Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

[snip]

Getting back to the average number of hours flown by students in your area: I
have to wonder if the reason the numbers are so high is because the FBO or
flight training program is greedy. There's no excuse I can see for why
it takes
people twice as long to achieve what should be done in 40 hours or thereabouts.
1) yes, the schools are greedy
2) the way flight training is set up (at 90% of the schools), there is NO
motivation for a CFI (or the school) to get the student finished in
the minimum period of time
3) Far too many CFIs are marginally competent at teaching, hence the
student is not on a success plan. Just using one of the well-known
syllabi does not mean a success plan. The CFIs do not understand how
to diagnose the student's learning style, to adjust to that style, how
to diagnose why a student isn't learning, etc.
4) Most private students do not know about these news groups, have little or
no knowledge of what constitutes a good CFI
5) Most private students are subject to the "authority" or "professional"
syndrome -- they understand and know they are ignorant in the topic,
know they can be injured or killed, and rely on the expertise of
the CFI to train them. And are reluctant to contradict the CFI. Hence
they don't realize (until it's really expensive) that the CFI is
a label and not a teacher.

But we've hashed, rehashed and belittled these points for years in this
news group. You finished in a minimum time - wonderful. Mazel tov.
Spectacular.

The statistics I'd really like to see concerns advanced ratings and such.
Once the PPL is finished, the pilot has a much better understanding of
the flight training process and the "economics" as well as the pitfalls
of choosing and dealing with instructors. So what's the success rate
and number of hours to complete an instrument rating, commercial, ATP?

I consider your flight frequency ideal for a student. I just don't understand
your results. People have been earning private pilot's licenses in less
than 50 hours literally for generations.

Consider the incompetence of CFIs. Far too many are not instructors,
they can merely pass a test. I just finished a discussion concerning
a "certification" test program in the computer industry. The initials
of the certification merely means the person can memorize trivia (nay,
minutia!) from a book. It does not indicate any problem solving skills
or dealing with situations not covered in the book.

I don't need to memorize trivia -- that's why reference manuals are
written. What I need is problem analysis and solving skills. These
skills are NOT taught to potential CFIs!

If it takes a lot longer, perhaps the student lacks aptitude and should quit.
Or maybe they ought to find a program that gets the job done without screwing
people.

Go back to my original comments. Most PPL students do not realize they
are being screwed until far past a reasonable point. And this gets back
to the elephant in the room argument. At some point the monetary and
effort exceeds the student's "level of pain" and they quit.

Personally, I blame the FAA-approved process for creating CFIs. It
stinks. It's not effective. It is easily a large part of the problem,
if not the the underlying basis of the problem.

I don't need fancy new equipment to learn the basics. When I started
music lessons, I did not rush out and buy a Buffet clarinet or a
Yamaha Super Action soprano saxaphone. It would have been a waste of
money. To learn fingering, breath support, technique, notation, etc.
the 'student model' is more cost-effective. Besides, I don't think
there's a student-model of a soprano sax. But now I have a collection
of higher-quality instruments because I have the chops to use them.

Same for an aircraft. I have a cherokee. Do I want a Lancair or Cirrus?
Sure, but it would be wasted on me right now. I don't have an instrument
rating and these aircraft are best suited to a kind of mission that
isn't in my bag of tricks. Perhaps in the future.