Sully and the 1500h rule

Props to the guys that could make it work, but it definitely doesn't work for everyone, especially if you have a limited student base and zero career minded students that you can double up with. Our practice area is just shy of 25nm from home field, and sometimes it can be tough to run through everything we need to and still keep it right around an hour. Factor in ground time and it gets even trickier.
 
At the school I teach at, we have practice areas around every side of our airport and we have 6 airports spaced evenly around our base airport ranging from 15-25nm in distance. It is perfect for teaching students to encounter new situations and try different runways out. It's also nice for 135 point to point XC time. However, there is no need whatsoever to fly 50nm+ for a lesson on slow flight, steep turns, stalls, or any other various maneuvers. To complete the lesson I plan and wander to another airport that far away, you're looking at at least 2.0. This is taking advantage of the student's time and money. At the school I teach at, time and money are in short supply for these students, and it is disingenuous to the students to try and take advantage of this.

I did have a set up for my primary training where I was flying with a "flight partner." It was awesome. We flew to airports further away, and in a few cases we did log XC time. These really only happened in the first few lessons where we were learning straight and level flight, climbs, descents, and intro to a few maneuvers. Once we got into practicing maneuvers it was stay close to home, and get the job done.

I applaud those that were able to make 1/3 or better of their total flight time be XC time while instructing. I am amazed by how you did it as a CFI. In my work environment that is just impossible. I'm betting by the time I reach 1500 hours I will have around 300 hours of XC time. I'm currently at 450 TT and 75XC. If you do the math, it just doesn't work out. I agree full heartedly with the other CFIs that it's just not practical without taking advantage of your students to reach 500XC in 1500TT.

The best thing we as pilots can do with the new ATP rule is to adapt. It might be more difficult, but if we're in it for the long haul, we will find a way to get to where we are trying to go. One way or another.
 
wheelsup said:
No doubt the guys who do that beat their chest and think they are skygods. Unfortunately the reality is very different, after ~3000 hours in the left seat it's been my experience that backround and TT plays a small role in one's ability to operate an airplane safely and efficiently.
Click to expand...

Especially in part 121 operations. Very rarely do we operate in situations where your superhuman pilot skills really save the day. I'd very much argue that people skills and humility are MUCH more important skills to have in 121 operations. Above average stick and rudder skills are rarely needed. But the ability to tell the guy sitting next to you that he's screwing up without shutting him down, more useful on a daily basis in these kind of operations.
 
JordanD said:
Props to the guys that could make it work, but it definitely doesn't work for everyone, especially if you have a limited student base and zero career minded students that you can double up with. Our practice area is just shy of 25nm from home field, and sometimes it can be tough to run through everything we need to and still keep it right around an hour. Factor in ground time and it gets even trickier.
Click to expand...

Damnit young'n!

If you would listen to me instead of making excuses on why not to seriously look into other options, you wouldn't be havin gas many of these problems. Just sayin.
 
I am a firm believer in actually going and flying with your students. I'm thinking only my students know exactly what I mean by that. I'd be sucking on exhaust pipe if all I did was maneuvers out of the PTS in the practice area and hour at a time. WTF? Take control and do your students right.
 
desertdog71 said:
I am a firm believer in actually going and flying with your students. I'm thinking only my students know exactly what I mean by that. I'd be sucking on exhaust pipe if all I did was maneuvers out of the PTS in the practice area and hour at a time. WTF? Take control and do your students right.
Click to expand...

I agree, but some school's structures make that difficult. The best I can do for my students is to make sure they're engaged, learning, and having fun. This is something I see other instructors bogged down in the 141 effort fail to do...
 
cmill said:
You do realize that you're using your qualifications to determine the qualifications (or lack thereof,) that someone else should have, right?

I know its a cop out, but at some point we have to ask ourselves the real question:
What actually qualifies someone to sit in that seat? Is it a wide and diverse experience, or is it intensive training and meticulous on the job experience?

I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is that for all my hours and "experience," is that everyone else's job is easy until you actually have to do it. On the flip side, everyone likes to pretend that they and they alone can do the job that they do.
Click to expand...

That's easy and I do know the answer. It is a mix of both. Just as in life a well rounded person will usually be more capable at most anything and more pleasant to work with in the process.

Look at the extremes of both.

I hear from a lot of the captains I fly with that a lot of the guys who made the jump directly from riddle to the right seat with no other experience are difficult to fly with. They have a lot of book knowledge, but they try to draw from previous experience in order to make decisions. But in reality because much of that experience is putting the basic building blocks in place they aren't really applicable to part 121 operations. But there is definitely a wealth of knowledge there about all kinds of things that are useful. The level of learning just hasn't proceeded into the application and correlation stage.

The other extreme. Send someone through nothing but part 61 training with a lazy instructor and an easy designated pilot examiner for every one of their checkrides. I think you'll find that experience on its own won't be a good teacher because they won't really know what they're looking at in a lot of the more difficult scenarios.

Send someone to a good school where they get a thorough education using scenario based training where they have practice making decisions on their own and living with the consequences. Then send them out in an environment where they have a support system behind them to help meld everything together and I think you'll have the right balance. Throw in a good attitude and you'll probably be very successful. I never understand why every time this debate comes up it turns into a "education or experience" argument. Why does it have to be one or the other?
 
I was unorthodox, demanding, and they all hated my guts from time to time. We also had fun, and they all could handle a plane. I hope that I prepared them better than I was prepared when I made that jump. A couple of them are Captains now, so I feel like I did ok. One tells me that the most difficult thing for any of his FO's to do is look out the window and fly the damn plane. I had that same problem since I spent 40 hours in a SIM and never got to hand fly it.
I think my transition from CFI, to 135 VFR to 121 FO back to instructing has served me and my students well. I can say though that I made that jump to Colgan too quickly and I was not my best while I was there. I have stupid mistakes stuck in my head from my experiences there and it worked out good that I left it behind and went back to instructing. It made me a better CFI and better pilot myself in the long run.
 
sounddoc said:
How is it done? We have one airport 50.5nm away, that's the closest defining navaid/airport/fix that I can put in the logbook. I have primary students in Cherokees and Tomahawks to play with. The plane does 105/90kts respectively, and students block off 2 hours resulting in about 1.2-1.5 flying time. It's just not possible, but I'm open to suggestion. You know I teach in a part 61 environment too, right? Students typically pay lesson to lesson, and they're not airline-bound.
Click to expand...


Not at all disagreeing with your statement that it is difficult to get XC while flight instructing because I wholeheartedly agree that in slow aircraft it simply isn't feasible without doing it with another flight partner trading after a seat swap.

However, I would like to be nit picky and clarify your statement, not for you as I believe you are generalizing, but for the other young guns that lurk and frequent this forum.

Pulled directly from the Cross Country definition in FAR 61.1:

(vi) For the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating), time acquired during a flight—
(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;
(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and
(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.

So you don't actually need to have an airport, navaid, fix, or anything of the sort to put in the logbook. You just have to know where you're at and as long as that is 50NM straight-line from where you take off you can log it.

Definitely way off topic from Sully, but maybe it will help someone discovering they actually have more XC than they thought.
 
FlyDutchman said:
So you don't actually need to have an airport, navaid, fix, or anything of the sort to put in the logbook. You just have to know where you're at and as long as that is 50NM straight-line from where you take off you can log it.

Definitely way off topic from Sully, but maybe it will help someone discovering they actually have more XC than they thought.
Click to expand...


Nice - good to keep in mind. I'd err on the side of caution though, that until an actual pilot shortage occurs recruiting departments might be looking at that 1500 hour applicant's logbook wondering why there's so much XC time coupled with dual given on flights with no intermediate destination.

Although I suppose you could notate the route of flight to makes sense, it would just cause the applicant one more thing to have to explain in an interview - not ideal when you're trying to impress the guy on the other end of the job stick...but then again, they're about to get as desperate as us!
 
sounddoc said:
Nice - good to keep in mind. I'd err on the side of caution though, that until an actual pilot shortage occurs recruiting departments might be looking at that 1500 hour applicant's logbook wondering why there's so much XC time coupled with dual given on flights with no intermediate destination.

Although I suppose you could notate the route of flight to makes sense, it would just cause the applicant one more thing to have to explain in an interview - not ideal when you're trying to impress the guy on the other end of the job stick...but then again, they're about to get as desperate as us!
Click to expand...

As long as it is well documentented to where you could whip out a sectional and show them precisely where you flew and know by which regulation you're logging flight time towards an ATP it should be a nonissue. I have logged some 50nm+ XC time on one flight myself already. I defined it by an airport I flew directly over that was 54nm from my airport of departure.
 
If you have a situation that would build XC time quick instructing that's great- but there are quite a few scenarios where that isn't feasible, 141 structure in a 152 would make it difficult. I logged more in the few months at my 135 than I did in all of instructing. I also don't feel I did them a disservice either.
 
As to the XC requirement. You guys know in days past the FAA 50nm rule was only for private/commercial, and for the ATP, any flights with landings between two airports, regardless of distance, counted as XC?

If it's that much of a hurdle, and in some cases I don't doubt that it is, why not simply petition the Feds to change it back? Obviously in some cases, the Feds don't think TT matters, since they reduced the TT requirement for an instrument rating from 250 hours, to 125, then to no TT requirement at all.

Rather than peeing down your leg at the prospect, why not take charge and at least say you tried to get it changed?

Richman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top