LeSving wrote:
That is what the “school version” of navigation is. I have never used a stop watch when flying, only competition pilots use that in competition navigation
That’s the difference between pilotage and dead reckoning. Both have their uses and can complement each other.
Obviously this does not work when there is no ground to be seen, and it is more difficult in low viz situations.
Featureless terrain also doesn’t help.
Peter wrote:
it is no good for even pleasure trips
Well, you need flexibility and/ or reasonably stable/ predictable, good weather.
So to do flight training properly one would need to combine VFR and IFR and roll it up into one course.
For “serious” touring (you have schedule to keep), I agree. OTOH, the price and time commitment might scare quite a few people off.
one of the issues with churning out pilots who cannot go into or above clouds is that they basically cannot go anywhere. They can engage in flight as a purely “sporting” activity, e.g. popping up for a quick local. That certainly has a place (especially aeros) but apart from these specific uses it is no good for even pleasure trips. The cancellation rate is just too great.
I agree.
So to do flight training properly one would need to combine VFR and IFR and roll it up into one course.
Yes, but I think that is a pipe dream.
I agree, but hey why not talk about it 
Many pilots have told me I am responsible for demolishing their bank balance but they are grateful 
Some schools may share their statistics, and I can think of at least two UK schools with a good reputation for safe and efficient PPL training. Typically the average PPL requires around 60 hours of flight training, of which 10 hours are the solo requirement. Perhaps 10 % achieve the training in minimum time. There are then students who require 100 plus hours, but this does not mean they are not up to standard.
Solo circuits typically require 1,500 ceiling, 7k and less than 10 knot crosswind. So solo circuit detail is not too onerous. Solo NAV typically requires 10k, ceiling of 2,500 feet and the cross wind limit for land aways. More of a challenge but mainly for accomplishing the cross country 150nm with two land aways requirement.
If weather and scheduling are a problem, then some UK schools have sister organisations in Florida and the training is integrated (ie no teeth sucking at US training, one of the parochial shortcomings of some UK schools).
Armed with a PPL then you can acquire that great UK contribution to safe cross country flying skills, the IMC. Which in turn allows you to eventually get a CBIR, possibly via an FAA IR.
It’s a pity some of the centres of good training in the UK don’t get a better press here, not all schools are portakabin efforts with sad looking 152s.
If there are supposedly good ones, why don’t you name them? What exactly do the do better than others?
Solo circuits typically require 1,500 ceiling, 7k and less than 10 knot crosswind. So solo circuit detail is not too onerous. Solo NAV typically requires 10k, ceiling of 2,500 feet and the cross wind limit for land aways. More of a challenge but mainly for accomplishing the cross country 150nm with two land aways requirement.
But that is where the problems start. British weather is, for a fact, challenging. So why not train for that? It doesn’t make sense. With the above rules, flight schools create an artificial cocoon of good weather around PPL students. Weather that does not exist in reality.
Peter wrote:
So to do flight training properly one would need to combine VFR and IFR and roll it up into one course.
Actually, I, being fresh out of PPL school, would disagree. First of all, “properly” is something different to each type of pilot. There are loads of people (relatively speaking) happy to just fly around in good weather. Is it a waste of a 182T? Sure. But it is their prerogative to waste it as they see fit. There are those who will be limited by being limited to VMC only, and those will hopefully go on to bigger and better things.
The proposed basic IR might just be the way to go for those people. It gives hope for a granular way to add skills and capability to one’s license without breaking the bank (i.e. a full IR course) both time- and money-wise.
Having the basic PPL allows me to gain experience flying VFR, it will allow me to make a better informed decision if I want to pursue an IR (partial, full, who knows).
Had the basic PPL and the full IR been rolled into one, few would ever start (roughly 3x as expensive) and fewer yet would finish – it takes a metric ton of time, even if money is of little importance.
What makes the PPL useless for me at this time is not having access to a plane :-) But that’s a whole different story.
Bosco the PPL is a VFR licence with minimal instrument training and because of the changeable nature of UK weather, the best risk mitigation is setting a good example in the PPL training environment. The solo flights are on the instructor’s licence, so any rational instructor will minimise her/his exposure even if the school might have a more flexible philosophy – and good schools would not.
As stated above the IMC, at a cost of around 30% of a PPL is the next excellent risk mitigator for UK PPLs.
Approximately 40-50% of PPL accidents are continued VFR into IMC, only conservative weather minima or licensed instrument skills are proven to avoid fatalities in this area.
I will offer a contrary view.
Peter, you are a product of that ineffective, outdated training, and so am I and countless others. Although when we did it, it was less out of date… Yet you managed to go VFR to Greece, more than once; I went to international airports the other side of the country in a retractable with less than 20 hours after PPL under by belt, and a lot of others developed into the Europe-going pilots that populate this forum.
Taking a PPL beyond the local bimble and keeping it up requires a LOT of conviction and a certain attitude.
The training, and the compass-and-stopwatch stuff is just one of many, many obstacles in our way that lead to people dropping off, in this case before they get even started properly. I agree with that – but I don’t think it is the single, biggest factor; the person that is deterred by compass and stopwatch and keeps flying because of modern moving map navigation will probably drop out at the next hurdle, or the one after that.
So would I like this modernised? Yes. Will it save GA? No.
The solo flights are on the instructor’s licence, so any rational instructor will minimise her/his exposure even if the school might have a more flexible philosophy – and good schools would not.
I am an instructor myself. And sure I would like to decide myself, based on the route and the capabilities of the specific pilot. But those overly high limits imposed by the HT or whatever are illogic. Reality is just different, and I am not talking about really bad weather, which of course stops (and should stop) a purely VFR pilot.
All that talk of “minimizing exposure” is just terrible.
Instead, get real and teach the student how to use the GPS in case he gets uncertain of position.
