Hmmmm……well…it is possible for a “real CFI” to be teaching in as little as 200 hours. The sport CFI, can do it in 150. The “real CFI” had to spend 40 hours in training for IFR, which takes them down to 160 hours….then another 10 in complex airplanes, which brings them down to 150 hours. That’s not much difference, is it?
Lyle Cox
Fun Aero Sports, LLC
3344 Long Creek Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80528
970-631-3983
www.funaerosports.com
From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Abid Farooqui
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: NAFI poll
LOL.
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
__._,_.___
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment