![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() In article k.net, Dudley Henriques wrote: First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane that makes one better or not better qualified as an instructor....absolutely nothing. There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS, but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond hectobuck- burger range. This is objective truth. If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing. As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance their careers. Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the finest CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation. I'm sure you have. But you can be an expert in something specialized and less than completely knowledgable in something related. Pick an example. Say an instructor chose to specialize in primary training. Such an instructor would probably be a bad choice to go with for instrument training. Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I won't even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group are smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense. I didn't make the statement, so I don't have to defend it, but it's not _pure_ nonsense. Rather, it's mildly impure nonsense. IOW, there is a grain of something useful there. It's safe to assume that someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned something worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually go places. Whether that alone makes them competent at teaching is another thing entirely. All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about You can pretty much generalize that to any area of teaching. The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us as long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system that requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger and better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made about this. Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a specific CFI as being on the negative side of the quality equation! This is important to Absolutely. I've met more conscientious and less conscientious instructors, but I've generally been lucky with the ones I've had. You don't need kilo-hours and kilo-mile trips to be a good instructor for primary training (to pick a random example). And a good primary instructor doesn't need to be a good instrument instructor. Morris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Are pilots really good or just lucky??? | Icebound | Instrument Flight Rules | 68 | December 9th 04 01:53 PM |
Good Stories about Plane Purchases | Jon Kraus | Owning | 0 | August 11th 04 01:20 PM |
Good Source For PIREPS? | Phoenix Pilot | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | August 25th 03 03:59 AM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |