Now that all that has been said and read, here's my 2 bits.....
Take it from me, 3000+ hrs dual given from 1 airplane FBO's to Lufthansa flight training school and one of the premier American ab-initio schools and flying as a Captain for one of the most reputable national airlines. Now at 5000 hrs. Not blowing my own horn here, just letting people know I'm not someone who does not know what I'm talking about. Aaaaaaaaannnnnywaaaaayyyyy, the first thing I have to say is to FlyinBrian. The problem at TFD is not Lufthansa. It is our own darn people. For one thing, EVERY LFT Bonanza at TFD has a red-blooded AMERICAN CFI. This CFI was hired with AT LEAST 1500 hrs TT, 1000 hrs dual given of which 500 was instrument dual given. I know this because I was a CFI at LFT for years. And the LFT planes start the communications process at least 10 miles from TFD. It is the Pan Am's and Westwinds that come in at 3500 feet and either don't talk at all or make their intentions known 2 miles prior to the VOR. I used to think the same way you did about ab-initio and the LFT students. But after seeing how wrong I was I come to this conclusion: I would sooner sit in the back of that A320 with Lufthansa and their 300 hour F/O than I would in a plane of our own with a 1000 US pilot who only flew around PHX for 4 years looking at traffic. But ab-initio is not the problem I have with all of this. It is the quality of the ab-initio being conducted. I will not say any names, but the ab-initio for USA schools is generally weak. Americans, I'm sorry to say, are a soft people. And I have seen pilots pass training programs or kept afloat in U.S. schools that LFT would have thrown away. We don't want to hurt anyones little feelings here in the USA. Look at this board--it's loaded. Someone asks for advice, and if someone gives them a fatherly talking-to, the person starts whining about being "insulted". And whether I like it or not, Western Europe has a better safety record than us (yes, this has been compared by flight hours). So ab-initio is totally dependent on WHO is conducting it.
Second, is to all who take a hard stance on the ab-initio stance. There is no yes or no. I have flown with ERAU grads plenty of times. Generally, they are good pilots but they have egos that can't fit in the cockpit. But most of the other ab-initio products are weak pilots because the kept getting what they WANTED in training instead of what they NEEDED in training. They paid a lot of money and so all they had to do was bellyache about something and the school would give in. After all, this is not a pilot being trained, it is a CUSTOMER.
How many of us had a CFI who yelled at us because we kept making the same mistake that had potential to be deadly? We were told over and over again, but did not listen. But man, when the CFI got mad, we learned. Today, it is "Waaah, my CFI hurt my feelings. I want a new CFI". True, yelling is bad technique, but SOMETIMES it is the only way to get through to a student. In my years of being a CFI, sometimes I had to do that. None of my students ever asked for a CFI change, and only one ever failed a checkride. 9 years and 3000+ hours of dual given, something must have been done right.
And so it is experience. It is this reason that I have to say that what some people call "sitting there" in that 172 is better prep than going to a marginal ab-initio school. Being a CFI is not about "paying dues". It is a great way to get valuable experience. Given the choice, I would rather have the 1200 hour CFI from PHX than a 6-800 hour ab-initio product, unless I knew that the ab-initio school was as hardcore as the "bad" Lufthansa school. The bottom line is to go through this aviation career with ears open and mouth closed. It has worked for me.......
Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open mouth and prove it!
Y'all be safe
Terry
