Is their a difference in training?
- Thread starter JohnGalt
- Start date
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but not necessarily. Don't pass up an instructor just because he/she is doing it to get to bigger and better things.
Us time-builders aren't all bad! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Us time-builders aren't all bad! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
gomntwins
Well-Known Member
Most instructors I know, timebuilders included, have a lot of integrity. The trick is, you need to weed out the instructors who want to time build at your expense. One of the more common ways to find out who may be trying to rip you off is an individual who has a simulator at their disposal for IFR training, but will tell you that it's a 'waste' to use it. Don't listen to them, and look elsewhere.
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
One of the more common ways to find out who may be trying to rip you off is an individual who has a simulator at their disposal for IFR training, but will tell you that it's a 'waste' to use it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always liked giving sim instruction. Makes me feel like God and Mother Nature at the same time...muhahahahahhahaha. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif
One of the more common ways to find out who may be trying to rip you off is an individual who has a simulator at their disposal for IFR training, but will tell you that it's a 'waste' to use it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always liked giving sim instruction. Makes me feel like God and Mother Nature at the same time...muhahahahahhahaha. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif
GregCollins2
Well-Known Member
That's a tough question to answer. Many long term instructors have learned a lot about the different types of learning styles and some of the better methods to use with difficult students. Also, long term instructors will frequently have a good working relationship with a designated examiner. In order to survive as a successful long term instructor, customer service, a high pass rate, excellent knowledge, and good people skills are required.
That being said, I have personally seen some terrible senior instructors, and some really fantastic, knowledgeable and enthusiastic low time CFIs.
Your clients will quickly fiqure out your motives and it can be a real disappointment to find out that your instructor really only cares about getting hours and sending out resumes. When you have been in this business a while, you will see a lot of instructors that lose all interest in their students every time they think they have a "real" job lined up.
That being said, I have personally seen some terrible senior instructors, and some really fantastic, knowledgeable and enthusiastic low time CFIs.
Your clients will quickly fiqure out your motives and it can be a real disappointment to find out that your instructor really only cares about getting hours and sending out resumes. When you have been in this business a while, you will see a lot of instructors that lose all interest in their students every time they think they have a "real" job lined up.
Icelandair
New Member
Instructors shouldn't bash the sim its a valuable training tool. Its invaluable to be able to freeze the sim and show the student how badly he went off course when doing an approach or holding and let him think through stuff which you can't do in the plane. Its better to be able to show him too what went wrong with the track feature than to have to rely his word against yours when he thinks he met standards and you know he didnt.
RiddlePilot
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Instructors shouldn't bash the sim its a valuable training tool. Its invaluable to be able to freeze the sim and show the student how badly he went off course when doing an approach or holding and let him think through stuff which you can't do in the plane. Its better to be able to show him too what went wrong with the track feature than to have to rely his word against yours when he thinks he met standards and you know he didnt.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as sims aren't overused, I agree. *cough*Part 142*cough*
Instructors shouldn't bash the sim its a valuable training tool. Its invaluable to be able to freeze the sim and show the student how badly he went off course when doing an approach or holding and let him think through stuff which you can't do in the plane. Its better to be able to show him too what went wrong with the track feature than to have to rely his word against yours when he thinks he met standards and you know he didnt.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as sims aren't overused, I agree. *cough*Part 142*cough*
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
[ QUOTE ]
As long as sims aren't overused, I agree. *cough*Part 142*cough*
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree. The full motion sim we have is great for working on "problem areas." Another advantage comes in mult-engine training. It's kinda cheating on the Identify, Verify, Decide. You can say "Oh, well since you pulled the right throttle back, I guess my right engine is failed." In the sim, you have to do all the steps correctly. Which means, you can actually put BOTH throttles full forward, and when you pull the failed engine back, surprise, nothing happens. To me, that's a little better than trying to remember not to push both throttles forward or on a single-engine approach trying to remember which one is "failed" if you have to add power at some point.
As long as sims aren't overused, I agree. *cough*Part 142*cough*
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree. The full motion sim we have is great for working on "problem areas." Another advantage comes in mult-engine training. It's kinda cheating on the Identify, Verify, Decide. You can say "Oh, well since you pulled the right throttle back, I guess my right engine is failed." In the sim, you have to do all the steps correctly. Which means, you can actually put BOTH throttles full forward, and when you pull the failed engine back, surprise, nothing happens. To me, that's a little better than trying to remember not to push both throttles forward or on a single-engine approach trying to remember which one is "failed" if you have to add power at some point.