Student night solo?

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
As I understand it the DE on the checkride is the students first passanger
evaluating the student.

No. The examiner is not a "passenger" by FAA definitions. The FAA decided
this so as to prevent any confusion about whether a student pilot may carry
passengers or not. But even if the examiner were a passenger, so what? The
student is not allowed to carry passengers prior to the checkride.

Only thing I can think of is carring passangers and lower weather min for
some!

Well, then you're either not thinking very hard, or you're a relatively
low-time pilot (or a high-time pilot with the same hours thousands of
times). Flying airplanes can involve a wide variety of things that are
never touched on during primary training.

As a student I was doing solo SVFR flights in the pattern.

FAR 61.89 "(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an
aircraft6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute
miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night". Okay, so you
managed to stay out of some clouds as a student...so what? You didn't
*really* fly minimum "special VFR" weather as a student.

If they are
renting they may not be able to do a few things like soft field unless
approved by the FBO or Club.

Soft field landings should be covered during primary training.

However, things like:

-- landing on a beach
-- flying through a mountain pass
-- landing at LAX
-- VFR over the top of a solid cloud layer
-- maximum gross operations
-- not to mention, flying minimum 1 mile visibility, clear of clouds
Special VFR

just to name a handful are not covered during primary training, and yet a
brand new Private Pilot is permitted to do any of those.

I have not meet one person that has done the primary training in the min
time usually 20 to 40 hours more then required.

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

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?

I was allowed to do every thing in the PTS as a student on solo flights as
long as I demonstrated profiecenty.

Goodie for you. So what?

but
the argument "he'll be able to do it after the checkride, so why not
before?" is just plain silly.

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.

that is just plain silly and rather reckless.

Of course it is. So what?

The point of it all is building
proficiency not racing the clock to see how few of hours you can do it in
required 3 hours

So what? I never said "the point of it all" is "racing the clock".

but if it take 10 or 12 or even 20 hours of night to be
safe & proficient then so be it.

Yes, so be it. It takes as much time to train a pilot to certain standards
as it takes the pilot to be trained to those standards. That's not exactly
a news flash, and I never disagreed with that philosophy.

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).

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.

It appears to me that you are simply making up stuff to disagree with. None
of the stuff you are disagreeing with are in any way representative of
statements I've made.

Pete