Time to earn license for professionals

Hello all,

I just wanted to see if other CFIs and pilots have been seeing the
same trend I have. I've been flying with a student for a little over a
year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
off the rust.

I've talked to a couple other local CFIs about this, and they have
noticed a similar trend. As the cost of flight training has gone up
(schools near mine cost approximately $130-$140 per hour, wet, with
CFI), we have seen a seeming increase in the number of early mid-life
(30-50 years old) professionals (CPAs, lawyers, doctors, etc.) taking
lessons, because to them, money isn't a major issue. But TIME is. One
CFI told me he has been working with a well-known doctor for over 2
years, and he probably won't take his checkride for another 1-2 years,
simply because he cannot fly often. But, like my student, he really
DOES want to fly, and DOES want to get their ticket. I talked to my
student about this, and she's fine with taking 2 years.

So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
students?

Just wanted to hear what other thought.

Cheers,

wrote:
So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
students?

Just wanted to hear what other thought.

I'm not a CFI, but I was Customer Service at a flight school. The
younger students were more committed to starting lessons, focusing on
THAT alone, and completing the training in the average 60-80 hours. Many
of these kids were hoping to make a career out of it, so they were
intent on getting it done.

Of the age group you are asking about -- 30-50 -- the scenario you
described was not unusual because (a) it wasn't going to be a career,
(b) money wasn't as much of a concern as time (as you said), (c) they
HAVE things such as a career, family, and other obligations, and (d)
since they're doing it for themselves alone, they don't WANT to add the
pressure of getting it done within a certain timeframe. I was in that
age group when I got my ticket, and personally, it would have driven me
crazy to have taken that long, if for no other reason, just having the
oral exam and checkride hanging over your head for that long -- there
comes a point where you just want it DONE!

The longest time at our school was 180 hours -- a guy in his early 50s,
dedicated, but with other commitments that took priority, so no way
around it. Another guy in his late 40s was 65 hours exactly, intent on
not spending more than he had to doing review after review rather than
flying back to back flights, and also keeping all the knowledge fresh in
his mind for the oral exam.

An ancillary thought...

If somebody doesn't have the time to learn to fly, will they actually have
time to fly?

And I would wonder how much proficiency these folks would be able to
maintain with such a limited flying schedule.

And while I know that flight instructors have to make a living, is it really
a good idea to continue teaching people who cannot devote an adequate amount
of time to learning to fly?

Not trolling, not trying to start a fight, just trying to consider the
risks...



"Shirl" wrote in message
...
wrote:
So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
students?

Just wanted to hear what other thought.

I'm not a CFI, but I was Customer Service at a flight school. The
younger students were more committed to starting lessons, focusing on
THAT alone, and completing the training in the average 60-80 hours. Many
of these kids were hoping to make a career out of it, so they were
intent on getting it done.

Of the age group you are asking about -- 30-50 -- the scenario you
described was not unusual because (a) it wasn't going to be a career,
(b) money wasn't as much of a concern as time (as you said), (c) they
HAVE things such as a career, family, and other obligations, and (d)
since they're doing it for themselves alone, they don't WANT to add the
pressure of getting it done within a certain timeframe. I was in that
age group when I got my ticket, and personally, it would have driven me
crazy to have taken that long, if for no other reason, just having the
oral exam and checkride hanging over your head for that long -- there
comes a point where you just want it DONE!

The longest time at our school was 180 hours -- a guy in his early 50s,
dedicated, but with other commitments that took priority, so no way
around it. Another guy in his late 40s was 65 hours exactly, intent on
not spending more than he had to doing review after review rather than
flying back to back flights, and also keeping all the knowledge fresh in
his mind for the oral exam.

"news.chi.sbcglobal.net" wrote in message
...
An ancillary thought...

If somebody doesn't have the time to learn to fly, will they actually have
time to fly?

And I would wonder how much proficiency these folks would be able to maintain
with such a limited flying schedule.

And while I know that flight instructors have to make a living, is it really a
good idea to continue teaching people who cannot devote an adequate amount of
time to learning to fly?

Not trolling, not trying to start a fight, just trying to consider the
risks...


What is wrong with folks learning at their own pace? ...and just what
"risks" are we talking about here?

Consider that some of those folks just like to fly, and want to do it
safely. The extra cost of the CFI is a small matter to them, so they see no
reason to rush a solo. They consider that "flying is flying" and having backup
in the right seat takes nothing away from the experience. They are happy to
have the CFI along to keep them safe while they tool around in the air and learn
at their own pace. They probably have no problem absorbing the written
material, but realize that it takes them longer to learn the physical skills
than it would take a teenager. Further, they have no pressing need to get their
ticket in any particular time frame.

As a CFI, I have seen many students like this, and I would be happy to take
all I can get.

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:

What is wrong with folks learning at their own pace? ...and just
what "risks" are we talking about here?

Consider that some of those folks just like to fly, and want to
do it safely. The extra cost of the CFI is a small matter to them,
so they see no reason to rush a solo. They consider that "flying is
flying" and having backup in the right seat takes nothing away from
the experience. They are happy to have the CFI along to keep them
safe while they tool around in the air and learn at their own pace. They
probably have no problem absorbing the written material, but
realize that it takes them longer to learn the physical skills than
it would take a teenager. Further, they have no pressing need to get
their ticket in any particular time frame.
As a CFI, I have seen many students like this, and I would be
happy to take all I can get.

Vaughn

I think the concern is that some of those guys aren't as you describe. They
are doctors or lawyers who are going to get the ratings with an hour here
and a hour there and then they are going to buy a Bo and get checked out it.
Then they are going to fly even less and then a few times a year go on
vacation or for a golf weekend and they aren't going to be proficient.

On top of that I'll bet (and I have nothing to back this up) the drop out
rate for pilots that spread training over a long period of time is probably
higher. And God knows we hate to loose somebody that wants to fly bad enough
to start the process.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

I think the concern is that some of those guys aren't as you describe.
They are doctors or lawyers who are going to get the ratings with an hour
here and a hour there and then they are going to buy a Bo and get checked
out it. Then they are going to fly even less and then a few times a year
go on vacation or for a golf weekend and they aren't going to be
proficient.

On top of that I'll bet (and I have nothing to back this up) the drop out
rate for pilots that spread training over a long period of time is
probably higher. And God knows we hate to loose somebody that wants to fly
bad enough to start the process.

Thing is, there isn't a thing you or I can do about the situation. As long
as they pass the requirements, and complete their BFR's, possess a medical,
and get current for whatever flight they are going on, they are legal.
Perhaps not wise, but legal.

We all know they are out there. Hopefully, most of them realize there is a
problem with what they are doing and fly more, or get out. If they get out,
at least they were with us for a while, and perhaps may be again some day
when their life settles down.

For the ones out there that are not up on their proficiency, there is the
good ole "big sky theory" to keep us on the ground or in nearby planes safe.
Hopefully it only harms the person that should be flying more, and nobody
else. Too many time it gets loved ones, too.
--
Jim in NC

"Gig 601XL Builder":
On top of that I'll bet (and I have nothing to back this up) the drop out
rate for pilots that spread training over a long period of time is probably
higher. And God knows we hate to loose somebody that wants to fly
bad enough to start the process.

Our flight school encouraged people to fly often/consistently and
complete their goal(s), and counseled people who spread flights
apart by more than a week -- aside from skill/proficiency, many
CFIs don't stay at these schools more than a few months (they
build the hours they need and then they're gone). But few such
endeavors have a 100% completion rate, and dropouts are not
always a failure on anyone's part. Sometimes as the training
progresses, it just becomes clear that it's going to take more time,
dedication and money than the person initially thought, and he/she
realizes it isn't something they want or need that bad or is cut out
to
do. Sometimes it's a common sense, realistic, prudent decision.

wrote:
Hello all,

I just wanted to see if other CFIs and pilots have been seeing the
same trend I have. I've been flying with a student for a little over a
year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
off the rust.

I've talked to a couple other local CFIs about this, and they have
noticed a similar trend. As the cost of flight training has gone up
(schools near mine cost approximately $130-$140 per hour, wet, with
CFI), we have seen a seeming increase in the number of early mid-life
(30-50 years old) professionals (CPAs, lawyers, doctors, etc.) taking
lessons, because to them, money isn't a major issue. But TIME is. One
CFI told me he has been working with a well-known doctor for over 2
years, and he probably won't take his checkride for another 1-2 years,
simply because he cannot fly often. But, like my student, he really
DOES want to fly, and DOES want to get their ticket. I talked to my
student about this, and she's fine with taking 2 years.

So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
students?

Just wanted to hear what other thought.

Cheers,

Yes, I believe it will require some "creative thought". This is an issue
that has been around a long time with some professional people. I
remember having to "adjust" to this many years ago. The situation might
very well as you have related, be getting worse as deeper flight
instruction becomes necessary due to the enhanced atmosphere required
when working a student in a high ATC environment.
Bottom line is that I have noticed this as well and agree with you if
you are leaning in the direction of re-thinking how these students
should be handled.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:29:02 -0700, wrote in
om:

I've been flying with a student for a little over a
year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
off the rust.

Personally, I believe that there is reason for concern with this sort
of hit-or-miss, long period flight training. Here are some thoughts
to ponder:

1. JFK Jr. chose a similar course of instruction for similar
reasons. His case bears grim testament to it's effectiveness.

2. Piloting requires a certain amount of recent experience
if proficiency is to be maintained, hence the passenger-carrying
and night proficiency requirements mandated by regulation.

3. The notion, that "now I have my airmans certificate, therefore
I can fly as sporadically as I please" is a dangerous trap.

I have spoken to a dental surgeon who used to do free medical flights
to Mexico; he was transported by a pilot who let him take the aircraft
controls at times (and he would reciprocate by letting the pilot pull
teeth), and he considered becoming an airman. But he thought better
of it, because he understood the necessity for ongoing recent
experience, and knew he wouldn't be able to meet it.

Perhaps you student should consider this ten-day path to an airmans
certificate:

http://www.perfectplanes.com/10day.html

You'll find some more of my thoughts on the subject he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...a?dmode=source

On Sep 17, 12:40 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:29:02 -0700, wrote in
om:

I've been flying with a student for a little over a
year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
off the rust.

Personally, I believe that there is reason for concern with this sort
of hit-or-miss, long period flight training. Here are some thoughts
to ponder:

1. JFK Jr. chose a similar course of instruction for similar
reasons. His case bears grim testament to it's effectiveness.

2. Piloting requires a certain amount of recent experience
if proficiency is to be maintained, hence the passenger-carrying
and night proficiency requirements mandated by regulation.

3. The notion, that "now I have my airmans certificate, therefore
I can fly as sporadically as I please" is a dangerous trap.

I have spoken to a dental surgeon who used to do free medical flights
to Mexico; he was transported by a pilot who let him take the aircraft
controls at times (and he would reciprocate by letting the pilot pull
teeth), and he considered becoming an airman. But he thought better
of it, because he understood the necessity for ongoing recent
experience, and knew he wouldn't be able to meet it.

Perhaps you student should consider this ten-day path to an airmans
certificate:

http://www.perfectplanes.com/10day.html

You'll find some more of my thoughts on the subject hehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...g/c4ef161ca761...

You make some good points Larry. But I've also been rethinking the
issue of flight proficiency as well. I have come to believe (after
having done some...ahem..."interesting" BFRs) that pilot proficiency
has a lot more to do with a reasonable self-assessment of one's
skills, and self-discipline.

I believe it is very possible to be an adequately proficient pilot
flying just one hour per month (for example), IF the kind of flying
one does allows for it. I flew with a guy for a BFR who flew no more
than 20 hours per year. The first thing I do on BFRs is sit down with
a cup of coffee and chat about flying - what kind of flying do you
do...what do you want out of flying...tell me about your last flying
trip, etc.

This guy just loved to fly by himelf on nice days, VFR only...just
flying around, looking at the beauty, enjoying being in the air. He
usualy flew out of a low-traffic 5000 foot asphalt strip, outside of
ATC-controlled airspace. Always flew on nice days, had personal minima
he (said he) never broke. Just flew a 172. Occasionally flew a 60 mile
XC to get a piece of pie or hamburger. In his BFR, he was adequate;
above PP-ASEL PTS standards, but not much more. Now, this kind of low-
risk, low-difficulty flying is (IMO) certainly reasonable for a guy
who only flys once a month, in great weather, to long fields, in a
simple plane he understands. He knew his limitations, and was
seemingly appropriately managing them.

Another guy I flew with flew a lot. Was much more active, and flew IFR
a lot. His logbook showed about 150 hours in the previous year, with
maybe 60 in the soup. He said his last trip was a long XC in a 182RG,
ending in a localizer approach to minimums at an airport he'd never
been to before. He was also OK in the cockpit...better than the first
guy in terms of maneuvers and technical skill, but sometimes he seemed
to have a hard time multitasking well.

Now, I'm MUCH more concerned that I'll read about the second guy
cashing in his chips in an airplane someday. I don't think he really
will...he 'passed' his BFR, and we did some work on a couple of
things, including multi-tasking. But he IS more likely (IMO) to run
into trouble than the first guy, even tho he's far more 'proficient'
and 'current', simply because of the kind of flying he does.

I guess I am saying that I think a professional (or anyone else) who
can only devote an hour a month to flying (or even less) can quite
posibly be a completely safe and proficient pilot, as long as they
understand the limitations imposed on their flying by their
situation.

Just my $0.02 worth

Cheers,

Cap