IN DEFENSE OF THE 60+ HOUR PRIVATE CERTIFICATE

[morleyz]

Are those your suggestions?

No

Yes, the standards need to be set somewhere. My question is should a pilot reasonably be expected to continue to meet those standards without supervision after the checkrides?

A pilot should be held to whatever standard is defined, which is currently a flight review every 24 months. I believe the data shows that this is currently sufficient regardless of the feelings of a more experienced pilot.

You can read a few stories about older pilots who can't follow instructions or get lost taxiing to parking and you might immediately come to a conclusion that we should have an age limit on pilots because those incidents are scary for those of us who don't have problems talking on the radio or knowing where we are. However, the data shows that there is decline as we age, but there isn't a age where it all happens. My presumption is that if they're are also meeting the defined standards, they should be able to fly without any restrictions despite my being scared from those stories.

 

[billsgs126]

Since it seems to be generally accepted that one should peak on the checkride, how do you feel about a pilot who doesn’t meet all the standards the day/week/month/year/whatever after the checkride?

Perhaps, because to me each was just another flight, I don't think that I peaked at any of my checkrides.

 

[billsgs126]

IMO PPL training could actually be made shorter and cheaper than it used to be.

In olden days, XC training was mostly focused on navigation. GPS did not exist. We burned 10-15 hours of flight time practicing the use of paper charts, nav logs, and VOR radials. While some nav training is still necessary, that much is excessive.

My first >100 hours of cross country flight preceded touching a throttle. Every minute was with a kneepad holding paper logs and maps.

 

[billsgs126]

. . . . I think arbitrarily adding the hours would just mean more laps around the pattern.

It's hard to spend an hour shooting touch-and-goes in a glider.

 

[MauleSkinner]

No

A pilot should be held to whatever standard is defined, which is currently a flight review every 24 months. I believe the data shows that this is currently sufficient regardless of the feelings of a more experienced pilot.

You can read a few stories about older pilots who can't follow instructions or get lost taxiing to parking and you might immediately come to a conclusion that we should have an age limit on pilots because those incidents are scary for those of us who don't have problems talking on the radio or knowing where we are. However, the data shows that there is decline as we age, but there isn't an age where it all happens. My presumption is that if they're are also meeting the defined standards, they should be able to fly without any restrictions despite my being scared from those stories.

So the only defined standard is to fly with an instructor every 24 months, and the ACS is irrelevant in between?

 

[MIFlyer]

It's hard to spend an hour shooting touch-and-goes in a glider.

so are you proposing some number of glider hours required for an ASEL PPL?

 

[billsgs126]

so are you proposing some number of glider hours required for an ASEL PPL?

A student can solo a glider at 14, and obtain a Private Certificate at 16. While I don't feel qualified to say it is "the" way (as in "required"), it is certainly "an excellent" way to obtain useful training in task management, energy management, stick and rudder skills, airport procedures, navigation, precision landings, as well as predicting and understanding weather and aerodynamics. Since all of the gliders that I have personally seen tend to be limited to comms and a few round gauges (ASI, alt, compass, maybe a TBI, and a couple variometers) they also prioritize basic instrument skills (substance over flash).

All at roughly 1/3 of the cost of powered flight. If you obtain a Private-G, every hour spent counts towards future certificates and ratings.

So, obviously, I think it's a great idea.

 

[morleyz]

So the only defined standard is to fly with an instructor every 24 months, and the ACS is irrelevant in between?

It appears that is the opinion of the FAA, so yes, that is the standard. Drivers don't have to retest and they certainly kill more people than pilots do. Surgeons don't have to redo their residency or medical school. Lawyers don't have to redo the bar exam. They all have continuing education requirements and it would seem that the PPL is about the only one that does require a 3rd party to at least review your proficiency. Where do you draw the line?

All things that earn you a license or degree or certificate or whatever come with a set of requirements you have to meet in order to earn that designation and the governing body sets what their data indicates are the appropriate standards and the appropriate review. If the data showed that 60 hours of training improved PPL proficiency and caused less crashes, the FAA would make the change. Heck, if insurance though those extra 20 hours would make a difference, they would just say you're uninsurable as a PPL with less than 60 hours. It's the insurance industry that has taken action against certain risky pilots (twin pistons, over 80) and I'm certain that their data supports those decision.

 

[kyleb]

IMO PPL training could actually be made shorter and cheaper than it used to be.

In olden days, XC training was mostly focused on navigation. GPS did not exist. We burned 10-15 hours of flight time practicing the use of paper charts, nav logs, and VOR radials. While some nav training is still necessary, that much is excessive.

We could spend that "nav time" on fuel management and planning around and/or flying around weather. While I wasn't shy about launching on a long X/C with 100 hours under my belt, I certainly would have benefitted from more real-world MVFR training. I realize that's hard to to in Arizona, but here it is a necessary skill if you're gonna use the airplane between May and October.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It appears that is the opinion of the FAA, so yes, that is the standard. Drivers don't have to retest and they certainly kill more people than pilots do. Surgeons don't have to redo their residency or medical school. Lawyers don't have to redo the bar exam. They all have continuing education requirements and it would seem that the PPL is about the only one that does require a 3rd party to at least review your proficiency. Where do you draw the line?

All things that earn you a license or degree or certificate or whatever come with a set of requirements you have to meet in order to earn that designation and the governing body sets what their data indicates are the appropriate standards and the appropriate review. If the data showed that 60 hours of training improved PPL proficiency and caused less crashes, the FAA would make the change. Heck, if insurance though those extra 20 hours would make a difference, they would just say you're uninsurable as a PPL with less than 60 hours. It's the insurance industry that has taken action against certain risky pilots (twin pistons, over 80) and I'm certain that their data supports those decision.

We’re obviously talking past each other, so never mind.

 

[Flatiowa]

Meanwhile ww2 pilots were sololing after 8 to 10 hours. Its the training and the individual, not the hours exclusively.

I think the draft and huge number of washouts is not being taken into account. If the average instructor had the option of starting with 100 students, setting extremely high low time goal points to meet, and dismissing the students that didn’t make the cut and having 1, 2 , or maybe zero students make it to solo in the 10 hour time frame it would be a more accurate comparison.

 

[RussR]

It appears that is the opinion of the FAA, so yes, that is the standard. Drivers don't have to retest

There is no requirement to meet ACS standards during a flight review. A flight review is also not a test like the check ride is.

A FR is pretty much open to whatever the CFI feels is appropriate. Most will consist of some of the maneuvers for the appropriate level of certificate, but it's not required.

Added to that, a flight review in anything you're rated for counts for everything. Have a hot air balloon rating and a multiengine rating? Doing your FR in the balloon makes you good to fly that Cessna 421, and vice versa.

 

[RyanB]

There is no requirement to meet ACS standards during a flight review. A flight review is also not a test like the check ride is.

Correct, but it's pretty foolish to sign someone off if they can't meet the basic standard set forth by the FAA for the certificate level they hold. My FR's basically follow the ACS like a check ride. Can't perform the maneuvers? Let's work on them until you can meet the standard.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I think the draft and huge number of washouts is not being taken into account. If the average instructor had the option of starting with 100 students, setting extremely high low time goal points to meet, and dismissing the students that didn’t make the cut and having 1, 2 , or maybe zero students make it to solo in the 10 hour time frame it would be a more accurate comparison.

I went through U.S. Air Force pilot training in 1968-69. We were expected to solo a T-41 in less than 10 hours. This eliminated the folks who got airsick or just were not catching on, long before the government spent a lot more money on them. About one third of my class washed out, most of them in those early flight hours. But more than 60 of us did.

 

[Flatiowa]

I went through U.S. Air Force pilot training in 1968-69. We were expected to solo a T-41 in less than 10 hours. This eliminated the folks who got airsick or just were not catching on, long before the government spent a lot more money on them. About one third of my class washed out, most of them in those early flight hours. But more than 60 of us did.

Those 1/3 were also presumably pre screened, and selected from the best candidates for it to qualify from the huge pool of new recruits. Any Joe Schmo with a credit card can walk into many flight “schools”/pilot training program and keep pumping money into hours… apples to oranges (in my humble opinion).

 

[RyanB]

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.

That is the real issue here, not the hour mark needed.

 

[MIFlyer]

A student can solo a glider at 14, and obtain a Private Certificate at 16. While I don't feel qualified to say it is "the" way (as in "required"), it is certainly "an excellent" way to obtain useful training in task management, energy management, stick and rudder skills, airport procedures, navigation, precision landings, as well as predicting and understanding weather and aerodynamics. Since all of the gliders that I have personally seen tend to be limited to comms and a few round gauges (ASI, alt, compass, maybe a TBI, and a couple variometers) they also prioritize basic instrument skills (substance over flash).

All at roughly 1/3 of the cost of powered flight. If you obtain a Private-G, every hour spent counts towards future certificates and ratings.

So, obviously, I think it's a great idea.

Thanks, not having flown one, it makes sense, but I can't comment.

I do think it would criple flight training if every PPL candidate needed 10 hours of glider time. I think those can only be done in a few places, is this so?

 

[RussR]

Correct, but it's pretty foolish to sign someone off if they can't meet the basic standard set forth by the FAA for the certificate level they hold. My FR's basically follow the ACS like a check ride. Can't perform the maneuvers? Let's work on them until you can meet the standard.

Yes, it's preferred that they meet the ACS standards, but that's not required by 61.56. 61.56a(2) gives us instructors extremely wide latitude as to what to include on a FR, and it's clearly intentionally worded that way.

It is my opinion that doing a FR that consists solely of ACS check ride maneuvers is missing an opportunity. I have never asked an applicant to do, for example, turns about a point or s-turns across a road on a FR. I have, however, had them do a power-off descending spiral over the field from a few thousand feet up, to a safe landing. Exercises all the same skills, plus a whole bunch. What's my standard? Do it safely. Show reasonable awareness of how adjustments for wind are going to affect things. Preferably land on the runway, but if not, show good ADM and go around (and then, of course, they get to demonstrate a go around). That's not in the ACS, but seems reasonable to me.

I'll have them do tailwind landings and takeoffs, because those happen sometimes. Stalls in unusual configurations, like dirty power-on. Engine failures down to a full stop. Crosswind landings near or above the demonstrated X-wind component. Grass runways. Stuff like that. I always ask them prior to the FR, "What kinds of things would you like to do, see, try out?" Because to me, it's not a check ride and and shouldn't be a one size fits all experience.

 

[dtuuri]

Because to me, it's not a check ride and and shouldn't be a one size fits all experience.

Right you are! Flight reviews began in 1973 with the FAA assuring us (I was a CFI then) that the purpose was to provide refresher training and feedback, and we were NOT to give "checkrides". A lot of pilots viewed this new rule unfavorably. So, there was no minimum time for the first 20 years, so as to not rile the flying populace. They made sure CFI's didn't have to say the pilot performed satisfactorily, too, if they weren't comfortable saying it in the logbook endorsement. The student would just need to find another CFI.

 

[RyanShort1]

Thanks, not having flown one, it makes sense, but I can't comment.

I do think it would criple flight training if every PPL candidate needed 10 hours of glider time. I think those can only be done in a few places, is this so?

The market would adapt.

 

[morleyz]

There is no requirement to meet ACS standards during a flight review. A flight review is also not a test like the check ride is.

A FR is pretty much open to whatever the CFI feels is appropriate. Most will consist of some of the maneuvers for the appropriate level of certificate, but it's not required.

Added to that, a flight review in anything you're rated for counts for everything. Have a hot air balloon rating and a multiengine rating? Doing your FR in the balloon makes you good to fly that Cessna 421, and vice versa.

This is exactly my point. The FAA doesn't think it is necessary to redo the checkride to ACS standards. I personally don't have any data, nor have I seen any here, that says otherwise.

 

[StraightnLevel]

The market would adapt.

...and shrink.

There's a balance between making training effective and sufficient, and having it be cost- and time-effective.

I'll.point out that in the busy market areas, part of the "extra hours" over and above 40 have nothing to do with proficiency and everything to do with Part 61 school scheduling practices and DPE availability.

Once a student is "ready" for their practical, they can expect another 90-120 days of calendar time for mock checkrides, lead instructor signoff, and DPE lead time. That 90-120 days is time spent burning up the pattern and doing ground reference maneuvers, not developing any new skills or abilities.
They are also spending time and money on flight hours that add little if any enjoyment or other value. They can't fly their wife/kids to get a $100 hamburger or do an overnight cross-country, nor much of anything else that develops their sense of acting as PIC.

Is this helpful? We've added hours to the effective PPL requirement, but we haven't added any skills nor training.....just time and money spent.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That 90-120 days is time spent burning up the pattern and doing ground reference maneuvers, not developing any new skills or abilities.

At that point problem then isn’t the added time, it’s that the added time is wasted without a plan.

 

[Stephen Shore]

I got my PPL back in 1981 when I was 17 years old. I got it in exactly 40 hours because that was all I could afford - I HAD to get it in as few of hours as possible. My CFI was a 19 year old college student in his university's flight program.

Looking back - it is amazing at the mistakes and stupid decisions you can make as a teenage pilot and live.

40 or 60 hours would have made no difference to me. If you think about it, putting a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car or a 17 year old behind a stick in an airplane is crazy.

Glad I did it though and live in a country that allows it!

 

[RussR]

That 90-120 days is time spent burning up the pattern and doing ground reference maneuvers, not developing any new skills or abilities.
They are also spending time and money on flight hours that add little if any enjoyment or other value. They can't fly their wife/kids to get a $100 hamburger or do an overnight cross-country, nor much of anything else that develops their sense of acting as PIC.

Is this helpful? We've added hours to the effective PPL requirement, but we haven't added any skills nor training.....just time and money spent.

That time doesn't HAVE to be spent in the pattern and doing steep turns. It could just as easily be spent with the student flying more solo XC's, but not to the usual training airports, rather to interesting places they want to visit. Maybe they can't fly their wife or kids to the $100 hamburger, but they can fly themselves. Or they can fly another (current and qualified) pilot. Or go with their CFI. Etc.

Obviously it depends on the situation, but when I've had students facing a lengthy delay for a checkride (granted most were airplane owners), we used the time to do some more and more interesting XC flights - solo or dual. Additional instrument training towards their eventual instrument rating. Going up in marginal weather (ceilings/vis/winds/etc.) that you might normally cancel a normal training flight for. Stuff like that. With the intent that the checkride will seem easy, because they're effectively "past" that level already.

 

[billsgs126]

Once a student is "ready" for their practical, they can expect another 90-120 days of calendar time for mock checkrides, lead instructor signoff, and DPE lead time. That 90-120 days is time spent burning up the pattern and doing ground reference maneuvers, not developing any new skills or abilities.

I was signed-off and flying the cross country requirements for my next rating and certificate. No pyramid. My CFI signed me off, let me loose to fly cross-country, then gave the last three hours of dual before the test.

They can't fly their wife/kids to get a $100 hamburger or do an overnight cross-country, nor much of anything else that develops their sense of acting as PIC.

You can't fly passengers. But you can fly overnight cross-country.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That time doesn't HAVE to be spent in the pattern and doing steep turns. It could just as easily be spent with the student flying more solo XC's, but not to the usual training airports, rather to interesting places they want to visit. Maybe they can't fly their wife or kids to the $100 hamburger, but they can fly themselves. Or they can fly another (current and qualified) pilot. Or go with their CFI. Etc.

Obviously it depends on the situation, but when I've had students facing a lengthy delay for a checkride (granted most were airplane owners), we used the time to do some more and more interesting XC flights - solo or dual. Additional instrument training towards their eventual instrument rating. Going up in marginal weather (ceilings/vis/winds/etc.) that you might normally cancel a normal training flight for. Stuff like that. With the intent that the checkride will seem easy, because they're effectively "past" that level already.

Another variation is a dual flight for $100 hamburgers with wife and kids on board for the max weight experience.

Bottom line is there are a LOT of ways to give added value to that time, whether it applies to the checkride or not. And even if it’s not working specifically on ACS tasks, but they can still improve the applicant’s checkride performance.

 

[billsgs126]

I got my PPL back in 1981 when I was 17 years old. I got it in exactly 40 hours because that was all I could afford - I HAD to get it in as few of hours as possible. My CFI was a 19 year old college student in his university's flight program.

Looking back - it is amazing at the mistakes and stupid decisions you can make as a teenage pilot and live.

40 or 60 hours would have made no difference to me. If you think about it, putting a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car or a 17 year old behind a stick in an airplane is crazy.

Glad I did it though and live in a country that allows it!

Right after my 14th birthday, with almost 12 full hours of dual instruction, my CFI signed me off and I was towed . . . solo . . . to pattern altitude. After getting the Schweitzer and myself back safely we began a pattern of dual-solo, then dual-solo-solo, then I was signed off on the single-seater.

I often think that those first hours of solo flight are not the most dangerous. At 12 hours I knew that I didn't know. I remembered what I had been taught. I didn't improvise or take anything for granted. But at 100 hours, or 200, or 300, I had to pause. With that experience, it was easy to know enough that I had to guard against thinking that I knew more than I did.

 

[Dilly]

As a dumb teenager myself, I agree wholeheartedly that kids are stupid... But that fact is not going to change no matter what regulations are in place. I would argue that the greatest danger is in more established pilots that have ingrained bad habits.

And I am the next Amelia, so don't mess with me

 

[MauleSkinner]

Right after my 14th birthday, with almost 12 full hours of dual instruction, my CFI signed me off and I was towed . . . solo . . . to pattern altitude. After getting the Schweitzer and myself back safely we began a pattern of dual-solo, then dual-solo-solo, then I was signed off on the single-seater.

I often think that those first hours of solo flight are not the most dangerous. At 12 hours I knew that I didn't know. I remembered what I had been taught. I didn't improvise or take anything for granted. But at 100 hours, or 200, or 300, I had to pause. With that experience, it was easy to know enough that I had to guard against thinking that I knew more than I did.

I did a lot of spins as a solo student, but other than that I definitely agree.

Once I got my Private certificate, I started exploring the envelope, intentionally or otherwise. I often realized after the fact that what I was doing matched what I had read about or been taught, rather than going into it with a clear plan to fly the way I had been taught. Fortunately I had the basics and enough luck to get me through that stage.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Correct, but it's pretty foolish to sign someone off if they can't meet the basic standard set forth by the FAA for the certificate level they hold. My FR's basically follow the ACS like a check ride. Can't perform the maneuvers? Let's work on them until you can meet the standard.

If I choose to have a pilot do a particular maneuver for a FR (or even just a checkout), I expect performance to ACS standards and will train until they can. But that is very different than "following the ACS" by, for example, requiring turns around a point or a cross country flight planning exercise "like a checkride" for every pilot who comes to me.

I do have my "favorite" set of maneuvers, but I begin every flight review with a question at first contact: "what do you feel you need to work on?"

 

[Ed Haywood]

My personal, unsubstantiated, anecdotal opinion ... the two main weaknesses of newly minted PPL's are:

A. They don't really understand how to fly a plane well; they just know enough to mimic it for the checkride.
B. They lack the experience to make good judgement calls in marginal situations involving weather, terrain, and light.

Both gradually get improved through a natural process of experience and additional training. The instrument rating has a big impact on B. The commercial rating has a big impact on A. That is why continuing your pursuit of ratings is such good advice for a new PPL.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I have been flying since I was born, so I had a leg up on other students and I did get my license in 40 hours. When I passed my checkride, I had the tools to fly safe, but at 17 years old, I took risks that I wouldn't take today.

I did want the cheapest training possible. I saved up $2500 because they gave me a discount if I paid in advance. I didn't cut any corners in my training and even if I'd wanted to, my instructor woudn't have let me.
https://www.instagram.com/blackmaskdivers/
You start with an empty bag of skill and a bag full of luck. The trick is to fill the bag of skill before the luck runs out.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I got my PPL back in 1981 when I was 17 years old. I got it in exactly 40 hours because that was all I could afford - I HAD to get it in as few of hours as possible. My CFI was a 19 year old college student in his university's flight program.

Looking back - it is amazing at the mistakes and stupid decisions you can make as a teenage pilot and live.

40 or 60 hours would have made no difference to me. If you think about it, putting a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car or a 17 year old behind a stick in an airplane is crazy.

Glad I did it though and live in a country that allows it!

This could be my story, except my 19 year old instructor was building time to go to the airlines!

 

[midlifeflyer]

My personal, unsubstantiated, anecdotal opinion ... the two main weaknesses of newly minted PPL's are:

A. They don't really understand how to fly a plane well; they just know enough to mimic it for the checkride.
B. They lack the experience to make good judgement calls in marginal situations involving weather, terrain, and light.

Both gradually get improved through a natural process of experience and additional training. The instrument rating has a big impact on B.

I agree, but not completely. The instrument rating does improve understand of how the airplane works and increases flying skill well above basic private pilot level. But, especially in these days of sophisticated avionics, there's a lot of knowing just enough to mimic the very basic ACS flight tasks for the rating. A newly-minted private pilot typically has the tools needed to head out as PIC on a long cross country flight. I don't think that's true for the newly-minted instrument rated pilot, at least not these days.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Both gradually get improved through a natural process of experience and additional training. The instrument rating has a big impact on B. The commercial rating has a big impact on A. That is why continuing your pursuit of ratings is such good advice for a new PPL.

Interesting.

I had a number of people on this forum and elsewhere advise me against jumping straight into instrument training after PPL. The suggestion was to just fly a bunch and get comfortable.

I'm glad I didn't take that advice. IR training has massively improved my basic skills, even if I still have a long way to go. I would be concerned that a newly minted PPL is likely to develop and reinforce bad habits if they stop training and start time-building.

JMO, YMMV.

 

[billsgs126]

Interesting.

I had a number of people on this forum and elsewhere advise me against jumping straight into instrument training after PPL. The suggestion was to just fly a bunch and get comfortable.

I'm glad I didn't take that advice. IR training has massively improved my basic skills, even if I still have a long way to go. I would be concerned that a newly minted PPL is likely to develop and reinforce bad habits if they stop training and start time-building.

JMO, YMMV.

I spent the time between Private Airplane training and the practical flying the solo XC required for the Commercial and the dual required for the IR. VFR nav was easy, and soon IFR nav using a nice round gauge VOR, and even an ADF, were added to my skill set. I think students really short-change themselves by learning on all the "latest and greatest". Forget the higher cost of rental, it's a breeze to move from a stick-shift to an automatic transmission, or from a tail-dragger to a tricycle.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Interesting.

I had a number of people on this forum and elsewhere advise me against jumping straight into instrument training after PPL. The suggestion was to just fly a bunch and get comfortable.

I'm glad I didn't take that advice. IR training has massively improved my basic skills, even if I still have a long way to go. I would be concerned that a newly minted PPL is likely to develop and reinforce bad habits if they stop training and start time-building.

JMO, YMMV.

Unless it's part of a career progression, I'm a fan of "just fly a bunch and get comfortable gain real-world experience" before starting the instrument rating. Not touch & goes at the home drome or visits to the same $100 hamburger venue, but cross countries to a variety of places and directions and distances you haven't gone before. Working on the rating is great for your pilot knowledge and skill set but with only one requires cross country in a CFI-controlled environment and a tendency in some areas to avoid ATC as much as possible while flying the same local approaches you will encounter on the checkride, it can do exactly zero for both ATC communications and pilot experience. The only "bad habits" I can see is if they try to build instrument time as well by practicing what they don't know.

 

[StraightnLevel]

You can't fly passengers. But you can fly overnight cross-country.

Who do you think is going to rent a plane to a student pilot for an overnight XC?

The school won't because they won't accept the lost teaching time slots. Nobody else will because their insurance will require a PPL and some minimum required flight time.

 

[Iflydogs]

Great thread; some of the comments are hilarious! My experience: Got my ppl in 1990 after 35 days and 47 hours, now have 3900. Looking back, I had a few close calls after that and they were all judgement-related, not skill related. Don’t see how an extra 13 hours would have improved my judgment, I had to learn that on my own. As far as the OP’s comment about kids, the two guys that did their best to kill me were old.One guy taxied into me after I stopped when I realized there was not enough room to pass, another guy called the wrong direction in the pattern and I met him head to head. I was going to beat him senseless when we landed and then I found he was some codger flying south to see his son, ended up driving him to a hotel, didn’t kill him.