How going cheap nearly killed somebody

[ILSstud]

I don't think it has to be that way though.

I started flying in 2000, and since then, I have noticed a definite trend (locally, anyway) in schools catering to the folks wanting to become airline pilots and less so towards the average joe who has always had the dream to fly. Case in point, I can't find a 150/152 to rent anywhere in the Atlanta area. When I was flying between 2000-2002, almost any place you went to had at least one availble. Sure, they're not fast and they can't carry alot, but if you just want to go up and fly on a nice clear day, it is all you need. Save the glass and GPS for instrument training or overnight trips when the extra avonics will be appreciated should the weather not hold up the entire time.

Skybound Aviation at PDK I believe has some planes that you are looking for I flew there a couple times last year and if I recall there was a pretty well priced 152 there named Dotty I think...

 

[cool92092]

From a business perspective, I can tell you without a doubt that I prefer working with clientel who are attracted to nicer aircraft rather than the "cheapest price" types. They are more likely to complete training, more likely to see the value in a good instructor, etc. What's wrong with setting up a business to take advantage of these benefits?

:yeahthat: could not agree with you more. I have dealt with both and agree with you whole heartedly.

 

[Barty]

Skybound Aviation at PDK I believe has some planes that you are looking for I flew there a couple times last year and if I recall there was a pretty well priced 152 there named Dotty I think...

Looks like they sold her off looking at their website. Not bad prices for PDK, but I'm paying less ($6-7/hr) at the outfit I rent from at RYY for similarly equipped aircraft.

I'm only going to be around Atlanta for another month anyway, so I'm just trying to wrap up my instrument rating.

 

[ILSstud]

gotcha!...well best of luck with that

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Money had nothing to do with it, that was a training / decision making / judgment accident.

Agreed, but he still had too much airplane for his experience and didn't use the one item that may have saved his life....The autopilot. I wonder if had a far cheaper and inferior plane would he have tried to make the flight.

I think G-1000s are fine primary trainers.
----
My own personal teaching philosophy on G-1000 student pilots is, just because the expensive equipment is there, it doesn't mean that my students gets to use it.
The majority of my G-1000 students used that airplane because it was the newer and in their mind safer airplane.

I personally believe that the G-1000 and GPS equipment airplanes handicap new pilots. Pilot should learn to fly especially instruments on the six pack without GPS. I flew had some students that darn near lost control of the plane on an IPC when I killed the GPS, Moving Map and made them fly using NDB's and VOR for reference. Then start asking questions about where the airport is the game was up.

Teaching the basics soundly first creates a better pilot IMHO then add the toys and glass later on. I know if I had learned in a G-1000 plane I would have not been able to get a cargo job as a 310 and E110 pilot. When I left for the regionals I found the transion to glass easy and straight forward. Transitioning back from Glass to the 727 six pack was tough.

my .02 worth

 

[twdeckard]

There are also plenty of people who have purchased/flown something well beyond their capabilities in the same way (like the P-51 pilot killed on his initial solo a couple years ago).

A small point but if you are referring to the McKittrick accident at Camarillo two years ago, he had quite a bit of experience -- it was his first solo in the Mustang but was mistakenly reported that it was his first-ever solo flight and this survives as a bit of an urban legend.

Now I will propogate my own internet-truth. I heard that Dick Van Dyke learned to fly in his personal Learjet. Can you imagine getting a cross country sign-off?

 

[jrh]

Agreed, but he still had too much airplane for his experience and didn't use the one item that may have saved his life....The autopilot. I wonder if had a far cheaper and inferior plane would he have tried to make the flight.

Good point about the autopilot, except that he would probably be ridiculed by all the old school instructors who don't believe in using the autopilot because it's too much of a "toy" or "gadget" and think everything should be flown by hand.

I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again: handicapping pilots is not a good solution to improve safety. Stepping down in capabilities is not nearly as good an idea as stepping up the training.

I personally believe that the G-1000 and GPS equipment airplanes handicap new pilots. Pilot should learn to fly especially instruments on the six pack without GPS. I flew had some students that darn near lost control of the plane on an IPC when I killed the GPS, Moving Map and made them fly using NDB's and VOR for reference. Then start asking questions about where the airport is the game was up.

Man, Bandit, I have a ton of respect for you, but you sound like every old man I've talked to at the airport lately.

First, there are plenty of instrument pilots who learned on conventional panels and still get disoriented during their IPC, so I'm not entirely convinced this is a glass/conventional problem as much as it the age old problem of pilots simply needing to stay current in general.

Second, everybody acts like this is an "either/or" problem. They say you can learn glass panel operations, or you can learn raw data old school IFR flying, but you can't learn both. I say that philosophy is BS, and it's perpetuated by instructors who have never been taught how to teach glass panel ops.

Finally, I think a lot of people discount the benefits of glass panel ops. People want to talk about the disoriented pilot who got lost when the box failed, but honestly, how many accidents have been caused by GPSs failing? Now, how many accidents have occurred in conventional panel aircraft that could have been prevented had a glass cockpit been used? I'm thinking of a lot of CFIT scenarios under IFR. We need to focus on what's actually causing accidents, not necessarily what we think might cause accidents.

Teaching the basics soundly first creates a better pilot IMHO then add the toys and glass later on. I know if I had learned in a G-1000 plane I would have not been able to get a cargo job as a 310 and E110 pilot. When I left for the regionals I found the transion to glass easy and straight forward. Transitioning back from Glass to the 727 six pack was tough.

What about for all the people who have no intention of flying professionally? Your advice is good (in fact I completely agree with it) for students on a career track, simply because their first job will probably be in a conventional panel aircraft, but what about the rest?

The majority of my clients fly for business or pleasure. They have no intention of ever flying a plane without a glass panel and some of them have already bought their own glass panel aircraft. Glass panels are not toys to those customers...glass panels are tools, life as usual. It's far more efficient to teach them from Day 1 in the aircraft they're going to use rather than try to transition them in to it later.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Good point about the autopilot, except that he would probably be ridiculed by all the old school instructors who don't believe in using the autopilot because it's too much of a "toy" or "gadget" and think everything should be flown by hand.

I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again: handicapping pilots is not a good solution to improve safety. Stepping down in capabilities is not nearly as good an idea as stepping up the training.

I agree better training is the way to go period. In the plane that had AP I made sure the students knew how to use them for at least straight and level. If it was in the plane it was fair game for check ride or stage check. A good instructor will know if the student is using it as a crutch or a another tool. I also did encourage my student to fly by hand as much as possible to build skills. but if you need it do perform another task then use it. Of course I also failed it from time to time too.

Man, Bandit, I have a ton of respect for you, but you sound like every old man I've talked to at the airport lately.

First, there are plenty of instrument pilots who learned on conventional panels and still get disoriented during their IPC, so I'm not entirely convinced this is a glass/conventional problem as much as it the age old problem of pilots simply needing to stay current in general.

Second, everybody acts like this is an "either/or" problem. They say you can learn glass panel operations, or you can learn raw data old school IFR flying, but you can't learn both. I say that philosophy is BS, and it's perpetuated by instructors who have never been taught how to teach glass panel ops.

Finally, I think a lot of people discount the benefits of glass panel ops.
People want to talk about the disoriented pilot who got lost when the box failed, but honestly, how many accidents have been caused by GPSs failing? Now, how many accidents have occurred in conventional panel aircraft that could have been prevented had a glass cockpit been used? I'm thinking of a lot of CFIT scenarios under IFR. We need to focus on what's actually causing accidents, not necessarily what we think might cause accidents.

What about for all the people who have no intention of flying professionally? Your advice is good (in fact I completely agree with it) for students on a career track, simply because their first job will probably be in a conventional panel aircraft, but what about the rest?

The majority of my clients fly for business or pleasure. They have no intention of ever flying a plane without a glass panel and some of them have already bought their own glass panel aircraft. Glass panels are not toys to those customers...glass panels are tools, life as usual. It's far more efficient to teach them from Day 1 in the aircraft they're going to use rather than try to transition them in to it later.

You're right I tend to tailor my posts toward the career orient pilot. Bad habit I guess. If glass is all they are going to fly then leanring on is fine. They should just be warned not to go out and try a six pack with out additional training....Just like I would personally want a check out to go fly a G1000 in the soup.

And this is just my pesonal opinion: learning on a six pack /A aircraft increases the mental picture of your environment without having to look at a screen or GPS. I don't know how you train your students and I not being negative at so don't take it at such. I would definately give the student some serious system failures and make them use raw data and VOR and see what their mental picture is....

 

[Douglas]

I personally believe that the G-1000 and GPS equipment airplanes handicap new pilots. Pilot should learn to fly especially instruments on the six pack without GPS. I flew had some students that darn near lost control of the plane on an IPC when I killed the GPS, Moving Map and made them fly using NDB's and VOR for reference. Then start asking questions about where the airport is the game was up.

I am not sure if you quoted me to agree, disagree or agree with me and think you disagree, but either way :yeahthat:
When I said

just because the expensive equipment is there, it doesn't mean that my students gets to use it.

I was talking about the GPS and moving map. The majority or 50/50 of the flights are done with the MFD set to the TIS page. So all the student is renting on many flights is an electronic "six pack".

Though I do feel like I have my feet in both camps.

 

[Richman]

Hi Guys,

I'm going to agree with Bandit here.

On top of that, I will say that new isn't always better. If you are charging $140/hr for a G1000 172 (as the only option), versus $75-90/hr for an older, but clean & servicable 152/172, then I vote for the older aircraft, simply because the lower price encourages flying. And more flying means more currency, and eventually, a more experienced pilot.

And THAT is what prevents accidents.

The new/old aircraft is a sales issue only. Where I live, the busiest, highest charging instructor does dual in a 1971 Citabria. If you want to sit back and let the bling on the aircraft do your selling, fine. But if you want to stress airmanship, then any clean aircraft will do.

Richman

 

[Scandinavian13]

I'd rather not say on a public forum. I don't want to be accused of libel or anything.

My point in telling the story was to get people to think beyond doing their flying with whoever is cheapest. This scenario could be played out at dozens of schools or airports across the country.

There's a funny thing about libel. The information provided has to be false...
Accusations of libel on the other hand...

Good point on trying to stay safe, but if it's documented true in some way, you don't have to worry too much.

As for the aircraft choice points made, I still choose the 1980s 152 over the new glass crap. Glass is great, but I'm not a fan of it in trainers, especially for PPL guys. Why pay for some glass that does the same crap that the old gauges do for a hell of a lot less?
I agree with the point made that the training fleet should be more of the affordable variety. Sure, the glass is cool and the Diamonds are neat and you get to poke around with your hands in your crotch like a fighter pilot, but why not keep the older Cessnas around? They still fly well and, if properly maintained, are just as safe, but are cheaper to operate. That's one case in which "you get what you pay for" isn't so much the issue.

 

[BillH]

GLASS kills a students instrument scan and cross check when they move to a steam gauge airplane. Nothing like getting a private who flew exclusively a G1000 and then your doing his instrument add on in a steam gauged 172.
Straight and level...