time to solo

[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.

[AuxBatOn]

Again, I have to disagree. A faster, more complex or more difficult airplane to fly requires you to think faster and be more efficient in your workflow just to keep the blue side up and not break any rules.

For example, take someone with 200 hrs of C150 time, I'm sure he'll be way out flying a higher performance aircraft. However take a hornet driver with 200 hrs total time and put him in a C150, I guarantee you he'll be able to do whatever you want in no time.

[Old Dog Flying]

Again, I have to disagree. A faster, more complex or more difficult airplane to fly requires you to think faster and be more efficient in your workflow just to keep the blue side up and not break any rules.

For example, take someone with 200 hrs of C150 time, I'm sure he'll be way out flying a higher performance aircraft. However take a hornet driver with 200 hrs total time and put him in a C150, I guarantee you he'll be able to do whatever you want in no time.

Not entirely true! I had the misfortune of trying to checkout a 2000+ hour Tutor instructor who had been one of the original jet pipeliners who had nothing but Tutor time...this was an experiment tried back in the 60s. It took me nearly 20 hours of dual to check him out on the Decathalon. On the other hand I was checked out on the Tutor in less time...and I was a relatively low time civlian licenced instructor running the Base Flying Club.

I know that there exceptions to every rule...even for me!

[AuxBatOn]

They checked out non-aircrew on the Tutors back then? (sorry for the hi-jack, I just have to ask!)

[AuxBatOn]

They checked out non-aircrew on the Tutors back then? (sorry for the hi-jack, I just have to ask!)

[iflyforpie]

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.

A certain amount can be said about the civilian commercial pilot too. Many of us don't have unlimited resources or time. I never met any pilot who did more than 200TT to get a CPL other than maybe to satisfy a few requirements that got missed during build up or private guys who flew for years before deciding to go for it. I did my CPL in under 200 with a Group 1 IFR included because I was really cheap and worked hard.

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?

I'm sure the 150 guy would be having a helmet fire before he even left the ground but the Hornet driver would sure have fun landing a lightly loaded aircraft that you now have to flare, that bounces, that loses momentum in no time, that stalls, with no velocity vector or AOA devices to help you, and a very limited source of power.

[Shiny Side Up]

Again, I have to disagree. A faster, more complex or more difficult airplane to fly requires you to think faster and be more efficient in your workflow just to keep the blue side up and not break any rules.

For example, take someone with 200 hrs of C150 time, I'm sure he'll be way out flying a higher performance aircraft. However take a hornet driver with 200 hrs total time and put him in a C150, I guarantee you he'll be able to do whatever you want in no time.

This of course ignores the fact that our Hornet driver also has the benefit of possibly having flown a smaller aircraft during the course of his training, as most fighter pilots step up from somewhere, they aren't dragooned (except in rare cases) and tossed in the pilot's seat from day one. It also ignores the fact that our hornet driver has the benefit of a grossly more experienced intructor and a considerably more regimented training program - which I might add also washes out any potential stragglers in the program.

IF you took the group of people who are to be 152 pilots and held them to the same standards as the fighter pilot (and washed out any non performers - an important element when grading the final product) you'd only then have pilots of equal capabilities. The important point of the matter here is that it isn't the airplane that makes the pilot.

[Hedley]

held them to the same standards

That's a nice theory. However, in practice, it just doesn't happen
very often. I'm surprised you've missed all the students complaining
here about the very low quality of civilian flight training that they have
been receiving the last couple years, from inexperienced instructors.

it isn't the airplane that makes the pilot

Gotta disagree with you, there. The airplane certainly
does make the pilot. In the case of a forgiving nosewheel
trainer with lackluster, uninterested instruction, it results
in a very marginal pilot. In the case of an airplane with
some interesting handling characteristics - the Sea Fury
comes to mind - either the pilot rises to the challenge,
or dies trying. I suppose you're too young to remember
Sarnia in 2001, or Sun'n'Fun in 1996?

You simply can't compare an hour in a 152 with an
hour in a Sea Fury. And it would be ludicrous to
compare their respective pilot's skills after say a
hundred hours in each one.

[Old Dog Flying]

Auxbaton: The dual was unofficial but as the manager/CFI of the MJ Flying Club, I had a few extras which included flying the Tutor. I wrote the EOs exam and flew with guys in Standards Flight. Wally Peters was one of the clubs instructors and he was my "in".

Dr Wendy Clay did the full wings program with 2CFTS becoming fully qualified...her call sign was Snapper 13 ...really...

[iflyforpie]

I would challenge ANY fixed wing pilot to take a basic light helicopter (like a Bell 206) up, hover, transition, forwards, transition, and hover, back to a small pad in a confined area without any previous rotary training. How about adding some wind? How about trying some long lining!

Pretty sure there would be some twisted metal by the end of oh...30 seconds.

I have tremendous respect for what rotary pilots can do, but are they better pilots just because of a machine?

It's not superheros we are talking about, it's pilots. I'm sure about 90% of the qualified population could fly just about anything given enough time, money, and ambition.

[Shiny Side Up]

This thread is about people talking about their time to solo. There are lots of factors which govern how fast a student learns and how good a pilot they end up being. What follows is not an exaustive list of factors in that. Lets take a look at them.

1) Dedication of time. The ammount a student is willing to dedicate towards their training is a huge factor on how fast they'll learn, as well as the level of skill that they are able to maintain. With few exceptions, the time my students take to solo is inversely proportionate to the time they dedicate towards their training. That is to say the more often you go, the less you have to go to accomplish the same thing. Students which train 5-7 days a week go solo quicker than students that go twice a week or less. Not only the training time in airplane, but the time dedicated outside the airplane as well. Dedicated study time makes for better written test marks.

Lets transfer this to our example of our Fighter pilotverses out budding commercial pilot. Which of these two in their lets say equal "200 hours" has more actual dedicated time? How many of the Fighter jocks have second jobs which don't relate to honing their abilities in the airplane? A fighter pilot's job is being a fighter pilot, so one reasonably assumes that all of their work time is dedicated directly towards their mission at hand, and directly towards their flight performance. A commercial pilot on the other hand, in addition to other work they might do in addition to their flying job, has a lot of time which - even if job related - is not flying performance related. How many bags you loaded, or how often you fueled your aircraft certainly don't affect your stick and rudder skills. On this basis alone, who is going to be the better pilot?

2)Quality of Instruction Good instructors train better pilots. This also ties in with 1). In how much time the instructor has with a student, and how dedicated the instructor is to the task.

Once again lets put forth our CPL 150 pilot and our Fighter driver. Who has the better instructor? Our fighter pilot has probably a short list of some of the most qualified and dedicated people in the world teaching them the skills they'll need in the airplane. As we all know our poor 150 pilot has probably encountered the good and the bad and had to sort through a fair ammount of time builders sitting in the right seat. There's a lot of potential damage sitting right there to our 150 pilot which would be unacceptable in a fighter training enviornment. Which pilot has the better chance of being a better pilot?

3)Physical suitability Not our hugest factor, but definitely a factor. Young, alert, physically fit, and correctly sized people make better pilots. We don't have to make a comparrison to the military and our c-150 pilot here. The military already knows this and take only the best specimens to be pilots. There are no such restrictions on Commercial pilot applicants. If you can see lightning and hear thunder, and if you haven't been hit on the head too many times you can do commercial pilot training. This factor once again also affects 1).

4)Learning ability Another big factor, which again like 3) the military has a screening process for. Last I checked they require an %80+ average in your School and Post-secondary marks. They also thoroghly test you with an interview process for pilot/officer applicants. To get a CPL... there are no requirements, only an age one.

Now, with those four factors alone, from the get go our CF-18 candidate should be far and away leaps and bounds ahead of our poor fool with aspirations of maybe working someday for Jazz. Lets look at Hedley's example of how good of a pilot his young son is.

-The young man is obviously dedicated to the task.
-He has a very experienced and motivated instructor.
-He has the ability to dedicate time towards the training (Dad being a pilot is a huge advantage in this category)
-He has access to a plane so that he can dedicate the time he wants.
-He has opportunity to learn.

Are not all of these factors in how good of a pilot he is? Would he have been a worse pilot if you trained him on a cessna 172? Would he have been an equal pilot if someone else had trained him? In my opinion Hedley does himself and his son a great disservice in crediting all his son's ability to the airplane itself. No wonder airplances are so much to rent, but instructors are pretty cheap. Flight instructors are charged out for cheaper than ditchdiggers, and no wonder -they place no value on their service.

[Shiny Side Up]

Gotta disagree with you, there. The airplane certainly
does make the pilot. In the case of a forgiving nosewheel
trainer with lackluster, uninterested instruction, it results
in a very marginal pilot. In the case of an airplane with
some interesting handling characteristics - the Sea Fury
comes to mind - either the pilot rises to the challenge,
or dies trying. I suppose you're too young to remember
Sarnia in 2001, or Sun'n'Fun in 1996?

You simply can't compare an hour in a 152 with an
hour in a Sea Fury. And it would be ludicrous to
compare their respective pilot's skills after say a
hundred hours in each one.

Firstly, I'm not too young to remember.

Secondly, you hit the primary reason that a pilot turns out poor: Lackluster instruction. It should also be noted that the 152 can kill pilots who don't rise to its occasion just as dead as the Sea fury - granted probably not as spectacularly. The Sea fury (or any other aircraft) doesn't magically make a better pilot, rather it is a test of the skills the pilot already has and definitely tests their potential to learn more.

[Story Time]

Case in point. I had a private pilot student once who had the opportunity to get some time in some really wonderful airplanes. The list included a Pitts, a Waco, and a T-28 to name a few. They unfortunately did not magically make him very skilled at being a pilot - in fact he took a long time to solo in the humble Cessna 172, and took at least 3 years to get a private pilot's licence (and I might add went through a variety of schools and instructors, I only had the pleasure up to just after his solo.) If you include the times he spent in the aircraft that were not in the 172 he would have up around the 60 hour mark before going solo. Why? Simple. He did very little learning in those other aircraft (by that I mean the training he did not do with me in the 172) While many of the people he was flying with were qualified pilots, and possibly qualified instructors, no real form of instruction was going on. Some research into the subject (and some directed conversation) revealed that he never ever landed the airplane or performed a take off that wasn't assisted by the pilot ("well, they let me put my hands on the controls while they did it") Some extrordinarily bad assumptions about flying resulted from this - my favorite was a tendancy to push forward on the controls after some speed in the take off roll, good to get the tail up in a taildragger, makes for a wheelbarrow in a tricycle. I caught on that something was afoot when he was referring to the circuit altitude as the TPA. (incidentally to add to the confusion the other planes he was flying were with American pilots)

The point of the matter here being that the experience with those other airplanes in this case was irrelevant to his skills as a pilot. His dedication of time towards learning the task at hand was diluted (he was half and half between his time with me and his time essentially joyriding in the other aircraft) He was not recieving correct, or in some cases relevant instruction to the task at hand (an hour's worth of inverted spins in a Pitts has not much practical application towards a private pilot's licence) Worst of all, his assumption that simply being in those airplanes was making him a more skilled pilot was the worst of all - in most cases the phrase "knowing enough to be dangerous" applied.

[/Story Time]

So no, the airplane does not make the pilot. Give yourself some credit, you're the one in command.

[AuxBatOn]

Sunny Side Up : Just to be brief, some aircraft actually require you to be more efficient and know more about flying than other. That's why the aircraft you train on makes a big difference on the skills set one will get after you train. In other words, some aircraft are harder to fly than other. And no, I do not consider a Cessna 150, 152, 172, 182 as hard to fly.

[Shiny Side Up]

How do they require you to know more about flying? With the granted exception of the Sea Fury's top end speed performance and the problems with compressability, how do the principles of flying differ for the Sea Fury and the C-152? I did all my initial training on a Cessna 172 (gasp!) and have never had a problem flying a taildragger. Why apparently does everyone else? The problem isn't that some airplanes are easier than others, the problem lies in the fact that some are more forgiving of mediocre performance - which I might add, is no fault of the airplane itself. Any fool can learn to fly an airplane, but few push themselves to do it well.

When are people going to take responsibility for themselves to fly better?

[Hedley]

inverted spins in a Pitts

A bit off-topic, but inverted spins in a Pitts are
a piece of cake. They're easy as pie to recover
from, because the rudder is in clean air - it is
not blanketed by the horizontal stab and elevator,
as during an upright spin.

I regularly enter and exit inverted spins below
1,000 AGL in the Pitts, because they are so
easy and safe. Another Pitts driver, Gene Beggs,
compares the difficulty of an inverted spin in
a Pitts to a steep turn. Yawn.

[MichaelP]

I note the decline of airmanship of one school after its experienced instructors left.
Now like the other school's aircraft I used to point out to my students; they taxy out with the elevator flopped down, turning with lot's of power driving the propeller low and the nosewheel tyre to the side... Really really bad airmanship...

When I learned to fly I wouldn't be very welcome doing that sort of thing... Unless the tailwind is more than ten knots or so the stick/column should be fully back taking the load off the nose oleo, preserving its serviceability, and adding another inch or two of propeller clearance against the picking up of stones and fod.

It's awful seeing the lazy habits...

It does not matter what you learn in, what does matter is how. Whether you apply the good habits of olde or the lazy bad habits we see every day today.
Treat the Cessna 152 like a 'real' aeroplane, 1930's style, and it will cost less to operate, and the pilots you produce will be adaptable to many other types.

I was taught to treat an aeroplane with care, to land with the stall warner going off, and that the nosewheel should not touch the ground until the CC is fully back...***
*** Yes! this does not apply to flying jet airliners where the nosewheel is lowered to the ground....

I learned in a Cessna 150 and my instructors were ex RAF WWII and soon after types.
They used many of the methods developed from the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, something that was common to Canada in the 1960's before the US 'Hertz' school of flying 'drive 'em fly them' dumbed down schemes simplified training to a poor standard.
The nosewheel was put there to make it easier, but habits should not degrade to the point where things get bent.

We can still do what we do well, and become better and better.

After getting my PPL the first thing I wanted to do was fly a tailwheel aeroplane... It didn't take me long to check out in one, the landing was the same as in the Cessna 150! Just keep it straight.

When are people going to take responsibility for themselves to fly better?

Good question.

[Hedley]

few push themselves to do it well

Bingo. Human beings are by their nature quite lazy,
and only put the absolute minimum amount of effort
into most any activity.

The C172 is an engineering development marvel - it
has almost NO bad habits - and for that reason it has
long been favoured for flight training. But for that
reason, IMHO it is a horrible trainer, because it is so
totally forgiving of mistakes. You can approach a 172
at anything between 50 mph and 100 mph and it's
almost always going to work out ok. You can land
a 172 crabbed in a strong crosswind, and it will gently
straighten itself out

IMHO, nosewheel aircraft should NOT be used for
primary training. A pilot's first 10 hours should
be in a tailwheel aircraft, so that they learn to
control the rudders correctly from the very first
flight. That's the way I teach, anyways, and my
students effortlessly fly the Citabria, Maule, Ryan,
Harvard, Stearman, Pitts, etc, etc.

Couple days ago, I read here about a pilot saying
that he had great difficulty keeping a Citabria
rolling straight after touchdown, and I almost
cried. A Citabria is the most docile of tailwheel
aircraft, and touches down so slowly, it's almost
impossible to groundloop it. But pilots trained
on nosewheel aircraft somehow find a way.

Years ago, I met an airline pilot who confessed
that during his training, he managed to groundloop
a Piper Cherokee. I didn't know that was possible.

Anyways. You guys keep teaching your way, and
I'm going to keep teaching mine. Just like the
aircraft I fly, I'm a museum piece, and I'm ok
with that.

[iflyforpie]

The Cessna 206 will give a nose wheel pilot a surprise if he doesn't keep the CC back after touchdown. It will first snap down to full down elevator, then it will lift the mains right off the ground and wheelbarrow. Add a gusting crosswind and you are in for some trouble if you don't use your ailerons, rudder, and elevators effectively or if you touch down at an angle. You can't use brakes when this happens for obvious reasons. I found smoothly landing a Citabria (not the hardest taildragger I know) a lark compared to the 206.

Flying all comes down to pride in workmanship, whatever you fly. I know that I can plant my 172 at virtually any angle to the runway and get away with it or eat up the first thousand by approaching at a higher speed but still get stopped in the remaining two thousand.

But how many pilots really tolerate their own bad habits or the repercussions thereof? Passengers like a nice smooth landings. AMEs (like me) don't like changing tires, rebuilding struts, and recharging oleos, and servicing shimmy dampers. Pilots don't like backtracking or taxiing forever. And I'm sure even the worst pilot likes the satisfaction of doing textbook landing, even if it is by accident.

A taildragger will tell you what you are doing wrong by biting its ass, a very scary and expensive event. Though tri-gear airplanes aren't as dramatic, all the same signs are there that things aren't quite right.

For me, not every landing is perfect, not by a long shot. But every one is a learning experience.

[iflyforpie]

As an interesting aside, of my fleet (172, 206, 337) I find the 172 the most challenging to fly.

Not because it is complicated, fast, or hard to land but because of its lack of power. I take it up at max gross to 10,000 in the heat of summer and fly amongst the mountains (not over the mountains, between peaks, up valleys, and low ridge crosses). You have to be on the numbers (I adjust them for density and weight), totally coordinated, perfectly leaned out, and reading your wind or it simply will not climb (or clear the obstacles at the end of the runway). And this is not counting any mountain flying methods required, just takeoff and climb. Not hard to do if you follow procedure but mushing through and flying sloppily will not produce results.

[Old Dog Flying]

few push themselves to do it well

Years ago, I met an airline pilot who confessed
that during his training, he managed to groundloop
a Piper Cherokee. I didn't know that was possible.

Anyways. You guys keep teaching your way, and
I'm going to keep teaching mine. Just like the
aircraft I fly, I'm a museum piece, and I'm ok
with that.

After retiring from the military in 1976, I went to work as manager of a large flying club. In the first month in the new job, we had 3 Cherokees "ground looped" with the resulting damage to prop, nose gear and wing tip.

Why??? Not too difficult to figure out> The club's policy was to teach the students to fly without using flaps for landings...on a long runway. After solo they were given 1 hour of dual using the grass runway and now flaps. The solo cross country into airports with 2800" runways was a disaster. The instructors defended their methods and refused to to teach any other way.

Why did the Cherokee ground Loop? Pretty simple: The student, not used to short runways would try using full flap, fail to trim properly...another instructional disaster...and then try to force the aircraft onto the runway. The flying tail design produced plenty of lift added to the untrimmed excess speed and the full flaps in ground effect, resulted in the nose wheel which is dirctely linked to the rudder pedals, being the first to contact the runway, and like an overloaded wheel barrow, the Cherokee would depart the runway dragging a wing, bending the prop and nose gear.

So where does this go to??? Right back to the "good enough" lazy instructors who are doing the job to build hours so that they could get on with the real flying. As MikeP said, a lack of airmanship and poor instructional technique. Given enough time and money we could teach a Chimp to fly but would he be able to make quick, accurate decisions??? I doubt it.

[iflyforpie]

You can teach......MONKEYS to fly better than that!

[Shiny Side Up]

The C172 is an engineering development marvel - it
has almost NO bad habits - and for that reason it has
long been favoured for flight training. But for that
reason, IMHO it is a horrible trainer, because it is so
totally forgiving of mistakes.

If by forgiving you mean it doesn't always kill its pilot, then I guess so. It is a marvel of engineering because it can take such a beating from rookie pilots and remain serviceable, or relatively cheap to return to service.

You can approach a 172
at anything between 50 mph and 100 mph and it's
almost always going to work out ok.

Only if you know what you're doing and only if there's a specific purpose to doing so. BUT this can also be accomplished in a variety of other airplanes if the pilot is very aware of the airplane's limits and how to operate it properly. I've seen just as many pilots end up in the weeds, long or short, not knowing what they're doing in this type of approach.

You can land
a 172 crabbed in a strong crosswind, and it will gently
straighten itself out

Umm, no, last person I seen do this peeled the tires off their rims and bent the firewall. None of it done very gently.

Just because the airplane is relatively forgiving of mistakes, it doesn't mean that the instructor should be, and certainly the student should be aiming higher.

[Shiny Side Up]

The Cessna 206 will give a nose wheel pilot a surprise if he doesn't keep the CC back after touchdown. It will first snap down to full down elevator, then it will lift the mains right off the ground and wheelbarrow.

It tends to do that lightly loaded with a forward CoG - which is usual when a pair of people go out joyriding in it with a half load of fuel. "Why does it do that?" people ask. You're driving a truck I tell em, with no load in the box.

[iflyforpie]

Yeah I usually keep a 50lb survival kit in the back for ballast as much as for survival .

You make a good point about the nose gear of a nosewheel plane. Most are designed only as a support for the nose. They cannot take too many side loads or shock loads. As I recall early Cardinals were particularly hard on nose gear and firewalls due to the lack of visibility over the nose in a proper landing attitude, the lackluster performance of the wing at high angles of attack, and the loss of effectiveness of the stabilator in ground effect (a Twin Commanche weak point as well).

[MichaelP]

he managed to groundloop a Piper Cherokee. I didn't know that was possible.

I saw this happen at Blackbushe one day... I see my position now as ensuring that the standard at this school is higher than the average.

I had somewhat the same responsibility in China when I was an Assistant Chief Flight Instructor there, in charge of Binzhou.

Some instructors had awful awful attitudes... I have to say that the best attitudes and the guys who did the best work were from Canada.
Half the FAA instructors were likewise good, and were willing to learn and to comply, the other half of the FAA lot were bloody awful and really didn't know their stuff.
Then I got a new boss, a Texan who supported the worst instructors against me when I insisted they comply with the SOP's. This undermining of my authority was counter to safety... We had had five propeller strikes when students were desperate to put the DA40 down with the approach speed too high... There was not much option to go around with ATC bawling the students out over the radio and phoning dispatch when they did...
So to avoid the go around, training had to be to a higher standard, but it wasn't... The American belief in adding five knots for this five knots for that added up to a dangerous situation.

As for the 206, I flew one on amphibs, just managed to flatten the thing before touching the water off Fort Langley... A check on the W+B showed we were forward of the forward limit of the CG
I put a 40 litre plastic container of water by the rear cabin bulkhead and all was well with the world again.

What has all the above got to do with the solo?
We have got to do our job properly, it is for the instructors to improve themselves and to do it right.
Many of the fundamental problems come from new ideas that are just plain stupid like teaching flapless landings rather than teaching the ability to make decisions as to what flap setting would suit the current situation... And of course delaying a student's progress by not finding the method that gives that student success and bolsters his/her confidence.
20 degrees in a Cessna makes the whole thing easier and with the confidence boost the student adapts to the flapless easily thereafter.