KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Install ejection seats
More like, carry a parachute. It ain't hard to get out, if you really needed to
Install ejection seats
My story is not typical. Let's start there.
I am a new, low-time CMEL. I started networking at my Private. MANY people said, "Call me when you have your Multi", some said "Call me when you have 1500 TT", and one said "call me when you have 4000, and 1500 multi". I was 2 days complete with my CMEL and started calling those contacts. One has given me an opportunity. I am flying a Merlin. And I'm hanging onto the tail of the airplane. It's an incredibly challenging aircraft. Do I think you need 1000 dual given to be qualified to fly an airplane? Honestly, I think that's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. (In the military, if you're qualified to do the job, you're qualified to train someone else to do it, and should be good enough at it to train your replacement)
I got into this occupation to FLY airplanes. I'm not in this to keep indecisive, uncommitted Korean, Chinese, or Mexican kids from killing me. FBO flight training is a TOUGH living. One of the biggest complaints is that there aren't enough American kids learning to fly. I see the CFI as an add-on, or "Master's" per se. I've invested almost $100,000 (and re-imbursed through the GI Bill) into my flight training. It's a better ROI, for me, to get to work now, flying a multi turbine, Part 91, and getting paid to do it while going back to get my I ratings. Being a "real world" experienced pilot AND a CFI makes me a far better instructor than doing laps in the practice area on CAVU days.
The single biggest piece of advice that I can give you is that depending on what you want to do, bring tangible assets, other than flying airplanes, to the table. Don't become just a great pilot. Become great at everything aviation related. Work at becoming an asset. The company I work for can find a competent pilot anywhere. The intangibles that you bring to the table are going to render you far more valuable than just being a great stick. Some will disagree, and tell you that being a good pilot is enough, but if you want to get into anything other than the airlines, you need to hone skills outside of the cockpit.
(In the military, if you're qualified to do the job, you're qualified to train someone else to do it, and should be good enough at it to train your replacement)
I say it every time this topic comes up, and I'll say it again:No, 1500 hours of putting around the pattern in itself doesn't build much airmanship, but teaching others to do it sure as hell does. There is an enormous amount of collateral learning that the instructor is getting as his students think of new an innovative ways to screw things up and fly into corners of the operational envelope they've never intentionally been to before.
(Not in the flying world).
Becoming an instructor pilot is actually a pretty substantial step above just being a qualified line aviator.
I understand this; here's my point; An instructor coming in with 1200 hours of actual squadron flying and 100+ hours of actual combat provides a FAR more comprehensive student/IP experience than a newly minted aviator who was kept back as an IP (FAIP/ I forgot what it's called in the Navy...)
I think you mean A&P IA not ATP/IA?
Find a local flying club that needs CFI's. Our one active CFI only does accelrated PPL and Instrument, all his flying is 4:30pm and later on weekdays and anytime on weekends and he's backed up 7 firm students right now.
He is a bit unique in that he flat rates his courses for his time. He's not looking to build hours and go anywhere (He's well above ATP mins), just enjoys flying.
With what he does, the club ends up getting students from all over the country (not many clubs have Mooney rentals and he does Mooney checkouts for folks looking to buy and needing hours for insurance). Since its $750 to join and you get $500 back when you leave, the club is getting a lot of extra $$$ at $250 per out of town one month members.
Oh, without a doubt you are correct.
That being said, there actually is value having FAIPs in the mix in the military flying training environment. Students will fly with a wide variety of instructors during their time, and although the IPs are teaching off the same sheet of music, their backgrounds/experiences color how that standardized bill of goods is taught.
What is being taught in military undergraduate training (contact, navigation, aerobatics, instruments, formation, low level nav) is so basic -- for fighter guys, it amounts to about 10% of the overall skills and knowledge required to perform an operational mission -- that a FAIP can somewhat easily turn right around after a 6-month instructor school and go back and teach it. FAIPs can actually be quite effective instructors with the type of limited experience they bring to the table (about 200 hours of flying as a student, then another 69 hours in the instructor qual course). It is their position amongst a diverse group of instructors that make them valuable.
What you find is that old salty guys focus on and teach different things than FAIPs do. More experienced IPs tend to want students to understand how their actions fit into the larger context of what they will be required to do out in the operational world; FAIPs don't have this context, so they are more detail oriented with the tasks required in the training command. FAIPs care about little stuff that many saltier IPs don't care about. Experienced IPs harp on behaviors that will be important in operational flying and sometimes downplay training command-isms. FAIPs, usually being younger, are able in many ways to relate more closely to the students because of their similarity in age and recency of having been through the same training program.
The end result is that students who fly with both types of instructors are more apt to have been critiqued on their performance from a number of different aspects and been taught a number of different ways. The other end result is that those FAIPs leave their instructor tour with an infinite amount of better airmanship than their peers who are fresh out of the training pipeline -- it is a valuable experience for them as well (although there are some military-specific drawbacks to FAIPing that aren't really relevant to this particular discussion)
I am wholly for having experienced pilots as instructors. As I've posted before, I wish the civilian flying world embraced having experienced pilots as CFIs (for the benefit of the students), but in actuality we have a system of mostly FAIPs.