$1295.00 Guaranteed Multi Ratings A+++++++++++ Service

[NW_PILOT]

The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service They respect you even after
they get your Money! They follow through with what they say.

GUARANTEED MULTI RATINGS, no flight time limit! No C/R twins, mature ATP
rated instructors, $1295. Examineer fee not included. Also ATP, MEI, CFII,
and instrument ratings. Multi PIC $129 wet. Dallas, TX/(817) 557-4004.


Steven Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane

[beavis]

In article >, NW_PILOT
> wrote:

> The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service ....

What is this, eBay?


> GUARANTEED MULTI RATINGS, no flight time limit!

I'm already suspicious.

> No C/R twins...

Translation: A very old Apache. Yes?

> $1295. Examineer fee NOT INCLUDED

So... you're saying it's *not* a $1295 Guaranteed Multi Rating, then?


> Multi PIC $129 wet.

Two engines burning 9 gallons per hour. Fuel's $3-5 a gallon. Average
of, say, $72 an hour in fuel alone. $129 an hour seems a little on the
low side.


And spamming newsgroups is a poor way to generate business, believe me.

[NW_PILOT]

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, NW_PILOT
> > wrote:
>
> > The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service ....
>
> What is this, eBay?
>
>
> > GUARANTEED MULTI RATINGS, no flight time limit!
>
> I'm already suspicious.
>
> > No C/R twins...
>
> Translation: A very old Apache. Yes?

No they Use BE95 Travelairs in decent condition.

>
> > $1295. Examineer fee NOT INCLUDED
>
> So... you're saying it's *not* a $1295 Guaranteed Multi Rating, then?

What they are saying is if you go up and blow a check ride the remedial
training is included!

>
>
> > Multi PIC $129 wet.
>
> Two engines burning 9 gallons per hour. Fuel's $3-5 a gallon. Average
> of, say, $72 an hour in fuel alone. $129 an hour seems a little on the
> low side.
>
>
> And spamming newsgroups is a poor way to generate business, believe me.

Not spamming the new groups, I am just referring people as I had a good
experience down there!

Again:

The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service They respect you even after
they get your Money! They follow through with what they say.

[NW_PILOT]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote:
>
> > > And spamming newsgroups is a poor way to generate business, believe
me.
> >
> > Not spamming the new groups, I am just referring people as I had a good
> > experience down there!
>
> fwiw - My first thought when seeing the subject line was: @#(*&34, more
spam.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

Wow, no wonder I rarely post on Usenet any more! I was just posting that the
place was good business "A+++++ customer service" because it is rare in
aviation. Most places treat you good then take your money and then treat you
like crap! Clyde Frederickson who runs Multi Engine Training is a stand up
business man and respects his clients and will not B.S. you.

They go above and beyond what is required with rides to and from motel, and
have complementary coffee, snacks & soda pop. It is something that should be
posted all over the aviation community to keep this guy in business so that
people in the future can have a great experience with a good business.


Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)

[Peter R.]

NW_PILOT > wrote:

> Wow, no wonder I rarely post on Usenet any more!

The fact that you probably caught heat for posting a video of an aileron
roll in a C152 has nothing to do with it, eh?

> I was just posting that the
> place was good business "A+++++ customer service" because it is rare in
> aviation.

Your original post in this thread read to me like canned spam. Your
latest post does not. Take a look at the two styles of writing and see if
you can identify a difference.




--
Peter

[Allen]

: )

[Jose]

> Wow, no wonder I rarely post on Usenet any more! I was just posting that the
> place was good business "A+++++ customer service" because...

Then tell us stories. Read r.a.p and you'll see others posting stories
of their first solo, their rides in a B-whatever, trip reports,
experiences with different kinds of instructors... stuff with detail,
imagery, human interest; stuff that puts you in the cockpit with them.

Stories that convey, without any advertising hype, the substance of what
makes you judge this place as you do. Then we can read those stories
and be impressed that, for example, they have "complementary coffee,
snacks & soda pop", or whatever it is that really makes them a valuable
asset to the GA community. For example, did you flunk your checkride
after training with them, and then they gave you extensive free
re-training so that you could pass it? Did they analyse their failure
to teach you, your failure to learn, your nerves, whatever, and
concentrate on that? What was it like? That could be a very
interesting story in itself, and no "A++++++ service" would be needed.
And anything other than =your= =personal= experience is just a rehash of
their publicity booklet.

What are your detailled =personal= experiences with this outfit? What
was your first flight like? What did you find on preflight? This is
how you contribute to the newsgroup.

The cost aspect is quite secondary (and uninteresting). Looking for a
bargain in flight training is like looking for a bargain in a brain
surgeon. (In my case, I just look for one that has their own magnifying
glass. :)

> It is something that should be
> posted all over the aviation community to keep this guy in business

That is the =definition= os spam.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Burns]

> CFI (Student)

Less generalities. More details. More explanations. Work from simple to
complex. Tell us why you think this place is so great. Begin at the
beginning. Teach us something.

Jim

[Larry Dighera]

Aw, now you've placed me in the position of appearing to defend an
article posted by the infamous Mr. Rhine.


On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:09:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>What are your detailled =personal= experiences with this outfit? What
>was your first flight like? What did you find on preflight? This is
>how you contribute to the newsgroup.

Actually, the newsgroup charter specifies:

Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
rec.aviation groups.

So it is _information_ (not personal experience) that is crucial for
on-topic articles posted to this newsgroup.

>> It is something that should be
>> posted all over the aviation community to keep this guy in business
>
>That is the =definition= os spam.

Well, that's partially true.

http://www.antionline.com/jargon/spam.php
spam vt.,vi.,n.

[from "Monty Python's Flying Circus"] 1. To crash a program by
overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data.
See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.

2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as
one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking "What do you
think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with
cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to
alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost
inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior;
the latter more specific term has become more common.

3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately
to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically
called `ECP', Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to
infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello.

4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This
is more specifically called `EMP', Excessive Multi-Posting.

5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email
messages, particularly those containing advertising. Especially
used when the mail addresses have been culled from network traffic
or databases without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms
include UCE, UBE. 6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For
instance, someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and
comes back to find 200 lines of text might say "Oh no, spam".

The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the
Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses 3
4 and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered abuse
of the net, and are almost universally grounds for termination of
the originator's email account or network connection. In these
senses the term `spam' has gone mainstream, though without its
original sense or folkloric freight - there is apparently a
widespread myth among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when
you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan.

[Jose]

> So it is _information_ (not personal experience) that is crucial for
> on-topic articles posted to this newsgroup.

Well then most of the articles here are off topic. And I daresay
personal experience counts as information.

As for the definition of spam, we all write our own dictionaries, don't
we? And even a teeny bit of Hormel canned spiced ham is still spam.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[NW_PILOT]

Wow, "infamous" Thanks Larry!

I try an not write to much becuse of the spelling and grammer cops!

Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Aw, now you've placed me in the position of appearing to defend an
> article posted by the infamous Mr. Rhine.
>
>
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:09:45 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >::
>
> >What are your detailled =personal= experiences with this outfit? What
> >was your first flight like? What did you find on preflight? This is
> >how you contribute to the newsgroup.
>
> Actually, the newsgroup charter specifies:
>
> Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
> which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
> rec.aviation groups.
>
> So it is _information_ (not personal experience) that is crucial for
> on-topic articles posted to this newsgroup.
>
> >> It is something that should be
> >> posted all over the aviation community to keep this guy in business
> >
> >That is the =definition= os spam.
>
> Well, that's partially true.
>
> http://www.antionline.com/jargon/spam.php
> spam vt.,vi.,n.
>
> [from "Monty Python's Flying Circus"] 1. To crash a program by
> overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data.
> See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.
>
> 2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or
> inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as
> one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking "What do you
> think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with
> cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to
> alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost
> inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior;
> the latter more specific term has become more common.
>
> 3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately
> to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically
> called `ECP', Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to
> infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello.
>
> 4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This
> is more specifically called `EMP', Excessive Multi-Posting.
>
> 5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email
> messages, particularly those containing advertising. Especially
> used when the mail addresses have been culled from network traffic
> or databases without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms
> include UCE, UBE. 6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For
> instance, someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and
> comes back to find 200 lines of text might say "Oh no, spam".
>
> The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the
> Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses 3
> 4 and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered abuse
> of the net, and are almost universally grounds for termination of
> the originator's email account or network connection. In these
> senses the term `spam' has gone mainstream, though without its
> original sense or folkloric freight - there is apparently a
> widespread myth among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when
> you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan.
>

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> NW_PILOT > wrote:
>
> > Wow, no wonder I rarely post on Usenet any more!
>
> The fact that you probably caught heat for posting a video of an aileron
> roll in a C152 has nothing to do with it, eh?

Has nothing to do with my decision to post much on usenet I don't have the
time I am busy flying airplanes!

>
> > I was just posting that the
> > place was good business "A+++++ customer service" because it is rare in
> > aviation.
>
> Your original post in this thread read to me like canned spam. Your
> latest post does not. Take a look at the two styles of writing and see if
> you can identify a difference.

"The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service They respect you even after
they get your Money! They follow through with what they say."

First post was the quick and simple, spelling and grammar cop avoidance
version.

Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)

[Peter R.]

NW_PILOT > wrote:

> Has nothing to do with my decision to post much on usenet I don't have the
> time I am busy flying airplanes!

LOL! The old, "if you are active on Usenet, you must not have time for
anything else" claim. I saw that a lot in the mountain biking group, too.
Hilarious.



--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:06:58 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> So it is _information_ (not personal experience) that is crucial for
>> on-topic articles posted to this newsgroup.
>
>Well then most of the articles here are off topic. And I daresay
>personal experience counts as information.

Are you saying most of the articles posted to rec.aviation.piloting
contain no information? If true, then this newsgroup would be more
like an electronic bulletin board than a member of the Usenet
hierarchy.

>As for the definition of spam, we all write our own dictionaries, don't
>we?

I rely on Merriam-Webster myself.

>And even a teeny bit of Hormel canned spiced ham is still spam.

Actually it's Spam (not spam).

Please be aware that spam is not defined as a commercial solicitation.
Such commercial announcements and solicitations are considered
on-topic if:

* They contain information
* They are relevant to the newsgroup topic
* They are only posted occasionally as the information they
contain
is updated, revised or their 'Expires' message header is
reached.
* They are not cross-posted
* They are not excessively posted to multiple newsgroups.

So, informative commercial announcements don't truly qualify as spam.
In any event, Mr. Rhine's article was more of a personal
recommendation than a commercial announcement that would benefit him.

That said, of course it would have been more effective if he had
chosen to share more details of his personal experience, but being
ineffective alone doesn't qualify it as spam.

Please don't take my comments as a personal affront against you; I'm
just trying to provide some insightful information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup_spam
Newsgroup spam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsgroup spam is a type of spam where the targets are Usenet
newsgroups.

Spamming of Usenet newsgroups actually pre-dates e-mail spam. The
first widely recognized Usenet spam (though not the most famous)
was posted on January 18, 1994 by Clarence L. Thomas IV, a
sysadmin at Andrews University. Entitled "Global Alert for All:
Jesus is Coming Soon", it was a fundamentalist religious tract
claiming that "this world's history is coming to a climax." The
newsgroup posting bot Serdar Argic also appeared in early 1994,
posting tens of thousands of messages to various newsgroups,
consisting of identical copies of a political screed relating to
the Armenian Genocide.

The first commercial Usenet spam, and the one which is often
(mistakenly) claimed to be the first Usenet spam of any sort, was
an advertisement for legal services entitled "Green Card Lottery -
Final One?". It was posted in April 1994 by Arizona lawyers
Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, and hawked legal representation
for United States immigrants seeking papers ("green cards").

Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting,
that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially
similar messages). During the early 1990s there was substantial
controversy among Usenet system administrators (news admins) over
the use of cancel messages to control spam. A cancel message is a
directive to news servers to delete a posting, causing it to be
inaccessible to those who might read it. Some regarded this as a
bad precedent, leaning towards censorship, while others considered
it a proper use of the available tools to control the growing spam
problem.

A culture of neutrality towards content precluded defining spam on
the basis of advertisement or commercial solicitations. The word
"spam" was usually taken to mean excessive multiple posting (EMP),
and other neologisms were coined for other abuses — such as
"velveeta" (from the processed cheese product) for excessive
cross-posting. [1] A subset of spam was deemed cancellable spam,
for which it is considered justified to issue third-party cancel
messages. [2]

In the late 1990s, spam became used as a means of vandalizing
newsgroups, with malicious users committing acts of sporgery to
make targeted newsgroups all but unreadable without heavily
filtering. A prominent example occurred in
alt.religion.scientology. Another known example is the Meow Wars.

The prevalence of Usenet spam led to the development of the
Breidbart Index* as an objective measure of a message's
"spamminess". The use of the BI and spam-detection software has
led to Usenet being policed by anti-spam volunteers, who purge
newsgroups of spam by sending cancels and filtering it out on the
way into servers. This very active form of policing has meant that
Usenet is a far less attractive target to spammers than it used to
be, and most of the industrial-scale spammers have now moved into
e-mail spam instead.


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index
Breidbart Index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Breidbart Index, developed by Seth Breidbart, provides a
measure of severity of newsgroup spam. The Breidbart Index is
calculated over a 45-day window, and takes into account the number
of newsgroups to which a message is posted. It is defined as the
sum over each copy of the message of the square root of the number
of newsgroups that copy is cross posted to. Articles are
considered the same if they are substantively identical.

For the Big 8 and alt.* hierarchies, it's generally agreed that
messages are cancellable spam when the Breidbart Index exceeds 20,
at which point they can be auto-cancelled from news servers. Other
hierarchies have their own rules; many (smaller, local ones) are
much more restrictive.

Here's another definition:

http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#2.1
2.1) What is Spam?
It's a luncheon meat, kinda pink, comes in a can, made by Hormel.
Most Americans intuitively, viscerally associate "Spam" with "no
nutritive or aesthetic value," though it is still relatively
popular (especially in Hawaii) and can be found in almost any
grocery store.) The canned luncheon meat has its own newsgroup,
alt.spam.

The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup, means "the same
article (or essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably
high number of times to one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS
IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't mean "ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It
doesn't mean "posts whose content I object to." Spam is a funky
name for a phenomenon that can be measured pretty objectively: did
that post appear X times? (See 3.1, "Yeah, but how many is X?')

There have been "customized" spams where each post made some
effort to apply to each individual newsgroup, but the general
thrust of each article was the same. A huge straw poll on
news.admin.policy, news.admin.misc, and
alt.current-events.net-abuse (December 1994) showed that as many
of 90% of the readers felt that cancellations for these posts were
justified. So, simply put: if you plan to post the same or
extremely similar messages to dozens of newsgroups, the posts are
probably going to get cancelled.

If you feel that a massive multi-post you are planning constitutes
an exception, you are more than welcome to run the idea past the
readers of news.admin.net-abuse.usenet for feedback first.



You'll find a definitive article on the subject of spam here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)>

Here's what the federal government has to say about spam:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/spamalrt.htm

Here's some good fundamental Usenet information:
http://kb.iu.edu/data/apen.html

[Jose]

> Are you saying most of the articles posted to rec.aviation.piloting
> contain no information? If true, then this newsgroup would be more
> like an electronic bulletin board than a member of the Usenet
> hierarchy.

I have not done a statistical survey, however quite a few articles are
"information challenged". :) And some of the articles which have
garnered the most positive responses are not informational in nature -
they concern personal experiences. Granted that personal experiences
contain information, so would the personal experiences of the OP wrt his
A+++ place.

> Actually it's Spam (not spam).

Touché.

> Please be aware that spam is not defined as a commercial solicitation.
> Such commercial announcements and solicitations are considered
> on-topic if:
>
> * They contain information

Doesn't every commercial solicitation? That's like asking how one can do
an approach or hold without "intercepting and tracking".

> That said, of course it would have been more effective if he had
> chosen to share more details of his personal experience

.... which is what I was proposing.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[NW_PILOT]

Thank You Larry!


> So, informative commercial announcements don't truly qualify as spam.
> In any event, Mr. Rhine's article was more of a personal
> recommendation than a commercial announcement that would benefit him.
>
> That said, of course it would have been more effective if he had
> chosen to share more details of his personal experience, but being
> ineffective alone doesn't qualify it as spam.

Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)

[Montblack]

"NW_PILOT" > The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service They respect you
even after
> they get your Money! They follow through with what they say.
>
> GUARANTEED MULTI RATINGS, no flight time limit! No C/R twins, mature ATP
> rated instructors, $1295. Examineer fee not included. Also ATP, MEI, CFII,
> and instrument ratings. Multi PIC $129 wet. Dallas, TX/(817) 557-4004.


Subject: Multi training was fun - Texas style
Subject: Good multi school -- Treated me A+++
Subject: Hope they stay in business -- GREAT customer service
Subject: My Pirep of an A+ Multi school in Texas
Subject: Me again -- just finished some multi training with an A++ outfit
Subject: Just got back. $1295 multi school I would HIGHLY recommend.

Just some ideas, NW_Pilot, based on what others were saying about the
spamy-looking Subject line.

So, how long were you there?
How many hrs did you get logged?
Solo time logged?
Sim time?

Sounds interesting!


Montblack
I'm rooting for you.

[Henry]

I'm going to ignore the flaming back and forth about what constitutes spam
or not and do what one poster suggests and actually post my experience.

I also did my multi engine training at Clyde's place at Redbird Dallas in
about year 2001, and went there on the recommendation from a couple of now
professional pilot friends who had done so. I live about a 2 hour drive
from Clyde's. My experiences told here are from 2001 so things may have
changed. A little background.... I'm an engineer, a self motivated & self
training type, and didn't have a lot of time or money to burn. I would
rather self study as much as I can, and I think this was my key to success
at Multi-Clydes. I like to think I have a natural ability towards airplanes
and things aeronautical and technical, so it comes easy to me, and I realize
that's not true for everyone. I had already done some studying from a multi
textbook before I got to the course, and was instrument current and
proficient.

My objective was just to get the rating and multi knowledge, not become the
world's greatest multi engine pilot during the course. This is because I
was going to be flying part time as a copilot on a couple of multi engine
corporate aircraft. I needed the rating to fly, but my real training was
going to come from flying with the corporate pilot who was also an active
instructor. This objective of "just get the rating" was another factor in
selecting Clyde.

It's true that Clyde's guarantees you'll get a multi rating. You get ground
school, 3 dual instructional flights, then you take the checkride. Clyde is
a one time fee of $895 and they'll keep instructing and flying you until you
pass the checkride. The checkride fee goes to the examiner so if you don't
pass the first time you get to keep paying him $300 for every checkride
until you do.

I got to Clyde's on Friday morning, and handed $900 to him. They only take
cash. He sticks the wad of cash in his pocket, hands me back a $5 bill and
says to pick up this material on the table and report to the classroom. The
facilities are functional, not especially nice, but appropriate for the
money I paid. There are probably 8 other guys there that morning in various
stages of training. Not one of them was from the local area or even Texas
and I started asking them what brought them here. They all said it was the
low price. It was cheaper to get on an airline, pay for a hotel, and come
here to take this class than any other option. Wow - this really surprised
me.

The instructors were a mixed bag, as expected. Some liked to teach and were
there to teach, some were ****ed they had to stoop this low after being
furloughed, some were a wealth of knowledge and experience, some I had to
help during ground school. You generally had different instructors each
time you were in the classroom or in the airplane. The classroom material
was correct, understandable, useful, but low tech. No computers or 3D
animations of asymetric engine thrust.

The planes were all BE95 Travel Airs. I think they had 3 of them. These
planes were old 3 decades ago, but they flew reliably while I was there.
Clyde had a mechanic working there full time keeping them going. Flying
usually included one or more students in back watching and listening to the
poor slob in the left seat try to keep the dirty side up and the dirtier
side down. I was pleased with the instructors I drew for my 3 dual flights
and learned a lot on each one. Since I lived not too far away I was
familiar with the airports, airspace, and landmarks, and that helped me
focus on flying the airplane. Since I was already instrument rated like
most of the students, my 3rd flight included hood work and a single engine
approach. The Travel Air was really easy to fly and land and I figured the
equipment was ok for what I was paying. It was simultaneously very cool and
very strange flying around with one prop not turning ! It was also fun to
restart it by nosing over to 150 MPH to get it windmilling.

As you progress through your flights and classroom time over 3-4 days, you
get to know the other guys. Some are just arriving, others are prepping for
their checkride. What surprised me was how most of them were very nervous
about their checkride, and were basically cramming like it was final exams.
I realized this was for good reason as I estimate one third to one half of
them failed their first checkride. With everybody around me nervous about
it, and the high failure rate, I got nervous too. I've got a whole 3.4
hours of multi engine time in my logbook in the last 3 days and I'm supposed
to be ready for a checkride ? For most of the guys the extra $300 for a
second checkride and the additional night hotel and expenses really hurt.
Everybody who failed the first ride passed the second one.

My oral exam and checkride went real smooth. I walked out of Clydes with
5.2 hours of multi time and about $1100 poorer. I think overall it was good
training for the money, and believe it was a success for me only because I
came prepared. I wasn't ready to go launching off multi engine IFR solo,
but I was very ready to begin my copilot checkout and training process on
the Seneca with the corporate pilot, and so in that sense my Clyde
experience was exactly what I needed. You can begin to appreciate why FBOs
require 25 hours in type in multi engine rentals before you're allowed to
rent solo. Single engine workload gets big real quick and you've really got
to be proficient to stay ahead of the airplane, especially IFR. If you walk
out of Clydes with 5 or 6 hours multi, you need to be aware that its just a
license to learn.

[NW_PILOT]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> "NW_PILOT" > The Guys Below Are Great A+++ Customer Service They respect
you
> even after
> > they get your Money! They follow through with what they say.
> >
> > GUARANTEED MULTI RATINGS, no flight time limit! No C/R twins, mature ATP
> > rated instructors, $1295. Examineer fee not included. Also ATP, MEI,
CFII,
> > and instrument ratings. Multi PIC $129 wet. Dallas, TX/(817) 557-4004.
>
>
> Subject: Multi training was fun - Texas style
> Subject: Good multi school -- Treated me A+++
> Subject: Hope they stay in business -- GREAT customer service
> Subject: My Pirep of an A+ Multi school in Texas
> Subject: Me again -- just finished some multi training with an A++ outfit
> Subject: Just got back. $1295 multi school I would HIGHLY recommend.
>
> Just some ideas, NW_Pilot, based on what others were saying about the
> spamy-looking Subject line.
>
> So, how long were you there?
> How many hrs did you get logged?
> Solo time logged?
> Sim time?
>
> Sounds interesting!
>
>
> Montblack
> I'm rooting for you.
>


All is cool I am not going to write a long spill for the spelling & grammar
cops to pick apart. I am home for the weekend and I am going to spend it
with my wife and son Before I have to take a strait tail 172 from St Louis
To Central California on Monday.

It was a long week and a half PA32-300 from Pasco, Wa to West Palm Beech, FL
then to Texas for a few days.

Steven L. Rhine
CP ASEL & AMEL Instrument Airplane
CFI (Student)

[NW_PILOT]

"Henry" > wrote in message
...
> I'm going to ignore the flaming back and forth about what constitutes spam
> or not and do what one poster suggests and actually post my experience.
>
> I also did my multi engine training at Clyde's place at Redbird Dallas in
> about year 2001, and went there on the recommendation from a couple of now
> professional pilot friends who had done so. I live about a 2 hour drive
> from Clyde's. My experiences told here are from 2001 so things may have
> changed. A little background.... I'm an engineer, a self motivated & self
> training type, and didn't have a lot of time or money to burn. I would
> rather self study as much as I can, and I think this was my key to success
> at Multi-Clydes. I like to think I have a natural ability towards
airplanes
> and things aeronautical and technical, so it comes easy to me, and I
realize
> that's not true for everyone. I had already done some studying from a
multi
> textbook before I got to the course, and was instrument current and
> proficient.
>
> My objective was just to get the rating and multi knowledge, not become
the
> world's greatest multi engine pilot during the course. This is because I
> was going to be flying part time as a copilot on a couple of multi engine
> corporate aircraft. I needed the rating to fly, but my real training was
> going to come from flying with the corporate pilot who was also an active
> instructor. This objective of "just get the rating" was another factor in
> selecting Clyde.
>
> It's true that Clyde's guarantees you'll get a multi rating. You get
ground
> school, 3 dual instructional flights, then you take the checkride. Clyde
is
> a one time fee of $895 and they'll keep instructing and flying you until
you
> pass the checkride. The checkride fee goes to the examiner so if you
don't
> pass the first time you get to keep paying him $300 for every checkride
> until you do.
>

1st check ride is $300 recheck is $150

> I got to Clyde's on Friday morning, and handed $900 to him. They only
take
> cash. He sticks the wad of cash in his pocket, hands me back a $5 bill
and
> says to pick up this material on the table and report to the classroom.
The
> facilities are functional, not especially nice, but appropriate for the
> money I paid. There are probably 8 other guys there that morning in
various
> stages of training. Not one of them was from the local area or even Texas
> and I started asking them what brought them here. They all said it was
the
> low price. It was cheaper to get on an airline, pay for a hotel, and come
> here to take this class than any other option. Wow - this really
surprised
> me.

Clyde will take a Credit Card! "Examiner Takes Cash Only"

And it is true about the costs I finished up total expences for just about
$2,100 USD Including food.

[Peter R.]

Henry > wrote:

<snip>
> and do what one poster suggests and actually post my experience.

An excellent read. Thanks for posting.

--
Peter

[gatt]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
news:_rWdnWYP6fr4sYzZnZ2dnUVZ_s-

> I am home for the weekend and I am going to spend it
> with my wife and son Before I have to take a strait tail 172 from St Louis
> To Central California on Monday.

Nice.

Do you still live near the Evergreen strip? It's looking pretty sorry these
days. Sad to see that the planes are so little-used that they just mow
around them, and the FBO finally gave up the ghost.

Stupid developers and yuppies. You knew it was coming when they put red
lights on the apartment roofs.

-c

[NW_PILOT]

I was able to obtain a nice tie down space at Person Field, KVUO Yea, it's
sad about evergreen developer should be breaking ground this spring some
time sad to see it go fun strip to play on. It's not the yuppie developers
if the tax man lots more money from 300 tax lots then 1 tax lot.Are you
still flying out of KTTD.


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> news:_rWdnWYP6fr4sYzZnZ2dnUVZ_s-
>
> > I am home for the weekend and I am going to spend it
> > with my wife and son Before I have to take a strait tail 172 from St
Louis
> > To Central California on Monday.
>
> Nice.
>
> Do you still live near the Evergreen strip? It's looking pretty sorry
these
> days. Sad to see that the planes are so little-used that they just mow
> around them, and the FBO finally gave up the ghost.
>
> Stupid developers and yuppies. You knew it was coming when they put red
> lights on the apartment roofs.
>
> -c
>
>