1500 hr bill passes senate!!!

[johnpeace]

So you worked in flight school management, and instructed for a single year and have the balls to say that anyone not making money as a CFI is doing it wrong? Yeah you sound like management...completely out of touch with reality.

Also, please do tell the other starving CFIs out there that their mistake is that they don't have "quality clients" and are not delivering "quality customer service"...

Yeah, I do. For 3 years I saw the difference between instructors who kept a full schedule and made money and those who didn't.

I suggest that those who didn't were doing it wrong, based on the assumption that the goal was to make money.

I was pretty in touch with reality...every day I instructed and I looked at the hours I and the other CFIs billed and looked at the ratio of flight:ground hours, the average lesson length, etc.

As an instructor, I pretty much maximized my billed hours and delivered a high quality product to my clients. They appreciated it and referred their friends and I enjoyed a pretty good reputation and just did a good job. It worked. I made good money.

I also got to see CFIs who barely cared and were there to build time. They struggled to find success.

If you aren't making money as a CFI, some self-examination is in order. Perhaps a change of attitude or a change of employment would make the difference between whether you make money or not...but there's money there to be made!

To suggest that it's impossible (or even difficult) to make money as a CFI is irresponsible.

 

[Abernathy]

If you aren't making money as a CFI, some self-examination is in order. Perhaps a change of attitude or a change of employment would make the difference between whether you make money or not...but there's money there to be made!

To suggest that it's impossible (or even difficult) to make money as a CFI is irresponsible.

I think we might have a misunderstanding about what "making money" means in this context. When I mean "making money," I mean making enough to make a decent living, perhaps support another person, and not eat ramen noodles. "Decent Living" isn't very ambiguous. The only people I know who made good money and a decent living as CFIs worked at established international academies geared towards foreign students. Those jobs aren't very easy to come by.

I instructed triple the time you did, so I don't think I'm the one who needs a self examination. I think you need to get off your high horse.

 

[sayrejm]

Did they teach you how to spell "waste" in that class, or in 3rd grade spelling?

No, I got an engineering degree. We used numbers. But I stand corrected and deeply regret the error. I do understand the difference and it was merely an oversight in proofreading and not ignorance. I will do my very best in the future to to be more careful. I now understand how easily someone could make such a careless mistake and will be more considerate of other's mistakes as well before calling them out for such errors.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

It amazes me that sitting in a class room at riddle will subvert the 1500 hour requirement. I guess that's why the senator from ND was one of the pushers.

The data is very clear that structured training directed towards part 121 flying does a better job of preparing a pilot for the airlines. It isn't the classroom stuff that matters. It is the structured curricula that makes the difference. There is just too much variability in part 61. Some instructors are great, and teach to the same standard as part 141, but there is no oversight to speak of, and from the airline's point of view, that's bad.

 

[sayrejm]

I would say that any structured course from a good instructor is best. Yes, you can find a lot of hit and miss part 61 CFIs but you can also get bad CFIs in a 141 course as well who just seem to push you through a mill while checking off boxes as you go.

I have never been enrolled in a 141 course but I have taught them. I learned a lot from a seasoned and well respected part 61 instructor and worked with some young and inexperienced CFIs who didn't care much about the progress of their students.

One thing I do believe is that it isn't so much the instructor as it is the students drive to want to learn. If the student wants it, he or she will find it. I have had students who need to have their hand held from page to page in manuals and I wondered why they were even there to start with. I have also had the motivated students who showed up well prepared and with challenging questions for me which pushed me to be better.

In the end, there is one saying I remember reading about in a book that has always stuck:

"Hire for personality, train for proficiency"

The difficult part is the guessing game a hiring department takes with an interviewee. First impressions have often been wrong in my experience and it is not hard to put on an act for one or two days to be convincing that you are the right guy to hire.

I would have probably added that airlines need to spend more time with an individual on a personal basis prior to selection. Certain undesirable traits are bound to come out in the wood work. Obviously that would be impractical though which is why we have probationary periods.

Also, I am a little concerned about past failed checkrides including part 61 checks. Most have failed 1 and maybe 2 rides before. But a few might have failed 3 which right now seems to be the magical "too much" number (Colgan for example). My concern would be more about the proportion of failed checkrides to total checkrides ever taken and which rides they were (many fail the CFI). For example, which is worse: Someone who has failed 2 rides out of 4 total (that total including private, instrument, commercial single and commercial multiengine) or someone who has failed 3 out of 15 total? (that total including CFI, MEI, CFII, typeratings, and other fun stuff but not counting 121 and 135 PCs) Which guy would be more competitive based only on that information? I think it would be interesting to figure out just how the pilots history of training will be taken into account. Will it be all inclusive, or will airlines come down to a black and white hard number of busted rides allowed and how many is too many? (Like Colgan is now at no more than 2)

Thanks for everyones thoughts on this in advance.

 

[Lynxman]

Exactly! I feel like I'm screwed because I busted my CFII ride more than once. In fact I really don't want to take a chance on going for more ratings in the event I do fail. Really brought my confidence down.

 

[surplus1]

How would this have prevented the Colgan crash again?

That's the perfect question. It wouldn't have prevented it and it won't prevent one like it in the future. The new law focuses on just about everything - except the probable cause.

 

[dondk]

The data is very clear that structured training directed towards part 121 flying does a better job of preparing a pilot for the airlines. It isn't the classroom stuff that matters. It is the structured curricula that makes the difference. There is just too much variability in part 61. Some instructors are great, and teach to the same standard as part 141, but there is no oversight to speak of, and from the airline's point of view, that's bad.

No offense... what data?

Name the puppy mill and they had "bridge programs" to the 121 environment. Then when the puppy got into 121 training a large percentage busted out.

You can structure curricula in any industry, where the rubber meets the road is in the practical aspect. That is where it counts, not how you got there, but how you apply what you learned. Structure does little to assist in going from the cognitive phase to the application phase of learning.

 

[Leroy Smith]

How would this have prevented the Colgan crash again?

The data is very clear that structured training directed towards part 121 flying does a better job of preparing a pilot for the airlines. It isn't the classroom stuff that matters. It is the structured curricula that makes the difference. There is just too much variability in part 61.

1500 hrs would probably be a good bit of time spent with students trying to kill you while doing slow flight, stalls, and generally screwing up the act of flying in every way conceivable. Seems like that would have done a lot of good in this case. In the absence of any real experience, the "structured curricula" seems to have resulted in an aversion to altitude loss. Only one thing solves a stall, reduce the angle of attack. They had plenty of altitude to work with. Absolutely no reason they couldn't have flown their way out of this accident- two working turboshafts, two wings still attached, all flight controls accounted for... Missing the ground/trees/powerlines/whatever by an inch or more is all that really matters at the end of the day - regardless of what the curricula or sim instrutor or PTS say.

 

[COOPERVANE]

Don't get me wrong. I fully support the 1500 hour rule. ANYTHING that makes this industry more difficult to get into can create upward pressure on wages and lower supply.

I would RATHER see a requirement to fly cargo or other 135. Show me somebody that has slogged through a year or two in the weather and I'll show you a competent pilot. Several times I have done a 4 day with "Maverick" who incessantly tells me how awesome he was on the Riddle flight team until he was hired with 300 hours. We get a flap fail or have a gear disagree and suddenly it is deer in headlights and "your plane"

I just didn't see much benefit in establishing some arbitrary number to PREVENT accidents.

I guess, problem is, those jobs just aren't out there.