[Adam]

I want to do it well.

There you go Studes anyone close to Staverton go and see poetpilot motivated by the best reason of all!

[poetpilot]

Thanks Adam!

Dead simple. I like flying little hairyplanes.

I like to see others fly 'em. Properly. Safely. Happily.

I've got c. 2-3 hrs more flying to do before I can go for my AFI assessment day. Ground school all completed now. The WX just prevented finishing it the other week. New Year should bring completion hopefully.

[KNT754G]

There are a number of people who simply want to be able to boast to their friends "I can fly an aeroplane"

To this extent they think that the first solo means they can do just that, so they set out with the intent of flying solo and never really have any ambitions to finish the course and get a licence.

The Air Law exam tends to filter out most of those.
It also has the advantage of concentrating the mind of the student not only into getting their head into the books and studying but also to the fact that, once passed, the clock is ticking in terms of getting the rest of them done.

Overall I think it is a good idea.

[Dave Phillips]

Why should we be bothered about someone who merely wants to go solo and then call it a day?

As for a proven understanding of air law helping avert a possible accident like that at Southend - hmmm. :?

[leiafee]

There are a number of people who simply want to be able to boast to their friends "I can fly an aeroplane"
<snip>
The Air Law exam tends to filter out most of those.

Do we need to filter them out?

It's all (much needed!) money into the flying schools...

[dysonsphere]

no most of them will follow on and get there PPL

[Stephen Morley]

If it's an opinion you want the decision should, as has been said, be down to the FI. But I expect it is a condition of the insurance. I cant see any other logical reason which doesn't undermine the instructor.

It has been said that studes should be encouraged to do their exams earlier. That may be so but there will be ones who give up when faced with Air law before their first solo thereby losing revenue for the club and potentially future pilots. I voted no.

[Hong Kong]

I've never come across it as an insurance requirement, seems to be more a common sense requirement, a filter for the types that KNT describes, and a cover your backside requirement from the schools/instructors viewpoint.

Should anything stupid happen on first solo, you are more able to demonstrate "duty of care" . Ie: Student has demonstrated knowledge of air law, and is aware that he should only take of and land on a runway, not buzz his mates house at 100ft agl, and obey the controllers instructions etc.

[jodella]

It's useful to learn some of the right-of-ways and so on before first solo, and taking an exam as dry as air law does show some dedication.

I wish I'd been taught PFLs before my first solo. I only ever did EFATO.

Knowing what I know now, I'd really like to have done, and been confident with, PFLs before being allowed to do my first solo.

[fishermanpaul]

Yes.

While Air Law contains a whole load of useless stuff, it also shows the prospective pilot that he does not have a right to be in the air unless he knows what he is doing.

It should remind the prospective pilot that he is only one user of the circuit and that, even as a student, he should know and respect the rights of anyone else sharing the air with him.(*)

Aircraft General, Met, Nav, FP&P and Human Factors are all aimed at keeping the students alive with not necessarily any regard for anyone else around them and are in the remit of the FI sending them solo.

Comms is another kettle of fish but that's an alternate thread...


(she or her, replace as appropriate)

[Stephen Morley]

Should anything stupid happen on first solo, you are more able to demonstrate "duty of care"

Then it's an insurance issue as I suggested.

Nobody but the instructor knows if a stude is ready for their first solo. An Air Law exam makes not a jot of difference. The instructor, if he or she is competent, will have taught the student all the relevant stuff.

Maybe making them sit and pass air law is a goos minimum work way of passing on the legislation but it's relying on what might be a lucky pass.

Surely it would be better to question the stude on the appropriate bits of air law?

[TractorBoy]

I voted yes as unpredictable things can happen on the first solo. What if, for some reason, the airfield is closed while you're up ? You'll then have to fly cross country to an unfamiliar airfield which may have a different service to what you're used to. You'll need to know how to handle it, and what you can and can't do once you're there. Air Law gives you that.

[Stephen Morley]

No it doesn't. Passing the Air Law exam merely means you have possibly scraped through with 75% missing all the relevant stuff.

A competent instructor will brief his/her stude on all the relevant stuff.

[nobby]

hmm, interestin'

Solo what tho'?

Nav...then yes

Circuits, erm round and round and what do you have to know other than the rules of the air?

[eltonioni]

Having not done it before going solo I fail to see what practical use it would have been for my flying. There are other exams that I'd put before Air Law. As for the suggestion that Air Law would help if the runway was closed... errr.

All that said, I put off my exams until I simply had to get them done or I wouldn't have done my GST, so I can see a practical argument for motivating the lazy or exam-phobic student (ie me) but I don't see any flying reasons.

I might understand it if an FTO doesn't own their airfield because the operator might well have an opinion. It doesn't mean it's a valid one, but I guess that as soon as somebody says "what rules shall we have for first solo's at the resident schools?" somebody needs to come up with something.

Also perhaps it turns into a pointless tradition... "I did it so you'll have to do it too sonny"