Another Frustrated Student Pilot

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


OutofRudder wrote:

nav lights out (aren't they supposed to be disconnected and labeled
inoperative?),

Don't think so, but you can't fly at night without them. Of course, you
shouldn't
be up at night at this stage anyway.

OutofRudder has that right, but probably because he has recently been
studying the fine details of the regs (91.213(d)(3)). As to the second half,
I always steer clear of "of course" and "should" without knowing more
specifics.

-- David Brooks

Radios: Yes!--controlled airports. There are two Class D airports in addition
to the one I fly in and out of within a 15-mile radius. I HAVE a hand-held.
Just because I have a hand-held should not mean that a new soloing pilot should
*knowingly* go up with a known intermittent radio because the people
responsible for maintenance who are aware of the intermittent radio are relying
on the fact that I have a hand-held rather than insisting on repairing the
radio (run-on sentence, but you get the gist). The other student currently
flying the airplane does not have a hand-held.

This area is *busy*. No radio in an emergency is one thing; good experience?
IMHO, having that attitude before leaving the ground about an intermittent
radio *in THIS area* would be stupid. As a CFI, do you send a new solo pilot
up, knowing the radio has failed completely and been so garbled that
controllers are annoyed and remember who you are the instant you call Ground to
taxi to the runway, with the idea that if the radio fails, they can then divert
their attention, eyes, and two hands between flying the airplane, looking for
traffic, and dialing frequencies and working their hand-held?

And yes, I realize that I am not flying at night or using the nav lights, but
they're still supposed to be operable. I felt three months was sufficient time
to either change the bulb, replace the switch, or disconnect and label them per
the regs.

I agree that any one or two issues were less significant, and we did fly the
airplane for three months with them. Coming out of the 100-hr, NONE of those
less significant issues had been resolved and there were more significant new
ones as well. One CFI said to me: "Count up how many strikes you have against
you before you leave the ground and weigh them." The sum of ALL these older
minor and new major strikes after the 100-hr tipped the scales for me. Perhaps
I was naive, but their reaction to my stand on safety was the big surprise (and
disappointment) to me!

My point in all this, again, being that students who quit or move to different
CFIs midstream aren't always acting out of fear of soloing, though that seems
to be the most convenient way for people in certain positions to pass the buck
(not referring to anyone here). Thanks for the replies.
AFSP

We only know 1/2 the story.

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message ...
"OutofRudder" wrote in message

They obviously want nothing
further to do with me -- why? for taking a stand about my own safety?

Sure sounds like it.

However, one just has to question why your CFI (whom you pay), the FBO (whom
you pay), and the owners (whom you pay) all seem to be against you in this
matter. If everything you say in this post is absolutely true then I'd tell
all of them to **** up a rope. Then I'd tell any students that use this
outfit your ordeal and do my damndest to put them out of business. My
conscious would not let me be idle while when lives are at stake. This kind
of treatment is ridiculous.

However, Occam's Razor suggests that there may be more to your story than
you elude to here. Perhaps you approached all these people in a less than
diplomatic manner. Perhaps the problems aren't quite as serious as you
describe. Perhaps you are generally a butt-wipe and hard to get along with.

Sure doesn't sound like it in your post but perhaps an honest assessment of
yourself is warranted if you wish to continue your training.

. . . And perhaps not. Just go somewhere else.

OutofRudder wrote:

I
also received a cc of the letter the owners wrote back to my CFI and a refund
of the unused portion of $$ I had paid them. They obviously want nothing
further to do with me -- why? for taking a stand about my own safety?

It occurs to me that the owners may have decided to take the plane off the line
with this many problems with it. Perhaps they're losing money. Just a guess, and
you'll know it's wrong if they rent the plane to someone else.

Hey, at least you got a refund. Some people have been cheated out of the unused
bank money.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."