Having a private license does not imply she was qualified to solo the aircraft she was in. If her private license was for hot air balloons or gliders, for example, her private license alone would not qualify her to solo a powered aircraft. Assuming Argentina’s process is comparable to the US process, she would need a solo endorsement from a qualified instructor in her logbook before she would be considered capable of flying solo.
Agreed, but the article did expressly point out that she was required to have an instructor or a safety pilot, and that she was not actually qualified to solo in that aircraft.
I have a private license. I am certainly not “more than capable of flying solo” in a Cessna 150: I am rated to fly hot air balloons. I am reasonably confident I could get a Cessna 150 on the ground safely, but that confidence alone does not make me “more than capable” of doing so.
And it’s probably the type she got her license in.
Based on the claims in the article, that is very unlikely. If she got her private license in it, she would be qualified to solo. But they explicitly claimed that she was not. It is likely that she is qualified in some other single-engine fixed-wing aircraft and just needs to be checked out in the 150. But the article does not specify, and we should not assume.
If Argentina’s licensing structure mirrors the US, she might have a private license in “weight-shift-control aircraft”. She might be qualified to hang glide with a passenger, but that license would not make her “more than capable” of soloing in a 150.
Rosario already had a private pilot license but was still building up her flying hours, meaning she was required to fly with an instructor or safety pilot.
She was required to specifically not fly solo due to her inexperience. Source: the article
Don’t say “did you read the article?” when someone states something that’s in the article if you’re going to turn around and say “well, the article is wrong”. It makes it sound like you didn’t read the article.
She had a private licence, so she was more than capable of flying solo.
Did you actually read the article?
Having a private license does not imply she was qualified to solo the aircraft she was in. If her private license was for hot air balloons or gliders, for example, her private license alone would not qualify her to solo a powered aircraft. Assuming Argentina’s process is comparable to the US process, she would need a solo endorsement from a qualified instructor in her logbook before she would be considered capable of flying solo.
It’s a Cessna, a child could fly one.
And it’s probably the type she got her license in.
Agreed, but the article did expressly point out that she was required to have an instructor or a safety pilot, and that she was not actually qualified to solo in that aircraft.
I have a private license. I am certainly not “more than capable of flying solo” in a Cessna 150: I am rated to fly hot air balloons. I am reasonably confident I could get a Cessna 150 on the ground safely, but that confidence alone does not make me “more than capable” of doing so.
Based on the claims in the article, that is very unlikely. If she got her private license in it, she would be qualified to solo. But they explicitly claimed that she was not. It is likely that she is qualified in some other single-engine fixed-wing aircraft and just needs to be checked out in the 150. But the article does not specify, and we should not assume.
If Argentina’s licensing structure mirrors the US, she might have a private license in “weight-shift-control aircraft”. She might be qualified to hang glide with a passenger, but that license would not make her “more than capable” of soloing in a 150.
She was required to specifically not fly solo due to her inexperience. Source: the article
Do you realise how little journalists know about aviation? I wouldn’t trust them to know which end of the plane goes forward.
Don’t say “did you read the article?” when someone states something that’s in the article if you’re going to turn around and say “well, the article is wrong”. It makes it sound like you didn’t read the article.