172driver wrote:
@what_next: no cloud, no x-wind? Ever been to L.A. ?
I didn’t mention crosswind at all. And no, I have not yet been to L.A. But I have seen every episode of “Columbo”, “24” and many episodes of “Two and a half man”, “Big Bang Theory”, “Navy CIS L.A.”, “Starsky and Hutch”, “Remington Steele”, “Quincy”, “Moonlighting” and again every episode of “I Dream of Jeannie” (and many more) and there are never clouds. TV programs don’t lie 
@what_next: LOL !!! 
Ref the OP, this is standard stuff here in Europe. Everybody who hasn’t done the US route goes round slagging it off – especially schools, FTOs, etc. Also a lot of CAA people, though that has improved lately. And when you got a bunch of “old” UK CAA IR holders in a room they would tend to slag it off too. Also certain UK organisations (two of them, actually) were really against FAA / N-reg and that didn’t do them much good since most of the actually active IFR community is N-reg.
However, Reddit is truly horrible. Full of crap one-liners and people trying to out-smart-arse each other.
alioth wrote:
“Learning to fly in North America then flying in the UK is almost dangerous
There is an element of truth in it. It is a real problem for commercial helicopter pilots apparently. Getting your license in sunny Florida/Texas/California is cheaper than here, but the the weather conditions are very different. They will need to do lots of training here when coming back, to have a reasonable chance of getting a job. Also, fighter pilots get trained in Texas. They use 6-12 month of training when they get back home, just to get accustomed to the weather and terrain. Helicopter and fighters are much more “VFR” than airlines, so I guess for airline pilots this is not very important (except for Widerøe maybe? )
For PPL, I don’t know. But, as with everything else in life, we tend to stick to the things we have first learned. If you have learned to fly at places with 300 sunny days a year, you will tend to fly only on sunny days later on. You will also complain about how “hopeless” everything is here compared with the USA (whereas someone getting their PPL here, and later flying in the US will say the US is great, but wouldn’t complain all that much about the conditions here). All in all, I would think it is better to train in a similar environment you will fly in later on, if for no other reason than you will be more familiar and satisfied with how things are. You will be a happier pilot.
Plato’s allegory of the cave comes to mind, only that you’re suggesting that everybody better stay down in the cave because they will be “happier” there.
Rwy20 wrote:
Plato’s allegory of the cave comes to mind, only that you’re suggesting that everybody better stay down in the cave because they will be “happier” there.
Plato is seldom true for real life, and you are taking Plato completely out of context, LOL. In any case, the sunny parts of the US that would be is the cave here. Not that it matters. You learn by struggling. The more you struggle, the more you learn
RobertL18C wrote:
but the good training organisations in the USA are professional and competent.
As they are here. And the bad training organisations produce shitty pilots – there and here.
I asked the question that OP refers to (please see my thread on here – advice is more than welcome). I agree with OP’s response – I have a couple of lessons experience just South of London in the UK and it does not come close to how much traffic I saw in my time flying just south of Vancouver, Canada – I was told that it was on a ‘quiet’ day too, I can only compare these two experiences but I was blown away with how busy the skies around Vancouver are.
If I were looking for a good way to spend 100 hrs flying in the US, for instance to get experience that I wouldn’t otherwise get in training to be an airborne bus driver, I’d consider an Aeronca Champ rented commercially for $65/hr. Flights might include dealing with airports at 9000 ft DA, coastal fog, desert and mountain winds, extremely busy Class B airspace and so on. I’d also do some cross countries across remote terrain, because all the above would be within 100 miles of where the plane is based. International flying with the the plane I have in mind would also be within approximately 1 mile of base
You could take off at this moment and head to the desert, it’s just across the last 6000 ft msl ridge line in the distance… (photo taken approximately 30 seconds before posting)
RobertL18C wrote:
There are several factors why the safety record is better in the USA,
Is there actually (meaningful / reliable) data on this (Say, comparing with other western countries such as UK / France / Germany?) / Or even rest EU or EASA states?)
