Rod Machado's New PPL Manual

"buttman" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 4:46 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business

:No kidding, you only mention this in every other post you make...

Only when he needs to demonstrate his credentials to a clueless dimwit.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

All of these points are pertinent. There are as well HUGE issues
concerning the manner in which many flight schools and instructors
integrate with new students. Much could be done to improve the general
business model.

At many flight schools, it seems as though flight instruction is an
accidental by-product.

The real goal seems to be to give time builders (instructors, though I
hesitate to use that term for some) a chance to log hours, and to move on to
bigger and better careers. The instructor's schedule flexibility is more
important than keeping the student's scheduled lesson appointment.

Yes, I know there are exceptions, and this has been lamented over before,
but it is still relevant.

I feel that the time commitment is the next biggest impediment, and the big
roadblock to more students and pilots getting and staying current is still
the price. I don't know what could be done to greatly improve the
situation, and I don't see it changing very much. I do feel that Light
Sport is a step in the right direction, but it is still expensive, and
moving very slowly in the right direction.
--
Jim in NC

On Mar 25, 7:25 am, Larry Dighera wrote:


Larry, I don't think your point is that far from Dudley's but I think
you're missing the overall assumption, to wit, that today's GA new
pilot induction system is too inconsistent and too confusing, and thus
indiscriminately filters out people who have the requisite desire,
money, and mental acuity.

People who seek out a CFI to learn to fly are a self-selected group.
They know how to read, drive, make a schedule, write a check -- and so
are probably equipped with all the ability they need to join the ranks
of airmen/women.

You don't have to be an engineer to understand basic engineering
concepts. And -- quite frankly -- there's not much "engineering
knowledge" required to fly VFR or IFR into the most complex airspace
in the NAS.

GPS in its current incarnation does not make it easier for new pilots
to join our ranks because GPS units fail, so they must also know
Pilotage, Dead Reckoning, and Radio navigation.

But we're losing a large fraction of potential new pilots every year
because the come to the airport, walk around and look at airplanes,
yet never get greeted, never get someone's interest, and never get
"sold."


Dan Mc

On Mar 25, 4:22 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

flying...a well-designed and performed discovery flight will do the
rest. The emphasis has to be on the new student, not on money or hours.

Bob Gardner

Absolutely...

What's your idea of a "well-designed and performed discovery flight"?

Shouldn't each be tailored to the potential new pilot? Or are there
specific elements that you include no matter what their interest?

I haven't figured out the perfect combination, but some key elements
a
Clear morning (avoid thermal turbulence)
Well maintained and clean airplane (nice paint helps)
Short (avoid possibility of motion sickness)
Comfortable, clean headsets
Breath mints for the CFI (seriously)
Explain everything that will happen before it happens without
information overload (a delicate balance)
Time at the controls in flight regimes that don't require grabbing
the yoke
If time allows -- fly over landmarks familiar to the person taking
the flight

Dan Mc

Dan wrote:
On Mar 25, 4:22 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

flying...a well-designed and performed discovery flight will do the
rest. The emphasis has to be on the new student, not on money or hours.
Bob Gardner

Absolutely...

What's your idea of a "well-designed and performed discovery flight"?

Shouldn't each be tailored to the potential new pilot? Or are there
specific elements that you include no matter what their interest?

I haven't figured out the perfect combination, but some key elements
a
Clear morning (avoid thermal turbulence)
Well maintained and clean airplane (nice paint helps)
Short (avoid possibility of motion sickness)
Comfortable, clean headsets
Breath mints for the CFI (seriously)
Explain everything that will happen before it happens without
information overload (a delicate balance)
Time at the controls in flight regimes that don't require grabbing
the yoke
If time allows -- fly over landmarks familiar to the person taking
the flight

Dan Mc



I couldn't structure a discovery flight any better myself. The only
thing I would add to what you have said is that the "mood" both before
and during the flight is of the greatest importance. The manner in which
the CFI verbally projects is critical.
What you want to achieve with the flight is to "read" the newbie and be
totally flexible in how you conduct the flight. Be especially alert on
reading ANY apprehension or fear. If the slightest is detected, your
mood and manner should reflect "extra" confidence. You deal with any
trace of apprehension FIRST. If need be, you spend the entire flight
with the goal of easing that apprehension.

If you're any good at all, by the end of the flight, you have both
convinced the newbie that flying is not only safe, but instilled a
burning desire in the newbie to sign up and start taking lessons. The
point here is that with this type of newbie, can the technical stuff and
instead spend the time allowing the newbie to "adjust" to the flying
environment. It is in this scenario where the good CFI is at their best.
You were right when you said to lead everything going on in the airplane
with gentle explanations.

What I teach instructors to do in these discovery flights is to first,
sell themselves as professionals to the newbie. This is done by treating
the newbie as an individual. The absolute worst thing you can do in one
of these flights is to conduct it with any kind of structure. You must
be TOTALLY flexible. The newbie MUST be relaxed and receptive, or the
flight will be wasted effort.

There will be those newbies who are NOT apprehensive in any way. You
deal with these the same way....as individuals. After reading them as
above, your latitude in conducting the flight should include giving them
the airplane from engine start through shutdown if their confidence
warrants you doing this.

The bottom line on these flights is that the goal is to create in the
newbie a desire to fly again. I'll tell you the truth. Any CFI worth the
title should be able to take any newbie who was motivated enough to come
in for a discovery flight in the first place, take them on that flight,
and instill in them a burning desire to return and do it again that is
so strong, the newbie can't wait to get back into the air.

Hope this helps a bit.

--
Dudley Henriques

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

All of these points are pertinent. There are as well HUGE issues
concerning the manner in which many flight schools and instructors
integrate with new students. Much could be done to improve the general
business model.

At many flight schools, it seems as though flight instruction is an
accidental by-product.

The real goal seems to be to give time builders (instructors, though I
hesitate to use that term for some) a chance to log hours, and to move on to
bigger and better careers. The instructor's schedule flexibility is more
important than keeping the student's scheduled lesson appointment.

Yes, I know there are exceptions, and this has been lamented over before,
but it is still relevant.

I feel that the time commitment is the next biggest impediment, and the big
roadblock to more students and pilots getting and staying current is still
the price. I don't know what could be done to greatly improve the
situation, and I don't see it changing very much. I do feel that Light
Sport is a step in the right direction, but it is still expensive, and
moving very slowly in the right direction.

Your points are all valid. The entire structure dealing with the way
CFI's and flight school management interface has been built over time on
a foundation weakened by the way BOTH the instructors and the system
integrate with each other.
You are correct that it is indeed a poor business model. I don't have
the answer to all this, but one thing I do know. NOTHING will change
until the role of the instructor is seen as a professional role, and
this requires BOTH the system AND the instructor corps to re-evaluate
and restructure themselves. I don't see this happening.

This being said, the only thing that can improve the situation is for
individual CFI's to improve their own image. Some are doing this. Many
are not.
The state of the art is not optimized by a long shot.

--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:46:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.
Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
ton of our tax dollars :-)

Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
results, I'd have to agree.

What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; manuals written so that
they don't intimidate the section of the market that doesn't respond
positively to an " engineering approach" to ground school, and CFI's who
come to realize the value of learning how to project complicated
subjects in a manner that makes a housewife as comfortable in the
learning process as an engineer.
I understand your reasoning for that opinion, but I believe it
overlooks a few salient facts. The NAS is, by design, an engineered
system. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with the specifics and
absolutes of engineering and engineered systems are probably
unqualified to operate in that environment, and shouldn't get involved
with it. The dedication and commitment required to remain current,
and the fundamental change in attitude necessary to responsibly
command a flight demand a certain "fire in the belly" toward being an
airman. The financial, time commitment, and negative marketing
obstacles serve to test that desire, and weed out those would be
flight students who lack the required commitment to succeed at
becoming a competent pilot, not merely a certificate holder.
That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
aviation.

Granted, I don't have the breadth of knowledge on the subject of
natural aptitude for airmanship and the depth of personal experience
you claim, but in my limited time of 38 years as an airman I've seen
several students fail to complete their flight instruction due to
either what I perceive as (probably well deserved) self-doubt in their
ability perform adequately in the NAS, or the lack of adequate funds
and time. Those students had no difficulty mastering the flight
lessons, they simply weren't able to meet the demands required for
being a pilot. Those whose financial and time circumstances may
pursue flight training at a later date. Those who recognized the
unsuitability of their individual personality mix for commanding a
flight moved on toward other "hobbies" like golf.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane.

All who fly airplanes are not qualified to command a flight.

My students have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to
own the deli down the street. All were entirely competent and
understood the material quite well; and all went flawlessly
through the "system".

Although I find it difficult to believe, that in 50 years you have
never encountered a flight student who was unsuitable for the role of
airman, I firmly believe that there are many of our fellow citizens
who are not so suited. I believe the dilatant has no place in the
sky. To attract that sort of person to flight training, without
benefit of some technical enhancement (GPS, Capstone, etc.) does them,
and current airmen, a disservice. The current demands of competent
airmanship must be reduced if the inept and ill suited are to be
accommodated, IMO. It's not just a matter of making it easy for them
to comprehend the syllabus materials if such results in them merely
becoming certificate holders.



Larry;

There are ALWAYS those who for financial or other reasons can't make it
through the program. This is normal attrition and shouldn't be
misconstrued into more importance than it deserves.
Naturally I've encountered these people in my career. Every instructor
encounters them once in a while. They are the exception, not the norm.
But these people aren't what we're dealing with here. We're talking
about maximizing the amount of people we can KEEP. X amount of potential
pilots come through the door. Y are sold and enter the program. Z for
some reason although capable financially, decide not to continue. It's
minimizing the loss of these Z people we're discussing here....nothing
deeper than that.

--
Dudley Henriques

buttman wrote:
On Mar 25, 4:46 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business

No kidding, you only mention this in every other post you make...

Well Butts, if this is all you're getting out of my posts on the forum,
I can see why we have little in common as instructors.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 25, 11:05 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:

The bottom line on these flights is that the goal is to create in the
newbie a desire to fly again. I'll tell you the truth. Any CFI worth the
title should be able to take any newbie who was motivated enough to come
in for a discovery flight in the first place, take them on that flight,
and instill in them a burning desire to return and do it again that is
so strong, the newbie can't wait to get back into the air.

Hope this helps a bit.

--
Dudley Henriques

Absolutely.

So grabbing the yoke while screaming "Do that again and we'll die!" is
considered bad form?

;-)

Dan wrote:
On Mar 25, 11:05 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:

The bottom line on these flights is that the goal is to create in the
newbie a desire to fly again. I'll tell you the truth. Any CFI worth the
title should be able to take any newbie who was motivated enough to come
in for a discovery flight in the first place, take them on that flight,
and instill in them a burning desire to return and do it again that is
so strong, the newbie can't wait to get back into the air.

Hope this helps a bit.

--
Dudley Henriques

Absolutely.

So grabbing the yoke while screaming "Do that again and we'll die!" is
considered bad form?

;-)


Sounds like fun! Reminds me of a commercial running now on TV. Can't
think of what it's for. (obvious their marketing didn't work :-)
This squirll is standing out in the middle of the road. He turns around
and sees a car coming at him at high speed. He lets out a scream at the
top of his lungs. It has a chain reaction with every animal within ear
shot and they all let out a scream of terror at HIS scream of terror.
Don't know why, but for some reason it's funny as hell :-))

--
Dudley Henriques