Yes, I know they do.
and thanks..
How long should a person be an instructor?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
StepOnTheBall
- Rank 2
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:27 pm
- Location: variable
While I do agree somewhat with the fact that experience will improve skill and knowledge, it is important to distinguish between experience and TT. I know many pilots with lots of TT but little experience, and a smaller amount of others with a lot more experience, but relatively little TT.Hedley wrote:So, you are saying that experience doesn't improve someone's skill and knowledge?
-
duplicate2
- Rank 5
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
- Location: Limbo
Question 1:
Question 2:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was saying only rich people would be able to afford CPL training in the "Perfect Hedley 1000 hour Class 4" alternate universe you proposed. What does this have to do with commercial float pilots in our universe?
Conclusion:
Your reading skills leave something to be desired.
Answer 1:Hedley wrote:which would lead to an increase in the wages for commercial pilots.(instructors) would get paid lots as you said ... leading eventually to a short supply in the number of commercial pilots in Canada
And this is bad because?
duplicate2 wrote:These are not all bad things.
Question 2:
Answer 2:Hedley wrote:P.S. Not everyone that flies float planes for commercial operators was "rich", as you put it. How did they build their time? Hmmm ....
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was saying only rich people would be able to afford CPL training in the "Perfect Hedley 1000 hour Class 4" alternate universe you proposed. What does this have to do with commercial float pilots in our universe?
Conclusion:
Your reading skills leave something to be desired.
Hedley wrote:
You know I never thought about that before. It is very interesting. In fact, when I ran a northern operation we trained all our own pilots with non instructor rated pilots (it was legal then, if not now)And after we trained them we kept them on a shorter leash than a starving pitbull in a pork chop factory until they were able to demonstrate that they had internalized the fundamentals. Anyway, I never really made the comparison with wheeled training until you brought it up. Maybe thats why TC wants windsocks on both ends of every lake so float pilots wont have to learn how to read the waves.Precious few 250 TT pilots build float time by getting a class 4 instructor rating, a 7 hour float rating, then by instructing on floats, until they have enough float time to be hired by a commercial operator (hint - it's not even legal, according to CAR 425).
The same rules are in place for wheels as floats. You require 50 hrs before teaching on them. Same for Multi ratings. Its just that guys that get their class 4s tend to have 50 hrs on wheels already. So are you saying lets make them get an additional 50 hrs then they are good to go?
This is like a dog chasing the tail.
I am an instructor by the way. The system isn't perfect and I don't have tens of thousands of hrs, but I do do my best to give my students the extra tips that I think are valuable as they go through. And most (not all) relate to flying, and not passing the flight test.
The way to be a great instructor is to instruct. There is a learning curve to everything.
This is like a dog chasing the tail.
I am an instructor by the way. The system isn't perfect and I don't have tens of thousands of hrs, but I do do my best to give my students the extra tips that I think are valuable as they go through. And most (not all) relate to flying, and not passing the flight test.
The way to be a great instructor is to instruct. There is a learning curve to everything.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" The way to be a great instructor is to instruct. There is a learning curve to everything. "
Exactly, and having a narural instinct for teaching helps.
Exactly, and having a narural instinct for teaching helps.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
BTD:
I am not sure I understand what it is you are getting at with the 50 hours. When it comes to float flying I have no experience in ab initio training. All the pilots I trained on floats were already commercial pilots.
In seven hours (I think it actually used to be five then) you simply can not expose the student to the many variables necessary to fly on the water. And without experience yourself, as an instructor, no matter how polished your instructing skills are, you have little way of passing on the important exceptions to all the rules.They must go out and get some experience. Hedley's comment got my interest because after seven hours of float training there would be very little ability to transfer the necessary skills on.(my opinion)..I was under the impression from his comments that if one had an instructor's rating and a float endorsement than they could teach floats. I was not aware of any 50 hour criteria for instructors. There is (or was) an experience level for non-instructor rated pilots wanting to give dual on floats, mulit eingine, or a part of the instument training, but these were only to already licensed pilots.
I am not sure I understand what it is you are getting at with the 50 hours. When it comes to float flying I have no experience in ab initio training. All the pilots I trained on floats were already commercial pilots.
In seven hours (I think it actually used to be five then) you simply can not expose the student to the many variables necessary to fly on the water. And without experience yourself, as an instructor, no matter how polished your instructing skills are, you have little way of passing on the important exceptions to all the rules.They must go out and get some experience. Hedley's comment got my interest because after seven hours of float training there would be very little ability to transfer the necessary skills on.(my opinion)..I was under the impression from his comments that if one had an instructor's rating and a float endorsement than they could teach floats. I was not aware of any 50 hour criteria for instructors. There is (or was) an experience level for non-instructor rated pilots wanting to give dual on floats, mulit eingine, or a part of the instument training, but these were only to already licensed pilots.
"Precious few 250 TT pilots build float time by getting a class 4 instructor rating, a 7 hour float rating, then by instructing on floats, until they have enough float time to be hired by a commercial operator (hint - it's not even legal, according to CAR 425).
Why should they be allowed to build time on wheels in the same manner, and subject poor students to the kind of inferior (and hideously expensive) flight instruction we see today? "
My response was more to this. I can't get on to the TC site right now but I believe the CAR reference was about the 50 hrs. To instruct on either floats or wheels you require 50 hrs of that time. Whether you have an instructor rating or not. So... you cannot build time in the same manner on wheels. You require 50 hrs on wheels as well, it just seems like you don't because almost everyone does their abinitio on wheels.
If that doesn't make sense I'll try to explain it later. I don't mean to say 50 hrs on floats will give you the required knowledge to instruct, I just wanted to point out that both are treated equal except for the intial float or wheel rating. Float being 7hrs Wheel being 3.
I've never flown floats (though I would like to someday) so I don't pretend to know anything about it, I'm just interpreting the "rules"
Why should they be allowed to build time on wheels in the same manner, and subject poor students to the kind of inferior (and hideously expensive) flight instruction we see today? "
My response was more to this. I can't get on to the TC site right now but I believe the CAR reference was about the 50 hrs. To instruct on either floats or wheels you require 50 hrs of that time. Whether you have an instructor rating or not. So... you cannot build time in the same manner on wheels. You require 50 hrs on wheels as well, it just seems like you don't because almost everyone does their abinitio on wheels.
If that doesn't make sense I'll try to explain it later. I don't mean to say 50 hrs on floats will give you the required knowledge to instruct, I just wanted to point out that both are treated equal except for the intial float or wheel rating. Float being 7hrs Wheel being 3.
I've never flown floats (though I would like to someday) so I don't pretend to know anything about it, I'm just interpreting the "rules"
I seriously question the number of people who, having gained the 1000 TT Hedley proposed for instructional minimums, would be willing to leave where they were to instruct.
Presumably someone starting out with the intention of becoming a career instructor would have to work on the ramp until they got a right seat job. In today's industry they would probably end up right seat in a twin-turbine, at the least probably a Navajo.
After they had done that for a year or two they would:
a - quit their job (which Hedley's economic outlook says will pay pretty well)
b - start paying for their instructor rating (which would probably cost about $20K)
c - find a job instructing for, at best, the same money they were already making
And ultimately go from sitting up front of an airplane, flying every other leg, shooting the shit with someone who has interesting things to say, having layovers in different locations
TO
Cramming themselves in small aircraft, with people who don't want to talk about anything except what kind of plane they should buy, people who also might not have the best hygiene, flying over the same villages and lakes every single day and in general just not challenging their own skills and intelligence.
Not that there is anything wrong with instructing, but I can't see anybody doing that, no matter what their original intentions.
The only other option we would have is retired pilots instructing. Again, if the pay was way up industry wide as proposed, most of these guys would be golfing in Myrtle Beach, not instructing in Grande Prairie. Otherwise, just as now, most of the older guys would be instructing part-time or very part-time.
Presumably someone starting out with the intention of becoming a career instructor would have to work on the ramp until they got a right seat job. In today's industry they would probably end up right seat in a twin-turbine, at the least probably a Navajo.
After they had done that for a year or two they would:
a - quit their job (which Hedley's economic outlook says will pay pretty well)
b - start paying for their instructor rating (which would probably cost about $20K)
c - find a job instructing for, at best, the same money they were already making
And ultimately go from sitting up front of an airplane, flying every other leg, shooting the shit with someone who has interesting things to say, having layovers in different locations
TO
Cramming themselves in small aircraft, with people who don't want to talk about anything except what kind of plane they should buy, people who also might not have the best hygiene, flying over the same villages and lakes every single day and in general just not challenging their own skills and intelligence.
Not that there is anything wrong with instructing, but I can't see anybody doing that, no matter what their original intentions.
The only other option we would have is retired pilots instructing. Again, if the pay was way up industry wide as proposed, most of these guys would be golfing in Myrtle Beach, not instructing in Grande Prairie. Otherwise, just as now, most of the older guys would be instructing part-time or very part-time.
I think the figure would be closer to 4 or 5 instructors across the country. Goodbye general aviation.I believe that this would make all the difference in the world, there would be nothing but excellent instructors in Canada, mind you there would only be 2-3 per province
This I don't understand. I can see people arguing that certain types of flying are better than others, but how can any kind of flying actually HURT you? (assuming of course that you're not actually crashingKAG wrote:too much instructional time will hurt you
)Certainly most try to move on from instructing, but if you stayed with your instructing job for another year longer than planned and flew a few more hours, maybe because you had trouble finding another job, would you actually be worse off?
-
threepoint
- Rank 2
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:29 am
Hmm, let's play devil's advocate. Consider me if you will. I am a 600-hour wonder. I know just enough about flying that I can easily get myself into trouble. The good thing is that I have a keen sense of that impending trouble and manage to avoid it before something bad happens. In other words, I exercise common sense. Good for me, so what?
I am also a class 4 instructor. I'm not necessarily a raw newbie at flying (although I have enough to learn to fill several books), but I am new at teaching how to fly these damn things. The interesting thing is that I enjoy it (instruction). I like the satisfaction of a ham-fisted pilot having the light bulb turn on and suddenly demonstrate good skill and judgement. And I have past occupations instructing people how to (among other things) fall trees professionally in BC, speak a second language, university-level science courses, mountain rescue in AB, scuba diving in Asia, firefighting in Australia, etc. (Not the same students of course).
So what about my capability to instruct? I'd say, without inflating my own ego, that I'm pretty damn good at instructing adult learners at a host of different tasks. What's so hard about piloting an aircraft safely and well? Why do I have to fly 1000 hours just to teach new pilots? Safe to say, I get it. What we teach, apart from the elementary flight manoevers, is simple decision-making. Do I have to spend a year flying single-pilot IFR in an underpowered twin in shitty weather just to impart my wisdom on a prospective commercial pilot? Nope. Do you have to work in the bush or for a charter outfit to demonstrate and pass along airmanship? Of course not. It really matters not your age or to a lesser degree, your number of hours flown. Experience counts for a lot, but one can gain life skills applicable to flying in places outside the cockpit. So get off your high horses, those of you who advocate you have to be high-time pilots in order to instruct, or that lower-time people are incapable or that the overall level of instruction in Canada is atrocious. Nonsense and poppycock...now throw away your broad brush.
I have seen 20-year olds with a grand total of 300 hours with far more skill and aptitude than CFI's with 2000TT. If I ruled the ivory towers at TC, I'd support the revamp of the whole class system of instruction. What if a retired airline captain wanted to instruct for whatever reason, yet had to be supervised by some 1800-hour circuit jockey with a class 2 rating? It can happen, but it doesn't make sense.
I'd also take every CFI in the country and sit them down and tell them to ignore the class of rating that a job candidate holds. Don't even ask them. Instead, interview them based upon life experiences, instructional knowledge, give them scenarios, really spend some time and get a decent impression of them as a person. Anyone can memorize the FIG and BS you about teaching some thing or another. But they could be a crap teacher. Give me a quality class 4 over a marginal class 2 any day.
I have to jump onto justwork's bandwagon and dispute hedley and cat driver this time. Not to question their experiences or skills at all, but I do feel that there exist many lower-time pilots who can (and do) make outstanding flight instructors.
I am also a class 4 instructor. I'm not necessarily a raw newbie at flying (although I have enough to learn to fill several books), but I am new at teaching how to fly these damn things. The interesting thing is that I enjoy it (instruction). I like the satisfaction of a ham-fisted pilot having the light bulb turn on and suddenly demonstrate good skill and judgement. And I have past occupations instructing people how to (among other things) fall trees professionally in BC, speak a second language, university-level science courses, mountain rescue in AB, scuba diving in Asia, firefighting in Australia, etc. (Not the same students of course).
So what about my capability to instruct? I'd say, without inflating my own ego, that I'm pretty damn good at instructing adult learners at a host of different tasks. What's so hard about piloting an aircraft safely and well? Why do I have to fly 1000 hours just to teach new pilots? Safe to say, I get it. What we teach, apart from the elementary flight manoevers, is simple decision-making. Do I have to spend a year flying single-pilot IFR in an underpowered twin in shitty weather just to impart my wisdom on a prospective commercial pilot? Nope. Do you have to work in the bush or for a charter outfit to demonstrate and pass along airmanship? Of course not. It really matters not your age or to a lesser degree, your number of hours flown. Experience counts for a lot, but one can gain life skills applicable to flying in places outside the cockpit. So get off your high horses, those of you who advocate you have to be high-time pilots in order to instruct, or that lower-time people are incapable or that the overall level of instruction in Canada is atrocious. Nonsense and poppycock...now throw away your broad brush.
I have seen 20-year olds with a grand total of 300 hours with far more skill and aptitude than CFI's with 2000TT. If I ruled the ivory towers at TC, I'd support the revamp of the whole class system of instruction. What if a retired airline captain wanted to instruct for whatever reason, yet had to be supervised by some 1800-hour circuit jockey with a class 2 rating? It can happen, but it doesn't make sense.
I'd also take every CFI in the country and sit them down and tell them to ignore the class of rating that a job candidate holds. Don't even ask them. Instead, interview them based upon life experiences, instructional knowledge, give them scenarios, really spend some time and get a decent impression of them as a person. Anyone can memorize the FIG and BS you about teaching some thing or another. But they could be a crap teacher. Give me a quality class 4 over a marginal class 2 any day.
I have to jump onto justwork's bandwagon and dispute hedley and cat driver this time. Not to question their experiences or skills at all, but I do feel that there exist many lower-time pilots who can (and do) make outstanding flight instructors.
Threepoint:
I agree that your past experiences instructing in different areas would make you a better instructor.
I also think that being a good instructor and being a good pilot are completely separate entities.
It is also my opinion, that a more experienced pilot will have more knowledge to pass on. You can be the best instructor in the whole world, but you can only pass on what you know.
So I agree that while a 300h pilot can be an adequate instructor, the student won't actually learn as much compared to training with vastly experienced pilot. Having said that, a vastly experienced pilot who can't communicate could possibly be a worse instructor than the 300h pilot.
I agree that your past experiences instructing in different areas would make you a better instructor.
I also think that being a good instructor and being a good pilot are completely separate entities.
It is also my opinion, that a more experienced pilot will have more knowledge to pass on. You can be the best instructor in the whole world, but you can only pass on what you know.
So I agree that while a 300h pilot can be an adequate instructor, the student won't actually learn as much compared to training with vastly experienced pilot. Having said that, a vastly experienced pilot who can't communicate could possibly be a worse instructor than the 300h pilot.
I have 2 questions.the overall level of instruction in Canada is atrocious. Nonsense and poppycock...
1) How many flight hours does Transport require to be logged, to be issued a private pilot licence?
2) What is the current national average in Canada, for flight hours logged at the time of private pilot licence issuage?
From what I see locally today, 35 hours to solo (!) is considered perfectly normal, and so is 100 hours to ppl.
With those numbers, instructors are either incompetent or milking.
Which is it?
I don't think it's fair to blame the number of hours required to get the PPL entirely on instructors.
While I'm sure that in some cases this is true, I would say a majority of high time PPLs are because of the students.
Most of the students we see in our school are people who are just doing it for fun. They are business people with a fair amount of money, but very little time. They go LONG stretches without flying at all, and consequently their times get higher and higher.
The young people we get who want get their CPL eventually are struggling to pay, or their parents are struggling to pay. Private flight training in Ontario is (for all intents and purposes) not supported by OSAP. The financial burden to some people is very great. They go LONG stretches without flying at all, and consequently their times get higher and higher.
The averages from TC also do not show the cases where someone had X amount of hours from 25 years ago and then came back to finish. Of course they're not going to finish in 45 hours. We have, traditionally, about one or two of these type of students every year.
While I'm sure that in some cases this is true, I would say a majority of high time PPLs are because of the students.
Most of the students we see in our school are people who are just doing it for fun. They are business people with a fair amount of money, but very little time. They go LONG stretches without flying at all, and consequently their times get higher and higher.
The young people we get who want get their CPL eventually are struggling to pay, or their parents are struggling to pay. Private flight training in Ontario is (for all intents and purposes) not supported by OSAP. The financial burden to some people is very great. They go LONG stretches without flying at all, and consequently their times get higher and higher.
The averages from TC also do not show the cases where someone had X amount of hours from 25 years ago and then came back to finish. Of course they're not going to finish in 45 hours. We have, traditionally, about one or two of these type of students every year.
-
threepoint
- Rank 2
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:29 am
From what I see locally today, 35 hours to solo (!) is considered perfectly normal, and so is 100 hours to ppl.
With those numbers, instructors are either incompetent or milking.
Which is it?[/quote]
I'd dispute your alluding to the national average being 35 hours to solo and 100 hours at PPL issuance. I believe 18/60 hours is about average.
So many students are obtaining their PPL's at the century mark due to a host of reasons. Sure, there are a few instructors out there milking it a bit, but you get bad apples in any industry and always will. But the burden lies chiefly with the student. Throw any number of raw students into a well-run ab-initio flight training program, and you'll get a few who wash out and a few who get a license with the absolute minimum of hours. But most will end up with 20-25% more hours than the minimum required by TC. And they'll go on to become great pilots.
As sakism wrote, how can you blame an instructor for the huge number of students who fly on a part-time basis and have to repeat lessons due to loss of retention between flights?
Life isn't just black and white, no matter how hard we wish it to be.
With those numbers, instructors are either incompetent or milking.
Which is it?[/quote]
I'd dispute your alluding to the national average being 35 hours to solo and 100 hours at PPL issuance. I believe 18/60 hours is about average.
So many students are obtaining their PPL's at the century mark due to a host of reasons. Sure, there are a few instructors out there milking it a bit, but you get bad apples in any industry and always will. But the burden lies chiefly with the student. Throw any number of raw students into a well-run ab-initio flight training program, and you'll get a few who wash out and a few who get a license with the absolute minimum of hours. But most will end up with 20-25% more hours than the minimum required by TC. And they'll go on to become great pilots.
As sakism wrote, how can you blame an instructor for the huge number of students who fly on a part-time basis and have to repeat lessons due to loss of retention between flights?
Life isn't just black and white, no matter how hard we wish it to be.
What was the average ten years ago? I think both those numbers are high. I don't have my log book with me, but I was something in the neighbourhood of 11/38 and I was always looking (and to this day still am) for points to improve on as I was under the impression the trap of falling behind was easier than excelling. I had three instructors. One moved on to onother company midway before my solo and the other two picked me up in there spare bookings. Perhaps that helped me work harder, but I have to say all three were top notch.threepoint wrote:From what I see locally today, 35 hours to solo (!) is considered perfectly normal, and so is 100 hours to ppl.
I'd dispute your alluding to the national average being 35 hours to solo and 100 hours at PPL issuance. I believe 18/60 hours is about average.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The number of hours to get the PPL seems to be about 50% over the minimum required....and if I am to believe what I am reading the fault is with the students.
O.K. assuming that is correct can anyone explain to me why I find so many pilots that do not know how to maintain an attitude and why so many private pilots make arrivals rather than landings?
This after taking 50% more time than the minimum hours to learn?
Remember the extra hours has cost them about $3000.00 extra.
Cat
O.K. assuming that is correct can anyone explain to me why I find so many pilots that do not know how to maintain an attitude and why so many private pilots make arrivals rather than landings?
This after taking 50% more time than the minimum hours to learn?
Remember the extra hours has cost them about $3000.00 extra.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Well, there's the mentality that you can't argue with results. If the "arrival" was near the centre line within a few feet yet more or less uneventful, then why bother to try and make the next one within one foot of centre? How about the one after that on centre?Cat Driver wrote:..... can anyone explain to me why I find so many pilots that do not know how to maintain an attitude and why so many private pilots make arrivals rather than landings?
Cat
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Kilo Kilo:
I am not referring to the center line, I am referring to the fact they just set up in a nose high attitude on final and somewhere down the runway the airplane meets the earth without the pilot seeming to have a clue where the runway really is beneath them...
..and X/winds are a complete mystery to many..
Any comments about why these things are so common?
Cat
I am not referring to the center line, I am referring to the fact they just set up in a nose high attitude on final and somewhere down the runway the airplane meets the earth without the pilot seeming to have a clue where the runway really is beneath them...
..and X/winds are a complete mystery to many..
Any comments about why these things are so common?
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Sorry, I can't relate. I know what you're saying, but I would think that short/soft field training would cover that. The problem is most schools are based out of places like ZBB or YXX where the techniques are theoreretical as I am aware one school forbids their aircraft from unimproved strips (grass at Langley or Fort Langley) where the practicality of the procedure for every landing would become evident. If every runway you land on is 3500 X 100 I would imagine you get used to floating down to taxi way Zulu 99 to clear the active sooner.
Hey cat, are you saying that the pilots that get their licence in minimums are better than those that take "50%" more time? Cause I have seen some pretty shitty cadet pilots come in for a checkride only days after "passing" a flight test in under 50 hours, yet they can't pass a checkride... You say you have a better way for PPL on a cub and in a sim, I'd like to see your student come to czbb on a sunny weekend afternoon in July just to watch the CADOR's pile up. Dont forget that a busy airport can add time to flight training too, it takes a lot more than stick and rudder to fly an airplane into any busy airport. Or maybe its just because the instructor is worthless because he/she doesn't have 1000tt yet, as Hedley would suggest. 
JW
PS Lets not forget that I started this post to get career advice, not hear Hedley bitch about how shitty every instructor in canada is, or cat complain about licencing time.
JW
PS Lets not forget that I started this post to get career advice, not hear Hedley bitch about how shitty every instructor in canada is, or cat complain about licencing time.
Last edited by JW on Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
What I am describing is there are many, many private pilots who have been taught to set up a nose high attitude while quite high on approach, from there they just wait for runway contact...which is obvious because there is no flare from the approach attitude to the landing....
...but I guess if they are not being taught to be able to accurately judge height to recognize when to flare that would explain it.
Cat
...but I guess if they are not being taught to be able to accurately judge height to recognize when to flare that would explain it.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" Hey cat, are you saying that the pilots that get their licence in minimums are better than those that take "50%" more time? Cause I have seen some pretty shitty cadet pilots come in for a checkride only days after "passing" a flight test in under 50 hours, yet they can't pass a checkride... You say you have a better way for PPL on a cub and in a sim, I'd like to see your student come to czbb on a sunny weekend afternoon in July just to watch the CADOR's pile up. Dont forget that a busy airport can add time to flight training too, it takes a lot more than stick and rudder to fly an airplane into any busy airport. Or maybe its just because the instructor is worthless because he/she doesn't have 1000tt yet.
JW"
justwork :
Don't take this as personal, maybe you should read what I am suggesting?
My idea is to teach basics at an uncontrolled field with very little or no traffic.....
...the rest can be taught on a computer with a flight sim program...
...then a check ride or two at a busy controlled airfield should suffice..
By the way I use a camcorder for saving time in the teaching process, saves many hours if you debrief right after the flight on a TV with the student using a laser pen to show me where they are looking and what they were thinking when they make a screw up..
I wish you guys would not take what I post as personal attacks on individual instructors as I am well aware that as instructors you are victims of the process and the enviorement that you teach in.
Anyhow it is my beliefe that I can turn out a very good product in 30 hours of airplane flight time using my Cub and a quiet airport concept.
Cat
JW"
justwork :
Don't take this as personal, maybe you should read what I am suggesting?
My idea is to teach basics at an uncontrolled field with very little or no traffic.....
...the rest can be taught on a computer with a flight sim program...
...then a check ride or two at a busy controlled airfield should suffice..
By the way I use a camcorder for saving time in the teaching process, saves many hours if you debrief right after the flight on a TV with the student using a laser pen to show me where they are looking and what they were thinking when they make a screw up..
I wish you guys would not take what I post as personal attacks on individual instructors as I am well aware that as instructors you are victims of the process and the enviorement that you teach in.
Anyhow it is my beliefe that I can turn out a very good product in 30 hours of airplane flight time using my Cub and a quiet airport concept.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I do not doubt this one bit. One on one training in a non-institutionalised enviroment with the mentor passing on knowledge and skill to the grasshopper is one of many effective ways to teach. The student however has to buy into the method (whichever type) of teaching to prosper.Cat Driver wrote:
Anyhow it is my beliefe that I can turn out a very good product in 30 hours of airplane flight time using my Cub and a quiet airport concept.
Cat
Don't worry cat, I'm not taking this personal. I like a good debate as much as the next person. I'm just trying to understand this. Are you saying that it is safe to have licenced pilots that know just "the basics"? And that a computer flight sim can fill in the rest? Explain to me how a computer flight sim teachs situational awareness? Or will teach you anything but procedures? I can promise you, actually gaurantee you, that there is absolutely no way a student can come from a uncontrolled airport with very little traffic and transition smoothly into a busy airport such as CZBB with justMy idea is to teach basics at an uncontrolled field with very little or no traffic.....
...the rest can be taught on a computer with a flight sim program...
...then a check ride or two at a busy controlled airfield should suffice..
?then a check ride or two at a busy controlled airfield should suffice
The student will lack the situational awareness that takes hours of training and more importantly exposure to a busy airport. You can't argue that, I have seen proof of it. I have done checkrides for countless licenced pilots that simply can not fly the aircraft in a safe manner in a busy airport. I pride myself on not "padding" my log book because I remember being a student and how much the cost was for me. That being said I have to do minimum 5 flights with some licenced pilots before they can demonstrate safe flying, airmanship, and the simple ability to communicate effectively while flying in CZBB. In some cases, even after this extensive additional training on airspace and airmanship, I have been called into the CFI's office to explain why I checked this licenced pilot from CYBL out because they just blew through a hold short clearence, or took off with out clearence, or flew through CYXX at 1500' without talking to a soul, or even landed on the wrong runway. What can I say to that? They should have been taught this with a cub and a sim and a 2 flight checkride I guess...according to you. Or maybe it was because on the 5th flight I did with them it was early in the morning and there was not another soul around so they were more comfortable and flew properly.
Like I said before I don't take any of this personal, debate is fun.
JW
Any career advice yet?? That is why this thread was started.
