|
The Quality of your Instruction…
I am getting on with my PPL training (I have two Instructors at the club btw), but I have had several things happen which have made me wonder whether I am receiving the best tuition I could get. I thought I would share a couple of these with you folks to see whether this sits well with your own experiences.
1. My first solo was one circuit. My second solo a few days later was about 10 circuits. Then, I was sent out by Instructor #2 on a 50 mile solo navigation in what I now think was highly questionable weather. As I flew towards the first point, the weather closed in behind me and I could no longer see the airport. Ahead was appalling cloud and rain. So I aborted, couldn’t turn back and so headed towards the only clear bit of sky I could see, which was North of the area of the second navigation point. I had little idea of exactly where I was. I was getting quite a buffeting throughout too. I circled for about 15 minutes, hoping the weather would clear. It shifted slightly and I could then see the second town, and headed towards it. As I flew over it and then south, the weather became bad again, with rain, very low cloud, lightning flashes just above me and heavy thunder - in fact I had the distinct feeling the lightning was being aimed directly at me. As I got away from it I could just see where the airfield should be, headed towards it and landed. I was a little shaken inside. 2. I was recently sent on my XCQ. It was a very clear day, although with a strong cross-wind at my home runway which also meant a heavy cross-wind at the two away runways. I landed at the first airfield after making a silly mistake and turning onto base too soon (but then I was by then on a very extended downwind - traffic was heavy; also I am not sure they knew I was a Student Pilot (although they had been telephoned), not that that should necessarily have mattered of course). So I got ‘Satisfactory’ for airmanship; ‘Good’ for the landing. On my second leg, I got a little lost en route, but got back on track again; and by this time the runway in use at the second airfield had changed to the opposite direction as the wind had shifted. But I couldn’t find the airfield and flew past it. It would have helped if I had been taught how to use the ADF and the VOR/DME. But I had no knowledge of any navigation equipment at all. I was given a QDM by the ATC but at that time I had no idea what it meant. In the end, the ATC ended up saying things like ‘fly a heading of 3 o’clock’ and so eventually I got there and landed. I was given ‘Satisfactory’ for airmanship and ‘Good’ for the landing. So I passed; but hardly at the standard I would have liked. When I got back, the Instructor #2 who had sent me on the XCQ was very surprised to learn that I had never been on a fly-away before and so had never done a solo landing at another airfield. A week or so later, #1 was talking to me and was saying about how I must push on for the XCQ, and so was pretty surprised (and pleased, it’s true) to learn that I had done it already and got it. I had not been told I should be getting the written exams under my belt during the flying training, and in fact was not directed to do any at all. I think this is a mistake; at least I would have known about some navigation equipment. I have, now, recently done two written exams, HPL and Air Law, and got 100% for both. I am not stupid, and actually can fly pretty satisfactorily I guess as students go; but I sort of approached this business of learning with the attitude of ‘they are the tutors, I am the student, I am totally under their wing/s, I trust them, they know what they are doing and I will follow and do what they guide me to do’. Well, with hindsight, I am not convinced this was smart. I don’t think I should ever have been sent up on that first short solo nav flight in those weather conditions; and I certainly think I shouldn’t have been sent on my solo XCQ - as a navigation flight - without a) having landed on my own at at least one other airfield, and b) without having been trained in the use of the navigation equipment on board. There are a few other things as well which I won’t go into. But I wonder whether all this amounts to a high standard of tuition? Certainly #1 likes things done in a different way to #2. It seems to me that a bit of co-ordination between them as well might help. Do you folks feel this is normal tuition and these things happen all the time? And, of course I would be very interested to hear of any of your own experiences about your tuition. The Phoenix |
sounds to me like a couple of things have gone wrong here.
1/. A severe lack of quality, basic, instruction. 2/. No student notes kept for the instructors to refer to. 3/. Hour building instructors who just don't give a s**t maybe? 4/. Poor management by the CFI Change schools and get what you're paying for! Don't accept second rate instruction. Having read through this post twice now I get the feeling it's a wind-up but in reality, this kind of thing does go on. For people learning to fly, the instructor has to remember what he /she was like when first learning to fly. The instructor was right, whatever he said. At least that's what we all thought because we didn't know any different. Get the exams done sooner rather than later. Ask questions. Ask any other students. Do your homework or one day, the lightning might be real and the outcome not so pleasant. |
Hi kissmysquirrel:
A wind-up? You mean you think this is a joke??! No. It really isn't. And the lightning and thunder were very real. I think that's the point, when you say "we didn't know any different". One doesn't, and it is all a bit mind boggling when you start to learn. So you trust your instructor/s. Your points 1, 3 and 4 would seem to be pretty much on the mark, I would think. There are notes, I have seen the cabinet, but one wonders whether they are ever consulted. As for changing schools, that would mean changing airports and so that would be more distance... Thanks for your reply. I conclude you would describe this as 'second rate instruction' as you say. That's what I was thinking; but I had no terms of reference. TP PS: Looking at my own posting again I can see how you might have thought it was a joke. The Sourcerer's Apprentice rather springs to mind... PPS: Looks like everyone else thinks this is a wind-up too... |
The Phoenix Rises
What you describe is pretty normal and I've experienced much worse myself. The standard of instruction is even more variable than the standard of the aircraft. It is also true that PPL-level navigation (reading ground features) is not actually much good for real getting about the UK. VOR/DME is necessary, and in practice most people use that with a GPS as primary nav. But then you've got to remember that the school's interest is in getting money off you. The longer it takes you the better (I am not suggesting that instructors are deliberately stretching your hours to make more money although I have known a very obvious case of this with an instructor and some very gullible students, which half my airfield was aware of too) and once you get your PPL they really have no interest in you whatever, except possibly to take more money for a night or IMCR. Unfortunately, the PPL training world is geared up for the great majority of people - who drop out of flying very quickly after they get their PPL. Get your PPL, get your IMCR, get your own plane, perhaps later get an FAA PPL/IR and put the plane on the N register, and don't look back (I guarantee you won't) :O |
Switching between two instructors on a regular basis sounds like a bad idea to me. Continuity is key and you have obviously suffered from a lack of it. Flying with different instructors from time to time is generally a very good thing, because you will learn that there are different ways of doing things and you can pick the one that works best for you. You will have plenty of opportunity for this post-PPL (check rides etc).
It sounds like you flew solo before passing your Air Law exam. I think that is illegal (?). I think you should either pick one of your instructors to complete the course or switch schools, if that is a viable option. You can search pprune for several debates about switching schools. Atleast you survived your difficult flights and I am sure they were a useful learning experience. TallGuy |
I'm amazed that you were allowed out of circuit without having passed Air Law, Nav and Met, let alone being sent on a cross country.
But... when you rang, you were given the destination weather (you did ask, right?). You then discussed the trip with your instructor and he checked your flight plan. If it was legal and your instructor thought you were up to it, it was your decision to go. However, ask yourself what you would have done if the weather had deteriorated further!! Students on QXC should identify themselves as such to ATC when approaching their destination field. It lets ATC watch your approach and landing, it also means they can give you a slightly bigger hole in the circuit traffic, should you need it. |
Hi IO540:
Nice to hear from you! Don't get me started on the aircraft they put me in...! I appreciate the comments, and I do wonder about the money element... Remember my other thread about buying a plane, and the £3.5k finder's/checking fee? I completely agree with your last para - here's to it! TP |
Sorry for thinking it was a wind-up but when you read about a solo student going off and flying in thunder/lightning etc you wonder if someone is just making stuff up to illicit a certain response. You were lucky. Next time, get the CFI to check the MET with you before any flight as the two instructors(hopefully one wasn't the CFI) you have flown with, obviously don't have any concerns for your safety.
You could always bring the old chestnut of "Duty of Care" up with them one day. Ask them if they are well insured for the day a students family sues them after a fatal accident. I've probably opened a whole pot of eels here. Fly safe and get the most from your training. |
TPR,
I was saddened to read your post. I thought that kind of thing only happened to me during my so-called 'training'. I expect if you search the grimy bowels of PPRuNe you'll find several posts from me in a similar vein... In the end I had to change school - and I can't tell you how big the difference was, and how quickly I was retrained and passed. It continues to amaze me that the CAA don't chase up this kind of thing - it would do more to raise standards than any of their 'safety initiatives'. You know, I've been through several Piper and Cessna POH's, and I still can't find the little box where we deposit our common-sense when we get the plane with an instructor :rolleyes: Take a step back - and sort it out. Remember, it's supposed to be fun and rewarding :ok: Good Luck. |
Hi Tall Guy:
Yes, I think that’s good advice, and I think I should do that. I certainly went solo before the Air Law, and also for my solo nav (#1 in my opening posting above). I did have Air Law and HPL by the time of the QXC. As I say, certainly not the Nav - I hadn't even read the book. As for the learning experience - well, the up side is that I think I learned far more from the experiences I actually had than I would from all going very smoothly. It just didn’t feel so good at the time! TP Hi bar shaker: For the short nav (#1 above) no phone calls were made. There were no landings and the Instructor did not suggest or make any calls. The best advice I got over if the weather deteriorated was “turn round and come back”. Well, of course when I turned behind, the weather had closed over the airfield, as I wrote. On your last para, that’s a pretty sore point with me. I specifically asked my Instructor before I left for the flight should I not identify myself on R/T to the ATC as a Student Pilot on QXC, and I was told no, that they would know this from the prior tel call. It would appear that what happened, of course, was that the airfield was so busy just at the time I arrived that the ATC missed that I was an SP. He was tearing someone off a strip as I reached the VRP for not reading instructions back, and then later for 2 people (a/c) talking at the same time; I was asked how I would like to join, meaning I did not have to join overhead (which I had firmly planted in my mind as how I would do this) and I guess this threw me just a little too! But then, after my return, the Instructor said it was clear from the details of my flight that the ATC didn’t realise I was an SP and that - from now on - they would instruct all subsequent SPs on QXC to identify themselves on R/T as such to ATC. Great for others following. Pretty poor show for me, I think. TP |
There is another side to this coin. I have been closely involved with a student learning over the last year, and he has been totally cossetted, told that he cannot fly when the cloud base is less than 3000' (despite the 2500' TMA round these parts) or when the wind is more than about 12kts.
The trouble is that he has now qualified, and can legally scud run through controlled airspace, having never done either in his training. He has a PPL, yet I have to take him in hand and teach him how to fly. I do sympathise with the Phoenix (though he does have the advantage over the rest of us that if he does crash and burn he will rise again from the ashes :}) that to be sent out as a very inexperienced tyro into CBs and TSs is criminal, but at least he now knows that adverse weather is survivable if you keep your cool (as he seems to have done admirably) and he will probably end up a more competent and safer pilot than one who has been wrapped in cotton wool for training and then suddenly kicked out of the nest. W |
You have my sympathies, I would suggest you change school, but as you seem to be quite near the end of your training, this may not be feasible.
When are schhols going to get a bit more businesslike and develope some customer care ! We all pay a lot to fly and I think we deserve a lot better service from FTO's. On the other hand, I know some 'hours' building instructors who are a joy to fly with and their instruction is excellent and some schools re very good, so I don't want to be accused of tarring them all with same brush ! :) |
What appears to me the worst aspect of this is the apparent complete lack of communication between the two instructors, or incomplete student records, so that neither knew what you had or hadn't done. Even if the records are incomplete, it doesn't take a moment to ASK you if you've done the exams, how much solo flying you've done, etc. It sounds like total incompetence on that kind of level. Unfortunately it's not unusual. The PPL course tends to be a DIY course to a certain extent for many of us, and it shouldn't be!!! I'd suggest changing schools, but you sound as though you're so near finishing anyway that it's not worth it. So do some research yourself, find out what you don't know, and make sure you learn it. You sound like you're doing fine IN SPITE of poor instruction.
|
Hi again kissmysquirrel:
No probs! I’m glad it seemed a pretty laughable experience, although as I’ve already said it wasn’t so at the time. It was the #2 that sent me on these trips, not the CFI (my #1), but as I understand it is is his responsibility to oversee the other instructors, and the ultimate fault lies there. I think they don’t display enough concern for safety. I might take it up with them next time. On the other hand, who likes to make waves… Hi Altissimus: Gee, sorry you had similar experiences, and I will search and see what I can find in the archives. I don’t think I can change schools now, but sticking with one instructor seems the next best idea. Doesn’t the CAA have any monitoring of schools? They must do, surely…? I bet the 2 PA28s that I fly at the school probably did each have a box… but that the bottoms have rotted away and fallen out with age, and all notes lost to the elements…(!) Hi WCollins: Excellent!! However, The Phoenix has just risen from the ashes (after the big D!) and so I have another 600 years or so to go before I get to do that again…! Yes, your point about being cosseted is well made and well taken. And like I have said somewhere, I am sure the upside is that I have learned more this way… TP |
the Instructor #2 who had sent me on the XCQ was very surprised to learn that I had never been on a fly-away before and so had never done a solo landing at another airfield For most people their first solo land-away is at the second airfield on the QXC. I'm sure the QXC is deliberately setup this way. It is a test to ensure that you can find the airfield without having an instructor on board. The fact you flew past the airfield is a proof that the test is a valid one! (BTW: I got lost coming back from my second airfield on my QXC - only the excellent visibility allowed me to locate myself again!). So don't get too hung up on the fact that you had not landed at a strange airfield on your own before the QCX; very few people do. It does appear you have been subject to some very lack instructing. As well as the lack of communication between instructors already commented on by other, it is a significant failure that you have not been trained to use the Radio Navigation Equipment in the aircraft, and not to have been give guidance on how to obtain (and use) a QDM, prior to your QXC. It is difficult for any school to standardise the approach taken by any two instructors, as teaching styles are bound to vary. But the school should be making an attempt at standardisation - it doesn't sound like your school is. This has to be a bad thing for student progress. As Whirley says, it sounds like you are doing fine inspite of this school. At least you will know what to say is someone asks you if you can recommend a flying school... |
I also thought this was a windup :(
Can't remember all the points, but I've just passed my PPL, and I had 7 different instructors. The school asked me about this, and I said it wasn't a problem, because each had their own way of teaching things, and pointed things out that others didn't etc. This approach does not however suit everybody, infact, I'm probably in the minority, but I was given the choice of *trying* to get the same instructor (or two) for the duration or not caring. I did prefer some to others; and one (due to a later ground based incident) that I no longer wish to fly with. I had to fly four hours worth of solo circuits before they let me move onto anything else. I had two navigation trips with two different instructors before they let me out of the circuit on my own. I also had to show (in the air) that I could work the ADF and VOR before they cut me loose. Any sign of dodgy weather put a stop to all solo proceedings, and one had to, again demonstrate, that you had the knowledge of weather and airfields before doing QXC. As somebody else mentioned, you also had to pass some of the written exams, and know who to talk to en-route. Golden rule was, if your not sure, get on the radio and talk to somebody !!!! Just reading the first post..... I really can't believe that. |
I've just read the orginal Phoenix post and my jaw is still resting on the desk!
Personally I believe this school should be reported to the CAA. It is their responsibility AND they have a Duty of Care to safeguard, nurture and develop the student - not expose them to undue and unnecessary risk. Make no mistake - this could well of ended in !tragedy. I'm sure that Phoenix could think of one or two other students who if given the same circumstances might not of survived. I like MikeeB had a good basis on which to venture forth on a QXC. Whilst the onus is on basic nav skills my training included getting QDM's if ever they were required and the use of a VOR. Its to your credit in example 1 that you spotted some clear weather and circled (good reason to have your safety margin in your fuel calcs!). Whilst a Put I to was told to go on a solo XC one day by a young newish instructor (covering for my usual Instructor), I looked around the sky line and thought ' I dont like the look of those big black clouds'. I questioned the wisdom of setting off in such conditions to be told that 'you can't always fly in sunny conditions you know'. I said 'b*gg*r off - its my neck on the line here, you'll be sat in the office with a cup of tea'. He indicatted that I was a Put and really couldn't understand weather yet, stommped off with a 'its up to you what you do then'. I stayed earth bound. Minutes later an instuctor friend of mine landed, how was it I asked? TERRIBLE he replies, that large cloud just fell on him, it was full of ice and hail, - so pleased to be on the ground etc etc. 15 minutes later heavy hail was falling on the airfield. I pointed this out to the eager new flying Instructor in no uncertain manner, reported him to the CFI and refused to be instucted by him ever again. (He was read the riot act by the CFI as the school were proud of there safty record and moved on some 4 weeks later after making a 1st lesson prospective student ill with tight turning). After I passed my PPL I was doing a check out on a new type, all was going well. The instructor left me after a few ccts with the requirement being 'do 4 solo ccts, watch the weather but currently the wind will keep that big rain cloud away'. I did 1 cct quiet happly, however whilst starting down wind for number 2 I noted that the ATC gave note of a rapiddly changing wind direction and speed. It was now 90 degs to the runway 17kts - the limit of the aircraft!! Although I hadn't reached the full extent of the downwind leg I was already in rain with the vis dropping. Sod this I thought, told ATC I was executing an imediate base leg and why. The vis just dropped away, the ATC put the Rwy lights on as by now the rain was hammering down. By the time I could see the runway I was to high, I thought about going for it but the consequences of shooting off the end were to great. However I could see some light blue of to the NW - sanctury! Told ATC I was overshooting and would head for the NW. As I cleared the runway ATC gave me an option of doing a 180 turn to land on the opposite end. Looked back, the rain had just reached the opposite threshold. This I felt was on, executed a wing over 180 straight on to finals and landed. Half way down the runway I met the rain but who cared! I was on the ground. The ATC gave me a 'Well done and excellent landing' on the RT. My Instuctor came out to meet me, I can still visualise, in bright yellow waterproofs. I'm sure he was more relived than me, he appoligised several times for putting me in that postion. I pointed out that I was a PPL now and that the wind had changed dramatically in less than 2 minutes - but it was nice that he cared. One final point, it appears to me that the QXC only matters on the circuit and landing. Whilst I was learning one student argued with a Manchester ATC as to her location within the low level route, she was just about to go blundering thru Liverpools Zone, although she was reported to the school, because she apparently met the critera of finding the required airfields and landing ok - she passed! Gosh, just realised how I've rambled on - Sorry - just reminiscing on the early days |
I am amazed your instructor let you go up with "that big rain cloud" nearby - those are often thunderstorms and he ought to have known that one can get big wind changes near to those.
|
Whilst the instructors were clearly remiss, did you not think to querstion any of this? Being sent off on a navex without having learnt anything about navigation? The forecast and visible poor weather?
|
I've just read the orginal Phoenix post and my jaw is still resting on the desk! |
Hi VFR800
I am beginning to wonder whether I should do something about this. I also wonder whether the things that happened to me are known among the powers that be at the club. I doubt it. But, I wonder what the reaction would be if they did know… Customer care? That I’d like to see… Hi Whirlybird: Thanks. You are right, there cannot be very good communication between the Instructors; and why don’t they ask me, as you say. I don’t think I could change clubs now. I had no idea that the PPL can be such a DIY, as you put it, but it’s a pretty accurate description now I take a hard look at things. Hi tacpot: Lol! Yes, I sure know which school to recommend… Actually, I have to say I had actually been to both airfields before with my Instructor/s. It just happened that, on this occasion, my QXC, I messed up and couldn’t find the second field - more fool me. But I really do think I should have been taught the Nav equipment. It’s sort of pretty obvious, really, isn’t it? And a I read everyone else’s comments, I get a bit more peeved about it all. Hi MikeeB: No, this is all on the level, no wind-up. In a way I wish it were a joke. The tuition you described sounds much more straightforward and logical, the sort of approach I would so have liked to have been given. Hi Chipmunk2: You know what? You’re right. The first flight could easily have ended in tragedy, which was precisely what my sisters said to me later that day. I think perhaps I should say something, at least to the CFI. In fact the more I reflect on things as you folks - far more experienced than I - post your comments the more I feel I was placed in an absurd situation at risk and that, at some time in the future, someone else might be in a similar position and there could well be a ghastly mishap. The problems I have had really emanate from Instructor #2, although it’s true the CFI (my #1) is ultimately responsible for the other tutors. He himself hasn’t sent me on any dodgy navs. So… I think I will say something now. I see you have had your own share of nasty ones. When you were learning for your PPL, you knew an instructor and so presumably had an idea of what to expect and what not to expect. I did not, and as I have said before I just placed my faith in the people for whose time I was paying. With hindsight - and what a cheap commodity that always is! - of course I should have said more earlier. As for the second tale you relate, well it sounds like a piece of brilliant handling. I think the QXC does only assess on circuit and landing. I mentioned I got lost en route to the second airfield. But then, no-one knew where I was anyway… Hi drauk: Frankly: no. Why should I? I trusted the Instructors and believed they knew what they were doing. Having said that, I did query the wisdom of going up for the navex at that time but the Instructor said it would be fine and I bowed to what I believed was greater wisdom and experience. And as for the QXC, I knew how to plot a route but not how to use the nav instruments on board. So, again, no; the Instructor said I could and should do it and so I did. As I said in my reply to Chipmunk2 above, hindsight is a very cheap commodity. Now that I have some, I won’t be accepting what they say quite so readily any more. TP Hi High Wing Drifter: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've just read the orginal Phoenix post and my jaw is still resting on the desk! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah well, that story is just unbelievable. Quite rediculous. Nearly as bad is that the replies have run to two pages (note to myself: don't bite!) TP |
Hmm, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Soley in respect to radio navigation I am not a fan of introducing it prior to QXC.
QXC is supposed to ensure you can do the basic act of visual navigation. I would search my students and confiscate GPS devices prior to each solo Navex. You either do not know how to use radio nav kit or you do know, have been trained and tested and found competent. A halfway house of having been shown roughly how it all works - its dead simple see.. - is a recipe for disaster. It nearly killed me once so I speak from both sides of the fence. Had you been trying to use ADF whilst dodging thunderstorms then the outcome would not have been pretty. Also, not all club/school aircraft have the same or indeed any radio nav kit fitted. It would be inherently dangerous for an instructor to send you out in an aircraft that didn't have a VOR/DME box when you had been covertly relying on such a box to get you safely through your previous solo navex's. Your instructor would not know this. Hence I am against introducing radionav to basic PPL students prior to a good standard of basic nav having been achieved. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Applies to all levels and spheres of aviation and is a maxim worth remembering at all times. I also doubt that any instructor would have sent a solo student out on a Navex with thunderstorms in the local area. FI's are paranoid about that particular scenario and I have never ever met one who wasn't and didn't as a result ere on the side of extreme caution. On what date was it that you flew this navex? Not knowing the terminology QDM is alarming as is not having passed at least PPL Law. Cheers WWW |
Phoenix
I've lost you. Care to elaborate? W |
Just skim-read this thread, so apologies if I repeat things others have said - but it definitely sounds like you need to find a new school.
WCollins mentioned that flying in bad weather as a student can be beneficial in that it shows why you shouldn't do it. I agree - one of the most useful lessons I had as a student was when my instructor let me make a go/no-go decision in marginal weather, and I decided to go. I ended up logging a bit of unplanned real instrument time, and that instrument time was in the vicinity of CBs. Extremely unpleasant. Fortunately, I had an instructor with me who was able to get me out of the mess that I'd got myself into (and I'm sure she wouldn't have let me go if she wasn't capable of getting me home safely). I certainly would not want to have done that as a solo student, and I wouldn't have had any respect for an instructor who let me do it. I also agree with Whirly about the lack of communication. The bad weather story is an example of a bad instructor. The poor communications is an example of a bad school. I had several instructors throughout my training (often when one went on holiday, or was off sick, as well as more permanent changes) and when this happened the new instructor would simply look at my record to see what I'd done. Even if my record wasn't completely up to date, it was only a case of one or two lessons that the new instructor would need to ask me about. Taking this to extremes, a couple of years ago I did a 10-hour aerobatics course, and I don't think I had the same instructor for any two consecutive lessons during this course. This wasn't a problem at all - the school was excellent in its record-keeping, and every time I turned up to a lesson, the instructor knew exactly what I'd done in all my previous lessons, and what I was supposed to be doing next. This is the way it should be - don't accept anything less. FFF ------------- |
Hi Wee Weasley Welshman:
I also doubt that any instructor would have sent a solo student out on a Navex with thunderstorms in the local area. FI's are paranoid about that particular scenario and I have never ever met one who wasn't and didn't as a result ere on the side of extreme caution. On what date was it that you flew this navex? Well, it’s been a pretty long time since my word was questioned. However as I am fairly new to this site, as I am to flying, and as you are also a moderator, I shall answer that question with all the implications it carries. If I were in your shoes, and knowing even just the comparatively little I know now, I think I would want to ask the same question. I presume what you want to do is to try to substantiate or rather verify what I have said from the weather at the time etc. I have no problems with that, in fact it makes me even more concerned over the events. In fairness to the club concerned, I will not post the details on this public board, but I am sending you now by pm full details of the flight as per my log book and flight log. Your posting has made me look back at my log, and I have to correct or qualify a couple of things I said in my #1 Para in the original posting of this thread. First, my second solo flight was not of 10 circuits, but of 4 circuits. I had completed 5 other circuits the same day immediately prior with Instructor #1 on board, he got out and then I did 4 circuits solo. This means that I was sent on this navex with a total solo flying time of 60 minutes, consisting of a total of 5 circuits. Second, the navex consisted of overflying 4 towns not three, and it was the third navigation point that I flew North of and then overflew as described heading south. Third, in all fairness to the Instructor #2, I should say I think that earlier that day I had flown this route with that Instructor on board, and then after a break for about an hour I was sent on the solo to repeat the navex we had just done. I have also found that it was on this day that I had had explained to me the basics of navigation and how to use the CRP-1; indeed, the flight log is half completed in the Instructor’s handwriting, and then mine as I was asked to calculate the HDG and GS for the remaining two legs. I also quite clearly recall that the final words to me from the Instructor #2 as I boarded the aircraft for the solo were along the lines of ‘look at that magnificent cumulonimbus cloud formation… did [I] know that that type of cloud has more energy in it than an atomic bomb’. (Actually, it might have been 6 A-bombs). I had no idea whether that was true at the time, and frankly still don’t, I have yet to read or take Met. Whether the thunder and lightning had started before my navex I cannot say, I am not sure. It had not at the airfield. With regard to the rest of your comments: GPS, none on board, so it is not relevant. I definitely fell into the category (for the paras #1 & #2) of Not Knowing how to use basic radio nav kit. The term QDM I might have heard previously but certainly didn’t understand what it meant let alone have any ability to use it. Air Law I knew nothing about at the time of the navex in #1 Para above, but I had taken and passed the exam by the time of the QXC. You put over an interesting alternative viewpoint as to the use of radnav equipment prior to completion of QXC, and I am always ready to bow to greater knowledge and experience. But just from my own experiences as related above, I think I now belong in the camp of thinking it is best to know how to use this equipment as soon as possible and certainly for any extended solo navex’s, including the QXC - after all, as has been mentioned earlier, the QXC only takes into account the circuit and landing, not what happens en route. If I get lost or stuck up there, I want to know exactly how to get myself out of it. So should every other student. IMH - and relatively inexperienced - O. TP |
[i]I also quite clearly recall that the final words to me from the Instructor #2 as I boarded the aircraft for the solo were along the lines of ‘look at that magnificent cumulonimbus cloud formation… did know that that type of cloud has more energy in it than an atomic bomb’. (Actually, it might have been 6 A-bombs). I had no idea whether that was true at the time, and frankly still don’t, I have yet to read or take Met. Whether the thunder and lightning had started before my navex I cannot say, I am not sure. It had not at the airfield.
B0ll0cks. Look at that magnificent CB... off you go Bloggs... yeah right. I don't personally give a toss where you are training or when you alledge all this took place. There is a no chance I nor the CAA is going to spend a single second checking it out. Doing 5 dual followed by 4 solo circuits sounds pretty thorough to me. Usually I would have done 3 lots of solo circuit exercies before tackling out of circuit work like nav but there are many different syllabuses out there and all of them are flexible. Repeating a navex solo that has just been done dual is a cautious little baby step - often done when a student is thought to be weak or in need of a confidence booster for some reason. You shouldn't really be let out of the circuit alone until you know how to obtain a QDM - from 121.5 if nothing else - and can demonstrate the Lost Procedure. Personally I would want you to be able to obtain a RIS as well but thats not always possible. But on the subject of radio aids No NO NO. On your first, second, third and probably more solo Navexs you should be focussing solely on Lookout, Map, DI, Ground, Stopwatch, Radio, Drills and Log. Thats more than enough for all students to be getting on with. Trying to fiddle with a VOR or ADF box is not on the agenda AT ALL. Frequently the boxes are different in how they operate. As are the ways in which they present their information. You need to ident the aid in use - do you know morse? Have you got a decode to hand? What is the promulagated range of this aid? Indeed - have you checked the NOTAMs to make sure it is serviceable? Radio navigation is not some difficult black art. The basics can be taught with a couple of hours in the classroom and a couple of hours in the air performing some set exercises. But to try and use it without having undergone proper training is likely to lead you right up the garden path, into a control zone and on into a mountain somewhere. Your training might well be below par. It sounds pretty pants to me. Try another school perhaps? Often the best thing you can do is hire an instructor privately. By which I mean approach one - one who has been doing it a long time and is not connected to your club/school. Offer to hire him for 3 hours of groundschool at whatever rate he thinks suitable - for cash of course. The groundschool can be done at his house, yours, in McDonalds in a spare classroom - anywhere. The purpose of these hours is for him to go through what you have done and what you know. He will doubtless expose any big gaps or any oddities to the syllabus you have flown. On the back of a fag packet he can draw up a suitable series of exercises that you need to do to sort you out ready for the PPL skills test. You can then take this information back to your chosen school and say I need to do this this and this and why the hell don't I know how to do this this and this yet? Its no good being passed around from FI to FI at a cheaper end school. Nobody takes responsibility for what you have and have not covered. The buck gets passed. Which is why continuity is so important. Its cock all to do with being taught the same way and everything to do with being seen as WWW's student and if you are pants at the test stage then this will be noted and WWW's career at NotVerySpecial School of Aviation may be limited to the end of this summer. Thus motivating WWW to make sure everything is covered and that you are taught in a sensible series of building blocks that will stand up the scrutiny of the Skillstest when you are bricking it. You are the protege of your flying instructor. If you are the harlot product of 10 flying instructors then none will feel embarassed by your poor teaching. If you are the product of one then the embarassment will be acute. Good luck, WWW |
Blimey WWW - not the most moderate response from a moderator;)
You (WWW) have given me and others some really excellent advice on this forum, but I think it is disingenuous of you to disbelieve the appallingly low standard of instruction that goes on in some places. One verifiable example from my log book: my QXC was also my first solo landaway, and my first solo navex! TPR - as WWW says: try another school. Whatever has happened, you have lost faith in your school - so change it. I know from experience that it is no help for people to say "it's not worth it at this late stage of your training" because, quite frankly, you're not at that late a stage; and you won't appreciate that until you go elsewhere. |
An interesting observation from WWW: - Continuety of training is not so important as continuety of responsibility! I suspect WWW's comments, albeit somewhat cynical, are an accurate reflection of human nature in the flying school environment.
A case of "We are who we teach" perhaps? (or "Ye shall know Bloggs by his students") |
A QDM from 121.5?
Wazzat then :confused: Heading for West Drayton? :* A little more clarity about what a QDM is, how it is measured and provided, compared to the triangulation service offered by D & D might help someone who has already been confused. W |
Hi WWW:
I don't get the point you are trying to make. Why do you want to know when it took place then? If you want to call me a liar, bollocks to you too. I come here seeking advice and some terms of reference. Nothing more. And certainly not gutter rudeness. What kind of a response is yours, for heaven's sake? Not the most helpful of replies. And who said anything about involving the CAA? TP |
Grief - calm down folks.
We're mostly aviation professionals in here or aspire to be; in that context checking and having checked everything we do is normal and necessary, it goes on in this bulletin board as well as anybody else (I hope that I'm reasonably well regarded on PPrune for my technical knowledge, yet have been challenged to "prove it" more times than I care to remember - occasionally I've been proven wrong too). As I posted elsewhere, a week ago a flying school presented me (and I declined to accept) a rental C152 with a lapstrap missing, half the engine cowling fasteners off, a fuel leak into the cockpit and a handful of unwanted screws lying in the back of the aircraft. I've certainly been places where the approved POH (or the tech logs) for an aeroplane seems to be treated as a "privileged access" document and certainly students aren't allowed near it. In that context I've no trouble believing that there are schools whose attitude to training is as poor as it can be to airworthiness - although I've not personally seen anything quite so bad. What I have seen is schools or clubs who make a lot of attempts to point out to students / renters / members the potential hazards in a proposed flight to allow them to gracefully make the decision to withdraw. It strikes me that pointing out a monstrous CB could have fallen into that bracket, although one would then hope that the student who didn't get the hints would then be "pulled" from the flightline, not allowed to go and risk their neck. I'm also with others in thinking that sending anybody on a QXC without having passed nav, met and air-law is downright irresponsible - albeit possibly a consequence of the mentioned poor record keeping rather than malign intent. Phoenix should seriously look at changing schools. Equally, I think that if he's not going to be fed it by this or any other school he should be spending time with his nose in the books and asking to take the exams, not waiting to be told what to learn and when. All aviation training involves a fair amount of private study, a PPL is no exception and no aviation student (PPL/ATPL/Engineering/ATC etc.) who can't get the hint and make sure they're up to speed on theory BEFORE they need it ain't going to get very far ! G N.B. Does anybody remember about 5 years ago a training glider, taking a student up for a trial lesson, being destroyed by a lightning strike out from CB edge less than a mile away. Sorry WWW, but there is at-least one instructor out there that irresponsible. |
Hi G
Phoenix should seriously look at changing schools. Equally, I think that if he's not going to be fed it by this or any other school he should be spending time with his nose in the books and asking to take the exams, not waiting to be told what to learn and when. All aviation training involves a fair amount of private study, a PPL is no exception and no aviation student (PPL/ATPL/Engineering/ATC etc.) who can't get the hint and make sure they're up to speed on theory BEFORE they need it ain't going to get very far ! Thank you. As for the quote above - this amount I have figured out for myself! My nose is seriously in the books. My CFI wanted me to do 'Aircraft General' next. No way. Guess what? It's Navigation for me next. TP |
Mr WWW - whilst I cant comment on the validity of Pheonix's experiance I can only reitterate what happend to me. I also was told my next lesson was a local solo XC (50 miles total) in what I thought were very marginal conditions. Had I not been involved with other experianced PPL holders for some 2 years prior to that day and seen the decision processes being made by them I to would have proberbly thought that the instructor allocated to me knew better than I. It does happen and its not the first time I've heard of students ending up in risky positions having been sent up solo in obviously changable conditions.
Also the use of QDMs and VORs formed part of my training (2001-2002) and questions on the use of VORs appeared in the written tests. However the build up solo XCs that were carried out were primarily based on standard maps, headings, times etc etc. The aircraft that I did my QXC did not have any electronic nav aids - it was the standard nav basics. It was I who felt that the CAA should be informed of serious bad decission making that put at risk students lives. I feel the CFI should be informed and in the first instance the matter resolved internally if possible. If its swept under the CFI carpet then the matter needs to be raised to a higher level, the next person that gets sent off in iffy wx may end up comming back in a box. We are all human and make mistakes but unfortunetly mistakes made that cost others do require investigation. I believe we should indicate to new students a way forward should they be put in the same position. Should we follow your lead, ignore the problem as if it doesnt occur and wait untill something tragic happens and then go tut tut how terrible and spend hours writting on pprune about how silly it all was? |
TFR
Sounds like you have got a bad deal. I had a few different instructors to start with but settled on one nearer the end. As many others have said, I had a good knowledge base before going off on my QXC, having done 4 previous solo navex trips including a land away. That said though, during my skills test I was asked to perform a short field landing. I told the examiner I hadn't been shown one before. Different instructors or poorly written notes ? Not sure which was to blame but I hadn't done one before. The examiner explained it to me, I followed what he said and all was well, a successful short field landing and I passed. Now about to start my IMCR but with a different instructor. The reason being that I felt my PPL instruction wasn't as thorough as it should have been, and the instructor I want to fly for my IMCR with is quite strict, which I feel I need for this next step. My PPL instructor found out, called me up and asked why I wasn't doing it with him. I explained my reasons and he made a comment about having "wasted his money" (he has just qualified to teach IMC) and that I had said I would "do it with him", which I don't recall. I always enjoyed his instructing during my PPL but because I want to vary my training to see how others instruct I am being made to feel awkward by this individual. To blame me for him spending money on his IMC certificate is at best unfair. All I can say is do what I am doing, get the best training you can, and if that means changing instructors / schools then do so. |
Discussions of whether what someone says is true or false are unhelpful. I prefer to treat everything as true, because it might be, and if it is, the person needs help. If it's not, and Whirly is a gullible idiot, so what?
Phoenix, this is PPRuNe, and sometimes people lie, so don't get too upset. Some of your story does sound incredible. I happen to believe you, because I had some incredibly bad experiences early on in my training, and I've heard of even worse ones. Perhaps the thunderstorms weren't forecast. It happens. I remember several of us trying to get back to Welshpool ahead of a scary and unforecast thunderstorm. On the radio nav issue...pre-JAR, which was only a few years ago, radio nav aids were not part of the PPL syllabus. We all did our QXC without using them. I still rarely use them, and I've flown all over the UK, done the Dawn to Dusk twice, flown to Ireland and in the US, practically always using basic visual navigation. I agree with WWW that you should be proficient in that, and shouldn't need more for your QXC. I understand your trusting your instructors and not questioning their judgement. We all do that, and you have to. I think those who question that have forgotten what it's like to be a student. Knowing WHEN to fly is much harder than knowing HOW to fly - but we expect instructors to tell us. OTOH, weather can always change, and you should always be prepared to come back or divert if you don't like it. I'm not saying you did wrong, just emphasising how it should be done. One other point, which I found out after getting my PPL(H); it's very hard to know what you don't know. If your training has been incomplete, you rarely know all that's been missed out, and it's often rather nebulous things like airmanship points. I rather agree with WWW - at some point, find an instructor you trust, tell him/her the whole story, and go over things and try to make sure there are no gaps in your knowledge. It'll be money well spent I assure you. Whether you do it now - probably best - or leave it till after you get your PPL is up to you...but I did something like that and I wish I'd done it earlier! |
The Phoenix Rises wrote:
In fairness to the club concerned, I will not post the details on this public board |
What could motivate an instructor to send his young charge off into the wilderness whilst commenting on the visible CBs? They are not getting paid for the solo flight. They do stand to loose their job and be prosecuted if you end up dead. Just like happened to a FI in PIK whose idiot student killed himself by not following the solo rules. A prosecution followed. I doubt there is an FI in the land unaware of that development.
Given that context the scenario as thinly described is not credible. Having been a student pilot then an instructor and having taught under the auspices of a military school, a small private cheap school and a big corporate commercial school I understand that there are both poor students and poor teachers out there. For every story there are usually two sides. A lot of people who engage on flight training end up having an overall bad experience. Probably the majority. Certainly most PPL's have lapsed after 5 years and only a small minority go on to any higher level or pursue anything more than a tootal around the local area. Whirlybird being a glorious exceptiont to the rule. I make no apologies for my posting style. I kick up a whole heck of fuss on many threads with the intent of illustrating a wider point or putting some life back into a debate. Its nothing personal Phoenix and I wish you the best of luck with your future flying. Cheers WWW |
WWW
I am not going to debate this with you any more. If you choose not to believe me, then more fool you. Calling me a liar is extremely personal, actually. You have insulted me, and I take exception to it. Your ‘posting style’ is pompous and nothing short of arrogant. and you have contributed little or nothing of value here in this thread. Feel free to post no other replies to any of my other threads - I will not miss them. There are many here who have contributed in a very positive way, and now that I have an idea of other standards I have decided to take the matter up with the CFI at the school as a first step. Thanks to those others here, perhaps this will result in safeguarding some other future student at this particular school. I appreciate their input. You can stuff your good wishes. I really don't want them, and I certainly don't need them. TP |
At the airfield I did my training, an instructor does get paid while
sending off a student PPL on a solo flight. Such a flight is done on the instructor's license/insurance. So the hourly rate the student pays is the same as if the instructor was on board. One instructor told me once how he made £200 on one particular (unusual) day when he sent several students on solo flights, without him doing any flying at all. But I agree that instructors tend to err on the side of caution - usually to an extent which would make any outsider wonder what possible use a PPL is going to be... more than 3 clouds in the sky and you can't fly... |
I received the finest flying instruction known to mankind.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.