Sport Pilot Talk

I had an informative flight review today -- good opportunity for learning. Basic flight manuveurs: slow flight, stalls, steep turns, turning stalls, engine out simulation to landing on a grass strip and a few full stop landings. I'd highly recommend the CFI to any Dallas area pilots in need of instruction or reviews.

Anyway, I pulled out my first flight log book by accident and just so happens I'm coming up in the next couple weeks on the 20 year anniversary of my first solo. Since we get a lot a questions how long things take (this is for a Private Pilot since SP didn't exist back then):

• 10.5 hours to first solo, flying once per week with no missed lessons
  46.2 hours to the PP checkride. Looks like I took a 2.5 month break after 36.4 hours (no idea the reason) and spent the next 9.8 hrs pretty much prepping for the checkride. 5.0 hrs was dual. I'd guess 1/2 of the time was knocking off rust.
  13 calendar months from first flight to passing the checkride.

Of course, SP only requires 20 total hrs so a similar flying pattern would probably put one in the mid-20s.

As always, YMMV.

dstclair wrote:10.5 hours to first solo, flying once per week with no missed lessons.

Dave, you don't say what kind of aircraft that was in. If it was the ubiquitous Cessna 150 or similar, I would venture to say it's easier to fly than most S-LSAs. The lighter the wing loading, the harder it is to master landings -- so, the average hours to solo are probably higher for Sport Pilots.

In any case, happy 20th anniversary!

Learned in a 160hp Piper Warrior II. MTOW of 2325. I'd say the extra 1000lbs made it easier to master than the average LSA.

drseti wrote:

dstclair wrote:10.5 hours to first solo, flying once per week with no missed lessons.

Dave, you don't say what kind of aircraft that was in. If it was the ubiquitous Cessna 150 or similar, I would venture to say it's easier to fly than most S-LSAs. The lighter the wing loading, the harder it is to master landings -- so, the average hours to solo are probably higher for Sport Pilots.

In any case, happy 20th anniversary!

drseti, could you share with us some data on your students, hours to solo, total hours to Sport certificate etc..?

zdc wrote:drseti, could you share with us some data on your students, hours to solo, total hours to Sport certificate etc..?

Sure! Here are the averages for last year's graduating class:

hours to solo: 21.4
hours to license: 40.4
age: 54.8

Note that my students tend to be older than the traditional (pvt) student pilot. I think there's some selectivity going on here with regard to the lack of a required medical certificate. At any rate, it's likely that younger students will progress more rapidly.

drseti wrote:it's likely that younger students will progress more rapidly.

So, I did a quick nonlinear regression, and there is definitely a strong (97%) positive correlation between age and hours:



Small sample size, to be sure, but very convincing as a --um-- pilot study.

So as not to mislead prospective SP students, the average for a PP is 60-75hrs according to the FAA (http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/avia ... 83-27a.pdf).

Don't have a reference from the FAA for an SP but using Paul's numbers, it will take at least 20hrs less to get an SP vs a PP.

Paul, be careful about taking teens as students. Based on your graph, they would be ready to solo right after learning how to preflight. <g>

I'll buy Paul's statement that most LSA's are less stable, more maneuverable, and therefore, take a little more time to master.

The question I have that begs asking is...
Most every pilot who received their training from the 1930's through the 1980's, soloed in the single-digits to low-teens, and they got their ticket in jut over 40.

Why does it take so much longer these days in the same planes, with the same experience requirements?

Usually, a rhetorical question like this can be answered by "following the $$$$$$." Who benefits from the increase from 40+, up to 60+ hours?

Jack Tyler wrote:Paul, be careful about taking teens as students. Based on your graph, they would be ready to solo right after learning how to preflight. <g>

Ah, the joys of extrapolating beyond the data range! Taken to extremes, the regression equation shows that infants are ready to solo before they can walk!

bryancobb wrote:I'll buy Paul's statement that most LSA's are less stable, more maneuverable, and therefore, take a little more time to master.

The question I have that begs asking is...
Most every pilot who received their training from the 1930's through the 1980's, soloed in the single-digits to low-teens, and they got their ticket in jut over 40.

Why does it take so much longer these days in the same planes, with the same experience requirements?

Usually, a rhetorical question like this can be answered by "following the $$$$$$." Who benefits from the increase from 40+, up to 60+ hours?

Bryan, if you go back and look at things, there have been many changes. The FAA has created a long list of things required to solo that accident rates showed was not being covered. They have added requirements to the training required for the private like 3 hours of instrument and 3 hours of night (my dad didn't have any night training). Knowledge test from 50 true false questions to 60 multiple choice questions. The prctical test standards and DPE training has required that pilots get training in all areas instead of just what they needed to pass the checkride with the local DPE. Add to that all those people who started to fly back then and quit to raise a family. When they come back they bring all those old hours and not enough experience. This elevates the average.

bryancobb wrote:Why does it take so much longer these days in the same planes, with the same experience requirements?

Money is only part of the answer, Bryan. When I started, there were few towered airports, no such thing as ARSAs, TRSAs, and TCAs, and the old Aeronca Champ didn't have an electrical system, much less a radio. So, there was much less to learn then.

By initially restricting Sport Pilots to non-towered airports (until they are properly endorsed), one would think that instruction regarding airspace could now be eliminated. Quite the opposite is true. We need to give more ground instruction, at least, in how to avoid airspace. (This doesn't necessarily mean more flight instruction, but depending upon the locale, it may.)

In addition, the glass panels prevalent in most LSAs these days may be harder to master than the three-pack (airspeed, altimeter, compass) or current six-pack, requiring more flight training. As to navigation, although we've largely eliminated VORs from the SP curriculum, it still takes a good bit of training to properly use a GPS. (I maintain that most experienced pilots don't know how to use a GPS. My evidence: notice that the paint is always rubbed off the "direct to" button but no others.)

Bottom line: we still teach manipulative skills pre-solo, to make an airplane driver -- and then cognitive skills post-solo, to turn that airplane driver into a pilot. I don't see SP being easier, or faster, in this regard than training private pilots.

I think most CFIs/training operations are much more conservative today and require students to obtain a higher skill level before soloing.

bryancobb wrote:I'll buy Paul's statement that most LSA's are less stable, more maneuverable, and therefore, take a little more time to master.

The question I have that begs asking is...
Most every pilot who received their training from the 1930's through the 1980's, soloed in the single-digits to low-teens, and they got their ticket in jut over 40.

Why does it take so much longer these days in the same planes, with the same experience requirements?

Usually, a rhetorical question like this can be answered by "following the $$$$$$." Who benefits from the increase from 40+, up to 60+ hours?

Both of the above answers are IMO excellent and offer a historical perspective that encompasses the technology advances, regulatory increases and a/c systems complexities that the question ignores. And in that regard:

"Most every pilot who received their training from the 1930's through the 1980's, soloed in the single-digits to low-teens, and they got their ticket in jut over 40."

Most every? Do we have some hard numbers from a time recent enough to compare to today's complex airspace? (As mentioned, students who earned licenses in the 30's, 40's, etc. are apples when compared to today's oranges). I earned my PPL at the end of the 80's, in the same somewhat complicated airspace environment that Bryan teaches in, and what I was seeing at the flight schools then is what we are apparently seeing today. As AOPA's Flight Training Q&A states today:

"Theoretically, you can do it in 40 hours, but you would probably have to devote every bit of your time to training. Most people train a few hours a week and, therefore, log from 60 to 80 hours by the time they get a certificate."
(Good Q&A about learning to fly, BTW - http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/artic ... ticle=2472 )

I had Florida's benign weather and a very responsive flight school with multiple training a/c to support my training, and I finished my PPL in just under 60 hours. Today's business travel, winter weather in seasonal climates and 'lonely only' LSA training a/c would all contribute to longer training periods.

PPL students also have the choice of doing Part 141 training, which lowers the 'minimum hours required' to 35...albeit with a more rigidly structured curriculum and most likely a qualifying simulator for the student. But even then, 40 hours is simply unlikely.

My impression is that most flight schools are especially sensitive these days about two things: the barrier that cost presents to aspiring students, and the poor completion rates of students entering training (which as I recall is <20%). I can't see either of these motivating a flight school to 'milk' a student; in most cases it ultimately doesn't work financially.

Things have really changed over the years. My dad soloed in 45 minutes with an instructor. His brothers had taught him to fly. That was in the 40's or 50's. I know he didn't finish until 1956. Tom