Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862039
TopCat wrote:I recall becoming quite unpopular when, on being told the extraordinary piece of 'information' that DME only gives the right distance from the station ( :shock: :shock: ) if you're pointing towards or away from it, I piped up and refused to back down.


That really is shocking! Anyone can make a slip of the tongue/keyboard, and hopefully put it right if it's pointed out, but when it is and .... :roll:

I remember once being front seat pax with a P1 who was all set to abort the flight because the track showing on the screen of his (early) Garmin handheld didn't match the compass/DI while we were stationary at the hold doing final pre-take off checks. I quickly and calmly elaborated some GPS fundamentals so we could get on our way. :roll:
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862045
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
TopCat wrote:I recall becoming quite unpopular when, on being told the extraordinary piece of 'information' that DME only gives the right distance from the station ( :shock: :shock: ) if you're pointing towards or away from it, I piped up and refused to back down.


What was her reasoning and how did she explain a DME arc?

Well I don't remember it that well - it was about 25 years ago, after all...

... but I think basically she got confused between the distance (which of course is the slant range to the station regardless of which way you're pointing), and the Ground Speed and Time To Station displays, which are only true if you're tracking directly to or from the station.

But as I recall (only because it was so shocking) she was adamant that it applied to distance too.
By Knolly
#1862063
Miscellaneous wrote:I think the point being missed here is that it appears the school has lied to a student. If that is the case and it's not a misunderstanding I would need an awful good reason to stick with them.


Thats my thinking now, they were charging £350 for 2 days ground school, when I questioned it the first time they stated that it was a CAA requirement. Now I have gone back and questioned it again saying I cant find any evidence for it they have back tracked and will contact the CAA to clarify.

They are the more expensive of the two schools I was considering but they put this down to better instructors and aircraft, also getting you through in the minimum amount of time without dragging lessons out to make more money but this is whole ground school situation contradicts that.
#1862273
Knolly wrote:…will contact the CAA to clarify.

I am beginning to see what @Miscellaneous means now. That piece of knowledge is very basic and if the school has originally entered it into there ATO/DTO manual for some obscure reason it would have made them uncompetitive in a very competitive market and they would have removed it pretty quick.
Knolly wrote:… they put this down to better instructors and aircraft…

Mandy Rice-Davies Skool of flying
Knolly wrote:… also getting you through in the minimum amount of time...

That’s more to do with the lesson frequency and student’s ability as anything else.
lobstaboy, TrickyWoo liked this
#1862274
Andrew Sinclair wrote:
Knolly wrote:… also getting you through in the minimum amount of time...

That’s more to do with the lesson frequency and student’s ability as anything else.

Not to mention an irresponsible and misleading claim.

Taking what has been posted as accurate, I'd bin 'em.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862282
Andrew Sinclair wrote:
TopCat wrote:The course was dreadful - the teacher didn't know her stuff very well, and I don't do well in a classroom situation if that's the case. Hard though it may be to believe :wink: I get quite stroppy and argumentative....


You didn’t tell me that before you offered to help on my FRTOL course :shock:


:lol:

TBH, I had forgotten :oops: , and (even harder though it may be to believe) I have actually mellowed quite a bit in the last few decades. :pirat:

However, lest there should be any doubt whatsoever, your course was the most diametrically opposite to my train-wreck of an IMC ground school course all those years ago, as it's possible to imagine.

Despite the fact that the material isn't really all that interesting in itself, it was absolutely not a chore, and was both a pleasure to help, and a benefit to me.

Whereas the aforementioned train-wreck was just a PITA from beginning to end, and I was only there because I had to be. The poor lady was simply out of her depth in respect of her grasp of the material, and her presentation skills. After I'd got over my frustration with the monumental waste of my time, I did feel quite sorry for her.
By ArrowStraight
#1867139
It is, but the amount is no longer specified, so those inclined to dismiss the value of ground school could interpret that as not mandatory.

However, students are also required to be recommended as ready to sit each exam by someone. So a method of assessing is required. Overseeing the study and using mock questions can achieve this, but - after they study properly with the books - we use the AOPA ground school system which produces a certificate of readiness. All of our students praise the system and they also get two years free membership of AOPA UK. The system is outsourced by AOPA and individual Clubs or Schools can buy the system direct if they wish.
I prefer to support AOPA and ease the workload for the Club.
#1867194
Knolly wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:I think the point being missed here is that it appears the school has lied to a student. If that is the case and it's not a misunderstanding I would need an awful good reason to stick with them.


Thats my thinking now, they were charging £350 for 2 days ground school, when I questioned it the first time they stated that it was a CAA requirement. Now I have gone back and questioned it again saying I cant find any evidence for it they have back tracked and will contact the CAA to clarify.

They are the more expensive of the two schools I was considering but they put this down to better instructors and aircraft, also getting you through in the minimum amount of time without dragging lessons out to make more money but this is whole ground school situation contradicts that.


Whether a school has lied (worst case) or merely been misinformed (best case), the point I'd make is that there is a big difference between being a good pilot and a good teacher - and even within the latter category, there is a big difference between being a good practical teacher and a good theoretical teacher!

I didn't do any 'ground school' and instead just bought the books, read up, did practice tests etc and passed as required. But if I was being charged for ground school, I would want to make sure that it is being well taught by good teachers who taught ground school well, rather than good flight instructors who have been asked to teach the theory.

Of course, there is enormous overlap, but if I were to pay (a lot) for ground school, I'd probably have different expectations of who and how I was going to be taught.
TopCat liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1867198
The few ground school sessions I attended back in the 80s cost me either a fiver or tenner per session, delivered by a talented instructor.

We then adjourned to the pub with him, where we learnt even more and spent even more :lol:

Rob P
User avatar
By Andrew Sinclair
#1867278
ArrowStraight wrote:It is, but the amount is no longer specified, so those inclined to dismiss the value of ground school could interpret that as not mandatory.


I am afraid it isn’t mandated and never was mandated, well not for the last quarter century anyway.

That is not to say that theoretical studies are not important but there are a number of ways to achieve a pass in the 9 subject exams, which is what is required and always was. One method is instructor led ground school, another is computer based training and another is self-teaching from source texts and there are others I am sure, that suit different learning styles.

I run a little DTO and enjoy teaching PPL theory studies, so please don’t feel you need to ask AOPA UK to ease my workload. :thumleft:
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1867636
If we are feeling extremely charitable towards the flying school involved, could it be that they have very badly explained that there is a charge for supervising the student when they carry out the online exams? That would explain the very low number of hours (I wish I had been able to absorb the theory in 12 hours) and why it could be considered to be mandated by the CAA.

But I do think the reality is that it is either sharp practice or ignorance of the regulations. Neither of which would inspire confidence in the school in question.
Popeye liked this
By Cessna571
#1867720
The thing I find most worrying is “we’ll get you through in the minimum hours”.

Who wants to be through in the minimum hours?

I’d prefer, “we’ll train you so you don’t kill yourself or your loved ones, in however many hours that takes you”.

For the OP, that is very rarely 45, and it being 45 is not much of an achievement to be honest.
Andrew Sinclair, Popeye liked this
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1869177
Rjk983 wrote:If we are feeling extremely charitable towards the flying school involved, could it be that they have very badly explained that there is a charge for supervising the student when they carry out the online exams? That would explain the very low number of hours (I wish I had been able to absorb the theory in 12 hours) and why it could be considered to be mandated by the CAA.

But I do think the reality is that it is either sharp practice or ignorance of the regulations. Neither of which would inspire confidence in the school in question.


Would a school charge for invigilating the exams? Hopefully not a stupid question! Whenever I took exams, I just did it under the watchful eye of the lovely manager/admin/boss who happened to be in the office. I can't imagine being charged invigilation time on top of the tests themselves...but then maybe I was and didn't realise it!