any particular aircraft is "appalling" compared to another. Some are better, some less so, it depends what you're doing with it. Cessna 100s and 200s and Piper Cherokees are all massive compromises, but they do what is says on the box, and have done so for more than half a century.

Pilots have no shame in flying an airworthy aircraft, which is on budget, and fills their personal role.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

...But do they know what they are missing if they have only ever flown a spam can?

It was the handling of a spam can that I cited as appalling, not the spam can generally. They are indeed very practical aeroplanes, far more practical than a Chippy. Please don't bend my comments to fit your description of them as 'elitist'.

Maybe some pilots just don't care about nice handling; maybe as long as they are flying, they are happy. But I suspect I'm not alone in being seriously discontented with the poor handling of the likes of C150s and PA28s. If I had not discovered good handling, handling that I had dreamed of before learning to fly, I'd have walked away from flying in a matter of months of qualifying instead of enjoying 3 and a half decades of aviation fun. Who wants to fly the equivalent of a 1950s Vauxhall Victor when a Lotus 7 can be enjoyed instead? Of course, you can't take the family on holiday in the Lotus, but that's not the point.

As Richard Bach in his wonderful book 'A Gift of Wings' put it: 'Maybe, as we pushed the high winged cabin into the sky, we thought "this isn't how I thought it would be. But if it's flying, I guess it will have to do".

That was me in the school's C150s.

Flying with a friend in a rented PA28 (I had flown his more interesting aeroplane to another field for maintenance, and he was giving me a lift back to base) he offered me the controls; "no thanks" I replied "I'm quite happy just admiring the view". "I know what you mean", he replied. "I think there may be a spitoon somewhere in the back".

[9 lives]

Yes, I entirely agree, pilots should experience as many types as they are able, and they should appreciate the fine, and far superior handling of some types. Don't just settle for Cessna/Piper handling, as being the be all and end all of flying, there's more to it than that. But the "more to it" is on many different fronts of how a plane flies, and what it can do, also don't fixate on demanding one element of perfection, if you feel that a broader appreciation of flying is what you want.

If a steadfast Chipmunk pilot flew my Teal, they would be mortally offended by its ridiculous roll handling in the air, until they touched the water where they wanted to be that day. They would come to realize that the poor handling in the air was a compromise to assure it would do what it must on the water. (Huge chord, unbalance ailerons are terrible in the air, but vital in lifting a wingtip float out of the water at very low speed). The guy who designed it knew this, and once explained it to me when I complained about the plane. That sloppy handling plane took me, and all of my gear, to a magnificent coastal camping site in Labrador and back, 260 miles from any town, airport, or fuel - and that was the job of the day.

Strive for the "best", but also accept what you must (albeit airworthy), to get the flying job you need to do - done. If you stand on the ground waiting for the perfect plane to taxi up to you, you're not going to fly anywhere near as much as those of us who will smile, and accept appalling handling.

[Piper.Classique]

Horses for courses.......
I love my cub, but excellent handling is not it's best point :-)
For that I fly the libelle or mucha. Sometimes, gliders being what they are, I land in a field. A trifle inconvenient, but part of the game.

For short field performance or taking photos or enjoying a bimble with a friend the cub is ideal. And as that is what I have it goes touring as well. With the camping gear on board. I do eventually arrive.

It's like the way I like both coffee and tea, but not in the same cup.

And then there is the cloudhopper for total pointlessness....A single seat hot air balloon with a maximum of 55 minutes flying time, that takes as long to get ready as a full size balloon carrying four people. But it is fun. Which is what our sort of flying should be about.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

My second favorite aeroplane isn't the Yak52 I had a share in, great fun though that was - it's the L4 (Mil J3) Cub I flew a lot many years ago. It didn't have classically 'good' handling, but was joy on a summers afternoon at low level with the whole side of the cockpit open and, flown from the rear seat, most of the aeroplane in front of you.

I enjoyed it soooo much more than the far more 'capable' Super Cub.

But no good if you are in a hurry or if there's any sort of headwind.

[Piper.Classique]

Ah well, SSD, the little cub is nicer to fly, and not that much slower than a super cub with a fine pitch prop, but the 150 cub will tow gliders.....
And as that is something I need to do, I fly a super cub. And don't you know, there isn't much I would change it for!

[Corsican]

It took me about 18 months for my PPL and that includes 4-5 months spread across that time for family holidays and where the weather annihilated flying (e.g. 7 weekends in a row). I was with the same instructor up until shortly before my QXC when he dropped to just 1 day a week instructing which did not always work for me. As a result, I finished my PPL having flown with 4 different instructors. Each had quite different styles but I was open to that and felt it was a good learning experience. I got along quite well with my original instructor, but it was good to have contrasting techniques and styles and keeps you focussed on why you are training, i.e. get the PPL. I was also familiar with the club and knew most of the instructors by sight so did not want to change the overall scene.

I can still hear one of them (as she repeatedly slapped my wrist) telling me off on how I was going about trimming. The trick is not to take things personally, listen and adopt the "right" technique that works for you (so long as you are not inventing your own). I think having other instructors works well.

I had a lull where I was slipping into thinking and being a perpetual student PPL. The instructors were telling me that I could fly fine but I was thinking I needed to work on something more to be proficient or that my instructor would tell me if I was doing something wrong. Not having an instructor in the aircraft removes that sub-conscious safety net and makes you realise that you have to make the decisions yourself. That is what they are looking for when they are flying with you as well. I never felt my school was trying to milk me for more money - if anything, they were urging me on.

At the end of the day, I got my PPL at the beginning of this year and enjoy flying more and more. In fact, it is positively different to how I thought about flying whilst doing the PPL. The PPL is really just the first stage. You will really start flying - and learning - after the PPL. If you can do it, I would just go for it so that come springtime, you will be able to spend the rest of the year(s) enjoying what you have achieved, consolidating what you learned and exploring the type of flying that really puts that massive smile on your face when you are up there. Good luck!

@ SSD - interesting what you say about different a/c. There are only 152/PA28's where I fly from. Managed to get a ride or two from some owners (kitbuild, Piper and a Tiger Moth) but wondering what you think would be a good a/c to try and get into to build the flying skills?

[worldpilot]

You will really start flying - and learning - after the PPL.

Oh, really?

What activities were you engaged in that entitled you to attain the PPL status?

I wonder why it is called "flight training" in the first place.

You did some solo flying as part of your program to attain your pilot certificate, right? Now, it would be prudent to reflect on that part of your flying in relation to your future flying engagements, to ascertain and understand the ramifications accordingly.

My assumption is that your flight training instructor provided you the information and advice (principles and practices) to fly a single engine airplane and that the flying skill set acquired during this phase will be applied in your future flying activities.

SO, why think that flying starts after PPL?

Make sure you're aware of your performance and safety margins before moving on, in order to avoid being part of aviation accident statistics.

Any pilot that thinks flying starts after PPL has doubt in his/her personal aviation capabilities.

WP

[9 lives]

Any pilot that thinks flying [learning] starts after PPL has doubt in his/her personal aviation capabilities.

On the contrary, there is no possible way during 45 or so hours of formal flight training to encounter all the possible situations, conditions, and aircraft from which one will truly learn to fly. A PPL means that you met the minimum standard for piloting, not much more. After a few hundred hours, you'll be getting there, after a thousand, call yourself an experienced pilot. You will not be better than the instructor who trained you, and how many of them have a thousand hours? Too few.... A fresh PPL is not yet an experienced pilot, particularly if they have yet to fly with one! Have confidence in your aviation capabilities, those demonstrated for the PPL exam, but know how many you have yet to develop, which were not even mentioned during your PPL training.....

Do not wave your fresh PPL at the sky, and say "I've got you conquered", hold it with pride and humility and say "I'd like to tip toe up with care".