50 hours and no solo

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

FlightSolutions
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by FlightSolutions » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:43 am

pewdipie wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 12:51 pm
Hi Guys,
I have 50 hours in total and no solo. The instructors keep saying i am not ready. What you guys think ?. Is it a good idea to move to different school ?. Do flight schools keep students from going solo ?.

Thanks,
Pewdipie
As a former Chief Flight Instructor this is unacceptable. Sounds like poor oversight and supervision which is not surprising with the the state flight training is in these days.

I councell aspiring pilots to educate themselves on the flight training standards. Know where you should be and if you don't meet those targets you better start asking why. If you let the Flight Training Unit spoon feed you, you will be taken advantage of and won't be able to recognize incompetence which is so rampant in the Flight Training Industry. Educating yourself is good practice if you plan on moving on and making it a career. Industry expects you to learn on your own these days with CBT being the norm. Look at it this way at $240/hour, the going rate for dual instruction, you've wasted nearly $8500. Thats a huge chunk of change. Gone. Wasted. Sure its hours in the logbook, but they are dual. Next to worthless in terms of licensing, and employment if you plan on taking it further. Anytime you invest in something, it is wise to do your education and research beforehand to get a good return on investment.

At 50 hours with incomplete information I can only assume that either you are completely incompetent and unable to learn, the flight training unit is taking advantage of you, or you're receiving incompetent instruction. I lean towards the second one, as the FTU's can recognize a sucker a mile away. If you'd educated yourself on the process and expectations, you should have been asking questions of why you haven't soloed after 15 hours, but hey it's your money to waste. 50 hours used to be the average to obtain a PPL back in my CFI days for a busy, controlled airport.

It's time to take a hard honest look at why you haven't soloed yet. Look at yourself and see if you're missing something. If not, back it up with the flight training standards. Otherwise take your business elsewhere, but do your research this time. When I was CFI I picked up a few people from other schools in your situation. The majority of them I was able to solo them the day they showed up. The rest it involved a core competency that wasn't enforced during BFM. I only had 1 person show up that just shouldn't be flying airplanes, and it was mostly due to fatigue from them showing up after the night shift.

Instructors fail to remember that students are not required to be at PPL flight test standards for the solo. They only have to be safe. They can bounce, land long, not hold altitude perfectly, etc, etc. Flying is easy. Flying precisely takes practice. The goal is to get to flight test standards at the end of training, not at the beginning. If you haven't read the Flight Examiners Guide, you should. Large deviations outside the Flight Test Guide are allowed as long as they are corrected and the overall goal of the exercise is met. They just have to manage those errors properly. Much of the time you can tell they are ready when the learning curve plateau's. Continued instruction would be just flogging a dead horse, and can make things worse. You will be wasting the students money and possibly lose them to another instructor or school.

Sometimes you just gotta let 'em go. You should be nervous when you send them up. It's time for them to learn on their own the hard way. Your job was to give them threat and error manage strategies to come out of it safely. If they truly are not ready, then it's time for the CFI. Continued instruction could actually hinder their progress.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:45 am

Really.....If --- and I say IF --- this is a school taking advantage of students, foreign or otherwise--- instead of counselling them properly -- that school(s) should lose their OC. Note I said "IF".

Continuing to train someone who shouldn't be trained....is a legitimate safety issue for them and others, too............

This is a highly regulated industry,, sometimes an operator loses their OC --- and that standard should fully apply to flight schools.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

airway
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:17 am

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by airway » Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:33 pm

pewdipie:

Any Updates?
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by photofly » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:51 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:45 am
Really.....If --- and I say IF --- this is a school taking advantage of students, foreign or otherwise--- instead of counselling them properly -- that school(s) should lose their OC. Note I said "IF".

Continuing to train someone who shouldn't be trained....is a legitimate safety issue for them and others, too............

This is a highly regulated industry,, sometimes an operator loses their OC --- and that standard should fully apply to flight schools.
That’s in the world where you’re King, of course.

While there are legitimate commercial and customer service issues, there’s no obvious safety issue about *not* sending someone on a solo flight, as evidenced by the zero number of CADORs reports about solo flights that didn’t happen.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:13 pm

photofly wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:51 pm
rookiepilot wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:45 am
Really.....If --- and I say IF --- this is a school taking advantage of students, foreign or otherwise--- instead of counselling them properly -- that school(s) should lose their OC. Note I said "IF".

Continuing to train someone who shouldn't be trained....is a legitimate safety issue for them and others, too............

This is a highly regulated industry,, sometimes an operator loses their OC --- and that standard should fully apply to flight schools.
That’s in the world where you’re King, of course.

While there are legitimate commercial and customer service issues, there’s no obvious safety issue about *not* sending someone on a solo flight, as evidenced by the zero number of CADORs reports about solo flights that didn’t happen.
Point missed by a country mile.

If someone is trained by a competent school, and takes 50 + hours to go solo, should that person be a pilot, possibly taking responsibility for the lives of passengers? Perhaps they should be counselled.

If the school isn't competent or dishonest, and that's the problem, why should they hold an OC?

To me an OC is a privilege, that carries great responsibility-- not a right. Am I wrong?
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by photofly » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:36 pm

Yes, you’re wrong.

Let’s not romanticize things, OK?

To hold an OC you need to meet the TC requirements to hold an OC. If you meet the requirements and TC refuses, you can ask the TATC (and from there the federal courts) to force the minister to reconsider. It’s not really a matter of discretion, nor should it be. (Yes, I’ve read section 6.71 of the Aeronautics Act.)
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by PilotDAR » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:00 pm

To me an OC is a privilege,
An OC is a "shall" rather than a "may" issue:
702.07 (1) Subject to section 6.71 of the Act, the Minister shall, on receipt of an application submitted in the form and manner required by the Commercial Air Service Standards, issue or amend an air operator certificate where the applicant demonstrates to the Minister the ability to
Where the application is conforming as described in the requirements, the Minister shall issue the OC, the Minister has no choice, unless the Minister can demonstrate that the applicant fails to meet the requirements. I won't go so far as to refer to the "shall" making the OC a "right" but it's more than a "privilege".

Conversely, the Minister "may" issue...
505.201 General ................. (c) Delegation of Authority may be granted in............
In which case, for that activity, the Minister is not required to delegation, the unsuccessful applicant has not means of recourse against TC, TC was not bound by a "shall" in regulation, just the possibility of a "may". So the various forms of delegation which may be available from TC are a privilege if issued.

So although we consider a license or an OC/AMO etc. a "privilege" (and it's a good way to think about it, from a behaviour point of view), it requires a demonstration of incompetence/ineligibility by the Minister to not have the license/OC/AMO issued to you, (action on the Minister's part to say/defend a "no" - you do have an avenue to challenge the "no") if your application otherwise meets the requirements.

As for the topic, yes, there are some very nice members of our society who just do not have the knack for being a pilot. And, there are some who are on the edge, so perhaps receive more/longer effort toward their desired success than others. I have flown with a few over the years, and yes, there have been a few PPL's to whom I have said that they have not even demonstrated the minimums for safe piloting, let alone the additional skills they have ask me to train them for. I felt badly being "direct", but I was simply unwilling to attempt to train them any more. They were free to train with another pilot should they wish (and I suggested it!). In both cases, my mentors told me that I had spent too long trying to train them, though I felt that I had to defend that when a new pilot pays for my to cross the country for two days of training, I feel obligated to give them the best I can for that two days, even if after the first couple of hours it's looking "unpromissing".

I knew a nice fellow, who owned the aircraft, and exceeded 200 hours training without going solo. He seemed entirely happy to have the instructor along for all of his flying, and did not appear to be worried about going solo. The instructor confided in me that this was as it should be, as the candidate really was better supervised all the time. Everyone seemed okay with the circumstances....
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by photofly » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:40 pm

To add to the forgoing, for the meaning of incompetence” (which is a reason not to issue an aviation document) see this:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 2-6452.htm
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

mato
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by mato » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:09 pm

jetstreams wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:59 am
I have one better.....
I have spent about $35,000 still working to getting my PPL

I am at Sault College in the aviation program presently. Myself and my 3 roommates are going into our 3rd, and last year of the program next month, Sept 2019.

ALL of us our still working away, along with most of our class, trying to finish our Private PPL... We were suppose to be done the PPL last summer.

Most of us went over a month repeatedly between flights lesions, it was crazy. I did 2 flights in 3 months, roommate 3 flights in 4 months.

Now the school says if they can not get us to the very minimum of our PPL before Sept, we have to take a year off of classes. Hard to learn 3rd year class work, and still working on 1st year flight lesson plans...

So ya, almost 2 years at Sault College..about $35,000 spent in total with living cost..not even a private to show for it..
Pretty sure that one beats you sadly... :rolleyes: :shock:
At least you should have known what you were getting into as Sault College has been this way for the past decade. :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Chris M
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:41 am
Location: Toronto

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Chris M » Wed Jul 31, 2019 3:41 am

airway wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:33 pm
pewdipie:

Any Updates?
I wouldn't get too excited - his only activity was these four posts the day he joined, hasn't been back since.
---------- ADS -----------
  

jetstreams
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:08 am

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by jetstreams » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:36 am

jetstreams wrote:
Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:59 am
I have one better.....
I have spent about $35,000 still working to getting my PPL

I am at Sault College in the aviation program presently. Myself and my 3 roommates are going into our 3rd, and last year of the program next month, Sept 2019.

ALL of us our still working away, along with most of our class, trying to finish our Private PPL... We were suppose to be done the PPL last summer.

Most of us went over a month repeatedly between flights lesions, it was crazy. I did 2 flights in 3 months, roommate 3 flights in 4 months.

Now the school says if they can not get the class to the very minimum of our PPL before Sept, we have to take a year off of classes.
Something about academics being to far ahead of flight training. Hard to learn 3rd year class work, and still working on 1st year flight lesson plans...

So ya, almost 2 years at Sault College..about $35,000 spent in total with living cost..not even a private to show for it..
Pretty sure that one beats you sadly... :rolleyes: :shock:
Agree Mato, Just did not know. More posts on social media from students speaking up would of helped for sure though!
---------- ADS -----------
  

nandobarreto
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:23 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by nandobarreto » Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:32 pm

Usually I just read here, but i sign up to give my 2 cents:
I guess the opinion of most here is correct, sometimes the person is not able to fly, thats a true fact.

I'm almost finishing my ppl (last cross country tomorrow) and I had some issues with landing, I was pretty good landing with wind (cross or head), but without any wind I just couldnt land.
I had my solo with ~35h, but I requested to do many more flights with my instructor to be able to land properly in any circumstance.
Sometimes it took time for the person to adjust, in my case, about 4h more after my first solo.

In my particular case i can say that my instructor let me solo before I have enough skills.
Say that a person cant fly just because he has XX and wasnt able to solo, is not something correct.
Where I live the winds are very strong, it takes times to learn what to do in those circumstances.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mircea172S
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:36 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by mircea172S » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:50 pm

Sounds like your getting ripped off, i would switch instructors if not change flight schools.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Squaretail
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Squaretail » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:59 am

I had my solo with ~35h, but I requested to do many more flights with my instructor to be able to land properly in any circumstance.
Sometimes it took time for the person to adjust, in my case, about 4h more after my first solo.

In my particular case i can say that my instructor let me solo before I have enough skills.
In all honesty, if you think that people aren't to solo unless they can handle "everything" you're not seeing the big picture in how flight training works. The process from solo to license finish more than adequately provides the experience necessary by the end, assuming a reasonably competent instructor. The nature of training past the first solo should be carefully controlled so a student gets a mixture of solo practice to increase their proficiency and instructor monitoring to make sure they aren't going astray. You aren't alone, however in feeling that only you can adequately judge your own progress. Add this to the many factors that have led to the increases in flight training times. Unfortunately, how the student "feels" about their flight training is often more important than objective results, and often you can't blame instructors that cater to the demand. Couple this with the "customer is always right" mentality that pervades today's world to reduce flight training efficiencies across the board.

Ultimately, everyone gets the flight instruction they want.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good people drink beer. - Hunter S. Thompson

co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3428
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by co-joe » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:27 am

Ask to see you PTR. It's yours and it's your right to see what's written in it about you and your progress or lack thereof. When I instructed I usually wrote up the PTR with the student's present so they knew exactly where they stood, and what they needed to work on most.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Schooner69A » Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:23 pm

"In all honesty, if you think that people aren't to solo unless they can handle "everything" you're not seeing the big picture in how flight training works."

Agreed. Consider the situation of engine failure: I'm guessing that if you waited until a student (fixed AND rotary wing) could be guaranteed to return the craft to the ground in usable condition EVERY time, he/she would be close to graduation ceremonies. In the fixed wing world, you are sent solo under controlled conditions with the expectation that nothing untoward will happen that would tax the limited skill set you have acquired in your short flying career. It's a crap shoot, but it works most of the time... :D
---------- ADS -----------
  

Schooner69A
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Schooner69A » Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:23 pm

PS Sometimes on your first trip as a recent story attested to...
---------- ADS -----------
  

phuckit
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:00 am

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by phuckit » Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:09 am

Go for a flight with another school. If they will not put you solo, then flying probably isn't for you. If that's the case please put your current schools information out there, as it is WRONG to string someone along for that ammount of time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:38 pm

photofly wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:36 pm
Yes, you’re wrong.

Let’s not romanticize things, OK?

To hold an OC you need to meet the TC requirements to hold an OC. If you meet the requirements and TC refuses, you can ask the TATC (and from there the federal courts) to force the minister to reconsider. It’s not really a matter of discretion, nor should it be. (Yes, I’ve read section 6.71 of the Aeronautics Act.)
So -- for example -- if what we are reading about Sault college is correct, you and PilotDar are implying they shouldn't lose their OC for what MAY be willful taking advantage of students?

Strongly disagree. Not only such such behaviour be sanctioned with the loss of the OC of the organization, the principals involved should be banned from reapplying.

Then this kind of thing, disappears.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by PilotDAR » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:52 pm

and PilotDar are implying they shouldn't lose their OC for what MAY be willful taking advantage of students?
Okay... I'll imply that. An OC is unrelated to business practices, that's what the BBB is for. I'm not suggesting that unfair business practices are acceptable, they are not. However, our industry certainly cannot, and should not task TC with also judging the business practices of an OC holder. TC's mandate is safety, not customer satisfaction. It'd be like asking the people to confirm that the gas pumps are pumping what they're indicating to also assess the price that the gas station sells the gas for. A totally different task!

Whether concerns about advancement are valid, is beyond the scope of my thinking here, I don't have enough information to comment about that. But, it's not OC related. There are people who are not well suited to be pilots - sorry, but it's a reality. There ware people who are on the edge, and more training is required. There are general levels of achievement, and there are pilots who should not be measured against those standards.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by C.W.E. » Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:57 pm

There are people who are not well suited to be pilots - sorry, but it's a reality.
And some of them are instructors.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm

PilotDAR wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:52 pm
and PilotDar are implying they shouldn't lose their OC for what MAY be willful taking advantage of students?
Okay... I'll imply that. An OC is unrelated to business practices, that's what the BBB is for. I'm not suggesting that unfair business practices are acceptable, they are not. However, our industry certainly cannot, and should not task TC with also judging the business practices of an OC holder. TC's mandate is safety, not customer satisfaction. It'd be like asking the people to confirm that the gas pumps are pumping what they're indicating to also assess the price that the gas station sells the gas for. A totally different task!
Disagree, again. A flight school isn't comparable to a business supplying informed adults.

These are often teenagers as the consumer. Let's remember this.

It's more comparable to....a school, which is appropriately regulated to ensure they are providing the education they are supposed to. Or such school is shut down.

The standard should be appropriately higher for a flight school conducting primary training to students who know nothing about aviation , than if I as a CPL go and rent an aircraft, and find it dirty, or I'm overcharged. It's not the same thing, and for safety reasons as much as any other reason.

The same argument applies to scummy flight schools, who pressure pre-ppl students into expensive and dangerous "experience" flights in inappropriate conditions with substandard supervision. They should lose their OC for good. Most of you disagree. Fine.

Yet most of you want scummy 705's to lose their OC for operating in marginal weather. Their customers, and pilots, ARE informed, experienced ADULTS. There's the difference. I don't get the logic in seeing flight schools differently.

In real estate, agents who rip people off, lose their licence.
In financial services, ditto. Heavy penalties.
Why? Because there is a power / knowledge difference in the relationship.
Aviation, especially the incubator that is a school, should be higher than those.

And FWIW,
I'm a small C conservative, but I also believe in hammering companies extremely hard who rip off the uninformed. This isn't the place of the BBB, it's regulators.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aviatard
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:45 am
Location: In a box behind Walmart

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by Aviatard » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:50 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm

The same argument applies to scummy flight schools, who pressure pre-ppl students into expensive and dangerous "experience" flights in inappropriate conditions with substandard supervision. They should lose their OC for good. Most of you disagree. Fine.

Yet most of you want scummy 705's to lose their OC for operating in marginal weather. Their customers, and pilots, ARE informed, experienced ADULTS. There's the difference. I don't get the logic in seeing flight schools differently.

In real estate, agents who rip people off, lose their licence.
In financial services, ditto. Heavy penalties.
Aviation, especially the incubator that is a school, should be higher than those.

And FWIW,
I'm a small C conservative, but I also believe in hammering companies extremely hard who rip off the uninformed. This isn't the place of the BBB, it's regulators.
I know the case you're talking about. There was a huge thread on here about it a while ago, which you posted extensively in. I've been a member of flying clubs who organized such trips as a way to fly to some cool destinations. It really wasn't as you described, that you HAD do do these trips. It was more a case of here's a couple of different places you could fly to. Who wants in? I suspect that was also the case in the incident you're talking about. I don't think they pressured students into doing these flights. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the other point, you know, I often don't agree with you. In this case I think you are right. Rip-off flight schools should be able to be shut down for shady practices. Problem is, that isn't TC's mandate, so they're not going to get involved with that. That really leaves nobody with a mandate to deal with bad business practices, and that's why it continues. The Ontario PCC program took some steps in that direction, but really all it gives a student is a way to get their money back if the school closes and keeps their money. It doesn't address any other issues.

I'd like to see that happen because I try to make sure people get value for their money, and want them to go away thinking they got a fair deal. Shady operators tar all of us with the same brush. I'd rather not be part of an industry that has that stigma attached. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of the Real Estate Council of Ontario to regulate flight schools. Until there is, it will continue to be buyer beware. Sad but true.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by rookiepilot » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:59 pm

Aviatard wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:50 pm
rookiepilot wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm

The same argument applies to scummy flight schools, who pressure pre-ppl students into expensive and dangerous "experience" flights in inappropriate conditions with substandard supervision. They should lose their OC for good. Most of you disagree. Fine.

Yet most of you want scummy 705's to lose their OC for operating in marginal weather. Their customers, and pilots, ARE informed, experienced ADULTS. There's the difference. I don't get the logic in seeing flight schools differently.

In real estate, agents who rip people off, lose their licence.
In financial services, ditto. Heavy penalties.
Aviation, especially the incubator that is a school, should be higher than those.

And FWIW,
I'm a small C conservative, but I also believe in hammering companies extremely hard who rip off the uninformed. This isn't the place of the BBB, it's regulators.
I know the case you're talking about. There was a huge thread on here about it a while ago, which you posted extensively in. I've been a member of flying clubs who organized such trips as a way to fly to some cool destinations. It really wasn't as you described, that you HAD do do these trips. It was more a case of here's a couple of different places you could fly to. Who wants in? I suspect that was also the case in the incident you're talking about. I don't think they pressured students into doing these flights. Maybe I'm wrong.

As for the other point, you know, I often don't agree with you. In this case I think you are right. Rip-off flight schools should be able to be shut down for shady practices. Problem is, that isn't TC's mandate, so they're not going to get involved with that. That really leaves nobody with a mandate to deal with bad business practices, and that's why it continues. The Ontario PCC program took some steps in that direction, but really all it gives a student is a way to get their money back if the school closes and keeps their money. It doesn't address any other issues.

I'd like to see that happen because I try to make sure people get value for their money, and want them to go away thinking they got a fair deal. Shady operators tar all of us with the same brush. I'd rather not be part of an industry that has that stigma attached. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of the Real Estate Council of Ontario to regulate flight schools. Until there is, it will continue to be buyer beware. Sad but true.
Yes and that case went horribly bad, pressure or not. I guess we won't ever know for sure, will we? Sure seemed like SOME degree of pressure to "get home", in any event.

3 young people, a young instructor and 2 teenagers lost their lives, under the watch of more experienced people who Knew the instructor wasn't ready for hard IFR. All of this, for me being a part of the pilot community REALLY pisses me off.

Why? The victims weren't knowledgeable of the risk of a night IMC flight in weather, didn't even have the experience as pre PPL to even understand let alone consent.
Lives -- A whole lot more serious than money.

The fact, even after a settlement, which acknowledges some sort of liability in the US justice system, that there has been no serious regulatory repercussions in Canada for a school that allowed this tragedy.

What message does this send?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: 50 hours and no solo

Post by PilotDAR » Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:28 pm

If an OC holder broke a Canadian regulation, then yes, we depend upon TC to regulate them - out of business, if appropriate. TC enforces TC's safety regulations. Those regulations don't really apply to the commercial side of business conduct, and TC isn't going to get involved in that side - it's not their mandate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”