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.

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

It has long been my goal, and I'll probably achieve it after I retire from
teaching engineering, to establish what Richard Bach called "School For
Perfection". (c.f. "Gift of Wings", R. Bach)

Four students per class, three classes during the first 4 weeks in June,
July (or August, depending on the Oshkosh schedule), September, and October.
(July or August is preparing for/recovering from Oshkosh.) One scholarship
student per class, chosen from essays written by the applicants themselves
.... age limit 17 up.

50 hours of wet time in a 172 and 25 hours of CFI time up front, cash, no
refunds. $1000 into the "scholarship" fund each. You finish early, you get
the balance back. You need more time, pony up per hour.

You commit during those four weeks to come to our little mountain airstrip
and stay in a local hotel; your significant other is welcome. Morning
briefings at the hotel conference center. One flight in the morning of 1:00
with one observer in the back seat of the 172. Two students on the ground
listening to the radio or studying ground school in the FBO. Land. Pilot
gets out and gets to be one of the radio persons. The back seat gets into
the left front, one of the radio guys gets into the back. Another 1:00
lesson. Rotate. Lunch at the airport deli. Another 1:00 in the afternoon
using the same sort of rotation. Dinner somewhere together, be it at a
local bistro or bbq over at my place. Ground school prep for the written
back at the hotel until 9 pm.

Do it again next morning. Sunday mornings off. Sunday afternoons wrenching
on "your" plane getting ready for Monday morning lessons.

Gotta go back home for an "emergency"? Unless it is a medical emergency in
your immediate family, you are gone, never again to come back. Bye. No
refund. Medical emergencies get to come back in next year's "class".

When it gets to cross-country time, the schedule changes, but you've got the
idea.

Expensive? Nowhere NEAR as expensive as wet flight time at $120 an hour for
100-200 hours to get your ticket over a three or four year span.

And, I believe, turning out pilots as opposed to airplane drivers.

I'd dearly LOVE to do it back in Iowa City using Jay's place as the hotel,
but I just can't handle four months away from home. And, I've got all my
wrenching tools out here. It would be difficult, but it would be ideal.



Drake: "...You ask about a flight school...young Mister Terrell is just
beginning to fly, but he has spent a year and a half studying the wind and
the sky, and the dynamics of unpowered flight. He has built forty gliders.
Wingspans from eight inches up to the one you saw ... thirty-one feet. He
has made his own wind tunnel and he has worked with the full size tunnel on
Level Three."

I said, "At that rate...it is going to take him a lifetime to learn how to
fly."

Drake: "Well of COURSE it will." (R. Bach)



Jim



--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


wrote in message
ps.com...
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.

When it gets to cross-country time, the schedule changes, but you've got the
idea.

Expensive? Nowhere NEAR as expensive as wet flight time at $120 an hour for
100-200 hours to get your ticket over a three or four year span.

And, I believe, turning out pilots as opposed to airplane drivers.


Sounds like a good idea although I have my reservations. I also spread
out my instruction over 3 years (with 4 different instructors) due to
a lack of time and travel etc that kept me away from flying for months
on occasions. While obviously it cost me a lot more, I also got
exposed to a lot more scenarios than I would have in one month.
Stronger crosswinds, and all kinds of different weather situations
from wind shear on final to wet runways. I also feel uncomfortable
with the idea of ponying up a lot of cash to go flying for a month
with one instructor, what if I don't get along well with that
instructor? Flexibility is important and since there are no guarantees
of any kind, I wouldn't recommend a one month crash course to
everybody, maybe it works for some people but I don't think it does
for every one.

I'm not a doctor, lawyer or CPA, but I was in a similar boat when I did my
PPL training. As an overworked IT guy, I was often working 60 hr. weeks and
had to provide on-call support when not working (i.e. no flying when on call).


I think it depends on the student. In my case, whenever I wasn't at work
or in the airplane, I was studying everything I could get my hands on. I
completed the PPL in 1.5 yrs. and 60 hrs. total time.

Once I had the ticket in my hand I made more of an effort to keep current,
but rental scheduling being what it is, I found that I only flew 60 hrs. the
first year. That wasn't enough to make me feel comfortable, so I bought my
own plane. Determined not to turn the plane into a ramp queen, I altered my
schedule to make flying more of a priority. Frankly, it was a good excuse
to quit working all the time. I doubt anyone has been on their deathbed
regretting that they didn't spend more time at the office.

For those that have overcrowded schedules, I think that some adjustment
would eventually be necessary in order to keep current. I've flown with
some busy professionals that only get 30 or so hrs of flying time per year
and their skills are in a perpetual state of rustiness.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

RST Engineering wrote:
It has long been my goal, and I'll probably achieve it after I retire from
teaching engineering, to establish what Richard Bach called "School For
Perfection". (c.f. "Gift of Wings", R. Bach)

Four students per class, three classes during the first 4 weeks in June,
July (or August, depending on the Oshkosh schedule), September, and October.
(July or August is preparing for/recovering from Oshkosh.) One scholarship
student per class, chosen from essays written by the applicants themselves
... age limit 17 up.

50 hours of wet time in a 172 and 25 hours of CFI time up front, cash, no
refunds. $1000 into the "scholarship" fund each. You finish early, you get
the balance back. You need more time, pony up per hour.

You commit during those four weeks to come to our little mountain airstrip
and stay in a local hotel; your significant other is welcome. Morning
briefings at the hotel conference center. One flight in the morning of 1:00
with one observer in the back seat of the 172. Two students on the ground
listening to the radio or studying ground school in the FBO. Land. Pilot
gets out and gets to be one of the radio persons. The back seat gets into
the left front, one of the radio guys gets into the back. Another 1:00
lesson. Rotate. Lunch at the airport deli. Another 1:00 in the afternoon
using the same sort of rotation. Dinner somewhere together, be it at a
local bistro or bbq over at my place. Ground school prep for the written
back at the hotel until 9 pm.

Do it again next morning. Sunday mornings off. Sunday afternoons wrenching
on "your" plane getting ready for Monday morning lessons.

Gotta go back home for an "emergency"? Unless it is a medical emergency in
your immediate family, you are gone, never again to come back. Bye. No
refund. Medical emergencies get to come back in next year's "class".

When it gets to cross-country time, the schedule changes, but you've got the
idea.

Expensive? Nowhere NEAR as expensive as wet flight time at $120 an hour for
100-200 hours to get your ticket over a three or four year span.

And, I believe, turning out pilots as opposed to airplane drivers.

I'd dearly LOVE to do it back in Iowa City using Jay's place as the hotel,
but I just can't handle four months away from home. And, I've got all my
wrenching tools out here. It would be difficult, but it would be ideal.



Drake: "...You ask about a flight school...young Mister Terrell is just
beginning to fly, but he has spent a year and a half studying the wind and
the sky, and the dynamics of unpowered flight. He has built forty gliders.
Wingspans from eight inches up to the one you saw ... thirty-one feet. He
has made his own wind tunnel and he has worked with the full size tunnel on
Level Three."

I said, "At that rate...it is going to take him a lifetime to learn how to
fly."

Drake: "Well of COURSE it will." (R. Bach)



Jim



I've always had a problem with crash courses for pilots, ESPECIALLY for
primary training. The reason is that most of the actual learning you do
in training isn't done during dual while under the pressure of flying
the airplane but rather in between flights where the relaxed mind can
better understand and comprehend what was done by rote in the air with
the instructor. In other words, the time spent between dual sessions is
in my opinion a necessary part of any OPTIMIZED training program as it
is during these periods where maximum retention is attained.
In any good training program, you need a constant schedule of dual inter
spaced with periods away from the aircraft. ANY program that pushes a
student on an inflexible ridged time line is in my opinion not an
optimized training regimen.


--
Dudley Henriques

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