Flight Schools in Ottawa with Piper Cherokee?

[alctel]

As title, I am moving to Ottawa from Vancouver and looking for a good flight school in which to finish my Private License.

I would want one with Cherokees since I have over a 100 hours already on them, and don't want to start from scratch with a Cessna or a Diamond aircraft (I will start flying them after I get my private).

Any help is gratefully received!

[moocow]

I don't think you will have any problem with the Cessna, but I'm only thinking that way because I'm in a similar situation as you. I have 101 hours on the Cherokee and completed my PPL flight test on it. I switched over to a Cessna because I was exploring the idea of a float rating so I pretty much had to switch to a C-172. Not a huge difference except you now have a pair of wings blocking your usual viewpoints, which make turns and climbs a little worrying. However, I haven't done any spins in the Cessna so I have no point of reference comparing it to the Cherokee, then again I was only concern about not dying or crapping my pants so I probably can't remember enough to make a comparison. All the basics still apply but you may need an extra hour or 3 to get use to a new aircraft. I just did a flight for the first time in a C-172 this past weekend for 1.1 hours and I didn't find anything unusual between the 2 aircraft.

PS: you were doing your training at CFC as well?

[Hedley]

I have over a 100 hours already ... [yet to] finish my Private License

Sigh. I would really like to kick your flight instructor in the nuts.

P.S. Cherokee to 172 conversion is the least of your problems.
Anyone can fly a 172. When my kid was 14, we climbed into a
172 - he had never flown one before - I showed him how to start
it, and he flew it perfectly the first time. Greaser landing. A 172
is that easy to fly.

My grandmother, who is 102 years old, could easily fly a 172.

[Shiny Side Up]

I have over a 100 hours already ... [yet to] finish my Private License

Sigh. I would really like to kick your flight instructor in the nuts.

To be fair we don't know the whole story here, seeing as though he's packing up and moving across the country to restart his flight training, there is going to be a gap in his flight training, and I'm going to make a wild guess and say that there have been gaps before. The only fault that may lay with his isntructor may be the fact that he has the silly misconception of the differences between the high wings and low wings that so many flying magazines loooooovvvvvee to write articles about. Granted, this also might not be an instructor's fault if our student here never bothered to ask.

I'm just despising the idea on this site that perpetuates which give instructors the first and last blame on everything pilots and especially student pilots do.

P.S. Cherokee to 172 conversion is the least of your problems.
Anyone can fly a 172. When my kid was 14, we climbed into a
172 - he had never flown one before - I showed him how to start
it, and he flew it perfectly the first time. Greaser landing. A 172
is that easy to fly.

My grandmother, who is 102 years old, could easily fly a 172.

Pretty much the conversion consist of me showing people where to find the stick and cup for fuel, and if they're particularly clueless, how to climb up to check the fuel. (I've learned not to make the assumption that your average human being can figure these things out though - it is funny though to see someone grab the handle, put their foot on the step and ram their head into the leading edge of the wing...)

If flying the 172 was easy, we'd let the elderly and children do it. Oh wait, we do.

[Hedley]

despising the idea on this site that perpetuates which give instructors the first and last blame on everything ... student pilots do

You must admit that it's a good place to start.

I know of a local flight instructor who ran out of gas, and
crash-landed on a local road. Destroyed the aircraft, I
am told.

The flight instructor blamed the student, saying that the
student "wanted to do one more circuit"

What the F_ck?! Who was PIC in that airplane?

The amazing thing is that this flight instructor crashes
and runs out of gas with amazing regularity. One year,
I know he wrecked at least three aircraft. Maybe more,
I dunno. But despite his record, he continues to instruct,
and charges very high rates. One cannot help but wonder
why.

Another flight instructor I knew a few years back, nice enough
guy, but couldn't navigate worth beans. Pretty well every trip
he made out to the practice area, he got lost. Either ATC or the
student had to help him back to the airport. I really, really wish
I was making this up. Last I heard, he was instructing
military pilots. It chills me to think what he is teaching them.

P.S. I am not an "instructor basher". Heck, I am a class one
instructor. I just call them as I see them.

[iflyforpie]

The big differences between a Cherokee and a 172 are:

The elevators actually do something when you move them.

The rudder actually does something when you move it.

The flaps actually do something when you extend them.

The view up isn't as good, but the view down is terrific.

You now have your own door and a window that provides adequate ventilation.



I started on 172s but my old shop had a Cherokee 140 for employees to fly. I never got a checkout (gasp!) and I flew it just fine. I'm sure it will be the same the other way around.

[Hedley]

IMHO the old "hershey bar" Cherokee 140's were
nastier as trainers, than the 172, because if you
slowed down a 140 on final, you got a painful
demonstration of the back side of the power curve.

With all that induced drag, if you slow a "hershey bar"
wing Cherokee down too much on short final, even
with the application of full power, you may be committed
to landing well short of the threshold - you can't lower
the nose to get some airspeed back, because you
have no altitude!

Contrast that with the 172, which can be successfully
approached at either 50 mph or 100 mph. With the
exception of carb ice during the first takeoff on the
older models, the 172 is an incredible airplane from
an engineering and development standpoint, because
it has ABSOLUTELY NO BAD BEHAVIOUR.

Back to the "crapping on flight instructor" subtopic.

I think everyone would agree that student pilot
skills have decreased, and times to licences have
increased, during the unprecedented hiring boom
of pilots in the last few years. Flight instructors
didn't stick around - off they went, into the right
seat of a twin.

So, flight instructors were inexperienced. So
were the CFI's, if they were even around.

The good news is that with the economic
disaster, flight instructers will be going around
the circuit for a long, long time, and their
skills will increase.

[Shiny Side Up]

The amazing thing is that this flight instructor crashes
and runs out of gas with amazing regularity. One year,
I know he wrecked at least three aircraft. Maybe more,
I dunno. But despite his record, he continues to instruct.
One cannot help but wonder why.

The question would be then how does he get employed to fly? Clearly this ain't deterring his customers. So who's the more foolish? The fool or the fools who follow him? In an ideal world our instructor here would be out of a job, but such is not the case.

You're right in that it is a good place to start, but like many problems - especially aviation ones - generally not the only source of fault. If we want the current situation with flight training to improve we need to look at the problem from a wider angle. Instructors may be to blame for a lot of bad flying things out there, but from the small ammount of info provided by our OP here, I don't think one deserves a "kick in the nuts" over it.

Keep a more open mind Hedley, you also might be wanting to kick someone in the box too.

[Hedley]

Keep a more open mind Hedley

Last time I had an open mind, someone came along and threw garbage in it

But seriously ... at the end of the day, the person responsible
for poor instruction is the Chief Flight Instructor of the FTU.

He oughta know what good instruction is - and isn't - and
it's up to him to make sure that the flight instructors working
for him are doing their job.

I know, they're underpaid, and they're only hanging around
until they get enough hours to get into the right seat of
a 'ho.

But regardless of what job you happen to be doing today,
do it right. That's what being a professional is all about.

[iflyforpie]

With all that induced drag, if you slow a "hershey bar"
wing Cherokee down too much on short final, even
with the application of full power, you may be committed
to landing well short of the threshold - you can't lower
the nose to get some airspeed back, because you
have no altitude!

I never noticed that, but I always found it bad practice to get too slow on final.

The Beech Sundowner should have been worse since it has an even smaller wing (smaller than a 150's) while weighing a good 200lbs more but I never noticed any bad tendencies with this aircraft either...other than don't treat it like a Cherokee. It rolls and pitches better than a Citabria...good thing it's stressed for +6/-3.

[Shiny Side Up]

My point being that if the students were willing to pay decent rates for good instruction we wouldn't have shysters out there able to make a living giving shitty instruction. How much less does this instructor charge than a decent one? You'd be suprised if I brought in a crappy instructor to work for me, was forward with the customers about how crappy he was but said that he was ten bucks less per hour how many students he'd have. How often is the question fielded on this forum "What's the cheapest way to get my licence" or what's the cheapest and quickest way to get a commercial. Quality of instruction is of least concern - or at least not until later when people realise that better instruction costs them less in the long run.

Until we can get it through customer's heads that quality beats quantity, there will continue to be a market for crappy instructors. In the meantime those of us who do offer quality instruction had better hope that Walmart doesn't open a flight training department, or we'll all be out of work.

[Hedley]

if the students were willing to pay decent rates for good instruction

Good point, but I must still wonder how many students out
there are paying upwards of $70/hr to their FTU for instruction
for a class 4 instructor whom is being paid less than $20/hr

[Shiny Side Up]

Again true, but then this shares ample blame with the operator of the FTU both for hiring crappy instructors and trying to profit from them - or at the very least for not improving them. We now have a CFI to blame who sits on their tush content to have crappy instruction going on under their watch. this sounds like a pretty crummy operation so once again, we can put some blame on our student for getting sucked in by whatever bullshit about shiny airplanes and whatnot they've been fed.

See? There's lots of blame to go around.

[PAJ]

I completed my PPL in a Cherokee, moved to a Warrior and was then forced to find a new place to fly. See: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=47569

The last thing I wanted to do was switch to a 172 but the FBO's within reach of home/work only rented 172's so it was switch or quit. In hindsight I don't know what I was so worried about. Iflyforpie nailed it in his description between the 2. I miss the old Cherokee (not entirely sure why) but I am just as comfortable in a 172 now. In fact, I think I am better off for gaining experience is both type of a/c.

Now, I certainly appreciate you being reluctant to switch before your Flight Test but I think the most important consideration is the instructor and school where you will finish up rather than on which a/c. Conversion between the two really is not that difficult; actually, it's super easy. Later on when you are PIC and are flying your buddies around you will be thankful for the better instruction and happy that you can easily fly both types.

2 cents worth from a 100 plus Weekend Warrior PPL.

[E-Flyer]

As title, I am moving to Ottawa from Vancouver and looking for a good flight school in which to finish my Private License.

I would want one with Cherokees since I have over a 100 hours already on them, and don't want to start from scratch with a Cessna or a Diamond aircraft (I will start flying them after I get my private).

Any help is gratefully received!

I am sorry to break it to you, but you will not learn to control yaw in a piper. The plane is very stable and forgiving. If you go into a diamond or cessna after having hundred hours on a piper. You will feel ridiculous.

This was my experience at least. The majority of my buildup time for my CPL was in a PIPER and as soon as I transitioned to a cessna for my instructor rating, you start recognizing the need to control yaw.

A tail dragger would be ideal.

[C-FKLY]

I have over a 100 hours already ... [yet to] finish my Private License

Sigh. I would really like to kick your flight instructor in the nuts.

How many hours you got your license in doesn't mean a damn. I got my license after 140 hours. Does that mean I had bad instructors, or I'm a bad pilot? No -- my instructors were great, and I've always received compliments on my skills and procedures. The reason I had so many hours was I was ready to earn my PPL shortly after my 15th birthday, and wasn't yet old enough to earn a license. So I built additional skills until I was old enough to get a license.

Back to the original comment -- try to find a Piper, if that's what you're most comfortable with, but on the other hand, don't be affraid to switch. The Cessna isn't too much different, and neither is the Diamond. You'll find the controls lighter on the 172, and even more so on a Diamond -- takeoffs and landing are a breeze in comparison, but holding level flight will require a bit more finesse on the trim. Transition shouldn't take more than a flight or two until you get the hang of the new machine.

[Hedley]

I think I am better off for gaining experience is both type of a/c

Absolutely! I cannot emphasize enough that the more types of
aircraft that you fly, the better a pilot it makes you, because it
increases your knowledge and skill. The more types you fly, the
easier it is for you to fly yet another new type, because there
really isn't much new under the sun.

A superb pilot can jump into a type of aircraft he has never
flown, and fly it smoothly and precisely the first time, often
solo. Most other pilots are pretty envious of that kind of skill.

If you're interested in learning more about this, I can give
you a few tips. I check myself out in an awful lot of weird
aircraft, simply because there aren't any instructors around
who are qualified on type.

For example, I recently checked myself out on a Falco
homebuilt, then checked out another instructor in it, so
he could teach the owner in it. It has a hilarious wing-drop
during a stall Sweet aircraft.

Last summer, I checked myself out on a Soneria homebuilt,
then taught the owner to fly it.

I recently checked myself out on a Beech 18. Easy as pie,
not sure what all the fuss is about. Wheel lands wonderfully.

Also checked myself out on a 450hp Stearman, and
taught myself to fly aerobatics in it. I was told was a
handful to land. Again, I have no idea what all that is
about - it's a pussycat.

Also checked myself out on a clip-wing Harvard, and
taught myself to fly aerobatics in it. I was told it liked
to dive for the ditch. Again, nonsense - it's a pussycat
to land, too. Don't see much difference between the
front seat and back seat despite the horror stories.

Also checked myself out on a PT-22 Ryan, and taught
myself to fly aerobatics in it, too. There is currently
ONE airshow pilot in all of North America whom is
qualified to fly aerobatics in a PT-22 Ryan at airshows,
and he's typing this in right now.

Also checked myself out in a Piaggio Royal Gull. I am
told there are only four flying in the world. It's a geared
multi-engine pusher amphibious tailwheel aircraft. Feels
a bit like a Seabee.

Summary: fly as many different types of aircraft as you
can. It will make you a better pilot.

http://www.pittspecials.com/etc/hs_ramp.jpg

[Shiny Side Up]

One can only be envious Hedley.

[Hedley]

Heh - the grass is always greener on the other side. I
really doubt you would want to switch places with me -
I've been divorced twice, and I'm on Transport's permanent
sh1tlist. Heck, I've got three ex-wives, if you count
Transport!

Oh yeah, another airplane I checked myself out on recently
was a wagaero sportsman 2+2 with a mazda wankel 13b
rotary engine. Now, the only thing I hate more than
flight-testing homebuilts is flight-testing homebuilts
with car engines, because you had better be sharp
on the turnaround after takeoff. Also, when you get
involved with homebuilts there's always a lot of
engineering and development that needs to be done,
not just flying!

Anyways. Looking at a strange airplane, you have
to try to figure out how this thing is going to try to
kill you. There are no levels of paranoia which are
unjustified. Doesn't matter how good the paper is
on it, doesn't matter how good a pilot you are, if
it flies it can kill you. Remember how George Beurling,
Canada's greatest fighter pilots of the last 80 years,
died.

Are the wings and tail bolted on securely? Don't
laugh.

Are the flight controls secure and functioning
correctly? Many pilot have been killed by cross
cabled flight controls. Heck, an AD just came
out on our Maule about how easy the elevator
is to rig in reverse! Most people screw up the
ailerons, though.

You can have an awful lot wrong with an aircraft,
and it will still fly fine. You don't need any gyros
or radios or electrical system - unless it's a homebuilt! -
and it will fly just fine, as long as the wings stay
on, the flight controls work, and fuel is fed to the
engine.

You can fly without oil pressure - for a while - but
you can't fly without fuel. Make sure the fuel flows,
and is vented. Many tanks have this problem, esp
with mud daubers in the vents. Fuel will flow for
a while, then slow down. I test-flew a Tripacer
last year, after an 8 year rebuild, that had a fuel venting
problem - and it was a certified aircraft, with
plenty of signatures and paper all over the place.

On the subject of fuel, how does the fuel system
work? How many tanks are there? Any restrictions
on takeoff/landing? Where are the valves? Are there
fuel pumps? On or off for takeoff? Most Lycomings
like the electric boost pumps on, most Continentals
will run too rich (possibly resulting in a crash) if the
boost pump is run during takeoff. Most engines,
if you keep feeding them fuel, will run. Sure, they
gotta have spark, and it's nice when the intake isn't
plugged up with ice, and it's nice when the pistons
and valves stay connected to the right pieces.

Next thing to learn about is the landing gear. If
it retracts, it needs a lot of examination and
learning about. If there is any doubt in your
mind, put the aircraft up on jacks, swing the
gear, make sure the warning horn works,
the lights work. While you're at it, clean it
with mineral spirits and examine the switches,
wiring and bolts.

Here are a couple things you can look at,
on any aircraft:

Power loading - take the weight in lbs, and
divide it by the horsepower. 5 is a rocket,
10 is nice, 15 is sluggish, and 20 won't climb.

Wing loading - take the weight in lbs, and
divide it by the total area of the wing in square
feet. If you get a number over 25, it's going
to hug the runway. If you get a number less
than 5, it's going to be a handful on a windy day.

Look at the wing cross-section. Is it thick? Thick
is slow, but friendly, thin is fast, but will bite you
in the *ss. Where is the point of maximum chord?
If it's 1/3 of the way back from the leading edge,
it will be nice to stall, if it's at the midpoint of the
chord, it's NLF and you better watch out for bugs
and rain on the leading edge.

Is the landing gear narrow? Does it have significant
toe-in or toe-out? Nosewheel/tailwheel condition
and shimmy?

Anyways, I hope from reading this that people learn
that if you want to be more than an SOP monkey,
you want to learn a little about aircraft. I have
no interest in ever being a "bus driver" of a Boeing
or Airbus - how boring would that be? - but there
are plenty of interesting aircraft out there to fly.

Just don't let them kill you, ok?

[iflyforpie]

Excellent and informative post Hedley!

[alctel]

Thanks for the advice guys, I guess I will just find a good school that I can get to easily and convert to Cessnas.

I do have a preference for low-wings though, they just feel more 'plane-like'. A misspent childhood staring at pictures of Spitfires and Hurricanes I fear!

[kzcvtm]

Hedley,

Awesome post! Things I've never even thought of or had explained to me before. I'm going to print this out and work with it.

After reading this thread, and the landing on the Hudson, I've decided to supplement my commercial training with some glider experience this summer - to improve my stick and rudder skills. By doing this, I hope to be a safer and better skilled pilot.

[PAJ]

Interesting idea and the more I think about it the more I like it. What an educational and fun way to sharpen one's skills.

Great article I found on the COPA site while researching the requirements to add a Glider license/endorsement??. http://www.copanational.org/non-members ... er%202.htm Can't find anything on the quick but I suspect that a PPL or higher could qualify as a Student Permit???? Have to do the glider ground school and of course dual/solo instruction I expect. Something to look forward to summer now!

By they way, sorry alctel, this thread has completely moved away from your original question.