to do with the teaching skills of any of the instructors I have had. As far
as that goes, the more hours a pilot has seems to point to the more hours it
will take to convert a pilot to UL (not yet teaching SP-soon). More hours is
not nearly as meaningful as what those hours were doing. I still don't get
the theory that a CFI getting 10,000 hours teaching the pattern somehow
makes them more qualified to fly airliners than 1,000 or even 100 hours. You
need to have a measuring stick, but number of hours is a little lacking. The
CFI being able to land a 747 has nothing at all to do with their ability to
convey their knowledge. They even had to create the concept of CRM just to
get them to talk.
I propose that if a CFI-SP or CFI-h can manage to teach a pilot candidate to
such a proficiency that they can convince a DPE that they pass the checkride
- then they pass the checkride! If your checkride test is lacking, then that
is where you apply the repairs.
My $$$$$.02
Bill Watson
bill@sportpilot.info
-----Original Message-----
From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Helen Woods
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:03 PM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: NAFI poll
They both need to be changed.
Helen
Lyle Cox wrote:
>
>
> 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 Logo
>
> 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
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.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
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>, Helen Woods wrote:
> >
> > NAFI members, please be sure to cast your vote!
> >
> > http://www.nafinet.org/poll/
> >
> > Helen
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
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