How Many People

[Hedley]

spin training is that it is often not put in a practical context

Exactly. Because a wing must stall in order to spin, you will not spin from cruise (speed) unless you pull enormous G.

So, you are more likely stall/spin when your airspeed is low. Unfortunately when your airspeed is low, so is your altitude - just before landing, or just after takeoff.

So as mcrit says, we need to teach spin avoidance in the turn onto final - that's what someone needs to know. Also, departure stalls - they don't get much press, but I know people who were killed when they entered a spin after takeoff.

[Lommer]

I would advise any PPL student to demand to have spins demonstrated to them and have the opportunity to perform them on their own. I found the procedure eye-opening and very helpful in improving my aircraft handling at high and low speeds in weird attitudes. Once comfortable with them (which didn't take long), I found spins to be a very enjoyable manouvre. I'm not saying that spins shouldn't be treated with respect, but knowledge is power and I'd far rather have that experience in my toolbox than not.

[niss]

So I guess I wasnt alone in my presolo spin training and this finally proves that my instructor wasnt doing anything negligant or illegal as Bob Sacamano would like to have poeple believe, it would seem that incip only presolo seems to be common enough.

[JohnnyHotRocks]

yes niss, don't worry, no need to report your negligent instructor to Transport....you should pay him more though, but that's another thread

[niss]

I must say that I am amazed though that so many people didn't recieve any presolo spin training.

[Shiny Side Up]

How come many, many of us were taught to fly and received our PPL in 30 hours and were competent with the full flight envelope including spins, were the instructors more qualified then?

That's because then a select few of you were dragooned from the cavalry, mainly because of your possible talent for it, or your suicidal tendancies. Those of course who didn't get their licence in 30hrs were usually statistics. But in all seriousness no, they weren't more talented, and yes people can be taught to fly safely within a much shorter time. The main thing that has changed is the attitude towards safety over the years which has taken the responsibility of it from the individual and placed it as a burden on society - hence seatbelt laws, warning labels, and Transport Canada licencing requirements. I mean really we could sum up the whole PPL and say that "Thou shalt teach the PPL candidate to pilot the flying machine safely, consientiously and with respect for its performance parameters." But we can't trust human beings to do that, so here we are.

What we seem to have today is pilots being turned out as paint by numbers graduates, instead of artists who can fly and think safely having been taught all the envelope.

That would be nice, but without the possible aid of centralized economic planning in this country where we would only say let those who show aptitude for flying fly (or possibly sons and daughters of high ranking party officials...), we have the idea that everyone can achieve that ability. So just like everyone can paint, but not everyone is a Picasso, So to can everyone learn to fly, but not all of them will fly like a Cat Driver. So there we are, in some ways we're always going to be doomed to have mediocre pilots out there. Ah well, enough being silly.

But that is only my own thoughts and maybe I'm out of touch with reality.

You're only wishin' Cat, and there ain't no harm in that.

Before everyone slams Shiny Side Up, I'm sure he meant that airshow aerobatics is cool with regards to spins.

Ok, one exception to the rule.

[Cat Driver]

A couple of questions you may shed some light on shiney side.

The time for a PPL was 30 hours when I learned, naturally many went over that for various reasons...but generally speaking students today average far higher times to get said license.

I may be out of touch somewhat with aviation in your country today, however I still have some idea of how things go in flight training generally, so why does it take longer with more simple to fly airplanes?

One reason that I can think of would be the paronia that I saw in the flight instructors who worked for me about getting to many failures and their fear of their masters at TC.

Who by the way in many cases were morons unable to find employment in aviation so they ended up at TC.

[Hedley]

When the recreational permit first came out, 10-ish years ago, I think my first candidate for that permit had 25.3 hours when he did his flight test (and passed).

It's all about the student and the instructor. A student with good aptitude taught by an experienced instructor, will always require fewer hours to meet the standard than a slower student taught by a brand-new instructor who is just learning how to instruct. Same old, really.

Funny thing is that almost all pilots think they are above average!

[niss]

A couple of questions you may shed some light on shiney side.

The time for a PPL was 30 hours when I learned, naturally many went over that for various reasons...but generally speaking students today average far higher times to get said license.

I may be out of touch somewhat with aviation in your country today, however I still have some idea of how things go in flight training generally, so why does it take longer with more simple to fly airplanes?

One reason that I can think of would be the paronia that I saw in the flight instructors who worked for me about getting to many failures and their fear of their masters at TC.

Who by the way in many cases were morons unable to find employment in aviation so they ended up at TC.

Cat,

Could the increase in min. time required be a result of more instrumentation in the cockpit & communications?
I read your bio but cant remember when you learned to fly.

I seem to recall you getting checked out on T-Aero Dactyl?



:D

[Cat Driver]

Niss I learned to fly aeroplanes in 1953 and helicopters in 1964 and gyroplanes in 1993.

And no the reason can not be because instruments or communications are more complex today....

I think it is because of a general dumming down of society because of the liability issues and ignorance in TCCA flight training in Ottawa, based on my experience in having dealt with them.

Maybe ignorance is not exactly the right word but combined with arrogance it is close. I can't imagine anyone in society working in the world of commerce and business with the attitude shown by the head of flight training remaining employed for more than a few days.

Only a government employee could remain employed with that level of arrogance and stupidity.

[niss]

Niss I learned to fly aeroplanes in 1953 and helicopters in 1964 and gyroplanes in 1993.

And no the reason can not be because instruments or communications are more complex today....

I think it is because of a general dumming down of society because of the liability issues and ignorance in TCCA flight training in Ottawa, having dealt with them.

But what about the ICAO standard of 40 hours someone mentioned? I would think that ICAO would be more influenced by the FAA then from TC and FAA seems more with it as far as instruction and stuff goes.

[Spokes]

Lastly any student of mine that goes off and climbs as high as they can and do as many spins as possible will no longer be my student.

Why exactly is that?

They are sent off by me, under my supervision to practice a set of exercises that I direct. Solo time on a PPL course is not playtime to do whatever you want. You want to screw around, go somewhere else.

Very likely this same student will complain about getting milked because it is taking too long for their flight test recomend.

[Shiny Side Up]

The time for a PPL was 30 hours when I learned, naturally many went over that for various reasons...but generally speaking students today average far higher times to get said license.

I may be out of touch somewhat with aviation in your country today, however I still have some idea of how things go in flight training generally, so why does it take longer with more simple to fly airplanes?

The short answer Cat: Its the people.

But its not as simple as that. Its the people from every aspect that they're involved in the business of flying machines. Right from the macro view of attitudes in society down to the decisions of individuals within the machine we call aviation.

Also when we're talking about "taking longer" we have to separate between, required to take longer as in the difference of having a 30hr min in your day to the present 45hrs? Or are talking the fact that people are becoming 100hr + pilots before getting licenced?

In the first case when you extoll the virtues of getting your licence in 30 hours ignores the fact that while you personally became an good pilot in that time, many did not. If you look at the aircraft accident stats for then and now is only proof. But why did it require more time then in terms of requirements? I like to use the introduction of the 5hrs of required instrument time as a good example of this process. The requirement was added after it was determined that people were flying airplanes into clouds, losing situational awareness and crashing, the average is 148 seconds I believe from when a non instrument trained pilot loses visual reference and when they hit the ground (its true too, at least in 9 out of 10 cases that I've tested it in, of course I don't let them hit the ground) But why were people ending up in clouds and hitting the ground with only a PPL under their belt? I mean they're not supposed to while flying only VFR. In all the flying I've ever done I've never "accidentally" entered cloud. But rather than trust on the good judgement skills of people being issued licences not to enter cloud, we now have our instrument training tacked on to our licence requirements so that if a private pilot does err severely in their judgement and ends up the proverbial turd creek, we naw give them a paddle since we can't trust them not to go up that creek in the first place. Thus slowly but surely the requirements to get a licence climbs because while we can trust some to use common sense and fly safe - we can't trust all of them.

As per the second part referring to 100+ ppls, its just how the world is working. You've probably noticed how Canada is one of the wealtier countries in the world and one of a minority of countries that allow General aviation. The demand for flight training is up, airports are busier (that .5 spent waiting behind Air Canada still gets logged in the PTR despite being of little training value) and more people than before are taking up flying as a hobby rather than a career and hence dedicate less time towards it.

With more money available for their flight training PPL students want to spend hours in the airplane just playing with the new GPS or Glass cockpit. In fact that's the chief edge my competition has on me is the fact that they offer "controlled airspace experience" and "glass cockpit training" despite the fact that their prices are higher and their pilots end up with longer times to get their licences. While one might call this "milking" students, seeing as though the students are willing participants, I'd call it free market economics. I mean if people are willing to pay for 80 hour private pilot courses over a 45 hour one, they're grown adults they can spend their money the way they want.

[Cat Driver]

Thanks shiny side, you make some very valid points.

As the days and weeks go by I find myself getting further away from my wanting to finish my Cub and do some flight training.

I guess I'm finally finding there are other things in life to do.

I am in the process of trying to find a way to turn down a company in Europe who have been really putting the pressure on me to set up their training program for their airline....finally I found a good reason to refuse the position, last week they told me it would only be about five to six months ....wonderful now I have a good reason to back out as i just can't imagine spending another five or six months away from home....that was why I quit flying last year...no real life outside of airplanes.

Anyhow thanks for your post as it makes perfect sense, remember it has been a long time since I instructed at the ab initio level...1965 to be exact.

[Polikarpov]

Got my PPL back in 1999, and had done a couple of sessions of spinning beforehand (in a Traumahawk) with the instructor, and a couple solo as a planned practice activity.

I thought this was a requirement at the time but could be wrong; I certainly felt it was worthwhile and despite the horror stories the aircraft always did exactly what it was told in a fully developed spin.

I have done a couple under supervision since, on Cessna check-rides, but it's not an activity I'd seek out for kicks (unless I get enough money together to do an aeros course in something that's built for them).

[JohnnyHotRocks]

You want to screw around, go somewhere else.

So I take it you won't be my instructor then...

[just curious]

I generally hate qustions like this, because it means finding my original log, which is usually buried in a box in the middle of nowhere.

So... I did my licence in a Citabria, when everyone else was learning in a C150. My instructor did over the course of my licence, the complete syllabus of what has come in the airline training world as "The Upset Training Course". Full spins, as well as two loops and a snap roll were part of session number three, which brought me up to 3.7 hours. I soloed shortly after at 5.9 hours.

This was not because I was descended from either of the Wright brothers. The instructor had taken the trouble to interview me and see what my goals were. I had flown with my Dad since before I could remember, and had a glider licence already.

The instructor taught me to the standards of the commercial ride, and the aerobatics (a Citabria couldn't do lots, but..) snap rolls, loops, and spins were done with reference to the horizon and specific landmarks to some degree of precision. My Cross-country was a commercial length 300 nm trip. I had a tough time getting a guy to stamp my logbook at the first destination, becuse he refused to believe an airplane had come in that day, and had to phone the club before he'd let me take off.

Shortly before my flight test, a renter hung the Citabria up in telephone lines at the end of a field. I had to do about 6.8 hours in a C172 to feel comfortable and do my ride (5.3 dual 1.5 solo). This brought me up to 42.8 hours, after flying back an hour and a half from the nearest spot with an available examiner that week.

While my circuit in a C172 (or worse a Citabria) wouldn't be a thing of beauty these days, I would be able to say with some confidence that I could land it within 25 feet of where I wanted it to be, or spin it within 10 degrees of a heading.

I vaguely recall the weather being bad winter and all, but a review of my PPL remarks had either Strong Xwinds or Blowing Snow, or Foggy in almost every line. My instructor was big on having me operate the aircraft while under supervision, to the limits of the flying club's rules.

In retrospect 25000 years later, I can honestly say that my respect for the weather limits and aircraft performance limits came from this period.

So Dave Coutts, wherever you are in the Air Canada system 30 years later,
Thanks!
JC

Just a bit of trivia, since I found the Tax slip copy in my book: The cost of the Citabria solo had just zoomed up to 16 an hour in late 74. Dual was 30 bucks. The instructor kept ten of that.

[C-GGGQ]

my grandfather had .3 hours of night training in his books, and paid 8 an hour solo and 11 dual and 18 for a twin.

I remember spinning before solo. 172, instructor put it in a full spin held it for 2 rotations recovered, then he put it in another did 1.5 -2 rotations and told me to recover. then he explained spinning in context and we did a couple from slow left hand turns etc.

I licensed at the national average of 63 hours but this was split up over three years of going to Going to High school(1 year) university (1 year), working full time(1 year), and only being able to fly as the paychecks rolled in, this accounted for some large gaps in training. Sometimes not having the money for it is what brings up the average. that said i worked on my CPL strait did the test at 200 sent away the books, still waiting for the piece of paper but its only benn a week and a half. Whole thing took about 5 years but that included two shots at university (both ending in withdrawls) and working as a ramp hand full time for a year. My grandfather loves to remind me how much he paid for his license over and over too $300 tax deductible and he got a $100 gift from the government for becoming a pilot

[Cat Driver]

My grandfather loves to remind me how much he paid for his license over and over too $300 tax deductible and he got a $100 gift from the government for becoming a pilot

Yup, that was what I paid for mine, but we got 1/2 back from the government as it was a grant that was still in effect from WW2.

$300.00 covered all flying and ground school.

Cessna 140 and Fleet Canuck were $10.00 dual and $8.00 solo.

Spins were part of both dual and solo training.

Thirty hours for the PPL.

All flight instructors were tail wheel qualified, the new airplane that came along for conversion training was a Tri Pacer for nose wheel training.

Our four place trainer was a Cessna 170 until the Tri Paccer came along and flying skills went down hill when the 170 was replaced by the 172. But by then we were commercial pilots and didn't care.

Weird how things change, in todays world instructors who fly tail wheel airplanes are few and far between and the tail wheel airplane is looked upon as something difficult to fly...weird.

[Shiny Side Up]

Weird how things change, in todays world instructors who fly tail wheel airplanes are few and far between and the tail wheel airplane is looked upon as something difficult to fly...weird.

Probably because tailwheel airplanes are becoming few and far between. You must admit Cat that should something like one of Rutan's specials would have showed up on the field in your training days you might have been a bit apprehensive about flying it, or a cessna with all its instruments replaced by a tv screen. Now my instructors are apprehensive about getting into fabric covered airplanes (incidentally a Piper Pacer in one case) and some are young enough to have never sat in a tailwheeler, much less seen one. But the same instructors don't hesitate to hop in a Vari-eze.

It is wierd Cat, but its the only constant in the world, to quote Dylan: The times they are a changin'.