Peter wrote:
“I think that human nature ensures that once the ink has dried on the PPL, no further training is desired”(Note: can’t work out how to do quotes from iPhone)
I think you mean formal training by this? It is true that after the PPL, there is a feeling of “liberation” but there is also (at least for me) a realisation of how little you know. I’ve had the opportunity to fly since with a couple of very experienced pilots and very much enjoyed that – I considered it a form of training which I wish I could do more of from time to time; it breeds confidence as well to push little by little beyond your comfort zone.
Note: can’t work out how to do quotes from iPhone
The simplest way to do a quote on a “really basic” device (but one which can copy/paste) is to start a post with
where the bq. (3 characters) has to be all lowercase, must not have any spaces before it (i.e. must be left-aligned), and either must have a blank line above it, or has to be the 1st line of a post. The “blah blah blah” is the text you want quoted, copied/pasted from wherever…
Then put in a blank line under it, and under that blank line type in your response, etc.
That’s how I do it on my Samsung S6 phone. Very simple and quick. Note that Bq. won’t work. The bq stands for “blockquote”.
It is true that after the PPL, there is a feeling of “liberation”
Yes, exactly. At that point, most people don’t want to go near an instructor.
Some people don’t like that (“a license is a license to learn” etc etc) but that’s the reality. Psychologically, people feel they are entitled to FLY and mostly they go around digging around for friends to fly somewhere with.
Thanks, all clear.
Peter a quick look at GINFO suggests there are at least 600 active vintage economical personal aircraft (Austers, Aeroncas, de Havillands, Piper short and long wings, Taylorcraft etc), and I would venture there are 2,000 active pilots associated with them. The Homebuilt community probably boasts a similar number or more numerous, again reasonably active. There are dozens more larger vintage VFR types, and micro lights are another segment.
My thesis is that the basic active VFR community is probably 33-45% of the PPL/LAPL medical holders, and a higher % of active pilots.
Pretty sure a big chunk use GPS, the iPad being a favourite, but a large proportion do not. Just saying that the grass roots scene in the UK is larger, and arguably in more robust health (affordable hangar space being a major constraint on growth), than people might realise. France, Belgium, and Germany have similar strong grass root communities.
The school where I’ve learned has a fleet of 3 C152s. One has a GNS430, one a KLN89 and the third has some ancient monochrome Garmin portable stuff somehow installed in the panel (screen almost unreadable, so after one try I did not bother with it). I flew with all of the three machines, otherwise I would have had been grounded for considerable time intervals. I was allowed to use anything anything onboard the aircraft I was flying, but the first navexes were (deliberately) on the plane which had the worst equipment, i.e. effectively without GPS guidance. On the following lessons (including the skill test) I used the “track” feature of the GNS430/KLN89 to check the effect of wind, but still navigated by identifying villages and terrain features. On the first solo navex (which was in a very familiar area, so very easy) I experimented with the features of GNS430 (I had some very brief prior instruction and read part of the manual beforehand). Shortly afterwards we had a flight to a controlled airport in a neighbouring country with an instructor. At that time I used the GNS430 extensively (loading full flight plan, taking shortcuts etc.) and the instructor provided guidance whenever I required it. All in all, I did not feel that I was discouraged to use the equipment and would now comfortably use a GNS430. Of course anything else would require familiarisation.
I look at this from a different perspective.
Firstly, a pilot should be familiar with all the equipment on his aircraft. If he learns on a G1000 aircraft he should know how to operate the G1000. If I examine for a PPL skills test in a G1000 aircraft then I expect the candidate to have a working knowledge of all the aircraft systems. That said, a good fundamental understanding of basic navigation principles is essential.
Now, taking the above as a baseline, all pilots are reasonably expected to be able to operate aircraft under certain limiting scenarios, be this events such as flap failures, alternator failures, vacuum pump failures, radio failures etc. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to expect a pilot to be able to navigate without a GPS. Indeed, as a GPS is an optional item (i.e. not mandated equipment) and a newly licensed individual has the right to fly without a GPS, the regulatory system needs to check that pilots have the necessary skills to safely navigate under such circumstances. Now, I would subscribe to the dropping of traditional style navigation examination if GPS was a mandatory piece of equipment, but it isn’t. I think a far more relevant discussion surrounds the art of using GPS; current training and implementation tends to be a mash-up of various (ill) thought-out concepts.
I think too many of us get overly animated about the whole GPS/regulator thing. My personal impression is that GPS is accepted by regulators but there is a (valid) need for pilots to demonstrate a minimum capability without GPS.
Peter wrote:
Many have told me they gave up because they had no confidence in their ability to get from A to B.
Why not take along someone more experienced? Confidence comes with experience. I wouldn’t really fly without a GPS either. It’s available, affordable, portable, it would be stupid not to use it. Even when I want to fly using a paper map, I would like a device to watch my back. Satisfying my appetite for more traditional flying isn’t worth busting some airspace or getting truly lost. Maybe if there was no airspace to bust and there were plenty of airfield to land on, get your bearing and refuel/ rest.
Peter wrote:
I think that human nature ensures that once the ink has dried on the PPL, no further training is desired. And I can understand that.
I can’t, really. Because flying is something I like, I try to make sure I don’t get into that situation. I don’t need someone spoiling flying for me. I can accept less interesting, older planes if the rest is worth it. And I’m willing to pay to get more than the “dirt cheap PPL”/ “ATPL wannabe” crowds need. I do subscribe to the idea that it’s a licence to learn. And in the soaring world, which I very much like, a lot is taught after getting your licence. It was even more so in the past (before EASA) where you in many countries couldn’t even do a cross country when you got a licence (or whatever it was called). And cross country is a real challenge when you don’t have an engine.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
The one thing that I can imagine would be extra’s on the basic SEP license, such as “G1000 certified pilot”.
There is differences training for EFIS. However, that doesn’t solve the issue you mentioned. That is covered by familiarization, just like switching types. That is, you are supposed to read the manuals before you fly. Underlying theory should be valid no matter what system you use.
Why not take along someone more experienced?
I think the problem is that one is very alone at that point.
Thinking back to my PPL training, most people vanish immediately they get the PPL. No more training, no more need to meet up. They hope to fly here and there but at times which suit them. People go their separate ways. Nowadays, people have “filofaxes” packed on every day 6-12 months ahead. Just the same when university finishes… I went to a meet-up at the 25 year point 
The schools discourage experienced pilots from hanging around, because it undermines the authority of their instructors, and given that most flights are cost shared, it sucks out some of the student’s money into somebody’s cost sharing instead of it being spent on more lessons 
Been there, seen it, etc. I was allowed back with the TB20 only on fly-outs and to ferry non-flying wives and girlfriends of the school’s mostly male customers. I got fed up with it pretty quick.
Freelance instructors are discouraged for the same reason. There is a well known guy on the UK scene who has constant trouble with this.
When I did my VFR-Europe presentation in 2012, not one of the several schools was willing to mention it to their students.
So the whole system discourages contact between students and new PPLs and the more experienced parts of the GA community. I know instructors who confirm this, obviously privately.
I normally try to not be negative but I try to recognise where “money talks” and the schools want to capture and milk their customers until they cannot be milked anymore, which in the UK scene means PPL, night and IMCR.
At least, this is most of the UK scene. There are variations, and other countries are more “club”-like. For example France is more “club”-like but paying the instructors peanuts doesn’t make the “clubs” immune from looking after the revenue stream.
I still believe mentoring is the biggest answer by far to the continual decline in GA. I have done some myself, and it can be very successful and rewarding IF you get somebody who is able and willing to commit the time to get on with it. One guy went on to do his exams and did his PPL in the min time of 45hrs which is very rare. He knew most of it before he walked into a school…
The challenge is how to promote mentoring without p1ssing off the based schools. UK AOPA set up a complex scheme for mentoring, with all sorts of strings attached to allay the fears of their corporate members (the schools), but AFAICT the take-up has been miniscule, and I am not surprised.
And in the soaring world, which I very much like, a lot is taught after getting your licence
Yes – gliding is a different scene. It has been said that you divorce in the club and you re-marry in the club It’s a different thing. Comparing gliding with powered GA is like comparing dinghy sailing on a lake (usually closely controlled by a sailing club, and attendance at events is mandatory for x weekends a year else they boot you out) with windsurfing (you unload the roof rack, do some stuff on the sea, then after 2hrs pack up, chew some fat on the beach if there is anybody else there, and go back home). Sailing clubs usually hate windsurfers…
Peter wrote:
bearing in mind that there are 16 Exercises in the Flying Training syllabus for a PPL, a requirement for 5 hours Navigation Instruction and say 5 hours in the circuit, that leaves 15 hours of the mandated dual to teach 13 exercises!
That gives 25 hours of dual. That is the minimum required. But you need 45 hours to get a licence and of those 10 have to be solo. So what do they do with those 10 unassigned hours? If they have trouble fitting the whole syllabus into the 25 hour minimum dual. There is no guarantee you will manage it in 45 hours. It’s the minimum, it would be a good thing if the minimum was set so only the best could manage it in that time (or have no minimum at all). I can see how it would impact numbers and success rate, but one can’t kid himself. How many hours did you need to learn to drive a car well enough? And that’s no rocket science either. Just a rhetorical question. There is a lot to be learned and that takes time. There is no point in deluding people into believing they’ll become full blown aviators in 45 hours. Especially if it’s spread over a year.
Yes, you could remove certain things from the syllabus (to make it more attractive/ accessible) and I do think GPS should have a prominent position to reflect it’s role in real world flying. But that’s not up to me. Ultralight world might be there, but I don’t know much about that. Maybe PPL isn’t the best place to start. You can get to grips with the practical issues of flying in an ultralight or a motorglider.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Now, I would subscribe to the dropping of traditional style navigation examination if GPS was a mandatory piece of equipment, but it isn’t.
You would still need a plan B in case you lost it. The strength of traditional navigation is that it requires very little in terms of equipment.
Peter wrote:
The schools discourage experienced pilots from hanging around, because it undermines the authority of their instructors
That might be true for commercial schools, but not for proper clubs. The community is after all the big difference between the two (you don’t have to train in the club, but it can be a good place to meet people). I probably wouldn’t want to train in a school that doesn’t have an instructor experienced enough in what I want to do with the option of mentoring.
It just seems the UK has to be special in every way The issue with soaring isn’t that you’re smothered by a club, it’s that you need a crew (you need people to get off the ground and people to retrieve you in case you don’t make it back). Which is why motorgliders (not talking about the TMG kind now) capable of self-launching are so popular among buyers of new machines (those are very expensive toys). If everything works according to a plan, you can soar on your own (but it’s prudent to have a crew on stand-by just in case the engine fails to start when you need it; one man crew should be enough, so an understanding girlfriend would do, as long as she can drive a car with an 11 meter trailer behind it, or can fly a tow plane).
