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

Moderator: AndyR

By Knolly
#1861835
Hi all,

I am taking my first steps in learning to fly I think I have selected a suitable flight school however as part of the training they state that 12 hours must be spent in their ground school as a CAA requirement.

Is this correct?

I cannot find any reference to this on the CAA website and other flight schools suggest that ground school is only required if you feel that you need it.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1861840
It certainly wasn't mandatory thirty years back when self-study was assumed. Things may have changed, in which case someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly.

My suspicion is that this is just part of that school's business model, if so you can choose to live with it or find another school.

Rob P
User avatar
By FlightDek
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861846
Unless it's changed in the last 5 years (which I doubt) ground school is a not a mandatory requirement. Probably the school trying it on. They may have "their rules" but they are not a legal requirement.

I had a school insist I must do 5 hours of ground school for a night rating. The rating is only 5 hours of flying. The actual CAA rule stated that ground school was mandatory but didn't specify how much
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861851
AFAIK it isn't mandatory, but it may well be wise. I did several useful ground school classes when I was learning, whether they added up to 12 hours I can't remember.
#1861855
Here's my understanding, ground school is not mandatory. The reference to this is in UK Part-FCL, part of the 'retained EU regulations' specifically FCL.215 which states:

Applicants for a PPL shall demonstrate a level of theoretical knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted through examinations in the following subjects:


and Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) 1 FCL.215

The following tables contain the syllabi for the courses of theoretical knowledge, as well as for the theoretical knowledge examinations for the PPL(A) and PPL(H). The training and examination should cover aspects related to non-technical skills in an integrated manner, taking into account the particular risks associated to the licence and the activity.
The DTO or the ATO responsible for the training should check if all the appropriate elements of the training course of theoretical knowledge instruction have been completed to a satisfactory standard before recommending the applicant for the examination.


and then there are a list syllabi 'headings' for each of the nine subjects. It stops short of saying that a certain number of hours must be completed unlike, for example, the ATPL integrated course that, as well as requiring approval from the competent authority which the PPL ground school doesn't, states:

An ATPL theoretical knowledge course shall comprise at least 750 hours of instruction.


However as @johnm it may well be wise since unlike the ATPL theoretical knowledge, Part-FCL is rather vague in many areas for the PPL theoretical knowledge.

Competent authorities in EASA states do, however, interpret that differently and I am aware of two which do require their ATOs and DTOs to have approval for ground school courses - where are you learning?
By Knolly
#1861875
Thanks for all the replies, I suspected that it may be the schools preference, it was just with them saying it is a CAA requirement it got my alarm bells ringing as it meant that one school isn't telling the whole truth.

@Andrew Sinclair I am learning in England
User avatar
By Andrew Sinclair
#1861883
@Knolly

It definitely is not a UK CAA requirement. I have had a number of students who just came to me for the exams and self taught, using online resources and apps and have been issued with licences.

Your school may be offering you some excellent ground school training but it depends on your learning style, whether you want to attend instructor lessons or self-learn or CBT or a mixture and indeed whether you want to spend you money that way.

Best of luck :thumleft:
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861893
Didn't they propose making it compulsory at some point? I think it was quietly dropped, though one of the threads below suggests that some EASA states adopted it.

Yes, it was 100 hours.

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=78883

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1197427#p1197427

Though Dave P said he had 80 hours self study accepted.

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1197106#p1197106

Knolly wrote:I am learning in England


That narrows it down a bit! :clown:
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861895
Miscellaneous wrote:I think the point being missed here is that it appears the school has lied to a student.

'Lied' is an awful strong word. Is there actual evidence that they're not just mistaken? Even with such a mistake being likely driven by the need to make a profit from the ground school, I'd hesitate to make such an accusation without strong evidence.

Persistence in misrepresentation of facts, despite being shown on multiple occasions, is where it crosses the line from mistake, to ideological cherry-picking, to outright dishonesty.

Young earth creationists and climate change deniers are in the latter category AFAIC, as are most, if not quite all anti-vaxxers.
Andrew Sinclair liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861896
Perhaps when the 100 hours of study thing first came up, they put forward a plan for so much ground school plus so much self study. If this was accepted by the CAA and has now been carved into their training manuals, there may be no going back.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861904
I'd certainly believe I spent at least 100 hours on the Trevor Thom books, though I wasn't called upon to record it, whereas the 200 hours I spent on-line for IR was recorded.

I did ground school for those areas where one needed to understand the tortured mind of the question setter and where detailed practical knowledge was needed(not the same topics!) and it was pretty modest in cost as I recall.
tr7v8 liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861975
johnm wrote:I'd certainly believe I spent at least 100 hours on the Trevor Thom books,

Yes, me too. Mostly on the train going to and from work. And most of the rest of my waking hours out of work too. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay for it!

My instructor said, "you seem fairly switched on, get the books, let me know when you're ready to sit the tests."

ISTR that there was some requirement for an actual groundschool course by the time I started on my IMC rating, so I booked in and went along, having been eager enough to work through most of the book beforehand.

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....

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.

I didn't actually get kicked off the course, but there were a few tense moments and my subsequent questions were treated with suspicion :pirat: :pirat:
johnm liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1862000
TopCat wrote:Hard though it may be to believe :wink: I get quite stroppy and argumentative....


:whistle:

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?