Has the student solo requirement outlasted its usefulness?

[Loren Jones]

Paul Salmon of Cape Copters recently posted this video:

I've recently had conversations with multiple instructors about this issue. As insurance becomes harder to find, the student solo requirement becomes an ever-increasing burden on training organizations. In the context of advanced training for the commercial license, the FAA has allowed the "solo" requirement to be accomplished with a CFI on-board. This allows for students to log the experience requirement in aircraft they would never be allowed to fly alone due to insurance requirements.

I would like to see a push for the student pilot solo requirement to be met via "supervised solo", which I would define as with an instructor onboard who does not provide instruction and who would only intervene if the safety of flight was in question. In the case of required intervention, that flight would not qualify as "supervised solo" but would be logged as "instruction received." Only those flights accomplished without any need for intervention would qualify as "supervised solo".

I do understand the legacy of the thrill of that "First Solo" and I will miss it. But I don't think nostalgia should keep us from looking forward at new alternatives.

By way of comparisons:

We don't requirement students to accomplish "Solo IFR flight in IMC" before getting an instrument rating.
There is no solo requirement for a type rating in a jet.
No airline let's recently graduated First Officers take their B777 on a trip around the pattern by themselves!

Even for a automobile drivers license, no teenager is allowed (much less required!) to take the family sedan around town alone for a few hours before granting them a drivers license.

I think the time has come to revisit the solo requirement as it is becoming an impediment to affordable flight training.

Thoughts?

 

[querist]

The only reason I can think that the solo requirement makes sense is that in a car you can always pull off to the side of the road if something goes wrong. You can't just park next to a cloud if something goes wrong in an aircraft*.

If a car catches on fire, you pull off and get out. You can't easily exit a plane at 5000' MSL.

That said, motorcycles are the opposite - you can't have anyone else on the bike with you until you have your license, and I don't know how other people learn to ride motorcycles, but I learned on dirt-bikes as a kid and just transitioned to a larger and street-legal motorcycle. I never had anyone else on the bike with me when I was learning.

I think the "supervised solo" requirement is a nice compromise, but I'd still prefer to solo if possible just to be absolutely sure that I can handle it myself without having the "safety net" of the CFI in the plane with me in case something goes south.

I will agree that eliminating that requirement would make gyroplanes more accessible. Airplane flight schools have insurance to cover that, but the insurance exists because of the legal requirement for the student pilot to solo and the fact that there are so many airplane flight schools out there that SOMEONE would offer it if your company didn't. The gyroplane market in the US doesn't have the numbers to compel the insurance companies to offer coverage.

Which is a bummer, because while I own a Cessna**, the only thing I want to fly is a gyro.


* Airships and Balloons can in some circumstances.
** My wife is the fixed-wing pilot, and will be taking and passing (DV) her checkride on May 15 for her private pilot certificate, ASEL.

 

[WaspAir]

Solo for additional aircraft ratings is less significant, but for the very first rating, I think it's essential.

A CFI on board is indeed a safety net, and one that will not be available when the freshly licensed pilot takes up someone as a passenger (one of your loved ones, perhaps?) as the license will allow them to do. People fly differently when they know the safety net is not there, and decisions must be made without an onboard supervisor. Some experience without that net is invaluable and should be mandatory before licensing.

I routinely sit in the back promising silence and inactivity for a few flights before I solo anybody, and students tell me it is not at all the same experience when I'm not there.

As to the accidents - DUH ! - CFI malpractice to solo those people (too early, inadequate preparation, or inappropriate conditions). Would it be better to have the pilot make that same mistake after licensing with a passenger who is unable to assist?

First solo is a highly motivating goal, that can be safely achieved well before a student is ready for a checkride. It should be done with tight control over the circumstances, and whenever possible, after a phase check from another CFI to spot any overlooked issues.

I can't imagine recommending someone for a checkride that I wouldn't confidently send up alone.

 

[Sv.grainne]

Comments? Transitioning to a single place with solo endorsement?

 

[WaspAir]

Comments? Transitioning to a single place with solo endorsement?

It can be appropriate in gyros, done conservatively, and depending upon the equipment available. It is the routine practice in my glider club, moving from a tube and fabric two-place trainer to a sleek composite single seater with half the mass, much shorter span, different landing gear arrangement, much lighter controls, and 50% better performance.

 

[Mayfield]

A CFI on board is indeed a safety net, and one that will not be available when the freshly licensed pilot takes up someone as a passenger (one of your loved ones, perhaps?) as the license will allow them to do.

I can't imagine recommending someone for a checkride that I wouldn't confidently send up alone.

I concur! I realize there may be different viewpoints, but I can't imagine a pilot, who has never soloed an aircraft, taking a practical test then magically being able to carry passengers without ever proving he could truly be PIC.

 

[Resasi]

I do not agree with Paul Salmon, and do not believe the solo flight requirement has outlived its importance as a necessary step in pilot training.

Any pilot wishing to fly any single seat machine will have to solo it on his/her very first flight.

Going solo in single pilot jets, of which there are many types.

It has been a practice in flying for a very long time, and has worked. Yes, there are accidents, and fatalities when students have gone solo however these are a definite minority, not the rule.

If a student has been trained properly, then my personal opinion, as a former flying instructor who has soloed hundreds of primary students, that is that it is a valuable step in the training process. It is a confidence inducing step that I feel has it's rightful place in the syllabus.

We don't requirement students to accomplish "Solo IFR flight in IMC" before getting an instrument rating.
There is no solo requirement for a type rating in a jet.
No airline let's recently graduated First Officers take their B777 on a trip around the pattern by themselves!

No, but after getting the IMC rating there will be a flight in IMC when you will be 'solo'. Going solo during IMC training is definitely NOT the time to go try this as you have not yet finished the training required to fly purely on instruments.

The requirement to go solo during pilot training is the ability to...Take off. Climb. Climbing and descending turns. Level flight. Turns. Descend. Land. The basics only.
None of the multitude of other skills that you will go on to learn before becoming fully qualified.

As a former airline pilot, my graduation as a newly certified 727 Captain, having not flown it before as co-pilot (except during the initial training where the Captains under training did time in the right seat in the sim), was from Braniff having been trained onthe Simulator and received the licence as PIC having never flown the actual aircraft.

Braniff did however then take batches of newly certified Captains up at night on an actual aircraft to each fly three circuits and landings two normal, and the last with an engine out, with an FAA inspector on board.

I have also received a few type ratings on executive jets done purely on simulators where my first flight in the actual aircraft was as PIC, together with a co-pilot who had received his initial training on the type together with me. IE on his first flight in the actual machine.

There will be circumstances in any pilots life/experience where they will be flying a machine on their own as the sole pilot and possibly with a non flying passenger. Having done that first solo as the sole person on board, to my mind, was a massive and vital first step in building the confidence of the beginner pilot in their own ability to take off, fly and to land safely.

This step to me is not stupid at all.

And, I also feel that removing the requirement for spin training should not have done.

In the correct aircraft certified for spins it was another important lesson, that induced confidence, and showed the student
a) its potential hazards.
b) how to recognise and to recover from it safely.

Solo cross-country to my mind should be alone and not with an Instructor in the back... simply remaining silent.

My opinion... recognising the right of others to disagree.

 

[querist]

I, personally, am looking forward to my first solo flight (if I ever get a medical certificate). I remember my wife's excitement when she soloed in a Cessna 172 Skyhawk and then when she did her long cross-country solo flights. (I drove for an hour to meet her at the destination airport for her first cross-country solo so we could have lunch at the FBO.)

But, again, the flight schools for other types of aircraft have the insurance to handle these solo flights. Until gyro CFIs can obtain such insurance, it will be harder for an aspiring gyro pilot to be able to learn to fly unless he/she purchases a gyro. I'd rather wait a bit to see if I can actually fly the thing before buying one.

 

[Mayfield]

I'd rather wait a bit to see if I can actually fly the thing before buying one.

Glyn,
You will certainly know if you can fly it before you are ready to solo.
Jim

 

[MikeBoyette]

I do not agree with Paul Salmon, and do not believe the solo flight requirement has outlived its importance as a necessary step in pilot training.

Any pilot wishing to fly any single seat machine will have to solo it on his/her very first flight.

Going solo in single pilot jets, of which there are many types.

It has been a practice in flying for a very long time, and has worked. Yes, there are accidents, and fatalities when students have gone solo however these are a definite minority, not the rule.

If a student has been trained properly, then my personal opinion, as a former flying instructor who has soloed hundreds of primary students, that is that it is a valuable step in the training process. It is a confidence inducing step that I feel has it's rightful place in the syllabus.





No, but after getting the IMC rating there will be a flight in IMC when you will be 'solo'. Going solo during IMC training is definitely NOT the time to go try this as you have not yet finished the training required to fly purely on instruments.

The requirement to go solo during pilot training is the ability to...Take off. Cimb. Level flight. Turn. Descend. Land. The basics only.
None of the multitude of other skills that you will go on to learn before becoming fully qualified.

As a former airline pilot, my graduation as a newly certified 727 Captain, having not flown it before as co-pilot (except during the initial training where the Captains under training did time in the right seat in the sim), was from Braniff having been trained onthe Simulator and received the licence as PIC having never flown the actual aircraft.

Braniff did however then take batches of newly certified Captains up at night on an actual aircraft to each fly three circuits and landings two normal, and the last with an engine out, with an FAA inspector on board.

I have also received a few type ratings on executive jets done purely on simulators where my first flight in the actual aircraft was as PIC, together with a co-pilot who had received his initial training on the type together with me. IE on his first flight in the actual machine.

There will be circumstances in any pilots life/experience where they will be flying a machine on their own as the sole pilot and possibly with a non flying passenger. Having done that first solo as the sole person on board, to my mind, was a massive and vital first step in building the confidence of the beginner pilot in their own ability to take off, fly and to land safely.

This step to me is not stupid at all.

And, I also feel that removing the requirement for spin training should not have done.

In the correct aircraft certified for spins it was another important lesson, that induced confidence, and showed the student
a) its potential hazards.
b) how to recognise and to recover from it safely.

Solo cross-country to my mind should be alone and not with an Instructor in the back... simply remaining silent.

My opinion... recognising the right of others to disagree.

I agree with everything you are saying. Spin training as well. I never got my fixed wing ticket however my instructor did teach me spins. Dad also showed me them quite a few times.

 

[Vance]

I learned things flying solo that had eluded me flying with an instructor.

For me my solo flights were a great way to discover the things I was weak on.

For many who don’t own a gyroplane the FAA solo requirement is a major hurdle.

Very few of my learners already own a gyroplane when they begin.

It is hard to discount the times I have said “MY AIRCRAFT” with a learner and be confident that they won’t make the same mistake when I am not there to fix it in order to solo a learner.

I don’t recall anywhere it says I have to solo the learner early.

In the accidents described by Paul it appears to me that they were soloed prematurely.

Given the current difficulty in renting a gyroplane I would prefer the FAA solo requirement was like it is for commercial; solo is done with a quiet instructor who is only there to fix it if things go wrong.

 

[Loren Jones]

Solo for additional aircraft ratings is less significant, but for the very first rating, I think it's essential.

A CFI on board is indeed a safety net, and one that will not be available when the freshly licensed pilot takes up someone as a passenger (one of your loved ones, perhaps?) as the license will allow them to do. People fly differently when they know the safety net is not there, and decisions must be made without an onboard supervisor. Some experience without that net is invaluable and should be mandatory before licensing.

I routinely sit in the back promising silence and inactivity for a few flights before I solo anybody, and students tell me it is not at all the same experience when I'm not there.

As to the accidents - DUH ! - CFI malpractice to solo those people (too early, inadequate preparation, or inappropriate conditions). Would it be better to have the pilot make that same mistake after licensing with a passenger who is unable to assist?

First solo is a highly motivating goal, that can be safely achieved well before a student is ready for a checkride. It should be done with tight control over the circumstances, and whenever possible, after a phase check from another CFI to spot any overlooked issues.

I can't imagine recommending someone for a checkride that I wouldn't confidently send up alone.

I don't disagree with any of your points. But as insurance becomes more expensive and less available we may reach the point that insuring an aircraft for student solos may become prohibitively expensive. What then? Just say, "You'll have to buy your own aircraft and self-insure if you want to get your license"? That's the point of this discussion. It's not that no one sees the value in solo flight, but whether there is a viable alternative that gets us close to the goal before it becomes economically impossible.

Loren

 

[Loren Jones]

I learned things flying solo that had eluded me flying with an instructor.

For me my solo flights were a great way to discover the things I was weak on.

For many who don’t own a gyroplane the FAA solo requirement is a major hurdle.

Very few of my learners already own a gyroplane when they begin.

It is hard to discount the times I have said “MY AIRCRAFT” with a learner and be confident that they won’t make the same mistake when I am not there to fix it in order to solo a learner.

I don’t recall anywhere it says I have to solo the learner early.

In the accidents described by Paul it appears to me that they were soloed prematurely.

Given the current difficulty in renting a gyroplane I would prefer the FAA solo requirement was like it is for commercial; solo is done with a quiet instructor who is only there to fix it if things go wrong.

Agree on all points....especially the last one, which I think is where we will ultimately need to end up for flight training to continue in the future.

 

[Brent Smith]

Did I miss something or has there been no mention of actual accident rates for first time solos or student solo cross countries? Just because something sounds dangerous doesn't mean it has actually resulted in many/any accidents. Might the increased insurance costs be simply a profit opportunity for the insurers?

 

[Loren Jones]

Did I miss something or has there been no mention of actual accident rates for first time solos or student solo cross countries? Just because something sounds dangerous doesn't mean it has actually resulted in many/any accidents. Might the increased insurance costs be simply a profit opportunity for the insurers?

Perhaps, but challenging motive for the rates is probably a fools errand. The reality is that as soon as you add "student pilot" to your coverage the rates are always higher....always has been the case. What do we do when it becomes prohibitively expensive, thus unavailable?

 

[WaspAir]

we may reach the point that insuring an aircraft for student solos may become prohibitively expensive. What then?

If insurers think student solos are too dangerous to cover, the one certainly wrong response is to increase overall pilot population danger by eliminating that essential part of training. At best, you'll delay the death rate until the student's training is over and the first solo is finally accomplished. You'll never get the insurers back in the student market or keep insurers in the licensed pilot market that way, and you add the risk of killing passengers.

At some point, one must develop judgment by making judgments, and hone the ability to self-critique and spot errors while still correctable, without a back-up pilot ready to take over. That's what solos are about.

P.S. student solos can be closely supervised with CFI review of planning, weather, etc. If the first true solo is after the checkride, there will be no such oversight.

 

[Loren Jones]

If insurers think student solos are too dangerous to cover, the one certainly wrong response is to increase overall pilot population danger by eliminating that essential part of training. At best, you'll delay the death rate until the student's training is over and the first solo is finally accomplished. You'll never get the insurers back in the student market or keep insurers in the licensed pilot market that way, and you add the risk of killing passengers.

At some point, one must develop judgment by making judgments, and hone the ability to self-critique and spot errors while still correctable, without a back-up pilot ready to take over. That's what solos are about.

Playing Devils Advocate, why did we ever need a "solo" requirement in the first place? Why not train them to proficiency in ALL aspects of flight, then let them demonstrate that to the FAA, get their license and go forth and fly? That's what we do with teenagers and cars. They don't get to "go solo" with mom and dad's sedan before the state has evaluated their ability to meet a minimum standard.

If you're worried about adding risk to passengers, add a 10 hour PIC requirement before carrying passengers AFTER they've demonstrated their ability to be a pilot to the FAA. Wouldn't that be the safer option all the way around?

 

[WaspAir]

Solo time is an era of steep learning curve that should be done under close supervision, not just hours to be flown off post-licensing. I assert that proficiency in all aspects can't easily be developed without solo time and certainly can't be fully demonstrated on a checkride against a logbook of only dual. Your DPE would need days of testing to feel confident instead of one brief snapshot flight. He/she relies on the solo experience in that log as part of the basis for judgment.

Check the auto insurance rates for households with and without teenagers, and you'll see the same pattern as for flight training. Furthermore, the sort of fender bender that is common in cars has few counterparts in aviation, where small errors are lethal.

 

[Loren Jones]

Solo time is an era of steep learning curve that should be done under close supervision, not just hours to be flown off post-licensing. I assert that proficiency in all aspects can't easily be developed without solo time and certainly can't be fully demonstrated on a checkride against a logbook of only dual. Your DPE would need days of testing to feel confident instead of one brief snapshot flight. He/she relies on the solo experience in that log as part of the basis for judgment.

Check the auto insurance rates for household with and without teenagers, and you'll see the same pattern as for flight training. Furthermore, the sort of fender bender that is common in cars has few counterparts in aviation, where small errors are lethal.

Let me change the scenario in my previous example: Now, say before a teen can get his license, he has to rent a vehicle from a driving school and accumulate a minimum number of hours driving around solo. How many driving schools do you think you'd find offering their cars for teens to cruise around in? What do you think the insurance would cost?

I don't disagree that there's value in solo flight, but I'm not convinced the value exceeds the ever-increasing cost of insuring unlicensed pilots. That's the point. And what happens when the cost makes offering training aircraft prohibitive? Where do people go then when they want to learn to fly? Their only option will be to buy an aircraft and self-insure, which isn't a viable option for most.

Sure, a newbie pilot will pay more for his insurance until he builds experience. That's the way it is now. The solo time he had doesn't really do anything to reduce his insurance rates as a new pilot. But it sure as heck affected the flight school's ability to offer the flight training service, driven much by the solo requirement.

I'd rather be proactive and start looking at alternatives sooner rather than later. I think some form of supervised solo is the best alternative. Otherwise, skip the "solo" all together and make it 40 hours of thorough instruction, followed by an evaluation by the FAA that they are competent to be a pilot.

 

[WaspAir]

I think that's a step back in safety, and money won't justify that for me. Keeping safe is more important to me than cheaping cheap. I don't like compromising that.

The gyro world has been dominated by cheap experimental homebuilt craft, and expectations hinge on that. The future may look different, perhaps more like fixed wing or helicopters.

Meanwhile, balloons and gliders remain bargain priced.