Part 61 - Number of CFI's

[Gary Ward]

While I training the flight school got 's it's 141 accreditation. They went from ASA stuff to Gleam. I didn't have buy gleam and stayed with ASA for my primary training.
I had about 6 instructors and the first 5 moved to the airlines.
There was about 3 stage checks when I flew with the chief flight instructor which was a good thing because I learned someone from every instructor I flew with.
The last instructor was 69 years old with lot's of hours not looking to go to the airlines. He is the reason I made it through. I was very lucky.

 

[ateamer]

no, 141 schools are supposed to be regimented so that you hit goals. Teachers should get you to those goals. If they cannot then the school has failed. If the school has so many different ways of instruction then how can they offer a consistent product?

Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. There are students who the best, most experienced, skilled instructors cannot make competent, safe pilots out of. Common sense cannot be taught; study habits are 100% on the student. And some people just will never have the hand-eye coordination or ability to think while maneuvering, and employ what they learned last week. We as a community and industry need to stop pretending that everybody can be a pilot.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

We as a community and industry need to stop pretending that everybody can be a pilot.

I agree with you. I have had to "fire" some student pilots. Fortunately, not very often.

As a student pilot in the U.S. Air Force, the instructors liked to say, "With enough bananas, we can teach a monkey to fly." I guess that was supposed to build our confidence. The failure rate was somewhere around 33%.

 

[ateamer]

I agree with you. I have had to "fire" some student pilots. Fortunately, not very often.

As a student pilot in the U.S. Air Force, the instructors liked to say, "With enough bananas, we can teach a monkey to fly." I guess that was supposed to build our confidence. The failure rate was somewhere around 33%.

And that failure rate was from people who were already vetted four times - high school diploma, four-year degree, OCS/ROTC/Academy, flight school selection. The only vetting we have is for a prospective student’s ability to pay. With the existing selection process, the civilian flight training washout rate should be quite high.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

With the existing selection process, the civilian flight training washout rate should be quite high.

I suspect it is somewhere around 75-80%.

 

[pfarber]

the most common reason cited why people stop PPL training is lack of funds. The 40 hours requirement is bare bones get everything right the first time.

While I am sure there are some good or even great CFIs out there they are the rare exception. Show me a survey where 80%+ of the CFIs don't hate instructing and I might believe that CFIs are not the problem.

Yes some people are not cut out to fly,but that number can't be 80%.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Sure, lack of funds is an issue. But we live in a society where rapid gratification is common. TV shows have happy endings in one hour. Commercials are thirty seconds. People who don't like to read a book listen to an audio version while driving. We don't have phone conversations, we text. Some order everything to be delivered.

Now consider the commitment to obtain a pilot certificate. It takes a while, and there will be setbacks or delays because of weather or maintenance. If you fly once a week it is going to be about a year.

I had a student last year who was exuberant after his first solo flight. He belongs to a local club, and that means monthly dues. For whatever reason, he has not flown now for one year, and does not reply to my messages. Not a youngster, in his early 50s, a local business owner who has no obvious financial restraints. He must be paying the club monthly and getting nothing out of it. Looks like he will be one of that 75-80% who drop out.

 

[dmspilot]

The civilian dropout rate has been said to be around 80%, according to AOPA. But dropouts aren't the same as washouts. Some dropouts would have made good pilots if they stuck with it. Some people push through that should have washed out.

 

[MauleSkinner]

the most common reason cited why people stop PPL training is lack of funds.

in reality, it’s probably more lack of interest in spending those funds on something that isn’t turning out the way one envisioned.

 

[Clip4]

Every CFI uses the same syllabus, but just like any other organization there are individuals who are less diligent than others. We have grown a lot in the past couple of years, and some of the newbies are not being monitored closely by management. It's one of my frustrations when I fly with someone else's student and see omissions.

Training folder software and a completion requirement at the end each lesson may be your solution.

The issue with Part 61 programs is no one, including management, is held accountable. The training records in Part 141 schools are audited by the FAA and management is accountable. Any deviations from the syllabus must be approved and documented in the training folders and those deviations are limited to changes of the order of the lessons, not changes to the lessons.

 

[Clip4]

so not only has staff failed, but management has given up on correcting the problems.

There is never a shortage of CFIs and you should be picking the cream of the crop and pay them fairly. But most schools accept that CFI are only there for 1500hrs, pay them crap, and fill the slot with the next 1500 hour wonderkind.... and then say they can't find good instructord.

Never arrived >5 years ago and there are shortages of CFIs in many parts of the US. The average CFI hourly wage across the US is $35-$40 an hour. The community colleges are paying the wonder kids >$40 an hour.

The issue isn’t wages, the issue is health insurance and PTO.

 

[Lance F]

I've got to jump in and comment on the Pt 61 bashing. Another independent instructor and I have a C172N that we purchased to provide primary and instrument instruction under pt 61. First, we maintain it meticulously because a) it's mine, b) my a*s is in it a fair amount of time and c) it's the right thing to do. Second, I do not have a written syllabus (OMG) and my students don't have a folder (OMG). My primary students run from young students to my oldest at 76. Does anyone honestly think a standard "FAA audited" and "must be followed" syllabus would work for all of them? I know my students individually. I know where they are in their training. How many 141 schools have "landing on an actual grass strip to demonstrate what a soft field TO and landing really feels like" in their syllabus? All my primary students will do this. How many 141 schools will be sitting on the ground with calm conditions and a 700' overcast up to 6,000'? I look for such days and I'll be flying with mine for those required 3 hours of flight solely by reference to instruments. Which students will be bettered prepared for inadvertent flight from VMC into IMC? I really have no intention to knock 141 schools, but there are weak points to cookie cutter, excuse me, strict syllabus governed curriculum. When we have such trained 121 pilots unable to fly a visual approach (San Francisco), or mush an Airbus into the Atlantic from 36,000' somehow the fundamentals are being missed in the requirement to follow the syllabus.
No training records? What's a properly written log book?
Not accountable to anyone? Certainly accountable to the student who is free to walk any time (I refuse to take any money in advance. Generally 141's require money up front, making it tough to walk.) Certainly accountable to the DPEs doing the practical tests.
I'd better stop now. Flame away if you wish. I'm probably not going to change and neither are the 141 aficionados.

 

[MauleSkinner]

While I’ll agree with pretty much the rest of it regarding DEmotivation by the school being bad,

What is your take on keeping student pilots engaged and motivated?

This question assumes that it’s the flight school’s responsibility to keep a pilot interested in learning to fly. Adult learners (and yes, I’m including the 14- and 16-year-old Student Pilot Certificate holders) need to be self-motivated. You can have a perfect program with optimum scheduling and outstanding instructors, but if the pilot isn’t self-motivated to learn, it isn’t going to happen.

 

[midlifeflyer]

While I’ll agree with pretty much the rest of it regarding DEmotivation by the school being bad,

This question assumes that it’s the flight school’s responsibility to keep a pilot interested in learning to fly. Adult learners (and yes, I’m including the 14- and 16-year-old Student Pilot Certificate holders) need to be self-motivated. You can have a perfect program with optimum scheduling and outstanding instructors, but if the pilot isn’t self-motivated to learn, it isn’t going to happen.

I don't agree completely.

Yes, a student has gotta wanna. But even the best are going to find subjects and tasks that are difficult and hit those frustrating learning plateaus that seem to be tilted more backwards than straight and level. An individual instructor's attitude or flight school culture can help the student though those or provide the DEmotivation to quit.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't agree completely.

Yes, a student has gotta wanna. But even the best are going to find subjects and tasks that are difficult and hit those frustrating learning plateaus that seem to be tilted more backwards than straight and level. An individual instructor's attitude or flight school culture can help the student though those or provide the DEmotivation to quit.

Maybe it’s a fine distinction, but I think people can be externally motivated to act, but not to learn.

 

[MauleSkinner]

the most common reason cited why people stop PPL training is lack of funds. The 40 hours requirement is bare bones get everything right the first time.

Also, when you consider that most pilots are told that you can’t make practical use of an airplane without an instrument rating, and that’s another “40 hours,” they’re suddenly looking at massive expense for something they thought would be useful.

 

[Pinecone]

I will say that the planes are well maintained and the syllabus is well thought-out. I just need some continuity with the instructors, and have any changes to my scheduled communicated to me so I'm not blindsided when I walk in and they say "oh we changed your CFI today". As humans not every CFI will teach the same thing the same way - they're not robots, and that's expected. So limiting the number of CFI's make learning much easier.

That is why the USAF limited a student to two different instructors pre-solo. After solo, the better students flew with a lot on instructors to learn those different approaches. Struggling students were still limited to a limited number of instructors.

 

[Clip4]

I agree with you. I have had to "fire" some student pilots. Fortunately, not very often.

As a student pilot in the U.S. Air Force, the instructors liked to say, "With enough bananas, we can teach a monkey to fly." I guess that was supposed to build our confidence. The failure rate was somewhere around 33%.

Were the 33% the ones who grew tired of bananas?

 

[Clip4]

the most common reason cited why people stop PPL training is lack of funds. The 40 hours requirement is bare bones get everything right the first time.

While I am sure there are some good or even great CFIs out there they are the rare exception. Show me a survey where 80%+ of the CFIs don't hate instructing and I might believe that CFIs are not the problem.

Yes some people are not cut out to fly,but that number can't be 80%.

While people identify lack of funds as the primary issue, the reasons people drop out of PPL training is a bit more complex than that. About 25% of those who quit PPL training do so over funding. 75% is for other reasons. It costs too much is an easy excuse to use.

 

[Pinecone]

I agree with you. I have had to "fire" some student pilots. Fortunately, not very often.

As a student pilot in the U.S. Air Force, the instructors liked to say, "With enough bananas, we can teach a monkey to fly." I guess that was supposed to build our confidence. The failure rate was somewhere around 33%.

I only had one student I "fired." And he wasn't a student pilot. A retire Army Major, had his certificate and needed a BFR. But due to fixed income, he would fly a few flights, be getting close, and then would stop for a month. A couple of times, if he was a student pilot I would have soloed him, with a BFR, once I signed, he was free to go and fly for 2 years.

He went to a different field and FBO and found an instructor that convinced him that he could be signed off for supervised solo only, like a student pilot, and did solo him

The USF has it down to an art. The failure rate is right around 33% for every class. Yours was about 12 years before mine, but same % failure.

 

[BMan]

....I think the shop bill probably taught him the lessons of know your systems and not to let external forces negatively affect your decision making.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Thank you for reinforcing this here. My first CFI drilled me the same way to know the airplane inside-out. The only problem I had was flying a different 172 for every lesson where instruments were in different locations, control-slop varied a LOT, and trim levers functioned in maddeningly different ways.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This^^^. Unless you're at a flight school where they are buying identical planes, it seems that each one has different avionics with different capabilities and UI. Even when they're well-maintained and relatively squawk-free, it's one more thing that adds to the effective workload on a student pilot.

It also adds to the well-rounded pilot.

 

[RussR]

It also adds to the well-rounded pilot.

I agree. The flight school I trained at had about 6 or 7 Cessna 172s from the 60's and 70's, all different years, with different radios, equipment, etc. For example, some had the old flap lever while some had the newer pre-set one.

I strongly believe it made me a better pilot because I had to understand the differences, and I had to understand what I was actually doing, not just "move this lever". And I don't feel like it extended my training at all.

 

[Clip4]

I've got to jump in and comment on the Pt 61 bashing. Another independent instructor and I have a C172N that we purchased to provide primary and instrument instruction under pt 61. First, we maintain it meticulously because a) it's mine, b) my a*s is in it a fair amount of time and c) it's the right thing to do. Second, I do not have a written syllabus (OMG) and my students don't have a folder (OMG). My primary students run from young students to my oldest at 76. Does anyone honestly think a standard "FAA audited" and "must be followed" syllabus would work for all of them? I know my students individually. I know where they are in their training. How many 141 schools have "landing on an actual grass strip to demonstrate what a soft field TO and landing really feels like" in their syllabus? All my primary students will do this. How many 141 schools will be sitting on the ground with calm conditions and a 700' overcast up to 6,000'? I look for such days and I'll be flying with mine for those required 3 hours of flight solely by reference to instruments. Which students will be bettered prepared for inadvertent flight from VMC into IMC? I really have no intention to knock 141 schools, but there are weak points to cookie cutter, excuse me, strict syllabus governed curriculum. When we have such trained 121 pilots unable to fly a visual approach (San Francisco), or mush an Airbus into the Atlantic from 36,000' somehow the fundamentals are being missed in the requirement to follow the syllabus.
No training records? What's a properly written log book?
Not accountable to anyone? Certainly accountable to the student who is free to walk any time (I refuse to take any money in advance. Generally 141's require money up front, making it tough to walk.) Certainly accountable to the DPEs doing the practical tests.
I'd better stop now. Flame away if you wish. I'm probably not going to change and neither are the 141 aficionados.

Translated, Me and my partner don’t bother to have a syllabus, lesson plans or training records, but just bring a wheel barrow full of cash down to our flight school because we gots a nice plane and can teach you to fly.

Don’t worry about getting those pesky tasks in 61.87, 61.93 and 61.107. Your star instructors have them all memorized (Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, aircraft systems, Taxiing or surface operations, including runups; Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind; Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions; Climbs and climbing turns; airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures; Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance; Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations; Flight at various airspeeds from cruise to slow flight; Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall; Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions; Ground reference maneuvers; Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions; Slips to a landing; Go-arounds; use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage and dead reckoning with the aid of a magnetic compass; Use of aircraft performance charts pertaining to cross-country flight; Procurement and analysis of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts, including recognition of critical weather situations and estimating visibility while in flight; Emergency procedures; traffic pattern procedures that include area departure, area arrival, entry into the traffic pattern, and approach; Procedures and operating practices for collision avoidance, wake turbulence precautions, and windshear avoidance; Recognition, avoidance, and operational restrictions of hazardous terrain features in the geographical area where the cross-country flight will be flown; Procedures for operating the instruments and equipment installed in the aircraft to be flown, including recognition and use of the proper operational procedures and indications; Use of radios for VFR navigation and two-way communication; Takeoff, approach, and landing procedures, including short-field, soft-field, and crosswind takeoffs, approaches, and landings; Climbs at best angle and best rate; and Control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight instruments, including straight and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives, night operations and post flight procedures) and we have put them in some kind of logistical order for your training, but we couldn’t be bothered to write down, so don’t ask for it.

Lesson plans? Don’t worry I will tell you what we are doing on the next lesson. You don’t need to concern yourself with planning ahead.

Progress report? I just tell you if you are doing good or not. You certainly don’t expect a report card in a >$8000 class do you?

Give me a break. A syllabus, lesson plans and training records are the industry standard for all high quality training programs and what the FAA advised you to do when you became a CFI. It’s what the really good Part 61 instructors do.

I am not claiming 141 is the gold standard of aviation training,, but at least the FAA requires the school to meet basic educational standards to be an FAA approved school. If you are a Part 61 CFI who claims to be really good quality, you at least have to have the basic 141 educational standards in place for the flight training.

Part 141 is an accreditation program. Like all accredited education programs, the school is audited for compliance. Most companies and govt agencies are not accredited because it requires extra effort.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

You certainly don’t expect a a report card in a >$8000 class do you?

Yeah... you can double that.

 

[Pinecone]

This^^^. Unless you're at a flight school where they are buying identical planes, it seems that each one has different avionics with different capabilities and UI. Even when they're well-maintained and relatively squawk-free, it's one more thing that adds to the effective workload on a student pilot.

Local school has standardized on C-172M aircraft with dual Garmin G-5, GHS-430 and JPI

They are as close to the same as they can.

 

[Gary Ward]

Local school has standardized on C-172M aircraft with dual Garmin G-5, GHS-430 and JPI

They are as close to the same as they can.

Glad I bounced around between 2- 6 pak panel 172s and g1000 172. It surely helped me.

 

[pfarber]

Training folder software and a completion requirement at the end each lesson may be your solution.

The issue with Part 61 programs is no one, including management, is held accountable. The training records in Part 141 schools are audited by the FAA and management is accountable. Any deviations from the syllabus must be approved and documented in the training folders and those deviations are limited to changes of the order of the lessons, not changes to the lessons.

Pt 61 CFIs are held accountable by the customer. But the paradigm of Instructor/student is so very foreign to most. Unless you had learned a trade or apprenticed under another tradesman there is no modern analog for the learning to fly model.

Most students are young adults and would never question the authority figure, when in fact they absolutely need to hold the CFI to teaching the ACS.

And not only are the students not familiar with it, the CFIs are also at a loss. Teaching is not their goal, 1500 hours is.

To me it's easy to see how the system is crap. I can blame the student and CFI for not being prepared, but the CFI even moreso because they are the authority and have had training (lol sure) on instruction

 

[Clip4]

Pt 61 CFIs are held accountable by the customer. But the paradigm of Instructor/student is so very foreign to most. Unless you had learned a trade or apprenticed under another tradesman there is no modern analog for the learning to fly model.

Most students are young adults and would never question the authority figure, when in fact they absolutely need to hold the CFI to teaching the ACS.

And not only are the students not familiar with it, the CFIs are also at a loss. Teaching is not their goal, 1500 hours is.

To me it's easy to see how the system is crap. I can blame the student and CFI for not being prepared, but the CFI even moreso because they are the authority and have had training (lol sure) on instruction

Exactly how does a student, who doesn’t know what he is supposed to learn or the standards, hold the instructor accountable? What’s next? Asking the student to sign a form acknowledging he was properly trained?

 

[SkyChaser]

Exactly how does a student, who doesn’t know what he is supposed to learn or the standards, hold the instructor accountable? What’s next? Asking the student to sign a form acknowledging he was properly trained?

If a student knows how to read, he can know exactly what he is supposed to learn and to what standards because the FAA publishes exactly what constitutes an adequately-trained pilot, for free even. I think every student should read the ACS during their training so they do know to what standards they should be performing. If you're not progressing, you should be asking why and getting actual reasons. That, in my opinion, is how a student holds an instructor accountable.

To StraightnLevel's point, CFIs are in short supply in a lot of areas right now and at least when I was training, there were waiting lists so any dropout student will most likely just be replaced with another hopeful and until every student comes in willing to walk away from poor-quality instruction, it will most likely continue to be that way. Until every student is willing to read up on what he is supposed to be learning and actually walk when it's not being taught, schools with sub-par CFIs will learn very little.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I just want to highlight a few things from @SkyChaser ’s post…first off,

I think every student should read the ACS

Then,

I think every student should read the ACS

Followed by,

I think every student should read the ACS

And,

I think every student should read the ACS

And finally, just to round things out,

I think every student should read the ACS

I think those are all excellent points.

 

[ateamer]

Another vote for read the ACS. Not just read, but understand it, and save to your personal hard drive the standards for each maneuver (within how many degrees the course has to be maintained, altitude tolerance, touchdown distance, etc). The risk management standards are pretty much the same across the board.

That said, it’s too bad they changed from the PTS. The PTS covered all of the same things but was far easier to understand and retain.

 

[Mikey52]

Another vote for read the ACS. Not just read, but understand it, and save to your personal hard drive the standards for each maneuver (within how many degrees the course has to be maintained, altitude tolerance, touchdown distance, etc). The risk management standards are pretty much the same across the board.

That said, it’s too bad they changed from the PTS. The PTS covered all of the same things but was far easier to understand and retain.

Yep, they are not done writing regs and guides until no one understands them on first reading.

 

[Clip4]

If a student knows how to read, he can know exactly what he is supposed to learn and to what standards because the FAA publishes exactly what constitutes an adequately-trained pilot, for free even. I think every student should read the ACS during their training so they do know to what standards they should be performing. If you're not progressing, you should be asking why and getting actual reasons. That, in my opinion, is how a student holds an instructor accountable.

To StraightnLevel's point, CFIs are in short supply in a lot of areas right now and at least when I was training, there were waiting lists so any dropout student will most likely just be replaced with another hopeful and until every student comes in willing to walk away from poor-quality instruction, it will most likely continue to be that way. Until every student is willing to read up on what he is supposed to be learning and actually walk when it's not being taught, schools with sub-par CFIs will learn very little.

So you believe it’s up to the student to know early in their training if they are not progressing? Do you believe the ACS provides the standards for a student learning to fly information about their progress?

If the student is progressing or not, the CFI should be advising the student post flight on every lesson of their progression and what they need to do to improve. The student coming to the CFI after spending a substantial portion of their training budget to get answers to why they aren’t progressing is how it’s done in most 61 schools, but not the way it should be done.

By using lesson plans and a training folder, each lesson contains the completion standards. As an example, a the student on lesson 3 who does not meet the completion standard (maintain altitude +/- 250 feet during altitude transitions and airspeed changes) doesn’t progress to the tasks in lesson 4 until he can because at the end of lesson 5 the standard is altitude +/- 200, headings +/-15 and airspeed +/-15 both visual and under the hood.

The student’s progression and grading should be recorded in the training record and the student can see their progression or lack there of. The students progression should be recorded in a training folder so the CFI can determine his progress. Neither can read the ACS to measure training progress.

You can train to a high standard Part 61 if you choose to do so - most opt for the easiest path.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So you think it’s up to the student to know early in their training if they are not progressing? You also think the ACS provides the standards for a student learning to fly information their progress?

If the student is progressing or not, the CFI should be advising the student post flight on every lesson of their progression and what they need to do to improve. The student coming to the CFI after spending a substantial portion of their training budget to get answers to why they aren’t progressing isn’t how it is done,

Agree with you completely.

I don't expect the first lesson with a student pilot focusing on landings to result in meeting ACS standards. Or even soloing standards. But I do expect me to watch, help, notice the areas of difficulty, debrief, and make notes to myself on things to try the next time around. If the student could to that for themselves, they'd be an instructor, and one better than many.

We might need to go back to the lesson plan thread where each lesson has completion standards for that lesson.

 

[Salty]

Exactly how does a student, who doesn’t know what he is supposed to learn or the standards, hold the instructor accountable? What’s next? Asking the student to sign a form acknowledging he was properly trained?

The same way you know that your students have had an accident.

 

[SkyChaser]

So you think it’s up to the student to know early in their training if they are not progressing? You also think the ACS provides the standards for a student learning to fly information their progress?

Quite frankly, yes. I am not exactly the brightest person in the room and I didn't have any exposure to aviation before I started, but even I was perfectly capable of reading and understanding the ACS before taking my first flight lesson. I may not have understood what it would feel like to hold an altitude +/- 200ft or even what the gauge would look like that would tell me how high I was, but I knew I would need to be able to do it. Perhaps I am just so used to learning things on my own that my viewpoint is skewed on this, but why wouldn't/shouldn't a student be able to judge his progress, even in the early stages, by the ACS? I am not saying he has to perform to ACS standards the first time he does a maneuver, but for me, it was very satisfying to watch myself get better and very motivating when I was able to perform within standards (and know it in real time) on my second or third attempt at something. It also enabled me to ask better questions when I was struggling with understanding something. Knowing more leads to better questions which leads to better understanding which leads to better flying.

Also, I am glad my instructor chose a more encompassing approach for my flight lessons than you are describing. If I struggled with something, we were able to move on and go back to it later. For example, I struggled with righthand steep turns for most of my training. I would nail a lefthand one and immediately flunk the righthand one. Instead of spending the next twelve lessons hammering at that until I got it perfect so we could move on according to the syllabus, we moved on to other things. After four or five lessons doing other things, we returned to steep turns and I was able to perform both directions quite well. If you're switching CFIs all the time, I guess I can understand why you can't allow the students that flexibility - but to me, that flexibility is one of the perks of going to a part 61 flight school or an independent CFI.

 

[Clip4]

Quite frankly, yes. I am not exactly the brightest person in the room and I didn't have any exposure to aviation before I started, but even I was perfectly capable of reading and understanding the ACS before taking my first flight lesson. I may not have understood what it would feel like to hold an altitude +/- 200ft or even what the gauge would look like that would tell me how high I was, but I knew I would need to be able to do it. Perhaps I am just so used to learning things on my own that my viewpoint is skewed on this, but why wouldn't/shouldn't a student be able to judge his progress, even in the early stages, by the ACS? I am not saying he has to perform to ACS standards the first time he does a maneuver, but for me, it was very satisfying to watch myself get better and very motivating when I was able to perform within standards (and know it in real time) on my second or third attempt at something. It also enabled me to ask better questions when I was struggling with understanding something. Knowing more leads to better questions which leads to better understanding which leads to better flying.

Also, I am glad my instructor chose a more encompassing approach for my flight lessons than you are describing. If I struggled with something, we were able to move on and go back to it later. For example, I struggled with righthand steep turns for most of my training. I would nail a lefthand one and immediately flunk the righthand one. Instead of spending the next twelve lessons hammering at that until I got it perfect so we could move on according to the syllabus, we moved on to other things. After four or five lessons doing other things, we returned to steep turns and I was able to perform both directions quite well. If you're switching CFIs all the time, I guess I can understand why you can't allow the students that flexibility - but to me, that flexibility is one of the perks of going to a part 61 flight school or an independent CFI.

I have been doing this stuff for over 30 years. Done it the way you think is best, done it the way the FAA requires in a 141 school. Part 61 or 141, the best teaching method involves a syllabus the student receives and contains the lessons / standards and utilizes a training record. You are a good example.

Steep turns are a performance maneuver not required pre-solo in Part 61.87(d). Typically though, steep turns are introduced on Lesson 4 and reviewed in Lesson 7. Instructors don’t expect students to be proficient doing a maneuver once and we don’t keep doing steep turns until perfected - actually far from it.

The pre-solo performance standard 141 is to simply establish, perform and recover from steep turns - a rather low standard with no specific performance standards for altitude, airspeed or heading . The student is expected to be safe performing this maneuver.

If you thought you were expected to do steep turns “quite well” at this phase of your training, you set a false expectation for yourself from relying on the ACS. A syllabus provides the standard for the phase of training. There are specific performance standards for maneuvers in the syllabus and those standards change as the student progresses in training. A student doesn’t progress if they fail the specific performance standards and the student remains in that lesson until the standard is met.

The reason is simple, if you don’t have the core prerequisite skills for the CFI to intro a new task, the CFI can’t introduce the task. This is why we don’t teach landings lesson 2 and work on basic aircraft control first.

An active student in Phase I training will complete pre-solo training in 9 lessons and solo on Lesson 10 (~15 hours instruction). If you are the “average” student and able to fly 3 days a week, you will solo in less than a month. If you desire flexibility, it will cost you more time and money.

 

[dmspilot]

I have been doing this stuff for over 30 years. Done it the way you think is best, done it the way the FAA requires in a 141 school. Part 61 or 141, the best teaching method involves a syllabus the student receives and contains the lessons / standards and utilizes a training record. You are a good example.

Steep turns are a performance maneuver not required pre-solo in Part 61.87(d). Typically though, steep turns are introduced on Lesson 4 and reviewed in Lesson 7. Instructors don’t expect students to be proficient doing a maneuver once and we don’t keep doing steep turns until perfected - actually far from it.

The pre-solo performance standard 141 is to simply establish, perform and recover from steep turns - a rather low standard with no specific performance standards for altitude, airspeed or heading . The student is expected to be safe performing this maneuver.

If you thought you were expected to do steep turns “quite well” at this phase of your training, you set a false expectation for yourself from relying on the ACS. A syllabus provides the standard for the phase of training. There are specific performance standards for maneuvers in the syllabus and those standards change as the student progresses in training. A student doesn’t progress if they fail the specific performance standards and the student remains in that lesson until the standard is met.

The reason is simple, if you don’t have the core prerequisite skills for the CFI to intro a new task, the CFI can’t introduce the task. This is why we don’t teach landings lesson 2 and work on basic aircraft control first.

An active student in Phase I training will complete pre-solo training in 9 lessons and solo on Lesson 10 (~15 hours instruction). If you are the “average” student and able to fly 3 days a week, you will solo in less than a month. If you desire flexibility, it will cost you more time and money.

Where did she say she was expected to master steep turns prior to first solo?

 

[SkyChaser]

I have been doing this stuff for over 30 years. Done it the way you think is best, done it the way the FAA requires in a 141 school. Part 61 or 141, the best teaching method involves a syllabus the student receives and contains the lessons / standards and utilizes a training record. You are a good example.

Had a syllabus. Called the ACS. And a training record. Called my logbook.

Steep turns are a performance maneuver not required pre-solo in Part 61.87(d). Typically though, steep turns are introduced on Lesson 4 and reviewed in Lesson 7. Instructors don’t expect students to be proficient doing a maneuver once and we don’t keep doing steep turns until perfected - actually far from it.

The pre-solo performance standard 141 is to simply establish, perform and recover from steep turns - a rather low standard with no specific performance standards for altitude, airspeed or heading . The student is expected to be safe performing this maneuver.

If you thought you were expected to do steep turns “quite well” at this phase of your training, you set a false expectation for yourself from relying on the ACS. A syllabus provides the standard for the phase of training. There are specific performance standards for maneuvers in the syllabus and those standards change as the student progresses in training. A student doesn’t progress if they fail the specific performance standards and the student remains in that lesson until the standard is met.

I never said it was pre-solo and I don't know where you got that from??

The reason is simple, if you don’t have the core prerequisite skills for the CFI to intro a new task, the CFI can’t introduce the task. This is why we don’t teach landings lesson 2 and work on basic aircraft control first.

An active student in Phase I training will complete pre-solo training in 9 lessons and solo on Lesson 10 (~15 hours instruction). If you are the “average” student and able to fly 3 days a week, you will solo in less than a month. If you desire flexibility, it will cost you more time and money.

I get that stuff is introduced in a certain order and that there are many good reasons for it especially in the beginning. I totally understand and agree, for instance, that basic aircraft control should be taught long before landing (and that's how I was taught as well). I was talking about some flexibility in later stages of training, like doing dual cross-country training before the lessons on crosswind landings are finished if the student is struggling with those and needs a mental break - not teaching students how to do pylons-on-8s before they learn how to hold altitude.

I'd like to think that it was because I wasn't what you call an "average student", in that I was working full time instead of flying during the week, but truth is, I am not a talented pilot. I think I'm a fair pilot *now*, but it came through stubbornness and not natural grace. When you're not naturally good at flying, being able to switch things up a bit when frustrations reach critical levels is very relieving and helps the learning process a lot. Maybe I am the only one who ever experiences that, but when I was a student going through training, I was very, very glad that my instructor was willing to play a little loose with her expected lesson sequence some days.