50 hours and no solo

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain

Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Schooner69A »

"In all honesty, if you think that people aren't to solo unless they can handle "everything" you're not seeing the big picture in how flight training works."

Agreed. Consider the situation of engine failure: I'm guessing that if you waited until a student (fixed AND rotary wing) could be guaranteed to return the craft to the ground in usable condition EVERY time, he/she would be close to graduation ceremonies. In the fixed wing world, you are sent solo under controlled conditions with the expectation that nothing untoward will happen that would tax the limited skill set you have acquired in your short flying career. It's a crap shoot, but it works most of the time... :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Schooner69A »

PS Sometimes on your first trip as a recent story attested to...
---------- ADS -----------
 
phuckit
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:00 am

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by phuckit »

Go for a flight with another school. If they will not put you solo, then flying probably isn't for you. If that's the case please put your current schools information out there, as it is WRONG to string someone along for that ammount of time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:36 pm Yes, you’re wrong.

Let’s not romanticize things, OK?

To hold an OC you need to meet the TC requirements to hold an OC. If you meet the requirements and TC refuses, you can ask the TATC (and from there the federal courts) to force the minister to reconsider. It’s not really a matter of discretion, nor should it be. (Yes, I’ve read section 6.71 of the Aeronautics Act.)
So -- for example -- if what we are reading about Sault college is correct, you and PilotDar are implying they shouldn't lose their OC for what MAY be willful taking advantage of students?

Strongly disagree. Not only such such behaviour be sanctioned with the loss of the OC of the organization, the principals involved should be banned from reapplying.

Then this kind of thing, disappears.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3260
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by PilotDAR »

and PilotDar are implying they shouldn't lose their OC for what MAY be willful taking advantage of students?
Okay... I'll imply that. An OC is unrelated to business practices, that's what the BBB is for. I'm not suggesting that unfair business practices are acceptable, they are not. However, our industry certainly cannot, and should not task TC with also judging the business practices of an OC holder. TC's mandate is safety, not customer satisfaction. It'd be like asking the people to confirm that the gas pumps are pumping what they're indicating to also assess the price that the gas station sells the gas for. A totally different task!

Whether concerns about advancement are valid, is beyond the scope of my thinking here, I don't have enough information to comment about that. But, it's not OC related. There are people who are not well suited to be pilots - sorry, but it's a reality. There ware people who are on the edge, and more training is required. There are general levels of achievement, and there are pilots who should not be measured against those standards.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by C.W.E. »

There are people who are not well suited to be pilots - sorry, but it's a reality.
And some of them are instructors.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

PilotDAR wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:52 pm
and PilotDar are implying they shouldn't lose their OC for what MAY be willful taking advantage of students?
Okay... I'll imply that. An OC is unrelated to business practices, that's what the BBB is for. I'm not suggesting that unfair business practices are acceptable, they are not. However, our industry certainly cannot, and should not task TC with also judging the business practices of an OC holder. TC's mandate is safety, not customer satisfaction. It'd be like asking the people to confirm that the gas pumps are pumping what they're indicating to also assess the price that the gas station sells the gas for. A totally different task!
Disagree, again. A flight school isn't comparable to a business supplying informed adults.

These are often teenagers as the consumer. Let's remember this.

It's more comparable to....a school, which is appropriately regulated to ensure they are providing the education they are supposed to. Or such school is shut down.

The standard should be appropriately higher for a flight school conducting primary training to students who know nothing about aviation , than if I as a CPL go and rent an aircraft, and find it dirty, or I'm overcharged. It's not the same thing, and for safety reasons as much as any other reason.

The same argument applies to scummy flight schools, who pressure pre-ppl students into expensive and dangerous "experience" flights in inappropriate conditions with substandard supervision. They should lose their OC for good. Most of you disagree. Fine.

Yet most of you want scummy 705's to lose their OC for operating in marginal weather. Their customers, and pilots, ARE informed, experienced ADULTS. There's the difference. I don't get the logic in seeing flight schools differently.

In real estate, agents who rip people off, lose their licence.
In financial services, ditto. Heavy penalties.
Why? Because there is a power / knowledge difference in the relationship.
Aviation, especially the incubator that is a school, should be higher than those.

And FWIW,
I'm a small C conservative, but I also believe in hammering companies extremely hard who rip off the uninformed. This isn't the place of the BBB, it's regulators.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aviatard
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:45 am
Location: In a box behind Walmart

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Aviatard »

rookiepilot wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm
The same argument applies to scummy flight schools, who pressure pre-ppl students into expensive and dangerous "experience" flights in inappropriate conditions with substandard supervision. They should lose their OC for good. Most of you disagree. Fine.

Yet most of you want scummy 705's to lose their OC for operating in marginal weather. Their customers, and pilots, ARE informed, experienced ADULTS. There's the difference. I don't get the logic in seeing flight schools differently.

In real estate, agents who rip people off, lose their licence.
In financial services, ditto. Heavy penalties.
Aviation, especially the incubator that is a school, should be higher than those.

And FWIW,
I'm a small C conservative, but I also believe in hammering companies extremely hard who rip off the uninformed. This isn't the place of the BBB, it's regulators.
I know the case you're talking about. There was a huge thread on here about it a while ago, which you posted extensively in. I've been a member of flying clubs who organized such trips as a way to fly to some cool destinations. It really wasn't as you described, that you HAD do do these trips. It was more a case of here's a couple of different places you could fly to. Who wants in? I suspect that was also the case in the incident you're talking about. I don't think they pressured students into doing these flights. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the other point, you know, I often don't agree with you. In this case I think you are right. Rip-off flight schools should be able to be shut down for shady practices. Problem is, that isn't TC's mandate, so they're not going to get involved with that. That really leaves nobody with a mandate to deal with bad business practices, and that's why it continues. The Ontario PCC program took some steps in that direction, but really all it gives a student is a way to get their money back if the school closes and keeps their money. It doesn't address any other issues.

I'd like to see that happen because I try to make sure people get value for their money, and want them to go away thinking they got a fair deal. Shady operators tar all of us with the same brush. I'd rather not be part of an industry that has that stigma attached. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of the Real Estate Council of Ontario to regulate flight schools. Until there is, it will continue to be buyer beware. Sad but true.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

Aviatard wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:50 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm
The same argument applies to scummy flight schools, who pressure pre-ppl students into expensive and dangerous "experience" flights in inappropriate conditions with substandard supervision. They should lose their OC for good. Most of you disagree. Fine.

Yet most of you want scummy 705's to lose their OC for operating in marginal weather. Their customers, and pilots, ARE informed, experienced ADULTS. There's the difference. I don't get the logic in seeing flight schools differently.

In real estate, agents who rip people off, lose their licence.
In financial services, ditto. Heavy penalties.
Aviation, especially the incubator that is a school, should be higher than those.

And FWIW,
I'm a small C conservative, but I also believe in hammering companies extremely hard who rip off the uninformed. This isn't the place of the BBB, it's regulators.
I know the case you're talking about. There was a huge thread on here about it a while ago, which you posted extensively in. I've been a member of flying clubs who organized such trips as a way to fly to some cool destinations. It really wasn't as you described, that you HAD do do these trips. It was more a case of here's a couple of different places you could fly to. Who wants in? I suspect that was also the case in the incident you're talking about. I don't think they pressured students into doing these flights. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the other point, you know, I often don't agree with you. In this case I think you are right. Rip-off flight schools should be able to be shut down for shady practices. Problem is, that isn't TC's mandate, so they're not going to get involved with that. That really leaves nobody with a mandate to deal with bad business practices, and that's why it continues. The Ontario PCC program took some steps in that direction, but really all it gives a student is a way to get their money back if the school closes and keeps their money. It doesn't address any other issues.

I'd like to see that happen because I try to make sure people get value for their money, and want them to go away thinking they got a fair deal. Shady operators tar all of us with the same brush. I'd rather not be part of an industry that has that stigma attached. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of the Real Estate Council of Ontario to regulate flight schools. Until there is, it will continue to be buyer beware. Sad but true.
Yes and that case went horribly bad, pressure or not. I guess we won't ever know for sure, will we? Sure seemed like SOME degree of pressure to "get home", in any event.

3 young people, a young instructor and 2 teenagers lost their lives, under the watch of more experienced people who Knew the instructor wasn't ready for hard IFR. All of this, for me being a part of the pilot community REALLY pisses me off.

Why? The victims weren't knowledgeable of the risk of a night IMC flight in weather, didn't even have the experience as pre PPL to even understand let alone consent.
Lives -- A whole lot more serious than money.

The fact, even after a settlement, which acknowledges some sort of liability in the US justice system, that there has been no serious regulatory repercussions in Canada for a school that allowed this tragedy.

What message does this send?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3260
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by PilotDAR »

If an OC holder broke a Canadian regulation, then yes, we depend upon TC to regulate them - out of business, if appropriate. TC enforces TC's safety regulations. Those regulations don't really apply to the commercial side of business conduct, and TC isn't going to get involved in that side - it's not their mandate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

PilotDAR wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:28 pm If an OC holder broke a Canadian regulation, then yes, we depend upon TC to regulate them - out of business, if appropriate. TC enforces TC's safety regulations. Those regulations don't really apply to the commercial side of business conduct, and TC isn't going to get involved in that side - it's not their mandate.
Fine. I don't agree with their mandate. Now, Talking about safety.

My understanding on the St Catherine's case, is notwithstanding the other facts of the accident flight, the flight itself was illegal under the Cars.

Did TC take, in your view, appropriate action against the OC holder?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3260
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by PilotDAR »

Did TC take, in your view, appropriate action against the OC holder?
I have no view, I don't know the details of the situation in sufficient detail to know who was responsible for what. Sometimes I simply trust people to do the job assigned to them the best they can. Sometimes I'm disappointed. I've also learned first hand in life that usually, it's better to fix the problem, than to fix the blame.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Aviatard
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:45 am
Location: In a box behind Walmart

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Aviatard »

rookiepilot wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:42 pm
My understanding on the St Catherine's case, is notwithstanding the other facts of the accident flight, the flight itself was illegal under the Cars.

Did TC take, in your view, appropriate action against the OC holder?
Which of the CARs was violated? I don't know what action was taken. Is there a report somewhere?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

Aviatard wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:50 am
rookiepilot wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:42 pm
My understanding on the St Catherine's case, is notwithstanding the other facts of the accident flight, the flight itself was illegal under the Cars.

Did TC take, in your view, appropriate action against the OC holder?
Which of the CARs was violated? I don't know what action was taken. Is there a report somewhere?
Per the report: (quote photofly)

"The instructor/PIC was conducting his first night flight for nearly 10 months. He could not have met the requirements of regulation 401.05 in respect of the carriage at night of the two passengers who died with him.

This was his first ever flight into IMC. And he was doing it from the right seat."
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

PilotDAR wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:03 am
Did TC take, in your view, appropriate action against the OC holder?
I have no view, I don't know the details of the situation in sufficient detail to know who was responsible for what. Sometimes I simply trust people to do the job assigned to them the best they can. Sometimes I'm disappointed. I've also learned first hand in life that usually, it's better to fix the problem, than to fix the blame.
You appear to me to be a lot more understanding of one of the worst GA accident situations I've certainly ever heard of, than I am.

Sometimes black is black, white is white. Not gray.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by AirFrame »

rookiepilot wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:23 am"... And he was doing it from the right seat."
I wonder how that's relevant... Did the plane not have dual instruments?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot »

AirFrame wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:48 am
rookiepilot wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:23 am"... And he was doing it from the right seat."
I wonder how that's relevant... Did the plane not have dual instruments?
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 017&akey=1
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8025
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by photofly »

AirFrame wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:48 am
rookiepilot wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:23 am"... And he was doing it from the right seat."
I wonder how that's relevant... Did the plane not have dual instruments?
It was a 160HP Piper Warrior. How many of those have you flown with dual instruments?

Allegedly there was a vacuum pump failure, and the normal position of the (electric) turn coordinator is on the far left of the instrument panel. The only licenced pilot was sitting in the right seat, and even he had never flown in real IMC before.

Let's see you fly through a frontal system, at night, on partial panel, in an underpowered piston single, with the only instruments on the other side of the airplane.

How can it not be relevant?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Strike me down with all of your hatred & your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by AirFrame »

photofly wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:22 amLet's see you fly through a frontal system, at night, on partial panel, in an underpowered piston single, with the only instruments on the other side of the airplane.

How can it not be relevant?
Okay, okay, unbunch the panties. The quote stopped at "he was doing it from the right seat" as if that should mean anything specific. Maybe it should have mentioned that it only had one set of primary instruments. It was an honest question, not intended to trigger anyone.

Thanks Rookie for the link to the report.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8025
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by photofly »

Sorry. I thought I'd exorcised all my existential angst on the other thread, but apparently there was a bit left over.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Strike me down with all of your hatred & your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”