Time to earn license for professionals

"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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

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.

I hear what you are saying, an on the surface I don't disagree. But !...

It is also far from optimum, to wait so long in-between lessons that there
is no continuity, and much time is spent trying to brush up on skills
forgotten since the last lesson.

So, given that, and the fact that some time will be spent observing, would
the observing help teach some lessons not realized fully while actually
flying?

Would it not still be better to have intensive learning taking place, than
have intensive forgetting taken place?

I feel like there is a good chance that the intensive training may be better
in the long run, even though it may not be the best. Perhaps if it is the
only way, then it should be used, and then some follow-ups to check and see
that good practices are still taking place.

I don't know the answers. It just seems like this may be a way, for some
that this is the only way.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

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.

I hear what you are saying, an on the surface I don't disagree. But !...

It is also far from optimum, to wait so long in-between lessons that there
is no continuity, and much time is spent trying to brush up on skills
forgotten since the last lesson.

So, given that, and the fact that some time will be spent observing, would
the observing help teach some lessons not realized fully while actually
flying?

Would it not still be better to have intensive learning taking place, than
have intensive forgetting taken place?

I feel like there is a good chance that the intensive training may be better
in the long run, even though it may not be the best. Perhaps if it is the
only way, then it should be used, and then some follow-ups to check and see
that good practices are still taking place.

I don't know the answers. It just seems like this may be a way, for some
that this is the only way.
Optimum initial primary training as I have observed it during my tenure
as an instructor is a fairly constant schedule of dual inter spaced with
a period of at least a day or two between lessons.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this "off period" is
critical and absolutely necessary so that what happened in the airplane
has time to sink in, be researched, thought about, and questioned and
answered.
Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
Any good lesson plan should allow for a brief period of pre-brief
between the CFI and the student, covering the basics of what will be
done during the session along with some idea of how to accomplish the
upcoming tasks. While the student is in the air attempting to accomplish
these tasks, the instructor should keep things as simple as possible,
allowing the student to rote the task. Then after the flight, there
should be a period of de-brief, where what was done by rote in the air
is explained in the detail needed to begin the next process which is the
time period between lessons I deem so critical.
It's during this "down time", that the student is encouraged to study
the theory behind what was done in the air, asking whatever questions
are necessary to allow a more comprehensive understanding of what has
been done in the air.
The bottom line on all this is that if these periods of down time are
skipped or neglected, the result in many cases (and I have observed this
over fifty years in the flight instruction business in one capacity or
another) is a student progressing rapidly, but mainly by being able to
duplicate the required flying tasks based on a rote understanding, which
is not optimum for the student.
In other words, rushing the student can produce a pilot who can perform
a task and even fly the airplane and pass a test, but not necessarily a
student who understands what he/she has been taught on a higher level
which would have been possible by utilizing more down time between dual
sessions.


--
Dudley Henriques

I completely agree with what you said but I was wondering what is the
brief period you refer to in terms of time? Does it depend on the
individual student?

Optimum initial primary training as I have observed it during my tenure
as an instructor is a fairly constant schedule of dual inter spaced with
a period of at least a day or two between lessons.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this "off period" is
critical and absolutely necessary so that what happened in the airplane
has time to sink in, be researched, thought about, and questioned and
answered.
Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
Any good lesson plan should allow for a brief period of pre-brief
between the CFI and the student, covering the basics of what will be
done during the session along with some idea of how to accomplish the
upcoming tasks. While the student is in the air attempting to accomplish
these tasks, the instructor should keep things as simple as possible,
allowing the student to rote the task. Then after the flight, there
should be a period of de-brief, where what was done by rote in the air
is explained in the detail needed to begin the next process which is the
time period between lessons I deem so critical.
It's during this "down time", that the student is encouraged to study
the theory behind what was done in the air, asking whatever questions
are necessary to allow a more comprehensive understanding of what has
been done in the air.
The bottom line on all this is that if these periods of down time are
skipped or neglected, the result in many cases (and I have observed this
over fifty years in the flight instruction business in one capacity or
another) is a student progressing rapidly, but mainly by being able to
duplicate the required flying tasks based on a rote understanding, which
is not optimum for the student.
In other words, rushing the student can produce a pilot who can perform
a task and even fly the airplane and pass a test, but not necessarily a
student who understands what he/she has been taught on a higher level
which would have been possible by utilizing more down time between dual
sessions.

--
Dudley Henriques

Viperdoc wrote:
I agree with the challenges faced by professionals trying to learn flying. I
got my PPL and IFR ratings while doing research, but now, with 60 hour work
weeks, on call during the weekends, working as a colonel in the Air National
Guard, coaching and playing hockey, and running a research lab, there is
precious little time to get an advanced rating. I still somehow log around
150-175 hours a year, a lot of real IMC or acro. Still, would like to do
more and get the commercial ticket and instructor ratings.

One solution is that we pretty much live at the hangar on the weekends and
summer- all of our friends are involved in aviation, and this has been the
only way to keep the hours up. I even got my 11 year old son to clean the
entire hangar floor for $20 bucks!

The other hang up is that it is difficult to fly with a 20 year old
instructor with less hours and experience than me, and have him tell me how
to fly the plane.

What happened to all the old grey haired curmudgeonly flight instructors
that actually have some experience?


My wife says you can find at least one of these old characters out in
the back in about an hour doing yard work :-)

On the young CFI vs the ATP dual situation;

This is an old issue and in fact requires some degree of tact on the
part of a young CFI. I've actually included this aspect of flight
instruction in several lectures I've given to CFI's in the past.

Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail here, I'll simply say
that when young instructors are required to fly with highly experienced
pilots where that flight involves the instructor's professional role,
the situation requires some degree of tact. It does NOT however, require
an atmosphere of subservience on the part of the instructor.

The bottom line on dealing professionally with experienced pilots as a
young instructor is that before you ever get to the airplane, the
instructor MUST establish a MUTUAL respect with the pilot involved. If
this is not done correctly, the purpose of the flight will be defeated
before the wheels leave the ground.
It's up to each instructor to take the time to analyze a highly
experienced applicant correctly as to potential personality conflict and
deal with it professionally during a carefully conducted pre-flight
discussion.
Any CFI worth the title, regardless of age and experience, should be
able to deal with this issue professionally and tactfully. As a young
instructor, you should NOT be intimidated by more experienced pilots.
Conversely, you should NEVER, as a CFI, make any attempt to intimidate
another pilot.



--
Dudley Henriques

wrote:
I completely agree with what you said but I was wondering what is the
brief period you refer to in terms of time? Does it depend on the
individual student?



See other posts for time suggestion between flights please;

EVERYTHING in flight instruction depends on the individual student.
There is no room in any good CFI's teaching method for generalization.


--
Dudley Henriques

Don't forget the original postulate ... "license for professionals". The
instances quoted were doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and the like. If you have
ever been around a med school, a law school, or a graduate program of any
sort, you will see that these people are used to having it hammered to them
day after day and somehow they seem to thrive on this sort of intensive
learning.

Did I in any way imply that this method would work for any and all students?
I wouldn't for the world say that in any way, shape, or form. I've had
students take six months to a year to get their ticket and they liked
working that way. I've had students that wanted it Friday starting on
Monday.

Would I take everybody that applied to the school I described? Hell NO.
Since I haven't done it, I haven't thought about the application criteria,
but it would be one in which I find out whether compressed learning is right
for the individuals involved.

Sheesh, I've only been playing this education game at the college level for
what, 40 years now? I've got one kid in my class tonight that is finishing
up the semester's work in the third week of a 16 week semester. I've got
two more that are two weeks behind going into the fourth week. I completely
understand different learning styles and rates. But should I keep the kid
that is finishing up in his chair playing solitare on the computer just to
have a warm body in the class? Not on your tintype. That kid gets his
grade and a hearty well done, and go have fun from me.

Jim

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


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

Optimum initial primary training as I have observed it during my tenure
as an instructor is a fairly constant schedule of dual inter spaced with
a period of at least a day or two between lessons.

RST Engineering wrote:
Don't forget the original postulate ... "license for professionals". The
instances quoted were doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and the like. If you have
ever been around a med school, a law school, or a graduate program of any
sort, you will see that these people are used to having it hammered to them
day after day and somehow they seem to thrive on this sort of intensive
learning.

Did I in any way imply that this method would work for any and all students?
I wouldn't for the world say that in any way, shape, or form. I've had
students take six months to a year to get their ticket and they liked
working that way. I've had students that wanted it Friday starting on
Monday.

Would I take everybody that applied to the school I described? Hell NO.
Since I haven't done it, I haven't thought about the application criteria,
but it would be one in which I find out whether compressed learning is right
for the individuals involved.

Sheesh, I've only been playing this education game at the college level for
what, 40 years now? I've got one kid in my class tonight that is finishing
up the semester's work in the third week of a 16 week semester. I've got
two more that are two weeks behind going into the fourth week. I completely
understand different learning styles and rates. But should I keep the kid
that is finishing up in his chair playing solitare on the computer just to
have a warm body in the class? Not on your tintype. That kid gets his
grade and a hearty well done, and go have fun from me.

Jim

The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is moving
at 100 mph plus.
Bottom line on extended experience as a classroom teacher is that it's a
plus of course when entering a flight instruction environment, and SOME
of the methods you used as a professional classroom teacher will
transfer to the flight instruction scenario, BUT.........there are
enough differences between the two environments that flight instruction
has to be approached uniquely by the instructor.
Carrying the classroom mindset into the flight instruction scenario
without this "adjustment" can seriously affect the quality of the flight
instruction given.
You can perform as a CFI using classic classroom teaching technique, but
in my opinion, you will be a much better CFI if you consider carefully
the dynamics involved with teaching in a moving classroom.
All this having been said, and as you have stated for my consideration
your "40 years of experience" in the classroom as a counter to what I am
saying to you, I am perfectly content not to push my position further
with you on this matter.

--
Dudley Henriques