Degradation of will to learn how to fly
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also need a valid class rating (which expires periodically) and a medical for example
Moreover, even with a valid PPL, type rating, and medical, you break the rules if you fly when you are not fully fit (e.g., recent alcohol consumption or a really bad cold/sore throat etc.)
If you rent, the operator/owner will refuse to give the airplane to you, if you demonstrate poor airmanship at the initial checkride.
You can be fined for busting airspace etc.
And eventually you can die, with perfecly valid papers, if you (or any of us) gets too reckless.
So there's a lot more to safe flying than the papers, legally, professionally and socially as well.
As earlier written, PPL is just a license to learn by yourself, nothing more, nothing less.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heston,Pace.
I respect your experience etc. but I think you are missing my point or I've not made it well enough.
Why are you still concentrating on the poor student, however rich/inept/deluded he may or may not be?
This is a schools/instructing issue which the hapless student can all but go along with- only 1 body is to blame for producing a 'non-compliant' student after 45 hours and that is the school that gave/allowed him 45 hours of 'non-compliant' flying and is now complaining about it!
How about give him his money back and then tell him thanks but no thanks? 'Sorry sir but that 45 hours we gave you was a pile of pants and of little use towards your PPL- would you recommend us please?'
Is that likely?
rnzoli:
The quote you highlight is responding to a very specific claim.
Read the context of the OP and subsequent posts and it clearly runs towards a requirement of the skills test/exam 'on the day'
and again the point I make above is the point being made substantially.
Of course those other things are required on-going.
funfly:
I am questioning the schools not the students. Keep up at the back!
I respect your experience etc. but I think you are missing my point or I've not made it well enough.
Why are you still concentrating on the poor student, however rich/inept/deluded he may or may not be?
This is a schools/instructing issue which the hapless student can all but go along with- only 1 body is to blame for producing a 'non-compliant' student after 45 hours and that is the school that gave/allowed him 45 hours of 'non-compliant' flying and is now complaining about it!
How about give him his money back and then tell him thanks but no thanks? 'Sorry sir but that 45 hours we gave you was a pile of pants and of little use towards your PPL- would you recommend us please?'
Is that likely?
rnzoli:
The quote you highlight is responding to a very specific claim.
Read the context of the OP and subsequent posts and it clearly runs towards a requirement of the skills test/exam 'on the day'
and again the point I make above is the point being made substantially.
Of course those other things are required on-going.
funfly:
I think that the posters on here are in danger of using one very bad (and frustrating) example to question all students.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This student does not amaze me either. What does amaze me is the fact that such attitudes are tolerated by the schools. Circuit (pattern) operations using electronic devices is not in the syllabus and should have been metaphorically kicked out of the student long before 45 hours.
The fact that it took some discussion/persuasion to leave the iPad behind indicates that the student has little respect for instructors.
This is the reason we have half baked pilots, apprentices, business leaders, politicians, etc. they want to start at the top and know it all.
I am not an instructor but if I were I would refuse to teach such morons. In which case I would probably not pass the FI course, nor be employed as one.
Just my opinion, cos I'm too bloody old fashioned.
The fact that it took some discussion/persuasion to leave the iPad behind indicates that the student has little respect for instructors.
This is the reason we have half baked pilots, apprentices, business leaders, politicians, etc. they want to start at the top and know it all.
I am not an instructor but if I were I would refuse to teach such morons. In which case I would probably not pass the FI course, nor be employed as one.
Just my opinion, cos I'm too bloody old fashioned.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a schools/instructing issue which the hapless student can all but go along with- only 1 body is to blame for producing a 'non-compliant' student after 45 hours and that is the school that gave/allowed him 45 hours of 'non-compliant' flying and is now complaining about it!
We dont know how the current state of affairs came about, but faced with where he is now, CH is right to refuse to teach this student.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either way, the main issue is not the use of gadets, but his apparent stall on the learning curve. Continued use of the iPad will not bring him forward, so a serious talk is required with the school and multiple instructors, face to face.
And finally, I don't think the school forced the student pilot to use an iPad for navigation. They provided the possibility to learn with the safety of an instructor, so if the student is unable and especially unwilling to change behaviour, I don't see why the training cost should be paid back to the student.
I saw a case where a student quit about 20 hours mid-training, because he realized that he just can't navigate, it was too much for him. Maybe this is a similar case, but now the student assumes he can plug in his shortcomings with an iPad and an autopilot....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't know, whether the school, or the previous instructors allowed the use of iPad to ease the workload on the student in the beginning , or simply the student started to use additional tools after seeing his performance not developing in line with his hours spent in training.
If this student was allowed to continue thinking that he was in charge it is the fault of the school and their policy..
He was bound to "stall" on the learning curve if the curve was being set by himself.
Take this senseless scenario a few steps further, hand the complete rookie the keys and let him get on with it!
As for gadgets. Some years ago during a Classroom Nav lesson we were given : plot course London HR to Truro. I rather flippantly remarked, about south westish. The student beside me said, no we have to be a bit more accurate than that as he punched buttons on his electronic device, 069 degrees magnetic in fact. There was only one answer to that, Take a big packed lunch!
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're quite right about the above.
But there is one scenario that I can still imagine, where the student requested the presence of the iPad as a secondary device to verify his position against his primary VFR navigation attempts. It's not illegal to have such secondary device on board and an unsuspecting/inexperienced instructor might have initially allowed this as a supposedly "harmless" temporary aid (without the school / chief pilot actually knowing). Things went wrong when the student got accustomed to the devices and with the gradually lowered navigational support from his instructor, he grew too dependent on the iPad instead, which is an obvious dead-end street. I bet the previous instructor realized this and tried to talk him out of this habit, but the student didn't want to "give up" the "illusionary" progress he made! That's why he became very stubborn with the previous instructor, who in turn, handed the student over to the OP.
Either way, the solution is in the hands of the student. He must let the iPad go from the cockpit, and this is the OP's problem.
The student can either swallow the cost of the dead-end street excursion in training, or sue the flight school and the previous instructor to get the money back. (Or agree on lower fees for a few additional hours - this would be the best for the above scenario. ) but, this is NOT the OP's problem.
But there is one scenario that I can still imagine, where the student requested the presence of the iPad as a secondary device to verify his position against his primary VFR navigation attempts. It's not illegal to have such secondary device on board and an unsuspecting/inexperienced instructor might have initially allowed this as a supposedly "harmless" temporary aid (without the school / chief pilot actually knowing). Things went wrong when the student got accustomed to the devices and with the gradually lowered navigational support from his instructor, he grew too dependent on the iPad instead, which is an obvious dead-end street. I bet the previous instructor realized this and tried to talk him out of this habit, but the student didn't want to "give up" the "illusionary" progress he made! That's why he became very stubborn with the previous instructor, who in turn, handed the student over to the OP.
Either way, the solution is in the hands of the student. He must let the iPad go from the cockpit, and this is the OP's problem.
The student can either swallow the cost of the dead-end street excursion in training, or sue the flight school and the previous instructor to get the money back. (Or agree on lower fees for a few additional hours - this would be the best for the above scenario. ) but, this is NOT the OP's problem.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rnzoli, you seem to be concocting novel scenarios to absolve the school of this. They are up to their neck in this but will get away with it.
If you say 'Use Ipad, no fly' you have no income. If you say 'Use Ipad, do again-won't count' then he may run off and you have no income (and we may find out if that is so) but if 'allow anyway' and say nothing then you have 45 hours of 'trial flights'! which will have been sold as 'all count towards your licence, sir' but he is unable to fly competently and will NEVER get anywhere near a licence to
whatever that means.
Yes, it seems CH has been thrown a hospital pass and the school should be scratching their heads (not he) and held liable but won't be.
Really? Is there precedence for this ?They should be named and shamed and fight their corner AND sued -but on what basis?
As I said in an earlier post
If this chap is after a licence and has been hood-winked into thinking he's nearly there, then there's some explaining to do about the 'value-for-money' of his thus-far spent £7-8000+ ! and it doesn't look promising.
An expensive lesson in the tricks of the GA training industry.
If you say 'Use Ipad, no fly' you have no income. If you say 'Use Ipad, do again-won't count' then he may run off and you have no income (and we may find out if that is so) but if 'allow anyway' and say nothing then you have 45 hours of 'trial flights'! which will have been sold as 'all count towards your licence, sir' but he is unable to fly competently and will NEVER get anywhere near a licence to
become an airplane transporter, instead of a pilot or even airmen?
Yes, it seems CH has been thrown a hospital pass and the school should be scratching their heads (not he) and held liable but won't be.
or sue the flight school and the previous instructor to get the money back. (Or agree on lower fees for a few additional hours - this would be the best for the above scenario.
As I said in an earlier post
Who said you HAVE to give them a licence- just keep going, IPAD or no IPAD, and don't put them anywhere near a 'test' or keep failing them if they insist- where's the risk in that?
An expensive lesson in the tricks of the GA training industry.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the possibility of the "secondary" device but the instructor would be seriously at fault to allow it. He, the instructor, is the secondary device. He may perhaps allow the student to show him his toys but not as a Nav aid or "learning" aid. There is no excuse, the student has to abide by the syllabus or he has not completed the recognised course and is not fit to take the GFT.
Secondary electronic devices are not "required" at any time at PPL level, they may be very useful, most of us have one, but they are no more necessary than the electric windows, cruise control, and auto transmission in my car.
I don't see any other way to put it. Learn the basics get the licence just like the rest of us, then play with your toys.
Secondary electronic devices are not "required" at any time at PPL level, they may be very useful, most of us have one, but they are no more necessary than the electric windows, cruise control, and auto transmission in my car.
I don't see any other way to put it. Learn the basics get the licence just like the rest of us, then play with your toys.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely, in this case the flying school is negligent. I presume there is some qualified person in charge? That person (or commmitee of management) must set rules for training, and must supervise training so that any student who brings electronic aids along is informed in print that this is not permitted.
When I was a newly qualified instructor in gliders at Booker, I had a father and son who had signed up for a 5 day course, both of them together, with me.
The first day, we covered the basics. Lookout, effects and use of controls.
Coordination of rudder and ailerons. Ability to fly in more or less a straight line.
The second day, we had to do it again, as neither father nor son was able to manage even a close approximation to flying in a straight line.
The third day, back to square one. At this stage I am thinking is it me? although I had success with previous pupils, I was still new at instructing, so I went to the Chief Flying Instructor, told him that my two pupils were failing to progress, and could he please fly with them and sort out the problem.
He flew with both of them that day. And took me aside and said "Mary, there is no way that either of these chaps will ever learn to fly. It is not your fault at all. Some people will never get it."
The CFI told me to try one more day, and then tell them - if no improvement in basic handling was demonstrated, to suggest taking up golf. Father and son....must have been hereditary.
When I was a newly qualified instructor in gliders at Booker, I had a father and son who had signed up for a 5 day course, both of them together, with me.
The first day, we covered the basics. Lookout, effects and use of controls.
Coordination of rudder and ailerons. Ability to fly in more or less a straight line.
The second day, we had to do it again, as neither father nor son was able to manage even a close approximation to flying in a straight line.
The third day, back to square one. At this stage I am thinking is it me? although I had success with previous pupils, I was still new at instructing, so I went to the Chief Flying Instructor, told him that my two pupils were failing to progress, and could he please fly with them and sort out the problem.
He flew with both of them that day. And took me aside and said "Mary, there is no way that either of these chaps will ever learn to fly. It is not your fault at all. Some people will never get it."
The CFI told me to try one more day, and then tell them - if no improvement in basic handling was demonstrated, to suggest taking up golf. Father and son....must have been hereditary.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is, I believe an old Chinese proverb from the book of inane Chinese proverbs. : He who knows that he knows not is a wise man, He who knows not that he knows not is a fool indeed.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A view from the LHS.
I have held my PPL for three years now, approaching 300 hours so still a novice.
But I do have a Type A personality with what sound like the typical business background being mentioned above, and qualifying as a pilot is recent enough to remember what learning to fly was like.
For my 40th I was bought a trial lesson, at the end it was suggested that I buy a log book and log the flight as it would count towards me getting a licence. I asked how many hours it took and was told 45.
Sure, a piece of paper was given to me which said it 'might take more' but 45 is what I heard.
So I bought the log book, and booked my second hour, by the end of which I'd be nearly 5% of the way there, right ?
At the end of every lesson I added it up and worked out how many more lessons I'd need to get to 45, and how many weeks that would be.
More importantly, dealing with family finances there was a figure of how much more I was 'allowed' to spend.
I just assumed that magically everything would just happen at or around 45 hours to make me pass the test. I didn't really need to listen, surely, it would just happen ?
Partway through the course I had to change schools (it was illness of the FI, not anything I'd done !). At around 40 hours I was mortified (and my family financial controller was furious) to be told that I might need another ten.
None of this was helped by a friend who did get his at 45 and assured me that was what 'everyone did'. (I hadn't found PPRUNE by then...)
I pushed to be put in for the test - the system worked and I failed, deservedly so. The same weekend a local experienced pilot was killed in a crash which looked like pilot error.
That was the wake up call for me. It was only now that I started working hard on learning to fly - this bloody thing wasn't going to beat me. At around 70 hours I retook, a bag of nerves but somehow passed. Shortly afterwards in IMC I learned how little I knew - the best leveller I had. At that point the ego got thrown away and from then on I leave the Type A personality on the ground. I took the IRR shortly afterwards and if only time allows am planning the CBIR.
I'd like to think I was nothing like CH's student (I certainly wasn't an iPad user and could fly a visual circuit) but suspect I was seen as the student from hell at the time.
My personality type overall hasn't changed, but I now know my limitations and leave the ego (and quite often the plane) on the ground. I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.
So perhaps this student might be an OK pilot in the making, just needs something to make him change his behaviours ? Or maybe I'm being eternally optimistic ?
Does he have the 45 hour fixation that I did ? Is that anyone's fault for selling a 45 hour dream ?
Whatever, if anyone can make this guy into a pilot (not an aircraft driver) sounds like it is CH.
I have held my PPL for three years now, approaching 300 hours so still a novice.
But I do have a Type A personality with what sound like the typical business background being mentioned above, and qualifying as a pilot is recent enough to remember what learning to fly was like.
For my 40th I was bought a trial lesson, at the end it was suggested that I buy a log book and log the flight as it would count towards me getting a licence. I asked how many hours it took and was told 45.
Sure, a piece of paper was given to me which said it 'might take more' but 45 is what I heard.
So I bought the log book, and booked my second hour, by the end of which I'd be nearly 5% of the way there, right ?
At the end of every lesson I added it up and worked out how many more lessons I'd need to get to 45, and how many weeks that would be.
More importantly, dealing with family finances there was a figure of how much more I was 'allowed' to spend.
I just assumed that magically everything would just happen at or around 45 hours to make me pass the test. I didn't really need to listen, surely, it would just happen ?
Partway through the course I had to change schools (it was illness of the FI, not anything I'd done !). At around 40 hours I was mortified (and my family financial controller was furious) to be told that I might need another ten.
None of this was helped by a friend who did get his at 45 and assured me that was what 'everyone did'. (I hadn't found PPRUNE by then...)
I pushed to be put in for the test - the system worked and I failed, deservedly so. The same weekend a local experienced pilot was killed in a crash which looked like pilot error.
That was the wake up call for me. It was only now that I started working hard on learning to fly - this bloody thing wasn't going to beat me. At around 70 hours I retook, a bag of nerves but somehow passed. Shortly afterwards in IMC I learned how little I knew - the best leveller I had. At that point the ego got thrown away and from then on I leave the Type A personality on the ground. I took the IRR shortly afterwards and if only time allows am planning the CBIR.
I'd like to think I was nothing like CH's student (I certainly wasn't an iPad user and could fly a visual circuit) but suspect I was seen as the student from hell at the time.
My personality type overall hasn't changed, but I now know my limitations and leave the ego (and quite often the plane) on the ground. I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.
So perhaps this student might be an OK pilot in the making, just needs something to make him change his behaviours ? Or maybe I'm being eternally optimistic ?
Does he have the 45 hour fixation that I did ? Is that anyone's fault for selling a 45 hour dream ?
Whatever, if anyone can make this guy into a pilot (not an aircraft driver) sounds like it is CH.
Last edited by 150 Driver; 18th Dec 2015 at 23:08. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
150 Driver.
Nail on the head!
What a refreshing, honest post!
Ring any bells, boys?
But I will still not excuse the schools 'hour-building' for the sake of it.
Did you feel like that at the end of a 'LESSON' if you were TAUGHT b*gger all?- time after time?
Nail on the head!
What a refreshing, honest post!
Ring any bells, boys?
But I will still not excuse the schools 'hour-building' for the sake of it.
I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.
I've been mulling this fascinating but disturbing thread over the last couple of days.
One thing occurred to me - I could be completely wrong, but it may just fit the expressed facts.
Is it possible that our hero's 45 hours are actually 40 hours of flying with mates and playing with his iPad (or even flying a PC sim), and maybe 5 hours of dual with several instructors all of whom he peed off? Possibly because of clearly rather "strong" personality, he bull****ted his way into persuading people that those were real hours, rather than pax/playing hours? Who knows, maybe he believes it himself.
I don't know, wasn't there, am conjecting wildly - but it might just fit.
G
One thing occurred to me - I could be completely wrong, but it may just fit the expressed facts.
Is it possible that our hero's 45 hours are actually 40 hours of flying with mates and playing with his iPad (or even flying a PC sim), and maybe 5 hours of dual with several instructors all of whom he peed off? Possibly because of clearly rather "strong" personality, he bull****ted his way into persuading people that those were real hours, rather than pax/playing hours? Who knows, maybe he believes it himself.
I don't know, wasn't there, am conjecting wildly - but it might just fit.
G
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Geng. It's a whodunnit! LOL.
Over to you Chicken- we (GtE says so;sort of), and you, need some evidence of these 45 hours to remain sane!
However, some passionate responses elicited and a cool appreciation by an expert.
Over to you Chicken- we (GtE says so;sort of), and you, need some evidence of these 45 hours to remain sane!
However, some passionate responses elicited and a cool appreciation by an expert.
Last edited by jjoe; 20th Dec 2015 at 20:28. Reason: To emphasise sentiment.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nail on the head!
What a refreshing, honest post!
Ring any bells, boys?
What a refreshing, honest post!
Ring any bells, boys?
Quote:
I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.
Did you feel like that at the end of a 'LESSON' if you were TAUGHT b*gger all?- time after time?
I'm now disappointed if at the end of a flight I haven't learned something and improved something.
Did you feel like that at the end of a 'LESSON' if you were TAUGHT b*gger all?- time after time?
I came to GA with my eyes open. I'd done gliding in the late '70s (a bit - 'till I got pissed off driving tractors and pulling private owner gliders around for a few precious minutes in the air). I'd spent 3 full weekends, 07:00 to 19:00 each day, before I even got into a cockpit! Thanks a bunch, D&L! (It WAS a long time ago!).
So I went to Barton in 1978 for a PPL determined not to be pissed around again. Made that clear, in the crowded clubhouse one wet Sunday afternoon after calling in to Barton, to the chairman of LAC. He promised me they would not piss me about as D&L had done.
I was not pissed around by LAC. But I did, sometimes, have to 'manage' my progress according to my 'Birch & Bramson', what lessons I had in what order etc. Sometimes an instructor would jump into the RH seat of the 150 with "OK SSD, what would you like to do today". So I had to tell him. I had many instructors in the 8 months it took me to get a PPL, but I consider that an advantage - it taught me there are more than a few ways to skin all these cats.
The CFI was keeping an eye on overall progress and all lessons were of course logged to ensure the entire syllabus was covered, and for the important stuff there were some really excellent instructors. The gentleman who sent me solo at 10 hours, well before I was expecting it (ex WW2 Lancaster pilot, later V bomber pilot, as I discovered later the only guy I know who can gain height in a Chippy while aerobatting it and unpeeling an orange at the same time) knew I was better than I thought I was.
That same gentleman conducted my GFT (now called a skill test, I believe) less than 40 hours after my first PPL lesson and I did make a few mistakes (I think the PPL minimum was 38 hours back then - and it included spinning!). He walked away from the 150 saying "thank you very much. A very enjoyable flight".
"But.... Did I pass?"
"Oh yes! Of course".
So my PPL course was immensely rewarding - every lesson gave me new experiences and knowledge to hoover up (I was still in my mid 20s). Some of the instructors were ho hum, but some were aviators to a very high degree and they passed that enthusiasm for airmanship and love of flying to us newbies.
I'd had to 'manage' my lessons myself at times, ensuring stuff I was happy with wasn't repeated, and stuff I had difficulty with was resolved. I'm not a 'type A' personality, but I'm a pretty good project manager.
It was intensive, it was demanding, and there were times I had to bunk off work when the wx was right to do a x-country. But it was amazing!
And talking of VFR nav I remember sitting in a 150 one day awaiting the CFI for my first dual flight out of the circuit (Barton - Crewe - Wigan - Barton). He strapped in and said "OK Mr SSD, where's your plan?".
"What plan?"
"How are you going to fly me from here to Crewe, Wigan, and back here with no plan?".
"Head west to Warrington, turn left down the Low Level Route to just south of Northwich, pick up the railway to Crewe, do a 180, follow the railway back up the LLR to Wigan, then turn right to return over Leigh and Astley to here".
Which is exactly what we did!
I find much of what has been posted on this thread to be quite alien. I hope the above explains why.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 19th Dec 2015 at 00:22.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My recollection of the 38 hour course was that it was classed as an "approved " course which had to be completed within 6 months.
I didn't manage either the calendar limit or the hours limit, but I did have to go through the spinning bit....
I didn't manage either the calendar limit or the hours limit, but I did have to go through the spinning bit....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approved course was 35 hours when I did it, including spinning. mAnaged it in the time but that was on a flying Scholarship, so pretty intensive.
SSD, it is Alien to you because you were not that sort of student and have not had to instruct one like that!
150 driver, I think you hit the nail on the head with
Basically you did not listen to the fact that it
and suffered the consequences!
SSD, it is Alien to you because you were not that sort of student and have not had to instruct one like that!
150 driver, I think you hit the nail on the head with
I just assumed that magically everything would just happen at or around 45 hours to make me pass the test. I didn't really need to listen, surely, it would just happen ?
might take longer than 45
Moderator
Sure, a piece of paper was given to me which said it 'might take more' but 45 is what I heard.
PPL candidates: If an examiner gives you a license after a successful flight test - you are a pilot, but you are not at all an experienced pilot. You have demonstrated the minimum skill set to pass the test.
YOU - not the flying school, were and remain responsible for assuring that you seek out the required training. Yes, you rely upon the school to lead the path, but you should take responsibility too. Blaming the school 'cause you did not learn something well is a cop out. The skills of piloting "well" take hundreds of hours, 45 is a minimum. You must know that, and keep skill building, both solo and dual - even after PPL.
An hour a month -with no Ipad - is a minimum for skills maintenance for a new pilot - if that hours is skills practice, rather than a $100 burger run. If you want to be a skilled pilot who flies in for an airport burger, you should plan on two hours a month flying, with the second hour being the Ipad cross country burger run flight.
To maintain your skills fly the circuits and the abnormal/emergency practice with as little cockpit distraction as possible - eyes out as much as you can manage. Put the cockpit toys away for the circuit or the Hasel zone, they won't help you while you're learning and flying skill building.
If your school lets you fill the cockpit with gadgets and cords for your circuit and practice area work, they are not doing you any favours! You need to fly airspace aware - so take a folded properly chart, all us old pilots managed okay with just a chart, and flying has not changed that much!
Moderator
Risk vs Benefit anaylsis
I attended a test pilot symposium in London, Ontario the last two days. Excellent, just excellent. One of the presentations focused on making and then flying to the risk vs benefit decision. The speaker cited several cases where the pilot took a risk, and there was no plausible benefit. Unacceptable.
But why would this apply only to test flying? Sure, this was great advice for test pilots, but that good advice flows much further outward that just test flight - to all flight! If you are contemplating something which adds risk (and impromptu show for the tower, or buzz of your friend's house, for example) ask yourself: Is there risk? Is there benefit? If they don't at least equalize, don't do it. Why would you?
Every flight I flew as an observer with the Government Flying Service of Hong Kong a few years back, was preceded by a risk vs benefit analysis written out on a form. In completing that form, it could take you to: "don't fly", or "don't do that". If it did, the plane did not fly the flight, and, a copy of your RvsB analysis was on file there, so no fudging the numbers
But why would this apply only to test flying? Sure, this was great advice for test pilots, but that good advice flows much further outward that just test flight - to all flight! If you are contemplating something which adds risk (and impromptu show for the tower, or buzz of your friend's house, for example) ask yourself: Is there risk? Is there benefit? If they don't at least equalize, don't do it. Why would you?
Every flight I flew as an observer with the Government Flying Service of Hong Kong a few years back, was preceded by a risk vs benefit analysis written out on a form. In completing that form, it could take you to: "don't fly", or "don't do that". If it did, the plane did not fly the flight, and, a copy of your RvsB analysis was on file there, so no fudging the numbers