Instructor Rates?

"paul k. sanchez" wrote in message
Good evening Marco:
Insurance underwriters require not only initial, but also recurrency
training
in make/model of aircraft and of course ALL systems (or software if you
like)
in the aircraft. Since the named pilot is required to complete an
instrument
proficiency check (done over the course of 3-5 days) for his recurrency,
yes
indeed the software is included.

Ahh, so it includes an instrument proficiency check. This was not clear from
your previous posts. Your use of "software only" to describe aspects of the
training was therefore misleading. The restatement of your descriptions is
most amusing.

Perhaps you have the misunderstanding that the software itself insurance
mandated required every 6 month training. No, that is incorrect. It is
only the
aircraft itself with all of its components that insurance underwriter
wants
every 6 month training.

[snip]

Marco will you please explain to me how I can ignore the software aspects
of
the aircraft, including of course the flight director, altitude
pre-selector,
control wheel steering, 2 EFIS, weather uplink, weather display, radar
controller, TCAS, VNAV function, 2 moving maps, cabin pressurization, etc.

Maybe you should ask yourself that question. I fully understand that the
proficiency is for the entire aircraft as configured. When you say that you
offer an insurance mandated *software-only* training regimen you are really
saying that the *aircraft* requires the insurance-mandated training of which
software is an integral part. Perhaps you should re-read your posts and make
sure you're writing what you really mean before sending them out.

Could you please introduce me to someone who owns any aircraft 5 years old
or
less, and feels that it only took 2 days to learn the equipment, and
recurrency
is a waste of time (money).

Where did that comment come from? When did I state that recurrency training
was a waste of time and money?? Are you insinuating that I take that
attitude towards complex aircraft? I hope not. However, I'm sure there are
some new owners of 1998 and newer Diamond Eclipses in VFR configurations
that needed less than 2 days to learn how to fly it. Maybe you meant
"complex?"

I think you are severely understating the learning involved. But I have
not met
you nor do I know what software is in your aircraft. Therefor it would be
incorrect of me to comment on what you already know.

Please tell me where I quantified the learning involved for complex aircraft
systems. I commented on the insurance training requirements for a Garmin
430/530. I *still* think that requiring a 5-day "software-only" training
regimen every 6 months solely for this specific avionics model is too much.
If you think that's reasonable then I think you're *overstating* the
learning involved (or being an over-eager salesman).

As I said earlier I hope you have found a satisfactory training program
that
not only meets your needs (budget) but also that of your underwriter.

And by the way if you give me your email address, I'll be happy to send
you the
full operational guides for the Garmin 530, KFC325, EFIS 50/40, KMD850,
RDR2000, ETM by Shadin, KDR510, GAD42, PC12 by Pilatus, TBM700 by Socata,
PA46-350p and PA46-500tp and PA32r-300t by Piper. After you read the full
operational guides, perhaps you could inform us what is a reasonable
training
curricula.

Very impressive. Was that all from memory? I'll be sure to let you know when
I have a PC12 and TBM700 in my hangar...

It is only my opinion that you have mistaken the concept of software
training
being exclusive of the pilot proficiency requirements.

How about you help me out and stop labeling your training as
"software-only?"

Paul, please don't project your inefficient vocabulary use onto my
understanding of real-world software operation. I've been a professional in
software development for over 12 years and I'm currently a senior manager in
major research and engineering firm. I know software.

I tried to be polite in my previous responses but you still insist on
maintaining a vituperative voice in your responses. You're just hurting
yourself. No one wants to work with a pompous instructor and I wouldn't be
surprised if you turned off a couple of usenet readers with your
condescending posts. Scroll up your newsreader and read Richard Kaplan's
response to your post. He gave a professional and informative response that
still showed his depth of knowledge. I would recommend following his lead
and toning down your ego a bit.

Hope this helps.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com