Good Instructors...

(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

"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.

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

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;
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

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

In article k.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

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 k.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 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

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