"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
So if the ceilings are at 800' broken 900' overcast that's not VFR weather
and if you wanted to do pattern work or depart to ware weather is VFR you
could request a SVFR upon instructor approval and any instructor in their
right mind would want you to prove you can handel an emergancy at low
altitudes.

Is that an actual sentence? With semantic meaning and everything? If so, I
couldn't tell. Try again.

Most FBO's will not let you do soft field landings for insurance reasons
and
most examiners have you simulate softfield.

Honestly, what do you know about "most FBO's"? In any case, I was simply
pointing out that soft field landings ARE required as training for the
Private Pilot. Whether a pilot finds themselves in a position to do a real
soft field landing later is irrelevant, since it's not a pertinent example
anyway.

-- landing on a beach

Only 1 place in the US I believe that's allowed Copalis, Wa S16 but should
be covered in ground and in softfield operations.

Copalis may well be the only designated airport in the US that's on a beach.
That doesn't mean it's the only place where you're allowed to land on a
beach. But even if it were, it's a perfectly valid example of something not
normally covered in primary training.

-- flying through a mountain pass

My instructor covered that with me because I am in a mountainous area

I guarantee you that you did not get a full, in-depth education in mountain
flying. How many hours, ground and in the air, did your instructor actually
spend with you training on mountain operations?

But even if you did get a thorough course of mountain training, that would
be irrelevant. We're not talking about YOUR training. We're talking about
the training most pilots get, to the minimum standards listed in the PTS.

-- landing at LAX

Class B Airspace usualy coverd during ground school.

So what? Do you think the ground school coverage of Class B airspace truly
prepares you for operations at LAX? Again, your limited experience is
showing here.

In any case, the question is whether a solo student would be able to do it.
They would not.

-- VFR over the top of a solid cloud layer

Here in the northwest that is common occorance

Not for solo students, it's not.

-- maximum gross operations

Covered during training to far FWD and AFT CG limits also and if you train
in a 150 that is usualy coverd every day my instructor said Pushing Gross.

If you flew your trainer solo in all corners of the W&B envelope, you've
received a more in-depth education than most students. But even so, that's
irrelevant since, again, we're not talking about your training, but that of
the typical student.

That said, it would surprise me if you did more than just *talk* about fore
and aft CG limits, and it would surprise me if you flew the 150 at maximum
gross solo.

Anyway, the point remains that maximum gross operations are often NOT
experienced by a pilot flying without an instructor until after they receive
their private pilot certificate.

-- not to mention, flying minimum 1 mile visibility, clear of clouds

Now that was not covered because I never plan on flying in them conditions
and hope I never have to unless I am IFR and I haven't found an instructor
to suite my needs I have found out most instructors just want to teach you
the minimum myself I need more than the minimum out of an instructor.

Special VFR

Coverd becuse of the climate we are in.

You split a single item into two. Special VFR minimums are 1 mile
visibility, clear of clouds. If you plan on using Special VFR to its
fullest extent, you have to be willing to fly in visibility below 3 miles.

But regardless, AGAIN, we're not talking about you. We're talking about
what a student may not experience solo even though they are legally
permitted to do after getting their Private certificate. Whether YOU plan
on flying in such conditions is totally irrelevant.


So what? The fact that training already takes longer than the minimum is
not an argument for adding even MORE things to the training.

Toss time out the window

Really? You seriously don't understand what you're talking about. To train
a pilot for ALL of the various situations they can legally get themselves
into as a Private Pilot would take hundreds of hours of instruction.

.... I think that a good instructor will cover all
of the PTS Plus! some real world flying especially in for the local
conditions that the student will be flying in and out of.

A good instructor will go beyond the minimum requirements, yes. But it is
simply impractical to cover everything. No student would ever finish.

I know an
instructor cannot cover every thing but the major things should be covered
and coverd well like night flying.

If you know an instructor cannot cover everything, then why are you arguing
that an instructor should cover everything? The only question here is
whether there are things a student pilot may not do solo, but can do once
they pass their checkride. That's the ONLY question. Any attempt on your
part to expand that question in search of something to argue with is just
straw-man-ship.

Humm?????? Like with all things of skill, But they should be at a skill
level that meets or exceeds PTS prior to check ride.

Again, there is a wide variety of things that are simply not covered
during
primary training, nor are they part of the Private Pilot Practical Test
Standards. How in the world is a pilot supposed to fly "at a skill level
that meets or exceeds PTS prior to check ride" if those things are not
even
in the PTS?

exceeds!!!! means to cover them subjects that are not in the PTS.

If you mean "subjects that are not in the PTS", then you need to say THAT.
"Meets or exceeds" specifically references items actually IN the PTS. You
may mean something other than that, but that's not what the words you use
mean. (Granted, it's apparent from your posts that knowing what words mean,
and how to put them together to form coherent thoughts is certainly not your
strong suit).

If you have a student and he/she wanted to do his 150NM X-C and he/she
needed to fly through a mountian pass would you cover it till he could do
it safely or would you give the student a general verbal overview and let
the student mess up and possible kill himself or someone else on the
ground.

What's that got to do with the question of things a student may not do solo
prior to the checkride, but may do after the checkride?

So if you know a student cannot fly well or be safe at night you would
sign
him off for a check ride knowing that he would be unsafe at night?

I have no idea where you got such a ridiculous idea.

Ridiculous? You would put your name on somone that you could not trust to
be
safe at night it could come back to byte you.

The "ridiculous idea" is your claim that if I "know a student cannot fly
well or be safe at night" I would "sign him off for a checkride knowing that
he would be unsafe at night". I never said I would, and your inference that
I would is ridiculous.

So you condone reckless activity?

No. Again, your inference that I would is ridiculous.

However, even in 10 hours, you are not going to train a pilot to complete
proficiency in night flying. And even if you could, that does not
necessarily mean that there's generally going to be a good reason for an
instructor to take the risk of endorsing the student for solo night
flight
(though, obviously in some cases, there will be a good reason to do so).

There are a lot of good reasons to do so 1, experience for the student and
2, knowing that the student can handle the extra added mental pressure at
night. Same risk as endorsing the student for solo day flight. If the
instructor is confident in his training abilities and proficiency of the
student why not let the student solo at night with limits.

Because there's no requirement for the student to fly solo at night prior to
his checkride. There IS a requirement for the student to fly solo during
the day prior to his checkride.

In other words, the instructor simply cannot accomplish his goals without
signing the student off for day solo flight. But there's no need to do so
for night solo flight.

Every flight carries a risk. Every flight I make, and every flight you
make. Likewise, every flight an instructor's student makes carries a risk.
Just because the student is thought to be safe, that doesn't mean an
instructor should expose himself to the risk of having that student have an
accident while under that instructor's care, if there's no compelling reason
to do so.

And there's no compelling reason to do so.

Just because they are not examined except by the instructor on night
flying
and night proficiency doesn't mean you can skimp on that part of the
flight
training.

I never said you could.

You implied

I certainly did not.

[...]
I did not make anything up! That's the way I interpreted what you said.

Your interpretations do not match the words I used. An interpretation that
does not match the words someone uses is a very clear example of making
something up. Ergo, you certainly did make something up.

I think that if an instructor don't feel comfortable with the students
night
flying then that instructor should require extra flight time with the
student to make sure that student can handle night flying safely.

So what? Even an instructor who feels comfortable with the student's night
skills has no compelling reason to sign the student off for solo night
flight, and good reason to not do so. It's an unnecessary risk. Why take
an unnecessary risk?

Pete