When has it Been too Long before you solo

"JustMe" wrote in message

I unfortunately find myself in the latter category... 47.7 hours and
no solo yet. Only two issues remain: simulated instrument flight and
landings.

Somebody check me on this, but, WHAT?! 47.7 hours and not even a solo
would indicate a failure as an instructor. If a qualified instructor has
had you in the airplane that long and has not successfully trained you to
fly around the pattern a couple of times, I don't think it's your issue.
It's either gross ineptitude on the part of the educator or a scam. Anybody
disagree?

This is what I would do: (I'm private and instrument rated, working on my
commercial, got my private at about 55 hrs.)

Go to a different FBO and instructor entirely, with your logbook and medical
certificate and ask them to take you up for an hour. After an hour, ask
the instructor if he thinks, based on your hour of flying, you should have
soloed already.

They probably won't say "yes!", and will answer cautiously having only flown
with you for an hour, but the instructor might also be able to indicate
whether he thinks you might be better off learning elsewhere.

Good luck and, yeah, don't give up at LEAST until you solo.

-c

Try another CFI ask him for a true opinion.
"JustMe" wrote in message
om...
As a society, we are obsessed with Numbers. We use them to compare
ourselves to others. I make X number of dollars, I have house of Y
square feet. My car, truck or other vehicle has an engine of W liter
(cubic inches for the metrically challenged).

As such, when someone asks "What is the average hours before
soloing?", they are trying to compare themselves to the 'average'
pilot. If they do it in less than the average, then it's 'look at me,
I'm great'. If they do it in the 'average' amount of time, then they
are doing OK. But, when their number of hours is greater than the
average, they may feel that something is wrong with them. "Am I
stupid?". "Am I slow?". "Should I quit now?".

I unfortunately find myself in the latter category... 47.7 hours and
no solo yet. Only two issues remain: simulated instrument flight and
landings.

With simulated instrument flight, I can do straight and level and
turns. But when combined with climbs and or descents, I don't meet the
PTS requirements. Either I blow the altitude or the heading. Take the
hood off and I can climb, turn, fiddle with the radio and look for
traffic (while chewing gum) without blowing headings or altitudes.

Landings. I fly out of LGB (Long Beach) and LGB is cursed with
WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE runways. I say cursed, since
when we fly to CMP (Compton) or TOA (Torrance), I have no problem
staying on the runway center-line. But at LGB I can track the
center-line up to the flare, after the flare at touchdown I'm off the
centerline. Am I in the weeds? No. I'm usually 20-30 feet left or
right of the centerline.

Am I stupid? I don't think so. I studied Chemical Engineering and
Computer Science in college and I work as a Software Architect for
manufacturer of large transport category airplanes. Before someone
concludes that I'm a bookworm, I've renovated two houses mostly on my
own. When I say renovate, I mean gutting most of space down to the
framing and bringing the space back to code.

Am I slow? I read slowly, but otherwise see above.

I don't think it's the instructor. He is not someone who is teaching
just to build time and then move on to bigger airplanes. The only
comment I could make and I suspect that it would apply to many
instructors, is that he points too many things out. Yes, I know I blew
the altitude or the heading, pointing it out each time can get really
old, really fast. A suggestion for CFIs, sometimes it's better to wait
until the maneuver is completed before saying something. Of course, if
it's a safety of flight issue, then by all means say something.

At the school where I am learning, the instructor grades your
performance after each flight on a scale from 1 to 5. Where 1 is
deemed excellent and 5 is considered unsatisfactory. With 3 being
average. Reviewing my training records, I haven't scored greater than
a 3 since lesson number 13. From lesson 14 through lesson 33, I've
scored average to excellent.

Should I quit now? That is what I'm pondering. 47.7 hours and still no
solo.

Constructive suggestions or criticisms welcomed. Please refrain from
only saying 'don't give up'.

I'd like to thank all of you for replying. Seeing that so many of you
have replied, I've chosen to reply to most using this one post. I've
tried to
attribute the copied quote to the correct person. If I've made any
mistakes, then please accept my apologies.


Peter Duniho ) wrote:

I agree with Bob, at least in fact if not tone. Just from your
message, it
sure sounds like the standards your instructor is expecting from you
before
solo are just too high. A solo student needs to be able to safely
operate
the airplane in the expected environment. A solo student does NOT
need to
be good enough to pass the checkride. If he were, an instructor
would just
send him off for his checkride.


The Pre Solo Check Ride is a policy of the school and not the
instructor. The School will not allow a student to solo a school
operated airplane until a Student is signed-off by a Designated Check
Airman.

Wizard of Draws ) wrote:

If I soloed only after I was able to consistently land on the
centerline,
I'd still be riding dual after 265 hours and my instrument ticket in
hand.

I've been told by the instructor that the Designated Check Airman
wants to
See consistent landings on the runway centerline.

If you can fly the pattern and land without your CFI being required
to touch
the controls for reasons of immediate safety, I'd say you should be
solo.

After reviewing all of the after lesson training reports last night
(which I tallied in a pretty colored spreadsheet), I figured that I
was ready to solo
in the pattern any time after twenty hours of dual instructions. This
is my opinion.

Dave S ) wrote:


Ask to fly with another instructor or with the chief flight
instructor
for a second opinion. This is a perfectly valid approach to take. If
you
dont feel that the staff at THAT school can give you an honest
second opinion, go find a freelance instructor or another school. It
would be
PREFERABLE to take this "second opinion" ride in the same type of
aircraft you have been training in.. less to "learn" while
demonstrating
your stuff.

I may do that, but not at the same school. It's not a reflection on
the
School, but asking for a second opinion is an action that people
usually
Hear about.

Blanche ) wrote:


So what? Are you in a race with someone? The only downside of
this many hours is the money. That's all. And in a year or so,
(assuming you still have a job) you probably won't even remember it.


Not a race. My plan is to build my own airplane. An RV-7A. I see
Building my own airplane as a nice challenge and not an impossible
task.
However, it pointless to build an airplane if can't fly it.

Also, if it takes this long just to solo, then is flying a suitable
hobby?

Cub Driver ) wrote:


If you are having fun, keep at it. Personally, I think the training
was the most enjoyable part of flying.


It stopped being fun last week. I flew yesterday morning on my day off
and
I was dreading it, since I knew that we would be doing hood work.

Under the Hood, I can do the individual maneuvers (climbs, descents,
turns both shallow And steep), but when they are combined together,
then the execution is not to standards. I think the big issue it
getting the airplane trimmed while under the hood. When flying VFR,
I can trim the airplane, since I can see the nose rise or dip in
relation to the horizon. But under the hood that reference point is
not available and I must use the AI and I find it difficult to fine
tune the trim using the AI. It also doesn't help that the AI and the
Turn Coordinator can't agree on what is a level attitude. The turn
Coordinator is correct, since the DG is steady when it (turn
coordinator) indicates a level attitude. The AI indicates a slight
turn to the right. Which is enough to initiate a heading change.

I've decided to take a break and not fly the rest of the week. Also,
I'll try to
schedule a flight with another instructor from a different school.

In the interest of presenting both sides of the situation, I've
scanned all 32 of the Private Pilot Training Records (I'm missing the
very first report) that the instructor completed and which both of us
signed. I've also scanned the pages from my logbook (6 pages total).
I'm prepared to make those available for your review.

Given that this material is confidential, I don't want to send it to
everyone and seeing that some if not most of the people that posted a
reply seem to know one another, it might be good to decide amongst
yourself who is interested in reviewing the material. The reviews can
then post their impressions to the newsgroup.

The material is 7.35 MB is size, so I'll need to email them in chunks
to those selected. You can email me at

I'd like to once again thank all of you for your suggestions. I'm
feeling
Better today than I did yesterday.

Taking the rest of the week off, and taking a ride with a different
CFI at a different school is an excellent idea. As far as "the DE
wants denterline landings...." know what? There are lots of DEs
out there. Your school may use one DE to the exclusion of others.

I took a 4 month break from lessons when I had to go out of town
on business for an extended time. Of course while out of town
I was taking lessons at that location. When I came back, I never
went back to my original school. Life was much better, and I learned
from a much better CFI -- one who wasn't intent on getting a
"real flying job" instead of teaching.

On 17 Nov 2004 05:26:18 -0700, Blanche
wrote:

Taking the rest of the week off, and taking a ride with a different
CFI at a different school is an excellent idea. As far as "the DE
wants denterline landings...." know what? There are lots of DEs
out there. Your school may use one DE to the exclusion of others.

I believe he's talking about the stage check designated CFI at a 141
school, not "the" checkride DE.

[discussion about requiring hood proficiency before solo]

I am disturbed that they require any hood work at all before solo, and that they are emphasizing hood work for the private. By putting you under the
hood that soon, they are teaching you to =not= look out the window. There are already too many geegaws in the cockpit to distract people - GPS alone
is becoming a substitute for knowing how to navigate.

In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly reminded not
to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws. It's too easy to do.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.

From the "old" FAA AC 61-21A Flight Training Handbook

Integrated Flight Instruction
In introducing the basic flight maneuvers, it is recommended that the
"Integrated Flight Instruction" method be used. This means that each
flight maneuver should be performed by using both outside visual
references and the flight instruments.
When pilots use this technique, they achieve a more precise and competent
overall piloting ability. That is, it results in less difficulty in
holding desired altitudes, controlling airspeed during takeoffs, climbs,
descents, and landing approaches, and in maintaining headings in the
traffic pattern, as well as on cross-country flights.
The use of integrated flight instruction does not, and is not intended
to, prepare pilots for flight in instrument weather conditions. It does,
however, provide an excellent foundation

for the future attainment of an instrument pilot rating, and will result
in the pilot becoming a more accurate, competent, and safe pilot.
Although integrated flight instruction should be used for all flight
maneuvers, its use is specifically discussed here in only the Basic
Flight Maneuvers.

Bob Moore
CFIing for 34 years

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.


This integrated instrument time was in the syllabus at the schools I taught
at. When the student got the basic scan down his altitude and heading
control improved considerably. What it did that I didn't like was reliance
on the gauges while he was VMC (head down and locked). I would have to
cover the attitude indicator to get them to look outside again. I have had
several students take and pass the Private Pilot checkride with just 35
hours in their logbooks (following the syllabus).

Allen

I received my training at a Major University flight program that was in the
process of taking it one step further and combining 2 year (VFR / IFR)
course into a combined accelerated schedule (1 year- maybe 3 semesters, I
got out before it became official). I was learning instruments & approaches
VERY early. The only complaint I received on my PPL exam was to look out the
window more often! Since I did not go pro, or even finish the IFR - I kind
of wish I did not learn that way, so flying a minimum equip. craft wouldn't
scare the snot out of me. ;-) But I could shoot an ILS to minimums without
breaking a sweat!




"Allen" wrote in message
. com...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.


This integrated instrument time was in the syllabus at the schools I
taught
at. When the student got the basic scan down his altitude and heading
control improved considerably. What it did that I didn't like was
reliance
on the gauges while he was VMC (head down and locked). I would have to
cover the attitude indicator to get them to look outside again. I have
had
several students take and pass the Private Pilot checkride with just 35
hours in their logbooks (following the syllabus).

Allen

Bob Moore wrote
Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise

Translation - those who learned in Stearmans and T-craft and were not
allowed to look at the gauges until long after they had soloed,
learning instead to fly by the seat of the pants, the feel of the
stick, and the sound of the wind felt this was unwise. And in one
sense it was.

The old "fly by the seat of the pants" paradigm produced great sticks
- people who really felt the airplane. Those who couldn't do it (many
can't) washed out. That's very important for day-VFR close-in combat
flying and competition or airshow aerobatics - and not much else in
the world of powered flying. The old system produced pilots who were
great in good day-VFR conditions, but inherently distrusted
instruments and thus never got comfortable with night and weather
flying. They were the same people whose idea of emergency instrument
training consisted of "See that cloud? Fly into it and you will DIE."

I suppose in an era when a well equipped civil airplane might have a
T&S - certainly no other gyros - and civil IFR was considered
unrealistic, that may have made sense. In the modern world, where
even primary trainers come with IFR panels, it's the integrated method
of instruction that makes sense. It makes for more precise pilots.
Yes, there is a tendency to focus inside - but any worthwhile
instructor will see it and correct the problem. Remember - those
sticky notes are not just for instrument training - they can and
should be used to curb reliance on any (or all) instruments as
necessary.

The advantage of the integrated method is that the instruments are
familiar from day one, and the use of instrument references to refine
and supplement visual references when those are inadequate to the task
is an excellent habit that is not really sufficient for IFR flying
(though it does make an inadvertent encounter far less likely to
kill), but builds a strong foundation for it. It makes it that much
easier to transition to instruments when required, rather than trying
to use the "eagle eyes" and "seat of the pants" approaches (which
plain don't work) when visual references are inadequate.

So the tradeoff is you get a pilot less able to feel the airplane and
fly it to the very edge of the performance envelope, but more
comfortable with night and marginal weather and thus more able to use
the airplane for transportation is weather that is less than ideal.
IMO that is a very sensible tradeoff.

I snipped the part from the FAA book, but I agree with it completely.
For the modern environment, where it's the airplane without gyros that
is unusual, not the one with them, it makes all kinds of sense.

Michael