Instructor Rates?

[david whitley]

I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and been "out of the market".
What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
david whitley > wrote:
>I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and been "out of the market".
>What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?

Around here the *cost* is $30-35/hr, sometimes more for air/less for
ground, sometimes more for "advanced" instruction. How much of that
goes to the instructors probably varies quite a bit more.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Dan Luke]

"david whitley" wrote:
> I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and
> been "out of the market".
> What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?

Independent CFI's in Mobile are getting $25-35/hour.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Craig Prouse]

"david whitley" wrote:

> I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and been "out of the market".
> What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?

http://www.wvfc.org/instructors.html

[Tony]

In the high desert of socal CFI's at the local FBO get $20 an hour.
KAPV

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Marco Leon]

You mean after the initial "software" training, they need an additional 3
full days every 6 months for recurrency?? For the $4200/year I sure hope
you're talking about training for the Collins ProLine bizjet gadgets and not
the Garmin 430...




"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
...
> >I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and been "out of the
market".
> What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?
> >
>
> Change the concept of doing business with people who are getting a
certificate
> or rating. Do busines with the people who need to be insurance qualified
for
> the aircraft they purchased, initial and every 6 month currency. Also
teaching
> people the software in the aircraft.
>
> Initial courses are about 5 days, software training is also about 5 days,
6
> month recurrency is 3 days.
>
> Billing is by the day. My fee is $700/day.
>
>
> paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
> on eagles' wings
> 2011 south perimeter road, suite g
> fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
> 305-389-1742 wireless
> 954-776-0527 fax
> 954-965-8329 home/fax
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[paul k. sanchez]

>You mean after the initial "software" training, they need an additional 3 full
days every 6 months for recurrency?? For the $4200/year I sure hope you're
talking about training for the Collins ProLine bizjet gadgets and not the
Garmin 430...

Good evening Marco:
If you were to purchase an $1.6m aircraft such as the meridian, or a $2.6m such
as the TBM700, and you had the financial resources not to need insurance
coverage, then I would very much agree with you that you have no need of my
services.

As long as insurance underwriters are very skitish about hull values of $500k
or more, there will be initial and recurrency training requirements for the
policy to be effective. The insurance underwriters choose which training
programs they approve, the client choose which one he will get the training at.

If you object to my syllabus having 5 days to be proficient in the software, or
even the 10 days for initial training in the make/model you are of course
welcome not to use my services and even publish your dismay about my rates as
much as you like.

I sincerely hope that you have found a training environment that meets yours
and your underwriter's needs.

Perhaps you might take the time to read the 22 august 2003 FAA safety study of
what they call "Technicaly Advanced Aircraft". The safety study looked at 11
accidents with the SR20 and SR22. 10 out of 11 were found to have pilot
deficiencies in the software and aircraft. Interestingly this pretty much is
contrary to your opinion but perhaps you do not own an SR20 or SR22.

But of course this is only my opinion and my clients tend to agree with me. And
at my rate of $700/day I am not going to hold my breath waiting for your call.

Fly safe by knowing what safe is.





paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

[Richard Kaplan]

"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
...

> If you object to my syllabus having 5 days to be proficient in the
software, or
> even the 10 days for initial training in the make/model you are of course
> welcome not to use my services and even publish your dismay about my rates
as
> much as you like.


I, too, provide advanced avionics training, recurrent instrument training,
and insurance-approved checkouts for high-performance airplanes billed on a
"per day" basis. Granted my instruction is mostly in piston singles rather
than turbines, but the analogy is certainly there.

My syllabus is customized and flexible; I think both when a student is
flying this complex an airplane and when a student is paying "professional"
rates for an instructor's time, it is appropriate to develop a syllabus
which reflect's a given students experience, airplane, mission profiles,
strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Sometimes recurrent training with
me in a single-engine piston airplane takes 4 hours annually; sometimes it
takes 2 days twice a year. Some students want to do this all in the
simulator, some all in the airplane, most in a combination of the two.
Sometimes there is flyable low IFR weather and a student wants take
advantage of this and fly ILS approaches to 300-1 all day. Every situation
is different.

I find both insurance companies and students appreciate this flexibility in
syllabus as long as it is done with reasonable judgment; I have yet to be
turned down by an insurer for approval to complete a recurrent training
program using this philosophy.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Marco Leon]

It sounds like you took my post as a direct stab against your instructional
abilities. Although I find it hard to see how, that was not my intent and I
apologize if anyone else took it that way.

I was reacting to your statement in your original post and I quote, "Do
business with the people who need to be insurance qualified for the aircraft
they purchased, initial and every 6 month currency."

The key word there is "need." So let me restate my post as a question. Are
there really avionics suites that require 5-day software-only recurrency
training every six months by an insurance company? There, is that better? ;)

Out of curiosity, how long is your recommended syllabus for someone with a
basic Garmin GNS 430/530 setup? If you tell me that it's the 5-day
recurrency training every six months and that you are getting that on a
regular basis then I'm scheduling my CFI training tomorrow. And I'm being
serious too.

I've paid for instructors for many hours beyond both my private ticket and
instrument rating so I know and appreciate the value of proficiency
training. I can easily see how someone can spend 10 days for initial
training in a new model like the TBM700.

I've also read the FAA study you refer to and I *do* agree with it for the
most part (I don't even own an SR-22). However, If my insurance company
turns around and tells me tomorrow that I need to go for a five-day GPS
training course every 6 months before they'll insure me, then I would cry
foul. I think most IFR GPS owners in this group would. If they required only
that I take an initial training certification class in my type, then I can
see their point. I think I'm a reasonable guy in that respect. Of course
this is a slippery slope favoring the insurance companies but that's a
different thread.

For the sake of General Aviation, I hope you can make a decent living doing
what you do. I'm a bit envious actually. Good luck.

Regards,

Marco

"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
...
> >You mean after the initial "software" training, they need an additional 3
full
> days every 6 months for recurrency?? For the $4200/year I sure hope you're
> talking about training for the Collins ProLine bizjet gadgets and not the
> Garmin 430...
>
> Good evening Marco:
> If you were to purchase an $1.6m aircraft such as the meridian, or a $2.6m
such
> as the TBM700, and you had the financial resources not to need insurance
> coverage, then I would very much agree with you that you have no need of
my
> services.
>
> As long as insurance underwriters are very skitish about hull values of
$500k
> or more, there will be initial and recurrency training requirements for
the
> policy to be effective. The insurance underwriters choose which training
> programs they approve, the client choose which one he will get the
training at.
>
> If you object to my syllabus having 5 days to be proficient in the
software, or
> even the 10 days for initial training in the make/model you are of course
> welcome not to use my services and even publish your dismay about my rates
as
> much as you like.
>
> I sincerely hope that you have found a training environment that meets
yours
> and your underwriter's needs.
>
> Perhaps you might take the time to read the 22 august 2003 FAA safety
study of
> what they call "Technicaly Advanced Aircraft". The safety study looked at
11
> accidents with the SR20 and SR22. 10 out of 11 were found to have pilot
> deficiencies in the software and aircraft. Interestingly this pretty much
is
> contrary to your opinion but perhaps you do not own an SR20 or SR22.
>
> But of course this is only my opinion and my clients tend to agree with
me. And
> at my rate of $700/day I am not going to hold my breath waiting for your
call.
>
> Fly safe by knowing what safe is.
>
>
>
>
>
> paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
> on eagles' wings
> 2011 south perimeter road, suite g
> fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
> 305-389-1742 wireless
> 954-776-0527 fax
> 954-965-8329 home/fax
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[paul k. sanchez]

>It sounds like you took my post as a direct stab against your instructional
abilities. Although I find it hard to see how, that was not my intent and I
apologize if anyone else took it that way.
>
>I was reacting to your statement in your original post and I quote, "Do
business with the people who need to be insurance qualified for the aircraft
they purchased, initial and every 6 month currency."
>
>The key word there is "need." So let me restate my post as a question. Are
there really avionics suites that require 5-day software-only recurrency
training every six months by an insurance company? There, is that better? ;)
>
>Out of curiosity, how long is your recommended syllabus for someone with a
basic Garmin GNS 430/530 setup? If you tell me that it's the 5-day recurrency
training every six months and that you are getting that on a regular basis then
I'm scheduling my CFI training tomorrow. And I'm being serious too.
>
>I've paid for instructors for many hours beyond both my private ticket and
instrument rating so I know and appreciate the value of proficiency training. I
can easily see how someone can spend 10 days for initial training in a new
model like the TBM700.
>
>I've also read the FAA study you refer to and I *do* agree with it for the
most part (I don't even own an SR-22). However, If my insurance company turns
around and tells me tomorrow that I need to go for a five-day GPS training
course every 6 months before they'll insure me, then I would cry foul. I think
most IFR GPS owners in this group would. If they required only that I take an
initial training certification class in my type, then I can see their point. I
think I'm a reasonable guy in that respect. Of course this is a slippery slope
favoring the insurance companies but that's a different thread.
>
>For the sake of General Aviation, I hope you can make a decent living doing
what you do. I'm a bit envious actually. Good luck.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marco
>
Good evening Marco:
Insurance underwriters require not only initial, but also recurrency training
in make/model of aircraft and of course ALL systems (or software if you like)
in the aircraft. Since the named pilot is required to complete an instrument
proficiency check (done over the course of 3-5 days) for his recurrency, yes
indeed the software is included.

Perhaps you have the misunderstanding that the software itself insurance
mandated required every 6 month training. No, that is incorrect. It is only the
aircraft itself with all of its components that insurance underwriter wants
every 6 month training.

As I said the lesser the hull value the less the training requirements by
insurance underwriters. When you have a relatively a hull value, $350k or more,
the underwriters want to be able to sleep at night rather than get a phone call
to the claims department.

When the aircraft itself has a fair history but "worse than average" rate with
average pilots, the underwriters want changes. They want a training syllabus
that reflects the accident history, real life scenarios for training, and of
course real world weather which means being on trips for up the exposure. This
is all related to the pilot-in-command learning decision making in what he can
find himself in.

Marco will you please explain to me how I can ignore the software aspects of
the aircraft, including of course the flight director, altitude pre-selector,
control wheel steering, 2 EFIS, weather uplink, weather display, radar
controller, TCAS, VNAV function, 2 moving maps, cabin pressurization, etc.

Could you please introduce me to someone who owns any aircraft 5 years old or
less, and feels that it only took 2 days to learn the equipment, and recurrency
is a waste of time (money).

I think you are severely understating the learning involved. But I have not met
you nor do I know what software is in your aircraft. Therefor it would be
incorrect of me to comment on what you already know.

As I said earlier I hope you have found a satisfactory training program that
not only meets your needs (budget) but also that of your underwriter.

And by the way if you give me your email address, I'll be happy to send you the
full operational guides for the Garmin 530, KFC325, EFIS 50/40, KMD850,
RDR2000, ETM by Shadin, KDR510, GAD42, PC12 by Pilatus, TBM700 by Socata,
PA46-350p and PA46-500tp and PA32r-300t by Piper. After you read the full
operational guides, perhaps you could inform us what is a reasonable training
curricula.

It is only my opinion that you have mistaken the concept of software training
being exclusive of the pilot proficiency requirements. If you wish to talk to
me personaly and perhaps have some of your misunderstanding resolved, my phone
is 305-389-1742.

Fly safe by knowing what safe is.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

[Marco Leon]

"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
> Good evening Marco:
> Insurance underwriters require not only initial, but also recurrency
training
> in make/model of aircraft and of course ALL systems (or software if you
like)
> in the aircraft. Since the named pilot is required to complete an
instrument
> proficiency check (done over the course of 3-5 days) for his recurrency,
yes
> indeed the software is included.

Ahh, so it includes an instrument proficiency check. This was not clear from
your previous posts. Your use of "software only" to describe aspects of the
training was therefore misleading. The restatement of your descriptions is
most amusing.

> Perhaps you have the misunderstanding that the software itself insurance
> mandated required every 6 month training. No, that is incorrect. It is
only the
> aircraft itself with all of its components that insurance underwriter
wants
> every 6 month training.
>
[snip]
>
> Marco will you please explain to me how I can ignore the software aspects
of
> the aircraft, including of course the flight director, altitude
pre-selector,
> control wheel steering, 2 EFIS, weather uplink, weather display, radar
> controller, TCAS, VNAV function, 2 moving maps, cabin pressurization, etc.

Maybe you should ask yourself that question. I fully understand that the
proficiency is for the entire aircraft as configured. When you say that you
offer an insurance mandated *software-only* training regimen you are really
saying that the *aircraft* requires the insurance-mandated training of which
software is an integral part. Perhaps you should re-read your posts and make
sure you're writing what you really mean before sending them out.

> Could you please introduce me to someone who owns any aircraft 5 years old
or
> less, and feels that it only took 2 days to learn the equipment, and
recurrency
> is a waste of time (money).

Where did that comment come from? When did I state that recurrency training
was a waste of time and money?? Are you insinuating that I take that
attitude towards complex aircraft? I hope not. However, I'm sure there are
some new owners of 1998 and newer Diamond Eclipses in VFR configurations
that needed less than 2 days to learn how to fly it. Maybe you meant
"complex?"

> I think you are severely understating the learning involved. But I have
not met
> you nor do I know what software is in your aircraft. Therefor it would be
> incorrect of me to comment on what you already know.

Please tell me where I quantified the learning involved for complex aircraft
systems. I commented on the insurance training requirements for a Garmin
430/530. I *still* think that requiring a 5-day "software-only" training
regimen every 6 months solely for this specific avionics model is too much.
If you think that's reasonable then I think you're *overstating* the
learning involved (or being an over-eager salesman).

> As I said earlier I hope you have found a satisfactory training program
that
> not only meets your needs (budget) but also that of your underwriter.
>
> And by the way if you give me your email address, I'll be happy to send
you the
> full operational guides for the Garmin 530, KFC325, EFIS 50/40, KMD850,
> RDR2000, ETM by Shadin, KDR510, GAD42, PC12 by Pilatus, TBM700 by Socata,
> PA46-350p and PA46-500tp and PA32r-300t by Piper. After you read the full
> operational guides, perhaps you could inform us what is a reasonable
training
> curricula.

Very impressive. Was that all from memory? I'll be sure to let you know when
I have a PC12 and TBM700 in my hangar...

> It is only my opinion that you have mistaken the concept of software
training
> being exclusive of the pilot proficiency requirements.

How about you help me out and stop labeling your training as
"software-only?"

Paul, please don't project your inefficient vocabulary use onto my
understanding of real-world software operation. I've been a professional in
software development for over 12 years and I'm currently a senior manager in
major research and engineering firm. I know software.

I tried to be polite in my previous responses but you still insist on
maintaining a vituperative voice in your responses. You're just hurting
yourself. No one wants to work with a pompous instructor and I wouldn't be
surprised if you turned off a couple of usenet readers with your
condescending posts. Scroll up your newsreader and read Richard Kaplan's
response to your post. He gave a professional and informative response that
still showed his depth of knowledge. I would recommend following his lead
and toning down your ego a bit.

Hope this helps.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[paul k. sanchez]

>"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
>> Good evening Marco:
Insurance underwriters require not only initial, but also recurrency training
in make/model of aircraft and of course ALL systems (or software if you like)
in the aircraft. Since the named pilot is required to complete an instrument
proficiency check (done over the course of 3-5 days) for his recurrency, yes
indeed the software is included.
>
>Ahh, so it includes an instrument proficiency check. This was not clear from
>your previous posts. Your use of "software only" to describe aspects of the
>training was therefore misleading. The restatement of your descriptions is
>most amusing.
>
>> Perhaps you have the misunderstanding that the software itself insurance
mandated required every 6 month training. No, that is incorrect. It is only the
aircraft itself with all of its components that insurance underwriter wants
every 6 month training.
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Marco will you please explain to me how I can ignore the software aspects of
the aircraft, including of course the flight director, altitude pre-selector,
control wheel steering, 2 EFIS, weather uplink, weather display, radar
controller, TCAS, VNAV function, 2 moving maps, cabin pressurization, etc.
>
>Maybe you should ask yourself that question. I fully understand that the
>proficiency is for the entire aircraft as configured. When you say that you
>offer an insurance mandated *software-only* training regimen you are really
>saying that the *aircraft* requires the insurance-mandated training of which
>software is an integral part. Perhaps you should re-read your posts and make
>sure you're writing what you really mean before sending them out.
>
>> Could you please introduce me to someone who owns any aircraft 5 years old
or less, and feels that it only took 2 days to learn the equipment, and
recurrency is a waste of time (money).
>
>Where did that comment come from? When did I state that recurrency training
>was a waste of time and money?? Are you insinuating that I take that
>attitude towards complex aircraft? I hope not. However, I'm sure there are
>some new owners of 1998 and newer Diamond Eclipses in VFR configurations
>that needed less than 2 days to learn how to fly it. Maybe you meant
>"complex?"
>
>> I think you are severely understating the learning involved. But I have not
met you nor do I know what software is in your aircraft. Therefor it would be
incorrect of me to comment on what you already know.
>
>Please tell me where I quantified the learning involved for complex aircraft
systems. I commented on the insurance training requirements for a Garmin
430/530. I *still* think that requiring a 5-day "software-only" training
regimen every 6 months solely for this specific avionics model is too much. If
you think that's reasonable then I think you're *overstating* the learning
involved (or being an over-eager salesman).
>
>>As I said earlier I hope you have found a satisfactory training program that
not only meets your needs (budget) but also that of your underwriter.

And by the way if you give me your email address, I'll be happy to send you
the full operational guides for the Garmin 530, KFC325, EFIS 50/40, KMD850,
RDR2000, ETM by Shadin, KDR510, GAD42, PC12 by Pilatus, TBM700 by Socata,
PA46-350p and PA46-500tp and PA32r-300t by Piper. After you read the full
operational guides, perhaps you could inform us what is a reasonable training
curricula.
>
>Very impressive. Was that all from memory? I'll be sure to let you know whenI
have a PC12 and TBM700 in my hangar...

>>It is only my opinion that you have mistaken the concept of software training
being exclusive of the pilot proficiency requirements.
>
>How about you help me out and stop labeling your training as "software-only?"
>
>Paul, please don't project your inefficient vocabulary use onto my
understanding of real-world software operation. I've been a professional in
software development for over 12 years and I'm currently a senior manager in
major research and engineering firm. I know software.
>
>I tried to be polite in my previous responses but you still insist on
maintaining a vituperative voice in your responses. You're just hurting
yourself. No one wants to work with a pompous instructor and I wouldn't be
surprised if you turned off a couple of usenet readers with your condescending
posts. Scroll up your newsreader and read Richard Kaplan's response to your
post. He gave a professional and informative response that still showed his
depth of knowledge. I would recommend following his lead and toning down your
ego a bit.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Marco

Good morning Marco:
I am willing to be wrong on this so I decided to look back at all the postings
to read what was said rather than what I think or someone else thinks was said.

My first posting on this subject, and perhaps it was should have been my last,
was:

>Change the concept of doing business with people who are getting a certificate
or rating. Do busines with the people who need to be insurance qualified for
the aircraft they purchased, initial and every 6 month currency. Also teaching
people the software in the aircraft.

Initial courses are about 5 days, software training is also about 5 days, 6
month recurrency is 3 days.

Billing is by the day. My fee is $700/day.<

When I read what I wrote again, I don't find where I say that the software
requires recurrency training. I do say initial and and every 6 month currency
for insurance qualification on the aircraft they purchased. I then say "Also
teaching people the software in the aircraft."

In my second sentence I do indeed say "Initial courses are about 5 days,
software training is also about 5 days, 6 month recurrency is 3 days."

Lo and behold my error. I should have stated that initial aircraft
qualification courses are 5 days, and 3 days for recurrency, and 5 days for
software. Writing 6 month currency after software training implied that the
insurance underwriters required it, which is not the case.

So interesting enough I was clear in my first paragraph and muddled the issue
in the second. I was indeed incorrect by doing so.

And by the way you did get me on the adjective "vituperative". I had to look
that one up and found that its first use was in 1727. Not an everyday word in
my vocabulary but I shall admit my failing.

And I think I did not answer one of your explicit questions about how long of a
training course for just the Garmin 530/430. My explicit answer is that the
Garmin 530/430 takes 2 days to be moderately comfortable. Moderately
comfortable meaning the operator is able to use most of the functions what he
wants to use within a few seconds, rather than a purgatory of button mashing.

Something that I apparently misread also. Where did I write that there is
insurance mandated 6 month recurrency training on the Garmin 430/530. Quoting
you: "insurance training requirements for a Garmin 430/530. I *still* think
that requiring a 5-day "software-only" training regimen every 6 months solely
for this specific avionics model is too much", leads me to believe that I
stated that.

I do not believe I did but I am always willing to be wrong. If you could please
repost that statement of mine, I shall fess to my error and stand corrected.

I hope my vocabulary was less inefficient this time.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

[Marco Leon]

Hi Paul,
Just for the record, I do not think that $700/day is unreasonable amount for
an expert to charge for their services. Especially when these services are
uncommon and not required for everyday use. I see consultants in my industry
charging easily twice that amount due to their specific skills. I wouldn't
even know where to start looking for a Pilatus PC12-specific CFI. Well, I do
now but that's besides the point. The entire thread was in response to
insurance requirements and insurance requirements only.

I'll make a little confession about vituperative...I subscribe to one of the
many "word of the day" emails and that was fresh in my mind.:)

You never stated anything about the Garmin boxes explicitly. I did and
subsequently made a connection to your reaction. I hope I did not put words
in your mouth.

I can see taking up two days learning the Garmin boxes. Ground school and a
few hours flight time goes by quickly. I just hope my insurance company
requires that every 6 months. I also thinks it's a good idea to make IFR
GPS, autopilot, and weather-avoidance avionics a part of any instrument
proficiency check if the plane is so equipped.

If it's sounding like I am agreeing with you it's because I do (despite what
some may think from our little posting volley). I'd love to moonlight as an
avionics-savvy CFI someday so it would be very encouraging to see people in
your field prosper.

So hey, I'm rootin' for ya dude.

Regards,

Marco

"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
...

> Good morning Marco:
> I am willing to be wrong on this so I decided to look back at all the
postings
> to read what was said rather than what I think or someone else thinks was
said.
>
> My first posting on this subject, and perhaps it was should have been my
last,
> was:
>
> >Change the concept of doing business with people who are getting a
certificate
> or rating. Do busines with the people who need to be insurance qualified
for
> the aircraft they purchased, initial and every 6 month currency. Also
teaching
> people the software in the aircraft.
>
> Initial courses are about 5 days, software training is also about 5 days,
6
> month recurrency is 3 days.
>
> Billing is by the day. My fee is $700/day.<
>
> When I read what I wrote again, I don't find where I say that the software
> requires recurrency training. I do say initial and and every 6 month
currency
> for insurance qualification on the aircraft they purchased. I then say
"Also
> teaching people the software in the aircraft."
>
> In my second sentence I do indeed say "Initial courses are about 5 days,
> software training is also about 5 days, 6 month recurrency is 3 days."
>
> Lo and behold my error. I should have stated that initial aircraft
> qualification courses are 5 days, and 3 days for recurrency, and 5 days
for
> software. Writing 6 month currency after software training implied that
the
> insurance underwriters required it, which is not the case.
>
> So interesting enough I was clear in my first paragraph and muddled the
issue
> in the second. I was indeed incorrect by doing so.
>
> And by the way you did get me on the adjective "vituperative". I had to
look
> that one up and found that its first use was in 1727. Not an everyday word
in
> my vocabulary but I shall admit my failing.
>
> And I think I did not answer one of your explicit questions about how long
of a
> training course for just the Garmin 530/430. My explicit answer is that
the
> Garmin 530/430 takes 2 days to be moderately comfortable. Moderately
> comfortable meaning the operator is able to use most of the functions what
he
> wants to use within a few seconds, rather than a purgatory of button
mashing.
>
> Something that I apparently misread also. Where did I write that there is
> insurance mandated 6 month recurrency training on the Garmin 430/530.
Quoting
> you: "insurance training requirements for a Garmin 430/530. I *still*
think
> that requiring a 5-day "software-only" training regimen every 6 months
solely
> for this specific avionics model is too much", leads me to believe that I
> stated that.
>
> I do not believe I did but I am always willing to be wrong. If you could
please
> repost that statement of mine, I shall fess to my error and stand
corrected.
>
> I hope my vocabulary was less inefficient this time.
>
>
> paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
> on eagles' wings
> 2011 south perimeter road, suite g
> fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
> 305-389-1742 wireless
> 954-776-0527 fax
> 954-965-8329 home/fax
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[David Hill]

david whitley wrote:
> I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and been "out of the market".
> What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?

At the local airport (KAJR) instructions costs $25/hr.

At American Air Flight Training at KPDK (Atlanta area) instruction
starts at $57/hr for Private instruction and goes up to $95/hr for the
senior flight instructor.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[BTIZ]

caution... don't pay $50-90 dollars per hour for instruction..

BT

"David Hill" > wrote in message
...
> david whitley wrote:
> > I've been flying Boeings for the past 35 years and been "out of the
market".
> > What are CFI's/CFII's getting these days?
>
> At the local airport (KAJR) instructions costs $25/hr.
>
> At American Air Flight Training at KPDK (Atlanta area) instruction
> starts at $57/hr for Private instruction and goes up to $95/hr for the
> senior flight instructor.
>
> --
> David Hill
> david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
> Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA
>

[paul k. sanchez]

>caution... don't pay $50-90 dollars per hour for instruction..
>
>BT

Ok, I give up. Why the caution and admonition of "don't pay $50-90 per hour for
instruction". Can you please elaborate on your warning? Surely you must have
some very concrete evidence to warrant such a caution.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

[BTIZ]

paul... a simple "tongue and cheek" comment to not overspend above a common
rate... but obviously I hit a sore bone there..

why would someone pay twice to three times to going rate. I would tend to
doubt that the quality of instruction is that much better.
bt


"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
...
> >caution... don't pay $50-90 dollars per hour for instruction..
> >
> >BT
>
> Ok, I give up. Why the caution and admonition of "don't pay $50-90 per
hour for
> instruction". Can you please elaborate on your warning? Surely you must
have
> some very concrete evidence to warrant such a caution.
>
>
> paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
> on eagles' wings
> 2011 south perimeter road, suite g
> fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
> 305-389-1742 wireless
> 954-776-0527 fax
> 954-965-8329 home/fax
>

[paul k. sanchez]

>paul... a simple "tongue and cheek" comment to not overspend above a common
rate... but obviously I hit a sore bone there..
>
>why would someone pay twice to three times to going rate. I would tend to
doubt that the quality of instruction is that much better.
>bt
>

BT:
I guess you have a good point. What is the going rate? Call a Flight Safety
Learning Center and ask them about getting an initial Malibu JetProp training
course (insurance approved by underwriters), and be sure to emphasize that you
don't want to pay "more than the going rate".

You could also call Simcom about their initial training courses for the Pilatus
PC12, Socata TBM700, MU-2, Cessna 300/400 series, King Air 90/100/200/350
series. And again you could specify that you don't want to pay "more than the
going rate".

A very relative question as to what the "going rate" is. I always thought it
was directly related to what the instructor is trying to acomplish. By the way
most facilities that do the software training on aircraft systems or do the
aircraft initial and recurrency courses (again isurance underwriter approved),
we run about $700 to $1,200/day. Is that the going rate that you had in mind?
Wish you well.

Fly safe by knowing what safe is.


paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-965-8329 home/fax

[BTIZ]

paul.... ok... I'll agree that rates are higher (and should be to meet the
experience level of the instructors required) to get initial quals in
JetProps or PC-12s etc. type aircraft.

but a simple CFI/II at the beginning Pvt or Comm level, (as I believe would
be reflected in the original post) just don't cut it..

granted the CFI asking the question had many hours in B737 types, but even
then, if he is teaching at the beginner Pvt/Comm level, don't expect heavy
iron pay.

BT
"paul k. sanchez" > wrote in message
...
> >paul... a simple "tongue and cheek" comment to not overspend above a
common
> rate... but obviously I hit a sore bone there..
> >
> >why would someone pay twice to three times to going rate. I would tend to
> doubt that the quality of instruction is that much better.
> >bt
> >
>
> BT:
> I guess you have a good point. What is the going rate? Call a Flight
Safety
> Learning Center and ask them about getting an initial Malibu JetProp
training
> course (insurance approved by underwriters), and be sure to emphasize that
you
> don't want to pay "more than the going rate".
>
> You could also call Simcom about their initial training courses for the
Pilatus
> PC12, Socata TBM700, MU-2, Cessna 300/400 series, King Air 90/100/200/350
> series. And again you could specify that you don't want to pay "more than
the
> going rate".
>
> A very relative question as to what the "going rate" is. I always thought
it
> was directly related to what the instructor is trying to acomplish. By the
way
> most facilities that do the software training on aircraft systems or do
the
> aircraft initial and recurrency courses (again isurance underwriter
approved),
> we run about $700 to $1,200/day. Is that the going rate that you had in
mind?
> Wish you well.
>
> Fly safe by knowing what safe is.
>
>
> paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
> on eagles' wings
> 2011 south perimeter road, suite g
> fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
> 305-389-1742 wireless
> 954-776-0527 fax
> 954-965-8329 home/fax
>