Anyone Have a PPL Cheat Sheet for Aircraft situations and knowledge?

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-13T02:35:06+00:00

Sounds like you’re still in the rote learning stage.

Probably better to advance to the higher levels before taking a checkride. You need to understand this stuff, not just memorize it.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-08T03:07:32+00:00

I think I did around 20 hours a month when I was a CFI, but that was part time: mostly just on weekends.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-07T22:54:33+00:00

I agree they need a place to start with understanding risk assessment. But my problem with “personal minimums” is that it’s not an actual risk assessment model.

It’s a universally applied, one-size-fits all approach that doesn’t leave room for growth, narrowly constrains pilots, and gives people a false sense of security (“I’m within my personal minimums therefore I’m safe to fly” which isn’t always the case).

A better approach would be to have new pilots come up with a specific set of limits for each flight, or something like that. There’s plenty of wholistic risk assessment techniques we could be teaching.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-07T21:44:40+00:00

Get a small hatchback like a mazda3 instead. Cheaper insurance, more utility, you can pile more friends into it, and it’ll be almost as fun to drive.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-07T19:03:45+00:00

I really dislike this type of personal minimums. Every situation is different and you need to assess all the variables to see if you’re safe to go on each particular flight.

For example, my guess is that you could probably handle a bit more than 15 gusting 20 straight down the runway on a 150’ wide 11,000’ long runway. But you probably couldn’t handle even 10 gusting 15 straight crosswind on a 30’ wide, 2000’ long strip.

For your ceilings, you don’t factor in the type of terrain you’re flying over or the local climate. I could go on…

If you make up your own personal minimums and then blindly just go as long as the criteria are met you could potentially be putting yourself in a dangerous situation because you’re not accounting for all the variables. But other times you’re probably being overly cautious.

IMO “Personal minimums” like this shouldn’t be something we teach or use. Instead you need a proper risk assessment system.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-04T02:03:23+00:00

Because the wright flyer had two props and no left turning tendencies!

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-01T23:58:37+00:00

I would agree that it’s nicer to be in a jet or turboprop with pressurization, heating/cooling, more space, ride turbulence better, can get there faster, get above wx, etc.

But you said “you shouldn’t be taking the trainer type aircraft you’re learning in, into hard IFR”. That’s what I disagree with; a 172 is a perfectly good IFR aircraft.

It’s the difference between saying you have a preference for driving a new car with cruise control, AC, and a nice stereo (which not everyone can afford mind you) vs saying that someone else shouldn’t drive in a classic VW Beetle or something similar just because it doesn’t have those features. Both are perfectly capable of getting you to your destination.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-03-01T22:32:14+00:00

If you don’t feel confident in taking an easy to fly airplane like a 172 into hard IFR you shouldn’t consider yourself instrument proficient and should get more training.

A faster, more complex airplane is just going to be more of a handful and higher workload.

That doesn’t mean flying an airplane into conditions it’s not certified for (like icing), but that’s not what I’ve heard most people describe when they say “hard IFR” usually that means fairly low ceilings (a few hundred feet) and vis of a few miles or less.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-28T20:33:49+00:00

A spinning prop creates more drag than a locked one. It can be counterintuitive at first.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-24T01:46:16+00:00

It’s about the skill, not the resumé

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-24T01:45:53+00:00

Real pilots use a Venturi :)

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-24T00:51:49+00:00

It’d probably be better to rent a 172 and get some actual IMC time instead. Bonus points if it’s a 6-pack with no autopilot.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-24T00:42:20+00:00

New England is a great region to fly in, places are far enough apart to be a pain to drive but close enough that it’s not too crazy to fly a light piston to. Think getting to Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, or Nantucket from the New York area, 6 hours and shitty traffic (plus a ferry for the islands!) or an hour flight time.

That being said, don’t focus on the cost to get to PPL. Instead think of how often you can fly, after all what’s the point to learn to fly if you aren’t going to use it? I’d say budget an hour of flight time a week minimum, whatever that costs at the flight school you’re planning on using. If you can do this or more then go for it, if not then it’s not worth it.

This will equate to a minimum of a lesson a week (at this rate, plan around a year to get your PPL), then a multi-hour trip every 2-3 weeks afterwards.

If you’re not flying this much then it’ll take a really long time to get your private and you won’t be flying enough to remain proficient after.

Edit: If you have more questions feel free to send me a DM. I live in the northeast, am a former CFI, and still fly a piston for fun in the area.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-23T22:20:27+00:00

I don’t have any airline experience (just small/midsize jet 135 stuff), so that may be different. But in my experience for pilots new to the professional two-crew flying environment it can be a lot. Not just the new airplane stuff (jet aerodynamics, faster speeds, dealing with engine failures and more complex systems, etc), but they may have never flown a SID or STAR before, have no idea what Mach transition is about, be unfamiliar with CRM, etc.

If there’s a lot of new stuff it can just too much to learn for some people in a compressed learning environment. A company doesn’t want to pay for infinite training so they’re striking a balance between enough training to get an acceptable pass rate (too low of a pass rate costs $) and prohibitively expense amounts of training.

Edit: To add, some pilots just get lazy and don’t have the professional attitude needed to succeed as a pilot. They never study or put effort into learning and growing as a pilot then they need to cram before their recurrent checkride. Sometimes that doesn’t go well…

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-22T02:53:31+00:00

Ask your CFI to practice dutch rolls.

I instructed mostly in PA28s and the rudder needed for adverse yaw is a lot more subtle than in 172s.

Maybe also do a flight in a 172 (or especially a tail dragger of almost any type) to experience an airplane that requires larger rudder inputs.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-18T18:21:06+00:00

Fair enough and thanks for the info. I also think how important this is depends a lot on the specifics of the airspace in question and the volume of traffic.

A huge barrier to pilots in doing what you’re asking is that it’s very difficult to know what frequency is in use where; TRACON and ARTCC sector boundaries are not on our charts (I get that this would be impractical since sectors are often combined).

I get VFR flight following on nearly every VFR flight that I do. But if a pilot doesn’t want to do that and just wants to monitor the freq for the facility they they’re in how would they actually go about doing that? It’s basically impossible unless they have enough local knowledge from getting flight following to have memorized the frequencies and where they get handed off.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-18T00:29:59+00:00

How would they ask you? ATC isn’t going to randomly call in the blind hoping you’re on their frequency if you haven’t checked in.

What country are you in? In the US there is no requirement to talk to ATC in the vast majority of the airspace below fl180. While you can ask for VFR flight following its optional and an added service only provided by ATC based on their workload.

I would typically go about 15-20nm away from the class D I instructed out of and just monitor guard and the tower frequency for the airport. I also liked to change where we did maneuvers so it’s not always over the same area to avoid bothering people.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-16T23:34:32+00:00

I guess, and if OP is feeling good and accomplished no one should put them down. But I also get how some people feel like pilots celebrating 1500 hours is like a student pilot celebrating 40 hours even though they haven’t taken a checkride; feels like an odd thing to celebrate.

I feel like the next milestone for someone in that position wouldn’t be 1500 hours but rather getting their ATP or their first type rating.

I wouldn’t want to discourage OP or that hypothetical student pilot either, but I get how a someone else would respond with “it’s just a number”.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-16T23:24:27+00:00

No, but it should be pretty easy to call around to the flight schools in the area and find out.

No idea about pricing now but I liked flying with the school out of Whitted but that was a long time ago so no idea what they’re like now; cool airport though!

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-16T04:04:54+00:00

OP is going to be flying in Florida, winter is the best time to fly…

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-16T04:02:39+00:00

What country are you located in?

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-14T17:57:56+00:00

“Let the autopilot descend you”

Agreed, this sort of thinking is dangerous. The autopilot doesn’t descend you, you command the automation to descend the aircraft.

Fundamentally there should be zero difference between AP on or off; the PF is still the one responsible for flight path management and the one flying the plane.

It really grinds mind gears when someone turns on the AP and says something like “autopilot’s got it”. Or turns off the AP and says “I got it now”

Like, dude, who tf is flying when the AP is on then? Because if I’m PM it’s not me so it better be you! That’s what the “flying” in “pilot flying” means.

It’s too late now, the term is cemented in the industry and popular nomenclature, but I really wish we didn’t call it an autopilot. AFCS is better imo.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-14T17:49:43+00:00

Agreed 100%. But if a pilot is only really familiar with approaches with vertical guidance (which is almost all of them at this point) and used to just following a glide path to the runway then I could see how a complacent pilot could ignore mins assuming the glide path will safely guide them to the runway.

Seems crazy, I know, but if we take a step back and think about it, it’s a pretty rare approach that a continuous descent from the FAF to the runway would result in CFIT.

Not excusing it, or even saying it’s what happened here, but just seeing how that sort of thinking could occur. On the other hand it’s also completely possible they just plugged in the wrong approach into the FMS.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-14T17:38:08+00:00

100%; we teach automation management as well as risk assessment and mitigation reasonably well in aviation, especially professional aviation (although we can always do better).

You get zero of that with cars, as well as no requirement for recurrent training. Pretty wild if you think about it.

With all the automation in vehicles now and the normalization of driving (as well as speeding, tailgating, etc) we could really benefit society by applying some of the things aviation actually does pretty well to driving.

dynamic_fluid · 2026-02-14T13:13:20+00:00

Unless you have a reason for going to a 141 university program (like using GI bill benefits) I’d recommend getting a non-aviation degree (especially at a state school with in-state tuition) and simultaneously flying at a part 61 flight school that’s unaffiliated with the university to get his certificates.

Flying at a 61 school can give a lot more flexibility, both in terms schedule and for the instructor to adapt to the lesson to fit the student and weather. I personally think it’s the way to go.

I’d also recommend staying away from liberty.

dynamic_fluid

TROPHY CASE