Different Planes While Training

FlySince9 said:
It was never a "Standard" it was (and is) a Minimum based on a Curriculum.:nono:

Try doing it in Northern NY where the weather changes can be extreme, season to season. I scored 100% on my written (first time out) and it took me 51 hours to get the PPL. Spent many hours local because weather did not cooperate for solo XC time. So was I incompetent?
Click to expand...

It was most definitely 'standard' as in that everyone I trained alongside got their PPL in 40-45hrs.
 
FlySince9 said:
That's not standard... it's coincidental...
Click to expand...

Tell yourself whatever it takes to get you through the day, yep, it's totally ok to take 90 hrs to get your PP, you're every bit as good as someone who did it in 40hrs and there is no reason on Earth you should consider that you better work at it a little harder to make up the slack; nahhh, just forget anything about honest self appraisal, just lie to yourself, it's all good.
 
Okay... So I should have sat on the ground instead of flying locally (when the weather wasn't good enough for solo XC) just so I didn't go over the magic number of 40...

No, I'd rather fly, thank-you

By the way, I said 51 not 90!



P.S. Its okay to talk to yourself, as long as you know who is talking...
 
Last edited:
And yet there is evidence that people who delay getting a driver license are safer...
 
I took 60 hours, 20 of that was solo... You know what though, at least 15 hours of that solo time I wasn't practicing anything (although I guess I had to be gaining experience)... I was bouncing around local fields just excited that I could fly that day...
You did that after you got your license, I did it before... No difference reallly..
 
FlySince9 said:
Okay... So I should have sat on the ground instead of flying locally (when the weather wasn't good enough for solo XC) just so I didn't go over the magic number of 40...

No, I'd rather fly, thank-you

By the way, I said 51 not 90!



P.S. Its okay to talk to yourself, as long as you know who is talking...
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort. I said that since you took 51 hrs you should take note that you required 25% more time (effort) required to make the grade therefore you should recognize it will also rquire you more effort to keep the grade going forward as well. IOW, You're not a 'natural' so you better keep working at this or it will kill you.

A reality check is all I was looking for, but that attitude obviously is not pervasive among internet pilots.
 
Henning said:
A reality check is all I was looking for, but that attitude obviously is not pervasive among internet pilots.
Click to expand...

pot_calls_kettle_black.jpg
 
Henning said:
It was most definitely 'standard' as in that everyone I trained alongside got their PPL in 40-45hrs.
Click to expand...
So, either:

  1. Everyone you trained with was very sharp and learned quickly.
  2. Conditions were good and everyone flew frequently.
  3. You all had really good instructors.
  4. Your DPE had pretty low standards.
  5. 40 hours was the norm when you trained. (How many years ago was that?)
  6. Your memory is selective, and you only remember the pals you had that passed their check ride in 40 hours. The rest faded into the mist.
  7. Some combination of choices 1-6.
It could easily be argued that someone who passed the check ride at 40 hours may just fall short of the training and experience of someone who took 60 hours, and therefore will have to try harder to be a safe pilot that someone who has had the benefit of more dual instruction.

Some of these things are quite likely. Some are considerably less likely. One or two may be just plain ridiculous. Point is, there is nothing to support any of it, nor is there anything to support your original claim. It's your opinion, which you're certainly welcome to, but don't get all crushed when people don't fall over each other agreeing with you.

Looking back over what I just typed, though, I have to admit I'm a little peeved with myself for wasting the time to do so. It's not like you're going to be any less convinced of your own infallibility, and I'm not pointing out anything everyone else doesn't already know. But, what the hell... I banged out three book chapters already this weekend, what's a few more paragraphs? :rolleyes2:
 
Henning, you remind me of my uncle Eddie. An old grumpy Ba$tard who always took the opposite side of any argument, with his ears closed, so as not to be bothered by the facts and to engage in an argument of circular logic that, honestly, I'm tired of having with you. My extra time toward my PPL had nothing to do with being less capable than that of you and your pals. It was a matter of weather, ie; acts of God that caused me to do things outside the curriculum, and therefore extended my logbook total. You, my friend, have a serious personality flaw, IMHO! It's like arguing with a drunk...
 
FlySince9 said:
IMHO! It's like arguing with a drunk...
Click to expand...

or an idiot savant.

An astounding number of variables impact the time to achieve PPL, some of which may be known from the get-go. As a recent HS graduate, I knew my summer job would pay for some flying lessons, but also knew that college FB practice (conditioning) started Aug 1 and that I wouldn't be able to continue flying until the following summer. As to the PPL? It was so far away that there was no reason to even think about it.

Along the way, I found that after completing XC solo, I could fly anywhere I wanted to go (and could afford) with no pax as the only restriction. The CFI who owned and rented the airplanes was a strong believer in getting as much experience as possible, so I did. Or maybe he just liked the rental revenue. The closest examiner was ~200 miles away, so I flew a number of trips for various reasons prior to taking the exam, and probably had logged ~100 hours when it finally happened.

Would I have been a better pilot if I had crammed all the training into a 3-4 month window? No way to know at this point, but after 52+ years and ~13k hours without bending any metal or scaring many people, it seems to have worked out OK so far.
 
So, in relation to the original question at hand, we took the Archer out on a Sunday. I had no problems flying the plane at all and actually had some finesse to my landings. This impressed my instructor since she says most other people simply come in too slow and the plane sinks out of ground effect quickly, slamming into the ground.

Anyway, it didn't eat up any extra time for me to learn the aircraft. I think we spent an extra ten minutes on the ground going over the differences in the way we do the preflight, which things to really check, and messing with the lock because it is flimsy. Otherwise it was an awesome plane to fly. Much more comfortable than the 172, in my opinion; although, it's a bit sluggish on the controls. I got the go ahead to schedule it any time I want!

I think the reason I did so well is that I hit the ground running with the plane, i.e. I studied up on the approach speeds, procedures, emergency procedures, handling characteristics, reviewed the POH, etc. If I just arbitrarily scheduled the plane without any of this prior research, I would have had a harder time learning the plane.

I'm not trying to start a new argument here or anything. I just wanted to revisit my original topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top