I'd say if you're willing to drive to KASH, go there (or the closest airport like it), and talk to the people at the FBO desk.  It looks like they have flight training available at the field, here's a link to the information on GFW Aeroservices, which seems to be the people who give flight training there.http://www.airnav.com/airport/KASH/GFW

You should be able to go there and tell them you want to take an introductory flight, and they'll take you up and you can continue your training if you want, otherwise I'm sure you could just go every now and then and ask to take a ride with an instructor.  They won't pressure you to take lessons, and if you do take lessons, it will be at your own pace, you can choose to get your license in a couple of weeks, or ten years, it's all up to you.

Good luck, and remember to have buckets of fun, and take a camera.

Quote:

Like me.   I'll take a refresher lesson in the next couple of months though, because it's really starting to bug me.  So like Brett said, if you learn at a controlled airport, it's all the better.

It was nearly a flame-war .. but I can't bite my tongue..

I'm all for light, easy to fly, affordable aircraft; but I'm still not for 20 hour pilots.. never will be.

I posted a quote the last time this topic came up; He's a writer for Flying magazine and published aviation author/expert... and my "mentor" (a 20,000+ hour pilot) agrees with him.

"Looking at recent experience with these airplanes, and given the relatively minimum training to be required, it appears that if a lot of people are attracted to light sport flying, we could have an aeronautical slaughter of epic proportions. The only way to avoid that would be with a training program that I don’t think anybody can envision being possible, especially in 20 hours"

Quote:


I know,  I know...
But better that, than taking the PPL curriculum only up to the first solo, and... what? Stopping? only flying dual? Only flying solo locally with a sign-off?
The thing that might best suit Chris would be to get the SPL and get into ultralights or fair-weather, local fun flying in Cubs and whatnot. Like you, I heartily I encourage him to pursue a "real" pilot's license, but it'd be a shame to see him start and then just stop.

As for the potential for an "aeronautical slaughter" due to an increase in "20-hr pilots", I think we should consider 2 things:
First, not everybody will get it in 20 hrs, just as hardly anybody gets their PPL in 40. I don't envy a CFI who has to figure out a way to turn loose a pilot with only 20-40 hrs, but I don't think it's beyond any consideration.
Second, there have been pilots with minimal training and no medical flying ultralights for a long time now, and their safety record, as far as I know, is no worse than that for PPs in certified aircraft.

The author of that article compares recent 4-seater accident rates with those for 2-seaters 50 years ago...interesting, but I fail to see what that has to do with a 21st-century SP program.

That article, while seeking to squash the notion of the SP rating as an apparent return to the "bad old days" by quoting accident stats for Cubs and Kitfoxes, almost supports the argument in favor of the SP rating: hardly anybody is getting stall/spin training, the real kind, in planes over the SP weight limit nowadays...
I didn't, really-  never saw more than 1/2 turn of a real spin, and the young CFI who offered to show that to me (in a 172) was more nervous about it than I was (probably because it was a high-time rental with many taining hours on it). I'm very leery of stalling the 152, concentrating much more on "recognition and recovery" but often practice full stalls, even power-ons with bank, in the 172. I developed that habit on my own, because stalls in both types were demonstrating only begrudgingly during my training. I've made my share of bad approaches, but have yet to stall inadvertently, in the pattern or anywhere else, because I've taken the time to explore the envelope at altitude. So far, in a manner of speaking, my good judgement has kept me safer than my training, at least as far as that is concerned.
And while it is certainly true that low-and-slow flying invites disaster especially when the pilot makes the same foolish assumption that laymen do (that low and slow is safer than high and fast), the number of fatal wx-related accidents in heavier aircraft piloted by PPs and even IFR-rated PPs and CPs is alarmingly high to me... it's still the #1 cause of fatal accidents in all aviation, across the board, despite the quantum leaps in training, wx assessment, and technology over the last 50 years.
Weigh that against the prospect of a pilot signed off after 20 hours to fly locally in good weather in an old Champ or a Kitfox he built himself, and I'm not sure how well the argument holds up.

A dumb mistake is a dumb mistake, whether the pilot is flying  a powered parachute or an Mu2. Has very little to do with the number of hours or the quality of the instruction. We all know that deep down inside: low-timers like me, midrange CFIs like you, and old hands like your mentor.
I just read about a recent King Air accident in which the pilot, who had thousands of hours total and hundreds of IFR multi hours, reached his final fix over 1000 feet too high on a nonprecision approach in hard IMC at a mountain airport  and going for it anyway.... he flew right into a mountain beyond the airport, shortly after realizing he'd blown right past it and decided he'd declare a missed approach. Was his training inadequate, or did he just make a bad call? I don't have any multi time and only 4 hours under the hood, but I know that what he did was stupid. Easy to play armchair QB on tales like that, but I challenge anyone to prove to me that somehow his judgement was sound because he had the requisite hours to be in that situation legally.

Given the limitations imposed on Sport pilots, I'm not too worried about this kind of pilot.

Better to be in a very light, slow airplane in the pattern or near the field every weekend because you can afford it, than to hop in a 172 or Arrow  once every 90 days and go on X-Cs because that's all you can afford, but you want to be a "real" pilot.
  Maybe the statistics would prove me wrong, but that makes sense to me. I laid off flying for almost 4 years continuously because I knew I wouldn't be able to go up often enough to be safe. I'm not taking you or your obviously-qualified mentor to task, but I'm not so sure the SPL is cause for alarm... not in every case, anyway.

But I would certainly encourage anyone interested in flying to pursue the full program- they'd be better off no matter what sort of flying they intend to do. that's a given.

Regarding why I'm only interested in soloing:

I'm trying not to limit myself too much by setting an expectation.  Maybe I'll be happy with one or two lessons, maybe soloing won't satisfy me and I'll keep on going until I get a PPL.  I've been flying MSFS since version 1 came out and would like to experience what real flying is all about.  But I have no idea when I'll be satisfied that I have enough experience, I'm primarily interested in learning, not just doing (and the best way to learn is by doing).

I do think however that I should give a prospective instructor some idea of what I have for goals.  It's hard to express specifically what I'm looking for, which is basically that I want to learn enough to be satsified that I've learned enough.  Where "enough" is is hard to guess, but I'm thinking "enough" is the point at which I can solo.  I'll have a clearer picture when I get to that point.

So when I approach and instructor who asks me what my goals are, I'll say something like "I'm not really sure, I'd like to get to the point where I can solo then decide if a PPL is right for me".  At this point though I'm not going in with the expectation of getting a PPL.

Since my primary goal is learning I don't have a vision of what I want to do with my experience beyond that.  Maybe I'll want to fly regularly but it's more likely I'll just file the experience away in the memory banks.  It's like taking a class in pottery at the local community college: fun to learn how to make pots but I don't intend to sling clay around after I'm done with the class.

As for why I don't want to persue a PPL.  Well, I do have money (I just would rather save than spend), and I could find the time.  But I have a new daughter I can't draw myself away from and too many hobies as it is.  The one hobby I keep up with (cycling) I do so primarily because, unlike my other hobbies, it keeps me healthy.

Thanks for all of the advice so far.  I'll definately keep up with this topic, but right now it's late and time for bed.

Hey Chris,

From what you're saying.. I'd definately go at this from the traditional, PPL angle; and definately do it from a controlled airport.

If all you end up getting out of this, is a satisfied curiosity... then a fully-equiped plane (radios, GPS, transponder) complete with getting under the skin of an over-worked tower guy, could be a big, important, memorable part of it all.

As for finding the right instructor (one who's comfy taking on a student with no long-term goal).. being that I've only had one student, I'm not best qualified to help you there. I can tell you this though.. If you presented your situation to me tomorrow.. I'd be thrilled to take you on as a student. It would be tough to customize pre-solo training to fit someone who might  only be looking to solo.. But it would be a learning experience for both of us; which I'd be happy to partake in, with some of our experimenting done pro-bono. We'd both walk away better for it.

Clear enough, Chris... but if you'd really rather "save than spend", you better stay away from airplanes.