Multi-Engine Before Commercial?

[David B. Cole]

My original plan was to finish the instrument rating and then do some
additional aerobatic training and a tailwheel endorsement before
starting the commercial. But for some reason, as I approach the end of
the instrument training, I've had an interest in doing the multi. I
know that I wouldn't be able to rent due to insurance, nor do I know
if I'd really want to given the small number of hours I'd have by the
time I completed it. It would be one more opportunity to increase my
knowledge and skills. And maybe I'd get asked to ride along with a few
pilots I know that are rated.

But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
receive more benefit from following my original plan?

Dave

[Mike Rapoport]

The commercial will make you a better pilot and is a lot of fun too.. Since
you won't be able to get a multi to fly, I don't see how getting the rating
will improve your skill in a way that affects your (single engine) flying.
The multi rating is all about single engine flying, nothing else.

Mike
\MU-2


"David B. Cole" > wrote in message
m...
> My original plan was to finish the instrument rating and then do some
> additional aerobatic training and a tailwheel endorsement before
> starting the commercial. But for some reason, as I approach the end of
> the instrument training, I've had an interest in doing the multi. I
> know that I wouldn't be able to rent due to insurance, nor do I know
> if I'd really want to given the small number of hours I'd have by the
> time I completed it. It would be one more opportunity to increase my
> knowledge and skills. And maybe I'd get asked to ride along with a few
> pilots I know that are rated.
>
> But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> receive more benefit from following my original plan?
>
> Dave

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
David B. Cole > wrote:
>But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm

A multi is a complex airplane, so it can count for some of the training
you'll need for the (single engine) commercial.

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

[Marty]

Hi David!,
From your post I reckon you are not planning a career in flying multis with
ATP. Career pilot's usually get inst.,multi.,commercial all at the same
time.
It is a lot easier to get the rating than to rent in my experience,citing
insurance requirements. Mike and Ben made good points.
I'll add that if you can afford the extra bucks,at least get some dual in a
multi. It will make your ins.agent grin,add to your proficiency level and
put a big friggin smile on your face each time you look at the log book
entries.
The only multi dual I have is in a Citation V,a 30 min.flight. You bet, I
was pretty much behind the sucker from the brake release,but it looks real
good in the logbook and the memory is even better.
Just a thought,
Marty

"David B. Cole" > wrote in message
m...
> My original plan was to finish the instrument rating and then do some
> additional aerobatic training and a tailwheel endorsement before
> starting the commercial. But for some reason, as I approach the end of
> the instrument training, I've had an interest in doing the multi. I
> know that I wouldn't be able to rent due to insurance, nor do I know
> if I'd really want to given the small number of hours I'd have by the
> time I completed it. It would be one more opportunity to increase my
> knowledge and skills. And maybe I'd get asked to ride along with a few
> pilots I know that are rated.
>
> But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> receive more benefit from following my original plan?
>
> Dave

[Kyler Laird]

(David B. Cole) writes:

>My original plan was to finish the instrument rating and then do some
>additional aerobatic training and a tailwheel endorsement before
>starting the commercial. But for some reason, as I approach the end of
>the instrument training, I've had an interest in doing the multi.

My interest was that I wanted to be able to fly my plane. I
did my MEL before my Instrument (and didn't get signed off for
multi-instrument for quite awhile).

>I know that I wouldn't be able to rent due to insurance,

Are you sure? Where I trained, rental was available to pilots
after completing their multi training with that FBO.

>nor do I know
>if I'd really want to given the small number of hours I'd have by the
>time I completed it. It would be one more opportunity to increase my
>knowledge and skills.

'seems worthwhile.

>And maybe I'd get asked to ride along with a few
>pilots I know that are rated.

MEL safety pilots are handy to have available.

>But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
>receive more benefit from following my original plan?

I have no idea how it fits with your goals but I still don't
have my Commercial. I don't miss it. (However there are some
guys flying checks in Aztecs from here and that *does* sound
interesting...)

--kyler

[BTIZ]

David... it actually makes more sense to get your SE Commercial First.. then
get the Multi... all of your Cross Country and specific training
requirements for the Commercial can be done in the SE. There is an
additional 10hrs of Instrument work required for the Comm, but you can do 5
hours in SE and 5 hours in ME and make it all count. Then when you go for
the ME, you've got all your Commercial requirements complete and it's an
easier go of it.

On the other side, most places where you can get a ME to rent, require
20hours in type (or more) and Comm/Instrument ratings, so again it makes
sense to get the SE Comm first, and get the 5hours Instrument in the ME, and
then go back to that rental opportunity to complete the ME and make sure to
get Comm. and Instrument privileges in the ME.

BT

"David B. Cole" > wrote in message
m...
> My original plan was to finish the instrument rating and then do some
> additional aerobatic training and a tailwheel endorsement before
> starting the commercial. But for some reason, as I approach the end of
> the instrument training, I've had an interest in doing the multi. I
> know that I wouldn't be able to rent due to insurance, nor do I know
> if I'd really want to given the small number of hours I'd have by the
> time I completed it. It would be one more opportunity to increase my
> knowledge and skills. And maybe I'd get asked to ride along with a few
> pilots I know that are rated.
>
> But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> receive more benefit from following my original plan?
>
> Dave

[Robert M. Gary]

You'll want to do the single commercial first because that will count
towards a lot of your requirements. Once you have your single
commerical all you need to do is a multi add on. You do not need to
meet the multi commercial requirements (just the add on requirements
of the commerical PTS). You'll save yourself a lot of money since a
SEL commercial only requires a few hours of complex (and that complex
is a lot cheaper than a twin).

-Robert, CFI


(David B. Cole) wrote in message >...
> My original plan was to finish the instrument rating and then do some
> additional aerobatic training and a tailwheel endorsement before
> starting the commercial. But for some reason, as I approach the end of
> the instrument training, I've had an interest in doing the multi. I
> know that I wouldn't be able to rent due to insurance, nor do I know
> if I'd really want to given the small number of hours I'd have by the
> time I completed it. It would be one more opportunity to increase my
> knowledge and skills. And maybe I'd get asked to ride along with a few
> pilots I know that are rated.
>
> But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> receive more benefit from following my original plan?
>
> Dave

[C J Campbell]

"David B. Cole" > wrote in message
m...
>
> But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> receive more benefit from following my original plan?
>

It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the single
and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross country in
a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument at
the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the check
ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it serves
as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All you
have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
complex training.

[Sylvain]

(Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<4sZec.130808$K91.344330@attbi_s02>...
> In article >,
> David B. Cole > wrote:
> >But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm
>
> A multi is a complex airplane, so it can count for some of the training
> you'll need for the (single engine) commercial.

better yet, you can do the initial commercial in a multi- and the
commercial single as an add-on; that's what I did actually for a number
of complicated reasons (one of them being that it didn't require any
solo night time)... but essentially I do have access to a couple
of nice twins that can be flown solo, rare, but still exists; and since
I was going for a multi- rating anyway, I thought that there wasn't that
much difference in requirements between adding it to my private certificate
versus going for the commercial rating directly; the fun side effect to
doing the single commercial as an add-on was that I was able to do it in
a non complex aircraft (how many people do you know who did their
commercial recently in a tailwheel? :-)

--Sylvain

[Roy Smith]

"C J Campbell" > wrote:
> Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it serves
> as a complex airplane.

Not all multi's are complex (nor are they all high-performance).
Granted, you need to look hard to find one that isn't, but it's
possible. It would be embarrassing to show up for a checkride and have
the examiner tell you the airplane you brought doesn't qualify.

[Richard Thomas]

Sorry to hi-jack this thread for a couple of questions...

I have my FAA Commercial and Instrument with Single Engine privilages, this
was gained last year. At the end of June this year I am undergoing training
for my FAA Multi Addon to my Commercial together with Multi Instrument
Privilages.

From what I understand all I need to do is a multi engine course and pass a
checkride / oral during which I am required to demonstrate single engine IFR
approaches. Is this all that is required? Or do I need to complete the
dual cross countries again, in a multi? Of course all of the Commercial
requirements were met in the Single and as yet I have no multi time.

If it makes any difference, my Commercial was done under Part 61 and took
four days (including checkride) straight after the Part 141 Instrument
course.

Also would you recommend a Part 61 or Part 141 Multi Engine Addon? I'm
taking a couple of weeks off work to get this completed full time.

Best wishes,

Richard Thomas
FAA CP-ASEL IA


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David B. Cole" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> > receive more benefit from following my original plan?
> >
>
> It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
> engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the single
> and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross country
in
> a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
> meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
> country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
> recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument at
> the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the check
> ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it
serves
> as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All
you
> have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
> complex training.
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, Roy Smith
> wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
> > Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it serves
> > as a complex airplane.

> Not all multi's are complex (nor are they all high-performance).

Aeronca Lancer, for instance.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Richard Thomas" wrote in message > Also would you recommend a Part >61 or
Part 141 Multi Engine Addon? I'm
> taking a couple of weeks off work to get this completed full time.

A multi add-on can be done in a couple of days. Part 61 vs 141 won't make
much difference.

D.

[Robert M. Gary]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...

> It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
> engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the single
> and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross country in
> a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
> meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
> country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
> recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument at
> the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the check
> ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it serves
> as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All you
> have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
> complex training.

How are you going to get the 10 hours of multi solo time required for
an initial commerical in a multi? Are there any FBOs that rent multi's
to non-rated pilots? You'll either need to do a private add on
checkride just to get the solo time or get signed off solo in the
multi but not find insurance. It seems easier to just get your private
commerical and then spend 10-15 hours in the twin for the add-on
checkride ( you don't need a private multi to take take the commerial
multi add-on checkride).

-Robert

[C J Campbell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
> > engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the
single
> > and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross
country in
> > a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
> > meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
> > country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
> > recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument
at
> > the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the
check
> > ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it
serves
> > as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All
you
> > have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
> > complex training.
>
> How are you going to get the 10 hours of multi solo time required for
> an initial commerical in a multi?

There is no such requirement. Perhaps you are thinking of 61.129 (b) which
says:

(4) 10 hours of solo flight time in a multiengine airplane or 10 hours of
flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multiengine
airplane with an authorized instructor (either of which may be credited
towards the flight time requirement in paragraph (b)(2) of this section), on
the areas of operation listed in §61.127(b)(2) of this part that includes at
least-

[BTIZ]

You do not need to re accomplish the cross countries.. you do need to be
prepared to complete the "multi" part of the PTS, engine cuts on takeoff,
Sim Engine Failure at altitude, etc. I had even practiced some Lazy8s and
Chandelles, but they were not requested on the check ride. It was the same
DE that had completed my SEL COMM a month prior.

My ME add-on with Instrument privileges went like this.
Oral, standard systems and difference questions, MinControlAirspeed etc.

Then the flight, preflight, initial take off with an engine cut as soon as
power was established, I cut the other engine and started to brake, Examiner
restored the engine (said it was mine) and brought the power back up for
take off, some engine cuts on take off will result in a full taxi back for a
second takeoff. We had pre-briefed this procedure and had a very long
runway.

On climbout and safe altitude, the DE again reduced power on one engine
(hiding the throttles) and I did the "dead foot dead engine" routine and
identified which I would shut down by placing my hand on the proper mixture
control and verbalized the checklist to shut it down. The "dead engine" was
then restored to full power.

On the hood, picked up radar vectors to a FULL ILS approach, missed approach
back to the radar pattern for a LOC approach with one engine simulated shut
down, (reduced to zero thrust by the DE). Engine restored for the go around,
but not really needed, it was a SenecaII Turbo.

Both good engines, under the hood to the practice area, headings and
altitudes provided by the DE. Some other IFR work, attitude recovery, etc,
then demo a full engine shut down are restart while maintaining heading and
altitude. As the engine warmed back up, the hood came off and MCA
demonstrations were completed.

Then a sim engine out VFR approach to the home airport to a touch and two
engine go, a VFR pattern with both engines for the accuracy landing. Full
Stop, mission complete.

Remember while all this is going on, the PIC (person taking the checkride)
is handling all radios and checklist as if SOLO.

BT

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry to hi-jack this thread for a couple of questions...
>
> I have my FAA Commercial and Instrument with Single Engine privilages,
this
> was gained last year. At the end of June this year I am undergoing
training
> for my FAA Multi Addon to my Commercial together with Multi Instrument
> Privilages.
>
> From what I understand all I need to do is a multi engine course and pass
a
> checkride / oral during which I am required to demonstrate single engine
IFR
> approaches. Is this all that is required? Or do I need to complete the
> dual cross countries again, in a multi? Of course all of the Commercial
> requirements were met in the Single and as yet I have no multi time.
>
> If it makes any difference, my Commercial was done under Part 61 and took
> four days (including checkride) straight after the Part 141 Instrument
> course.
>
> Also would you recommend a Part 61 or Part 141 Multi Engine Addon? I'm
> taking a couple of weeks off work to get this completed full time.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Thomas
> FAA CP-ASEL IA
>
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David B. Cole" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> > > receive more benefit from following my original plan?
> > >
> >
> > It makes more sense to do the multi then do the commercial in the multi
> > engine. The guys who say that you can do the cross countries in the
single
> > and then do a multi add-on are only half right. Much of the cross
country
> in
> > a single must be solo, but you can do it dual in a multi-engine, thus
> > meeting the requirements for dual training at the same time as the cross
> > country, cutting the total hours considerably. At your point, I would
> > recommend the multi-engine private and get the multi-engine instrument
at
> > the same time -- you only have to add a couple of approaches to the
check
> > ride. Then do all the commercial training in a multi-engine plane; it
> serves
> > as a complex airplane. Then go back and do the single-engine add-on. All
> you
> > have to do then is the single-engine maneuvers, no cross country and no
> > complex training.
> >
> >
>
>

[Stefan]

David B. Cole wrote:

> But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> receive more benefit from following my original plan?

It depends on what you mean with "make sense". But whatever route you'll
go, I strongly believe that it makes most sense to do acro first. This
will enhance your stick and rudder skills like nothing else. And it's
fun, too.

Stefan

[C J Campbell]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> David B. Cole wrote:
>
> > But does it make sense to do the multi before the Comm, and would I
> > receive more benefit from following my original plan?
>
> It depends on what you mean with "make sense". But whatever route you'll
> go, I strongly believe that it makes most sense to do acro first. This
> will enhance your stick and rudder skills like nothing else.

You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training. I doubt there
is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
'stick and rudder skills.' In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.
If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.

I have not seen people who do aerobatics training show a lot of improvement
in such basic skills as ground reference maneuvers or commercial maneuvers.
What I have seen is that too many of them *think* they are better when in
fact they are not. Perhaps there is a lot of bad aerobatics training going
on out there and I am seeing the result of it. Whatever. For now I regard
aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
learning in the first place.

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
> grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training.

That's probably the least valuable aspect of aerobatic training. The
real value is that the the aerobatically trained pilot will generally
see the upset coming a mile away and never allow it to happen in the
first place. Aerobatics demands that you learn to fly entirely
without instruments, because in aerobatic attitudes none of them are
reliable. It demands that you learn to feel the airplane, instead of
just flying the numbers. The first time you feel the bite of the
stall at 100+ mph (in an airplane that stalls at 60) and with the nose
60 degrees below the horizon, you will understand.

> I doubt there
> is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
> 'stick and rudder skills.'

That's absolutely true - assuming they are solid to begin with. If
you are already able to land at your chosen point and at your chosen
speed/attitude, with the airplane aligned with the runway regardless
of wind, then a tailwheel endorsement will not do much for you. It is
possible to learn these things without flying a taildragger, but my
observations indicate that they are often not being learned. Look in
the POH for the airplane you fly, and find out the ground roll. If a
field twice that long seems awfully short to you, you can definitely
benefit from some tailwheel training.

> In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
> can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.

If you don't know, then you are absolutely not ready to be teaching
others to fly. In fact, I have often said that nobody should be
allowed to get a CFI ticket until he has demonstrated a loop, spin,
and roll solo in an appropriate aircraft.

> If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
> airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
> instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.

I don't think anyone seriously believes this is what stick and rudder
is about. When you can make a pretty landing in 15G25 direct cross,
that's stick and rudder skill. When you can land on target and at the
proper airspeed with both altimeter and ASI covered, that's stick and
rudder skill. And as an instructor, if a student puts you into an
inadvertent spin and you feel the need to grab the controls or yell
rather than calmly talking him through the recovery, you DON'T have
stick and rudder skills.

> I have not seen people who do aerobatics training show a lot of improvement
> in such basic skills as ground reference maneuvers or commercial maneuvers.

Commercial maneuvers are not basic skills. They are pointless
exercises that you do to prepare for a rating and never use again.
They are also not aerobatic.

Ground reference maneuvers are TRAINING maneuvers. They are also done
to prepare for a rating and never again, and are of no earthly use to
someone who can do aerobatics.

> What I have seen is that too many of them *think* they are better when in
> fact they are not.

Or maybe you simply lack the perception to see where the differences
are. I see that a lot among those who start instructing too early and
never really develop experience. That's why I recommend that any
potential instructor accumulate 500-1000 hours of his own time - not
dual given and not dual received and not trainign for ratings, but
actual real world flying experience. Those who have don't find it
difficult to see where the aerobatically trained pilot is better.

> Perhaps there is a lot of bad aerobatics training going
> on out there and I am seeing the result of it. Whatever. For now I regard
> aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
> could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
> learning in the first place.

I think this is about the worst advice from a flight instructor that I
have ever heard.

Michael

[Craig]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
> You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will
> grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training. I doubt there
> is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve your
> 'stick and rudder skills.' In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether anyone
> can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even are.
> If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain altitude,
> airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
> instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these skills.


A good acro program will give you a much enhanced situation awareness
of what the airplane is doing without any reference to the instruments
or outside the cockpit.

Craig C.

[Sylvain]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message
> How are you going to get the 10 hours of multi solo time required for
> an initial commerical in a multi?

read the regulations again, there is no such requirements on the book.

--Sylvain

[Robert M. Gary]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Whatever. For now I regard
> aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
> could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
> learning in the first place.

You probably wouldn't say that if you had tried it. I honestly believe
I'm a much better Mooney pilot because I started as a tailwheel pilot.
I believe I can land in shorter distance and I never have had the
typical Mooney transition problem of landing on the nose wheel (very
expensive).
I've not had an opportunity to use my aerobatic training in the Mooney
but if I ever get flipped upside down I don't think I'll react with
simply fear because its a picture I've seen outside before. When I
hear 1/2 the commercial pilots out there say that they are afraid to
slip on short final because they think they might spin a tear comes
down my eye and I wish they'd all had some tailwheel training. When I
see people struggle with cross winds I think the same.
I also believe I'm a much better CFI for it. I don't worry that a
student might get uncoordinated and spin the Cherokee when he should
stall it, I've spun before, I'm not concerned about it. If I were
scared my students would pick up and that and they would be afraid
too.
I also believe tailwheel training should be required for all CFIs.
Your students will try to land sideways every time (actually BFRs for
rated pilots are usually worse). You need to have the confidence with
your feet to let teh student get 3/4 of the way to the grass and then
kick in just the amount of rudder to save the day. If you do more, or
sooner, the student will never learn. The only think more
directionally unstable than a taildragger is a pre-solo pilot in a
172. You really need to have a lot of confidence in what you do in
order to present the right skills to your students. They really need
to feel confident that they are not taking you to the edge of your
skills and that the two of you are going to be an insurance claim.


-Robert, CFI

[Journeyman]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
[value of aerobatic training]
>> You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will

Something about this post bothered me, but Michael hit it on the head...


> real value is that the the aerobatically trained pilot will generally
> see the upset coming a mile away and never allow it to happen in the
> first place. Aerobatics demands that you learn to fly entirely
> without instruments, because in aerobatic attitudes none of them are
> reliable. It demands that you learn to feel the airplane, instead of
> just flying the numbers. The first time you feel the bite of the

Granted, I haven't done any aerobatics yet (it's on the to do list), but
I do remember vividly being close to my private pilot checkride,
demonstrating a stall. The wing started getting out from under me and
I was on the rudder before I even realized what was happening. I'm sure
it's because of the spin training that was required for the Canadian
private pilot. It becomes visceral.


Morris

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think this is about the worst advice from a flight instructor that I
> have ever heard.
>

Actually, Michael, you sound to me like an arrogant fool.

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
> In fact, I have often said that nobody should be
> allowed to get a CFI ticket until he has demonstrated a loop, spin,
> and roll solo in an appropriate aircraft.
>

To expand a little further on my earlier post, I simply note that nobody is
beating down your door asking your opinion of what the certification
requirements for a CFI should be. The supply of 10,000 hour ex-fighter jocks
willing to take CFI jobs at less than minimum wage appears to be somewhat
limited, to say the least.

Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are undeniably a
lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.

Frankly, your incessant criticism of flight instructors, airline pilots,
pilots in general, mechanics, the FAA, and virtually everybody else involved
with aviation puts you at odds with a whole lot of people that I suspect
might know a little bit more than you do. Your generalizations have gone
beyond mere ignorance and have entered the realm of being dangerous.

Your demands for extreme qualifications place you on the lunatic fringe.

[C J Campbell]

"Craig" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I
will
> > grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training. I doubt
there
> > is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve
your
> > 'stick and rudder skills.' In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether
anyone
> > can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even
are.
> > If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain
altitude,
> > airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
> > instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these
skills.
>
>
> A good acro program will give you a much enhanced situation awareness
> of what the airplane is doing without any reference to the instruments
> or outside the cockpit.
>

I would hope that my students have that kind of situational awareness even
before they solo.

[C J Campbell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...

> I also believe tailwheel training should be required for all CFIs.
> Your students will try to land sideways every time (actually BFRs for
> rated pilots are usually worse).

Ain't it the truth? However, rather than being ready to 'save' a student
every time, I prefer to talk him through it. I only step in if it appears
that serious damage to the aircraft is imminent. Students feel like they
have 'failed' and become discouraged if the instructor is constantly taking
over. They also feel like they have 'failed' and they become discouraged if
they blow a tire, so it is a fine line. Knowing when to intervene is quite
possibly the essence of being a good flight instructor.

Every now and then I learn something odd, such as how a student's cowboy
boots might be contributing to his inability to use the rudders properly.

[Robert M. Gary]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> > I also believe tailwheel training should be required for all CFIs.
> > Your students will try to land sideways every time (actually BFRs for
> > rated pilots are usually worse).
>
> Ain't it the truth? However, rather than being ready to 'save' a student
> every time, I prefer to talk him through it. I only step in if it appears
> that serious damage to the aircraft is imminent. Students feel like they
> have 'failed' and become discouraged if the instructor is constantly taking
> over. They also feel like they have 'failed' and they become discouraged if
> they blow a tire, so it is a fine line. Knowing when to intervene is quite
> possibly the essence of being a good flight instructor.

I think it's both. You try to talk them through it but if they start
to go off into the weeds you need to let them go a bit before you jump
in. They need to feel the plane and don't need CFIs jumping in all the
time. Then you taxi off and talk about what happened (usually the
student asks). Probably the most important thing a CFI needs to be
able to do is give instant feedback. Whether a student is doing turns,
stalls, etc if something doesn't come out right we need to be right
there with a reason. Also important is to keep a mental count of the
number of things you've corrected a student on and make sure you
balance than with the number of thinks you've given them a pat on the
back for. Learning to fly can often leave you feeling pretty low, its
important that, as CFIs, we really show excitement when students do
well. I think the job is 50% psychology. The reason I got into CFIing
(in my spar time) was that I noticed that there really were not a lot
of active "real" GA pilots teaching. Most CFIs either only teach or
flying airlines or something else. There aren't a lot of CFIs out
there that can tell you about their IMC trip last weekend down south
and impart that personal experience from flying the family around.
CFIs should actively be doing the type of flying that students plan to
do.

> Every now and then I learn something odd, such as how a student's cowboy
> boots might be contributing to his inability to use the rudders properly.


I agree. In the J-3 I found the oddest things would happen when people
try to fly with sneakers because they couldn't hit the breaks with
stiff soles (I wore slippers). You need to curl your feet to fit your
heal into the space where the brakes are.

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> To expand a little further on my earlier post, I simply note that nobody is
> beating down your door asking your opinion of what the certification
> requirements for a CFI should be. The supply of 10,000 hour ex-fighter jocks
> willing to take CFI jobs at less than minimum wage appears to be somewhat
> limited, to say the least.

Actually, there are more than a few out there. Quite a few of the
people who taught me fit into that category, if only loosely. There
are plenty of them who are interested in instructing - but few care to
work for some guy who treats them like burger flippers and thinks he
knows it all because he wrote the big check. You have to find them -
they're not looking for you. It's well worth it, though. You learn a
lot of things the average instructor won't teach you.

> Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
> impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are undeniably a
> lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.

Wait until the first time a student inadvertently puts you into a
spin, then come back and tell me about it.

> Frankly, your incessant criticism of flight instructors, airline pilots,
> pilots in general, mechanics, the FAA, and virtually everybody else involved
> with aviation puts you at odds with a whole lot of people that I suspect
> might know a little bit more than you do.

Any criticism of an entrenched system ALWAYS puts the critic at odds
with the people who benefit from that system. So what else is new?

> Your generalizations have gone
> beyond mere ignorance and have entered the realm of being dangerous.

Dangerous to your business, perhaps, but not otherwise.

> Your demands for extreme qualifications place you on the lunatic fringe.

Do you truly think a solo loop, spin, and roll are extreme
qualifications? To me it's just a demonstration to an insurance
company and/or FBO (hence solo) that you have developed a minimal
level of proficiency in flying a minimally aerobatic airplane in
something other than level flight. The fact that you suggest this is
an extreme qualification speaks volumes.

I can't think of a single experienced pilot (never mind instructor)
who does not recognize the intrinsic value of aerobatic and tailwheel
training. And yet you come out and claim that they're a waste of time
because you can't see the difference in the pilots. Then you call me
a lunatic. I think you should have stuck with arrogant - at least
that's honest, even if there is more than a bit of the pot calling the
kettle black there.

Michael

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote
> > To expand a little further on my earlier post, I simply note that nobody
is
> > beating down your door asking your opinion of what the certification
> > requirements for a CFI should be. The supply of 10,000 hour ex-fighter
jocks
> > willing to take CFI jobs at less than minimum wage appears to be
somewhat
> > limited, to say the least.
>
> Actually, there are more than a few out there. Quite a few of the
> people who taught me fit into that category, if only loosely.

Really? Who were these instructors? What were their actual qualifications?

>
> > Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
> > impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are
undeniably a
> > lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.
>
> Wait until the first time a student inadvertently puts you into a
> spin, then come back and tell me about it.

Already happened. What do you want to know about it? Most of them just do
what you tell them to do to get out of the spin. A few say "Wheeee! Let's do
it again!" which makes me wonder how inadvertant it was. Only one froze and
asked me to take the plane. I made him practice stalls until the cows came
home.

>
> > Frankly, your incessant criticism of flight instructors, airline pilots,
> > pilots in general, mechanics, the FAA, and virtually everybody else
involved
> > with aviation puts you at odds with a whole lot of people that I suspect
> > might know a little bit more than you do.
>
> Any criticism of an entrenched system ALWAYS puts the critic at odds
> with the people who benefit from that system. So what else is new?
>

Ah. Just like all the other crackpots, you think you are Galileo fighting
the establishment. Now I understand.

>
> > Your demands for extreme qualifications place you on the lunatic fringe.
>
> Do you truly think a solo loop, spin, and roll are extreme
> qualifications?

I think your hourly requirements are ridiculous. Your ideal flight
instructor appears to be somebody who spends no time flight instructing.

[Michael]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
> > Actually, there are more than a few out there. Quite a few of the
> > people who taught me fit into that category, if only loosely.
>
> Really? Who were these instructors? What were their actual qualifications?

One was a retired naval captain, qualified in airplanes, gliders,
rotorcraft, and airships, later turned lawyer. He had 17,000+ hours
when last he added. He (among others, including a NASA flight
training specialist now turned cropduster) taught me to fly gliders.

One was a former RIO turned airline pilot, with 12,000+ hours, 2000+
in taildraggers ranging from J-3 to DC-3. He taught me to fly
tailwheel.

One was a former guard tanker pilot turned airline captain with
14,000+ hours, including 1500+ in light twins. He taught me
multiengine flying and repaired the damage to my instrument flying
that had been done by the timebuilder who got me the instrument
rating.

One was a former reserve fighter pilot (from the piston fighter days),
test pilot, and aerobatic competitor, now retired. I never asked him
how many hours he had. He checked me out in a biplane and taught me
the rudiments of acro.

The fascinating part was that the most any of them charged was
$35/hour, and this was all in the past few years (I've only been
flying for a decade). Only one was associated with an FBO, and you
had to know who he was and ask for him. This kind of high quality
instructor is available when you look carefully.

> > > Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
> > > impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are
> undeniably a
> > > lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.
> >
> > Wait until the first time a student inadvertently puts you into a
> > spin, then come back and tell me about it.
>
> Already happened.

And you're telling me that it would have been no big deal if you
hadn't done loops, spins, and rolls. And you expect me to believe it.

> Ah. Just like all the other crackpots, you think you are Galileo fighting
> the establishment. Now I understand.

You undesrtand nothing. I repeat - any criticism of an entrenched
system always puts the critic at odds with those who benefit from that
system. That doesn't make the critic right; neither does it make him
a crackpot. But the fact that a system exists and is entrenched
doesn't mean that it's not in need of major criticism.

> I think your hourly requirements are ridiculous. Your ideal flight
> instructor appears to be somebody who spends no time flight instructing.

That has at least a grain of truth in it - my ideal flight instructor
is not someone who spends all or even most of his flight hours
instructing. Those who spend all their time teaching something
generally lose touch with what it is they're teaching, eventually.
Those who start teaching as soon as they finish training were never in
touch to begin with. You can't teach what you don't know, and you
can't know what you haven't done.

This is not unique to aviation - the university environment is a
perfect example. The most useful information is learned from those
professors who actually work in industry and teach what they know.
Learning from ivory tower academics and their teaching assistants only
teaches you material of value in academia. I still recall when I was
working on my graduate degree in chemical engineering, teaching other
students - and years away from knowing the difference between sweet
and sour crude.

Michael