new pilot questions

well i guess i'll chime in with some info on the ground. i took it at mt sac in walnut, ca and they have a full flight training associates of science degree in commercial flight. so they offer classes that meet the requirements for ppl, instrument, and commercial ground. they also have a flight school, but i'm not sure if they're part 61 or 141. i'll check in on that when i go back to school in two weeks unless anyone else here knows? but since i can still get in touch with the cfi who taught the class, i will probably have him sign my logbook (he signed my gleim so i could take the test to begin with), not the cfi at whatever school i take actual flight lessons. that should help the flight cfi rest a little easier since it's not his (her) certificate on the line. but i passed my class with flying colors with over 100%, so i know he'll have no problem signing my logbook.
 
ajstoner21 said:
Imagine this.... Student goes through a flight only part, and the CFI says he is ready for the checkride, and the student actually passes the oral and the actual ride it self. A month later, He flies into the FRZ in DC. The FAA (maybe TSA and NTSB???) investigates his training, see's the flight instructors name in the log book, and says, "Hey, You said he was ready? Didn't you train him on this?" and you reply "well, no, he already passed the written when he came to me..." Maybe that is a ridiculous scenario, but I wouldn't want to be the CFI responsible for signing him off.
Click to expand...
This answer suggests a possible misunderstanding of the requirements. The fact that one has taken and passed the written (regardless of how one studied for that) has nothing to do with what items must be covered during flight training, and airspace is one of those items. Even if a trainee has taken and passed the written, the endorsing instructor will have to cover (in one way or another) everything there again and ensure satisfactory performance before signing the practical test endorsement. The only thing that having passed the written at a previous school does is obviate the need to take the written again within the 24-month window of opportunity.

Finally, the CFI who gave the ground training should already have signed snoopyloopy's log or provided some other signed written statement of the ground training you received (dates, hours, subjects, etc). Otherwise, his new instructor will indeed have to give and log ground training on all the required areas in 61.105, even if he has taken and passed the written. But even in that circumstance, he will not have to taken the written again.
 
Last edited:
Clarification: When I said "the endorsing instructor will have to cover (in one way or another) everything there again" even if the trainee has already passed the written, that doesn't mean the endorsing CFI is specifically required to give and log training in all the areas of 61.105. However, the endorsing CFI will have to cover during the test prep training everything that might be asked on the practical test in order to certify that the applicant "Is prepared for the required practical test," and that pretty well includes everything in 61.105 even if they need not be logged specifically. The only subject areas from 61.105 which must be covered specifically with logged training are those which the applicant's written test report shows as having been answered incorrectly (i.e., the subject matter codes).
 
gprellwitz said:
Don't make that assumption. One of the Part 61 schools around here runs classes at many of the community colleges.
Click to expand...

Good point, never thought of that. The local college in Denver is Part 141, and I assumed other colleges would be the same.
 
murphey said:
Good point, never thought of that. The local college in Denver is Part 141, and I assumed other colleges would be the same.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about Metro, they run a full aviation program (ground and flight) and do so under a 141 certificate. Most community colleges run PP ground schools as a non-credit "continuing ed" course without a 141 certificate.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're talking about Metro, they run a full aviation program (ground and flight) and do so under a 141 certificate. Most community colleges run PP ground schools as a non-credit "continuing ed" course without a 141 certificate.
Click to expand...

Metro has no aircraft just the Frasca, ATP and B1900 sims (no motion). Actual flight time must be with a 3rd party off campus. Of course while you take the flight portion at a local flight school, you can register for variable number of hours in AES1500 (private flight) or AES2500 (instrument) or AES3520 (commercial) but that's only if you need more credit hours. But the ground courses are excellent and not merely "get me thru the written".

I'm a some-times student over in aviation/aerospace and part-time faculty in another department.
 
Ron Levy said:
Clarification: When I said "the endorsing instructor will have to cover (in one way or another) everything there again" even if the trainee has already passed the written, that doesn't mean the endorsing CFI is specifically required to give and log training in all the areas of 61.105. However, the endorsing CFI will have to cover during the test prep training everything that might be asked on the practical test in order to certify that the applicant "Is prepared for the required practical test," and that pretty well includes everything in 61.105 even if they need not be logged specifically. The only subject areas from 61.105 which must be covered specifically with logged training are those which the applicant's written test report shows as having been answered incorrectly (i.e., the subject matter codes).
Click to expand...

so along this same vein of thought, it's possible to get training from more than one instructor/flight school at a time. however, the cfi signing off on the proficiency of the pts would have to see them all demonstrated to them satisfactorily.
 
I learned to ask "says who" to the "just a few hours" statement, and then ask for the previous CFI;s phone number to verify. The story sometimes changes signficantly and you're then likely to hear "the rest of the story" as to why they are looking for somebody else to finish up.

dmccormack said:
Which is precisely why you spot check knowledge while flying to and fro.

People that call asking for a sign off and "just need a few hours to finish up..." are a real tough call.
Click to expand...
 
alright, supposed to have first lesson tomorrow for real this time. plan to be flying with college aviation out of kpoc. anyway, i'm now in the market for some insurance. aopa keeps sending me all these slick mailers, but i wanted to poll some actual pilots. who carries your insurance and what level of coverage do you have? and how much did you have as a student pilot?
 
snoopyloopy said:
...i'm now in the market for some insurance. aopa keeps sending me all these slick mailers, but i wanted to poll some actual pilots. who carries your insurance and what level of coverage do you have? and how much did you have as a student pilot?
Click to expand...
I'll start by saying that when I was a Student Pilot 40 years ago, I was ignorant of the legal liability issues involved in flying other peoples' airplanes, so I didn't carry any non-owned ("renter's") insurance. Fortunately, it never became a problem, but I don't recommend "going naked" to anyone today.

I would suggest $1M liability and enough hull insurance to make subrogation beyond policy limits not worth the additional effort -- about $75K should do it for most light trainers. Of course, there's no real need for it until you solo, because when you're a Student Pilot flying with an instructor, there's little chance of you being successfully sued, and lawyers know that.

My non-owned insurance is bundled with my CFI insurance with Falcon, through NAFI, but they offer regular non-owned insurance, too, including discounts for EAA and AOPA members.
http://www.falconinsurance.com/
http://www.falconinsurance.com/images/pdf_files/27/chartis.pdf
 
Geef! This thread started in early February! At this rate the OP will be an AK before he gets a PPL.

 
Ron Levy said:
I would suggest $1M liability and enough hull insurance to make subrogation beyond policy limits not worth the additional effort -- about $75K should do it for most light trainers. Of course, there's no real need for it until you solo, because when you're a Student Pilot flying with an instructor, there's little chance of you being successfully sued, and lawyers know that.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but instead of "$75K" I would suggest that you check and see what kind of plane you'll be flying and what it's worth (you can ask here for help) - Many trainers in use today, like the late 70's C172's and PA28's, aren't worth $75K - More like half that on a good day.

Since the hull insurance is the largest component of the premiums you'll be paying, it makes sense to get a level of coverage that matches your needs.

FWIW, I was advised by one FBO that they required only $20K in hull coverage on the renter's policy, since they had never had an insurance company try to recover from anyone with at least that much - And this was to fly their brand-new G1000 C182, which was worth WAY more than $20K - More like $300K. That doesn't mean that $20K is always going to save your butt, but your individual situation may not demand complete coverage for everything up to a hull-loss incident either.
 
most flying will be in c150/152s, maybe an occasional flight in a c172 of similar vintage (late-70s). they also have an arrow, but i don't think i'll be setting foot in it for awhile.

and yes, i did actually go out for the lesson. went over paperwork and procedures for the school, a pre-flight, but didn't actually get into the air. that should be next time.
 
Amazing, you got a bunch of straight forward answers without the thread morphing off into the weeds...

My take on it? Don't spend money on gadgets... Spend it on flying time...
I'm not worried about your flight sim time as the first couple of hours in the airplane will quickly inform your brain that the real world is not MSFS... MSFS is cheap fun... Have at it...
If you have no assets worth some scumbag lawyers time to take away from you, don't spend money on insurance protecting what you don't have... The best protection against a lawsuit in the first place is having neither assets nor a fat insurance policy - then no lawyer is going to waste his time on you for a zero payout...
I can't argue against an NR headset... But generations of CFI's have kept their hearing intact with a set of ear plugs underneath a standard head set, for a lot less money...
I agree on the E6B - the battery never goes dead... Find a used one on Ebay... Don't waste money on an electronic flight calculator... Borrow the instructors if you absolutely need one for some problem or other...
Learning to fly is worth it just in and for itself... It puts you in that elite percentage of people who have something that the general public never will... The % of the population who are pilots is mirrored by the % who are physicians... (actually, there are more docs @800K~ than pilots @500K~)

denny-o
 
snoopyloopy said:
most flying will be in c150/152s, maybe an occasional flight in a c172 of similar vintage (late-70s). they also have an arrow, but i don't think i'll be setting foot in it for awhile.
Click to expand...

Definitely wouldn't bother with more than $40K in hull insurance then... In fact, if you're mostly going to be in C152's, $20K will cover one of those easily and probably keep you reasonably covered on the 172 as well.
 
Dr. O said:
Amazing, you got a bunch of straight forward answers without the thread morphing off into the weeds...

My take on it? Don't spend money on gadgets... Spend it on flying time...
I'm not worried about your flight sim time as the first couple of hours in the airplane will quickly inform your brain that the real world is not MSFS... MSFS is cheap fun... Have at it...
If you have no assets worth some scumbag lawyers time to take away from you, don't spend money on insurance protecting what you don't have... The best protection against a lawsuit in the first place is having neither assets nor a fat insurance policy - then no lawyer is going to waste his time on you for a zero payout...
I can't argue against an NR headset... But generations of CFI's have kept their hearing intact with a set of ear plugs underneath a standard head set, for a lot less money...
I agree on the E6B - the battery never goes dead... Find a used one on Ebay... Don't waste money on an electronic flight calculator... Borrow the instructors if you absolutely need one for some problem or other...
Learning to fly is worth it just in and for itself... It puts you in that elite percentage of people who have something that the general public never will... The % of the population who are pilots is mirrored by the % who are physicians... (actually, there are more docs @800K~ than pilots @500K~)

denny-o
Click to expand...
yea, i was a bit surprised myself, but i'm not complaining. i've done my fair share of n00b critiquing before myself, so i try to learn from their mistakes.

as far as gadgets go, i do believe i have most everything i'll need. or else, my cfi will update me to what i should acquire. have a decent real metal e6b with all kinds of colors.

i'm not rolling in dough, but my retirement acct can buy me a c150. so i definitely want to protect that.

and amusingly, a good number of those pilots are probably doctors too.
 
alright, so been spending some time aloft. we've been working on spins, er, power-on stalls this past week. by the end of the hour yesterday, i'd managed to get them pretty decently while maintaining heading. but my power-offs aren't as smooth. entry usually goes fine, but then recovery gets moving. so does anyone know any magic tricks to help me stop dropping a bit more gracefully?
 
snoopyloopy said:
alright, so been spending some time aloft. we've been working on spins, er, power-on stalls this past week. by the end of the hour yesterday, i'd managed to get them pretty decently while maintaining heading. but my power-offs aren't as smooth. entry usually goes fine, but then recovery gets moving. so does anyone know any magic tricks to help me stop dropping a bit more gracefully?
Click to expand...

Fly a Cherokee!:rofl:
 
snoopyloopy said:
alright, so been spending some time aloft. we've been working on spins, er, power-on stalls this past week. by the end of the hour yesterday, i'd managed to get them pretty decently while maintaining heading. but my power-offs aren't as smooth. entry usually goes fine, but then recovery gets moving. so does anyone know any magic tricks to help me stop dropping a bit more gracefully?
Click to expand...

i've found that a lot of pilots do a huge pushover for stall recovery which definitely positively breaks the stall but makes the rest of the recovery (especially the part about minimizing altitude lost) a bit more difficult.
 
tonycondon said:
i've found that a lot of pilots do a huge pushover for stall recovery which definitely positively breaks the stall but makes the rest of the recovery (especially the part about minimizing altitude lost) a bit more difficult.
Click to expand...

That's what I was gonna say, too. Don't think of pushing for the recovery, simply lessen the back pressure. You're going to need a significantly positive angle of attack for the recovery, so a "push" just makes the recovery jerky and difficult.

Relax back pressure (smoothly!), add power, and away you go. The major difference with the power-on stall is just that the power's already there. On the power-off stall, you just need to add in the power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top