Good Instructors...

[doc]

are awfully hard to find.

I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.

There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
hours in a cockpit with him/her.

Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.

[Dudley Henriques]

"doc" > wrote in message
...
> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.
>
> Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.

Oh...I don't know. They're out there if you look. It's true that finding
just the right combination of qualities you have mentioned isn't the
easiest task in the world, but it's worth the effort looking around for
the right instructor.
Just a tip; although first impressions are important and are what hit
you square in the puss when you start this quest, for someone like
yourself; knowing beforehand what you're looking for can actually skew
the interview if you're not careful. It's very easy to go in with an up
front conception for what you are expecting as a positive result that is
so strong it overpowers what would normally pass as "conditions" of the
day".
Everyone has pressures and schedules and chief flight instructors to
deal with. You might be catching a very good prospect and letting them
get away when your "net" should have caught them. You have to make
absolutely certain that you're considering everything......all the data
points....before you write off someone who came with a fair
recommendation. When you interview, just make sure you're "up" on the
atmosphere you're encountering so that your opinion doesn't get skewered
on you.
Bottom line.....in your quest for a GOOD instructor......be
aware........be advised.......and be alert. Observe the whole picture.
Then when you're certain you have considered it all, make your decision.
I'm just passing this on to you because I've seen many a mistake made by
students going into these things with preconception. Not to say that
preconception isn't a good idea...it is. But it also has to be tempered
and flexible to be an effective tool.
Best of luck in your quest,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash

[Jim Burns]

Just my thoughts and observations on the subject.

What I try to do as an instructor and what I look for in instructors for
myself is someone that can clearly teach well and instill a high level of
understanding before ever getting in the airplane. While most instructors
know that an airplane makes a poor classroom, many students do not realize
this. One of an instructors first duties is to explain this fact to new
students. While students are anxious to get in the air and don't want to be
stuck on the ground or in a classroom, they must learn that is where the
real learning happens. I feel that if I teach or learn adequately on the
ground then transferring the knowledge into flying skill comes easy.

Transferring this theory to "interviews" I would spend most of my interview
time on the ground with a new instructor evaluating if he can customize his
teaching method to mesh with my learning style. If he asks plenty of
questions about my personality, background, learning style, flying history,
and goals, he should get a good idea about how I learn best. If I ask him
basically the same questions, I can get a good idea about how his
personality and teaching methods may mesh with me. You may then ask him to
give you a brief ground lesson to evaluate how he applies his teaching
methods to what he's learned about you.

Again, just my thoughts, your mileage may vary, but there are good
instructors out there. Sometimes it just takes a little work uncovering
them.

Jim


"doc" > wrote in message
...
> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.
>
> Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

[C J Campbell]

"doc" > wrote in message
...
> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.

It depends a lot on the student. If a student has a tough time getting along
with people then he is going to have a tough time finding a congenial
instructor.

[Robert M. Gary]

One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was frustrated
with teh CFIs out there. 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.
I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.

-Robert



doc > wrote in message >...
> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.
>
> Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.

[gatt]

"doc" > wrote in message news:fOmdnUXX3Y-8DxLcRVn-

> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.

What region?

-c
PP-ASEL-IA

[doc]

gatt wrote:
Dallas.


> "doc" > wrote in message news:fOmdnUXX3Y-8DxLcRVn-
>
>
>>I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
>>flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
>
> What region?
>
> -c
> PP-ASEL-IA
>
>

[doc]

Dallas.



gatt wrote:

> "doc" > wrote in message news:fOmdnUXX3Y-8DxLcRVn-
>
>
>>I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
>>flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
>
> What region?
>
> -c
> PP-ASEL-IA
>
>

[Michael]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
> One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was frustrated
> with teh CFIs out there.

<aol> me too </aol>

I bitched about it for years, and finally I decided it was time to be
part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I encourage any
owner who feels the same way to do as I did. Becoming a CFI involves
a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
owner doesn't already have.

> 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
> owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
> country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
> pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.

I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
someone who has never owned an airplane.

> I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
> and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
> cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
> was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
> around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
> regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.

<aol> me too </aol>

Only I fly my Twin Comanche that way. Before I bought it, I flew my
TriPacer the same way (though I admit I got stuck a bit more and
needed a lot more time to get places). You might not think a TriPacer
is much of a go-places airplane, but when I owned it, I took it South
to the Gulf of Mexico, North to the Great Lakes, East to the Statue of
Liberty, and West to the Golden Gate.

And you've pretty much nailed the key issue - time. Those of us who
have full time jobs that pay enough to support an airplane and do our
own flying don't have the time to hang around the FBO waiting for a
student to maybe show up. We will MAKE time to teach.

As a result, when you walk into the FBO and 'interview' some random
instructor, you're not getting an owner who flies his own airplane on
real trips in real weather. He's not out there waiting for a student
to maybe show up. He probably has all the students he can handle,
because he doesn't have the time (what with his job and all) to fly
more than about 200-300 hours a year, and he probably wants at least
half those hours to be his own flying, not instruction. He may not be
associated with an FBO at all, training only owners in their own
airplanes, or he may be part time - but in any case when you ask for
an instructor at the front desk of the FBO you won't be getting his
name.

In reality, it's quite easy to find a good instructor. Here's how.
Forget the FBO - walk around the hangars, and ask the owners who does
their training (BFR's, IPC's, transition training when they upgrade).
THOSE are the good instructors.

Michael

[Dave Stadt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote
> > One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was frustrated
> > with teh CFIs out there.
>
> <aol> me too </aol>
>
> I bitched about it for years, and finally I decided it was time to be
> part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I encourage any
> owner who feels the same way to do as I did. Becoming a CFI involves
> a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
> or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
> or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
> owner doesn't already have.
>
> > 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
> > owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
> > country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
> > pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.
>
> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
> someone who has never owned an airplane.
>
> > I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
> > and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
> > cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
> > was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
> > around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
> > regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.
>
> <aol> me too </aol>
>
> Only I fly my Twin Comanche that way. Before I bought it, I flew my
> TriPacer the same way (though I admit I got stuck a bit more and
> needed a lot more time to get places). You might not think a TriPacer
> is much of a go-places airplane, but when I owned it, I took it South
> to the Gulf of Mexico, North to the Great Lakes, East to the Statue of
> Liberty, and West to the Golden Gate.
>
> And you've pretty much nailed the key issue - time. Those of us who
> have full time jobs that pay enough to support an airplane and do our
> own flying don't have the time to hang around the FBO waiting for a
> student to maybe show up. We will MAKE time to teach.
>
> As a result, when you walk into the FBO and 'interview' some random
> instructor, you're not getting an owner who flies his own airplane on
> real trips in real weather. He's not out there waiting for a student
> to maybe show up. He probably has all the students he can handle,
> because he doesn't have the time (what with his job and all) to fly
> more than about 200-300 hours a year, and he probably wants at least
> half those hours to be his own flying, not instruction. He may not be
> associated with an FBO at all, training only owners in their own
> airplanes, or he may be part time - but in any case when you ask for
> an instructor at the front desk of the FBO you won't be getting his
> name.
>
> In reality, it's quite easy to find a good instructor. Here's how.
> Forget the FBO - walk around the hangars, and ask the owners who does
> their training (BFR's, IPC's, transition training when they upgrade).
> THOSE are the good instructors.
>
> Michael

Two other points. One, it is surprising how many of the timebuilders have
never been in actual IFR conditions. Two, many of the good instructors are
very picky about who they will fly with. They have the experience to know
who is and isn't a worthy student.

[Andrew Sarangan]

You have to keep in mind that some of the better instructors out there
interview the students before taking them on. I have found the best
instructors at local flying clubs, who instruct not for building time or
making money, but just for the heck of it. The ones to stay away from are
the graduates of large 141 schools who crank out CFIs in 12 months.





doc > wrote in :

> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.
>
> Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.


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

[NW_PILOT]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
m...
> One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was frustrated
> with teh CFIs out there. 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
> owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
> country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
> pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.
> I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
> and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
> cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
> was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
> around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
> regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.
>
> -Robert

Robert, you sound like a cool instructor.

Most the instructors around here smoke like a chimney and are in a rush to
get to the bar to watch the game and have a few drinks, don't show up to
early morning appointments or think their stools don't stink and have bad
personal hygiene. Some one them will not even commit to your training just
leach on you to build time at your expense.

[Journeyman]

In article >, Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Two other points. One, it is surprising how many of the timebuilders have
> never been in actual IFR conditions. Two, many of the good instructors are

I never realized how good I had it in Seattle. Many of the "time builder"
instructors specifically moved there to get IMC experience. Lately, I've
been talking about self-selecting samples in another context, but it applies
here.

Those "time-builder" instructors who deliberately sought out the IMC conditions
of Seattle were a cut above others becasue they had the drive to go out and
seek the experience.


Morris

[Texan Av8r]

doc,

I know that you did not ask for a recommendation but if I can help you
in this quest, let me recommend a name to you.

I feel extremely happy with this instructor. In fact, I am thankful
for the day when I ran into him 5 years ago.

Send me an email if you are interested.

Disclaimer: I have no personal or financial interest in this
recommendation.

SP


doc > wrote in message >...
> Dallas.
>

[g_goo_goo]

If you go with a younger instructor (age 20-30) they are there for hours
until they can get a better job as I am finding, some of the even admit it.
I told my instructor that I wanted to learn all the way so I could teach
people and she looked at me puzzled and asked me WHY?

I'm just about to go out on my own (solo practice) and it's been taking so
long, I've been doing solo circuits for months now, but not with consistancy
because I can't get out there because priority seems to go to the flight
school's college students, which my instructor is assigned to. Funny, I
don't seem to pay any less so why should I get lower priority.

G

"doc" > wrote in message
...
> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.
>
> Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.

[Peter MacPherson]

> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
> someone who has never owned an airplane.

Michael,

I agree with some of your points, but this is a pretty silly generalization.
I've used the same CFI for all of my ratings from private through MEI
and he is a full time instructor. Meaning he does "almost no flying other
than instruction". He is hands down the best instructor I've ever flown
with. We flew in actual a lot during my instrument training and did
approaches
down to minimums, minimums at night, rainy/windy approaches at night, etc..
He also does not own his own plane. How does owning your own airplane
make you a better instructor? I own my own airplane, have "another job",
fly a lot of actual, and he is STILL a better instructor than I. I agree
that
there are a lot of inexperienced instructors out there, but maybe it's
because
they don't like to fly in actual and/or don't have a lot of time. But if the
instructor
is doing it full time, doing lots of cross country flying in all types of wx
, how is he
less of an instructor than the guy that flies on his own and owns his own
plane? I've
also flown with CFI's that were full time part 135 pilots that were good
pilots but
not very good instructors.

Pete


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote
>> One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was frustrated
>> with teh CFIs out there.
>
> <aol> me too </aol>
>
> I bitched about it for years, and finally I decided it was time to be
> part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I encourage any
> owner who feels the same way to do as I did. Becoming a CFI involves
> a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
> or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
> or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
> owner doesn't already have.
>
>> 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
>> owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
>> country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
>> pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.
>
> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
> someone who has never owned an airplane.
>
>> I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
>> and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
>> cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
>> was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
>> around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
>> regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.
>
> <aol> me too </aol>
>
> Only I fly my Twin Comanche that way. Before I bought it, I flew my
> TriPacer the same way (though I admit I got stuck a bit more and
> needed a lot more time to get places). You might not think a TriPacer
> is much of a go-places airplane, but when I owned it, I took it South
> to the Gulf of Mexico, North to the Great Lakes, East to the Statue of
> Liberty, and West to the Golden Gate.
>
> And you've pretty much nailed the key issue - time. Those of us who
> have full time jobs that pay enough to support an airplane and do our
> own flying don't have the time to hang around the FBO waiting for a
> student to maybe show up. We will MAKE time to teach.
>
> As a result, when you walk into the FBO and 'interview' some random
> instructor, you're not getting an owner who flies his own airplane on
> real trips in real weather. He's not out there waiting for a student
> to maybe show up. He probably has all the students he can handle,
> because he doesn't have the time (what with his job and all) to fly
> more than about 200-300 hours a year, and he probably wants at least
> half those hours to be his own flying, not instruction. He may not be
> associated with an FBO at all, training only owners in their own
> airplanes, or he may be part time - but in any case when you ask for
> an instructor at the front desk of the FBO you won't be getting his
> name.
>
> In reality, it's quite easy to find a good instructor. Here's how.
> Forget the FBO - walk around the hangars, and ask the owners who does
> their training (BFR's, IPC's, transition training when they upgrade).
> THOSE are the good instructors.
>
> Michael

[Dudley Henriques]

Peter;
Although this post is under you, it's mainly addressed to the group as a
whole for it's general content. I'm dealing here more with the poster
you answered than with you personally, as what you have said is quite
correct and appropriate, so bear with me if you will while I dig into
this a bit.

It goes without saying that Peter is absolutely correct.
I won't speak for instrument instruction, as I chose many years ago to
specialize with the issues involved in primary instruction, then later
on in highly advanced aerobatic instruction. I can see however, no
specific reason why instrument instructors would be any different as far
as teaching quals are concerned.
First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane
that makes one better or not better qualified as an
instructor....absolutely nothing.
Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation
who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the finest
CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation.
It's unfortunate that there are indeed problems in the instruction
community, but this has little if nothing to do with whether or not a
specific pilot becomes a GOOD CFI.
Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't
even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group are
smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.

All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the
minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about
instructor quality are making a basic 101mistake and don't know much
about instructing. First of all, no competent comment by anyone knowing
anything at all about the instruction issues involves generalization of
any kind. In fact, in flying, generalization is the first thing you
learn to avoid as a competent CFI. SPECIFICS is what flying is all
about, and SPECIFICS are what you have to deal with in discussing CFI
issues.
The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us as
long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system that
requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger and
better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made about this.
Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a specific CFI as
being on the negative side of the quality equation! This is important to
understand when posters like the one Pete has answered lay this issue
out there as a negative. Again...it's SPECIFICS we need in evaluating an
instructor...not generalities! I personally have known many time
builders who were excellent instructors. The fact that they were
building time had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of their
teaching and the manner in which they treated their students.
Thank you Peter :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash





"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:jY9kd.386904$D%.80590@attbi_s51...
>> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
>> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
>> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
>> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
>> someone who has never owned an airplane.
>
> Michael,
>
> I agree with some of your points, but this is a pretty silly
> generalization.
> I've used the same CFI for all of my ratings from private through MEI
> and he is a full time instructor. Meaning he does "almost no flying
> other
> than instruction". He is hands down the best instructor I've ever
> flown
> with. We flew in actual a lot during my instrument training and did
> approaches
> down to minimums, minimums at night, rainy/windy approaches at night,
> etc..
> He also does not own his own plane. How does owning your own airplane
> make you a better instructor? I own my own airplane, have "another
> job",
> fly a lot of actual, and he is STILL a better instructor than I. I
> agree that
> there are a lot of inexperienced instructors out there, but maybe it's
> because
> they don't like to fly in actual and/or don't have a lot of time. But
> if the instructor
> is doing it full time, doing lots of cross country flying in all types
> of wx , how is he
> less of an instructor than the guy that flies on his own and owns his
> own plane? I've
> also flown with CFI's that were full time part 135 pilots that were
> good pilots but
> not very good instructors.
>
> Pete
>
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>> (Robert M. Gary) wrote
>>> One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was
>>> frustrated
>>> with teh CFIs out there.
>>
>> <aol> me too </aol>
>>
>> I bitched about it for years, and finally I decided it was time to be
>> part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I encourage
>> any
>> owner who feels the same way to do as I did. Becoming a CFI involves
>> a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
>> or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
>> or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private
>> pilot
>> owner doesn't already have.
>>
>>> 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
>>> owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
>>> country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
>>> pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.
>>
>> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
>> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
>> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
>> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
>> someone who has never owned an airplane.
>>
>>> I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
>>> and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
>>> cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
>>> was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
>>> around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
>>> regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.
>>
>> <aol> me too </aol>
>>
>> Only I fly my Twin Comanche that way. Before I bought it, I flew my
>> TriPacer the same way (though I admit I got stuck a bit more and
>> needed a lot more time to get places). You might not think a
>> TriPacer
>> is much of a go-places airplane, but when I owned it, I took it South
>> to the Gulf of Mexico, North to the Great Lakes, East to the Statue
>> of
>> Liberty, and West to the Golden Gate.
>>
>> And you've pretty much nailed the key issue - time. Those of us who
>> have full time jobs that pay enough to support an airplane and do our
>> own flying don't have the time to hang around the FBO waiting for a
>> student to maybe show up. We will MAKE time to teach.
>>
>> As a result, when you walk into the FBO and 'interview' some random
>> instructor, you're not getting an owner who flies his own airplane on
>> real trips in real weather. He's not out there waiting for a student
>> to maybe show up. He probably has all the students he can handle,
>> because he doesn't have the time (what with his job and all) to fly
>> more than about 200-300 hours a year, and he probably wants at least
>> half those hours to be his own flying, not instruction. He may not
>> be
>> associated with an FBO at all, training only owners in their own
>> airplanes, or he may be part time - but in any case when you ask for
>> an instructor at the front desk of the FBO you won't be getting his
>> name.
>>
>> In reality, it's quite easy to find a good instructor. Here's how.
>> Forget the FBO - walk around the hangars, and ask the owners who does
>> their training (BFR's, IPC's, transition training when they upgrade).
>> THOSE are the good instructors.
>>
>> Michael
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

Very well said Dudley.


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Peter;
> Although this post is under you, it's mainly addressed to the group as a
> whole for it's general content. I'm dealing here more with the poster you
> answered than with you personally, as what you have said is quite correct
> and appropriate, so bear with me if you will while I dig into this a bit.
>
> It goes without saying that Peter is absolutely correct.
> I won't speak for instrument instruction, as I chose many years ago to
> specialize with the issues involved in primary instruction, then later on
> in highly advanced aerobatic instruction. I can see however, no specific
> reason why instrument instructors would be any different as far as
> teaching quals are concerned.
> First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane
> that makes one better or not better qualified as an
> instructor....absolutely nothing.
> Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation who
> have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the finest CFI's
> I've ever known in professional aviation.
> It's unfortunate that there are indeed problems in the instruction
> community, but this has little if nothing to do with whether or not a
> specific pilot becomes a GOOD CFI.
> Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
> instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't even
> address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group are smart
> enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.
>
> All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the
> minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about instructor
> quality are making a basic 101mistake and don't know much about
> instructing. First of all, no competent comment by anyone knowing anything
> at all about the instruction issues involves generalization of any kind.
> In fact, in flying, generalization is the first thing you learn to avoid
> as a competent CFI. SPECIFICS is what flying is all about, and SPECIFICS
> are what you have to deal with in discussing CFI issues.
> The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us as
> long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system that
> requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger and better
> things. There's a pertinent point that should be made about this.
> Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a specific CFI as
> being on the negative side of the quality equation! This is important to
> understand when posters like the one Pete has answered lay this issue out
> there as a negative. Again...it's SPECIFICS we need in evaluating an
> instructor...not generalities! I personally have known many time builders
> who were excellent instructors. The fact that they were building time had
> absolutely nothing to do with the quality of their teaching and the manner
> in which they treated their students.
> Thank you Peter :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> for email; take out the trash
>
>
>
>
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:jY9kd.386904$D%.80590@attbi_s51...
>>> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
>>> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
>>> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
>>> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
>>> someone who has never owned an airplane.
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I agree with some of your points, but this is a pretty silly
>> generalization.
>> I've used the same CFI for all of my ratings from private through MEI
>> and he is a full time instructor. Meaning he does "almost no flying other
>> than instruction". He is hands down the best instructor I've ever flown
>> with. We flew in actual a lot during my instrument training and did
>> approaches
>> down to minimums, minimums at night, rainy/windy approaches at night,
>> etc..
>> He also does not own his own plane. How does owning your own airplane
>> make you a better instructor? I own my own airplane, have "another job",
>> fly a lot of actual, and he is STILL a better instructor than I. I agree
>> that
>> there are a lot of inexperienced instructors out there, but maybe it's
>> because
>> they don't like to fly in actual and/or don't have a lot of time. But if
>> the instructor
>> is doing it full time, doing lots of cross country flying in all types of
>> wx , how is he
>> less of an instructor than the guy that flies on his own and owns his own
>> plane? I've
>> also flown with CFI's that were full time part 135 pilots that were good
>> pilots but
>> not very good instructors.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> "Michael" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>> (Robert M. Gary) wrote
>>>> One of the reasons I became an instructor was because I was frustrated
>>>> with teh CFIs out there.
>>>
>>> <aol> me too </aol>
>>>
>>> I bitched about it for years, and finally I decided it was time to be
>>> part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I encourage any
>>> owner who feels the same way to do as I did. Becoming a CFI involves
>>> a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
>>> or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
>>> or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
>>> owner doesn't already have.
>>>
>>>> 1/2 of them are young guys who have never
>>>> owned an airplane before and have never even gone on a long cross
>>>> country. The other 1/2 are the old guys who used to be professional
>>>> pilot but haven't been in an airplane without a student in 20 years.
>>>
>>> I think your proportions are wrong (though not your descriptions) -
>>> it's about 90% timebuilders and 10% old hands. And I think you make
>>> an excellent point - an instructor who does almost no flying other
>>> than instruction isn't generally much of an instructor. Neither is
>>> someone who has never owned an airplane.
>>>
>>>> I actively fly my Mooney all over the country (and other countries)
>>>> and end up in real world weather (not training weather where you
>>>> cancel because its too cold to walk out to the plane). I felt there
>>>> was a need for CFIs that really do use these little planes to get
>>>> around in real weather and real situations. However, since I have a
>>>> regular job, I don't get as much time to teach as I'd like.
>>>
>>> <aol> me too </aol>
>>>
>>> Only I fly my Twin Comanche that way. Before I bought it, I flew my
>>> TriPacer the same way (though I admit I got stuck a bit more and
>>> needed a lot more time to get places). You might not think a TriPacer
>>> is much of a go-places airplane, but when I owned it, I took it South
>>> to the Gulf of Mexico, North to the Great Lakes, East to the Statue of
>>> Liberty, and West to the Golden Gate.
>>>
>>> And you've pretty much nailed the key issue - time. Those of us who
>>> have full time jobs that pay enough to support an airplane and do our
>>> own flying don't have the time to hang around the FBO waiting for a
>>> student to maybe show up. We will MAKE time to teach.
>>>
>>> As a result, when you walk into the FBO and 'interview' some random
>>> instructor, you're not getting an owner who flies his own airplane on
>>> real trips in real weather. He's not out there waiting for a student
>>> to maybe show up. He probably has all the students he can handle,
>>> because he doesn't have the time (what with his job and all) to fly
>>> more than about 200-300 hours a year, and he probably wants at least
>>> half those hours to be his own flying, not instruction. He may not be
>>> associated with an FBO at all, training only owners in their own
>>> airplanes, or he may be part time - but in any case when you ask for
>>> an instructor at the front desk of the FBO you won't be getting his
>>> name.
>>>
>>> In reality, it's quite easy to find a good instructor. Here's how.
>>> Forget the FBO - walk around the hangars, and ask the owners who does
>>> their training (BFR's, IPC's, transition training when they upgrade).
>>> THOSE are the good instructors.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>>
>
>

[Journeyman]

In article .net>, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane
> that makes one better or not better qualified as an
> instructor....absolutely nothing.

There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't
learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS,
but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond hectobuck-
burger range. This is objective truth.

If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing.
As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As
graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have
the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance
their careers.


> Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation
> who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the finest
> CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation.

I'm sure you have. But you can be an expert in something specialized
and less than completely knowledgable in something related.

Pick an example. Say an instructor chose to specialize in primary
training. Such an instructor would probably be a bad choice to go
with for instrument training.


> Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
> instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't
> even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group are
> smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.

I didn't make the statement, so I don't have to defend it, but it's
not _pure_ nonsense. Rather, it's mildly impure nonsense. IOW,
there is a grain of something useful there. It's safe to assume that
someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned something
worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually
go places. Whether that alone makes them competent at teaching is
another thing entirely.


> All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the
> minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about

You can pretty much generalize that to any area of teaching.


> The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us as
> long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system that
> requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger and
> better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made about this.
> Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a specific CFI as
> being on the negative side of the quality equation! This is important to

Absolutely. I've met more conscientious and less conscientious
instructors, but I've generally been lucky with the ones I've had.
You don't need kilo-hours and kilo-mile trips to be a good instructor
for primary training (to pick a random example). And a good primary
instructor doesn't need to be a good instrument instructor.


Morris

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am an instructor, and I have flown long trips for personal business.
But I fail to see how those long trips are an essential experience for
instructing. It makes a good hangar story, and it may impress an
uninformed student. In my opinion, critical examination of the issues
(like the discussions taking place in this NG) to be far more valuable
for the experience and knowledge of an instructor. However, you have a
valid point about things that are not in the PTS. This is particularly
true for the IFR environment. There are many unwritten rules of IFR that
you only learn by flying in the system. But it is not difficult to
incorporate those elements into the standard IFR training. You don't
have to embark on a 1000NM trip. ATC works the same way whether it is
Cleveland Center or Albuquerque Center. Tracon works the same way
everywhere. FSS works the same way. FAR's are the same. Except for
weather and regional accents, what else is so different that is critical
to the experience of an IFR pilot? Please explain.





Journeyman > wrote in
:

>
> In article .net>,
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an
>> airplane that makes one better or not better qualified as an
>> instructor....absolutely nothing.
>
> There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't
> learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS,
> but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond
> hectobuck- burger range. This is objective truth.
>
> If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing.
> As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As
> graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have
> the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance
> their careers.
>
>
>> Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation
>> who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the
>> finest CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation.
>
> I'm sure you have. But you can be an expert in something specialized
> and less than completely knowledgable in something related.
>
> Pick an example. Say an instructor chose to specialize in primary
> training. Such an instructor would probably be a bad choice to go
> with for instrument training.
>
>
>> Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
>> instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't
>> even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group
>> are smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.
>
> I didn't make the statement, so I don't have to defend it, but it's
> not _pure_ nonsense. Rather, it's mildly impure nonsense. IOW,
> there is a grain of something useful there. It's safe to assume that
> someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned something
> worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually
> go places. Whether that alone makes them competent at teaching is
> another thing entirely.
>
>
>> All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the
>> minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about
>
> You can pretty much generalize that to any area of teaching.
>
>
>> The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us
>> as long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system
>> that requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger
>> and better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made
>> about this. Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a
>> specific CFI as being on the negative side of the quality equation!
>> This is important to
>
> Absolutely. I've met more conscientious and less conscientious
> instructors, but I've generally been lucky with the ones I've had.
> You don't need kilo-hours and kilo-mile trips to be a good instructor
> for primary training (to pick a random example). And a good primary
> instructor doesn't need to be a good instrument instructor.
>
>
> Morris
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message news:<jY9kd.386904$D%.80590@attbi_s51>...
> How does owning your own airplane
> make you a better instructor? I own my own airplane, have "another job",
> fly a lot of actual, and he is STILL a better instructor than I.

I think "better" may be a relative term. A CFI that only does training
will be very good at getting you through the checkride. However, when
you ask real questions, like how to you manage ice you will be met
with a blank face. As an example, any CFI who says the solution to ice
in a non-ice approved plane is to stay out of the ice has never really
flown IFR outside of the training env. In actual flying (long cross
countries, flying IFR because you need to) you will end up getting ice
when its not forcast and not suppose to be there. Having the practical
background on how to come up with alternates and what type of ice to
expect in what real-world situations, how different types of ice can
be escaped, is where a good CFI gives benefit. Getting out of clear
ice can be different than getting out of rime simply because of the
environment they form in. Any CFI can read the FAA pubs and spew back
what the pubs say.
Owning a plane and flying it all over the place is one way to get this
experience. Flying 135 could be another.
Having said all this, none of this makes someone good at teaching.
Teaching is mostly an art, you either have it or not. The best CFIs
combine a natural ability to teach with real world experience of
flying.

-Robert, CFI

[Michael]

Journeyman > wrote \
> > Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
> > instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't
> > even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group are
> > smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.
>
> I didn't make the statement

Nor did I, nor would I try to defend it. It's indefensible. In fact,
it's a perfect example of a straw man argument - change what someone
actually said to what you know you can argue with, then argue with it.
Knock down the straw man. It's used a lot because it works - all too
often, people won't take the time to notice that it's happened. It's
essentially a cheap rhetorical trick, and reflects poorly on anyone
who uses it.

What I actually said:

Becoming a CFI involves
a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
owner doesn't already have.

Note that I never said that "becoming a good CFI" or even "becoming a
competent CFI." Quite the opposite. And I stand by what I said -
meeting the FAA requirements to become a CFI will not require the
average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot owner to acquire any
new skills or knowledge.

That's mostly a commentary on the sad state of affairs in instructor
certification, and a suggestion that more owners should try their hand
at instructing since the bar is set so low anyway, they can hardly do
worse than the average timebuilder and might do better.

> It's safe to assume that
> someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned something
> worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually
> go places.

Right. This at least assures the owner-turned-CFI has SOMETHING of
value to teach. It may not be much, but it's still better than what
the average timebuilder can offer.

Michael

[Michael]

Journeyman > wrote
> > First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane
> > that makes one better or not better qualified as an
> > instructor....absolutely nothing.
>
> There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't
> learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS,
> but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond hectobuck-
> burger range. This is objective truth.
>
> If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing.
> As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As
> graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have
> the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance
> their careers.

This is part of it. An important part, don't get me wrong, and I
didn't snip it so it could stand as refutation to the nonsense above
it. But there is more.

As a rule, owners get involved in the maintenance of their aircraft.
There are exceptions, but not many. Even those who don't actually do
the work themselves don't generally hand over checkbook and keys -
they want to know what is being done, why it is being done, and how it
is being done. Once you become involved in the maintenance of the
aircraft, you begin to understand a lot more about how it is put
together, how the sytems work - and thus what the failure modes and
their early warning signs are.

An instructor who just flies can teach you to handle a total engine
failure emergency. If the main seal dumps all the oil or a jug
grenades itself, that's all that counts - but most problems are not so
cut and dried. An instructor who has taken care of engines for a
while can tell you a lot about when it's practical to nurse an ailing
engine along, and what can be expected from it. That can be very
important when you're over a field that is rough but probably
survivable, and an airport is a few miles away over probably
unsurvivable forest. Lest we forget, there was the guy who nursed the
Cub home on the primer.

In Russia, there is a proverb about 'the exception that proves the
rule.' There is in fact a small handful of renter (more commonly,
club member) pilots who, never having owned an aircraft, nevertheless
have been involved in the maintenance, done long trips, and in general
learned the things an owner learns. Sometimes it comes from being in
a really good club, sometimes by growing up in a family where aircraft
are owned and flown, sometimes by simply having been at the right
place at the right time and having the opportunity to fly and maintain
aircraft owned by friends. But those exceptions are just that -
exceptional.

In choosing an instructor, one generally has a huge number of
candidates - most of whom aren't worth much. Practically speaking,
one can only effectively interview a small handful. Further, there is
a question as to how effective the interview really is - after all,
you're hiring the instructor specifically to teach you that which you
do not know. For that reason, it is very important to have useful
ways to cut the candidate pool. Call those ways filters,
generalizations, or what you will - they are a way of elimintaing a
significant fraction of the candidates while eliminating a
significantly smaller fraction of the GOOD candidates. No filter is
ever perfect, no generalization ever 100% true. Even the best filter
will take out a really good instructor along with that large number of
bad ones. However, without filters, if you individually interview
every possible flight instructor, your odds of finding a good one
before you give up, start doubting your evaluation, and take what you
can get are exceedingly small because the good instructors are a
distinct minority.

Every time anyone proposes a set of generalizations, someone pipes up
to say "well I know this guy who is a great instructor and he doesn't
fit this generalizaiton." I don't doubt it. Generalizations are of
little use when evaluating a specific instructor you know because you
already know him - but if you don't have the time get to know him,
they're the best you have.

Think of the process of selecting a flight instructor as analogous to
the process of hiring an employee (because to a large extent that's
what you are doing). It is exceedingly common for a set of
qualifications to be written for a given position - and then to have
someone hired from inside, or based on acquaintance, who lacks one (or
more) of those qualifications. Does that mean that the set of
qualifications was wrong? No, of course not. It means that MOST of
the candidates who can do the job well will have those qualifications,
and nobody has the time to interview every possible applicant, nor is
an interview necessarily a good test. However, when you're dealing
with a known quantity, it's not that important. You already know he
can do the job.

Michael

[Michael]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote
> Except for weather

Yes, except for weather. But you know, except for weather, effective
and complete pilot training could be done in about 40 hours. Except
for weather, there would never be a need to get an instrument rating.
Except for weather, all trips could be planned in detail before
leaving. Except for weather, you could plan your flight and fly your
plan with complete confidence.

Are there other factors?

Terrain? Would not be a factor except for winds and temperature
(weather).
Traffic congestion? Could be planned for perfectly, if weather was
fully predictable.

In reality, weather is probably the biggest issue in light airplane
flying.

The longer the trip, the lower the probability of completing it
without encountering questionable weather. You can wait out the
weather on a 200 mile trip; on a 2000 mile trip you're going to have
to fly in it. That requires a higher level of skill and (if you're
dealing with any sort of time constraint) judgment. Of course there
are always exceptions - you can fly a Champ around the country,
landing in every state, and never fly in any questionable weather. In
fact, you can do the flight entirely in sunshine. It will take
months.

Weather is different in different parts of the country, but the basic
principles of mechanics and thermodynamics that underlie it are the
same everywhere. If you always fly in the same area, you learn the
specifics of that one area, and you can do that without a solid
understanding of the mechanism. You can learn by rote - red sky in
morning, sailor take warning. If you cross weather systems, you have
to learn weather at a deeper, more fundamental level - or get stuck a
lot.

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with your other points
either. ATC is not the same everywhere. You can fly on the Gulf
Coast for years without getting a reroute in the air. On the East
Coast, I've never managed an IFR flight of more than 200 miles without
a reroute. That may well reflect my limited understanding of the
system - perhaps other people can do better - but that's only further
proof that making more long trips makes a difference.

Then there are the factors that you supposedly know about. We all
learn about density altitude and doing full-power runups, but it's a
very different experience when you take off and your rate of climb is
200 fpm. Especially when there is thermal activity. You can read
about it in a book, but it's not the same as actually being there. If
it were, experience would not count.

On a long trip, you go places that not only have you never visited,
but nobody you know has actually visited. You have to learn to handle
surprises - like that beacon that got moved half a mile, to the other
side of the runway, that all the locals know about, but which is still
depicted in the old location on the approach plate. Makes shooting an
NDB approach to mins at night a real treat.

Long trips are concentrated experience. There really is more to it
than a series of short local trips. I find it amazing that someone
who has actually done a lot of long trips would not see that.

Michael

[Journeyman]

In article >, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I am an instructor, and I have flown long trips for personal business.
> But I fail to see how those long trips are an essential experience for
> instructing. It makes a good hangar story, and it may impress an
> uninformed student. In my opinion, critical examination of the issues
> (like the discussions taking place in this NG) to be far more valuable
> for the experience and knowledge of an instructor. However, you have a
> valid point about things that are not in the PTS. This is particularly
> true for the IFR environment. There are many unwritten rules of IFR that
> you only learn by flying in the system. But it is not difficult to
> incorporate those elements into the standard IFR training. You don't
> have to embark on a 1000NM trip. ATC works the same way whether it is
> Cleveland Center or Albuquerque Center. Tracon works the same way
> everywhere. FSS works the same way. FAR's are the same. Except for
> weather and regional accents, what else is so different that is critical
> to the experience of an IFR pilot? Please explain.


Leaving out weather? Weather's the biggest part of it. I was
sitting in the FBO at South Bend, IN this summer looking at the
radar, watching a line of thunderstorms develop outside my
destination at Iowa City, IA (Hi, Jay). Looked to me like I could
go South around it and then come back North. I asked a local pilot
who was sitting around updating his Jepp plates. He says, look at
the way it's curling, it's probably going to continue forming along
this curve. Why don't you go to Peoria and get an update there.

Did that. Landed short of the storms, with options to call it a
day or wait it out before continuing on. Looked at the radar.
It formed exactly the way he said it would.

Experiencing the different weather patterns gives you a chance to
improve your decision making. Do you rush to beat the weather?
Wait it out to see how things develop? Divert North? Divert South?
Backtrack? Fly over the highway, or across the mountains? Climb
above the clouds or run the scud? Fly direct or along the airways?


Aside from weather, there are other things you learn going beyond
hectobuck-burger range. Knowing to keep a roll of quarters in case
lunch is whatever you can get out of the vending machine; knowing to
keep enough cash on hand so you can pay the friendly mechanic who
saves your butt when the alternator fries itself. Knowing that an
unbusy midwest controller might forget about you and knowing what to
do when you've gone out of radio range. Knowing that this particular
IFR route takes you mostly over a highway but that one takes you over
hostile terrain, but the weather is better. Knowing when to land at
a smaller airport and when to land at a larger one. Knowing when to
call it a day and when to push it.

Besides, ATC is different around the country. Around here, they're
busy so you have to be crisp with your radio work, and don't even
hope for a pop-up clearance. Around the Midwest, they may be so
bored they forget to hand you off. In the Pacific Northwest during
icing season you have to know you can request "shuttle vectors" to
climb over the low terrain before proceeding on course over hostile
terrain.

I had my first inflight rerouting flying from ORF to HPN when I
bought the plane. I filed a route that took me over JFK. I was
cleared as filed. About halfway there, the controller gives a
bunch of fixes and airways that take me in a neat arc around
The City. Okay, you do your diversion exercise for the private,
but by the time you do it, you already know the area you're
flying in. It's just _different_ when you have to do it IRL.


Talking about these things is never going to be the same as
experiencing them. But talking with someone who has experienced
it is more valuable than talking with someone who only has book
knowledge.


Morris

[Dudley Henriques]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Journeyman > wrote \
>> > Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
>> > instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I
>> > won't
>> > even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group
>> > are
>> > smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.
>>
>> I didn't make the statement
>
> Nor did I, nor would I try to defend it. It's indefensible. In fact,
> it's a perfect example of a straw man argument - change what someone
> actually said to what you know you can argue with, then argue with it.
> Knock down the straw man. It's used a lot because it works - all too
> often, people won't take the time to notice that it's happened. It's
> essentially a cheap rhetorical trick, and reflects poorly on anyone
> who uses it.

I made the statement, not journeyman..... and I see no straw man
argument here. The general context of your statements was what I was
addressing, NOT your use or lack of use of the words "good" or
"competent" .

Your entire context in commenting on the CFI issue is that it's easy to
become a CFI, and that it takes no special skills, other than what can
be found in any 1000 hour pilot, which as I said, is ridiculous. There
most certainly are special skills required, or no FAA test would be
necessary for that 1000 hour pilot you're talking about.
Although you can restrict your comment to mean only the obtaining of the
rating as that pertains to passing the FAA tests as the source opinion
for your comment, I would submit that from your posts on this issue
here, and from your posts in the past that generally address your
"opinions" about instructors in general, it is quite reasonable to say
that you believe CFI's generally are of inferior quality and that you
would attribute this inferior quality at least in part to the average
CFI not owning an airplane, or partaking in long trips, which is again
ridiculous.
The qualities you would attribute to making a better instructor are not
in my opinion of prime importance to this issue, and show a certain
lacking of understanding on your part of exactly what qualities ARE
necessary in a CFI.
My comments about "good" or "competent" CFI's are just an expansion on
my own opinions on this issue, and should be in no way shape or form
misconstrued by you to be a misuse or twisting of your comments in a
straw man scenario.
Sorry, but I'm simply disagreeing with your opinions on flight
instruction as usual.
In the interest of clarity, I'm perfectly willing to deal with your
comments verbatim if you wish in the future and I'll make my expansion
comment more clear for you in the future to eliminate any
misunderstanding. :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash

>
> What I actually said:
>
> Becoming a CFI involves
> a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
> or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
> or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
> owner doesn't already have.
>
> Note that I never said that "becoming a good CFI" or even "becoming a
> competent CFI." Quite the opposite. And I stand by what I said -
> meeting the FAA requirements to become a CFI will not require the
> average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot owner to acquire any
> new skills or knowledge.
>
> That's mostly a commentary on the sad state of affairs in instructor
> certification, and a suggestion that more owners should try their hand
> at instructing since the bar is set so low anyway, they can hardly do
> worse than the average timebuilder and might do better.
>
>> It's safe to assume that
>> someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned
>> something
>> worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually
>> go places.
>
> Right. This at least assures the owner-turned-CFI has SOMETHING of
> value to teach. It may not be much, but it's still better than what
> the average timebuilder can offer.
>
> Michael

[Andrew Sarangan]

I agree with you about having to face weather changes on a long xc
flight. But the orginal poster implied that there were many factors that
were different about long trips. That is what I was questioning. Also,
just because someone flies short trips does not mean that person always
flies in good weather. You don't have to go on a long trip to see how
weather changes. If you wait long enough, that same weather system will
move towards you. You can trade time for space. I know what you are
thinking - the pressure to continue in deteriorating weather is greater
when you are on a trip. I agree with that. But that is a judgement
issue. You don't have to send someone on a 2000NM trip to learn a
judgement skill that they could learn at home. Weather is meant to be
learned at home, not in the air. You don't have to fly into a
thunderstorm or icing to know that it is not a good idea.

OK, so what's the big deal about reroutes? We get them here quite often.
As a matter of fact, just got one today on a training flight. We get a
reroute even during a 150NM trip. If a student does not know how to
handle reroutes, that is a weakness in his training. I agree that you
are more likely to encounter a reroute on a long trip. But you can do
the same on a short trip. Just file an impossible route. If you are
lucky, you will get a reroute before departure. If you are not lucky,
you will get rerouted in the air. There are also strategies that one can
use to avoid reroutes, even in unfamiliar areas. That is a different
subject matter that I will be happy to discuss. You don't have to go on
a super-long trip to experience reroutes.

Regarding density altitude that I 'supposedly know about' (please, you
don't know what I supposedly know), I have lived in the Rockies, and
have given mountain flight training, and I have taught IFR in the
mountains. I know very well what density altitude does. I really doubt
that a transient pilot on a long cross country will learn enough about
density altitude effects to make him experienced. Most transient pilots
do not go into airports that really require intimate knowledge of
density altitudes. Most runways are long enough for this to be a non-
issue. Have you flown into Leadville? It is the highest airport in the
US, but it is really not a big deal due to the long runway there. Then
try Glenwood Springs. That is serious. Most transient pilots don't go
there. They land at places like Santa Fe and Colorado Springs, where
they can get away with little knowledge of density altitude. The
textbook knowledge is enough to survive there. I don't see what is so
profound about landing at those places. Living in the mountains and
flying there is what gets you the experience. But that involves short
trips, not long trips. That is ironic. Most of the pilots who get killed
in Colorado are from other states. Most airplanes laying at the bottom
of Independence Pass are from out of state.

I'll show my ignorance here, but if an NDB has moved by half a mile,
would there not be a NOTAM amending the approach chart?

I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I realize the value of
long trips. I have done many myself. I just don't see what is so
profound that makes them so important for IFR experience. If you are
encountering new stuff on a long trip that you have never encountered
before, then you missed out some things in your training. But I do agree
with you that the PTS leaves a student far short of real IFR knowledge.
The CFI-mills that produce instructors that barely satisfy the PTS is
where the problem lies. I think we agree on that. Where we disagree is
that a pilot who has made many long trips is necessarily any skillful
than someone who has received a _well-rounded_ training in a local
environment.





(Michael) wrote in
om:

> Andrew Sarangan > wrote
>> Except for weather
>
> Yes, except for weather. But you know, except for weather, effective
> and complete pilot training could be done in about 40 hours. Except
> for weather, there would never be a need to get an instrument rating.
> Except for weather, all trips could be planned in detail before
> leaving. Except for weather, you could plan your flight and fly your
> plan with complete confidence.
>
> Are there other factors?
>
> Terrain? Would not be a factor except for winds and temperature
> (weather).
> Traffic congestion? Could be planned for perfectly, if weather was
> fully predictable.
>
> In reality, weather is probably the biggest issue in light airplane
> flying.
>
> The longer the trip, the lower the probability of completing it
> without encountering questionable weather. You can wait out the
> weather on a 200 mile trip; on a 2000 mile trip you're going to have
> to fly in it. That requires a higher level of skill and (if you're
> dealing with any sort of time constraint) judgment. Of course there
> are always exceptions - you can fly a Champ around the country,
> landing in every state, and never fly in any questionable weather. In
> fact, you can do the flight entirely in sunshine. It will take
> months.
>
> Weather is different in different parts of the country, but the basic
> principles of mechanics and thermodynamics that underlie it are the
> same everywhere. If you always fly in the same area, you learn the
> specifics of that one area, and you can do that without a solid
> understanding of the mechanism. You can learn by rote - red sky in
> morning, sailor take warning. If you cross weather systems, you have
> to learn weather at a deeper, more fundamental level - or get stuck a
> lot.
>
> Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with your other points
> either. ATC is not the same everywhere. You can fly on the Gulf
> Coast for years without getting a reroute in the air. On the East
> Coast, I've never managed an IFR flight of more than 200 miles without
> a reroute. That may well reflect my limited understanding of the
> system - perhaps other people can do better - but that's only further
> proof that making more long trips makes a difference.
>
> Then there are the factors that you supposedly know about. We all
> learn about density altitude and doing full-power runups, but it's a
> very different experience when you take off and your rate of climb is
> 200 fpm. Especially when there is thermal activity. You can read
> about it in a book, but it's not the same as actually being there. If
> it were, experience would not count.
>
> On a long trip, you go places that not only have you never visited,
> but nobody you know has actually visited. You have to learn to handle
> surprises - like that beacon that got moved half a mile, to the other
> side of the runway, that all the locals know about, but which is still
> depicted in the old location on the approach plate. Makes shooting an
> NDB approach to mins at night a real treat.
>
> Long trips are concentrated experience. There really is more to it
> than a series of short local trips. I find it amazing that someone
> who has actually done a lot of long trips would not see that.
>
> Michael

[Peter MacPherson]

> Owning a plane and flying it all over the place is one way to get this
> experience. Flying 135 could be another.

Agreed, but instructors can also fly "all over the place" with their
students. Like someone else said, the x-c's don't have to be 1000 miles
to get good wx experience. A lot of part 135 pilots don't tend to
fly very far. As another example, Cape Air which flies from Boston
to the Islands(Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard) and other short hops,
probably have some of the best wx pilots around. They fly through
all New England wx....fog, ice, etc.. and they probably never fly
more than 150 miles. So if these pilots are able to get this experience
(difference in equipment noted) why do instructors need to be going
"all over the place" to give their students some great wx experience?

> Having said all this, none of this makes someone good at teaching.
> Teaching is mostly an art, you either have it or not. The best CFIs
> combine a natural ability to teach with real world experience of
> flying.

I don't agree that with teaching you either have it or not. I think
if you have the aptitude, over time you become a better teacher every
day you teach. I doubt that the best teachers you know were that good
on their first day because "they had it".


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:<jY9kd.386904$D%.80590@attbi_s51>...
>> How does owning your own airplane
>> make you a better instructor? I own my own airplane, have "another job",
>> fly a lot of actual, and he is STILL a better instructor than I.
>
> I think "better" may be a relative term. A CFI that only does training
> will be very good at getting you through the checkride. However, when
> you ask real questions, like how to you manage ice you will be met
> with a blank face. As an example, any CFI who says the solution to ice
> in a non-ice approved plane is to stay out of the ice has never really
> flown IFR outside of the training env. In actual flying (long cross
> countries, flying IFR because you need to) you will end up getting ice
> when its not forcast and not suppose to be there. Having the practical
> background on how to come up with alternates and what type of ice to
> expect in what real-world situations, how different types of ice can
> be escaped, is where a good CFI gives benefit. Getting out of clear
> ice can be different than getting out of rime simply because of the
> environment they form in. Any CFI can read the FAA pubs and spew back
> what the pubs say.
> Owning a plane and flying it all over the place is one way to get this
> experience. Flying 135 could be another.
> Having said all this, none of this makes someone good at teaching.
> Teaching is mostly an art, you either have it or not. The best CFIs
> combine a natural ability to teach with real world experience of
> flying.
>
> -Robert, CFI

[Michael]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote
> I agree with you about having to face weather changes on a long xc
> flight. But the orginal poster implied that there were many factors that
> were different about long trips.

And I think most of them relate to weather in the end.

> I know what you are
> thinking - the pressure to continue in deteriorating weather is greater
> when you are on a trip. I agree with that. But that is a judgement
> issue. You don't have to send someone on a 2000NM trip to learn a
> judgement skill that they could learn at home.

Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
the training environment, because nothing is at stake. Tomorrow is as
good as today, West is as good as North. When you actually need to be
somewhere specific at a specific time, then judgment comes into play.

However, on a short trip it's relatively simple - planning around the
weather is not generally possible (or at least not worth it - who will
take a 300 mile detour on a 100 mile trip?). On a long trip, a 300
mile detour may not add all that much. The decision matrix becomes
far more complex.

> Weather is meant to be
> learned at home, not in the air. You don't have to fly into a
> thunderstorm or icing to know that it is not a good idea.

Well, you really do have to fly in icing to know what is acceptable.
Otherwise, your only option is to stay out of cloud every time the
temperatures are below freezing - making the instrument rating useless
in half the country for half the year. I will be the first to admit
that this is where my IFR skills are weakest - not much icing on the
Gulf Coast.

And you really do have to fly near (not in) thunderstorms to figure
out what is acceptable. Otherwise your only option is to maintain the
20 (or is it 30 now?) nm from each cell that the AIM calls for, and
that means you won't be doing much flying here on the Gulf Coast.

There is a limit to what you can teach on the ground - eventually you
have to fly. Experience matters.

> OK, so what's the big deal about reroutes? We get them here quite often.

And we don't get them here much at all. And yes, you CAN train for it
here - but not the way you suggest. Forget filing an impossible route
- around here, there's no such thing. You will have to play ATC for
the student. Now, once the weather gets really ugly you will get
reroutes - but we just don't have that much of it. I've been flying
IFR for 4 years, I've been instructing, and I've made it a point to
get all the actual IMC that I can - and I still have not broken 100
hours. I make every effort to get my students actual IMC, and 3-5
hours is all I can manage. That means that if I want to really
prepare them for what happens when they leave the nest, I have to get
good at simulating. You need to see it a few times before you
simulate it.

> Regarding density altitude that I 'supposedly know about' (please, you
> don't know what I supposedly know), I have lived in the Rockies, and
> have given mountain flight training, and I have taught IFR in the
> mountains. I know very well what density altitude does. I really doubt
> that a transient pilot on a long cross country will learn enough about
> density altitude effects to make him experienced.

He will learn a whole lot more than if he never goes. Sure, you know
about density altitude - because you live with it. If you don't get
intimate with it, it will severely limit the utility of your flying.
Same for me and thunderstorms. Same for ice and the guys in the Great
Lakes Ice Machine. My point is not that you can get it all in one
trip, but that you will learn a whole lot more if you go than if you
don't.

> Most transient pilots
> do not go into airports that really require intimate knowledge of
> density altitudes. Most runways are long enough for this to be a non-
> issue. Have you flown into Leadville? It is the highest airport in the
> US, but it is really not a big deal due to the long runway there. Then
> try Glenwood Springs. That is serious. Most transient pilots don't go
> there. They land at places like Santa Fe and Colorado Springs, where
> they can get away with little knowledge of density altitude. The
> textbook knowledge is enough to survive there.

The part you're missing though, is that while the textbook knowledge
is enough to survive, it's not enough to really be comfortable. You
don't start with the tough fields. All I can tell you is that I could
compute density altitude and takeoff and climb performance with the
best of them when I first took off out of West Texas, but the
experience of the first five minutes of that flight was a real
eye-opener. The textbook knowledge was enough for me to survive - and
accumulate additional knowledge.

> I'll show my ignorance here, but if an NDB has moved by half a mile,
> would there not be a NOTAM amending the approach chart?

It wasn't the NDB, it was the airport rotating beacon. And no, the
change was NOT recorded anywhere, though the locals all knew about it.
What made the process fascinating was breaking out, finding the
beacon, and then looking for the runway - in the wrong place. The
beacon had been moved to the opposite side of the runway. On a clear
day, not an issue. At night in limited vis - well, I almost went
missed due to not finding the runway.

> I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I realize the value of
> long trips. I have done many myself. I just don't see what is so
> profound that makes them so important for IFR experience.

I guess I'm missing something. If you realize their value, then why
are you arguing against their value?

> If you are
> encountering new stuff on a long trip that you have never encountered
> before, then you missed out some things in your training.

Absolutely. The problem is, there is so much to learn, EVERYONE
misses out on some things in training. My goal in training a student,
expecially an IFR student (and I admit that IFR training is most of
the instruction I do - call it playing to your strengths) is to give
him better training than what I had, and fewer surprises down the
road. I suppose if I ever get to the point where I know ALL there is
to know and good enough to get it all across, then I will train a
student who doesn't need to go on any long trips to learn anything.
But I'm not hopeful.

> But I do agree
> with you that the PTS leaves a student far short of real IFR knowledge.
> The CFI-mills that produce instructors that barely satisfy the PTS is
> where the problem lies. I think we agree on that. Where we disagree is
> that a pilot who has made many long trips is necessarily any skillful
> than someone who has received a _well-rounded_ training in a local
> environment.

I suppose that could be true in theory. I just think in this case the
difference between theory and practice is a lot greater in practice
than it is in theory.

But you're right - I'm starting from a somewhat different assumption.
I know that most people DON'T get solid, well rounded training in the
local environment. Those who make long trips on a regular basis get
the holes filled in. However, as you pointed out with your remark
about the airplanes at the bottom of the canyon from out of state,
that's if they survive. It's possible that someone who has never made
a long trip still has the depth and breadth of knowledge to instruct
because HIS initial training was solid - but given the quality of
training that is generally available out there, it's not the way to
bet.

And even if that is the case, there is still a difference between
knowing about it and having done it. There are IFR pilots out there
who have significantly less intrument experience than I do who
nonetheless are much more able to handle IFR in potential icing
conditions - because MOST of their IFR time is in icing conditions,
while you can count my experiences with icing conditions on the
fingers of one hand. On paper, though, we know all the same things.

Finally, there is a difference in depth of knowledge required to teach
a thing or just do it. I've done aerobatics. I can do it. I won't
teach it, because I haven't done it enough.

Michael

[John Galban]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
<snip>
> As a rule, owners get involved in the maintenance of their aircraft.
> There are exceptions, but not many. Even those who don't actually do
> the work themselves don't generally hand over checkbook and keys -
> they want to know what is being done, why it is being done, and how it
> is being done. Once you become involved in the maintenance of the
> aircraft, you begin to understand a lot more about how it is put
> together, how the sytems work - and thus what the failure modes and
> their early warning signs are.

I have to agree that someone who owns and uses an airplane to travel
long distances can add substantial value to the training experience
that a timebuilding, lower hour instructor can't. If the goal of the
student is to pass a particular exam or to rent and fly locally, then
it really doesn't make a difference. For the student who is planning
on owning and travelling extensively in the plane, it certainly can.

I usually fly with instructors that have fairly fresh certificates
and the majority of their hours in the training environment. For the
most part, they have been excellent on things pertaining to a PTS or
local conditions, but their experience lacked the variety that comes
from going places and paying maintence bills. Knowledge of the proper
care and feeding of the airplane systems was usually lacking as well.

A few examples : One instructor showed me how to get a few more
knots out of the rental by leaning aggresively at low altitude and
high power. That instructor has probably not had to pay for exhaust
valve work before. Another showed me how to "test" the nose gear
strut on a 152 by pushing up on the spinner and then letting the nose
settle. He's probably not had to purchase a spinner backplate (which
I had to do when I became an owner and tried this on my own plane).
One gal refused to let me switch mags in flight in an attempt to
isolate a slight roughness (what if it dies and doesn't come back!).
During a BFR I experienced carb ice (not very common in Arizona). The
CFI had not noticed it and became quite alarmed at the engine
roughness after the heat was first turned on. He wanted me to turn the
heat back off to stop the roughness. After the flight, he told me
that although he'd read about carb ice, but wasn't really prepared for
feeling of the real thing in flight.

Several of my instructors had not flown in to a primary class B
airport (Why would you want to do that?), even though there is one
right next door. Most had not landed on anything other than pavement.
Someone who has spent one or two thousand hours using an airplane to
go places has probably seen all of this stuff before and can
(hopefully) pass some of that experience on. The timebuilding
instructor whose experience is largely local and short XC training
flights will have had limited exposure to varying conditions.

To be clear, I'm not saying that a multi thousand hour private pilot
and airplane owner automatically makes a good instructor. I am saying
that owning and travelling will have exposed this hypothetical
prospective instructor to a lot more situations that can be found in
the typical training environment. If the person really is good
instructor material, he/she will be able to pass on some of that
knowledge.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[PJ Hunt]

Hey CJ, is 'verticalreference' yours or am I mistaken?

PJ

[C J Campbell]

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
> Hey CJ, is 'verticalreference' yours or am I mistaken?

What is that?

[C J Campbell]

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
> Hey CJ, is 'verticalreference' yours or am I mistaken?
>

Oh, I see. Are you talking about Ray Madrid's helicopter web site? If so, I
have never flown in a helicopter and never heard of verticalreference before
today. Looks interesting, though.

[Roger]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:46:47 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"doc" > wrote in message
...
>> are awfully hard to find.
>>
>> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
>> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
<snip>
>Bottom line.....in your quest for a GOOD instructor......be
>aware........be advised.......and be alert. Observe the whole picture.
>Then when you're certain you have considered it all, make your decision.
>I'm just passing this on to you because I've seen many a mistake made by
>students going into these things with preconception. Not to say that
>preconception isn't a good idea...it is. But it also has to be tempered
>and flexible to be an effective tool.

In my rather limited experience I think there are a lot of good
instructors out there. Sure, there are some that aren't, but I think
it is as important that the instructor and student personalities are
compatible. It takes a good match of a number of characteristics for
the teaching and learning procedure to proceed at the best possible
pace.

We now have close to 8 or 9 instructors on the field. None are full
time, all have "other jobs", all teach because they want to, and all
have pretty good success ratios. OTOH you can find students that will
swear by any particular instructor and you will find those they sear
at.

We even have one who was recently banned from the field because the
inexperienced person working in the terminal building got scared
watching them do emergency procedures and wrote them up. (long story)
I'd still fly with him any day and I'd be surprised that the lawyers
don't get him back on the field soon. OTOH we have an award winning
instructor with whom I refuse to fly. It's more of a
personality/ethics thing, but that person is known as a good
instructor.

We had a husband and wife team take some mountain flying dual out in
the Rocky Mountains this Summer. They flew with an instructor for not
much over an hour each and each had to switch instructors. He has
quite a few students, but as experienced pilots, his teaching style
was one of those that grated the wrong way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>Best of luck in your quest,
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>for email; take out the trash
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message news:<dBLkd.496080$mD.366210@attbi_s02>...
> > Owning a plane and flying it all over the place is one way to get this
> > experience. Flying 135 could be another.
>
> Agreed, but instructors can also fly "all over the place" with their
> students. Like someone else said, the x-c's don't have to be 1000 miles
> to get good wx experience.

I 100% disagree with that. You just don't run into the situation of
real world cross country weather in the training environment. You
aren't crossing weather fronts very often and you aren't flying long
enough that forcasts get old. You just aren't crossing enough weather
boundries on little 200nm training flights.
Having lived in both environments, I really see a difference between
flying 200nm around your "back yard weather" and flying around the
country experiences other pilots' "back yard weather".


> A lot of part 135 pilots don't tend to
> fly very far. As another example, Cape Air which flies from Boston
> to the Islands(Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard) and other short hops,
> probably have some of the best wx pilots around. They fly through
> all New England wx....fog, ice, etc.. and they probably never fly
> more than 150 miles. So if these pilots are able to get this experience
> (difference in equipment noted) why do instructors need to be going
> "all over the place" to give their students some great wx experience?

They fly in pretty predictable weather. They know when and where the
ice will come. If they were flying some longer cross countries they
would experience a different type of weather that they would be less
equipt to predict.

> I don't agree that with teaching you either have it or not. I think
> if you have the aptitude, over time you become a better teacher every
> day you teach. I doubt that the best teachers you know were that good
> on their first day because "they had it".

That may be true but I've never actually seen it work that way. Some
people have the patients and personality to teach adults and some
people don't. I've never seen a poor teacher because a good teacher.
I've seen a poor teacher become on okay teacher.

-robert

[Les Ward]

I just recently talked to a CFI about doing a BFR and during the
conversation he stated that his " job " would be to stress me out.
You know cross wind landings etc. Here where I live CFI,s are rather
limited. I sure didn,t think that was the way to begin a
student/Instructor relationship!!!
Aloha, Les Ward

doc wrote:
> are awfully hard to find.
>
> I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little
> flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal.
>
> There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is
> tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good
> teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of
> hours in a cockpit with him/her.
>
> Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution.

[Hankal]

>I just recently talked to a CFI about doing a BFR and during the
>conversation he stated that his " job " would be to stress me out.

I would politely shake his hand and tell him that he is not the kind of
instructor that you prefer for any kind of instructions or BFR.
To me he sounds like he should take some training in being an instructior.
Hank 172 driver

[Michael]

(John Galban) wrote
> To be clear, I'm not saying that a multi thousand hour private pilot
> and airplane owner automatically makes a good instructor.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that. There's more to being
able to teach the material than knowing the material. It's just that
if you don't know the material, it doesn't matter how good a teacher
you are, you still can't teach it.

Michael

[Gene Whitt]

Y'All,
One thing I do about instruction for as certain as I can be about anything
is...

A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.

[Journeyman]

In article t>, Gene Whitt wrote:
> Y'All,
> One thing I do about instruction for as certain as I can be about anything
> is...
>
> A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.

You can't teach what you don't know. Paradoxically, you never learn
a subject as well as when you try to teach it to someone else.


Morris

[Gene Whitt]

Y'All,
My students have taught me far more than all I have learned through
other means. Perhaps that's why the pay scale is backasswards.

Gene Whitt

[Roger]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:04:53 -0600, Journeyman
> wrote:

>
>In article t>, Gene Whitt wrote:
>> Y'All,
>> One thing I do about instruction for as certain as I can be about anything
>> is...
>>
>> A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.
>
>You can't teach what you don't know. Paradoxically, you never learn
>a subject as well as when you try to teach it to someone else.
>
>

The best way to learn is to teach

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Morris

[Michael]

Journeyman > wrote
> > A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.
>
> You can't teach what you don't know. Paradoxically, you never learn
> a subject as well as when you try to teach it to someone else.

Actually, both statements are true - and there is no paradox.

Yes, it is crucially important for an instrutor to know what he can't
teach. Those are the edges of his instruction envelope. They're not
the edges of his flight envelope. You can't teach effectively when
you're pushing your own limits. The corollary is that you can't teach
something you've never done, and neither can you teach something
you've only done once or twice. You need depth of experience.

But just because you know how to do something doesn't mean you know
all the ways it can go wrong, nor all the ways it can be done. Nobody
does. That's where the part about learning it best when you teach it
comes in.

Once upon a time, I was teaching a student to thermal a glider. Now
I've spent many hours thermalling a variety of gliders, and have
reached some minimum standard - I was good enough to have gone off on
XC and reached my destination. In the UK (and pretty much the rest of
the world), that would have been a minimum standard for holding a
glider instructor rating, but in the US we don't consider that
necessary. I was also reasonably proficient with spins - meaning I
had done quite a few, in a variety of aircraft and with various
entries, and could comfortably spin to headings and recover with
minimum altitude loss. Thus I felt myself qualified to teach both
thermalling and spin recovery. What I did not expect was that I would
be doing both that day.

I was in the back seat of a Blanik L-23 training glider - in fact, the
same make and model in which I did spins to headings and got my CFI
spin endorsement. The L-23 is best described as a spin-resistant
glider. With me in the back seat and a very lightweight instructor in
the front, we were almost at the aft limit of cg. Despite this,
getting a consistent spin entry required the nose be raised about 15
degrees above the horizon, and full pro-spin rudder applied as the
stick hit the aft stop and the nose began to drop. Simply bleeding
off the airspeed, even fully cross-controlled, resulted only in a
mushy, sloppy turn. If you wanted a spin entry, you had to work for
it. Full pro-spin controls had to be maintained for the entire
maneuver, and relaxed about 10 degrees ahead of the recovery. The
glider would recover itself as soon as pro-spin rudder was released
and back pressure relaxed. The most challenging part of the maneuver
was timing the re-application of back pressure to minimize speed gain
and altitude loss in the recovery.

I knew all abuot inadvertent spins. I knew people HAD spun out of
thermals. I knew that there had been stall-spin accidents in the L-23
- in fact there had been a stall-spin fatality in an L-23 at the club
where I learned to fly gliders. I knew this meant that with a
ham-handed student (one who had not yet developed the finesse
necessary to thermal well) one ought not to do thermal training at an
altitude lower than necessary for recovery and subsequent pattern
entry, and I abided by the recommendation.

And yet, that day, I learned something - I learned what a REAL
inadvertent spin entry looks like, and how it fools people. There I
was, in the back of the L-23, with a rather heavy student in front.
We were nowhere near the aft cg limit. There was somewhat decent lift
to work, and he was working it somewhat decently. It was Reichmann
(author of Streckensegelflug, the seminal work on soaring - I sure
hope I spelled that right) who said that in smooth air, one should fly
smoothly - and in rough air one should fly roughly. Well, the air was
rough and my student was flying roughly. He was also improving, and
so I cheerfully sat in the back, coaching him occasionally, but
knowing that this was a skill only time in the seat would develop.

He really didn't do anything all that terribly wrong. He applied too
much rudder into the turn - but not a ridiculous amount. He applied
too much backpressure as we entered a stronger area of lift - but some
backpressure was called for. He leveled the wings a bit, applying
aileron to the outside of the turn - but a shallower bank was
appropriate in the stronger lift. And then exactly the wrong gust hit
at exactly the wrong time, and I found myself staring down at the golf
course next to the airport as it began to turn.

As I sat in the back of the glider, I wasn't actually worried or
scared. I had done some aerobatics, so being in this kind of attitude
was no big thing to me. We had plenty of altitude - 2000 ft or so -
and so being able to effect a safe recovery was never in doubt. In
fact, we had altitude to spare, and so I was going to let the student
take a shot at it first. "We're in a spin - recover" I said from the
back. But what I was thinking was "How did you manage to do something
I had to work at without even trying?" My student released the
backpressure, the glider immediately recovered from the spin, and I
talked the student through a reasonable pattern and landing.

I'm not sure how to describe what I learned - but I feel like I
understand inadvertent spin entries a lot better having seen that.
Before, I never quite understood how a spin can just sneak up on you -
and now I've seen it and know what it looks like.

Michael

[jls]

I had a bunch, all good, some better than others, a few barely passable but
OK.

The best ones were bush pilots, the worst the kind looking to build hours
for a job with the airlines.

I just learned something from another one who showed me how to line up with
a crossroads and count full turns in a spin and figure out how many spins in
a thousand feet of altitude loss. He's young but a hell of a pilot and a
bit of a swashbuckler. Man, will a Taylorcraft ever wind up and spin!
Over 4 complete rotations in a thousand feet with the nose waaaay down, and
the next time we'll see how many seconds it takes with a stopwatch. Of
course if you spin to the left instead of to the right ...

Dave Cowan, a Canadian bush pilot, and I used to take up a 152 and spin it.
That one was hard to get to spin. A Taylorcraft will stall without warning
and spin in a heartbeat, but you have to really yank the yoke and kick the
rudder to get a 152 to spin.

I wrote an anecdote about a favorite instructor several years ago in
rec.aviation.student. It was fun to write. Do an advanced google search
and plug in, "I'll break your goddamn arm!" That was Marvin Harrison
(another great spinner) from Greenville, SC. Most unforgettable character
and another great pilot.

[Journeyman]

In article >, Michael wrote:
> Journeyman > wrote
>> > A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.
>>
>> You can't teach what you don't know. Paradoxically, you never learn
>> a subject as well as when you try to teach it to someone else.
>
> Actually, both statements are true - and there is no paradox.

Paradox merely refers to the *apparent* inconsistency.


> Yes, it is crucially important for an instrutor to know what he can't
> teach. Those are the edges of his instruction envelope. They're not
> the edges of his flight envelope. You can't teach effectively when
> you're pushing your own limits. The corollary is that you can't teach
> something you've never done, and neither can you teach something
> you've only done once or twice. You need depth of experience.

I promised myself I'd butt out of this thread, but any chance Dudley
would agree with this? Personality conflict aside, I really think
you guys are not as far apart on outlook as he seems to think you
are.


Morris

[Michael]

Journeyman > wrote
> I promised myself I'd butt out of this thread, but any chance Dudley
> would agree with this? Personality conflict aside, I really think
> you guys are not as far apart on outlook as he seems to think you
> are.

Your original decision - to drop it - was the better one - but you
seem unwilling to drop it without explanation so I will provide one.
We are irreconcilably far apart on outlook. While we might
occasionally agree on some specific issues, our fundamental views are
so different that there really isn't any common ground for debate.

At first I couldn't understand why that was. I knew it could not be
age, experience, or military background because I've known, flown
with, and been instructed by quite a few pilots who were highly
experienced, much older, and had military backgrounds. I've even had
the pleasure of instructing one. There was never that feeling of
being so far apart on outlook - in fact, much of my outlook on flying
and instruction was shaped by these pilots. And that's the key word -
pilots. These were people who, often despite medical and financial
challenges, had committed to staying in the sky as long as possible.
It is a commitment I respect and share, and it produces a certain
outlook. Some of them could no longer get a medical - so they flew
gliders and/or ultralights. One could no longer afford to own an
airpane and had to sell his - but he continued to instruct at an FBO,
never drawing his pay - and when enough accumulated to fly for an
hour, he would.

I had always assumed that Dudley Henriques was cut from the same cloth
as those pilots. Like you, I assumed the reason for the disagreements
between us were a matter of misunderstanding or maybe personal issues.
It was not until he made threats of going after me, such as had not
been made since the era of the fish (which I may have misinterpreted -
or may not have - it remains to be seen) that I actually made an
effort to find out who he was - essentially to prepare my defense
against a potential cyberstalker.

Like many here, I post anonymously and have done so ever since the era
of the fish. Those who have been here any amount of time know who I
am - it's easy enough to figure out. Anonymity on the net is fragile
at best, and not difficult to pierce. Thus I found it amusing when
Mr. Henriques made the comments he did about my anonymity - imagine my
amusement when I discovered there was no Dudley Henriques in the
airman database. I won't publicly post his name - I'm sure he has his
reasons for anonymity - but I will tell you the important difference
that makes our outlooks irreconcilably different.

He's not a pilot. He quit flying long ago and the only 'flying' he
has done for a long time - or will ever do again - is on Microsoft
Flight Sim (and its kin). You once mentioned that I made a compelling
argument that safety is not always the most important thing, and that
every time you push the throttle forward you are buying into that.
You might ask him how long it has been since he has done that, and
when the next time will be.

Michael

[Andrew Gideon]

Michael wrote:

> Neither is
> someone who has never owned an airplane.

I'd never considered this variable before. How does it impact the teaching
and what's taught?

- Andrew

[Blanche Cohen]

Journeyman > wrote:
>
>Gene Whitt wrote:
>> Y'All,
>> One thing I do about instruction for as certain as I can be about anything
>> is...
>>
>> A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.
>
>You can't teach what you don't know. Paradoxically, you never learn
>a subject as well as when you try to teach it to someone else.
>
>
>Morris

I've always believed if I don't learn more than my students when I'm
teaching a class, something is wrong! Of course the material I learn
or discover is far outside the level of the material I'm teaching.
Sometimes I'll present it to the students if they seem receptive.
Usually, as a whole, they aren't. But one or two always are. Those are
the ones that make teaching a joy.

[Roger]

On 25 Nov 2004 16:35:06 GMT, (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

>Journeyman > wrote:
>>
>>Gene Whitt wrote:
>>> Y'All,
>>> One thing I do about instruction for as certain as I can be about anything
>>> is...
>>>
>>> A good instructor knows best of all what he can't teach.
>>
>>You can't teach what you don't know. Paradoxically, you never learn
>>a subject as well as when you try to teach it to someone else.
>>
>>
>>Morris
>
>I've always believed if I don't learn more than my students when I'm
>teaching a class, something is wrong! Of course the material I learn
>or discover is far outside the level of the material I'm teaching.

When I taught the "Introduction to Computer Science" as Graduate
Assistant I learned a lot about the day-to-day operation of the PCs
that I'd always skipped before.

>Sometimes I'll present it to the students if they seem receptive.
>Usually, as a whole, they aren't. But one or two always are. Those are
>the ones that make teaching a joy.

With a total of 195 students in 5 classes, I didn't get much chance to
give special attention to any one<:-))

I think I learned as much in those classes as I did my own although it
was entirely different.

Be it computers or flying, I think teaching requires you to step back
and take a look at the subject from a different perspective.
I have found that the longer I worked in the field the more difficult
it was to explain the fundamentals. I'd guess that's the main reason
I think they should outlaw PHDs teaching introductory courses. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>

[Roger]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:33:18 -0500, Roger
> wrote:

<snip>
>Be it computers or flying, I think teaching requires you to step back
>and take a look at the subject from a different perspective.
>I have found that the longer I worked in the field the more difficult
>it was to explain the fundamentals. I'd guess that's the main reason
>I think they should outlaw PHDs teaching introductory courses. <:-))
>
I should add it's also the main reason I fly with an instructor at
least once every 6 months. Basically He goes along for a one hour
ride, then critiques the flying and we usually practice some
commercial maneuvers of shoot a bunch of approaches after the ride.

I try to make sure I'm not picking up any bad habits. OTOH it's often
difficult to find an instructor to deal specifically with Bo traits.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>

[C J Campbell]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
> the training environment, because nothing is at stake.

I have extreme difficulty believing that anyone who actually does flight
instruction could seriously say such a thing.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"C J Campbell" > writes:

> "Michael" wrote:
> > Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
> > the training environment, because nothing is at stake.
>
> I have extreme difficulty believing that anyone who actually does flight
> instruction could seriously say such a thing.

And yet there you have it. Michael uses an assertive style of making
pronouncements that assumes an audience open-minded enough not to
interpret them at their most straw-man shallow.

The underlying point is of course something like this: when one is
training, one's instructor or one's flight school sets many rules
associated with e.g. weather. These rules, along with the presence
of an instructor giving dual, conspire to provide such a margin of
comfort that the student does not have to think that hard about
go/no-go. She knows she will be overruled if the margin is being
eaten into. Thus, a sense of responsibility for judgement in the
student is not as well developed during training as afterward, when
she actually makes binding unsupervised decisions, and has to live
with the consequences.

- FChE

[Peter Duniho]

"Frank Ch. Eigler" > wrote in message
...
> And yet there you have it. Michael uses an assertive style of making
> pronouncements that assumes an audience open-minded enough not to
> interpret them at their most straw-man shallow.

It's hard to interpret Michael's statement in any way other than how he said
it. He didn't use ambiguous terminology. He said "*NO* judgment can be
learned" and "*NOTHING* is at stake". That's just patently false.

I would agree that the training environment does limit to some extent
real-world situations that can produce a maturation of good judgment. But
to say that no judgment can be learned in a training environment, and that
nothing is at stake, is just plain stupid and an insult to all the
instructors out there that manage to successfully teach good judgment as
part of their curriculum.

Pete