Having been a flight instructor for nearly 20 years, I have heard this question—why haven’t I soloed yet?—countless times. If you’ve ever felt that frustration, it may help to know that there are usually three situations that bring a student to the question, but they usually have the same root cause. What’s more, they can appear totally unrelated, but they are really tied together.
‘So, Have You Soloed Yet?’
The first scenario is a student who is training without a syllabus who encounters either other pilots, people in their life who “know a pilot,” or internet denizens who know everything. “How many hours do you have?” The student replies with “X” and then the follow up question occurs: “So, have you soloed yet?”
I have witnessed pilots ask brand new students this on their fourth flight lesson and be shocked that they aren’t getting close or even appalled that they haven’t started doing touch and goes yet (how could anyone not get it by hour 4). The catalyst for the question in this situation is doubt; the responses by the uneducated have made the budding aviator question their ability or their training program.
Sticking to the Syllabus
The second scenario involves students who are training with a syllabus. They see that the syllabus says Lesson 10: First Solo Flight. The lesson comes, it goes, and after five or six more lessons and no solo flight, the student comes in and asks the instructor why they haven’t soloed yet; they are on their 16th lesson and Lesson 10 was supposed to be the solo.
The catalyst for this situation is the student’s association with lesson numbers and training progress. Again, this leads to the students questioning either their or their instructors’ skills.
The Transfer Student Pilot
The third scenario is a student coming from another flying institution—be it another school, or another instructor in the same school—and they are an unknown quantity to you. This student will show up and say, “I have X hours and have learned everything, but I haven’t soloed yet.” This is normally a hybrid of the first two scenarios and can combine their catalysts.
Now, it’s easy for a new-to-the-student CFI to come out and just say something like, “Oh, you’re getting ripped off,” or “I am a much better instructor, so we won’t have any problems,” but those are the worst things that you can say to someone because you’re unknowingly giving an affirmation that there was something inherently wrong with their course or delivery of training. While everyone is imperfect, devaluing the institution of training to make someone feel better creates an uphill battle for you as the new or current instructor, because you need to use those two pillars of training to educate this person.
Getting to the Root Cause
The root cause in all three of these possible scenarios always boils down to a lack of understanding of performance-based training. Sometimes it’s the student, sometimes it’s the instructor; most often, it’s both.
To understand performance-based training we need to be intimately familiar with a couple of concepts: adequate instruction and satisfactory performance.
As we know, instructors are supposed to provide adequate instruction for anything that they are teaching. However, it’s challenging to determine what that means without a deep dive, so here we go.
What is satisfactory performance? We’ll start by looking at 14 CFR 61.87 and a couple of things that it actually says about the solo requirements for student pilots.
The term “solo flight” in the federal aviation regulations (FARs) means that flight time during which a student pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft. To paraphrase, before soloing, a student pilot must demonstrate satisfactory aeronautical knowledge on a knowledge test that meets the requirements. The test must address the student pilot’s knowledge of applicable sections of Parts 61 and 91, airspace rules and procedures for the airport where the solo flight will be performed, and flight characteristics and operational limitations for the make and model of aircraft to be flown. The student’s instructor must administer the test and at the conclusion of the test, review all incorrect answers with the student before authorizing that student to conduct a solo flight.
Then there’s pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student pilot must have received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures appropriate to the make and model of aircraft flown and demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by the instructor. If the elements for pre-solo flight training are completed in a single-engine airplane, the student pilot must receive and log flight training for the list of them enumerated in 61.87.
While the unspoken standard in flight training seems to have been to simply write that the student has done each of the items on the list in the logbook, that isn’t really what it says. Yes, there is a list of things on both the knowledge test as well as the aeronautical experience portion of the regs, but they aren’t the part we should be focusing on. FAR 61.87(b) and (c)(2) each state that the student must demonstrate satisfactory knowledge and satisfactory proficiency and safety as judged by an authorized instructor.
What is satisfactory performance? Well this one can be highly subjective based on who you ask, but there is only one real answer: What FAA source materials dictate that performance standard? If you guessed the airman certification standards (ACS), then you’re right. If you guessed “instructor discretion,” sadly, you were wrong.
The ACS states that among the instructor responsibilities are that they train and qualify the applicant to “meet the established standards for knowledge, risk management, and skill elements in all tasks appropriate to the certificate and rating sought.” The instructor should use the ACS for the certificate level and category and class of aircraft, and its references, when preparing the applicant to take the practical test and when retraining the applicant to proficiency in any subjects missed.
When it comes to the practical test, FAR 61.43 gives the general procedures, and that the applicant must demonstrate mastery of the aircraft, proficiency and competency of the tasks required, and sound judgment throughout.
The biggest pushback you see from people on this is flight instructors saying that those are the standards for the practical test and not the pre-solo training. But if that were the case, the pre-solo training legal language wouldn’t use the term satisfactory.
Following the dive into its logical conclusion, it means that an instructor is required to train a student pilot to proficiency in all the areas listed in FAR 61.87 prior to their first solo flight. Why is this important to understand?
In each of our scenarios where the pilot is wondering why they haven’t soloed, it’s very important to focus on an understanding of performance-based training in order to maintain the integrity of the training environment—any other response devalues that and makes the job that much more difficult. While assigning blame to another instructor or school might feel righteous in the moment, it is usually a self-defeating prophecy.
The best practice as an instructor is during your first lesson spend 30 to 60 minutes explaining performance-based learning and showing the student the reference materials, the FARs and ACS, and the syllabus that you’re using, and go from there. As a CFI, you can do this at any time but it’s definitely easier if you start with it.
As a student, if this conversation hasn’t taken place with your instructor at the outset of training, you need to trigger it. And if you don’t like the response, it’s time to go elsewhere for your flying.
Doug, have you ever run into a student where you came to the conclusion that they just weren’t cut out for flying airplanes?
Hi Steve,
Over the course of 20 years I have, but only three times an unfortunately each of them had underlying mental health issues that weren’t negotiable so that they would ever be safe to act as pilot in command.
My experience has been similar. We want to be as inclusive as possible, but anything that affects judgement and decision making can be a show stopper. Funny solo story… many (many) years ago, I had to quit playing rugby while I finished my private pilots license. The instructors and examiner all told me they worried about my judgement!
Doug, it does seem like the average student is going to their PP check ride with quite a few more hours than was once the norm, certainly more than the 40 hour syllabus I recall from the 1980’s. Why? What changed?
I’d say that it certainly has to do with the increased complexity of aircraft systems, the airspace system, and FAA regulations. It also has to do with the fact we use performance based testing which is different to what the standard educational environment uses so there’s a sort of “culture” shock on that end. Additionally the average student years ago came in with a more rounded technical understanding than those who come in today – the digital age does help aviation in some ways but it definitely hurts it in others, from the average person never reading a chart or map in their life to having no understanding how engines operate.
Because everyone’s starting experience is so different that leads to higher training times. The national average sits around 84 hours for a private pilot certificate now.
Sometimes you can fly with or live with someone for a long time before discovering that they have poor judgement. And sometimes it is very obvious and you can see it immediately.
I would agree with everything in your article up to the point you said “If you guessed “instructor discretion,” sadly, you were wrong.” I’m not saying instructor discretion, the FAA is, in 61.87 (c)(2) “Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor”. Clearly the FAA is putting its faith and trust in instructor discretion or they would have developed ACS or even PTS for Student Pilots. Additionally, to suggest using the Private Pilot ACS could cause conflict if the student is working towards a Recreational or Sport Pilot certificate.
Students should be aware/have the ACS or PTS to know that is the ultimate goal of training, but they also need to know that the Student Pilot certificate is a license to learn and buildup proficiency.
Your disagreement is a common one. However the ACS should never be the ultimate goal of flight training and the guidance emphasizes that point. The ACS is a minimum acceptable standard of performance and the language the FAA uses does constantly point the word Satisfactory to that minimum acceptable standard. Because of rhetoric verbiage the FAA is maintaining control of what the Satisfactory Performance is but delegating the authority to judge that performance on you the CFI.
A great way to think about it is like this. Is your student ready to handle any situation that occurs when they are alone in the, traffic pattern, practice area, traveling between two local airports on a repeat solo endorsement? (It is normal for students to have an airplane at one airport and receive training at another airport)
The thing that would definitely give them a great chance is if they demonstrated – Satisfactory – performance based on hthe agreed upon minimum acceptable standard of training – not instructor vibes “what’s good enough”. That’s the common confusion in that area.
It’s very important to understand that every one of the elements covered in the pre-solo training requirements are simply individual elements of the traffic pattern for normal operation of an aircraft. Many times we fall into the bad habit of assuming that because no negative outcome resulted from a flight that it was in fact a safe and successful flight – the loss of control accident rate which has remained a near constant since it started being tracked would disagree with that assumption.
Additionally you can try to nitpick the ACS I referenced in the article – but the same applies to whatever ACS/PTS you are using – those are the minimum acceptable standard for Satisfactory Performance that you are supposed to judge.
I’m going to side with Max747 here. The reg he states is very clear. Besides, which ACS are you evaluating against, Sport Pilot, Private, Commercial?
You partially quoted out of the Aviation Instructors handbook. I’ll pull from the AIH…..
“Standards of Performance
An aviation instructor is responsible for training an applicant to established standards in all subject matter areas, procedures, and maneuvers included in the tasks within each area of operation in the appropriate Airman Certification (ACS)/Airman Practical Test Standards (PTS). It should be emphasized that the ACS/PTS book is a testing document, not a teaching document.”
Note the word appropriate. There is no “appropriate” ACS or PTS for solo. That’s where 61.87(c)(2) comes in. I’m fortunate enough to evaluate pilots at different 141 schools. If you look at the different TCOs or Syllabi, each school has different standards for solo. If the way you state is was the way the FAA intended, how could this be?
Now let’s look at this from a different angle. Does a baby go from laying on his belly to walking? From crawling to running? No. There are building blocks to progress through. Watching a child build those muscles and movements to the point of scooching towards their favorite toy. Then building more muscles and adding balance to the point of crawling. Crawling leads to pulling up on stuff and more balance….. you get the idea. The same with solo flight and progressing through all certifications. Passing each checkride is a building block process in skills, knowledge and experience. Solo is the first major building block in the students progress and we celebrate it with the same enthusiasm as new parents watching their baby crawl and eventually walk.
Solo time is very important for learning. That’s where decisions are made (right or wrong) and where self confidence is built. All this is under the supervision of the CFI. We are building the PIC! Skills will improve as experience is gained.
Back when I got my CFI (yes, the earths core had cooled) my instructors/mentors discussed long and hard about when a student was ready to solo. “Their safety was the most important thing.” was driven into us. Nowadays this doesn’t get discussed. Most CFI training is aimed at passing the check ride. A sad staate of affairs. Each new CFI should write their own ASC for solo with guidance from an experienced CFI. Something that is safe, realistic and reasonable for a student pilot. These standards should be part of their syllabus and presented the student as they get close to that milestone.
I could go on but I’ve rambled long enough.
a 141 schools standards still do have to meet the FAR part 61 standards. It’s never a “higher” standard albeit many corners of the internet might lead someone to believe that.
I’ll go right back to the use of the word appropriate, the FAA in part 61 states what training is required to be administered pre solo AND determined to be Satisfactory by an Authorized instructor. It points to the “appropriate” ACS/PTS as those are the guidance documents that establish what the baseline of satisfactory is. This serves two purposes, gives the learner a way to understand progress and Authorized instructors a way to establish satisfactory performance.
All of your 141 TCOs will have been vetted to meet the FAR part 61 standards.
Where you’re indicating that the ACS/PTS is not a teaching tool but evaluation tool is correct, there are many things that CFIs should be teaching pre solo / flight test that are not in the testing standards. (Nearly all don’t)
I understand the baby analogy, but I wouldn’t let my baby cross a street because he walked across the room once.
I guess my question is would you really let your student who couldn’t consistently do stalls, slow flight, or an emergency descent to fly an airplane alone? (I won’t, and it’s never hurt any students progress in training) I have always used the established minimum acceptable standards as my baseline for all evaluation and it works great because it gives the student working understanding so they can progress on their own well after they have left me.
We can all do it differently, but soloing people who can’t handle all the major scenarios has baffled me for 20+ years.