If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
You have to keep in mind that some of the better instructors out there
interview the students before taking them on. I have found the best instructors at local flying clubs, who instruct not for building time or making money, but just for the heck of it. The ones to stay away from are the graduates of large 141 schools who crank out CFIs in 12 months. doc wrote in : are awfully hard to find. I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal. There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of hours in a cockpit with him/her. Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
doc,
I know that you did not ask for a recommendation but if I can help you in this quest, let me recommend a name to you. I feel extremely happy with this instructor. In fact, I am thankful for the day when I ran into him 5 years ago. Send me an email if you are interested. Disclaimer: I have no personal or financial interest in this recommendation. SP doc wrote in message ... Dallas. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
If you go with a younger instructor (age 20-30) they are there for hours
until they can get a better job as I am finding, some of the even admit it. I told my instructor that I wanted to learn all the way so I could teach people and she looked at me puzzled and asked me WHY? I'm just about to go out on my own (solo practice) and it's been taking so long, I've been doing solo circuits for months now, but not with consistancy because I can't get out there because priority seems to go to the flight school's college students, which my instructor is assigned to. Funny, I don't seem to pay any less so why should I get lower priority. G "doc" wrote in message ... are awfully hard to find. I just "interviewed" a couple at local flight schools by taking little flights with them, ostensibly just for rust removal. There's no way I'd hire them for instrument training. It is tough to find an instructor who really knows his stuff, is a good teacher and is congenial enough that I'd be willing to spend 10's of hours in a cockpit with him/her. Just an observation. I don't expect anyone to have a solution. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I am an instructor, and I have flown long trips for personal business.
But I fail to see how those long trips are an essential experience for instructing. It makes a good hangar story, and it may impress an uninformed student. In my opinion, critical examination of the issues (like the discussions taking place in this NG) to be far more valuable for the experience and knowledge of an instructor. However, you have a valid point about things that are not in the PTS. This is particularly true for the IFR environment. There are many unwritten rules of IFR that you only learn by flying in the system. But it is not difficult to incorporate those elements into the standard IFR training. You don't have to embark on a 1000NM trip. ATC works the same way whether it is Cleveland Center or Albuquerque Center. Tracon works the same way everywhere. FSS works the same way. FAR's are the same. Except for weather and regional accents, what else is so different that is critical to the experience of an IFR pilot? Please explain. Journeyman wrote in : In article k.net, Dudley Henriques wrote: First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane that makes one better or not better qualified as an instructor....absolutely nothing. There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS, but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond hectobuck- burger range. This is objective truth. If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing. As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance their careers. Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the finest CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation. I'm sure you have. But you can be an expert in something specialized and less than completely knowledgable in something related. Pick an example. Say an instructor chose to specialize in primary training. Such an instructor would probably be a bad choice to go with for instrument training. Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group are smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense. I didn't make the statement, so I don't have to defend it, but it's not _pure_ nonsense. Rather, it's mildly impure nonsense. IOW, there is a grain of something useful there. It's safe to assume that someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned something worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually go places. Whether that alone makes them competent at teaching is another thing entirely. All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about You can pretty much generalize that to any area of teaching. The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us as long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system that requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger and better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made about this. Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a specific CFI as being on the negative side of the quality equation! This is important to Absolutely. I've met more conscientious and less conscientious instructors, but I've generally been lucky with the ones I've had. You don't need kilo-hours and kilo-mile trips to be a good instructor for primary training (to pick a random example). And a good primary instructor doesn't need to be a good instrument instructor. Morris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Are pilots really good or just lucky??? | Icebound | Instrument Flight Rules | 68 | December 9th 04 01:53 PM |
Good Stories about Plane Purchases | Jon Kraus | Owning | 0 | August 11th 04 01:20 PM |
Good Source For PIREPS? | Phoenix Pilot | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | August 25th 03 03:59 AM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |