Average of 72 hours to check ride

J

Jim Logajan

En-Route
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
4,024
Display Name
Display name:
.
Went to a FAAST safety seminar last night and the speaker made an almost off-hand comment on the current statistics on how long students are now taking to get to the point of their check ride: national average is now about 72 hours.

And allegedly, only 2 people in the entire nation last year managed to pass their check ride near the 40 hour minimum.
 
Interesting. I had a little over 80 hours, over 22 months (my fault) and 3 CFIs (not my fault).
 
i think I had 38. most of my students (best I can remember) were probably in the 50-60 range. I did have one who passed at exactly 40 but she was really sharp.
 
So...Is there that much more to learn these days? Are students declining in their ability to focus on goals and syllabi? Are the aircraft/airspace/avionics really that complicated? Or are we so anxious we're demanding a higher level of competence before the checkride sign-off?

This number seems to be up about 10 hours just in the last decade.
 
Your guess for the 40 hour is off....

I took my check ride with 41.3 hours and passed. I still don't have 72 hours total.

I can name offhand 3 people this year from my same CFI that also took the ride and passed within the 40 hour range.
 
PW_Plack said:
So...Is there that much more to learn these days?
Click to expand...
Compared to when I learned 40 years ago, yes -- a lot more.

Are students declining in their ability to focus on goals and syllabi?
Click to expand...
Socialscience is not my forte, but I perceive a general lowering of the ability and motivation of young folks to learn anything. Also, the average age of Student Pilots has gone way up, and older folks never learn as fast as younger ones.

Are the aircraft/airspace/avionics really that complicated?
Click to expand...
Yes, without question. No GPS, no Class B/C airspace, no SFRA's, no night requirement, etc.

Or are we so anxious we're demanding a higher level of competence before the checkride sign-off?
Click to expand...
I don't think so.
 
It's economics. More people who fly only about once a month than in the past. Those who fly more often can easily hit the old numbers.

Study habits are secondary but also a factor. No Google/Wikipedia in the test room. ;)
 
I'd be more interested the median.
 
denverpilot said:
It's economics. More people who fly only about once a month than in the past. Those who fly more often can easily hit the old numbers.

Study habits are secondary but also a factor. No Google/Wikipedia in the test room. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny Story,

When I took my written, the proctor said he had to report someone earlier that year because he snuck his iPhone into the room and was using foreflight for bearing calculations...:rofl:
 
I would have taken about 40 hours, but there were some factors out of my control that prevented that. I think I ended up having like 185 hours when I took the ride. Wonder how many hours I dragged up the national average?
 
41 hrs , 3.5 months, C-150 Commuter. I had too much solo time.
Not as old as Capt'n Ron. But we did have TCA, TRSA, Control Zone airspace, ADF, DF, VOR. And had to be able to read the hourly or forecast using symbols for clear, broken, overcast, and the other shortcut symbols that came off the teletype from the punched paper tape.
 
A lot of pilots near larger cities are spending more time with engine running on the ground waiting for that departure clearance and having to fly farther to get to the practice area. It's not just outside the traffic pattern anymore.

It would be interesting to know the hours at aviation colleges with flight training as compared to the city FBO.
 
Last edited:
In 1999, I solo'd at 17 hrs. And passed the practical at 44 hrs. My delay in solo was the landing flare/sight picture.

I had every bit of written/knowledge done before starting flight lessons. And was reading instrument and commercial texts when taking pp flight lessons

I grew up around the flightline but returned after a 15 year hiatus. My lessons were based at a towered field inside a mode c veil.
 
Yay, I'm average... although probably not average back in the day when I got my private.
 
Other than bragging rights, what does it matter. I think I passed around 70. I flew 3 different airplanes and used 4 different CFI's. I bought a plane around the 10 to 15 hour mark and once I was signed off to fly solo, I wasn't in any hurry. I really, could fly as much as I wanted and I did. Sure, I was certified at age 47 and not 17. I don't think age makes it take longer, I think age (and money) gives you the option to take longer.
 
I soloed at 11 hours, then had 65 before taking the checkride. It was completely on me, because of often going two weeks between flights and too many half hour solos just doing pattern work rather than what I needed, which was going to other fields and working closer to the edge of my very limited comfort zone.
 
John221us said:
Other than bragging rights, what does it matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It doesn't matter one bit.

I was fortunate to have cooperative weather, an instructor that wasn't out to pad the bill, and the opportunity to fly several times a week. Solo'd at 8.8hrs (~2months), private at 48 hours (~five months).

The only thing my hours show is that it is possible to pass with not much more than the minimum 40 hours.
 
I passed the PP, IR, Comm, and CFI with minimum required hours yet now look back and wonder, "What were they thinking letting me loose with so little time??"

I think a pilot just starts to "get it" at around 500 hours.
 
In 1996, after flying once a week for about 8 months, I took and busted my private ride with 68 hours. 4 hours later I took and passed it. So I was ahead of my time!

By contrast, I used the GI bill for my instrument and commercial, and passed those rides right on schedule with the syllabus. Flying two or three lessons a week made a big differeence.
 
John221us said:
Other than bragging rights, what does it matter.
Click to expand...

For one thing, everyone is complaining about how expensive flying is. I talked to one person that soloed at 38 hours. I've seen others chattering on this board over the years that have done basically the same. Someone soloed at what? 70 hours IIRC.
Get a PP at 40 hours. Done.
Or solo at 40 hours plus another probably 40 hours to finish the other stuff that should have been started at 8-10 hours. That's at least double the price for a PP without changing anything on a regulatory level.
That is an extreme case, or is it, but you see the point.

What changed that made it so hard to solo? A little paperwork that is impossible to pass for some reason? They are also no longer using tail draggers that are more likely to swap ends taking 5 hours and are using nearly auto-land tricycle 150/172's that now take 10-40 hours. Easier plane = more hours to solo? Is it the student? Is it the instructor? Did the FAA change the rules to the equivalent of a masters degree? It can't have become that much more difficult or nobody would be flying. Something is just not right.
 
Last edited:
John221us said:
Other than bragging rights, what does it matter.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm much more interested on why the difference between the minimum 40 & average 72. As someone pointed out earlier, what's the median? What's the curve look like, and why are people on the right side of that curve taking so much longer?

Yes, time between lessons is an important factor but not the only one. What are the other factors and what can be done to mitigate them? To me, the current business model of flight training needs a complete overhaul and the FAA has no clue (nor reason) to change it. Neither does AOPA, that's for sure! Nor NAFI nor SAFE.

For the GA world, the military model isn't appropriate (get to this point, this accomplishment, etc. by this specific number of hours or get out). However the military model benefits because the instructors are not motivated by "gotta get my hours so I can move on" or "more hours, more $$$".
 
Last edited:
When it comes right down to it, who cares really how many hours one has when they take the check ride. Just as long as they are competent and safe. Of course if you are laying it on the table and measuring it, that is another thing altogether.
 
I wonder what the average solo hours are for part 61 vs part 141 instruction? I followed a part 141 syllabus, and had 60+ hours in before check ride. If following the syllabus correctly, I don't see how it is possible to test with much less than 50 to 55.
 
I took longer than average - and you can add me to the "older student" category.

It wasn't lack of focus, or ability, that added to the hours, though. In my case, I spent a lot of extra time during lessons learning the "why" and also wanting to get it right and not just good enough. Many students (younger students?) seem to want to get the PP as quickly as possible, nothing wrong with that, and then spend extra time afterwards learning the "why" behind the lessons. That's OK, too, that's why its called a license to learn. I did it reverse - I spent extra time with my CFI during training learning the "why". We did a lot of dual training not required for the PP-ASEL, but that was training I would have wanted after the checkride anyway. By the time I took my checkride I was pretty seasoned for a student. I suspect a lot of other older students treat their training the same way and that's why we typically take longer. The only time I'd wonder about someone taking too long during training is if there really was no progress in spite of the additional time.
 
I think part of it might be how motivated you are and how seriously you take the training. I was very much "into" getting it done and done right, I departed my homefield with less than the required 40 and landed at the airport to meet my examiner with 40.3 in my logbook and passed the test on the first try, that was 12 years ago next month.

There is a spectrum of enthusiasm with people, on any subject. Some are burning up to get it done, some don't care if it ever happens, and there is a big hump in the middle. It's the typical bell curve - I was on the left side, others are on the right, and now we know the hump in the middle is around 70.
 
Hours are irrelevant in one sense. It's like the old joke about what the lowest ranked grad in med school is called.... "Doctor".

But as Frank mentions, it does affect costs. My observation is that the time to complete the certificate is driven by the amount of time and the frequency the training occurs, which directly translates to cash flow. Unless a student walks in with the money to train frequently, he's going to have additional setbacks.
 
TMetzinger said:
Hours are irrelevant in one sense. It's like the old joke about what the lowest ranked grad in med school is called.... "Doctor".

But as Frank mentions, it does affect costs. My observation is that the time to complete the certificate is driven by the amount of time and the frequency the training occurs, which directly translates to cash flow. Unless a student walks in with the money to train frequently, he's going to have additional setbacks.
Click to expand...


Regarding costs - yeah, it's important to have the funds to be able to finish training. But a lot of people forget that you need to have money left over when you get that ticket so you can do the flying you were training for.
 
I think instructors sometimes get blamed for padding the bill, when he real issue is not knowing how to get a student's particular mental block solved by trying a different angle. If you swing the hammer ten times and don't break the rock, it's time to hit the rock in a different spot.

When I think back, all my instructors were good pilots, but not all were good teachers.
 
Matthew said:
Regarding costs - yeah, it's important to have the funds to be able to finish training. But a lot of people forget that you need to have money left over when you get that ticket so you can do the flying you were training for.
Click to expand...

There is twice the amount of money left over to go play if you get the checkride done at 40 hours instead of 80.


IMO just guessing: The FAA probably isn't the driving factor in the hours increase over the last couple decades. There has been stuff added over the years but not THAT much stuff.

Some potential ideas of the cause:

Instructors nitpicking or dragging out time or just not having the teaching skills maybe? I watched an instructor freak out about a STOL 172 approach when I said what I was going to do and slowed to 55kts on final when 45kts would have been safe. 65kts is minimal or certain death will occur especially at higher runway altitudes - or so I was told on downwind after the aborted landing. On the other side of that, I had an excellent instructor who knew how to teach and understood flight. My very first x-wind landings were in a left 10kt direct x-wind. The ground lesson to make it a non-event was about 5 minutes with two pieces of paper, a pencil, no writing and a simple comment about what effect the rudder and ailerons have on the air mass in relation to the ground motion - total clarity of the situation because the explanation made sense.

Students not taking it seriously maybe? An hour every two weeks? Not doing their homework? Coming to the lesson unprepared? Learning because it's a side hobby that is done half heartedly? The written is not a PhD level exam. Study, understand, take practice exams, understand the wrong answers, take the written and be done with it. Think about your average 3 hour college course - that's all you need to do for the written.

Maybe it's cultural nowadays. Look at what people do. Instant gratification. Nitpicking irrelevant details. (Calculations to the nearest 0.0001 gallon or 0.01 degree is not necessary to solo or even for a PP checkride) Overfocus on one thing while ignoring all the other things going on resulting in a complete lack of focus on the total environment. Not wanting to put the effort into something. More wishy washy teaching methods. Lack of concentration. Wanting the end result without the effort of the paperwork or understanding. Minimal standards being completely acceptable and studying for the exam only.
I think the worst is people saying they want to do something but their heart isn't really into it. I see college theatre students of all ages that say "I want to try" or "I want to do" with no conviction behind it - and those individuals get the basics however they turn out to not really be any good at what they end up doing. It's the ones who put the extra effort into it because it's who they are that are the best.
Flying is way too dangerous and demanding to not be dedicated to the learning process and effort required. Is the desire to fly an internal Want or an internal need Need? You either need to fly or you don't.

Just something to think about.
 
I don't know how many hours I wasted trying to teach myself to land an airplane, because my instructor kept telling me I just had to practice, but he didn't teach me what I needed to know. I wish I had dumped that instructor and found a much better one, I just didn't know any better at the time.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Went to a FAAST safety seminar last night and the speaker made an almost off-hand comment on the current statistics on how long students are now taking to get to the point of their check ride: national average is now about 72 hours.

And allegedly, only 2 people in the entire nation last year managed to pass their check ride near the 40 hour minimum.
Click to expand...

edit
Don't know where you're gettin that info I passed in 2011 with 44 hrs. Part 61

I could have done it with 40 hours but I "wasted" some time flying around solo and not knocking out requirements. It was just too fun. I used to go solo at 6am before work :)
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
"What were they thinking letting me loose with so little time??".
Click to expand...

At 58 hours, I think that everytime the wheels leave the ground.


And my instructor kicked me out of the nest at 53 hrs. He told me I was ready and to call the DPE. If I didn't, he would. I probably would've flown another couple hours at least getting ready. I passed, so he must've been right.
 
Last edited:
fgcason said:
Calculations to the nearest 0.0001 gallon or 0.01 degree is not necessary to solo or even for a PP checkride
Click to expand...


LOL! You are correct of course. In my current job I go to a lot of trouble to make correct engineering drawings showing dimensions down to the thousandth of an inch, and then when I go to the shop to watch it being assembled they measure it to the nearest 1/16", mark it with a piece of chalk 1/8" wide, and cut it freehand with a torch. :mad2:

Your point is valid - I remember my initial instructor being fairly anal about me calculating flightpaths by hand on cross-countries to the nearest half-knot of airspeed and groundspeed, and 0.1 degrees of heading. All these numbers were of course being measured by instrumention that was good to +/- 2 knots and +/- 5 degrees. What he was really teaching me was the theory of how to do it, plus the need for accuracy in calculations versus "Yeah, that looks about right..."
 
They call that "measuring with a micrometer, then cutting with an axe".

WierdJim used it once on usenet... Rec.av.something and it stuck with me since.
 
I used a private CFI instead of a school and I only flew when I had cash in my pocket. I do a lot of computer and IT work on the side so as I completed jobs I would go take a lesson.
It took me just over one year to complete and about 55 hours.

Cheers,
Chris
 
ScottK said:
At 58 hours, I think that everytime the wheels leave the ground.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that the phrase "license to learn" is one of those things you hear if you're around long enough or in the right circles.

It should be printed in bold letters on a sleeve your Certificate comes in which should remain until you've flown enough to be humbled a few times.
 
What he was really teaching me was the theory of how to do it, plus the need for accuracy in calculations versus "Yeah, that looks about right..."
Click to expand...

My dad was notorious at saying, "Nevermind the fanatical airspeed numbers. Always maintain flying speed. As long as you maintain flying speed, you can make the plane do what you want it to do." Absolutely Best Advice Ever - and I owe my life and a lack of bent airplanes to it's implementation quite a few times. (And flying speed is not a fixed airspeed. It has nothing to do with the airspeed indicator at all. It's infinitely variable depending on the conditions. It is actually the speed, angle of attack, and pitch/roll/yaw which creates the proper airflow over the control surfaces to allow you to make the plane do what you need it to do. It's the practical application of Stick and Rudder stuff)


Doggtyred said:
They call that "measuring with a micrometer, then cutting with an axe".
Click to expand...

Measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with axe.


Flying is an art. It lies deep in both categories of high precision and wishy washy. There is a time and place for each..even when it involves both at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top