Is this the new norm?

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
clairvoyant
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:42 pm

Is this the new norm?

Post by clairvoyant »

I am racing with the deadline (the INRAT expiration date sometime next year).
Among the unfavorable factors such as taking time offs from my "day job" to fly, weather delays, the aircraft availability due to technical issues, etc.; I notice most students fly with a different instructor at every flight (myself included).
How do people learn properly like this? I mean it's good to gain different perspectives on flying but not at the point where I can't tell the different between the prop and the mixture.
I am kind of "shopping" for a flight school where I can train properly but no avail. Is this the new norm or a business as usual?
I apologize in advance if I am venting here. Thank you for any feedback or perhaps a pointer to any FTU that doesn't adhere to such a practice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by digits_ »

clairvoyant wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:00 pm I am racing with the deadline (the INRAT expiration date sometime next year).
Among the unfavorable factors such as taking time offs from my "day job" to fly, weather delays, the aircraft availability due to technical issues, etc.; I notice most students fly with a different instructor at every flight (myself included).
How do people learn properly like this? I mean it's good to gain different perspectives on flying but not at the point where I can't tell the different between the prop and the mixture.
I am kind of "shopping" for a flight school where I can train properly but no avail. Is this the new norm or a business as usual?
I apologize in advance if I am venting here. Thank you for any feedback or perhaps a pointer to any FTU that doesn't adhere to such a practice.
How flexible are you? If you always want the same instructor, you might have to be more flexible. Maybe the school thinks it is better to accomodate your schedule instead of your instructor preference. Instructors are leaving flight schools much quicker, but that doesn't mean you should get a new instructor every flight, unless your flights are 6 months apart.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by C.W.E. »

Find a good instructor.

Buy a Cessna 152 or similar airplane.

Get your license on it.

Then sell it if you need the money or do not want to be an owner.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TT1900
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 8:19 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by TT1900 »

If you can’t figure out prop from mixture the instructors aren’t the problem.
---------- ADS -----------
 
clairvoyant
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by clairvoyant »

TT1900 wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:41 pm If you can’t figure out prop from mixture the instructors aren’t the problem.
That was a figurative speech :lol: . Off course where I work, we say thrust levers not throttles.
152 is not an IFR certified.
I was flexible at the point of taking three weeks off but the weather was not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
youhavecontrol
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:17 am

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by youhavecontrol »

That written test is good for two years... how long has it taken you so far? No offence, but you might want to assess how you budget your personal time and evaluate your priorities. I have a hard time believing the school is at fault for taking that long, unless they really suck. My personal goal is to finish a student's Group 1 rating in less than a month. In the worst of winter... 2 months. ..but those are full time students dedicated to flight training. It sounds like the school you train at is either hurting for instructors, hurting for equipment, or hurting to find students with reliable schedules you can build a curriculum on.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I found that Right Rudder you kept asking for."
TT1900
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 8:19 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by TT1900 »

clairvoyant wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:53 pm
That was a figurative speech :lol: . Off course where I work, we say thrust levers not throttles.
152 is not an IFR certified.
I was flexible at the point of taking three weeks off but the weather was not.
Are any of those four statements related? I may have figured out why you’re only seeing an instructor once before they seemingly vanish, and pass you off to the next contender.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lownslow
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by lownslow »

clairvoyant wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:53 pm 152 is not an IFR certified.
They aren't? I thought they (some?) were. It's all moot anyways, this time of year in Canada you'd be hard pressed to find any trainer that can punch through clouds due to icing limitations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lhalliday
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:30 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by lhalliday »

lownslow wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:20 am
clairvoyant wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:53 pm 152 is not an IFR certified.
They aren't? I thought they (some?) were. It's all moot anyways, this time of year in Canada you'd be hard pressed to find any trainer that can punch through clouds due to icing limitations.
There is no IFR certification per se for aircraft in Canada. You need the usual flight instruments, navigation gear for the intended flight, and real alternate static. Breaking the glass on the VSI doesn't count.

IFR is a challenge here in B.C. Our MEAs have too many digits for a little putt putt like mine, and icing is almost always an issue.

...laura
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by trey kule »

As to the 152 idea by CWE; I don,t think he understood the original discussion was about instrument training when he suggested using it for a ppl.
I have no idea about specific aircraft requiring certification for IFR, but I did believe that certain nav/comm requirements had to be met as well as pitot static ,altimeter certifications etc. All maybe a bit expensive for a 152 that one plans to sell.

I am puzzled by the OP stating where he works they say thrust levers! I am having a difficult time visualizing what types of ops you are involved in doing VFR work in a multi turbine...please share the type of ops you are presently flying in...it might give a bit of insight in how to resovle your original quandry.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by photofly »

lhalliday wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:55 am You need the usual flight instruments, navigation gear for the intended flight,
True...
and real alternate static. Breaking the glass on the VSI doesn't count.
You're right... I'd never noticed that before. Equipment requirements are listed in 605.18.

For an instrument rating flight test you do need an approach certified GPS receiver with a current database. If the GPS is not approved for LPV approaches then you'll need an ILS receiver too.

The static system certification (no requirement for pitot system to be calibrated) is required within the last 24 months for VFR flight in any kind of transponder airspace too (VFR in classes B and C, and D and E where notified) so unless you're really in the boonies you need that done regardless of whether you fly IFR or VFR. That's in CAR 625 Appendix C, paragraph 13. (Can you spot the typo in the regulation?)
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
lhalliday
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:30 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by lhalliday »

I went through the requirements for different kinds of flight when I bought my plane. She's equipped for Day VFR, Night VFR and VFR OTT. Yes, the pitot heat works. Since I fly out of Langley I keep my pitot static certification current. I've just read Paragraph 13 and don't see the typo. Sorry.

Alternate static was an option when she was new. The parts to retrofit it haven't been available since about the Los Angeles Olympics. An IFR GPS is too much $$$ anyway for such an old plane.

...laura
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by photofly »

You can fit a generic alternate static port for about $100 all in - I did.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
clairvoyant
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by clairvoyant »

trey kule wrote: Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:49 pm As to the 152 idea by CWE; I don,t think he understood the original discussion was about instrument training when he suggested using it for a ppl.
I have no idea about specific aircraft requiring certification for IFR, but I did believe that certain nav/comm requirements had to be met as well as pitot static ,altimeter certifications etc. All maybe a bit expensive for a 152 that one plans to sell.

I am puzzled by the OP stating where he works they say thrust levers! I am having a difficult time visualizing what types of ops you are involved in doing VFR work in a multi turbine...please share the type of ops you are presently flying in...it might give a bit of insight in how to resovle your original quandry.
I agree here that the discussion strays here and there.

A bit insight:
OP works in one of the largest aviation companies and no VFR operation. The work is demanding and travels are negligible.
The OP is currently working on the Group 1 IFR part time or whenever I have time for the greater good (a very long story).
The original quandary is that I notice most students fly with a different instructor at every flight (myself included). I am having a hard time to attend that FTU the way their training is conducted.
Is this normal? Off course my training will take pauses here and there due to my day job that requires travels, the the weather, then the FTU's aircrafts were down several weeks.
Hence, It's been a year since my INRAT completion, I haven't been able to get the Group 1multi rating. How long does the average Group 1 IFR take without the outside factors described and assuming students already have multi engine rating?
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by trey kule »

Take a few minutes and read over the requirements for the IF rating. FTus are notorious for over teaching in terms of hours, underteaching in terms of quality.
The sim is not weather dependent. Get your procedures down pat on the sim.
If you already have a multi and a CPL, 10 hours in an actual aircraft should be enough, the rest can be done in a sim ( take note. I am not up on current regulations..read them over yourself)
The aircraft IF portion can be done in IMC, so unless there is icing or thiunderstorms, weather should not be a huge issue.

As to the different instructor each time. Sounds a bit odd. Hopefully this is not an FTU sharing the multi time amongst its instructors. I hear there are some strange things being done to retain instructors, with many “never actually been in a cloud “ types teaching.

The last thing is take a real good look in the mirror and make sure that what you are seeing is not the problem
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by Zaibatsu »

An aircraft must be certified for IFR. It says so right in the Limitations section, on the required placards, and in the Type Certificate.

You cannot just put the required equipment on a VFR aircraft and expect to be certified for IFR.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by photofly »

I think it depends on the certification authority. FAA Type certificates don't seem to say. EASA ones do.

Examples of US types whose type certificates don't certify the aircraft for IFR operation:
Piper Warrior (2A13) : "IFR" doesn't appear in the TCDS.
Cessna Citation (A22CE): "IFR" doesn't appear in the TCDS. Neither does the term "instrument flight" or similar, that I can find.
Piper Navajo (A8EA): "IFR doesn't appear in the TCDS. Nor does the term "instrument".

If there is such a thing as an "IFR certified" aircaft, are these such things or not? If they are, where would one find details of the certification?

And, in respect of the Cessna 152 that brought the topic up, the POH says "The airplane is equipped for day VFR and may be equipped for night VFR and/or night IFR operations." Even the lowly 150 POH (model L, for example) says "The airplane may be equipped for day, night, VFR or IFR operations." It's really all about the equipment carried.

Perhaps we could agree that some aircraft are restricted to VFR conditions only (DA20 comes to mind) - but that seems to be a rare restriction.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by EPR »

I agree 100% with Trey Kule, but I will also add, you can @#$! around with your privates and commercial license, but when it comes to the IFR rating, get it all done in 3 weeks or less! Back in the day, everyone either went to Pro IFR in Burnaby or Perimeter in Winnipeg...I went to Perimeter and they were efficient...3 weeks for an initial multi-IFR!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
clairvoyant
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Is this the new norm?

Post by clairvoyant »

I guess the general consensus here is the group 1 realistically can be completed within 3 weeks give and take.
I am not sure what kind of FTU operations out there but I need to find a FTU who can provide me a consistent training preferably not more than 2 instructors and can adhere to the 3 week guidelines.
As far as looking in the mirror, weather and my day job are the issues.
However, I need the day job to complete the training.
From the sim sessions, my 6 pack scans are good, operating GPS is good, procedures (RAIM check, radio, etc.) are good. What else did I miss?
Thank you
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”