1.3 Vso is a good out of ground effect airspeed for getting us from way out on final to somewhere around a quarter mile out, you know, where we used to be on base. 1.3 Vso on short final, however, will not result in landing anywhere near the beginning of the runway. From a quarter mile or so out, however, full flaps and deceleration until a sink is established will bring the throttle into dynamic play as an extremely accurate glide angle and rate of descent control. Since I don't use the airspeed indicator but convert to stabilizing with elevator my apparent brisk walk rate of closure with the numbers similar to how I use the same apparent brisk walk rate of closure to decelerate into an intersection, I can no longer quote any relevant V-speeds. I don't know of any published airspeed for 30' AGL in ground effect, as Vso would no longer be relevant. Nor do I have any idea what airspeed I am at when at 20' AGL, 10' AGL, or 5' AGL except that, the approach power/pitch deceleration, "the flare-out, and the slowing up of the airplane" are combined "all into one maneuver so that, when you arrive at ground level, you arrive in three-point attitude, all slowed up and ready to squat." Quotes from Stick and Rudder page 302. Rather than using the airspeed indicator for this deceleration on short final, "the process of stalling the airplane down can be gauged entirely by watching the spot and the perspective in which it appears and its apparent motion." Quote from Stick and Rudder page 304.

Wolfgang uses the term, "the process of stalling the airplane down" as we all do, but Vso has nothing to do with the process. The apparent brisk walk rate of closure with the spot, or any power/pitch approach, has everything to do with the process of making an airplane quit flying accurately and safely. Spot landing practice is useful as well, but deceleration on short final to effect power's accurate control of glide angle and rate of descent makes the normal "stall down" landing easier and safer. I have never needed more that ten hours to teach zero time students to land slowly and softly on the numbers three times solo in a tailwheel airplane.

Instructors teach your students to fly and solo them in less than ten hours. That will not delay their progress in preparing for Airmen Certification Standards, which also have no published V-speeds for the process of making an airplane quit flying safely.

I don’t think I have ever soloed a student in under 10hrs

15-20 is more the norm

And yeah, I know, go on any Internet forum, or talk with the old timers at the airport cafe (kinda same thing) and they all soloed after like the first hour and all that

To do what I do presolo, falling leaf stalls, spins if the plane can, tailwind landings, brief intro night ops, plus all the normal air work and pattern stuff, <10hrs is a large ask, and that’s as one of the CFIs who’s not afraid of touch and goes, which seems to be a increasing trend

Combine that with most students not being able to devote their entire day, every day, to training, since most have jobs,family,other projects, so you get 1-2 flights a week, 15-20hrs seems about average

Yes, lots more problems now and all those pre-solo requirements. We only had to teach what they needed to take off and land safely. Airplanes are more expensive in comparable dollars, insurance is now common and more expensive, and peer pressure is to spend way too much time on perfection. They don't really know what they can do until they have soloed. And turning in a way they would do professionally and which never loaded the wing more than 1 g made a difference. So during takeoff and landing practice they never got more than 400' high nor more than a quarter mile from the field. Ten takeoffs and landings per hour. Nobody saw much need for a lot of stall practice and Billy Howell, the boss, would fire you for even thinking that way. I taught in $2,000 airplanes. That would be about $16,000 today. None were insured.

Even away from Ag Flight, most of my students were willing to go every day until solo. That made a big difference. At Ag Flight, I taught cleaning and cooking in the billets as well and every airplane had to be propped or cranked early in the morning. Flying was optional, but they mostly did rather than lay around.

If it's worth doing, do it. A positive attitude is infectious.

NineThreeKilo wrote:I don’t think I have ever soloed a student in under 10hrs

15-20 is more the norm

And yeah, I know, go on any Internet forum, or talk with the old timers at the airport cafe (kinda same thing) and they all soloed after like the first hour and all that

To do what I do presolo, falling leaf stalls, spins if the plane can, tailwind landings, brief intro night ops, plus all the normal air work and pattern stuff, <10hrs is a large ask, and that’s as one of the CFIs who’s not afraid of touch and goes, which seems to be a increasing trend

Combine that with most students not being able to devote their entire day, every day, to training, since most have jobs,family,other projects, so you get 1-2 flights a week, 15-20hrs seems about average

I am in agreement with Niner Kilo here. 15-20 seems about right. To cover everything under 61.87 subpart d. Seems impossible to do it and feel confident the student is ready. I solo'd in 9 hours and its not that I was ready or was competent with all of the requirements under 61.87. My instructor was just of the mind set of soling students early. I remember when he stepped out of the plane and said " You're ready - go have some fun, " I could barely land an airplane. Later my instructor told me soling students early builds confidence. Maybe it does but 15-20 hours seems about right for most students. I have had some students who need 30+ hours.

As for the topic of Vso. To me Vso and Vs are completely worthless numbers. The ASI is so inaccurate at the low end that using it for absolute numbers is worthless. Add a Sportsman STOL kit on to the wing and it'll be even more of a joke. I like to teach knowing the speeds for the horn, buffet and break but more importantly how the airplane feels as it gets slow. From less responsive controls, to buffeting, to breaking. The angle of attack, and pitch/power changes in the takeoff/landing configuration flown slow are worth knowing, experiencing, learning, and practicing.


Josh

contactflying wrote:Yes, lots more problems now and all those pre-solo requirements. We only had to teach what they needed to take off and land safely. Airplanes are more expensive in comparable dollars, insurance is now common and more expensive, and peer pressure is to spend way too much time on perfection. They don't really know what they can do until they have soloed. And turning in a way they would do professionally and which never loaded the wing more than 1 g made a difference. So during takeoff and landing practice they never got more than 400' high nor more than a quarter mile from the field. Ten takeoffs and landings per hour. Nobody saw much need for a lot of stall practice and Billy Howell, the boss, would fire you for even thinking that way. I taught in $2,000 airplanes. That would be about $16,000 today. None were insured.

Even away from Ag Flight, most of my students were willing to go every day until solo. That made a big difference. At Ag Flight, I taught cleaning and cooking in the billets as well and every airplane had to be propped or cranked early in the morning. Flying was optional, but they mostly did rather than lay around.

If it's worth doing, do it. A positive attitude is infectious.

It’s hard to compare Billy to most any flight school lol

Good times

Though I can say he never seemed to have a issue with how I did things

Those dudes were in Bainbridge for 250hrs ether way, solo in 10 or 20 really didn’t mean anything, plus with some of the bent planes he’s had to fix or scrap over the years

Working for Billy was one hell of a valuable experience, they don’t make them like him anymore

Before PTS and integrated instruments, Billy was the more common flight school operator. As Josh's instructor said, early as practicable solo builds confidence. As you both say, that is no longer practicable with present pre-solo requirements and especially Airmen Certification Standards so removed from any semblance of "Stick and Rudder."

Pre-PTS and integrated instruments, which brought emphasis to and reliance on the airspeed indicator and ball instrument, instructors just taught folks to fly based on where they were and what they were going to do with airplanes. Yes, we had more incidents and accidents. No we did not have more fatalities. It was acceptable to teach flying first and preparation for corporate or airline work later, if ever. We are in a phase now where more students than was normal in my time are planning corporate or airline. What percentage is that? Do ACS serve the majority of students based on what they plan to do with their license to learn? Or would most prefer to be taught flying based on the principals in "Stick and Rudder?"

Seeing how common it is these days to have a plane with a six pack, and how easy it is to practically drop in a six pack with all the drop in glass like the GI275 in anything from a citabria on up, it seems teaching some instrument is a good call, especially seeing it’s one of the leading causes of fatalities for PPLs

Flying corp, or jets and the like, it’s still a long ways off from the 172/PA28 despite how much schools like ERU and ATP Inc like to play pretend

Personally there are some things which I don’t fully think are needed, like the emergency decent, and some thing which I think are needed like spins and deeper stall training (see loss of control crashes)

I agree more YOUNG people are getting into flying with a career in mind, which makes sense given the increased regulations, increased inflation which outpaced wages, lots of younger people can’t afford to just fly for fun

When I got my helicopter add on the DPE asked why I was doing my initial CPL vs just doing it to the PPL level, I laughed and said I don’t have enough money to get a rotor wing PPL, took him a second to figure out what I meant

Most professional pilots from the Greatest Generation and their children, the baby boomers, got their CPL as a result of having flown in the military. Large wars were a generational affairs and involved more pilots and fewer computerized weapons. I was actually the first ROTC cadet to get my CPL with the ROTC Flight Program. My highers interpreted the 35 hours toward a PPL to nix a cadet with 180 hours getting a CPL. So I applied to Department of the Army for an exception and was approved for the ROTC Flight Program and it's 35 hours in early June of my senior year. I was commissioned 24 June and I had flown the 35 hours and received my CPL in less than a month, all in a C-140. Flexible government can work. Yes, some things are a pain in the butt. I didn't graduate college until September because they discovered I was short an hour of American History even though I had around 50 hours of World History and had completed an hour reading course to complete the American History. I wasn't technically able to register for the reading course until Summer Semester. I was OIC of Easy Gap Defensive Firing Range at Ft. Knox that September when I officially graduated from college. No I was not at the school, but I did get charged for the Cap and Gown.

You tend to fuss a bit about government inefficiency. The trick is to find a workaround. No I didn't get to wear the white scarf of a cadet in the flight program on my Greens my senior year. No I didn't get out of buying the cap and gown. You just have to work with the government and convince them practical things can actually happen. And the rest of the time we have to accept that the needs of the Army come first.

A big difference between the Army and my college was that the Army understood workaround, both with the CPL and with my not officially having a Bachelors Degree to commission me a 2nd Lt. It helped that they needed both second lieutenants and pilots at the time.