I will throw one observation into this mix but qualify remarks with "Sport-Pilot Airplane". My experience is with a Cub and a Tecnam Bravo.
Because of size and weight, the effects of wind and thermals, (I'm in Texas), magnify difficulty in handling. I was flipped 90 degrees in clear air several weeks ago. I also have time in a 172 and even a T6 Texan. Experience in lighter aircraft translates to experience in more adverse weather. For example, acquiring a PP rating in a 172 at 40 hours would not have the same experience with handling in adverse condiitons as someone acquiring a SP rating in a LSA at 20 hours. This depends on the location of course - some get ratings in areas or seasons where there is little or no wind. We see PP's from other areas come down here and refuse to fly when a local Sport-Pilot says no problem. The bottom line is that a Sport Pilot's 20 hours can be worth more experience than hours in a heavier aircraft, and hours in some areas of the country can be worth more experience than hours in another area.
v/r
James R. Lawrence
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "skyraiderav" <cdillis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Helen,
>
> I'm sorry it took you 1,000 hours to build the experience/confidence to become "a reasonable flight instructor." I know pilots who are outstanding flight instructors with a fraction of those hours. I've also flown with instructors with many thousands of hours who aren't so good.
>
> If your beef is with the low number of hours required to get a CFI or SPI rating, then ok... make that argument. But to have the hours provided by an SPI not count toward higher ratings... that's another argument all together.
>
> It is absolutely ridiculous that a duly certified Sport Pilot who wants to upgrade to a PPL would have to go through 40 hours of training just because he got his SP license from an SPI and not a CFI. Why should he pay the price just because his instructor wasn't able to give him the "There I was... flying low level surveys over Canada" stories.
>
> Standards are standards. If a pilot meets the standards, that should be the end of the story.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with you on the teaching point however, I don't feel that I had
> > enough knowledge or experience to be a reasonable flight instructor
> > until I had about 1000 hours under my belt. By then I had flown coast
> > to coast, flown low level survey in the US and Canada with USFS, had
> > hunted ELTs in horribly congested airspace working all forms of ATC
> > while simultaniously directing a ground crew, managed several aircraft,
> > bought my own plane, and had a heck of a lot of other interesting real
> > world flying experiences under my belt. Being a good CFI is a coupling
> > of knowledge and experience with ability to teach.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > Bill Watson wrote:
> > > I'd have to disagree. I have found that the number of hours has very little
> > > 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@
> > >
> > > -----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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
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