First Solo and Total Hours Flown

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.

"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

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

"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

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

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

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"

"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

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

"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