Pan Am International Flight Academy

[User546]

Well, Pan Am still isn't a good place to go - Still run away from it like someone threw a hand grenade at you!

 

[philo beddoe]

Bobbysamd-

I said 'sounds like'

And that's what it sounded like to me.

Since we are not training to fly british fighters, I am more content with the term 'landing gear' due to it's greater applicability to future employment positions for most of us.

Why train a term you will never use at an airline or in any crew environment?

 

[bobbysamd]

GUMP and dufus organizations

I said 'sounds like'

And that's what it sounded like to me.

Lame response in the face of facts. Whatever . . . .

Since we are not training to fly british fighters, I am more content with the term 'landing gear' due to it's greater applicability to future employment positions for most of us.

Why train a term you will never use at an airline or in any crew environment?

Reread what I wrote, above. I made no reference to training people to fly "British Fighters;" I referred only to T-6s. And, T-6s were advanced trainers that led to a variety of AAC equipment. It was the U.S. Army Air Corps which used the term.

And, once more, GUMP is a flow. Should we not teach flows? Obviously, in the example cited above, GUMP worked. Finally, MAPD, which uses the line-oriented flight training philosophy to train its students (read "airline") used a variation of GUMP to train its ab initio A36 Bonanza students. C-GUMP, with the "C" directing the pilot to check cowl flap position, open or closed. C-GUMP was used before all maneuvers, stalls and MCAS, and before landing. While some would argue that Mesa Airlines is a dufus organization, its flight school certainly is not. Undoubtedly there are other schools and instructors of whom you and I have never heard who teach GUMP and other acronyms/flows. I stand by my opinion.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Well heck, if you are teaching primary students in a Bonanza then GUMP, GUMPS, or C-GUMP makes a lot more sense than it does for a basic primary trainer like a C152. My initial diatribe only used GUMP as an example of what it is I really take issue with... That is teaching procedures that don't make sense for the airplane being flown.

The other side of the coin are the instructors who DON"T teach appropriate procedures because even though it works well in a small airplane its not something you would do in an airliner.. like forward slips. I think most instructors teach these but I know there are some who don't.

 

[Lucky]

Pan Am Thread

Take a look at this site. Alot of Pan Am Info


http://jetcareers.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22

 

[bobbysamd]

Procedures and line mentality v. airmanship

The other side of the coin are the instructors who DON"T teach appropriate procedures because even though it works well in a small airplane its not something you would do in an airliner.. like forward slips. I think most instructors teach these but I know there are some who don't.

. . . . which makes no sense whatsoever. Forward slips are basic airmanship and should be part of every pilot's knowledge - from glider pilot, where forward slips are part of his/her bread-and-butter, through ATP.

For that matter, same for power-off gliding approaches. A heavy jet will glide like a rock - but the same principles of holding best glide, trimming and flying the airplane - still apply.

The issue is teaching procedures v. teaching airmanship. Every pilot needs to be a good airman.

 

[wheelsup]

Actually Bobby, MAPD no longer uses C-GUMP before landing. It is used for the manuvers though.

Procedures for landing are all memorized for students though, and I totally agree with what they're doing. As someone else mentioned, airlines don't do GUMPS! I hated doing GUMPS 3 times before landing, and found it hilarious when other instructors tried to teach students in a 152/172 the gumps deal at my old part 61 school!

MAPD puts gear down entering downwind, then rechecks it down with a flow pattern while turning final - that's it!

[rant mode on]

I don't belive they've had a human error gear up EVER! AND GUESS WHAT fellas! NO GUMPS!

[rant mode off]

ASU started something called MTCASE, not really sure what it's all about.


cya
~wheelsup

 

[bobbysamd]

Mapd C-gumps

MAPD no longer uses C-GUMP before landing. It is used for the manuvers though . . . . MAPD puts gear down entering downwind, then rechecks it down with a flow pattern while turning final - that's it!

(emphasis added)

Good and helpful comment. Obviously, it correlates with a real Mesa line procedure somewhere, which is what MAPD flight training is all about.

Having said that, I appreciate that airlines do not "GUMP." However, what is not being understood is with few exceptions most pilots work in a lot of intermediate jobs before airlines hire them. Some of these jobs include single-pilot operations in hard IFR and/or flying different equipment. In some of these jobs, the initial training is subpar. These pilots are not that experienced. If you equip them with a good, standardized flow, chances are, when push comes to shove and they're in a high-workload situation, they will react exactly as they were trained the first time and will be less likely to make mistakes. I feel that teaching "GUMP" early accomplishes that goal.

 

[philo beddoe]

You're lame calling me lame. So there!

We certainly don't GUMP at the airlines.
And I said "GUMP sounds stupid" and contrived. You just don't like disagreement. GUMP all you like. I don't use it at the flight school or the airline.

 

[bobbysamd]

"To GUMP or not to GUMP . . . ."

You're lame calling me lame. So there!

Did I not write, above,

Lame response in the face of facts . . . .

No mention of "you" in that comment.

You just don't like disagreement. GUMP all you like . . . .

Did I not write, above,

It's fine to disagree. But check facts before you sling mud.

And, GUMP, I shall. GUMP, you shall not. Once more, I stand by my opinion. Finally, I would respectfully suggest that you read up a little with an open mind on line-oriented flight training (LOFT).

 

[Clyde]

Hey everyone...After reading posts about flight academys I feel reluctant to write this, but it is a decision I am seriously contemplating and I am looking for some opinions/reviews/ and guidance from some of you more experienced pilots....A little background on myself, I am 20 years old with an associates degree in history...I am private rated and will be taking my instrument checkride within the next month (Nov 15th =) Well to be honest with everyone I am seriously burnt out on academics...I plan on eventually getting my bachelors degree but right now I really wish I could spend most of my time working towars my career; flying...My aviation background has come from a Ma' and Pop' flight school at my local airport....Unfortunately I am only able to fly 2-3 (tops) times a week due to limited instructors....Personally this is not enough so I have inquired all of the flight clubs at the three closest airports that are practical for me to commute to, and unfortunately I am being told that I will be limited to 2-3 times a week due to lack of instructors....This is very dissapointing, thus why I am looking into flight academys...Upon reviewing all of the academys I think Pan Am International looks the most professional and is best suited for me...If I were to enter I am told that Its gonna cost me around 40K...I would begin with my multi rating and finish the course being CFI/CFII/and CFIME and a guranteed job flight instructing at the academy (1 year or so) until I have obtained enough TT/MT for an interview with one of their "contact" regionals...Now ive read earlier posts and I know a lot of people consider this "buying yourself a F/O seat'', but I feel in my scenario I am really limited on options...yes, I would love to keep flying out of my home airport, and do the traditional route of instructing and gaining hours, but the way things are looking thats another 2-3 maybe 4-5 years worth of time which I dont have! I dont look at going to the academy as an easy way out. Personally I feel it is a big plus for me because I can devote all of my time into my flight training to become the best pilot I can possibly be. yes it is appealing to get a F/O job in such quick time, but its more appealing to me to spend 100% of my time over the next year or so strictly devoted to aviation.....

Is there anyone out there with experience with this particular flight academy? The only knowledge I have on it is what I have been told by employees and throught their catalog so I understand a lot of it is bias. How much validity is there to what I am being told? Folks, anyone with comments, and knowledge will be extremely helpful to me...There is no way I would spend all this money and go into something without research, and trusting the posters on this web forum I will take your answers and comments with the higest respect because you sound like some of the most professional in the field....If you do not want to post on this forum and would like to talk in private I can be reached via e-mail - - [email protected] ....I'd encourage people to privately contact me if you have experience with this academy so I can fully understand the point you are getting across......

Thanks a lot guys

Respectfully,

Michael R. Palazzo

I'm not being sarcastic here, but have you thought about medical school? Seriously, the return on your investment on flying is going to be very low when you look at your earnings potential. A few years back, I would have said go for it. But, at present I am reluctant to push someone into this profession. I fly for a secure major, and I am very blessed to be here. But, these jobs are going to be very hard to acquire and there aren't going to be very many of them worth pursuing.

If I had to start now at your age, I would seriously look into another profession with a high rate of return and some better job security, and fly on the side. Remember, no particular degree is required to fly, and if the market opens up you can jump over. If the market doesen't look favorable, you will at least have steady, secure employment in another field.

 

[wheelsup]

would seriously look into another profession with a high rate of return and some better job security

Holy smokes...return on investment? I could've gone and became a lawyer and gotten that "high rate of return" but it would've sucked to argue my whole life! Isn't that what you get married for?

Anyway, I agree 100% with getting a degree in something else. However, there are a TON of people that majored in national history or english or what have you that don't even come close to using that degree in their current field. So it holds weight to get a degree in something else but if you hate it you just won't do that well, and it might backfire. Imagine a 3.8 guy with a Bachlor of Science or a 2.2 guy with a Bachlor in Communications...

~wheelsup

 

[philo beddoe]

Finally, I would respectfully suggest that you read up a little with an open mind on line-oriented flight training (LOFT).

Umm, you are being kind of condescending here. I train 121 crews, including LOFT training. I'm not sure how respectful your 'respectfully recommend' really is.

 

[bobbysamd]

Umm, you are being kind of condescending here. I train 121 crews, including LOFT training. I'm not sure how respectful your 'respectfully recommend' really is.

Just take it in the spirit it is intended.

 

[philo beddoe]

Condescension it is then.
I'll be sure to pass your advice along to the other 121 instructors I work with. Who knew we were in such need of enlightenment? Makes me wonder how I got this far.

 

[bobbysamd]

Standardization, from the beginning

Condescension it is then.
I'll be sure to pass your advice along to the other 121 instructors I work with. Who knew we were in such need of enlightenment? Makes me wonder how I got this far.

I don't know if they need enlightenment or not. But when you make the following blanket remark:

The gump check is retarded . . . "Gump" just sounds like something some dufus cooked up to force an acronym where none existed . . .

and do not accept facts about its origin it could be you who needs enlightenment. Note that I did not rip you or others for not teaching GUMPS in fixed-gear airplanes.

I intend no condencension. Just giving a friendly suggestion. I'm sure you do a great job training your crews because if you weren't you wouldn't have gotten the job or would be keeping it.

Having said that, this entire side discussion about gumping v. not gumping underscores my $0.02 opinion in favor of 141 flight training v. 61, which has been part of the main discussion. 141 schools are required by regulation to establish a TCO wherein standardized procedures are used and taught. I instructed at three well-known 141 schools, ERAU, FSI and Mesa (which is connected to an airline). All three emphasized checklists, which were especially well-done and professionally presented, and standardized procedures - which is how airlines do business. 141 instructors are required to teach the same things, the same procedures and to the same completition standards - the same as what Philo does at his airline. In 141 schools, evaluators evaluate accordingly, meaning they expect to see SOPs followed - just as at Philo's airline, though the consequences of not adhering strictly are greater (such as washing-out and PRIA hits). Whether GUMP is incorporated in a 141 TCO is really irrelevent. But it should be clear that 141 trainees will have an edge at later jobs because they receive from the beginning of their training standardization in some form and to some degree of strictness, and thus will know from the beginning what to expect later in their careers.

 

[philo beddoe]

I do use a flow and check system.

Gear
Gas
Pump(s)
Prop(s)
Flaps

My issue is with the use of "undercarriage", in that students will never use that term in at least 90% of professional flying jobs. Flows are fine, but forced acronyms make me wince.

 

[bobbysamd]

Amiceatm

I do use a flow and check system.

Gear
Gas
Pump(s)
Prop(s)
Flaps

My issue is with the use of "undercarriage", in that students will never use that term in at least 90% of professional flying jobs. Flows are fine, but forced acronyms make me wince.

Fair response.

Comair has an approach brief acronym called AMICEATM. Take a look at the thread (you may disregard the GUMPS comments ). This acronym seems ridiculous. But, AMICEATM clearly ties in to something Comair Airlines does on the line, which is the bigger picture for its school. Thus, whether nor not you like AMICEATM, teaching it to its DCA students is part of its LOFT and clearly appropriate. Compare with MARTHAN and WRIMTIM, which others might find to be stupid acronyms.

Finally, if we're talking about dufuses, I am confident that most of us would agree that the Comair CFI who forced AMICEATM on the magazine writer-weekend pilot is a prime example. All the writer wanted was an IPC. The instructor's only job was to administer the check and sign him off - not retrain him the Comair way.

 

[kilroy]

From what I see 141 seems over rated and extremely expensive compare to local schools. If you have the drive and compassion for learning with an half a$$ instructor you can go just as far at half the cost.Do some research before you sh!t away your mom and dads hard earned money

 

[philo beddoe]

They have a mail order 141 course.
It comes with 24 audio tapes and a manual.
Just go rent a plane, pop in a tape, and hey - be careful!!!