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.

 

[NoJoy]

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.

What!? Dude are you kidding me? The CFII is one of the easiest checkrides out there. Now the initial can be tough-and in the "old" days the failure rate was up to 80% I would get a different examiner if that was the case.

 

[texman]

All part 61 training here. Didn't see much of a difference from the instructional standpoint. But practical experience is everything. It dosent matter what school or if it is 61 or 141.

 

[difete]

I truly thought the bill was going to pass rest requirements increase and such. It seems what they have done wont affect the industry for a while. Think of this, right now we are expiriencing a stand still that has led lots of CFI's collecting lots of flight hours until getting hired by any regional. There are not that many hiring, and we have lots of pilots still on furlough.

Again I think the "industry" stepped in, and managed to delay the issues that affects "them", such as increasing rest requirements. If any ruling by the FAA is to pass in the future about rest, I surely hope "wages" are taken into account, as the more rest we get, the less pay we earn.

With a raise in rest, I hope an equally mandatory raise in pay rate should be made to start the ruling. I am all about safety, but I dont come to work just to see sunsets and enjoy the clouds... I have a family and a life to live outside the flightdeck, and pay is the only thing making that life posible.

 

[gringo]

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.

Lynxman, don't sweat it too much. I failed 3 checkrides (all Part 61) and it did not slow me down one bit.

As long as you can demonstrate that you've learned something from your previous mistakes, it's unlikely anyone will even care.

In fact, thinking back to my 5 interviews, I don't think I've EVER been asked about failed checkrides... especially the Part 61 ones.

Now, if you have a history of failing 121 rides, on the other hand, THAT stuff will tend to stick with you far longer...

What I'm saying is, you're not the first person to fail a checkride, and not the last. Most people fail 1, 2, even 3 in their careers.

Keep your head up and fly right, you'll do fine.

 

[Lynxman]

My CFII was my initial still don't have the ticket either. Failure rate at my FSDO was 90% for initial applicants.

 

[buscap]

Lynxman, don't sweat it too much. I failed 3 checkrides (all Part 61) and it did not slow me down one bit.

As long as you can demonstrate that you've learned something from your previous mistakes, it's unlikely anyone will even care.

In fact, thinking back to my 5 interviews, I don't think I've EVER been asked about failed checkrides... especially the Part 61 ones.

Now, if you have a history of failing 121 rides, on the other hand, THAT stuff will tend to stick with you far longer...

What I'm saying is, you're not the first person to fail a checkride, and not the last. Most people fail 1, 2, even 3 in their careers.

Keep your head up and fly right, you'll do fine.

I hope you're right, but all that was before Colgan in Buffalo. No airline will want to be next on CNN explaining why they hired someone with so many failed checkrides. This law will have an effect on the issue of failed checkrides.

It's a shame, considering the large number of bitter idiots and money chasers out there giving part 61 rides.

 

[johnpeace]

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.

I was making about $2800-3200/month + bonueses as a CFI.

We live in Georgia, living expenses are low, it seemed like 'decent money' to me. I have a wife and 3 kids and we never ate ramen noodles.

It was over twice as much as first year pay at ASA. In fact, I don't even think 2nd year pay at ASA is going to bring me back to that earnings level.

The problem is that I was pretty much maxed out. I didn't have more hours in the month that I could instruct...my rate could maybe have gone up a little, but that wouldn't have made that big a difference and it would have required me making a commitment to flight instruction that I didn't really want to make.

I know CFIs/DPEs who bill themselves out at over $100/hour and have no problem staying busy. There's a reason people are willing to pay over $100/hr for instruction...it's because it's 3x as good and productive as mediocre instruction.

That tells me that if you can't command $100/hr, there's room to grow and get better...and that theres a market out there that'll pay you that.

So, if it's possible to bill at over $100/hr to give flight instruction...and the only thing you need to do is to know enough and be excellent enough to command that rate, isn't it simply a failure to do your best if you're making 'starving' wages as a CFI? Whether at marketing, instructing, improving your communication skills, selling flight instruction, etc...if you're 'starving' it's because of you...not the market.

 

[Mungusaurus]

Hmm, flying a Transport category airplane for an Airline requires one to have an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate!! What a novel idea!

The bypass from CFI straight to CRJ or ERJ or any other 20,000+ lb airplane is what went wrong. Gone are the days of CFI- Small Freight or similar job- Small Commuter (1900-J31 etc)- SAAB/Dash- Jet! These missing steps prepared a pilot for the additional loads/ stresses/ technology and are now all but gone. Save for a few Commuters out there. An "AVERAGE" civillian trained, 300 hr pilot does not have the experience or skill to step from the mighty 172 to an RJ. Its like going from a 50cc scooter to a GSXR1000; you might make it, but its gonna hurt!
:smash::bomb:

 

[Lynxman]

Something is going to have to change in the 135 world then. My flight school isn't dead; we are making money by having great instruction and we charge accordingly, but not nearly enough to fly more than a few hundred hours a year.

 

[surplus1]

My CFII was my initial still don't have the ticket either. Failure rate at my FSDO was 90% for initial applicants.

If the failure rate is in fact that high (90%) one of two things is wrong: 1) The quality of instruction being given is super poor, or 2) The examiner(s) are unreasonable. My advice is - figure out which one it is and then go someplace else.

Sometimes it is the student's fault but not when the failure rate is that high.

 

[Lynxman]

I'll be the first to admit the last one was my fault. The instruction was great, but nerves got the better of me the first and second time around. My examiner asked me about my aspirations to fly for a living and telling him the airlines seemed to have set off something in him. Lot's of belittling went on during the course of my 6-7 hour long oral only to be failed at the end. Needless to say my confidence is very low right now.

 

[Salukipilot4590]

I'll be the first to admit the last one was my fault. The instruction was great, but nerves got the better of me the first and second time around. My examiner asked me about my aspirations to fly for a living and telling him the airlines seemed to have set off something in him. Lot's of belittling went on during the course of my 6-7 hour long oral only to be failed at the end. Needless to say my confidence is very low right now.

Remember when I used to put you under the hood for unusual attitude recovery in the R and some of the times you'd look up and the ground was above you?

What happened brah, you used to be THE MAN dawg....I am disappoint.

 

[NoJoy]

Lynx that is total BS. A 6 hr oral is not fair. Sounds like you need a different DE. Our school had a couple-one was even a Skin Head Neo-Nazi, but he treated all students fairly and his failure rate was 10%. Most examiners are a bit strange, but in the end if their fair and you learn something, that is what counts-

 

[johnpeace]

Lynx that is total BS. A 6 hr oral is not fair. Sounds like you need a different DE.

My initial CFI took at LEAST that long....I got there in the morning and drove home in the dark.

 

[Lynxman]

Lynx that is total BS. A 6 hr oral is not fair. Sounds like you need a different DE. Our school had a couple-one was even a Skin Head Neo-Nazi, but he treated all students fairly and his failure rate was 10%. Most examiners are a bit strange, but in the end if their fair and you learn something, that is what counts-

I still need to take responsibility for it though and hopefully one day with the advent of this legislation I will be able to explain myself and get a job. I know I'm good, but with disclosing my failures I feel I'm screwed to the hiring board.

 

[slick1]

Quote: "The Senate passed a bill that increases the minimum number of flight hours for beginning passenger airline pilots from 250 to 1,500, and a White House spokeswoman said President Obama will sign the bill this weekend."
******************

And this legislation is SOOOO IMPORTANT,....that we're only gonna make you wait THREE YEARS for it to take effect,.....because we know that no airline in their right mind would AGAIN hire low-time pilots and put your family at risk,...... to save $10 per flight hour.

And

Quote: "In addition, the bill mandates simulator stall-recovery training..."
************

....because it's unreasonable for us to expect a professional pilot to have received stall training and testing during their private pilot training and FAA checkride, their commercial pilot training and checkride, their 121 or 135 training and FAA checkrides, any Type specific training and checkride, or their ATP FAA checkride.

There just aren't enough opportunities for professional pilots to demonstrate proficiency in stall recovery! Thank God, Senator Chuck Schumer is here to make sure that all professional pilots know when to push the yoke forward and add power!

I can't WAIT for my government to handle my healthcare!!! Nobody know's how to treat ulcerative colitis like a lawyer-turned politician!

 

[sayrejm]

My CFI initial was an 8 hour oral then a 2.5 hour flight which I did one thing he disagreed with. It was based on technique. Either way I am told that the FAA get's on a DPE's back if he fails less than 70% of his CFI initials.

 

[CX880]

I'll be the first to admit the last one was my fault. The instruction was great, but nerves got the better of me the first and second time around. My examiner asked me about my aspirations to fly for a living and telling him the airlines seemed to have set off something in him. Lot's of belittling went on during the course of my 6-7 hour long oral only to be failed at the end. Needless to say my confidence is very low right now.

This is Gods way of telling you to find another career. I'm not sure that CFI rides count for much as failures but it all depends on who's judging you. Some fat HR lady who has no idea what it means to be a pilot will probably not be happy that you failed to get your "instructor" rating but another pilot on the board may think it's no big deal because they know failure rates for CFI is very high. No use in worrying about it, it's all about luck in this industry, not merit. That's why so many are miserable.

Personally, a red flag would be someone that has failed to complete 121 airline training. That's a big red flag, but a couple of explaineable checkrides here and there? Who cares.

 

[erjip]

The CFI ride does matter. The magical number happens to be 3 failures for disqualification.

With that being said, I had a student who took 3 rides (Private, Instrument and Commercial Multi) and failed 2 of them. He got hired by Mesa and then got furloughed. But Colgan hired him recently.

We have an instructor who took 8 rides and failed 3 including CFI intial and Colgan wouldn't even interview him.

I know it doesn't sound fair but thats the way airlines are now. Its not fair to penalize someone who failed his private around 50 hours and instrument around 100 hours.

Can you imagine if the Medical Board told a doctor that just graduated from med school that they couldn't practice because they had failed science class in 3rd grade, in 5th grade and 9th grade.

Good grief.

 

[CX880]

The CFI ride does matter. The magical number happens to be 3 failures for disqualification.

With that being said, I had a student who took 3 rides (Private, Instrument and Commercial Multi) and failed 2 of them. He got hired by Mesa and then got furloughed. But Colgan hired him recently.

We have an instructor who took 8 rides and failed 3 including CFI intial and Colgan wouldn't even interview him.

I know it doesn't sound fair but thats the way airlines are now. Its not fair to penalize someone who failed his private around 50 hours and instrument around 100 hours.

Can you imagine if the Medical Board told a doctor that just graduated from med school that they couldn't practice because they had failed science class in 3rd grade, in 5th grade and 9th grade.

Good grief.

Those failures are in primary training, and really the examiners are not require to fail you like they are during the CFI. You really did something wrong if you failed primary rides more than once. Airlines do look at that. People will fail something, there's just too much that can go wrong during a check ride, most of witch is subjective. The examiner may not like the way you look that day, or you might get a bad flight partner etc etc. The key is multiple bad failures.