"paul k. sanchez" wrote in message
...

If you object to my syllabus having 5 days to be proficient in the
software, or
even the 10 days for initial training in the make/model you are of course
welcome not to use my services and even publish your dismay about my rates
as
much as you like.


I, too, provide advanced avionics training, recurrent instrument training,
and insurance-approved checkouts for high-performance airplanes billed on a
"per day" basis. Granted my instruction is mostly in piston singles rather
than turbines, but the analogy is certainly there.

My syllabus is customized and flexible; I think both when a student is
flying this complex an airplane and when a student is paying "professional"
rates for an instructor's time, it is appropriate to develop a syllabus
which reflect's a given students experience, airplane, mission profiles,
strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Sometimes recurrent training with
me in a single-engine piston airplane takes 4 hours annually; sometimes it
takes 2 days twice a year. Some students want to do this all in the
simulator, some all in the airplane, most in a combination of the two.
Sometimes there is flyable low IFR weather and a student wants take
advantage of this and fly ILS approaches to 300-1 all day. Every situation
is different.

I find both insurance companies and students appreciate this flexibility in
syllabus as long as it is done with reasonable judgment; I have yet to be
turned down by an insurer for approval to complete a recurrent training
program using this philosophy.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com