time to solo

[bartonfly88]

I think it depends on how busy the airport is, the busier the airport the longer it takes but better experience.

[k411]

nearly 40... but thats also because of the half hour flight to the practise zone, with another half hour back, with maybe 30 min actual time to do the lesson, .2-.4 on the ground at CYYC, and ontop of that my instructor not wanting to solo me in the dead of winter because "he didnt want to stand outside in freezing cold so I could do my solo"

[MichaelP]

I just soloed a chap in his Cessna 182 after two flights that included all types of landing, even flapless.
He got more than the average hours to solo, but we have just flown the aircraft back from Ontario so he has more than the average dual cross country hours as well.

[fly-drink-chicks-music]

solo after 13 hours. got PPL after 70.1, prolonged it due to age.

[ToFlyIsDivine]

8 to solo
80 to ppl
buttonville

[young grasshopper]

Soloed at 17 hours. PPL at around 55+/-. I flew in YYC as well - and it was a bit of a trudge to get to the practice area. Regardless, even if I had been at "Ma and Pops Family Airstrip", it doesn't seem to matter how things start out. I finished by Commercial/MIFR with 190 hours (100.1 PIC, and about 90 Dual), and got some kinda exemption to use Sim time for 10 hours!!! SO...even if you start out a bit slow like I did, I think most of us come out of the Commercial (if thats the route you're going), or Private with the same skills. Good luck.

PS - if you're planning on going the Commercial route, not too many employers ask in an interview, "How many hours did you solo at?"!!!

Cheers,

[MichaelP]

with the same skills

That's a loaded sentence

Skills are subjective and real and rely upon personal attitude, training, and currency.

We do not all have the same skills... I have flown with many a CPL who's 'skills' would not pass the CPL flight test here and yet who passed the test to the 'same' tolerances elsewhere.

No, we don't all pass with the same skills, not by any stretch of the imagination!

Would you say that a pilot who passes the CPL flight test in a Cessna 180 has the same skill level as one who passed it in a Cessna 152?

I do agree, that whatever hours you take to get the PPL, most people can achieve the CPL in the 'minimum' hours.

[young grasshopper]

Having never been an instuctor (and nope - I'm not opening that can of worms), I still say that for the most part, we come out of a CPL with the same basic skills...which doesn't amount to much. It's a licence to learn.

Skills are subjective and real and rely upon personal attitude, training, and currency

I would hope that coming straight out of a CPL you are current.

Would you say that a pilot who passes the CPL flight test in a Cessna 180 has the same skill level as one who passed it in a Cessna 152

Each one would have unique skills I suppose (The C180 person should know how to fly a tail dragger a bit better). As for being a competent CPL holder, nahh; I'd say they're on the same playing field. But who knows - I suppose I only have my own experience to draw from...like I said, I've never instructed. I was mainly trying to get across the point that we all come out of the CPL with a lot to learn...I guess I should have said that instead ; .

Cheers,

Jeff

[MichaelP]

We don't have the same skill set at the end of CPL training.

Another example... We had a student who had done his CPL flight test on the Island but who had not completed his hours in time.
He came, he saw, and the more complicated airspace and radio procedures here in the Vancouver area caused him to go back to the Island to complete his CPL hours and do another flight test.

Easy, there's no radio to worry about, and he passed there.
But this CPL will not have the skill set to be able to operate in controlled airspace!

This chap has a huge amount to learn, and in who's employ?

[young grasshopper]

As I said, I'm just trying to point out that at 200 hours with a brand new shiney CPL, your skills are limited (as you stated) and JUST LIKE ALL CPL HOLDERS, you have much to learn...but anyway - I think we're essentially saying the same thing.

[sugarfree]

Would you say that a pilot who passes the CPL flight test in a Cessna 180 has the same skill level as one who passed it in a Cessna 152?

Why not ?? Are the rules of flight any different on C-180, then on a C-150 or a 747 ??? Charateristics might vary depending on type and model, but if it has fixed wings it obeys the same laws..

Why because you fly big iron your a better pilot ??? Skills are learnt, its about dedication, and devotion.. and a good instructor..

SF./

[iflyforpie]

We don't have the same skill set at the end of CPL training.

Another example... We had a student who had done his CPL flight test on the Island but who had not completed his hours in time.
He came, he saw, and the more complicated airspace and radio procedures here in the Vancouver area caused him to go back to the Island to complete his CPL hours and do another flight test.

Easy, there's no radio to worry about, and he passed there.
But this CPL will not have the skill set to be able to operate in controlled airspace!

This chap has a huge amount to learn, and in who's employ?

How did this student do his 300NM cross country without going through at least part of the lower mainland gong show?

No pilot is going to have the exact same skills at the end of the CPL, but some things make up for others.

A student flying out of Boundary Bay is going to be great with the radio and threading the needle between different airspaces, but is going to spend a lot of time waiting on the ground and going to and from the practice area.

A student learning at an uncontrolled strip will have less ground time, more time to practice (you make your own practice area), and more flexibility with regards to stop and gos, forced approach to landing, engine failure after takeoff, and tight circuits. Also they are responsible for wind and surface assessment and traffic separation.

[MichaelP]

Why not ?? Are the rules of flight any different on C-180

Sorry, subjective assessment.

Which pilot would you hire, 200 hours with 50 in a C180 or 200 hours all in a Cessna 152?

If you would consider them equal you have a point.

[Hedley]

An hour is not an hour.

I have soloed people in the Pitts, and let me tell you,
an hour in a Pitts is worth at least 10x as much as
an hour in a buck fifty.

I soloed my kid when he was 14, in a 210hp fuel-injected
constant speed prop, tailwheel Maule. He's 15 now, and
has over 200 hours of tailwheel time. I would not let him
fly any nosewheel aircraft, except for a few hours in the
C421B, which was good training because of it's higher
weight (momentum).

He comfortably flies in wind conditions (gusty crosswinds)
that many private pilots in docile nosewheel trainers will not,
in an aircraft that many grown men have great difficulty
mastering, even under calm conditions.

His 200 hours of tailwheel time in a Maule is worth at least
500 hours in a buck fifty. Perhaps more.

There once was a superb CF-104 pilot called Jake Muhall.
I am sure you have never heard of him. He used to laugh
at Transport pilots in the mess, who bragged that they
had 10,000 hours logged. "You don't have 10,000 hours",
Jake would say, "You have 1,000 hours, ten times over".

[scopiton]

He comfortably flies in wind conditions (gusty crosswinds)
that many private pilots in docile nosewheel trainers will not,
in an aircraft that many grown men have great difficulty
mastering, even under calm conditions.

can't agree more !!
what's the interest to send a first solo if the student can't handle a slight 5kt at 45* ??
majority of my student dont go solo before 15 without using their rudders
solo is not a performance it's an evolution

[Shiny Side Up]

An hour is not an hour.

This is true. Not all hours spent in airplanes are equal.

I have soloed people in the Pitts, and let me tell you,
an hour in a Pitts is worth at least 10x as much as
an hour in a buck fifty.

Why? Who's to say you can't learn as much in a C-150 as you can in the Pitts? Maybe not learn the same things, but to say that by simple virtue of the difference in the aircraft governs how much any pilot will take away from flying it is absurd.

I soloed my kid when he was 14, in a 210hp fuel-injected
constant speed prop, tailwheel Maule. He's 15 now, and
has over 200 hours of tailwheel time. I would not let him
fly any nosewheel aircraft, except for a few hours in the
C421B, which was good training because of it's higher
weight (momentum).

Why wouldn't you let him fly them? Airplanes are airplanes and each have their own virtues to offer. There are as many things to learn from Cherokees and Skyhawks as there are in Maules and Pitts.

He comfortably flies in wind conditions (gusty crosswinds)
that many private pilots in docile nosewheel trainers will not,
in an aircraft that many grown men have great difficulty
mastering, even under calm conditions.

As the saying goes: "A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools". Don't blame the airplane for these people being timid pilots.

His 200 hours of tailwheel time in a Maule is worth at least
500 hours in a buck fifty. Perhaps more.

That would only depend on what he chose to take from flying the 150. Off hand I can think of many lessons a lot of pilots should learn that the humble 150 can teach, that the Maule would maybe not. An hour is not an hour - but that depends not on the airplane, it depends on the pilot.

There once was a superb CF-104 pilot called Jake Muhall.
I am sure you have never heard of him. He used to laugh
at Transport pilots in the mess, who bragged that they
had 10,000 hours logged. "You don't have 10,000 hours",
Jake would say, "You have 1,000 hours, ten times over".

Once again that would depend on the pilot. I find though that one will never dispell the ridiculous notions in the pilot community, and especially this website, that what you fly governs your ability to fly.

No one cares how good a pilot you started out as....

You wouldn't believe how few hours I was to solo,
nor should you care.

Oddly enough, this is the wisest thing I've seen in this thread. (odder yet is that it comes from the same person) A person's time to solo is irrelevant to how good of a pilot they end up being. What kind of aircraft they soloed on is equally irrelevant. What they learned from the experience and how they can apply it is all that matters.

[Shiny Side Up]

Why not ?? Are the rules of flight any different on C-180

Sorry, subjective assessment.

Which pilot would you hire, 200 hours with 50 in a C180 or 200 hours all in a Cessna 152?

If you would consider them equal you have a point.

If I was considering hiring either of them, I would fly with them myself and decide on the virtues of their performance in that aircraft. I would also probably be inclined to hire the one with the stronger work ethic.

[AuxBatOn]

There once was a superb CF-104 pilot called Jake Muhall.
I am sure you have never heard of him. He used to laugh
at Transport pilots in the mess, who bragged that they
had 10,000 hours logged. "You don't have 10,000 hours",
Jake would say, "You have 1,000 hours, ten times over".

Once again that would depend on the pilot. I find though that one will never dispell the ridiculous notions in the pilot community, and especially this website, that what you fly governs your ability to fly.

You've never flown in a single seat jet aircraft to say that... I think the 1 hour I fly taking decision every second, with a wingman, a bandit to fight, training rules to monitor and tactics to deploy is much more valuable that the 1 hour of the 10-hour trip across the ocean.

I agree, different type of flying and different aircrafts will provide you with different skills in the end.

[iflyforpie]

I've seen experienced taildragger pilots humbled landing my Cessna 206

[Shiny Side Up]

There once was a superb CF-104 pilot called Jake Muhall.
I am sure you have never heard of him. He used to laugh
at Transport pilots in the mess, who bragged that they
had 10,000 hours logged. "You don't have 10,000 hours",
Jake would say, "You have 1,000 hours, ten times over".

Once again that would depend on the pilot. I find though that one will never dispell the ridiculous notions in the pilot community, and especially this website, that what you fly governs your ability to fly.

You've never flown in a single seat jet aircraft to say that... I think the 1 hour I fly taking decision every second, with a wingman, a bandit to fight, training rules to monitor and tactics to deploy is much more valuable that the 1 hour of the 10-hour trip across the ocean.

I agree, different type of flying and different aircrafts will provide you with different skills in the end.

You're right, I haven't done those things in a single seat fighter. By the same token though, can that single seat fighter pilot fly the multi-engined lumbering beast over the open water? Does he know how to handle an engine failure at a critical point? The point being that you can't compare the two pilots based upon the aircraft that they fly. I'd be more interested in which pilot could convert to the other aircraft the fastest, which would have nothing to do with the airplane they've been flying in the last few hours or few hundred hours as the case may be, but would be a better summation of that particular pilot's ability to learn and apply all the lessons and knowledge they've stored up to that point.

If you can fly an F-104 but can't fly a J-3 why does that make you a better pilot? Or vice-versa for that matter?

[iflyforpie]

My ex-boss few -104s over in Germany and he (or more accurately his wife) related a story to me of when they came back to Canada and participated in a scavenger hunt run by a flying club.

He and a fellow pilot (also flying 104s) drew up their maps and nav logs far faster than any of the private guys there and were off flying first. But within a few minutes they were lost. They were so used to flying at 400-500 knots or more that they couldn't easily adjust to the 100 knot speed of a general aviation trainer.

[Hedley]

10-hour trip across the ocean

I know an AC captain, retired a few years back. At the
end of his career, he had enough seniority to bid the
long-haul flights to the orient. After takeoff, he would
tell the eager fuzzy-cheeked cruise pilots to sit up front,
not to touch anything, and to call him if any lights came
on, because he was going to sleep in the back.

He logged the whole flight as PIC, because he had
the authority and responsibility for the flight. But
he sure didn't spend much time hand-flying, or even
awake.

There is NO WAY you can compare that flight as being
equal in any way to 15 aerobatic flights in a single-seat
aircraft.

An hour is simply not an hour.

[iflyforpie]

There is NO WAY you can compare that flight as being
equal in any way to 15 aerobatic flights in a single-seat
aircraft.

An hour is simply not an hour.

Except for the years of experience required to get to that position. I'm willing to bet that guy had over 10,000 hours starting from the air force or bush flying through regionals into the heavies.

You might produce a pilot with good hands and feet by teaching him in a taildragger and doing aerobatics, but he will learn nothing about navigation, communications, or weather if he does 15 flights all within a few miles of the airport he took off from on sunny days.

[AuxBatOn]

You're right, I haven't done those things in a single seat fighter. By the same token though, can that single seat fighter pilot fly the multi-engined lumbering beast over the open water? Does he know how to handle an engine failure at a critical point? The point being that you can't compare the two pilots based upon the aircraft that they fly. I'd be more interested in which pilot could convert to the other aircraft the fastest, which would have nothing to do with the airplane they've been flying in the last few hours or few hundred hours as the case may be, but would be a better summation of that particular pilot's ability to learn and apply all the lessons and knowledge they've stored up to that point.

If you can fly an F-104 but can't fly a J-3 why does that make you a better pilot? Or vice-versa for that matter?

The Fighter Pilot Training is all about learning things quickly because the training they provide you with is extremely extensive and fuel is limited every flight. What's the time limit to get a commercial again? Oh yeah right, there is NO limit. After 350 hours a pilot with 0 experience must become a fighter pilot. More than that, you're gone. It's a fast paced learning environment and only those who can follow the pace they impose you will survive.

For that reason, I believe that odds are a fighter pilot will be able to pick up flying a transport aircraft more quickly than a transport aircraft guy flying a fighter... Flying a transport aircraft is basically flying IFR all day. Flying IFR in the fighter world is secondary.

For all these reasons combined, I don't think an hour is worth the same, depending on what type of flying you do and the aircraft you fly.

Just a question, that will put the topic on the extremes: would you believe a 200 hrs guy that did his first 200 hours on the Hornet (impossible, but for the sake of argument) would be as skilled as a 200 hr Cessna 150 guy?

[Shiny Side Up]

The Fighter Pilot Training is all about learning things quickly because the training they provide you with is extremely extensive and fuel is limited every flight. What's the time limit to get a commercial again? Oh yeah right, there is NO limit. After 350 hours a pilot with 0 experience must become a fighter pilot. More than that, you're gone. It's a fast paced learning environment and only those who can follow the pace they impose you will survive.

You're missing the point. Do you think the guys who fly jet fighters have more skill than the ones who flew piston ones by virtue of the difference in aircraft that they flew? In the case above, you could be potentially training people to be flying gun armed modified c-150s into combat with the same limitations, in terms of fuel planning and doing what they do quickly. The differences in the pilots isn't the fact that the commercial pilot flew a 152 in his training and the fighter jock flew CF18. The difference is what was required of them from each hour of training and the standard that performance was held to.

The standard of performance in which pilots are held to is generally one of the big factors in how good they turn out to be.

10-hour trip across the ocean

I know an AC captain, retired a few years back. At the
end of his career, he had enough seniority to bid the
long-haul flights to the orient. After takeoff, he would
tell the eager fuzzy-cheeked cruise pilots to sit up front,
not to touch anything, and to call him if any lights came
on, because he was going to sleep in the back.

He logged the whole flight as PIC, because he had
the authority and responsibility for the flight. But
he sure didn't spend much time hand-flying, or even
awake.

There is NO WAY you can compare that flight as being
equal in any way to 15 aerobatic flights in a single-seat
aircraft.

An hour is simply not an hour.

Again correct in saying that an hour is not an hour, but incorrect in the assumption that its the aircraft to blame. Since our captain in the transport category aircraft is sleeping for his hours, lets make our trainee pilot sleep in the passenger seat of the aerobatic aircraft and you'll see that they take the same experience from it (granted our sleeper in the Extra might have a poorer sleep.)

Back to the original topic of hours to solo - how many hours it takes to solo is completely irrelevant to the aircraft the training was done in, but more importantly how those hours were spent.