Ari Ben Aviator

I went to the Aviator in Fall 2006. I had three instructors while I was there. One got hired at Colgan (MPL), one's VISA expired (IFR, CMEL, CSEL, MEI, CFI), and the last one got hired at expressjet the day I was leaving after my CFII checkride.

What everyone is saying about the instructors not being paid for ground time is true. My instructors weren't bad in that they didn't volunteer, but if you went to their house (on the next street over, in your backyard) they would be willing to chat, have a beer, and talk about whatever you needed.

The planes are old, but so are most flight schools these days. The planes fly A LOT. If you think that a plane that flies at least twelve hours a day isnt going to have some minor issues here and there, you're crazy. In the event that 5 or 6 planes hit 100 hour mx checks on a Saturday or Sunday, whille the shop was mostly closed, the Monday thereafter all planes would be grounded except for checkrides that were already scheduled. This happened 2 times in the 3.5 months I was there. Things may have changed since I was there but, this is all I know.

If I remeber correctly, when I left, 5 planes had 430's, although that may have changed by now too. You'll learn the quirks of every plane, and some will become favorites. But in the end, multi time is multi time whether it has a 430 or not. Although flying through towering cumulus while trying to hold level and trying to intercept a localizer(that is not coming in) at PBI while approach is asking you why you are only going 95kts in a light twin in 6630K, is not something that I want to do everyday, I did get 200 hours of multi, of which has built to 300 hours since. My cfi counterparts at my flight school both who went to aviation colleges have 100 multi and 9 multi, so I feel aviator worked well for me, especially for the price compared to the other large schools.
 
It wouldn't be an Aviator thread without Florida Flyer, input so here goes....I was there around 2005 and endured the full Pro Course, complete with an overdose of instructing at the end. Much of what is said is true. There are worse schools than the Aviator. Most of the problems centered around getting done in a sensible time scale which resulted in students busting budget. MX could be a problem at times and one student died in a fatal crash in a single. Mike Cohen is a major potential problem. He is a livewire and your relationship with him will make or break your training.

I have heard the Aviator for sale rumor and believe it. Mike is getting old now and one of these days his heart will give in during a daily rage. He doesn't have anyone to pass the school on to as, let's face it his son is not up to the job or any other for that matter. For potential students, that would worry me. Who knows what the future of the school is! Now is still not a great time to be doing an academy course and if it was my money all over again I'd go the FBO route and stay out of debt.
 
yea, dont put any stock in this. All a flight school needs to do is go through the red tape of setting up a part 141 program. Once they have an approved syllabus and get the feds to sign off, they are good to go. This isnt any real sort of "accreditation" in the sense an educational institution would go through.

Really? Have you looked into that statement?

While I am not a fan of Ari Ben, I do want to make a point on accreditation. Just because you are 141 does not mean your accredited. It is actually VERY difficult to get accredited and then be able to offer federal loans. The process is extremely costly and it takes years to complete. It is just like being a college, or really a trade school, trying for accreditation. I looked into the process when I owned my flight school and I figured it would take five years to get enough funds to pay for the accreditation, complete the paperwork, and have multiple, no, hundreds, of meetings with the PRIVATE, NONGOVERNMENTAL, accrediting agency. Does accreditation mean anything to students other than access to federal student loans? Nope. But it IS difficult to get accredited.
 
one student died in a fatal crash in a single.

You just can't get over it, can you :banghead: Most every large school out there has something like this in the past. Three people died in a Skymates plane last year because someone was doing what appeared to be aerobatics, it don't make the school a bad school. And don't throw maintenance into it, I've read the report on the accident you're talking about.

I've been at Aviator for a little over a month and haven't seen Mike go into a rage yet, matter of fact I've found him quite friendly, as well as the rest of the staff. Maybe it was just you:panic: a little self reflection might be in order.:D
 
I have heard the Aviator for sale rumor and believe it. Mike is getting old now and one of these days his heart will give in during a daily rage. He doesn't have anyone to pass the school on to as, let's face it his son is not up to the job or any other for that matter. For potential students, that would worry me. Who knows what the future of the school is! Now is still not a great time to be doing an academy course and if it was my money all over again I'd go the FBO route and stay out of debt.

I heard a rumor you got furloughed. True/false?
 
That's quite a weird thing to say for even you MFT1Air. I guess you have some kind of "clever" meaning hidden in there. No, I have not been furloughed and am still flying.

Well, Bill, I have to disagree with you about the cause of the crash. For those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about, here's the link:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tor-failed-report-planes-technical-fault.html

So, you did make it to the Aviator, Bill, this will be interesting. I guess you are living in the school houses. I have to say that I lived with some cool guys
 
I'd suggest an NTSB report rather than the Daily Fail: http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20051020X01695&key=1

But I'd say this was far more damning than just a maintenance issue. This shows the dangerous attitudes toward maintenance which was prevalent during my time at the school also. Instructors were afraid to write up small issues for fear of Mike's reaction, while students wanted to fly and didn't want to down one of the few airplanes available and delay their training even further.
 
That's quite a weird thing to say for even you MFT1Air. I guess you have some kind of "clever" meaning hidden in there. No, I have not been furloughed and am still flying.

Well, Bill, I have to disagree with you about the cause of the crash. For those of you that have no idea what I'm talking about, here's the link:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tor-failed-report-planes-technical-fault.html

So, you did make it to the Aviator, Bill, this will be interesting. I guess you are living in the school houses. I have to say that I lived with some cool guys

I'm glad we have incisive folks (for the most part) on this forum. I missed your point. Maintenance issue not reported to the MX folks to resolve or an instructor making a judgment call about a off-nominal NOT REPEATED presentation that reoccurred later when another pilot flew?

. . .and someone needs to help me please, for I do not fly Cessnas. Takeoff. . .flaps STUCK in a 30 (20) degree angle. Is this a short field takeoff configuration? And when the stall horn goes off? Drop the nose, right? Help me to understand the sequence of events, please? More importantly, help me to understand FF's point.


From the NTSB report.
  • The student pilot's flight instructor reported that on October 11, 2005, he had encountered a discrepancy with the airplane where the flaps would not retract from a 20 degree down position. The flight instructor stated that he "moved the flap lever to retract the flaps, and the flaps and the flaps position indicator did not move." He further stated that he "reset the flap lever to the original position and tired again. This time the flaps and flaps position indicator moved normally." The flight instructor did not report the discrepancy to maintenance personnel. According to the flight logs for the airplane, it was flown 10 times between this flight and the accident flight. Written statements were obtained from the pilots for 8 of these flights and none reported any duplications of this discrepancy. The pilot for the remaining 2 flights had left the United States and could not be contacted.
Condolences to the family of the pilot. Was this accident preventable? Who truly is to say? The NTSB report does speak for itself. It doesn't address MX issues. It mentioned a contributing cause, but how did that configuration occur. . .and why?

It doesn't address a hostile environment. It states the facts. Like FF mentioned previously, some people failed to have a backbone to speak up if problems arose. . .but once away from the school are spewing negative, unsubstantiated rhetoric.

. . .yet, in 2009, the school churns on producing, for the most part, quality pilots. Like mentioned previously about staff, to parallel the thought. . .one can't speak favorably about the "professionalism" of all its graduates.
 
. . .and someone needs to help me please, for I do not fly Cessnas. Takeoff. . .flaps STUCK in a 30 (20) degree angle. Is this a short field takeoff configuration? And when the stall horn goes off? Drop the nose, right? Help me to understand the sequence of events, please? More importantly, help me to understand FF's point.

A 172 doing touch and go's will be in flaps 30 at landing. Normally you'll put the flap lever in full up position as part of the takeoff configuration. If you've been flying a 172 any length of time and try to takeoff in flaps 30 it is painfully obvious that there is a problem.

Now that being said, if you for whatever reason continue the takeoff (don't know why) and you fly the airplane and not the problem, the outcome should be ok. Flaps 30 creates a huge drag profile, but the 172 will fly with flaps in that configuration, not well mind you, but it will fly if the pilot is on top of it, and an off airport landing or possibly a short pattern with very shallow turns to a landing on airport is possible. My choice would be off airport straight ahead, actually it would be to abort the TO and take my chance with the end of the runway:D

One of my instructors a long time ago had me fly in this exact configuration just to show me it can be done, he didn't recommend me doing it on a regular basis though!
 
A 172 doing touch and go's will be in flaps 30 at landing. Normally you'll put the flap lever in full up position as part of the takeoff configuration. If you've been flying a 172 any length of time and try to takeoff in flaps 30 it is painfully obvious that there is a problem.

Now that being said, if you for whatever reason continue the takeoff (don't know why) and you fly the airplane and not the problem, the outcome should be ok. Flaps 30 creates a huge drag profile, but the 172 will fly with flaps in that configuration, not well mind you, but it will fly if the pilot is on top of it, and an off airport landing or possibly a short pattern with very shallow turns to a landing on airport is possible. My choice would be off airport straight ahead, actually it would be to abort the TO and take my chance with the end of the runway:D

One of my instructors a long time ago had me fly in this exact configuration just to show me it can be done, he didn't recommend me doing it on a regular basis though!

Aha! I'm visualizing the scenario now. Good old power cycle could have potentially resolved it then.
 
So, you did make it to the Aviator, Bill, this will be interesting. I guess you are living in the school houses. I have to say that I lived with some cool guys

Yep, working on Multi IR right now. I'm at the apartments in Vero, but it looks like we'll be moving to the old Pam Am housing at the airport in the next few weeks.
 
I'd suggest an NTSB report rather than the Daily Fail: http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20051020X01695&key=1

But I'd say this was far more damning than just a maintenance issue. This shows the dangerous attitudes toward maintenance which was prevalent during my time at the school also. Instructors were afraid to write up small issues for fear of Mike's reaction, while students wanted to fly and didn't want to down one of the few airplanes available and delay their training even further.

My experience so far has been completely the opposite, every time I've had a issue, the mechs were johnny on the spot to fix it or pull it off the line. Had a 300 rpm mag drop yesterday, and couldn't burn it off so we went back to the ramp, I will not fly a broken airplane, got far to many things left to do on my bucket list:nana2:
 
My experience so far has been completely the opposite, every time I've had a issue, the mechs were johnny on the spot to fix it or pull it off the line. Had a 300 rpm mag drop yesterday, and couldn't burn it off so we went back to the ramp, I will not fly a broken airplane, got far to many things left to do on my bucket list:nana2:

I'm glad to hear that the school has improved the situation in the years since I left. I hope your training continues to be worth the price you paid.
 
Back
Top