Student night solo?

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

I don't think that's true. According to the FARs, you cannot carry
passengers until you have the certificate. Therefore, the examiner
is still the instructor and the student is still logging dual
instruction time.

According to the FAA, the examiner is not a "passenger". Nor is he an
instructor. The pilot being examined logs PIC as if he were the only person
in the airplane.

Strange, but true.

Pete

"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

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Well, as I was told by my CFI that the Cross Country Solo endorsment is
valid for the date of the endorsment only.

First, whether the FARs allow it or not does not necessarily have anything
to do with whether Robert would feel comfortable doing so.

Second, a XC endorsement is valid for whatever period the instructor deems
it valid. Students may, and do, make multi-day XC flights. The flight must
still meet the relevant portions of 61.93, which would include the
instructor reviewing the weather reports and forecast for the flight. IMHO,
the instructor also ought to be "in the loop" during each day (and
preferably each leg) of the flight.

But there's nothing that requires the endorsement to be exercised in a
single day, nor even that the instructor continue to monitor the student
over the course of the flight (as bad an idea as not doing so might be).
The instructor is simply required to have "reviewed the current and forecast
weather conditions" and to have "determined that the flight can be completed
under VFR", as far as weather conditions go.

So, if Robert really wanted to, he certainly could endorse a student to fly
solo from SF to NYC.

But I could be wrong as I am not a CFI.

AFAIK, you are permitted to read FAR 61.93 even if you're not a CFI.

Pete

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.

Yea, I am thinking but not going to dwell over it and I am a low time pilot
just under 200 hours


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.

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.


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.

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


However, things like:

-- 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.

-- flying through a mountain pass

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

-- landing at LAX

Class B Airspace usualy coverd during ground school.

-- VFR over the top of a solid cloud layer

Here in the northwest that is common occorance

-- 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.

-- 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.


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.

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


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.

To extend beyond the PTS
To be greater than; surpass the PTS
To go beyond the limits of the PTS

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.



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.

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.


that is just plain silly and rather reckless.

Of course it is. So what?


So you condone reckless activity?


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).

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.



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


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



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



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. Prior to
check ride the PTS is just the min that is required to be coverd during
training and is to be used as a guide is what I was told and also told that
it never hurts to make up your own standards that exceed the ones in the
PTS. I know i would not chouse a instructor that only did the min that was
required. Enough on the other subjects the discussion is night time solo for
students.

So my final thought is if you think the student can handle night solo then
do it. If you don't think the student can handle it then time for more night
training till you think the student can handel it.

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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.

Student pilots are not allowed to fly in other countries, either. They have
to have an instructor check their flight plan and weather before every cross
country flight, unless they have the "commuter" endorsement for repeated
cross country flights of less than 25 miles.

But private pilots can fly anywhere they want without writing out a flight
plan and nav log.

Student pilots may not fly "in furtherance of a business," but private
pilots may.

Student pilots may not carry federal election candidates for hire, but
private pilots can.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Dave S wrote
My answer as a non-CFI is.. I would expect the number of CFI's who
actually endorse a student for night solo to be VERY low.. simply as a
result of the environment in which we instruct and train.

My answer as a CFI is - if not now, when?

When he passes his check ride. Until then, I don't need the liability
incurred by allowing students to fly at night.

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
I don't feel comfortable signing my students off for cross countries
from San Francisco to New York either

Why not? I think a long solo XC is a great idea. Most students don't
do one that long but I see no reason to say no.

I expect students will ask for extra training in certain
areas as they grown in their private.

Sure - but basic night flying isn't one of them. In other countries
it's a separte rating, and that's fine - but in the US it's something
we expect at the private level.

There is also the reality that the vast majority of students WON'T
come back for additional training.

Most don't do any night flying
for the first year or so after their private so anything given would
be mostly lost anyway.

Have you ever considered the possibility that this is because they
don't feel comfortable with their night flying skills?

Now my experience is certainly different from yours - I only know ONE
private pilot who didn't fly at night in the first year (usually the
first month) after getting the rating.

I once had an instrument student who, before he came to me, had NEVER
flown solo at night. He had the minimum three hours for his private,
then never again. What's more, he wasn't competent to fly at night.

Flying at night scared him. I told him that given our schedules we
would need to do much of our training at night, so we did a couple of
hours of night dual. That was all it took. The next week, he was
flying night solo. But the first hour was certainly... interesting.

And this is why I have a real problem with this blanket acceptance of
no night solo. There is no effective way to test night flying
competence during the daytime, so it is not tested on the checkride
(unlike all the other skills that have been mentioned in the thread).
As the CFI who gave the night training, you are it. If you don't feel
comfortable having the student fly at night, and your judgment is
sound, then he probably should not be flying at night. If he flies at
night before the checkride, you have some control and as a minimum he
risks only his own neck. After the checkride your liability is
reduced (not eliminated) but making the decision based on liability
rather than actual safety is a practice I can't really get behind -
and your student's first night flight without you is probably going to
be with a passenger.

Michael

If you're unable to teach students how to fly at night, you shouldn't
sign them off for flying solo at night.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

If you're unable to teach students how to fly at night, you shouldn't
sign them off for flying solo at night.


I like your domain.