My first flight. Excited & nervous

  • Thread starter Thread starter newpilot
  • Start date Start date
N

newpilot

Guest
Hello everyone, i'm new to the forum, and new to flying (GA) as well. I'm 15 years old starting training soon.

I have an upcoming intro flight with a C172 or C152 (if someone could help me with what plane is better to start with, i would appreciate that too), and I'm pretty excited but a bit nervous as well.

On another aviation forum, there was a particular thread about how many incidents regarding engine failures people have been through, and it seems like almost every pilot had 1-3 (some with even more..) engine failures. Some were full, some were partial. Now normally I would not be nervous about this, but because I am taking flight lessons in a very urban mountainous area, there is no place to land if that were to happen (Taking off from Palo Alto Airport) The only non-urban place is mountains. So i'm a bit nervous regarding that. Are engine failures actually this common?

Other than that, I am very excited for my first flight. Can I expect to be at the controls for a bit of the flight? Even takeoff?

Thanks!

Regards,
Matthew
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome! Engine failure are extremely rare....as long as you keep enough fuel aboard. That's the number one cause of such "failures." In 34 years and 3,200 hours I've never had a complete failure...a couple partials that required a return to the airport, but none requiring an off-airport landing.

As for 150 vs. 172, it really doesn't matter unless you're really tall or over 200 lbs. if so, then go for the 172.

If you were flying with me you'd have the controls 90% of the flight. Hopefully your CFI will do likewise.

Enjoy!
 
LDJones said:
Welcome! Engine failure are extremely rare....as long as you keep enough fuel aboard. That's the number one cause of such "failures." In 34 years and 3,200 hours I've never had a complete failure...a couple partials that required a return to the airport, but none requiring an off-airport landing.

As for 150 vs. 172, it really doesn't matter unless you're really tall or over 200 lbs. if so, then go for the 172.

If you were flying with me you'd have the controls 90% of the flight. Hopefully your CFI will do likewise.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response :) Made me feel better. I will probably go ahead with the C172 because its a little bit bigger and roomy. Hopefully I won't get spoiled by it either :D

Can't wait to get flying
 
If you can fit comfortably in a 152, I'd go with it. It will be less expensive for your training. The 172 would be fine, too. That's what I used, and it's more realistic for something you'd fly later.
 
Welcome to POA.

Either airplane is good. As mentioned, if either you or the instructor is hefty, then the 172 is a better fit. I flew both in my initial training and they fly nearly the same, so you can switch later if you want.

Tell us a little bit about yourself. Why you have decided to fly. I am an older woman. My husband and I learned to fly about 13 years ago so that we could have transportation that we controlled during our trips across the US. Then we found out how much fun it is! He is now an instructor. Learning to fly is an up and down situation -- both literally and figuratively. There are so many types of things to learn.

Don't get overly concerned about engine failures. It is kind of like worrying about having a tire fail while you are driving. Nearly everyone has experienced a flat and most of us handle even a blow-out pretty well. Your training will cover what to do in case the engine coughs.

Keep coming back and let us know how it is going for you.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Welcome to POA.

Either airplane is good. As mentioned, if either you or the instructor is hefty, then the 172 is a better fit. I flew both in my initial training and they fly nearly the same, so you can switch later if you want.

Tell us a little bit about yourself. Why you have decided to fly. I am an older woman. My husband and I learned to fly about 13 years ago so that we could have transportation that we controlled during our trips across the US. Then we found out how much fun it is! He is now an instructor. Learning to fly is an up and down situation -- both literally and figuratively. There are so many types of things to learn.

Don't get overly concerned about engine failures. It is kind of like worrying about having a tire fail while you are driving. Nearly everyone has experienced a flat and most of us handle even a blow-out pretty well. Your training will cover what to do in case the engine coughs.

Keep coming back and let us know how it is going for you.
Click to expand...
Hello :) Okay, a little about myself. I have been interested in aviation ever since I can remember! However, I really got into aviation when I picked up my copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X. I enjoy going to KLVK on weekends and watching all the planes takeoff and land, and try to go once every 2 weeks on nice sunny days.

And that's about it really. Believe me I wish there was more :yikes:

Concorde said:
Welcome and good luck !
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
I agree with the previous comments. I'm 6ft and my first CFI was a little taller, so I learned in the 172. Plus that was all the flight school had. I've never flown in a 152.

Never had an engine failure (thank God) and I also fly from a heavily populated area on Long Island,NY.

One thing that I do on every flight, before startup, is visually check and confirm fuel in the tanks. I do this even if I depart with full tanks and take a short 20-30 minute hop to a nearby airport. I never trust the fuel gauges alone! Check the quality of the fuel (no water or dirt & proper color!). A thorough preflight inspection is a must.

Also, take your time and do a thorough run up. Your instructor will show you how to do this.

Enjoy!
 
There are some emergency landing sites around PAO. The bayshore is lightly developed and pretty flat (the occasional emergency landing there tends to flip over, but with minor or no injuries). There is one transmission line to dodge, but it's unusually obvious. Every once in a while, someone lands on I-280. There are still fields at Coyote Hills and in Livermore Valley (a common training area). And even over the mountains to the west (a less commonly used training area), the coastal terraces are pretty flat. And many of the ridgetops are bare.

As for urban sites, Stanford has LOTS of open space.

You have options if you look for them.

Having said that, the closest I have come to an engine failure is eating a bit of carburetor ice during the noise abatement turn passing East PA. The engine stumbled, but kept running at full power. Since I was still climbing, I continued around the pattern and landed normally.

It's a simplification, but the most common reason for an engine "failure" is running out of fuel. And, to a large extent, the deadly accidents are when the pilot fails to control the aircraft all the way to the ground.

A 152 will make the most sense for presolo work IF you and your instructor can fit without overloading. Shouldn't be a problem at your age.

Two things pilots like to compete with are the scariest in-flight problem, and the fewest hours to solo. Both are rife with fish stories.
 
Last edited:
First welcome to POA, and welcome to flight.

The other posters have covered engine failure pretty well, so I'll be brief. They do happen, but infrequently. I'd say the majority of pilots have not had one. We tend to obsess over it because it can turn out so badly if it does happen. But from the air you will see lots of places you can put it down in an emergency, and one of the things your CFI will teach you (and you will be tested on!) is how to identify safe forced landing sites. Your instructor should teach you how to visually verify the fuel level as part of the preflight. Do it every time you fly and you'll already have beaten the cause of the majority of engine failure cases.

The 152 will be cheaper. I suggest you ask to sit in one with your instructor. If you both fit OK, then use it and save some money. If it's cramped, then go to the 172.

One thing people haven't said is that your first task in flight training is to forget nearly everything you've learned from MSFS. It does a decent job of simulating the radios and such, but the full-immersion you get physically, using all your senses, is very different in reality.

Don't worry about being nervous, your CFI will expect it. It fades, but the excitement never does!
 
I did all of my training in a C-152, and I think it makes a great, economical trainer. It also likes to drop a wing in a stall when slightly uncoordinated, which forces you to actually learn now to apply opposite rudder when recovering. IMHO the 150, and 152 are better trainers partly due to their lower power and lighter controls. You actually have to fly them a bit more than a 172 or Cherokee.

Talk to your CFI about the differences and see what he/she says also.
 
I switched from a 152 to a 172 presolo. They handle similarly, including in the stall. The main difference is that the 172 is faster and will climb quicker, with the same load.

A Cherokee, on the other hand, seems a bit too easy in the stall. I've had to tell people that one has occurred (intentional demonstration).

It's not hard to deal with a dipped wing if it does happen.

And to the OP, the general public thinks stalls are dangerous. That's only really true close to the ground, where there isn't enough room to recover. I found them rather fun during training, where it's done at least 2000 feet above the ground (I prefer 3500, as high as I can go under San Francisco airspace in the practice areas).
 
newpilot said:
Hello everyone, i'm new to the forum, and new to flying (GA) as well. I'm 15 years old starting training soon.

I have an upcoming intro flight with a C172 or C152 (if someone could help me with what plane is better to start with, i would appreciate that too), and I'm pretty excited but a bit nervous as well.
Click to expand...

There isn't much difference as far as learning to fly goes. So, unless your instrutor is a lard ass or the 172 costs less, go for the 152.
(6'1" 235 pounds - 150/152 works for me if the other seat isn't too heavy.)

On another aviation forum, there was a particular thread about how many incidents regarding engine failures people have been through, and it seems like almost every pilot had 1-3
Click to expand...
None for me
 
Thanks for the responses guys. Ill check out the 172 and 152 on the day of flight, see which one is better. Leaning toward the 152 as its a bit cheaper and the CFI doesn't look to heavy for it xD

Most incidents could have been prevented if a pilot made better decisions, actually did a full pre-flight check before take-off. Never making that mistake as long as i'm a pilot.

Seems 280 is a popular landing site..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
newpilot said:
Most incidents could have been prevented if a pilot made better decisions, actually did a full pre-flight check before take-off. Never making that mistake as long as i'm a pilot.
Click to expand...

Always remember to never use the words "Always" or "Never".

Other than that, yes, a lot of accidents could have been avoided by not doing stupid things.

Good luck. Have fun.
 
I initially flew the 172 and have about 50-60 hours in them, then switched to the 152, which I have 130+ hours in. It is more fun to fly in my opinion. You get a better feel on the controls, it's cheaper, and you're worried about building hours cheaply so an extra 10 knots isn't important during training.
 
Last edited:
Welcome, you got some good advice around here. Don't sweat the small stuff, go have fun and learn.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Always remember to never use the words "Always" or "Never".

Other than that, yes, a lot of accidents could have been avoided by not doing stupid things.

Good luck. Have fun.
Click to expand...

Very true. I never thought I'd startup the airplane with the nose wheel still chocked (after a thorough preflight)....until I did:lol: !
And this was AFTER I got my PPL! Never did that during training though.
 
newpilot said:
However, I really got into aviation when I picked up my copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X
Click to expand...
+1
See? FSX does help bring kids to aviation!
And don't "forget what you know from FSX" instead just realize it can be considerably different in the real world. It will still help you hold heading and altitude and get you through the breaks in your training... also look into joining Boston Virtual ATC. It helped a bunch with my radio skills.
 
Not just kids....

I got into private aviation from a different flight simulator (FlightGear, and a custom one at Dryden a couple of colleagues are working on). I've been working on the development side for years (even wrote a special purpose flight planner).

They work great for motivation -- to a point -- but it is important to understand the experience is quite different from reality. I did get two really important lessons from it -- how the radio stack (including the VOR receivers) works, and that trimming is not optional. Most people don't get the latter from a sim. Trimming in real life is still rather different because you do it by feeling control forces that are absent in the sim.

If you're hanging out at LVK, why train at PAO? LVK is further from SFO, doesn't have the Bay in the way, has two runways, one of which is long and the other has no glideslope guidance (a good thing), it uses the same practice areas (and it's a lot closer to them), has less summer fog, and at least some of the prices are cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Welcome! Once the wheels leave the ground, your nerves will settle down and amazement will come in. Enjoy!
 
MAKG1 said:
Trimming in real life is still rather different because you do it by feeling control forces that are absent in the sim.
Click to expand...

Last post on sims-don't want to get too off-topic. But I disagree, flying around with the joystick an inch aft is enough of a control force t omake me want to trim. :yes:
 
MAKG1 said:
Not just kids....

I got into private aviation from a different flight simulator (FlightGear, and a custom one at Dryden a couple of colleagues are working on). I've been working on the development side for years (even wrote a special purpose flight planner).

They work great for motivation -- to a point -- but it is important to understand the experience is quite different from reality. I did get two really important lessons from it -- how the radio stack (including the VOR receivers) works, and that trimming is not optional. Most people don't get the latter from a sim. Trimming in real life is still rather different because you do it by feeling control forces that are absent in the sim.

If you're hanging out at LVK, why train at PAO? LVK is further from SFO, doesn't have the Bay in the way, has two runways, one of which is long and the other has no glideslope guidance (a good thing), it uses the same practice areas (and it's a lot closer to them), has less summer fog, and at least some of the prices are cheaper.
Click to expand...
Hello, good point you got there, less fog and the prices I saw for lessons were significantly cheaper. Plus its only a 10 minute drive for the airport, and I know the airport area a bit better. So yeah i'm definetly leaning towards KLVK lessons now.

I'm so excited :goofy:

Add: And yes, the only thing I really learned on sims that relate to the real-world is probably where some instrumentation is located, besides that, (Physics, ATC Communications, etc.) are going to be a whole new adventure :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One piece of wisdom about transitioning from sims to real-world aviation. I'd say that, generally, sims train you to stare at the instrument panel. You'll have to learn to look outside and truly fly "visually"...but your sim experience should definitely help you "understand" the plane.
 
Awesome that you're getting excited. I had the option of a 150 or a 172 to train in when I started, and I used the 150's. Quite a bit cheaper, especially as the hours build up, and a great teaching aircraft. The 172 is great trainer, too, but the way I look at it (as an airplane owner now) is this: I'd rent and learn in a 150 or 152, but if I was buying a Cessna for myself, I'd get a 172 or 182. The missions each model can usefully fly are distinctly different. (Sorry to any 150/152 owners out there!) :)

Engine failures happen and then a huge percentage of them end up described in great detail on forums. You never read a story about a non-event like "my engine didn't fail today!" of course. So don't take the relative weight of engine failure tales to mean they fail a lot. Not the case. And others noted that the number one cause of engines stopping is lack of fuel. In most every case, a preventable problem.

And I agree with one other point someone else made: Never, ever say never. Just be vigilant and use your checklists, until the day you stop flying.
 
You could also train at Byron, Tracy or Concord, depending on which direction that 10 minutes is. Byron and Tracy are nontowered and not underneath San Francisco airspace. Byron has gliders, but also two runways. They like to use the short one.

Not all radio comms is with ATC, and those that are are not what you might think for a visual flight rules pilot.
 
Last edited:
greghughes said:
Engine failures happen and then a huge percentage of them end up described in great detail on forums. You never read a story about a non-event like "my engine didn't fail today!" of course.
Click to expand...

Mine has failed more in the sims than in real life! I was told by the ground crew at my airport that if I really wanted to get the most out of my instructor's pay, just pull the big red knob on the firewall and the little one to the right of the trim :D You'll learn a lot about your instructor if you try that, and if he stays with you after that, you've found the right one!
 
RE: 152 vs 172. Allow me to present a slightly different take on the matter.

I got back into flying in 2011 after a 23 year hiatus. I learned to fly out of an uncontrolled airfield in a C-172 back east, and my first logged lesson was at 12 years old. Moved to CA and got involved with family, career, etc., and frankly, the radio environment, high density of traffic, etc. kinda scared me off.

The bug bit me hard again, and I got back into it with a tailwheel transition in Palo Alto. I'd like to suggest that you consider learning in a Citabria. There are at least two clubs in Palo Alto who have these planes for rent and provide instruction in them. Several advantages as I see it:

1. Flying a tailwheel plane, in my opinion, makes you a better pilot. You'll get a really good understanding of the use of the rudder, and I believe your overall aviator skills will be higher.
2. Citabria's are fairly cheap to rent. I'm guessing it may be cheaper or comparable to the 150.
3. Tailwheel planes are fun!
4. There's a certain panache to saying you have the tailwheel endorsement. Most folks these days don't...


Just my 2cents. Worth exactly what you paid for it!
 
The 7ECA for rent at my club rents for about the same as the cheapest 172. It's quite a bit more than the 150/152s.

There are quite a few 7ECAs for rent in the area. There is even a whole FBO at Reid that specializes in them.

I'm not sure it makes sense for primary training. It will almost certainly lengthen time to solo, and a lot of folks get stuck at the late presolo phase trying to get acceptable landings; this will make it harder right at that spot. It seems to make more sense as a first (or second) transition.

Tailwheels like to put the tailwheel in front during landing if you aren't careful. Tricycles like to put the steering wheel in front, too, but that's their normal configuration....
 
MAKG1 said:
The 7ECA for rent at my club rents for about the same as the cheapest 172. It's quite a bit more than the 150/152s.

There are quite a few 7ECAs for rent in the area. There is even a whole FBO at Reid that specializes in them.

I'm not sure it makes sense for primary training. It will almost certainly lengthen time to solo, and a lot of folks get stuck at the late presolo phase trying to get acceptable landings; this will make it harder right at that spot. It seems to make more sense as a first (or second) transition.

Tailwheels like to put the tailwheel in front during landing if you aren't careful. Tricycles like to put the steering wheel in front, too, but that's their normal configuration....
Click to expand...

You're right regarding cost. Just looked it up on the web:

West Valley:
7ECA - $115/hr
C152 - $99/hr
C172 - $114/hr (cheapest one, all the others are more expensive)

Advantage Aviation:
7ECA - $133/hr
C152 - $99/hr
C172 - $129/hr (cheapest one)

If you go to Reid Hillview, however, you can rent a Citabria for $89/hour or a Champ for $63/hour.

You're also right that it will probably take somewhat longer to solo in a tailwheel than in a 172 or 152. However, I still assert that the OP will be a better pilot for that. It's an opinion, certainly, but a 172 and 152 will correct for a lot of sins in landing; whereas flying a tailwheel plane won't allow for those bad habit to develop. Is that a good or bad thing? Depends on your point of view, I guess, but I believe if you learn in a tailwheel, you'll really understand at the muscle memory level how the rudder works and how to land with a x-wind.
 
I'll be sticking with the 172/152 sorry, I feel a bit more comfortable with them.

Right now i'm just researching flight schools. I should ask for a younger CFI with lots of experience and hours? Is that the best option to go with?
 
newpilot said:
I'll be sticking with the 172/152 sorry, I feel a bit more comfortable with them.

Right now i'm just researching flight schools. I should ask for a younger CFI with lots of experience and hours? Is that the best option to go with?
Click to expand...

Just remember we old farts have waaaay more stories to tell than the young bucks! :yes: :)
 
newpilot said:
I'll be sticking with the 172/152 sorry, I feel a bit more comfortable with them.

Right now i'm just researching flight schools. I should ask for a younger CFI with lots of experience and hours? Is that the best option to go with?
Click to expand...

Find someone you get along with... I did my initial training with an older CFI and it worked well, but I got along much better with the 23yr old CFI I switched to when I started college. Really, being 17 the age difference was something for me to consider. However, a young CFI may leave for the airlines before you finish up, but an older one will likely be there for the long run and you could have a great relationship with them. For me, though, having a younger CFI who was willing to bend the rules a bit, do 0g pushovers for fun, and push me to my limits on each lesson was better.
 
newpilot said:
I should ask for a younger CFI with lots of experience and hours? Is that the best option to go with?
Click to expand...

Well, you're unlikely to find a young instructor with lots of hours....

It's much more about personality than hours. I would avoid a brand new CFI unless there was something extraordinary. But the difference between 1000 and 8000 hours isn't going to matter to you on its own.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm not sure it makes sense for primary training. It will almost certainly lengthen time to solo,
Click to expand...

Probably about 30 minutes. An hour or two if the instructor wants to cover both wheel landings and three point.

It's not at all hard if you start out with a tailwheel (based on my experience learning in a Cessna 120). It just appears to be hard to transition if you have never had to use your feet and have gotten into bad habits that you can get away with in a nosewheel airplane.

Transitioning to a nosewheel is pretty trivial.

On the other hand, if you do your primary training in an aircraft with flaps, I would expect it would lengthen the time to solo by quite a bit. One more big variable in the approach / landing equation. I never did get to the point where I felt comfortable with those and don't miss them one bit.
 
Do you need a tricycle gear endorsement if you start with conventional?
 
ebykowsky said:
Do you need a tricycle gear endorsement if you start with conventional?
Click to expand...

Nope. There's a reason the Cessna initially called their tri-cycle gear the "Land-O-Matic". You can get away with sloppy feet on a tri-gear plane. You can't with a conventional gear.
 
If you go to LVK then I'd suggest Red Sky. They have a Champ, a Cessna 140, 152 and 172. Start out in the Champ and after solo move to the 152. That will provide the best all around experience and will definitely give you the best bang for the buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top