Different Concept in Flight Training-What do you think?

A

APU

New Member
Hi,
I've been reading the post on the site for a while, but haven't posted anything. However, the other day I was speaking with a person who is very interested in starting a new flight school.
He has a number of investors lined up. Although all are not pilots, all have been involved in the aviation industry most of theif lives.

The difference in his concept is that he really wants it to train pilots toward a professional level of proficency. Have you ever noticed how many flight instructors are uncomfortable with using an autopilot, or a flight director, or anything beyond the basic flight instruments. That seems to be a direct result of the lack of truly professional flight training oriented to developing pilots that can really take advantage of the equipment and the current ATC system. How many, during instrument training, have been or where trained on an RNAV approach ( I never was!)? If you were to rent or purchase an aircraft equiped with a Garmin 530, would you be confident on how to utilize the equipment ( note: just entering a direct setting doen't count!)...you get the idea.
frown.gif


Here is his proposed flight school's concept, please tell me what you think.

1. Training will begin post-private pilot stage. Commercial, Instrument, ME, CFI, CFII, ATP (possibly), and aerobatic.

2. Aircraft will be new or nearly new (year 2000+), possibly cirrus or cessna.

3. Aircraft will have working Autopilots, Flight Directors, GPS, HSI, RMI, all the capability of newer avionics systems (like garmin). Students will be fully trained on this equipment.

4. Training from the commercial stage on will include all of the above. (If your flying around building cross-country time, you might as well be learning how to use this equipment).

5. Some Aircraft will include de-ice/anti-ice systems. Training will be done in these system as well and actual flight into known ice will be part of training program.

6. As previously mentioned, part of curriculum will involve aerobatic maneuver training. (may not be for actual rating)

7. Minimum canceling of flights due to weather will be the norm. Fixed based simulators (Singe/Twin/and Jet) will be available during inclement weather. Training in airline procedures and refinement of instrument procedures will be the norm.

8. Cost: Probably a fixed fee with a maximum limit over the curriculum. Note: Part 61

9. No Guaranteed interview, or promise of employment is available at this time.

10. Don't know price of the program, but will be competitive with other programs where you fly on steam gauges, old aircraft, and get half the training.

11. School location will be in the Northeast US, somewhere cold...Remember the airlines want you out there doing that pre-flight no matter how cold it is. This is intended to be for the serious.

Please post your thoughts positive or negative. Also, if there is something missing that you feel isn't readily available in the current training environment please give me your suggestions.
ooo.gif


Thanks,

Barry
 
What\'s the point?

So a guy does the program and knows all about how a 530 works and known icing in a Cessna 340 or whatever. Then his first professional job is in a 152 with a Cessna 300 radio and a loran. Your program, as described, doesn't really address the reality of most pilots career progression. It's nice to know stuff, but not need to know. And don't forget, the FAA could care less...they want to see you work an E6B and do NDB approaches. Got an IFR approved GPS and fully coupled autopilot? Great...turn that crap off and show me you can really fly....

Don't mean to be overly negative to a new guy...but that's how I see's it.
 
Re: What\'s the point?

l was thinking right along the lines as you. All of this new technology is meant to make flying easier and safer. But I think the real training needs to be with the old school, reliable "steam gauges", VOR's and no GPS... that's where the real flying is. The technological stuff can be picked up later. If I had my choice of a $150 an hour (or whatever) garmin equipped eclipse or an $80 172 with dual VOR... you can bet your ass Im taking the 172, for more reasons than one. That is another issue that he should be thinking about. Are students going to want to pay significantly more for fancier equipped aircraft to get their initial ratings? Enough for the school to stay afloat?
 
Re: What\'s the point?

You may find that the cost of all those "new" airplanes with the fancy avionics may make the cost prohibitive to students, especially those who plan on progressing through and achieving all the ratings neccessary to become a professional pilot. It may be better to equip yourself with a nice fleet of training aircraft and perhaps have one or two "fancy" airplanes to allow students to get a feel for them, when they are ready.

Personally, I trained in warriors with steam guages only, the most sophisticated thing in the airplanes was the DME and HSI. Once I transitioned ot my multi training we had dual garmin 430's, and it really wasn't too difficult to learn how to properly use them. I feel its far more important to get a solid foundation of the fundamentals using the basic equipment and allow the students to build upon that foundation when they feel they are ready.
 
Re: What\'s the point?

I agree. Learn the basics with the old stuff and progress to the more up-to-date equipment. At our school, we more or less have the option to fly 25-year-old Beech Sundowners or 5-year-old C172's for our instrument training. I chose the Sundowner for my initial instrument ticket and my CFII. Everyone thought I was crazy for doing my CFII in a Sundowner, but when intruments are not very accurate or stop working, (as they were prone to do in the Sundowner on occasion) I know what to expect and how to deal with it. All those people who fly only the newer 172s may not feel as comfortable when something does go wrong. Not to mention, most new CFIs probably won't be flying fancy new airplanes. They're going to have to train others in older aircraft, so it would be best to learn the "old" way. The down-fall however, I have absolutely no idea how to do a GPS approach.
 
Re: What\'s the point?

All,

Thanks for the input, and by no means is anyone being too hard on me. This industry is certainly not for the weak of heart or sensitive. If anything your feedback helps me to go back and refine this concept.

Perhaps, I've put a little too much emphasis on the new fancy avionics stuff. That was not to be the intent, but more that a pilot should be able to walk away with an Commercial/Instrument/ME licence and be fully proficient. Steam Gauges, Modern Avionics, experience flying in adverse conditions like known icing, expericence using a FD, Autopilot, HSI, and RMI (this is not as easy as one may think, but takes training).

Also, note that this training would start post-private license.

Personally, I feel that more time should be spent in instrument training using the basic instrument... read as in no artificial horizon, just turn and bank, DG, Altimeter, and VSI.

However, what I would be trying to address is the lack of experience that those seeking a professional career lack at the other end of the spectrum, when they are trying to transition to that first 121 or 135 job.

Thanks, keep the comments coming!
laugh.gif


Barry
 
Re: What\'s the point?

I understood the aspect of your post. The thing you have to ask is, is there really a market for this kind of training. Most "post-private" students working on their instrument rating just want the rating. They dont want to spend an extra 2 or 3 grand learning GPS and RNAV approaches in fancy aircraft if they dont immediately have too, especially if someone else will pay for their training later in their career. I think it is a good product, but their just might not be a market for it at the moment. In the future, when VOR's and NDB's start becoming scarcer and scarcer, all flight schools are going to HAVE to transistion to a more technologically advanced method of training... but not yet.
 
Re: What\'s the point?

Mastermags et al:

All of your points, as well as those of others, have validity and will defintely be considered. However, if this could be done at a price competitive with what most schools are offering (one hour in a 172 with instructor is $130-$150 in my neck of the woods), do you think it would be worthwhile for the student. Please understand that my friend that is interested in doing this is a top lawyer
shocked.gif
locally and is interested in doing it more because he loves aviation, and thinks there is a real "gap" in the training. This isn't intended to deplete the pockets of the unsuspecting.

I know it may be difficult to match exactly the price of a some of the other schools but let's say there is a 20% difference in price. Do you think you would be willing to pay this? How about 10%?

Barry
 
Hi APU, I know exactly the business model you're speaking of. A good friend of mine is in the process of developing a similar program here in Southern California.

From a business standpoint, I don't think there is a very large market for this type of program. However, I do think it's very possible for it to succeed. It would just need to be implemented, advertised and put together exactly right for it to work.

At the moment, the clientele that would be most interested in this type of program would be those who have there own Bonanza's, Baron's and King Air's and who want to learn how to be a safer more proficient pilots. Maybe going through such a program could be an insurance discount in the future. Who knows? What I do know is most up and coming professional pilots would not be interested in paying a penny more for a program like this unless there was some advantage. I.e., if it helped to get a job etc.

To be perfectly honest, all of the professional pilots participating in this forum know that experience cannot be taught. Learning how to use the auto-pilot, FMC (FMS, GPS, whatever....), anti-ice/de-ice equipment etc. is the easy part, in my opinion. These things will be taught along the way during formal aircraft and ground training. If I didn't already say it, you can't teach experiences. You can only share them.

So all that being said, the moral of my story is: This training would be marketable primarily for aircraft owners. If airline partnerships were established, like the "pilot factories" have which would guarantee interviews or reduced hiring minimums, this could possibly work for professional pilot training. However, it's hard enough to make a profit in this business with all the competition, so the idea would have to be well received. From a professional pilot and a businessman's viewpoint, I hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top