First Solo and Total Hours Flown

[Greengears]

Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Greengears" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>

I don't think there should be a minimum number of hours. The CFIs have the
responsibility of judging when a student is ready. People learn at different
rates and a good CFI/Flight School is in a much better position to judge
when an individual is ready to solo than a committee in OKC or Washington.

If the regs stated a number then the CFIs would be under pressure to have
students meet this number just as some are under pressure to meet the 40
hour minimum for checkride.

Look around this and other aviation newsgroups and see how many students
start getting concerned about their status once they hit 40 hours of
training. The student doesn't need the added pressure to solo in X hours or
be behind the curve.

[Ron Lee]

You will solo when your competent instructor determines that you are
ready. Worrying about the number of hours is pointless.

Ron Lee

[N2310D]

"Greengears" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>

Hmmm, deja-vue all over again. Didn't we have this discussion a while back?

Never mind, it is worth responding to.
I, for one, don't think a minimum should be required. The CFI will know
when the student is ready and has the responibility to assure that
readiness. I solo'd at officially seven hours of dual in the log book.
Before that I had a double-bunch of stick time hours, including some
take-offs and a couple of landings -- none of which were solo.
Ironically, on the day I soloed, a pal of mine made his solo the same
day. Thankfully, I was first. One his first landing attempt, he clambered
out of the 150 after doing a three-point parking job -- both mains and the
prop. I know he had logged more dual than I but I don't remember how much.
The sad part is, he never came back.
Truthfully, I'd be much more worried about someone NOT being able to
solo after more than twenty or thirty hours than with less than ten.

[Tom[_1_]]

I agree with Ron. The number of hours is not relevant. The quality of
your hours is.

Tom


Ron Lee wrote:
> You will solo when your competent instructor determines that you are
> ready. Worrying about the number of hours is pointless.
>
> Ron Lee

[Don Tuite]

No. It's like riding a 2-wheeler or losing your virginity. You get
it when you "get it," then you move on.

Or you don't.

Don

[birdog]

"Greengears" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?

While this is a rediculuous question, it fits right in with our current
political environment, in that the federal gov't. should dictate the number
of hours it SHALL take us to be competent to solo. I've known licensed
pilots with 300 hours that I wouldn't fly with, and others who have solo'd
in 6 hours. 75 hours to solo? Why was he EVER allowed to solo?

[Dale]

In article om>,
"Greengears" > wrote:

> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>

There already is a minimum number of hours. It's when your CFI
determines you can safely get around the pattern by yourself. For me it
was 7 hours, for another student with my CFI it was 80+ hours...all
depends.

[Jay Beckman]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greengears" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>
> While this is a rediculuous question, it fits right in with our current
> political environment, in that the federal gov't. should dictate the
> number of hours it SHALL take us to be competent to solo. I've known
> licensed pilots with 300 hours that I wouldn't fly with, and others who
> have solo'd in 6 hours. 75 hours to solo? Why was he EVER allowed to solo?


It's the "No Pilot Left Behind" initiative...

Jay B

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

birdog wrote:

>
> While this is a rediculuous question, it fits right in with our current
> political environment, in that the federal gov't. should dictate the number
> of hours it SHALL take us to be competent to solo. I've known licensed
> pilots with 300 hours that I wouldn't fly with, and others who have solo'd
> in 6 hours. 75 hours to solo? Why was he EVER allowed to solo?

Are you saying that someone who took 75 hours to solo must have had
some serious problems, and therefore should not be allowed to solo?

[george]

Greengears wrote:

> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?

It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
hours...
If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO

[Jay Honeck]

> Are you saying that someone who took 75 hours to solo must have had
> some serious problems, and therefore should not be allowed to solo?

A student that takes 75 hours to solo certainly does have very serious
problems -- probably with his CFI.

Anyone who sticks with training that long without soloing deserves a
medal, as well as a psychiatric evaluation...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?

Why would you put a minimum number of hours on it?

The CFI has his reputation and certificate on the line whenever he
solos a student -- this, alone, is a sufficient consequence to assure
that no one is soloed too soon, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Cody Dawg]

No more than 20 hours to solo??? That's a little rough. I currently have
26.5 (yes, and I'm proud of that .5!) hours and although my CFI says I'm
ready to solo after a couple more lessons, I'm in no rush. The weather in
the northeast is getting problematic so a lot of cancelled lessons and on
those days I do fly, no 2 days are ever the same weather-wise. Not even
close! As everyone except you has agreed, we solo when the CFI and I agree
regardless of the hours.

If I lived in Phoenix, I would have soloed by now has the weather is always
good, especially for flying. Makes it a lot easier to learn to fly.


"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Greengears wrote:
>
>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>
> It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
> I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
> hours...
> If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
> look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO
>

[Steve Foley]

"Cody Dawg" > wrote in message
...
> No more than 20 hours to solo??? That's a little rough. I currently have
> 26.5 (yes, and I'm proud of that .5!) hours and although my CFI says I'm
> ready to solo after a couple more lessons, I'm in no rush. The weather in
> the northeast is getting problematic so a lot of cancelled lessons and on
> those days I do fly, no 2 days are ever the same weather-wise. Not even
> close! As everyone except you has agreed, we solo when the CFI and I
> agree regardless of the hours.

I think zero should be the absolute minimum (like the Wright Brothers).

Cody, where do you fly?

>
> If I lived in Phoenix, I would have soloed by now has the weather is
> always good, especially for flying. Makes it a lot easier to learn to
> fly.
>
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Greengears wrote:
>>
>>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>>
>> It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
>> I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
>> hours...
>> If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
>> look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

> > Are you saying that someone who took 75 hours to solo must have had
> > some serious problems, and therefore should not be allowed to solo?
> A student that takes 75 hours to solo certainly does have very serious
> problems -- probably with his CFI.
> Anyone who sticks with training that long without soloing deserves a
> medal, as well as a psychiatric evaluation...

One of my instructors told me about people who will probably _never_
solo, but keep on flying regardless of that.

Bartek

[Cody Dawg]

KDXR Danbury, CT

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:q2Ibh.14811$_x3.4328@trndny02...
> "Cody Dawg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No more than 20 hours to solo??? That's a little rough. I currently
>> have 26.5 (yes, and I'm proud of that .5!) hours and although my CFI says
>> I'm ready to solo after a couple more lessons, I'm in no rush. The
>> weather in the northeast is getting problematic so a lot of cancelled
>> lessons and on those days I do fly, no 2 days are ever the same
>> weather-wise. Not even close! As everyone except you has agreed, we
>> solo when the CFI and I agree regardless of the hours.
>
> I think zero should be the absolute minimum (like the Wright Brothers).
>
> Cody, where do you fly?
>
>>
>> If I lived in Phoenix, I would have soloed by now has the weather is
>> always good, especially for flying. Makes it a lot easier to learn to
>> fly.
>>
>>
>> "george" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Greengears wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>>>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>>>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>>>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>>>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>>>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>>>
>>> It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
>>> I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
>>> hours...
>>> If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
>>> look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Greengears" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>

Why? What is the problem you are trying to solve with this "rule"? Is it a
real problem or a hypothetical problem?

FWIW: I soloed with 1.5 hours logged.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> birdog wrote:
>
>>
>> While this is a rediculuous question, it fits right in with our current
>> political environment, in that the federal gov't. should dictate the
>> number
>> of hours it SHALL take us to be competent to solo. I've known licensed
>> pilots with 300 hours that I wouldn't fly with, and others who have
>> solo'd
>> in 6 hours. 75 hours to solo? Why was he EVER allowed to solo?
>
> Are you saying that someone who took 75 hours to solo must have had
> some serious problems, and therefore should not be allowed to solo?
>

Yes. Very serious problems. I know here on RAP it is popular to encourage
high time pre soloers to continue. But I think they are simply not cut out
for aviation.

I KNOW that during the GI bill time that lasted until 1978, we instructors
had to regularly advise all sorts of perspective commercial pilots to think
about buying a boat instead.

Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> birdog wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While this is a rediculuous question, it fits right in with our current
>>> political environment, in that the federal gov't. should dictate the
>>> number
>>> of hours it SHALL take us to be competent to solo. I've known licensed
>>> pilots with 300 hours that I wouldn't fly with, and others who have
>>> solo'd
>>> in 6 hours. 75 hours to solo? Why was he EVER allowed to solo?
>>
>> Are you saying that someone who took 75 hours to solo must have had
>> some serious problems, and therefore should not be allowed to solo?
>>
>
> Yes. Very serious problems. I know here on RAP it is popular to encourage
> high time pre soloers to continue. But I think they are simply not cut out
> for aviation.
>
> I KNOW that during the GI bill time that lasted until 1978, we instructors
> had to regularly advise all sorts of perspective commercial pilots to
> think about buying a boat instead.
>
> Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot.
>

Let's keep in mind there are two types of high time non-soloed students.

[[email protected]]

I'm going to take the opposite from the prevailing oppinion on this...

There absolutley should be a minimum amount of hours to solo (15-20),
as flying through the pattern a few times here and there is nowhere
sufficient for a pilot to solo (especially out of anything with a
tower... and forget about it in less than a certain amount of hours in
class B), this minimum shoul dbe there for the same reason that we have
a "minimum" amount of hours to get a Private, to get your instrument
rating to get a CPL. There is an amount of time that a person just
needs to be sitting behind the controls of a plane to be able to fly a
plane with reasonable ability, as they are not even proficient in
operation at that point.

An instructor that sends out a student with 3 hours or less is
definitley being reckless and endangering his students and fellow
pilots.

Taxiing out to the runway say 3 times (once every hour), having done 3
run ups (maybe), is not sufficient enough to prepare anyone for the
complex situations that may arise in the air.

[[email protected]]

I'm going to take the opposite from the prevailing oppinion on this...

There absolutley should be a minimum amount of hours to solo (15-20),
as flying through the pattern a few times here and there is nowhere
sufficient for a pilot to solo (especially out of anything with a
tower... and forget about it in less than a certain amount of hours in
class B), this minimum shoul dbe there for the same reason that we have
a "minimum" amount of hours to get a Private, to get your instrument
rating to get a CPL. There is an amount of time that a person just
needs to be sitting behind the controls of a plane to be able to fly a
plane with reasonable ability, as they are not even proficient in
operation at that point.

An instructor that sends out a student with 3 hours or less is
definitley being reckless and endangering his students and fellow
pilots.

Taxiing out to the runway say 3 times (once every hour), having done 3
run ups (maybe), is not sufficient enough to prepare anyone for the
complex situations that may arise in the air.

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

It took me 40 hours until solo... I was a one trip a week student and
had a couple of off times during this time...

On 30 Nov 2006 11:37:17 -0800, "george" > wrote:

>
>Greengears wrote:
>
>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>
>It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
>I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
>hours...
>If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
>look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

This is exactly the type of comments that makes me sad to hear from
pilots - 'not everyone is cut out to be a pilot'. This attempts to make
the point that pilots are some kind of superior being.

As you very well know, flying is only 10% motor skills and 90%
attitude. You can even teach a monkey the motor skills required to fly
an airplane. But you can't teach attitude.

Solo is all about motor skills. It is like teaching a monkey. It is a
big jump from there to becoming a pilot, unless of course someone is
under the illusion that flying is all about pushing buttons and moving
the yoke.

Quality of instruction is a big factor that affects solo time. It is
pretty lame when instructors start bailing out by claiming that 'not
everyone is cut out to be a pilot'.

Under the GI bill, there might have been some financial interest in
making these claims. In addition, since someone else was paying for
their flying, there might have been some students whose heart was not
in it.

If someone said they took 75 hours for solo, I will start by first
asking questions about their instructor.

Albert Einstein didn't speak until he was four years old and wasn't
fluent until at least age eight. I suppose you would claim that he was
not cut out to be an intelligent person.




karl gruber wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > birdog wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> While this is a rediculuous question, it fits right in with our current
> >> political environment, in that the federal gov't. should dictate the
> >> number
> >> of hours it SHALL take us to be competent to solo. I've known licensed
> >> pilots with 300 hours that I wouldn't fly with, and others who have
> >> solo'd
> >> in 6 hours. 75 hours to solo? Why was he EVER allowed to solo?
> >
> > Are you saying that someone who took 75 hours to solo must have had
> > some serious problems, and therefore should not be allowed to solo?
> >
>
> Yes. Very serious problems. I know here on RAP it is popular to encourage
> high time pre soloers to continue. But I think they are simply not cut out
> for aviation.
>
> I KNOW that during the GI bill time that lasted until 1978, we instructors
> had to regularly advise all sorts of perspective commercial pilots to think
> about buying a boat instead.
>
> Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot.
>
> Karl
> "Curator" N185KG

[Ron Lee]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

>This is exactly the type of comments that makes me sad to hear from
>pilots - 'not everyone is cut out to be a pilot'. This attempts to make
>the point that pilots are some kind of superior being.

Actually it is a correct statement. I am not cut out to be a doctor,
basketball player, jockey, lawyer, etc. Such is life. It does not
mean that people who are those professions are superior than me.

Ron Lee

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
guy's logbook too.



george wrote:
> Greengears wrote:
>
> > Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> > always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> > amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> > seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> > I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> > But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>
> It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
> I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
> hours...
> If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
> look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO

[Jay Honeck]

> FWIW: I soloed with 1.5 hours logged.

How many NOT logged?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> This is exactly the type of comments that makes me sad to hear from
> pilots - 'not everyone is cut out to be a pilot'. This attempts to make
> the point that pilots are some kind of superior being.

Well, for better or for worse, the point is valid, even if the justification
here is not.

I tend to agree with you that time to solo is much more indicative of issues
related to the instruction. Either a problem with the instructor himself,
or perhaps related to stretching the flying out way too infrequently (I
actually made two attempts to learn to fly...in the first, I flew 17 hours
over the span of five months, and never did solo by the end of that time).

However, I also believe that it is true that "not everyone is cut out to be
a pilot". Of course, I also hold the radical view that not everyone is cut
out to drive a motor vehicle or operate a personal computer connected to the
Internet, to name a couple of things that as a society we take as a right
rather than a privilege, even though that "right" carries great potential
for harm to others.

As you correctly point out, the bulk of being a pilot has to do with
judgment and factual knowledge, rather than motor skills (especially with
current aircraft design...this wasn't always true, IMHO). And frankly, not
everyone is capable of exercising the judgment, nor of learning the factual
knowledge, required to be a pilot.

In some cases, this impairment is due to some real physiological issue,
though in most cases it's simply due to a basic lack of motivation and
responsibility on the applicant's part. Either way, you're left with the
fact that there are people out there who simply will never be able to become
a pilot.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
> required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
> guy's logbook too.

Why? 61.87 doesn't have *that* much stuff to go over. Are there
other requirements for solo flight?

If someone learns at a relatively quiet field with a good practice area
really close, is able to have lots of frequent short lessons, and
flies a reasonably fast trainer, why should solo at 5 hours be
so unbelievable?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> If someone said they took 75 hours for solo, I will start by first
> asking questions about their instructor.


I'd start asking questions about their therapist. 75 hours is a waste of
everyone's time.

Some people just don't cut it. Easy to blame the instructor, but that's just
trying rationalize their own lack of ability.


Karl

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> As you correctly point out, the bulk of being a pilot has to do with
> judgment and factual knowledge, rather than motor skills (especially with
> current aircraft design...this wasn't always true, IMHO). And frankly, not
> everyone is capable of exercising the judgment, nor of learning the factual
> knowledge, required to be a pilot.

A coworker was at something like 30 hours before she broke off her training.
She just couldn't get the hang of landing the airplane. She still wants to fly,
and will likely try again sometime in the future. Though I'm not a CFI, I still
want to say that I don't think her problem is judgement or motor skills (unless
somehow she is different in the airplane than on the ground). When she starts
her training again and gets to solo will be a treat.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> A coworker was at something like 30 hours before she broke off her
> training.
> She just couldn't get the hang of landing the airplane. She still wants
> to fly,
> and will likely try again sometime in the future. Though I'm not a CFI, I
> still
> want to say that I don't think her problem is judgement or motor skills
> (unless
> somehow she is different in the airplane than on the ground). When she
> starts
> her training again and gets to solo will be a treat.

Well, since landing an airplane tests only motor skills and not judgment
(that is, assuming the instructor aboard is handling the judgment side,
ensuring that a safe landing is *possible*), I don't see what her failure to
land the plane says about judgment.

As far as what it says about motor skills goes, I agree that just because
she didn't "get it" in 30 hours doesn't necessarily mean she won't after
more training. Assuming she can drive a car, it's likely that with the
right instructor and situation, she can learn to land in far less time than
30 hours.

And just because this is Usenet, I should amend my previous post to clarify:
yes, there are some people who are physically incapable of the motor skills
to land an airplane (due to a physical handicap, for example). But the
average human being, especially one that has already successfully been
taught to drive a car, should have no trouble handling an airplane given
proper and sufficient training. Motor skills just shouldn't normally be an
impediment to being a pilot.

Pete

[Judah]

"Greengears" > wrote in news:1164902589.028045.136700@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?

Yes. 0.

[Judah]

"Greengears" > wrote in news:1164902589.028045.136700@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?

Perhaps there should be a minimum number of landings rather than a minimum
number of hours....

[[email protected]]

> > Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> > always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> > amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> > seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> > I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> > But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?Perhaps there should be a minimum number of landings rather than a minimum
> number of hours....

So... how many landinges per 0 hours?

[Jose[_1_]]

> An instructor that sends out a student with 3 hours or less

Time? Or logged time?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> This is exactly the type of comments that makes me sad to hear from
> pilots - 'not everyone is cut out to be a pilot'. This attempts to make
> the point that pilots are some kind of superior being.

I don't think so. Some people are good at some things and not so good
at others. Others are good at other things, and not so good at some
things. Neither is "superior", but for all things, some people will be
better at it, and some will be not so good. Some will be terrible.

Flying is just one of those things.

> Albert Einstein didn't speak until he was four years old and wasn't
> fluent until at least age eight. I suppose you would claim that he was
> not cut out to be an intelligent person.

No, just not cut out to be a politician.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[george]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
> required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
> guy's logbook too.
>
I soloed September 4th 1966 in MS880b ZK CKL after 4hours 50 minutes
dual instruction at NZ Aerosales Paraparaumu...
And I have 15 exercises (including spinning) ticked and signed off by
the instructor before I soloed
The 3 hour solo was a WW2 pilot who missed being an ace because he was
chasing doodlebugs.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

All you need to fly an airplane is motivation, perseverence, basic
intelligence, money and spare time. We are not talking about becoming a
Chuck Yeager or Niel Armstrong. Anyone with basic intelligence and
basic motor skills can be turned into a basic pilot.



Ron Lee wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> >This is exactly the type of comments that makes me sad to hear from
> >pilots - 'not everyone is cut out to be a pilot'. This attempts to make
> >the point that pilots are some kind of superior being.
>
> Actually it is a correct statement. I am not cut out to be a doctor,
> basketball player, jockey, lawyer, etc. Such is life. It does not
> mean that people who are those professions are superior than me.
>
> Ron Lee

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> All you need to fly an airplane is motivation, perseverence, basic
> intelligence, money and spare time. We are not talking about becoming a
> Chuck Yeager or Niel Armstrong. Anyone with basic intelligence and
> basic motor skills can be turned into a basic pilot.

Anyone with basic intelligence and basic motor skills can be turned into
someone who can control an airplane. That does not mean that they can be
turned into a pilot, even a basic one.

Even the lowest levels of FAA certification are beyond the reach of some
people who may well have basic intelligence and basic motor skills.

[[email protected]]

Time logged... and probably time with few exceptions.
Jose wrote:
> > An instructor that sends out a student with 3 hours or less
>
> Time? Or logged time?
>
> Jose
> --
> "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> what they are." - (mike).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Time logged... and probably time with few exceptions that are far
between.
Jose wrote:
> > An instructor that sends out a student with 3 hours or less
>
> Time? Or logged time?
>
> Jose
> --
> "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> what they are." - (mike).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

I don't understand why there are so many negative comments discouraging
high time solo students. First and foremost, not everyone aspires to be
a professional pilot, some people like to fly for enjoyment and are not
rushed into any deadlines. Second, some things involved in flying are
like learning to ride a bicycle - you have to just get it, and it may
take 2 hours or 70 hours. There is nothing wrong with 75 hour pre-solo
pilot, as long as they are enjoying what they are doing.

Personally, I will admit I have not soloed until 37.4 hours of dual
(just looked in my logbook). It took me a while to *get* a feeling for
landings. At the same time I had to deal with different instructors
with very limited schedules. On the other hand, by the time I soloed I
had some cross-country time, confidence to fly with 4 other airplanes
in pattern on my solo day, and handle 15kt crosswinds (came in *very*
handy for a cross country 2 weeks after solo).

I have a great deal of respect to all pilots that have soloed in 5 or
10 hours. But I'm disappointed that some of those people will use their
accomplishments to put down efforts of others with the same love for
aviation. It takes a lot of effort and money to fly, it makes no sense
to insult people without knowing their goals, learning situation, and
capabilities.

Artie

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> >This is exactly the type of comments that makes me sad to hear from
> >pilots - 'not everyone is cut out to be a pilot'. This attempts to make
> >the point that pilots are some kind of superior being.
>
> Actually it is a correct statement. I am not cut out to be a doctor,
> basketball player, jockey, lawyer, etc. Such is life. It does not
> mean that people who are those professions are superior than me.
>
> Ron Lee

[[email protected]]

Regarding the WW2 pilot almost 4 hour solo...

I'm not judging your piloting skills... the point of a minimum time in
my honest oppinion to to give a person familiarity with his/her
surroundings (like when you first drove a car and needed some time to
figure things out), you (I'm assuming you're the fighter pilot) was
brilliant at military airfield procedures, but probably (if you were at
a slightly busy airport) would have benefited a bit from familiarity
with what is going on around you.

PLEASE do not confuse familiarity with ability.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I don't understand why there are so many negative comments discouraging
> high time solo students.

Well, be sure first that you are correctly interpreting the "negative
comments". For example, the post you replied to did not actually include
any such "negative comments discouraging high time solo students" (I would
say "high time pre-solo students", but I think I get your meaning).

There's a different between asserting that some people may not be suited to
being a pilot, and asserting that one can determine whether a person is
suited to being a pilot by considering their time to solo. The former is
what the post to which you replied said.

Others have indeed said the latter, but those people appear to me to be in
the minority. I didn't actually count, and it may be I'm just less
sensitive to the question, but I don't get any sort of general wash of
opinion that ought to discourage high time pre-solo students.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> All you need to fly an airplane is motivation, perseverence, basic
>> intelligence, money and spare time. We are not talking about
>> becoming a Chuck Yeager or Niel Armstrong. Anyone with basic
>> intelligence and basic motor skills can be turned into a basic pilot.
>
> Anyone with basic intelligence and basic motor skills can be turned
> into someone who can control an airplane. That does not mean that
> they can be turned into a pilot, even a basic one.
>
> Even the lowest levels of FAA certification are beyond the reach of
> some people who may well have basic intelligence and basic motor
> skills.
>
This thread has made me wonder whether pilots really do differ from the
general population in some ways other than just the desire to fly.
Remember those aptitude tests that we (in the US, at least) were given at
different times during our elementary and secondary education? I suspect
that good "stick and rudder" pilots also scored high on the 3D
visualization parts of those tests. Good navigators probably scored high
on math and abstract association.

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>> I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
>> required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
>> guy's logbook too.
>
> Why? 61.87 doesn't have *that* much stuff to go over. Are there
> other requirements for solo flight?

How many kids started learning to fly in Dad's plane when they were quite
young, but the instruction was not loggable?

I can think of a few who had zero LEGAL (logged) hours, but could handle the
aircraft quite nicely because they had been "flying" for ten years or more.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> FWIW: I soloed with 1.5 hours logged.
>
> How many NOT logged?
>
How many hours your kids got, Jay?

[Jay Honeck]

> This thread has made me wonder whether pilots really do differ from the
> general population in some ways other than just the desire to fly.
> Remember those aptitude tests that we (in the US, at least) were given at
> different times during our elementary and secondary education? I suspect
> that good "stick and rudder" pilots also scored high on the 3D
> visualization parts of those tests.

Supposedly this is why a higher percentage of pilots are left-handed
than would otherwise be expected. Something to do with the way
right-brainers perceive the world...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> How many hours your kids got, Jay?
>


A local FBO recently caught an 80 hour PP-ASEL, who rents aircraft from
them, not only teaching his kid to fly, but logging it as DUAL GIVEN and
signing the kid's logbook!

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> This thread has made me wonder whether pilots really do differ from the
>> general population in some ways other than just the desire to fly.
>> Remember those aptitude tests that we (in the US, at least) were given at
>> different times during our elementary and secondary education? I suspect
>> that good "stick and rudder" pilots also scored high on the 3D
>> visualization parts of those tests.
>
> Supposedly this is why a higher percentage of pilots are left-handed
> than would otherwise be expected. Something to do with the way
> right-brainers perceive the world...

What world?

[[email protected]]

george wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
> > required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
> > guy's logbook too.
> >
> I soloed September 4th 1966 in MS880b ZK CKL after 4hours 50 minutes
> dual instruction at NZ Aerosales Paraparaumu...
> And I have 15 exercises (including spinning) ticked and signed off by
> the instructor before I soloed
> The 3 hour solo was a WW2 pilot who missed being an ace because he was
> chasing doodlebugs.

Spinning a MS880B?
-Kees

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I'm going to take the opposite from the prevailing oppinion on this...
>
> There absolutley should be a minimum amount of hours to solo (15-20),
> as flying through the pattern a few times here and there is nowhere
> sufficient for a pilot to solo (especially out of anything with a
> tower... and forget about it in less than a certain amount of hours in
> class B), this minimum shoul dbe there for the same reason that we have
> a "minimum" amount of hours to get a Private, to get your instrument
> rating to get a CPL. There is an amount of time that a person just
> needs to be sitting behind the controls of a plane to be able to fly a
> plane with reasonable ability, as they are not even proficient in
> operation at that point.
>
> An instructor that sends out a student with 3 hours or less is
> definitley being reckless and endangering his students and fellow
> pilots.
>
> Taxiing out to the runway say 3 times (once every hour), having done 3
> run ups (maybe), is not sufficient enough to prepare anyone for the
> complex situations that may arise in the air.
>

So a student that flies out of a small airport that is not crowded and
allows several cycles per hour should be penalized because there are
students that fly in more crowded airspace?

Of course a student who is going to be flying in busy airspace is going to
need more training pre-solo than the ones that aren't. Do you know CFIs that
have soloed students that are unsafe? I assume you called the FSDO.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> As you correctly point out, the bulk of being a pilot has to do with
>> judgment and factual knowledge, rather than motor skills (especially with
>> current aircraft design...this wasn't always true, IMHO). And frankly,
>> not
>> everyone is capable of exercising the judgment, nor of learning the
>> factual
>> knowledge, required to be a pilot.
>
> A coworker was at something like 30 hours before she broke off her
> training.
> She just couldn't get the hang of landing the airplane. She still wants
> to fly,
> and will likely try again sometime in the future. Though I'm not a CFI, I
> still
> want to say that I don't think her problem is judgement or motor skills
> (unless
> somehow she is different in the airplane than on the ground). When she
> starts
> her training again and gets to solo will be a treat.
>
> --

Did she ever try different instructor during that 30 hours?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

How come no one ever mentions instruction curriculum in these discussions?

An independent instructor might "solo" a quick learner, then jump right
back into the airplane for many more hours of dual.

A structured 141 school's program might require the student to
demonstrate proficiency on more maneuvers, be comfortable on the radio,
cover more emergency procedures, take a pre-solo stage check ride, etc...

My 141 school required me to experience demonstrated stuff like
accelerated stalls, secondary stalls, and to perform pattern trips and
very low approaches with simulated aileron, elevator, and rudder
failures, as well as some instrument failures. I also had to do a
pre-solo stage check with a different instructor.

I very successfully took my FAA check ride well before the national
average hours (including three stage checks for ~ 5 flight hours), yet
my symbolic "first solo" was farther along than many who brag about how
quickly they were able to do so.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > All you need to fly an airplane is motivation, perseverence, basic
> > intelligence, money and spare time. We are not talking about becoming a
> > Chuck Yeager or Niel Armstrong. Anyone with basic intelligence and
> > basic motor skills can be turned into a basic pilot.
>
> Anyone with basic intelligence and basic motor skills can be turned into
> someone who can control an airplane. That does not mean that they can be
> turned into a pilot, even a basic one.
>
> Even the lowest levels of FAA certification are beyond the reach of some
> people who may well have basic intelligence and basic motor skills.

The point I was trying to make is that flying an airplane is not an
extraordinary skill. Anyone with average capacity can accomplish these
tasks, given enough time, patience and money.

The reason the lowest levels of FAA certificate appear to be beyond
certain individuals is because they lack the discipline and patience
required to reach those goals, not because the skills required are
beyond their capabilities.

Hence I do not believe certain people are 'cut out to be pilots'. That
implies that you have to have some kind of special gift. That may be
the case with people with extraordinary capabilities, such as nobel
laureates and olympic winners, but flying a small airplane around a
traffic pattern is not one of them.

[Jose[_1_]]

> ...is because they lack the discipline and patience

Thlse that lack the discipline and patience are not "cut out" to be pilots.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> [...]
> The reason the lowest levels of FAA certificate appear to be beyond
> certain individuals is because they lack the discipline and patience
> required to reach those goals, not because the skills required are
> beyond their capabilities.
>
> Hence I do not believe certain people are 'cut out to be pilots'.

The statement about "not everyone is cut out to be a pilot" says nothing
about skills. Nevertheless, in addition to that point already made by Jose,
I'll point out that in my opinion, discipline and patience ARE skills.

The fact remains, there are people who should not be pilots, for one reason
or another. These people are not "cut out to be pilots".

Pete

[Patrick]

I dont know why it would take over 30 hours to solo, and some as many
as 70? I soloed at 14 hours, but I hear the average is 20.

[george]

wrote:

> george wrote:
> > Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> >
> > > I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
> > > required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
> > > guy's logbook too.
> > >
> > I soloed September 4th 1966 in MS880b ZK CKL after 4hours 50 minutes
> > dual instruction at NZ Aerosales Paraparaumu...
> > And I have 15 exercises (including spinning) ticked and signed off by
> > the instructor before I soloed
> > The 3 hour solo was a WW2 pilot who missed being an ace because he was
> > chasing doodlebugs.
>
> Spinning a MS880B?

No. A C150. ZK BVY
Fully developed stalls in the Rallye are, as you know, almost an
impossibility. :-)

[george]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>
> The statement about "not everyone is cut out to be a pilot" says nothing
> about skills. Nevertheless, in addition to that point already made by Jose,
> I'll point out that in my opinion, discipline and patience ARE skills.
>
> The fact remains, there are people who should not be pilots, for one reason
> or another. These people are not "cut out to be pilots".

The feeling that I get is in some places instructors are now very very
cautious about sending any-one off solo.
Up until recently here pilots were soloed as soon as they proved
themselves capable of flying a circuit.
Now as far as I can tell there is a minimum of 10 hours before they
even consider the pilots skills.
Any-one who has spent more than 20 hours+ training but not solo is, in
my opinion, far to patient and should be considering changing
instructors and/or airfields..

[Peter Duniho]

"Patrick" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I dont know why it would take over 30 hours to solo, and some as many
> as 70?

Several reasons have already been explained in this thread. In some cases,
it may be the student, but in most cases it's likely to be an issue with the
instruction, or the scheduling (I would guess that by far the biggest reason
for high hours before solo is infrequent lessons).

> I soloed at 14 hours, but I hear the average is 20.

Neither of those numbers is necessarily relevant to all student pilots.

Pete

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Patrick wrote:
> I dont know why it would take over 30 hours to solo, and some as many
> as 70? I soloed at 14 hours, but I hear the average is 20.

Age has a lot to do with it too. A teenager can learn the motor skills
required for solo much quicker than a 50-year old.

The same would be true if a 50-year old tried bicylcing for the first
time, or tried learning a new language. I can personally relate how
difficult it was for me to ice-skate, which I did for the first time as
a 25-years old. I know kids who were barely walking were able to step
on the ice and skate effortlessly.

However, that doesn't mean old people are not 'cut out to be pilots'.
Their learning curve may be slower than others, but the two curves do
intersect, and could even surpass the other curve. The trick is to be
patient enough to get that far along the learning curve.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

> I'll point out that in my opinion, discipline and patience ARE skills.

No. I have yet to find an individual who doesn't show discipline when he
is offered the chance to learn something he is *really* interested in.
On the other hand, I wouldn't show the slightest discipline myself if I
were asked to learn to play golf. You may argue that I'm not "cut to be
a golfer".

Stefan

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> All you need to fly an airplane is motivation, perseverence, basic
> intelligence, money and spare time. We are not talking about becoming a
> Chuck Yeager or Niel Armstrong. Anyone with basic intelligence and
> basic motor skills can be turned into a basic pilot.

No.

In my considerable hours of giving flight instruction, I have seen many
people who lacked basic intelligence and or motor skills. Just like there
are wash outs at fighter pilot school, there are wash outs in the general
population.

Again, not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. Hell, not everyone is cut out
to drive a bicycle!

Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Supposedly this is why a higher percentage of pilots are left-handed
> than would otherwise be expected. Something to do with the way
> right-brainers perceive the world...
> --


I doubt it. Nobody is keeping score...............nobody.


Karl

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> The point I was trying to make is that flying an airplane is not an
> extraordinary skill. Anyone with average capacity can accomplish these
> tasks, given enough time, patience and money.


The point you are trying to make is wrong. ANYONE......cannot be a pilot. A
75 hour non-solo student should be urged to give it up.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> Did she ever try different instructor during that 30 hours?

I'm not sure. I think it was part 141 through an USAF aeroclub.
I don't know if they would try that without prompting from the student.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

[snip]
> I very successfully took my FAA check ride well before the national
> average hours (including three stage checks for ~ 5 flight hours), yet
> my symbolic "first solo" was farther along than many who brag about how
> quickly they were able to do so.

a lot of times this kind of thing comes up in r.a.s. people will talk
about how hours to solo isn't a race, and the objective is to learn
enough to pass the checkride for the ASEL, etc etc.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I would love to see the 3-hour guy's logbook for all the 15 items
> required by the FAR for solo. In fact, I would love to see the 5-hour
> guy's logbook too.
>

Swing by the house and I'll try and dig up my 1.5 hour logbook.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> FWIW: I soloed with 1.5 hours logged.
>
> How many NOT logged?
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Haven't got a clue, they weren't logged. But unlogged hours included cross
country trips, three point and wheel landings (tail dragger donchaknow),
hoodwork (my brother thought it was entertaining to put me under the hood
and play "you got it"(His son is now flying Part 135 in a King Air.)),
stalls, I don't recall doing spins - but it's been a lot of years, general
"airwork" stuff. I probably could have passed a check ride by the time I
decided to go after getting the paperwork and actually signed up with a
_certified_ flight instuctor. The 1.5 hours was more of a check ride than
"instruction".

I think the trip we took from Michigan to Alaska was after I soloed, but I'm
pretty sure we flew to Oshkosh before...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> FWIW: I soloed with 1.5 hours logged.
>>
>> How many NOT logged?
>>
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
> Haven't got a clue, they weren't logged. But unlogged hours included cross
> country trips, three point and wheel landings (tail dragger donchaknow),
> hoodwork (my brother thought it was entertaining to put me under the hood
> and play "you got it"(His son is now flying Part 135 in a King Air.)),
> stalls, I don't recall doing spins - but it's been a lot of years, general
> "airwork" stuff. I probably could have passed a check ride by the time I
> decided to go after getting the paperwork and actually signed up with a
> _certified_ flight instuctor. The 1.5 hours was more of a check ride than
> "instruction".
>
> I think the trip we took from Michigan to Alaska was after I soloed, but
> I'm pretty sure we flew to Oshkosh before...
>

Oh, I forgot. My brother was flying a Citabria for a while, so I had done
spins, rolls, and loops before I soloed. I guess I am getting senile.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Greengears" > wrote in
> news:1164902589.028045.136700@
> 80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>
> Perhaps there should be a minimum number of landings rather than a minimum
> number of hours....

Why? Is there a _REAL_ problem you are trying to solve? Are you aware of
flight insructors sending students off to solo without at least the minimum
skills?

So far this thread has 72 entries, but no one seems to have identified any
real need for "minimums".

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Regarding the WW2 pilot almost 4 hour solo...
>
> I'm not judging your piloting skills... the point of a minimum time in
> my honest oppinion to to give a person familiarity with his/her
> surroundings (like when you first drove a car and needed some time to
> figure things out), you (I'm assuming you're the fighter pilot) was
> brilliant at military airfield procedures, but probably (if you were at
> a slightly busy airport) would have benefited a bit from familiarity
> with what is going on around you.
>
> PLEASE do not confuse familiarity with ability.
>

And if you are already familier, why would you need more hours logged?

Again. WHY? Is there a REAL problem with premature solo's that you are aware
of? Or is this just "What if a flight instructor doesn't do his/her job?"
speculation?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho schrieb:
>
>> I'll point out that in my opinion, discipline and patience ARE skills.
>
> No. I have yet to find an individual who doesn't show discipline when he
> is offered the chance to learn something he is *really* interested in.

Either you haven't met enough people, or you're using tautology to define
"really interested in".

I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.

> On the other hand, I wouldn't show the slightest discipline myself if I
> were asked to learn to play golf. You may argue that I'm not "cut to be a
> golfer".

We're not talking about people who "were asked to learn to fly an airplane".
We're talking about people who profess an interest in doing so. Even among
that group of people, there are individuals who fail to show enough
discipline to accomplish the task.

Pete

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

> Either you haven't met enough people, or you're using tautology to define
> "really interested in".

I have met an awful lot of people who had been labeled as hopeless
cases. The more I've met, the more I've learnt that the (sometimes
difficult) trick is to find out what they are interested in. What makes
this particularly difficult is that those people mostly don't know it
themselves.

> I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
> discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.

Then they were not really interested. Note that we're not talking about
earning a Ph.D. or achieving some world record, which is in fact beyond
the limits of some.

> We're not talking about people who "were asked to learn to fly an airplane".
> We're talking about people who profess an interest in doing so.

I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought (and
professed) I was interested in and realized only later that this wasn't
really the case. I mostly realized it when I asked myself why I lost
discipline. So why did I start it then in the first place? Wrong
expectations, influence by friends, social pressure, whatever. Often the
simple desire to brag is confused with interest. And flying is
particularly suited for bragging.

Stefan

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> FWIW: I soloed with 1.5 hours logged.
>
> How many NOT logged?
>
> ;-)


Ok, I just looked in the log book - I actually had 2 hours and 5 minutes
logged. Not 1.5 hours.

Sorry for the error. I was working from memory.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
>> discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.
>
> Then they were not really interested.

Ahh, yes...and the tautology raises its ugly head. Congratulations.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

> Ahh, yes...and the tautology raises its ugly head. Congratulations.

It's debatable at which point connection ends and tautology begins.

[Greengears]

There is no REAL problem I am trying to solve. I have seen incompetent
pilots who have been allowed to solo by their instructors and I have
also seen new instructors who have not allowed their students to solo
for a long time because they were more afraid of their license.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Greengears" > wrote in
> > news:1164902589.028045.136700@
> > 80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
> >> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
> >> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
> >> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
> >> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
> >> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
> >
> > Perhaps there should be a minimum number of landings rather than a minimum
> > number of hours....
>
> Why? Is there a _REAL_ problem you are trying to solve? Are you aware of
> flight insructors sending students off to solo without at least the minimum
> skills?
>
> So far this thread has 72 entries, but no one seems to have identified any
> real need for "minimums".
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[mike regish]

Part of the problem with the car analogy is that in a plane we are flying
through an unseen medium. Some people, I think< can have a hard time
viscerally comprehending that. You cna see a road and any bumps in it. Some
can "see" the air pretty well and know what to expect, but some never really
develope that sense.

I learned in a hang glider, and I think that helped me a lot with my PPL
since I was much more intimately aware of what the wind does. It really
needs to become instinctive. If you could teach some of these "unteachables"
in perfectly calm winds all the time, anybody who can handle a car should be
able to handle a plane. Just teach to the numbers. Throw in some wind, which
is almost always (if not always) present, and their reactions aren't there.

Most should get it at some point, but there may be a few who never will.

mike

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> As far as what it says about motor skills goes, I agree that just because
> she didn't "get it" in 30 hours doesn't necessarily mean she won't after
> more training. Assuming she can drive a car, it's likely that with the
> right instructor and situation, she can learn to land in far less time
> than 30 hours.
>
> And just because this is Usenet, I should amend my previous post to
> clarify: yes, there are some people who are physically incapable of the
> motor skills to land an airplane (due to a physical handicap, for
> example). But the average human being, especially one that has already
> successfully been taught to drive a car, should have no trouble handling
> an airplane given proper and sufficient training. Motor skills just
> shouldn't normally be an impediment to being a pilot.
>
> Pete
>

[fred]

My perspective:

I have yet to solo.

I have 5 hours under my belt and in my logbook, starting with no prior
experience.
I've done everything the FAA wants at least once (except land the
plane).
My CFI tells me I'll solo by 10.

I'm about 50, I'm having fun, and I see no reason to push it faster
than I can handle it. It's all confidence and practice (aside from the
money).

Fred

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is no REAL problem I am trying to solve.

Then don't solve it with legislation.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm about 50, I'm having fun, and I see no reason to push it faster
> than I can handle it. It's all confidence and practice (aside from the
> money).

An excellent attitude toward training in any endeavor, Fred. I wish I
could have done the same.

Unfortunately, that money thing prevented me (and many more like me)
from taking such a relaxed approach to flight training. When I learned
to fly I had a finite amount of money that could be devoted to the
endeavor, setting in an account that I set up specifically for the
purpose of learning to fly.

When that money was gone, I knew my training would be finished --
certificate or not. I had two little kids, a house, and a wife working
part-time so that she could raise our kids. There was NO margin for
error.

This gave me a great incentive to finish up, and -- as a result -- I
really kept my nose to the grindstone. Although this approach served
me well, I truly wish I could have had the luxury of taking it a bit
slower. I would have learned a lot more, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doug[_1_]]

Not only shouldnt there be a minimum, or maximum, but I can tell you it
should not even be a topic of conversation. What happens is all the
people who soloed in short hours brag, post, tell and maybe lie. And
all the people who took a long time cringe. It does NO ONE any good.
Especially dont ask your instructor how many hours it took him to solo
and if he starts to tell you avoid the guy. Avoid him entirely if he
brags about it.

Just find a good instructor, concentrate on the tasks at hand and fly
the best you can.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not only shouldnt there be a minimum, or maximum, but I can tell you it
> should not even be a topic of conversation. What happens is all the
> people who soloed in short hours brag, post, tell and maybe lie. And
> all the people who took a long time cringe. It does NO ONE any good.
> Especially dont ask your instructor how many hours it took him to solo
> and if he starts to tell you avoid the guy. Avoid him entirely if he
> brags about it.
>
> Just find a good instructor, concentrate on the tasks at hand and fly
> the best you can.
>

Bingo!

Hours logged are pretty much meaningless. I'm a perfect example of that.
Did I learn to fly in 2 hours and 5 minutes? No way.

Besides, the objective is go flying, right? What's the rush? You are already
flying. (Unless your insructor has B.O. or something...)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Although this approach served
> me well, I truly wish I could have had the luxury of taking it a bit
> slower. I would have learned a lot more, IMHO.

Well, I don't think this is true. No matter when you actually get the
ticket, after 200 hours, you'd be in pretty much the same shape.
Whatever you didn't pick up before your ticket (going slowly) you'd be
likely to pick up after your ticket (flying around).

Flying is flying.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Lee]

"fred" > wrote:

>My perspective:
>
>I have yet to solo.
>
>I have 5 hours under my belt and in my logbook, starting with no prior
>experience.
>I've done everything the FAA wants at least once (except land the
>plane).
>My CFI tells me I'll solo by 10.
>
>I'm about 50, I'm having fun, and I see no reason to push it faster
>than I can handle it. It's all confidence and practice (aside from the
>money).
>
>Fred
>

Excellent attitude.

Ron Lee

[Bob Martin]

Cody Dawg wrote:
> No more than 20 hours to solo??? That's a little rough. I currently have
> 26.5 (yes, and I'm proud of that .5!) hours and although my CFI says I'm
> ready to solo after a couple more lessons, I'm in no rush. The weather in
> the northeast is getting problematic so a lot of cancelled lessons and on
> those days I do fly, no 2 days are ever the same weather-wise. Not even
> close! As everyone except you has agreed, we solo when the CFI and I agree
> regardless of the hours.
>
> If I lived in Phoenix, I would have soloed by now has the weather is always
> good, especially for flying. Makes it a lot easier to learn to fly.

Weather, finances, and other events can definately have a big impact, especially early in
your training. I started my training in late July 2001, just before my senior year in
high school. In between pop-up summer thunderstorms and going to work to pay for my next
lesson, I managed to get to about 10 hours over the next couple weeks. I was was getting
close, and one day my instructor told me we could probably knock out the solo on my next
lesson. I figured "this would be a nice birthday present," so I scheduled said lesson for
my birthday (September 12). Needless to say, I didn't get to fly again until October or
so. By then, I'd lost all of my feel for landings, and had to spend a few more hours
working back up before I could solo.

A few months later, I went through a stretch where I didn't fly for six weeks--every time
I showed up at the field for a lesson, it rained.

As an aside, does anyone else remember the odd rule from shortly after 9/11, when no VFR
traffic was allowed under "enhanced class B" airspace (class B and anywhere underneath it)
except for training? The airport I flew from (FFC) is under the Atlanta class B, and I
found it interesting that I could go up and fly around (even solo, since that was
considered training) whereas my dad (an airline pilot) could not...

[mike regish]

I think it's a valid topic. My instructor was milking me big-time. I
practically had to throw him out of the plane. He was very much overly
worried about HIS ticket and was exceedingly cautious. I dumped him after I
finally soloed.

mike

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Not only shouldnt there be a minimum, or maximum, but I can tell you it
> should not even be a topic of conversation. What happens is all the
> people who soloed in short hours brag, post, tell and maybe lie. And
> all the people who took a long time cringe. It does NO ONE any good.
> Especially dont ask your instructor how many hours it took him to solo
> and if he starts to tell you avoid the guy. Avoid him entirely if he
> brags about it.
>
> Just find a good instructor, concentrate on the tasks at hand and fly
> the best you can.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Peter Duniho schrieb:
>
>> Ahh, yes...and the tautology raises its ugly head. Congratulations.
>
> It's debatable at which point connection ends and tautology begins.

Not when you make it clear that you've defined "not really interested" as
"not able to muster enough discipline to really learn something".

You have chosen to define your conclusion in terms of the premise, thereby
ensuring the "truth" value of your statement. That is, in fact, the very
definition of tautology. No debate about it.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Peter Duniho schrieb:
>>
>>> Ahh, yes...and the tautology raises its ugly head. Congratulations.
>> It's debatable at which point connection ends and tautology begins.
>
> Not when you make it clear that you've defined "not really interested" as
> "not able to muster enough discipline to really learn something".
>
> You have chosen to define your conclusion in terms of the premise, thereby
> ensuring the "truth" value of your statement. That is, in fact, the very
> definition of tautology. No debate about it.

I've never defined anything.

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> Part of the problem with the car analogy is that in a plane we are flying
> through an unseen medium. Some people, I think< can have a hard time
> viscerally comprehending that. You cna see a road and any bumps in it.
> Some can "see" the air pretty well and know what to expect, but some never
> really develope that sense.

I don't think so. Most drivers aren't paying any attention to the road over
which they travel, and the basics of operating an airplane are easy enough
to master without considering at all the physical nature of the air through
which one flies.

I agree that this perception makes a difference in how good a pilot (or
driver) is. But it's not necessary, and many people in both activities
never develop that perception (though probably this failure occurs more
often for drivers than pilots). The car analogy works just fine...a person
who can be taught to drive can be taught to fly an airplane.

It might not be possible to make them a pilot, but they clearly have the
motor skills required for the basic control of an airplane.

> I learned in a hang glider, and I think that helped me a lot with my PPL
> since I was much more intimately aware of what the wind does. It really
> needs to become instinctive. If you could teach some of these
> "unteachables" in perfectly calm winds all the time, anybody who can
> handle a car should be able to handle a plane. Just teach to the numbers.
> Throw in some wind, which is almost always (if not always) present, and
> their reactions aren't there.

But just as not being in "perfectly calm winds" causes problems for some
would-be pilots, so too will not being on "perfectly smooth roads" cause
problems for some would-be drivers. It really is the same issue, the main
difference being that the standard of qualification is lower for drivers,
and so we actually have "certificated drivers" who are not capable of safely
dealing with any road condition significantly different from clear and dry.

Just ask the millions of drivers here in the Seattle area who earlier this
week clogged our roads with vehicles improperly equipped for the snow
conditions, driven by drivers unqualified to operate in those conditions.

> Most should get it at some point, but there may be a few who never will.

Agreed. But it usually has nothing to do with basic motor skills. There
are lots of people who are permitted to drive a motor vehicle who still
aren't suited for being a pilot.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> I've never defined anything.

I guess someone else wrote this then:

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
>> discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.
>
> Then they were not really interested.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

>> I've never defined anything.

> I guess someone else wrote this then:

>>> I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
>>> discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.
>>> Then they were not really interested.


This same person also wrote in the same post:

> I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
> (and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
> this wasn't really the case.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

>> I've never defined anything.

> I guess someone else wrote this then:

>>> I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
>>> discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.

>> Then they were not really interested.


This same person also wrote in the same post:

>> I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
>> (and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
>> this wasn't really the case.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, fred > posted:

> My perspective:
>
> I have yet to solo.
>
> I have 5 hours under my belt and in my logbook, starting with no prior
> experience.
> I've done everything the FAA wants at least once (except land the
> plane).
> My CFI tells me I'll solo by 10.
>
And, if it turns out that you don't, it's no big deal. If you feel like
you are ready when your CFI says "go", then have at it, if not, take
another hour to sort out your concerns.

> I'm about 50, I'm having fun, and I see no reason to push it faster
> than I can handle it. It's all confidence and practice (aside from the
> money).
>
Absolutely the right attitude. There is no prize for soloing sooner and no
penalty for soloing later than the next guy. One thing about those of us
who started flying in our middle age; we're more conservative. When I
started, I knew that there was no real chance that I'd have a career in
aviation, so there was no pressure to follow some fast-track notion of
progress. It's better to get it right, rather than get it fast.

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> > I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
> > (and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
> > this wasn't really the case.

So what? That doesn't explain your response to my statement about people
who were interested, but failed in their interest. Or are you so arrogant
as to think that just because you have had "a couple" of situations in which
you claimed to be interested, but decided you weren't, that every other
person who fails to accomplish something that they profess interest in must
then also not actually have interest?

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

>>> I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
>>> (and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
>>> this wasn't really the case.

> So what? That doesn't explain your response to my statement about people
> who were interested, but failed in their interest.

But it disproves your claim that I made a definition.

> Or are you so arrogant
> as to think that just because you have had "a couple" of situations in which
> you claimed to be interested, but decided you weren't, that every other
> person who fails to accomplish something that they profess interest in must
> then also not actually have interest?

I am so arrogant to claim that I have yet to meet somebody who lacks
discipline when doing something he's really interested in.

Stefan

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
>> So what? That doesn't explain your response to my statement about people
>> who were interested, but failed in their interest.
>
> But it disproves your claim that I made a definition.

It does no such thing.

> I am so arrogant to claim that I have yet to meet somebody who lacks
> discipline when doing something he's really interested in.

That has nothing to do with your reply to MY comment about people who DO
have interest not having the necessary discipline.

Pete

[Chris M]

On 2006-12-01 12:41:06 -0700, "Patrick" > said:

>
> I dont know why it would take over 30 hours to solo, and some as many
> as 70? I soloed at 14 hours, but I hear the average is 20.

Then you aren't paying attention. How stupid and/or annoying.

Instructors are a huge part of successful flight training. I was about
40 hours at solo time, and on my third instructor.

I'm now a commercial inst/multi rated pilot approaching 500 hours.

The number of hours it takes you is specific to you, and no one else.
Averaging hours it takes to solo and inviting a comparison to the
pilot's skill is like averaging breast size and making an inference
about a woman's intelligence based on it.

[Chris M]

On 2006-11-30 19:31:42 -0700, Bob Noel
> said:

> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> As you correctly point out, the bulk of being a pilot has to do with
>> judgment and factual knowledge, rather than motor skills (especially
>> with current aircraft design...this wasn't always true, IMHO). And
>> frankly, not everyone is capable of exercising the judgment, nor of
>> learning the factual knowledge, required to be a pilot.
>
> A coworker was at something like 30 hours before she broke off her training.
> She just couldn't get the hang of landing the airplane. She still
> wants to fly, and will likely try again sometime in the future. Though
> I'm not a CFI, I still want to say that I don't think her problem is
> judgement or motor skills (unless somehow she is different in the
> airplane than on the ground). When she starts
> her training again and gets to solo will be a treat.

I agree. Her problem is she needs a good instructor if her only issue
was not getting a feeling for landings.

I didn't solo til 40 hours (was about 2 years ago now) and that was my
exact issue, landings freaked my beak and the instructor(s) didn't care
or know enough to help.

At almost 500 hours now and commercial multi rated I've decided to do
AOPA's Project Pilot to help people avoid some of the issues I had with
learning to fly. I feel that poor quality of instruction stifles more
potential pilots than anything.

[Chris M]

On 2006-11-30 19:26:38 -0700, "karl gruber" > said:

>> If someone said they took 75 hours for solo, I will start by first
>> asking questions about their instructor.
>
>
> I'd start asking questions about their therapist. 75 hours is a waste
> of everyone's time.
>
> Some people just don't cut it. Easy to blame the instructor, but that's
> just trying rationalize their own lack of ability.
>
>
> Karl

Karl makes a stupid generalized statement. Instructors have more
influence over student success than you realize Karl.

[Chris M]

On 2006-11-30 12:37:17 -0700, "george" > said:

>
> Greengears wrote:
>
>> Every pilot out there will never forget their first Solo. But there has
>> always been this nagging questions as to should there be a minimum
>> amount of hours flown before a pilot can be allowed to Solo. I have
>> seen pilots solo in as little as 9 hours and as high as 75 hours.
>> I know most of you will say that it should vary from pilot to pilot.
>> But should there be a minimum amount of hours flown?
>
> It should be left to the discretion of the instructor,
> I soloed under 5 hours and know of others who were sent off at 3
> hours...
> If any-one takes more than 20 hours to solo they should take another
> look at becoming a pilot.. IMHO

Wrong.

[[email protected]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Regarding the WW2 pilot almost 4 hour solo...
> >
> > I'm not judging your piloting skills... the point of a minimum time in
> > my honest oppinion to to give a person familiarity with his/her
> > surroundings (like when you first drove a car and needed some time to
> > figure things out), you (I'm assuming you're the fighter pilot) was
> > brilliant at military airfield procedures, but probably (if you were at
> > a slightly busy airport) would have benefited a bit from familiarity
> > with what is going on around you.
> >
> > PLEASE do not confuse familiarity with ability.
> >
>
> And if you are already familier, why would you need more hours logged?
>
> Again. WHY? Is there a REAL problem with premature solo's that you are aware
> of? Or is this just "What if a flight instructor doesn't do his/her job?"
> speculation?
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Military operations verus civilian operations... kind of different.

Frankly... the solo should be the last thing any student is thinking
of... it should take place after a person is familiar with flight and
is able to safely conduct it.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

>> But it disproves your claim that I made a definition.

> It does no such thing.

Yes, it does.

>> I am so arrogant to claim that I have yet to meet somebody who lacks
>> discipline when doing something he's really interested in.

> That has nothing to do with your reply to MY comment about people who DO
> have interest not having the necessary discipline.

My point was that those people obviously don't have enough interest,
even if they themselves think so.

Shall we continue to talk in a circle or just stop here?

Stefan

[karl gruber[_1_]]

>
> Karl makes a stupid generalized statement. Instructors have more influence
> over student success than you realize Karl.


It can't be a generalized statement because the "general" student solos
after vastly fewer hours. They should be aggressively weeded out way before
70 hr.

Again, not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. And a beginner, like you at
500 hrs, has little experience to back up your statements. How many students
have YOU soloed?

Karl

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> But it disproves your claim that I made a definition.
>
>> It does no such thing.
>
> Yes, it does.

No, it does not. Quoting one piece of text has nothing to do with whether
something else you wrote does something else.

>> That has nothing to do with your reply to MY comment about people who DO
>> have interest not having the necessary discipline.
>
> My point was that those people obviously don't have enough interest, even
> if they themselves think so.

The only people you are qualified to comment on are those people with whom
you have personal experience. And in fact, by your own admission, those are
the only people to whom you refer. Commenting on those people has
absolutely no relevance to the more general statement I made, nor does it in
any refute it.

> Shall we continue to talk in a circle or just stop here?

If the best you can manage is simple contradiction, I'd say the sooner you
give up, the better. Your call.

Pete

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> When I learned
> to fly I had a finite amount of money that could be devoted to the
> endeavor, setting in an account that I set up specifically for the
> purpose of learning to fly.
>
> When that money was gone, I knew my training would be finished --
> certificate or not. I had two little kids, a house, and a wife working
> part-time so that she could raise our kids. There was NO margin for
> error.

I had a certain amount set aside to get me started too, the plan being that
whilst I was working through he initial amount, I could be saving for the
rest. Unfortunately, just before I was about to start, I had to spend almost
60% of the allocated funds on replacing my car. This meant I burned through
my remaining allocation VERY quickly. I'm now at 6.5 hours, and am now
forced to have 30 minute lessons once a week. I started with 1 hour lessons
once a week. My instructor said that once things 'clicked' with me, which it
did for me at around 3 hours, I could space out the lessons a bit more if my
funds required it, and that I shouldn't go backwards. She was right. Half an
hour a week sees me do 3 to 4 circuits, and no sign of 'unlearning' anything
from the previous week. If the weather is bad on the weekend I'm flying, I
just do a full hour the next week. If I need an hour to learn a particular
aspect, she'll tell me, and I'll skip a week to allow the funds to cover a
full hour. I reakon I'll be solo next week too if the conditions are right
and I don't have to post pone to the following weekend.
Oz Lander