Good Instructors...

"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

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

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

-Robert, CFI

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

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

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

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


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

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

-Robert, CFI

Michael wrote:

Neither is
someone who has never owned an airplane.

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

- Andrew

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

-Robert

Robert, you sound like a cool instructor.

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