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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
C Kingsbury wrote:
wrote in message ... Your flight school could afford to overtrain its students. Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet PIC in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is all the more salient considering how picky they are about the students. Yes, and the reason is that they get the fundamentals solid before moving on. Many civilian instructors and flight schools move students along too fast and this increases the total time in the end. Matt |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:33:42 GMT, "C Kingsbury" Well, as long as we are into logic fallacies, it woudl be a non sequitur to assume that simply because the U S Navy has a training requirement of n hours for its aviators, that the same requirement is a reasonable one for general aviation pilots. Worst case we're talking an additional 8 hours of instruction, or roughly $1000, for the average GA pilot. In the big scheme of things that's chicken****, especially if it leads to better results. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message ups.com... there is no way in the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without hundreds of hours of twin time This is also incorrect. Just recently (about a year ago) someone I know bought a Twin Comanche to train in. snip Just about any other twin would have been easier to insure. It's one thing to say "you can't get insured in a twin unless you're Chuck Yeager" which seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, but the OP is talking about a 421, which is rather a bit more plane than a twinkie or even a Baron. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:10:13 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
wrote: Worst case we're talking an additional 8 hours of instruction, or roughly $1000, for the average GA pilot. In the big scheme of things that's chicken****, especially if it leads to better results. [...] Anyway, $1000 may be chickenfeed to you, but some people consider it real money. I think the point is that time spent early on making sure the fundamentals are solid is made up later because the student is better prepared to handle more advanced topics. You can't navigate if you're still struggling with BAI, and you can't fly approaches if you're still struggling with navigation. So, the question is not "Can the student afford to spend $1000 for 8 hours of BAI drills?", but "If the student skimps on BAI training, how much more will the whole program end up costing him when he struggles to fly approaches he's not ready to be flying yet?" I guess it depends on one's definition of "skimping". I seldom spend more than 3-4 hours on attitude flying before moving on, even though the student might need further improvement with his attitude flying skills. My personal belief is, when the attitude flying is good enough so as not to cause a distraction and interfere with further learning, it's time to move on. It doesn't have to be perfect. The skills will improve with practice while doing other work. Every procedure turn is an opportunity to practice and improve attitude flying skills. I am satisfied with my results. My students rarely exceed 40 hours of instrument time when they take their practical test, unless the student comes with many previous hours logged, and I rarely have a practical test failure, and I have never had a failure in 15 years of teaching because of weak attitude flying skills. I know other instructors with comparable records, and I know they are not spending 12-14 hours of attitude flying training before moving on to other phases. But there is no single way of going at this stuff. I have changed something after just about every rating I have ever done, because I thought I could improve things in some way for the student. So if you are satisfied that the students you turn out are adequately trained, and you have trained them as efficiently as possible so that they have not wasted their hard-earned time and money on a lot of unnecessary stuff, what else can be said? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:10:13 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
I think the point is that time spent early on making sure the fundamentals are solid is made up later because the student is better prepared to handle more advanced topics. You can't navigate if you're still struggling with BAI, and you can't fly approaches if you're still struggling with navigation. So, the question is not "Can the student afford to spend $1000 for 8 hours of BAI drills?", but "If the student skimps on BAI training, how much more will the whole program end up costing him when he struggles to fly approaches he's not ready to be flying yet?" I've always wondered about this: What do you think the FAA had in mind when they determined the training requirement under Part 61, which is 15 hours, I believe? Certainly not 12-14 hours of attitude flying instruction, it is safe to say. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet PIC in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is all the more salient considering how picky they are about the students. Yes, and the reason is that they get the fundamentals solid before moving on. Many civilian instructors and flight schools move students along too fast and this increases the total time in the end. Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students take 50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to get those 50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day learning. -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Barrow" wrote in
: Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students take 50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to get those 50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day learning. I think that's really the difference. With the military training, it's all day, every day, and the incentive to do well is very high. Waiting days, weeks, or even months between sessions means you start over, or very nearly, each time. There is certainly a loss between flights even if it's only a week in between. The more often the training is done, the more is retained and the less total time is required, or if the total time is the same, more training can be done during a concentrated program. Back when I was going through flight school, I knew that if I didn't complete the course, I would be entering the jungle war games on foot, and I did not want to do that, so I studied very hard. -- Regards, Stan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
C Kingsbury wrote:
It's one thing to say "you can't get insured in a twin unless you're Chuck Yeager" which seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, but the OP is talking about a 421, which is rather a bit more plane than a twinkie or even a Baron. Yes, it is. I was referring to planes that someone might actually train or build time in - C-310's, Barons, Aztecs. The 421 is in a completely different class. You have to go to FlightSafety (or equivalent) AFTER you get your multi to get checked out. Michael |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ... "Matt Barrow" wrote in : Really? I'd say they move along at a snails pace. How many students take 50-60 hours to get their private certificate and take a year to get those 50-60 hours? In the military it's non-stop, every day learning. I think that's really the difference. With the military training, it's all day, every day, and the incentive to do well is very high. Waiting days, weeks, or even months between sessions means you start over, or very nearly, each time. When I did my private ticket, I did the flight portion in just over seven weeks (44.5 hours @ three times a week 2 hrs each lesson). I was determined not to repeat any part of the course just because I got rusty during an interval. By taking and passing the written first, I was prepared for the flight phase. Also, the instructor went over what he intended to cover in the air so there were no surprises. I don't know if that would work for every one, but it seems easy now, looking back over all these years. Reading what some people struggle through, I can only sympathize for their slow and unsteady progress. -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
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 |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 6 | February 27th 04 09:11 AM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |