The argument to vote "No" that people are using is simple Helen. Sub-part H instructors of airplane category are simply angry if its done the other way. They feel they are being victimized of sub-part k airplane instructors are given the capability to train easily to 15 hours and that 15 hours counts. That's time away from their income. Sorry to be very blunt here.
In the end it will only hurt the number of pilots produced. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture and on balance what's good for the whole industry.
The fact of the matter Helen is that yes subpart H CFI's have low time requirements according to many and subpart k CFI's also have even lower time requirements and private pilot time requirements are really not enough and sport pilot time requirements are not enough either.
BUT these are ALL MINIMUM time requirements. The average for even a private pilot is about 60+ hours of training not 40. Average for a SP is 33 not 20 hours.
It depends on when the instructor giving the endorsement feel that they are ready. There is no hidden agenda here. These are MINIMUM requirements. No one has to give their endorsement that this guy is ready to become an instructor in 100 hours. They can wait till 200 hours or whatever it takes. No need to increase minimums by regulation. We expect examiners and instructors certificated by the FAA to give out endorsements and licenses to be adults here.
Last time I checked we were -not- in Europe.
Abid
Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: NAFI poll
As you know, I've been working the phone on this issue since OSH. The number one thing that I hear over and over again that I fully agree with is that the flight time requirements for a subpart K instructor are ridiculously low. I had almost that amount of total time when I finished my PPL and I know I didn't know squat at that point. I think most in the subpart H comunity believe that the flight time requirements even for a subpart H instructor are way too low and to cut them further for a subpart K instructor has us shaking our heads in disbelief. I suspect that if the flight time requirements were raised for subpart K to something more reasonable, you'd see a lot of people changing their minds on this issue of credit given.
Helen
Aug 19, 2009 09:45:26 AM, Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com wrote:
I just voted in the pole, which asked the question, "Should training received from a sport-pilot instructor be applicable to other ratings and or certificates?" I have to say... I'm absolutely shocked by the number of "No" votes. I figured there'd be a couple, but the score was 71 - Yes to 50 - No.
I'm curious... What is the argument people are using to say the training provided by a sport pilot instructor should not count toward a PPL or beyond? Regardless of whether a Sport Pilot got his training from a CFI or a SPI... that Sport Pilot still had to fly to the exact same Practical Test Standards. Any comments?
- Chris
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Helen Woods wrote:
>
> NAFI members, please be sure to cast your vote!
>
> http://www.nafinet.org/poll/
>
> Helen
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment