A better way to get a PPL

[TorontoGuy]

If you'll noitice TorontoGuy, this is a forum discussing a 'better way to get a PPL'.

Yes, I know that. I'm not trying to start an argument.

I outlined my ideas on what I know works. All that I am suggesting is that if you want to meet the minimums and therefore save a lot of money and time, it is more advantageous to take the time off from your job and do all the training at once.

OK, that implication wasn't clear to me from reading your post. It assumes you can find a place that'll do ground school for you in that same time, too, I suppose.

I don't honestly care if your life situation does or doesn't enable you to fly more than once every six weeks. I'm giving my suggestions, the onus is on you for realization or discarding of said suggestions.

Didn't ask you to care. Didn't ask for a fight, either. Just adding to the conversation. (not sure where you get "6 weeks", tho. No matter.)

Anti

[AntiNakedMan]

I apologize sir, I did not look for a fight either.

I thought I was fairly clear in my original post that training would be better utilised if the student is able to take the time off from work/life and dedicate their whole schedule to their training.

As for ground school, I've done a PPL course and a CPL course online, and could have easily finished either of them in 4 weeks.

Is the suggestion that the system is purposely weighted against people who can't fly more than once a day for 6 weeks?

that's from your original post, and I understood it to be you saying that you can only fly once every six weeks.

Overall though, thank you for your input and opinion, as I feel it has helped me to form mine better.

Anti

[TorontoGuy]

Is the suggestion that the system is purposely weighted against people who can't fly more than once a day for 6 weeks?

that's from your original post, and I understood it to be you saying that you can only fly once every six weeks.

Overall though, thank you for your input and opinion, as I feel it has helped me to form mine better.

Anti

Ah! You misunderstood. My sentence asked about people who could not fly as in your example of once-a-day for six weeks (my rounding of your 5-to-7). I'm flying Sats and Suns., weather permitting.

[duplicate2]

I have been wondering about that for years. In fact, I suggest that as tech advances, and Level "D" simulators filter down to the flight schools, this might become a reality.

When do you expect this to happen? Even if a school get a discarded simulator (like Coastal Pacific), I can't think of any school that could afford to maintain its certification (like Coastal Pacific). And why would they bother, so they can sell 747 type ratings?

[duplicate2]

I do not make statements that I feel I can not support, so give me the actual average time in Canada to receive a PPL and I will defend my statement and outline exactly how I would conduct the training..

So far no official response, so let's say 55-60 hours average. This of course is probably kept lower than it otherwise would be (60-70?) by the high number of cadets doing it the PPL in 47.

Just an estimate by me because I want to hear your plan.

[TC Guy]

Good morning TC Guy:

I shall try and respond to this..

" HOWEVER... that is a pretty bold statement to make. Since it is nearly impossible to prove without doing it, why make the statement in the first place? The tone was rather derogatory, considering that people have met the current standards (if you agree with them or not) in the amount of flight time you stated above... and yet you have no data to support your hypothesis? "

NOTE!!!!

Before I go any further with this discussion I want Transport Canada Civil Aviation to understand that I am no longer a part of the aviation community in Canada and in fact I am your biggest enemy and hold all you stand for in utter contempt.

Now TC Guy as long as you understand the above I will clearly outline why I made this statement after you give me the average time for a PPL in Canada.

Remember this is not a personal thing between you and I as individuals

I do not make statements that I feel I can not support, so give me the actual average time in Canada to receive a PPL and I will defend my statement and outline exactly how I would conduct the training..

Cat

Cat.. I am not in the office, so I don't have access to the database.

When I do, I will give you the answer to your question. I am assuming it is in the 70 hour range, given the fact it is a national average.

And, ., I don't take our conversations personally-- I am just asking. You put it out there, and I decided to take the bait.

I like a good, intelligent debate!

-Guy

[TC Guy]

I have been wondering about that for years. In fact, I suggest that as tech advances, and Level "D" simulators filter down to the flight schools, this might become a reality.

When do you expect this to happen? Even if a school get a discarded simulator (like Coastal Pacific), I can't think of any school that could afford to maintain its certification (like Coastal Pacific). And why would they bother, so they can sell 747 type ratings?

You misunderstand me. I am not saying a transport category (aka 737, 747, etc.) simulator. I am suggesting that soon enough, it will be economically feasable to build/purchase/train on a GA Level "D" simulator (in otherwords, a full motion, full visual C172) and some of the flight training will be truely replaced by the simulator.

If my information is correct, Coastal Pacific uses a B747 simulator, formerly used by Air Canada, certified to Level 2 FTD status. Last time I heard, they weren't using the motion.

I hope this clears things up.

-Guy

[Cat Driver]

OK:

We can assume that he average hours for the PPL is 70 hours.

If there were a new flight training exemption put in place to allow qualified pilots to teach on amateur built airplanes outside of the dictates of TC's FTU requirements I would use a Cub clone equipped with a glass instrument panel such as Dynon's system.

I would operate off a grass field away from controlled airspace.

The license would be flat rated at a fixed price with a minimum of 30 hours flight time.

The training would be one on one full immersion where the student lived and breathed learning how to fly in a fixed time frame, ideally 2 hours per day flight time.

To ensure the student could seamlessly transfer from grass to a controlled airspace the training would be conducted under supervision using a PC generated program such as flightsim.

The real secret here is full immersion with no financial burden on the student outside of the fixed price.

I have many other ideas but don't want to over load anyone with to much in one post.

Hell I would even hire TC Guy and he could do the same on a franchise basis and when I get shot screwing someones wife he could be the owner..

[TorontoGuy]

You sure 70 hrs isn't high for a guestimate? If you're using it as an average, with 47 being the lower of two numbers averaged (the cadets), then 93 hours is your top. People actually take 93 hrs for a PPL? (It also means schools that quote the 45 hrs as a cost are underselling the true cost by 55%!)

[TC Guy]

You sure 70 hrs isn't high for a guestimate? If you're using it as an average, with 47 being the lower of two numbers averaged (the cadets), then 93 hours is your top. People actually take 93 hrs for a PPL? (It also means schools that quote the 45 hrs as a cost are underselling the true cost by 55%!)

I suspect that is low, actually...

I will see what kind of data I can generate. I am not due in the office until next week-- and I don't have my work resources (aka databases) available at home.

-Guy

[TC Guy]

Hell I would even hire TC Guy and he could do the same on a franchise basis and when I get shot screwing someones wife he could be the owner..

LOL... okay, that caught me by surprise.



Cat... I like the concept.

Honestly, I believe it could work, provided you pre-screened applicants for some basic proficiancy. Although you may think differently, I have trained enough people "off the street" to come to the conclusion not all who want to become pilots have the basic ability. Your business model may not be workable.

Comments?

-Guy

[goldeneagle]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying a transport category (aka 737, 747, etc.) simulator. I am suggesting that soon enough, it will be economically feasable to build/purchase/train on a GA Level "D" simulator (in otherwords, a full motion, full visual C172) and some of the flight training will be truely replaced by the simulator.

The level D GA simulator is coming sooner than a lot of folks expect. A lot of folks think the motion system is the hard part, but in reality, it's the visual system that's the show stopper on price. That's changing, and changing rapidly. 10 years ago, the decision to buy C vs D was a major decision, the upgrade to full daylight visuals was a HUGE expense. Your average computer game ($70) has better visuals today than a million dollar simulator did 5 years ago. The requirement to have proper parallax and perception from both seats goes away when you are simulating a single pilot aircraft.

It's only a matter of time before somebody takes the motion platform from an arcade system, straps the cockpit from a wrecked 172 on top of it, then gets a few pc game developers in to start creating the visuals for it. With the ludicrous price of a new cessna today, it'll probably be a first in aviation history, you can buy a full motion Level D simulator for less money than the airplane it simulates.

That's going to bring up an interesting question. I can go get a type endorsement on a transport airplane today without ever flying it, just spend the time in a proper simulator. If somebody certifies a C-172 simulator to Level D, is TC going to allow time in that sim in lieu of real airplane time for counting time requirements toward a PPL ? If so, how much ?

[Hoov]

Cat, did you get my pm? I sent it some time last week.

[TC Guy]

That's going to bring up an interesting question. I can go get a type endorsement on a transport airplane today without ever flying it, just spend the time in a proper simulator. If somebody certifies a C-172 simulator to Level D, is TC going to allow time in that sim in lieu of real airplane time for counting time requirements toward a PPL ? If so, how much ?

As in all things, time will tell.

Basic flight training is much different than airline simulation. My personal opinion is that fidelity (accurate flight control/motion/visual) simulation will be much more difficult in a GA aircraft beacsue of the nature of the beast. 1/1000th the inertia (of a 747, at least), and primarily visual maneuvers will be the big challenge.

What will TC allow? Depends on the simulator.

We live in exciting times.

-Guy

[Cat Driver]

TC Guy wrote:

"Honestly, I believe it could work, provided you pre-screened applicants for some basic proficiancy. Although you may think differently, I have trained enough people "off the street" to come to the conclusion not all who want to become pilots have the basic ability. Your business model may not be workable.

Comments?

-Guy"

Exactly, you are listening as I thought you would.

A few years ago when I tried to get another FTU approved I hired a Class one instructor who I knew and his pay was to be $50.00 per hour for every hour any aircraft flew under his supervion including student solo.

I paid him a salary for months while the Regional Director TCCA helped the head of M&M to bankrupt my company....

...My instructor believed in my plan as evident from the fact he went to work for me.

..one of the only differences between my flat rate cost for a license and the milk e'm for ever concept was the instructor first interviewed and flew two hours with all new students to assure the person did not have some medical or mental problem that would prevent them learning at a normal level.

I would be willing to give you his phone number if you wished to talk to him....

..he also was failed by TC when I appointed him as PRM....

....he was so devestated that he subsequently quit flying and has never went back...

..for doing that to my friend there are a couple of people with TCCA in Vancouver that should toss and turn at night when they go to bed......

Cat

[Cat Driver]

" Cat, did you get my pm? I sent it some time last week. "

Andrew, I went and found your PM and answered it...

..you will notice that I removed all my stuff from my personal data because I just got to many e-mails and couldn't keep up..

.

[TC Guy]

...My instructor believed in my plan as evident from the fact he went to work for me.

..one of the only differences between my flat rate cost for a license and the milk e'm for ever concept was the instructor first interviewed and flew two hours with all new students to assure the person did not have some medical or mental problem that would prevent them learning at a normal level.

Well, then... again, we seem to be in agreement with the concept.

I don't believe that "anyone can fly"-- not everyone has the ability. As soon as you can screen out those that are not suitable, it will work-- but that is the trick. As soon as you take them on as a student, then you are on the "hook" for the training. And, lets face it, there will be pressures to get them finished on time/budget.

It is not a simple situation-- it involves people.

-Guy

[trey kule]

TC Guy:

When you search the stats for a private license is it possible to omit the cadets. Or possibly a median time. If your estimate of 70 hrs is anywhere near correct the cadet program will be holding back the average .

I know its not kosher to say good things about the US but schools like flight safety and emery riddle turn out some really great pilot material.
Perhaps it would be good to look at the successful places see what we can learn. flight safety for one, has an excellent supervision program for new instructors, something I h ave never seen even approximated in Canada.

I think flying training has progressed to the level where these "continous entry ground schools", and ad hoc programs are going to go the way of the dinasaur.

[trey kule]

TC guy wrote:

I don't believe that "anyone can fly"-- not everyone has the ability

I am living proof that your way off base on this one!!!

Actually, pre screening is an excellent idea but many moons ago when I was instructing some of the most gifted students gave terrible first impressions. I think the problem is that there will always be flying schools catering to the pilot who just wants to learn for fun, like joining a golf club. And I really dont see much wrong with this. Unfortunately, the gap in equipment between primary training and the working world seems to be widening, and professional pilots need a speacialized type of training.

[TorontoGuy]

TC Guy:

When you search the stats for a private license is it possible to omit the cadets. Or possibly a median time. If your estimate of 70 hrs is anywhere near correct the cadet program will be holding back the average .

That is an important distinction -- a median vs an average. You're right, the cadets would skew both. A median would be more valuable, since it's weighted, whereas an average is just the centre between the highest time and the lowest, with no accounting for how many people were at either end or in the middle.

[duplicate2]

A median would be more valuable, since it's weighted,...

You are actually describing a mean, which is what most people are referring to when they say average.

...an average is just the centre between the highest time and the lowest, with no accounting for how many people were at either end or in the middle.

Here you are describing a median.

Mean, median and mode are all different methods of calculating average.

[duplicate2]

I have been wondering about that for years. In fact, I suggest that as tech advances, and Level "D" simulators filter down to the flight schools, this might become a reality.

When do you expect this to happen? Even if a school get a discarded simulator (like Coastal Pacific), I can't think of any school that could afford to maintain its certification (like Coastal Pacific). And why would they bother, so they can sell 747 type ratings?

You misunderstand me. I am not saying a transport category (aka 737, 747, etc.) simulator. I am suggesting that soon enough, it will be economically feasable to build/purchase/train on a GA Level "D" simulator (in otherwords, a full motion, full visual C172) and some of the flight training will be truely replaced by the simulator.

If my information is correct, Coastal Pacific uses a B747 simulator, formerly used by Air Canada, certified to Level 2 FTD status. Last time I heard, they weren't using the motion.

I hope this clears things up.

-Guy

That does clear things up, thanks.

[TorontoGuy]

A median would be more valuable, since it's weighted,...

You are actually describing a mean, which is what most people are referring to when they say average.

...an average is just the centre between the highest time and the lowest, with no accounting for how many people were at either end or in the middle.

Here you are describing a median.

Mean, median and mode are all different methods of calculating average.

Right. Apparently, it's back to Grade 13 statistics class for me. Failing memory. Middle age. Now let's see, starboard is.....the front end?

[dreemin]

Just hours in Guys and now my instructor is goin: we discussed my book knowledge, my experience around aircraft, and the amount of work we did in 4 hrs, and he acknowledged and was willing to progress the training into more "real" flying time based on my stick and rudder performance. I in turn would do my homework and be ready for his questions on the book stuff.(which I put a great importance to) It is a small school and I don't know how much experience my new guy will have or his willingness to do the same. All I'm sayin is that (not being cocky) I want to learn as much "flyin" during my Hobbs time as possible and I don't know if that can happen now.

[duplicate2]

Right. Apparently, it's back to Grade 13 statistics class for me. Failing memory. Middle age. Now let's see, starboard is.....the front end?

Too late, Grade 13 is gone....