IN DEFENSE OF THE 60+ HOUR PRIVATE CERTIFICATE

HAWKXP

HAWKXP

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 17, 2023
Messages
22
Display Name
greg
Some threads on this site worry me. I’m admittedly an old Graybeard pilot, but I have survived 60 some years of flying. I am an Enthusiastic supporter of all forms of aviation. I love talking to people just starting in flying. The community needs enthusiastic support. We need a continuing source of pilots. I see starting pilots really struggle to support their flying habit. Been there, done that. Admittedly C150’s probably rented for $12 hr wet but I made $1.75 per hour at the time. About the same thing.

I have mentioned how it scares me to share the sky with amateurs. I’m not talking about the professional vs nonprofessional pilots. I’m talking about people in my airspace who do not have any business there.

I have read several threads about how to obtain certificates as cheap as possible. Not how do I become a proficient and safe pilot, it's HOW CHEAP CAN I GET THE PAPER. The money issues seem to outweigh common sense.

I survived with some good instruction, good luck and a lot of common sense. Did I do some stupid things, sure but I’ve always had a lot of respect for how fast aviation can go south. The people looking for cheap certificates do not seem really aware of how dangerous flying can be to themselves and others.

Forty hours is in no way enough to create a competent pilot. Wishful thinking, before carrying passengers every pilot would receive some real instrument time, upset training and glider solo time. There are lots of other “advanced” training areas beyond these. Obviously, all of this can not be done in 40 hours. More expensive, YES; Safer, YES. Keep the incompetent away from other flyers.

Attached is just one story out of the 60 years. A long read but interesting.

FLAME AWAY (but read first) :stirpot:





Springtime trip about 20 years ago; BJC-VEL-FMN-TUS-RTN. Work/golf trip. Nice VFR. Work completed late Friday afternoon at VEL, Departed for FMN. I pulled up ATIS about 25 -30 out and switched to listen to tower.

First thing I hear is “Cessna XXX, where is the airport” TWR “what”. Cessna XXX “I’m over your city I cannot find the airport”. TWR “airport is on a mesa NW of city”. Cessna XXX ”no its not”. TWR, sounding frustrated: “standby”. At this point obviously tower called center to find them on radar. Farmington did not have radar at that time. TWR to Cessna XXX “can you squawk AAAA?”. Cessna XXX “ok”. About 2 minutes dead air.

TWR “Cessna XXX, you are over Aztec, about 8 miles away, can you fly 240”. Cessna XXX “ok”. About 5 min dead air in which I made my initial call, TWR to me “call right base 25”. Cessna XXX “over another city, where is airport”. TWR “airport is on a mesa NW of city, cleared to land runway 23, call ball”. Cessna XXX “what, what, what?” TWR “disregard but you are lined up for the wrong runway, cleared to land any runway”. Tower controller seems to be in a good mood on a light traffic early evening. He had just saved a lost pilot.

I entered base and called “Right base, ball, Cessna, 100 pounds”. Tower keyed mike and (laughing) to me ”cleared to land”. TWR to Cessna XXX , “Cessna XXX taxi parking and that’s on your left” Anyone familiar with FMN knows that parking is should have been VERY obvious to Cessna XXX. I landed and after receiving “taxi parking” I responded with “two wire fair”. TWR (laughing) “been there done that”.

Parked next to a C172 with two 20’ ish young men, a 50’ ish man and a small dog crawling out. The sun was just setting. I went inside to arrange fuel for the next morning. I am RON’ing; no real future in FMN-TUS night single engine. Plus: golf course in Farmington I’ve always wanted to play. Went back to plane for bags and found all 3 out of Cessna XXX under wing using flashlight (sun is down by now) over as sectional.

As I walked by, I overheard the word “Mesquite”. Stopping I inquired about their destination. “Mesquite”. I asked young pilot “where are you from”. Answer “APA” (Denver area). After just hearing tower/center pull their fat out of the fire, I had to intervene. I said “do not descend into Mesquite until you see the runway lights, there is a big mountain just east”. Young man pilot on ground with flashlight looked up at me for the first time “A mountain????”. Oh boy! The stupid little dog bit my heel.

Here was a guy that had done enough to pass his private cross country and met the required night flying requirement but was set to kill three people. I was lost as to what to do. Finally saying to him “I have been flying this area for over 25 years and have done this trip hundreds of times. I can file IFR but would not make that trip at night unless it was a real emergency”. That was just lost on him. The same guy that couldn’t find Farmington in the day was going to launch over one of the most desolate areas of the US at night. When it was obvious that he believed himself a Chuck Yeager/ Bob Hoover type of pilot because the FAA had approved him, He was bound and determined to proceed. Oh boy!!

I played my last card, I said to the older man (father?), “You are going to be flying over the Grand Canyon at night”. All three looked up from the sectional on the ground and said “really, the Grand Canyon?”. Oh boy!!! I had done my best so I left. Passed them all in the lobby of the hotel later. Felt good about probably saving some lives. Probably wouldn’t have felt bad about that dog. Aircraft was gone next morning by the time I departed. Hope he stayed alive long enough (and did not take anyone with him) to become a competent pilot.
 
I think most of us have more than one story of crossing paths in the air or the FBO with some credentialed pilot who seemed intent on becoming an NTSB report. I'm not sure it's related to the time-from-certificate.

As with many things these days; the Great Funnel and Canon of News makes sure we see each and every last story of airborne stupidity.
 
Thanks for sharing. I’ve got some thoughts about young age, stupidity, and luck when I was young vs young age and stupidity today. Is the only thing different me and my perspective? Or have we gotten more risk-averse and wiser as the elder generation? I don’t really know.
 
Is moving from 40 to 60 hours going to take wannabe pilots from zero to hero? How many even get minted right at 40? Assuming a good number of folks get their sign off right at 40, which I'm pretty sure is not the case, are they a smoking hole waiting to happen for an additional 20 hours and then good to go?

How many of us who have logged hundreds or thousands of hours look back and think, "yeah man, I was pretty rough at 50 hours, but I had it down real good by 60."

Conversely, how many of us know pilots with hundreds or thousands of hours with whom we would not let our families fly? With regard to those pilots, is it their age? Attitude? Perceived competency? Difference in risk tolerance profiles?

It is one thing for a pilot to say, "Yep, I'm going to launch single pilot IFR at night over mountains in actual IMC in an ASEL. I understand I am not invincible and my risk of death is elevated somewhat compared to if I flew it day VFR in CAVU conditions. I trust my well-maintained and well-equipped airplane, I fly hard IMC all the time with 30 approaches to mins in the last month, I intend to fly high enough to achieve a 30-mile glide range to afford some options in an emergency, and I find the risk profile of the mission acceptable." The hapless travelers from the OP's story are something else entirely, and I don't think going from 40 to 60 hours is going to hone that level of ADM.
 
I haven’t been flying nearly as long as you but, as both pilot and instructor, I have never seen a connection between pilot judgment and the number of hours or dollar amount of training.

But on the hypothesis that you are correct, what is your syllabus for the next 20 hours that will teach the judgement you see lacking in the current training regimen?
 
Empty hours are not a solution to an under developed skill-set. Successfully completed tasks are.

Before I soloed, I had a clear path charted out to a Commercial. It didn't all go to plan, for a lot of reasons. But I gained more experience waiting for my birthday and the ability to solo the 2-33. Then even more experience counting off those 730 days 'till I could take the practical . . . then another 365 for an Airplane practical . . . then another for the Commercial.

It wasn't some arbitrary number of hours. It was lots of repetition completing tasks and finding new ones that built on experience while introducing new challenges.
 
HAWKXP said:
I have read several threads about how to obtain certificates as cheap as possible. Not how do I become a proficient and safe pilot, it's HOW CHEAP CAN I GET THE PAPER.
Click to expand...
I suspect there is more of this in recent years due to the post-COVID "gold rush" into aviation, in which a whole raft of people suddenly saw an opportunity to get a fairly cushy, well-paying job as an airline pilot watching an autopilot and were being told it would be theirs as long as they could fog a mirror and pony up the entrance fee. If you're coming into aviation from that perspective rather than from the perspective of a life-long love, then it's easy to see that "how much and how quickly" makes sense to them. It's just a different group from the folks who looked ahead, saw the wildly underpaid grind for thousands of light GA hours ahead of them, and said "it's worth it".

I suppose it comes down to whether you view aviation as a means to an end or whether it satisfies something more fundamental as a life-long vocation/avocation. The latter group will always be chasing the better landing, the new experience, the honed skill, and the teachable moment. These are the folks who look up at every aircraft, no matter how humble. The former group perhaps won't have time for that, and will seek the fastest, cheapest, and easiest path to their desired endpoint.

Others here have pointed out that total hours necessarily have any bearing on quality of pilot. I agree with that. Somewhat akin to the question of whether you've flown 200 hours or the same hour 200 times, I believe that the quality of the time bears out on the quality of the pilot. That said, I do agree that (especially for ADM), there's an element of seasoning that comes with time and experience which cannot be replicated any other way.
 
While I agree that 40 is hardly enough for a private certificate. What was going to change in the next 20-40 hours? Probably not much that was going to change this story. The bigger problem is that it seems the pilot had a poor grasp on how much he didn't know. I am a firm believer that cfi's owe it to their students to put them in positions that they find out how much the don't know.

Case in point when I was finishing up my IR checkride prep I did a stage check with a different cfi. Up to that time I only had simulated time. This other cfi took me into actual, on a flight that I was ill prepared to handle. It turned out to be a humbling experience for me, but it quite likely has kept me from killing myself after I got my rating.
 
People are lazy. That's just a fact. The only way to ensure better quality is to increase the difficulty, or skill level required to pass, and I don't see that in the cards. The FAA is never going to require commercial pilots to have a tailwheel endorsement and a glider rating to fly an airliner, even if that guaranteed a 50% drop in accidents.

Also, if we're going to talk about the 40 hour requirement - all that is is an absolute minimum standard and I've seen some combinations of good instructors and good students who were able to get done in the minimums who were better pilots than good students and mediocre instructors who couldn't finish in 80 hours. If you really want to affect change, you need to address instructor quality across the board.
 
Hours aren't the thing. Knowledge, ability, and training pace are. A student who has been immersed in aviation for decades (reading, models, etc), has some background in how mechanical things (e.g. engines) work, has good motor skills, and good reading comprehension may be ready to be a PPSEL in 40 hours if s/he trains at an adequate pace (say 3 lessons/wk or more).

Take away any of those things and it'll take longer.
 
I'd love to see hawkxp try to make that case to my first instructor. She would chew him up and spit him out.

anyway, seems the error is focusing on hours rather than ability. How many hours does it take to solo? some students get it right away, I know a couple of student that took way more than 30 hours for it to click.
 
People are gonna do dumb **** regardless of the amount of hours or how good their training is.

Not long ago a newly married airline pilot flew into cumulogranite in a bonanza unable to out climb the terrain.
 
I can match your clueless young pilot story with clueless old pilot stories. Like the one that took 6 transmissions just to get flight following because he couldn't answer more than one thing at a time. Probably should require anyone to stop flying as soon as they are eligible to access retirement accounts without penalties if you want to play that game.

But what do I know, I'm just a 40 hour loser who has flown to 48 states privately without incident over a couple decades.
 
The premise of the post is that PPL's are given to people who get 40 hours.

I believe your premise is faulty. Forty hours is necessary but not sufficient. A person get's to take a PPL check ride with at least 40 hours AND when the instructor signs off. And no one gets a PPL unless they then pass the check ride. In the real world, the average hours for getting a PPL check ride is around 60 - 70. Some need more, some less.

Thus, your recommendation of 60 hours before a PPL check ride and the PPL paper more or less exists already. Any lack of proficiency you think exits with todays pilots would not be effected by a 60 hour min.

In addition, GA accident rates have been going down. Thus, you could further argue that whatever it is we're doing these days is better training than 50 years ago.
 
Last edited:
There is more to it than hours. If you fly a forgiving 6-pack aircraft in training, 40 hours is pretty simple. I did mine in 41 hours. Would have been 40, but I had to add on a night flight. I never thought of my cert as a license to fly into the blue yonder with a plane full of people, weather be damned. But a license to build experience, doing what I was trained to do, which at that time was fly a simple VFR aircraft on good VMC days, to well briefed airports. Not sure how burning patterns and maneuvers with a CFI for 20-30 more hours makes a big difference. I certainly learn faster when I know that there is nobody to bail me out from a screw up.

Now flying some of these less forgiving higher performance glass cockpit aircraft, going to take longer. And I am not a fan. I think you should learn to fly stick and rudder, before you learn how to use the autopilot, yaw damper, GPS direct, program a flight plan, and learn all the systems and emergencies that can happen in a complex high performance aircraft.

I quickly rolled into my IFR training, which definitely upped my game and made me a better pilot. Did that pretty close to the minimum hours as well. Then on to commercial, when I hit minimum hours. Every step of the way, I just looked at the licenses and certificates as a license to learn. Even through my ATP, still learning.
 
HAWKXP said:
Some threads on this site worry me. I’m admittedly an old Graybeard pilot, but I have survived 60 some years of flying. I am an Enthusiastic supporter of all forms of aviation. I love talking to people just starting in flying. The community needs enthusiastic support. We need a continuing source of pilots. I see starting pilots really struggle to support their flying habit. Been there, done that. Admittedly C150’s probably rented for $12 hr wet but I made $1.75 per hour at the time. About the same thing.

I have mentioned how it scares me to share the sky with amateurs. I’m not talking about the professional vs nonprofessional pilots. I’m talking about people in my airspace who do not have any business there.

I have read several threads about how to obtain certificates as cheap as possible. Not how do I become a proficient and safe pilot, it's HOW CHEAP CAN I GET THE PAPER. The money issues seem to outweigh common sense.

I survived with some good instruction, good luck and a lot of common sense. Did I do some stupid things, sure but I’ve always had a lot of respect for how fast aviation can go south. The people looking for cheap certificates do not seem really aware of how dangerous flying can be to themselves and others.

Forty hours is in no way enough to create a competent pilot. Wishful thinking, before carrying passengers every pilot would receive some real instrument time, upset training and glider solo time. There are lots of other “advanced” training areas beyond these. Obviously, all of this can not be done in 40 hours. More expensive, YES; Safer, YES. Keep the incompetent away from other flyers.

Attached is just one story out of the 60 years. A long read but interesting.

FLAME AWAY (but read first) :stirpot:





Springtime trip about 20 years ago; BJC-VEL-FMN-TUS-RTN. Work/golf trip. Nice VFR. Work completed late Friday afternoon at VEL, Departed for FMN. I pulled up ATIS about 25 -30 out and switched to listen to tower.

First thing I hear is “Cessna XXX, where is the airport” TWR “what”. Cessna XXX “I’m over your city I cannot find the airport”. TWR “airport is on a mesa NW of city”. Cessna XXX ”no its not”. TWR, sounding frustrated: “standby”. At this point obviously tower called center to find them on radar. Farmington did not have radar at that time. TWR to Cessna XXX “can you squawk AAAA?”. Cessna XXX “ok”. About 2 minutes dead air.

TWR “Cessna XXX, you are over Aztec, about 8 miles away, can you fly 240”. Cessna XXX “ok”. About 5 min dead air in which I made my initial call, TWR to me “call right base 25”. Cessna XXX “over another city, where is airport”. TWR “airport is on a mesa NW of city, cleared to land runway 23, call ball”. Cessna XXX “what, what, what?” TWR “disregard but you are lined up for the wrong runway, cleared to land any runway”. Tower controller seems to be in a good mood on a light traffic early evening. He had just saved a lost pilot.

I entered base and called “Right base, ball, Cessna, 100 pounds”. Tower keyed mike and (laughing) to me ”cleared to land”. TWR to Cessna XXX , “Cessna XXX taxi parking and that’s on your left” Anyone familiar with FMN knows that parking is should have been VERY obvious to Cessna XXX. I landed and after receiving “taxi parking” I responded with “two wire fair”. TWR (laughing) “been there done that”.

Parked next to a C172 with two 20’ ish young men, a 50’ ish man and a small dog crawling out. The sun was just setting. I went inside to arrange fuel for the next morning. I am RON’ing; no real future in FMN-TUS night single engine. Plus: golf course in Farmington I’ve always wanted to play. Went back to plane for bags and found all 3 out of Cessna XXX under wing using flashlight (sun is down by now) over as sectional.

As I walked by, I overheard the word “Mesquite”. Stopping I inquired about their destination. “Mesquite”. I asked young pilot “where are you from”. Answer “APA” (Denver area). After just hearing tower/center pull their fat out of the fire, I had to intervene. I said “do not descend into Mesquite until you see the runway lights, there is a big mountain just east”. Young man pilot on ground with flashlight looked up at me for the first time “A mountain????”. Oh boy! The stupid little dog bit my heel.

Here was a guy that had done enough to pass his private cross country and met the required night flying requirement but was set to kill three people. I was lost as to what to do. Finally saying to him “I have been flying this area for over 25 years and have done this trip hundreds of times. I can file IFR but would not make that trip at night unless it was a real emergency”. That was just lost on him. The same guy that couldn’t find Farmington in the day was going to launch over one of the most desolate areas of the US at night. When it was obvious that he believed himself a Chuck Yeager/ Bob Hoover type of pilot because the FAA had approved him, He was bound and determined to proceed. Oh boy!!

I played my last card, I said to the older man (father?), “You are going to be flying over the Grand Canyon at night”. All three looked up from the sectional on the ground and said “really, the Grand Canyon?”. Oh boy!!! I had done my best so I left. Passed them all in the lobby of the hotel later. Felt good about probably saving some lives. Probably wouldn’t have felt bad about that dog. Aircraft was gone next morning by the time I departed. Hope he stayed alive long enough (and did not take anyone with him) to become a competent pilot.
Click to expand...
Its the CFI's..,

I'm in a family of 9 pilots, currently minting 2 more pilots who are currently students in their 40's (late starters). The 40 hours is contingent on proficiency demonstration, this is a lame argument using "shock jock" stories, which we all have.

Simply stated-ground school done for both-tests taken. The caught in CFI haydes. They run the gamut from fixations on whip stalls (unwittingly), to overnight homework calculating formulae by hand for DA, to iPads blocking their view suctioned right on the windscreen, and more, way more.
 
HAWKXP said:
I have read several threads about how to obtain certificates as cheap as possible. Not how do I become a proficient and safe pilot, it's HOW CHEAP CAN I GET THE PAPER. The money issues seem to outweigh common sense.
Click to expand...
There are some things that make no sense to me. Like, "I took up flying because I want to fly. - But I want to fly the fewest hours possible to get my license." Or "I like to fly. - But I want a fast expensive airplane, so I don't have to fly as long."
 
The story is too common, but you can add any number of hours for the pilot and it's the same story. Some people just shouldn't be pilots; arbitrarily adding 20 more hours of training is not going to change that. The quality of basic instruction has gone down a lot in my 30 years of flying. There are far less old experienced CFI's that do it for the love of aviation and far too many 200-hr wonders that are doing it to pass the time till something better comes along. I got my license at 43 hours - (I was a slacker for those extra 3!) I had two amazing CFIs that had been flying longer than I had been breathing and they taught me how to fly - not just how to pass the checkride. It was a great start on a long journey of learning.
 
Wasn't done. Flight instructions just that, flight, not "magneto theory" and how to build a watch mixed in. It's the same recipe:

Couple hours of maneuvers/stalls

A week in the pattern

Cross countries with nav and comm focus

Night familiarity

20 solo hours to refine

Instead its a syllabus for a pHd that is unnecessarily complex and as technology changes increasingly irrelevant.

Higher hours for CFI's, and a teaching credential or screening of some sort is what's required, not more student hours! CFI's are mainly bilking hours to get enough for an ATP at the students expense. Goals are at odds. The problems greedy flight schools staffed with incompetent CFI's. Just becuase you can fly it doesnt mean you can teach.

Requirements as is could be streamlined if you solve the problem (CFI's), not the symptom, which is students wanting some cost certainty.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The FAA is never going to require commercial pilots to have a tailwheel endorsement and a glider rating certificate to fly an airliner, even if that guaranteed a 50% drop in accidents.
Click to expand...
That would be a good start :)
 
RyanShort1 said:
The FAA is never going to require commercial pilots to have a tailwheel endorsement and a glider rating
Click to expand...
Even if it was required, I doubt there would be much effect. I’ve known plenty of professional pilots with one or both of those qualifications that didn’t seem to help.

Like any training/testing requirement, people who want to will find a way to meet it without learning.
 
Last edited:
It’s not so much that students require 60+ hours to be competent private pilots. It’s things like too much time between lessons, poor study habits, training at busy towered airports, and training in glass panel aircraft. Playing catch-up for the first 15 minutes of every lesson, not being prepared and understanding what they’re doing that day because the student didn’t crack a book, didn’t take notes during ground, or didn’t review his notes, constantly being in line behind six other trainers, and learning an array of switches, knobs and menus instead of a single navcom and steam gauges adds up.
 
WDD said:
What data do you have that leads you to that comment?
Click to expand...
Very hard to collect data on something subjective so I'll amend my statement to be "In my experience the level of instruction has decreased." Data on accident rates is nice, but we all know pilots that haven't had an accident (or at least a reported one) that we wouldn't fly with; keeping that in mind, what data do you have that refutes my comment? (just playing devil's advocate here)

However, from conversations I've had with CFIs, interactions at airports, flying with some students and recent PPL recipients and just being a pilot in the system I can't imagine that the basic instruction has gotten better - in the way that we are talking here. The start of the thread was talking about judgement, airmanship and situation awareness (basically, right?). I haven't been impressed with any of that from most of the CFIs and recent PPL recipients I've flown with. (most, not all) I do know that the schools around here are instituting things like "CRM talking points" and "Stabilized approach criteria" very early on in their programs; those were completely foreign terms when I learned to fly (and it didn't hurt anything). IMO, those types of additions are getting in the way of stick and rudder flying. They talk a lot about talking on the radio, very little about listening to what other pilots are saying on the radio. A lot of emphasis on being over XX point in the pattern before turning or being at XX feet but nothing on what else is going on in the pattern, how to avoid conflict, etc.

The emphasis seems to have switched from being able to safely operate in the system to "we think the airlines do this, so we are going to do it from day one".
 
Most commonly, a 60-hour or 80-hour or whatever check ride applicant is no better a pilot than a 40-hour applicant. Those 20 or 40 or whatever extra hours aren't spent getting more and varied experience, they're spent in the traffic pattern working on landings, or in the practice area doing steep turns. Or relearning due to not flying often enough. So the premise of the OP's post isn't valid.

Yes, sometimes the applicant flies additional time for additional experience. Like the student I had who, instead of a minimum-distance training XC, asked me if we could go see his cousin, which was more than twice the distance requirement. Good experience.

But that's pretty rare, especially with rentals. I work a lot with owners, and they are almost always more willing to fly extra.

I did have one student who did it in 41 hours. He was amazing. He never did the same thing wrong twice - I'd tell him what he did wrong, and he would fix it on the next maneuver, never to repeat it.
 
EvilEagle said:
…However, from conversations I've had with CFIs, interactions at airports, flying with some students and recent PPL recipients and just being a pilot in the system I can't imagine that the basic instruction has gotten better - in the way that we are talking here. The start of the thread was talking about judgement, airmanship and situation awareness (basically, right?). I haven't been impressed with any of that from most of the CFIs and recent PPL recipients I've flown with. ….
Click to expand...
One of the things I’ve always compared is how AF flying training approaches, well, primary training. From structure, academics, brief, execute, gradesheet, debrief, expectations, all of it is deliberate and can be applied to Part 61 or 141 programs, but I haven’t really seen that happen to the degree it could, and there’s valid reasons for that.

I guess in my mind, it’s the entirety of the learning journey that’s just orders or magnitude different that produces an overall more well-rounded aviator than the average Part 61/141 Commercial Pilot certificate holder.
 
WDD said:
What data do you have that leads you to that comment?
Click to expand...

The things I see and hear from 22 YO flight instructors are sobering. They are kids with no real experience. They have never flown a cross country VFR in ****ty weather. They have never used an airplane for its intended purpose - taking people and stuff somewhere, maybe at the limits of the W/B envelope. They have flown canned training programs in and around their local area and are repeating the watered down version to their students. They have little knowledge about the realities of flying. The only thing they are trying to do is get enough hours to qualify for a job with a regional, so they churn students.

Like Evil Eagle, I earned my license with 43 hours. The gentleman who did 90% of my instruction landed on the beach in Normandy and drove a tank to the Rhine. After the war, he used the GI bill to gain his license then flew professionally and instructed for the next 50 years. He wasn't looking to rack up 1000 or 1500 hours to get the next gig like almost all of the current instructors. He was out to teach pilots. Most every evening he could be found in the shopworn FBO with a circle pilots around him sharing stories. He'd seen everything and he'd taught enough students to adapt to different learning styles. He was an aviator. That type instructor is few and far between today.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Is the only thing different me and my perspective?
Click to expand...

Yes. Us old guys have been harrumphing about "kids these days" since the dawn of time.

35 years ago when I got my PPL, 40 hours was expected. Anecdotally, 60+ seems like the norm now. Apparently there were more barely competent pilots back when I was a barely competent pilot.

Old guys also like to forget performance is a bell shaped curve. As you get older, eventually reduced physical and cognitive capability cancels out increased experience.

Last month I flew in a gaggle that included an older fellow in a Stearman. Thousands of hours of experience, including gunships in Vietnam. Every time we fly together, he has a mishap. Ground loops it, runs off the runway, taxis over a light or cone, etc. Every time.

Who is safer, him or a kid in his 20's with 60 hours who studies and learns from every flight? Who will be safer a year from now?
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
And no one gets a PPL unless they then pass the check ride. In the real world, the average hours for getting a PPL check ride is around 60 - 70. Some need more, some less.

Thus, your recommendation of 60 hours before a PPL check ride and the PPL paper more or less exists already
Click to expand...
I was waiting for someone to point this out. According to Sporty's Flight Training Central site, the current average is 76 hours.

Parenthetically, an interesting part of their stats is that, despite lower time requirements, the Part 141 average (78 hours) is higher than the Part 61 average (72 hours).
 
kyleb said:
The things I see and hear from 22 YO flight instructors are sobering. They are kids with no real experience. They have never flown a cross country VFR in ****ty weather. They have never used an airplane for its intended purpose - taking people and stuff somewhere, maybe at the limits of the W/B envelope. They have flown canned training programs in and around their local area and are repeating the watered down version to their students. They have little knowledge about the realities of flying. The only thing they are trying to do is get enough hours to qualify for a job with a regional, so they churn students.
Click to expand...
I have worked with young, time building instructors as long as I have been flying. Even my primary instructor was in his early 20s budling time for his ultimate career goal. That was 35 years ago, so tis is nothing new. Same for my instrument training 33 years ago. I may have some kind of record on getting checked out in various parts of the country and, by far, most of those CFIs were in that age range. Ultimately I became an instructor myself and have dealt with those 22 years olds as colleagues. Still do.

We all have horror stories, but my experience is that by a very wide margin, the "time builders" have been dedicated to serving their students and do a fine job. Do they have real world experience? No. But while the grizzled CFI who landed on the beach in Normandy definitely has better stories to tell, I'm not quite sure how that is supposed to translate to the skill set needed to obtain a license to learn. Actually, I've see more problems with super-experienced pilots who become CFIs later - many have completely forgotten what it was like to struggle with maneuvers and have little idea how to help. That youngster remembers and puts it into practice.

That said, clearly experience as a CFI matters. The experienced CFI has seen all the common errors and some not-so commons ones, and has developed strategies to deal with them that a newbie hasn't. But that's not age related either. But beyond that? I think is was Rod Machado who years ago said that the wet-behind-the-ears 22 year old CFI has already passed at least 4 checkrides. If they can only teach you to fly as well as they do, you are way ahead of the game. I've always agreed with that sentiment.
 
The responses to my tread are just about what I expected. A lot of the responses fixate on the “60+” HOUR aspect. I believe that you are missing the point, we need competent pilots not just people that have reached an arbitrary minimum hour mark and passed a minimum checkride. (Oh boy, but a different thread). The 60+ remark was that it gives more time to develop a pilots attitude. It gives more time for their CFI to weed out the unsafe. (The 250 hr CFI, Oh boy, but a different thread). More time training gives more time to realize how real and complex flying is.

All of you have probably had the feeling at XXX hours, boy am I better than I was at XX hours. That feeling never goes away. You will say at XX,XXX hours, boy I’m better than I was at X,XXX hours. If you don’t feel that way you are becoming complacent not competent. Time to get out.

Please do not fixate on the hours, please fixate on the SAFE and COMPENT.

To the poster that says “their CFI would eat me up”. I’m glad you have faith in your instructor. I will talk aviation with anyone anytime, whether they share my views or not.
 
HAWKXP said:
… I believe that you are missing the point, we need competent pilots…
Click to expand...

Define safe and competent. The ACS for each certificate attempts to do just that. What suggestions do you have to improve the ACS?

Or are you suggesting the FR frequency be reduced and a ‘graduated’ expansion of privileges be granted so that until a pilot is certificated at the Commercial level they aren’t authorized to carry passengers?

By some definition, failing to crash an airplane could be an indicator of safe and competent enough for the operation attempted.
 
Last edited:
Having more hours in your logbook or being older are NOT guarantees of being a better, more considerate, or accurate pilot. I stopped flying on weekends because of the number of unfocused pilots getting their once a month fix on a clear Saturday or Sunday morning. I've heard pilots call downwind for runway 27 when they were actually turning downwind for runway 9 in a busy pattern. The voice on the radio sounded old and gravelly, not young and giddy. I've seen pilots fly patterns to the right runway, but in the wrong direction - again with the pattern full of compliant aircraft. I've heard pilots call entering the pattern properly, but at the wrong airport (the only way I knew was that the 2 airports used the same frequency). Increasing the hours required to get a license, or mandating other regulatory changes won't fix stupid. The only hope is for the pilots that are paying close attention to what they are doing and flying enough hours to remain competent is to fly very defensively and avoid the busiest times in the air. Keep your heads on a swivel out there - or fly in solid IFR and let Center be your head swivel...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top