The All Purpose Flight Instructor? Or, Just Pick One - Anyone?

With your IQ and energy you could be flying the space shuttle in 6 months if only you find the right instructor. Choose wisely.

Thank you. :)

Expensive and technologically challenging as it was, I loved the Shuttle program. It made me believe that you can always reach for something most consider out of reach. As a kid growing up, the Shuttle was the biggest poster on my bedroom wall. Bigger than Tony Dorsett, Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Jon Elway, Joe Lewis, Frank Robinson and Muhammad Ali. That's big. And, anybody who does not fully understand that Joe Montana, was the greatest quarterback to ever play the game is simply smoking dope. But, I digress. I don't want to get into a fight here, because it would be pointless. Montana, was the Best Ever. Period.

The Shuttle caused me to pull a book from the library shelf and teach myself basic aerodynamics as a kid, which in turn later caused me to pick engineering as a major in college. The Shuttle was hugely inspirational for me and its losses hit home like losing family members myself. But, there are bigger frontiers now. Maybe Elon over at SpaceX, will build something that requires flight crews some day. Who knows. He talks about missions from Earth to Mars, being as regular as Lufthansa flies London to New York. Of course, they will still have to work out the fuel chemistry problems and their going to have to get the gross weight of the ship down quite a bit in order to hit the velocity numbers required to keep the time en route as plausible as possible. I have no doubt they'll get it done from a technology standpoint - that's just a matter of time, energy, effort, creativity and extreme focus. All of which they have plenty of.

You struck a nerve with the Shuttle comment. :)
 
If/when the time comes and you are looking at a turbine remember that the majority of its value is found forward of the firewall.

That being said, Garrett or PW? Does one have more reliability over the other, or are they pretty much equal within the world of GA?
 
That being said, Garrett or PW? Does one have more reliability over the other, or are they pretty much equal within the world of GA?
The Garrett’s do better at altitude than the Pratt’s but the only king air that has Garrett’s is the b100 and it doesn’t have a big enough wing to take advantage of the Garret’s. I find the Garrett’s to be obnoxiously loud on the ground but quieter and more fuel efficient than the Pratt’s in flight.

Everything about Aviation is a big compromise. It’s about finding the airframe that best fits your mission.

But don’t think for one minute you can accomplish what you are talking about without getting into the 7 figures. Buying a twin turbine is the cheapest part of operating one.
 
Always skeptical on the internet but if you have that kind of money to throw around buy a g1000 used cirrus or da40 or if MEturbine aircraft is your goal get something like a da42 and skip single engine altogether. Get your private and IR using any instructor then after being in aviation in the area you’ll run into the right guys to get training in the turbine stuff you wanna buy. Who cares about a big defined plan. Get your ppl study for the ifr then after all that mess worry how your gonna go from multi IR to a turbine. Any CFII should be able to get you zero to hero so just pick one who doesn’t annoy the **** out of you.

That’s assuming this is legit post 99percent sure it’s someone trolling.
 
Last edited:
Remember, this isn't general or special relativity or quantum mechanics or specialized economics or pricing algorithms or whatever. Us engineers and deep thinkers (like yourself) can really, really get hung up on flying because there is a actual feel to certain things that you must experience, give in to and accept. Landing being a primary example.

This is learning to fly. Was Einstein a pilot (I don't even know - LOL)?

I think he was Captain of the good ship Quantum, but I could be mistaken. ;) Your point well taken, however.


Given your approach...

I don't yet have one. I'm trying to finalize it. This forum visit is part of a much larger discovery process.


I would estimate that your chances of actually taking the first measureable step (which includes):

1.) Obtain valid medical
2.) Buy a new log book
3.) Meet CFI's
4.) Pick a CFI
5.) Fly a 1st lesson
6.) CFI signs off first flight in your logbook

...to be about 0.1%.

1) Check
They tell me I don't need to rush that now.

2) Check
Q1cJHY84Y0ZDeBBrKVKufeR73qEU6D.png


3) Check
Met several already. At least one intro flight scheduled this weekend.

4) Pending
Too early in the process.

5) Check
MwJ5zVO5HyO0zTz0qYIvXFJumH4qah.png


6) Check
p9Wjsb3qIGw0EZPmlRi212vYski5o7.png


That's 83.33% fulfillment. Not quite 100%, but significantly better than 1/10th of 1%, no? ;) The main reason why I'm doing things differently this time around than I did almost 30 years ago, is the fact that back then there was no Aviation Internet Forum where you could go to ask questions of experienced Pilots, and because the experience I had back then I distinctly remember was not going to put me on the path towards being Single Pilot in a Turbine aircraft. I can analyze and then take action. I know what you are saying about some people being caught or stuck in analytical mode and paralyzed. That's not me. I gather first, then I make my move. I also try to learn from my past mistakes.

The last time was not a mistake. He was a good Instructor. Don't know where he is these days. However, that method/mode of Instruction and the way the lessons were unfolding won't be sufficient for what I'm trying to do today. Back then, it was about obtaining a VFR only Private Pilots License to stumble around the local area with. Nothing serious. Today, its a whole new ball game, a whole new purpose and a much more higher performing aircraft as the ultimate goal in IFR conditions. That's going to require a different focus, a more serious attitude, a more structured training environment and an Instructor who sees and understands the difference.

Those 4-5 lessons were about 30 years ago. Things are different now. Much different. So, I need a different approach.


That's not to be mean. Its just that people who get wrapped around the axle on theory are often covering up a fear of actually doing it. Yet they want to be perceived as part of the group they are so interested in. Its just gets tougher and tougher the more words get said with no actions. Don't be that guy.

That's ok, don't worry. You did not know any better before you posted that. Now, you understand a bit where I'm coming from. This is not my first rodeo and that's what gives me the insight into why it is important to flush out the Bigger Picture before getting involved with full time flight training based on my stated goals.



You will then have a vastly different set of more realistic questions like: What is a decent headset? Why did the tower say what it did? Should the CFI have done X instead of Y?, Is that hot babe in the Archer a student too :), Are 182's the world's best airplane :):)

My last headset was from company that's no longer in business and the plastic housing providing the clamping force cracked all the way through making the entire unit useless. Besides, it had a fixed clamping force that felt like a pair of giant jack screws to the skull after 20 minutes of wearing them. Very quiet, though. Just a pain after a while. Those companies that stood the test of time seem to be companies like DC and Sig. However, I think I'm going give BOSE a try. What do you think about the BOSE A20 headset - Wired or Bluetooth?

I do have questions about Radio Comms in general that I want to post in another thread. I'm currently asking questions about what makes a good CFI and whether I should use one for everything or multiple CFIs for individual ratings. The hot babe comment might get me killed at home with the Wife. And, I think 182s are ok, but I was wondering whether or not I should be training in a higher performance Low Wing aircraft given my ultimate destination will be a low wing high performance turboprop? So, I'm trying to ask the questions that are specific to my goals and based on where I am in my research thus far. This is why you have not heard me ask the question: Why does clearance delivery sometimes give one clearance, only to change some aspect of that clearance less than 5 minute later AFTER the pilot has programmed the FMS and while they are taxing to the runway? ;) However, I will be asking questions like that at the appropriate time.

I know you are trying to help and I appreciate it. :)
 
...and because the experience I had back then I distinctly remember was not going to put me on the path towards being Single Pilot in a Turbine aircraft...

And this is based on all your experience as a single pilot in a turbine ? Lol


... However, that method/mode of Instruction and the way the lessons were unfolding won't be sufficient for what I'm trying to do today. Back then, it was about obtaining a VFR only Private Pilots License to stumble around the local area with. Nothing serious. Today, its a whole new ball game, a whole new purpose and a much more higher performing aircraft as the ultimate goal in IFR conditions. That's going to require a different focus, a more serious attitude, a more structured training environment and an Instructor who sees and understands the difference..

Oh fail.

Actually a J3 will kill you just as fast as a PC-12 or C90, it's just as serious, and times don't change, it's also mostly not on the CFI, it's often the student who falls short.

This isn't a product you buy, it's a education and a process, and much more to do with YOU than the CFI for the incidental airframe.



That's ok, don't worry. You did not know any better before you posted that. Now, you understand a bit where I'm coming from. This is not my first rodeo and that's what gives me the insight into why it is important to flush out the Bigger Picture before getting involved with full time flight training based on my stated goals.
..

Uhhh actually it is your first rodeo, how much PIC time to you have again?
How much PIC IMC time?
How PIC turbine time?



Read this over

bilde.jpg


bilde.jpg

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/06/pilatus-pc-1247-n960ka-6-killed-in.html

"..., likely due to his inexperience. The training culminated with the pilot receiving his instrument proficiency check, flight review, and high-altitude endorsements; after the training, he subsequently logged about 14 hours as pilot-in-command of the accident airplane. Although the pilot likely met the minimum qualification standards to act as pilot-in-command by federal aviation regulations, his lack of experience in the make and model airplane was evidenced by the fact that he did not maintain control of the airplane after the autopilot disengaged. The airplane was operating in instrument conditions, but there was only light rime ice reported and no convective activity nearby; the pilot should have been able to control the airplane after the autopilot disengaged in such conditions. Further, his lack of experience was evident in his test of the autopilot system immediately following the airplane's departure from controlled flight rather than rolling the airplane to a wings-level position, regaining altitude; only after establishing coordinated flight should he have attempted to test the autopilot system."


Just because you have been successful in other aspects of life doesn't mean crap in aviation, in fact your ability to buy more aircraft than you can handle makes you less safe.

Understand you know next to nothing, go into training knowing this, drop the attitude that your prior irrelevant to aviation experience means a damn.
 
As a strict matter of curiosity, I understand the others but I don't understand Number #4. Can you enlighten? In addition, should the FAR and the AIM be read fully and understood completely by all pilots? Or, are they both merely general reference documents/publications that should be referred to when and if needed? Thanks.
#4 is in response to a common reply to questions about whether you can log something: "it's your logbook, log what you want." But, from a regulatory standpoint, it is an official record of flight time qualifying for pilot certificates, ratings and privileges, and to show currency. That means entries have to follow FAR requirements.

FAR And AIM? A little of both. If you are on the ground and a piece of equipment is not working properly, you have the time to look up whether it's required and whether it grounds the airplane. OTOH, if you are flying along and there is another aircraft converging at your altitude, there isn't time to look up right of way/collision avoidance rules.
 
I'd like to ask a probing question, but I don't mean it on a personal level of any kind. I'm asking this question because it goes to the heart of why I created this thread and quite frankly, it scares me. Question: How was it possible for you to reach the point where you were that close to your Solo, while still pointing airplanes at buildings instead of runways?

Again, please - don't take my question the wrong way. In fact, if you like, please remove "you" from the question and replace it with "a student" instead. Nothing personal meant by the question. This gets to the heart of what I'm afraid of and it really scares the **** out of me. Excuse my language. The fact that I could reach a point where my instructor is nearing a sign-off on my Solo, yet I'm still headed towards buildings on final, is terrifying to me. This is why I'm going through so much front-end examination of this whole thing before I take the plunge.

See, here's the thing. You are being scared ****less and even thinking it would be an intrusive question to ask me something which is a completely normal part of learning to fly.

When I say close to solo, I mean I had met all the requirements and my maneuvers were sufficiently up to standard for me to progress to that next learning level (btw, that means enough to be safe in the controlled environment of local solo flight, not perfection). Like just about everyone else at that level, though, I had problems with landing. There are a variety of those. In my case it was getting and staying lined up on final. A bad case of drifting.

Don't worry, Instructor #1 was not going to let me solo until it was corrected. And the only point of mentioning it is that, as good an instructor as he was, he missed a telltale clue of the source of my problem. #2 saw it and corrected it. And, had #1 not left, he probably would have done exactly what many good instructors do - have their student fly with someone else to get that valuable second perspective.
 
Whatever you plan on now WILL change by time it’s all said and done.

I thought this part was relevant and interesting. What do you anticipate will change about this:


- Private Pilot Study Course | Pass Written | Pass Medical
- Intro Flights with Perspective CFIs
- Select CFI
- Buy Training SEL
- Private License
- Instrument Rating
- Initiate IFR Skills Enhancement Phase | 300hrs IFR/XC/IMC & Night in SEL as PIC | Mon-Thurs 1-2 Missions per day | Weekends Off
- Sell SEL
- Buy Twin Turbine
- Begin Transition Training | Multi-Engine Rating
- Initial Time Building Phase w/Rated Mentor Pilot | 300hrs IFR/XC/IMC & Night as PIC w/Post Flight Debrief/Critique from Mentor
- Initiate Solo Time Building Phase | 2,000hrs - 3,000hrs IFR/XC/IMC & Night as Single Pilot
- Initial Upset Recovery Training in Twin Turbine
- Start Routine Single Pilot Ops | Carrying Family Members, Business Associates, Friends, etc.
- Periodic "Sanity Checks" with Mentor Pilot | FAA/Insurance Required Annual Currency Checks

Total Training & Time Building Time: 2-3 years

Final Transition: Single Pilot Very Light Jet

- Sell Twin Turbine
- Buy VLJ (CJ4, Phenom 300, PC-24, which is undetermined at this time)
- VLJ Transition from Twin Turbine
- VLJ Type Rating
- Initial Time Building Phase w/Rated Mentor Pilot | 100hrs IFR/XC/IMC & Night as PIC w/Post Flight Debrief/Critique from Mentor
- Initial Upset Recovery Training in VLJ
- Initiate Solo Time Building Phase | 300hrs IFR/XC/IMC & Night as Single Pilot
- Start Routine Single Pilot VLJ Ops | Carrying Family Members, Business Associates, Friends, etc.
- Periodic "Sanity Checks" with Mentor Pilot | FAA/Insurance Required Annual Currency Checks

Total VLJ Training & Transition Time: 1 year

I'm in this thing for the long haul. Please help me figure out what I missed, what could be improved, what definitely needs to be removed or any helpful advice you can offer on how to better plan ahead for what I'm trying to accomplish. This was never just about a "Twin Turboprop." The longer range goal is the VLJ as owner, operator and pilot. This is why I put so much emphases on getting prepared. I'm not merely out to obtain a fair weather ticket. I'm going to be doing a lot of flying in high performance aircraft as single pilot. I need to get to start out right, so I can finish right. Yes, there will be slight shifts, small edits and few abbreviations in all this along the way. However, what you see above is what I mean by trying to put together the "Bigger Picture" without blindly launching into something without a clue.

I'm committed and serious, obviously. But, I cannot justify walking off the side of a cliff blindly and without a roadmap given the stated objectives and ultimate goals. Again, this is not a journey towards a basic VFR Private Pilots License. If it were that simple, I would not be here asking these questions. Moving forward on something this big from a mere whim has never been my MO. I need help and understanding. There is no book that I can pull off the shelf for this. There is no FAA guideline or publication for accomplishing this. So, I've got to put a plan together somehow - which means research and asking questions. I hope you understand.
 
Well this might be a problem.

Understand you don't know jack about aviation, your 99th percentile, no one cares, not your CFI, not the DPE, not the FAA and sure as hell not physics or gravity.

Thanks for the advice. Have a nice day.
 
To the OP, have you ever even flown in or actually flown a small plane?

I have one response to a similar question here: Has the OP ever flown an airplane before?


Do you know if you will like it or are capable of it?

Loved flying it. Seemed like a natural extension of my body once I started applying Pitch-Power-Trim to control it. But, before Pitch-Power-Trim was used, I was all over the place. Even then, I was still having way too much fun, honestly.


As mentioned before, get a medical first then find ANY instructor and go fly!!!

Thank you for the sincere inquiry about whether I would genuine appreciate being a Pilot. I get it. Have a great day! :)
 
Bluntly, you have no idea what you like, other than a syllabus. There are commercially available syllabi for both Pt 61 and Pt 141 operations.

Does the average student pilot sign up for a Part 141 school and then drop out once they gain an idea about what they like and don't like about it, before they go sign up for Part 61 flight instruction? Because, if that's the way the business works, I would probably seek to find another way to discover what I liked and did not like other than the syllabus. That would be one of the most inefficient methods for learning what I liked and did not like that I could imagine and one of the primary reasons why I came asking those with experience, first.


If you’re into understanding the regulatory differences in the school operations, I suggest reading 14 CFR Parts 61 and 141. The performance standards for the certificate or rating don’t change.

I've read it in my last phase of research. The performance standards don't change for the student. Emphasis on for the student. The environment, pace and methodology of instruction do seem to differ a great deal. In some cases, even among Part 141s that I've looked at have significant variations in environment, pace and methods. My concerns are not about the standards - it is what it is. My concerns are about the Approach To Teaching and the Quality of the Instruction therein. Availability of aircraft per lesson, aircraft maintenance and readiness, etc., are also things that are of significant interest to me.

In my last phase of research, I've had a number of former student pilots tell me that they had to unlearn what they had learned in a number of areas before being able to pass a check ride. Both for the private and the instrument. So, my questions are geared towards trying to figure out how I can reduce that kind of knowledge transfer risk in my own training.


From an efficiency standpoint, large operation, either Pt 61/141 in an area with sufficiently flyable days is what you’re needs suggest. Simply because of fleet size being able to accommodate your desire to fly as often as possible.

Thanks. Useful information!


The “problem” lurking inside the system is humans.

They can be downright troubling at times in all walks of life.


Comparing Pt 91, 121, and 135 is like comparing apples and walnuts.

The comparison was to outcome. The resultant outcome of flights among the various branches of GA are comparable according to the FAA and independent groups it works with to try to understand why there are such great differences. In fact, it was that comparison in part that lead to ACS according to the FAA. So, I was looking at the final analysis - did the aircraft make it back to earth uneventfully or not and if not, what was Causation. Its tracing the Causation that leads you to your apples and walnuts, because the Training and Currency requirements among the branches (91 vs Other) are indeed apples and walnuts. So, my focus was again on Outcome and what I could do at the start of my training to possibly have better outcomes in my own flying in the future.


For example, Cape Air operates Cessna 402s in a Pt 135 environment with, I think, only 1 accident in the 402. On the other hand, other operators (both 91 and 135) of C402s suffered 14 accidents in a 5 year stretch (96-01).

So, statistically speaking, we call instances like Cape Air the outlier, the anomaly, the exception to the rule. However, the mean reverts back to 91 as having far more incidents than 121 and/or 135. Those are the numbers/date the NTSB and FAA put out that I've studied thus far. So, in isolation, Cape Air would look as though there is no correlation to 91 and incident rate increases. In totality of the data sets, that isolation doesn't really exist.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of Pt 91 operators in piston singles that will go entire lifetimes in various different aircraft without an incident or accident.

I would suspect that in any distributed and/or normalized data set, there would by definition need to be a gradient outcomes all the way up to and including the most extremely isolated highest and lowest values. Zag back to the mean and you find 91 sitting on the high side of the negative outcome band, with both 121 and 135 sitting low side. Again, my was research into the totality of the data. I did not focus on individual cases that much, though I did find some vary interesting cases that I studied in 121 that was flat out shocking, but that typically came down to the hubris and the arrogance of the Captain, followed up by the fear and intimidation of the First Officer - resulting in a tragic situation needlessly unfolding when it absolutely did not have to. I've also studied 91 cases that were clearly related Pilots allowing themselves to fly into conditions that were beyond their skill level - resulting in a tragic situation that did not have to take place.

In other cases, there were clear and fundamental flaws in the 91 Pilot's handing of the aircraft. These are the cases that I paid special attention to because it gets to the heart of how they were trained and how they ultimately got passed on a check ride. These are the areas where I can hopefully make adjustments in my own training, so that I do not compound error with error while in the cockpit and under the stress of some kind of soluble emergency.
 
Does the average student pilot sign up for a Part 141 school and then drop out once they gain an idea about what they like and don't like about it, before they go sign up for Part 61 flight instruction? Because, if that's the way the business works, I would probably seek to find another way to discover what I liked and did not like other than the syllabus. That would be one of the most inefficient methods for learning what I liked and did not like that I could imagine and one of the primary reasons why I came asking those with experience, first.




I've read it in my last phase of research. The performance standards don't change for the student. Emphasis on for the student. The environment, pace and methodology of instruction do seem to differ a great deal. In some cases, even among Part 141s that I've looked at have significant variations in environment, pace and methods. My concerns are not about the standards - it is what it is. My concerns are about the Approach To Teaching and the Quality of the Instruction therein. Availability of aircraft per lesson, aircraft maintenance and readiness, etc., are also things that are of significant interest to me.

In my last phase of research, I've had a number of former student pilots tell me that they had to unlearn what they had learned in a number of areas before being able to pass a check ride. Both for the private and the instrument. So, my questions are geared towards trying to figure out how I can reduce that kind of knowledge transfer risk in my own training.




Thanks. Useful information!




They can be downright troubling at times in all walks of life.




The comparison was to outcome. The resultant outcome of flights among the various branches of GA are comparable according to the FAA and independent groups it works with to try to understand why there are such great differences. In fact, it was that comparison in part that lead to ACS according to the FAA. So, I was looking at the final analysis - did the aircraft make it back to earth uneventfully or not and if not, what was Causation. Its tracing the Causation that leads you to your apples and walnuts, because the Training and Currency requirements among the branches (91 vs Other) are indeed apples and walnuts. So, my focus was again on Outcome and what I could do at the start of my training to possibly have better outcomes in my own flying in the future.




So, statistically speaking, we call instances like Cape Air the outlier, the anomaly, the exception to the rule. However, the mean reverts back to 91 as having far more incidents than 121 and/or 135. Those are the numbers/date the NTSB and FAA put out that I've studied thus far. So, in isolation, Cape Air would look as though there is no correlation to 91 and incident rate increases. In totality of the data sets, that isolation doesn't really exist.



I would suspect that in any distributed and/or normalized data set, there would by definition need to be a gradient outcomes all the way up to and including the most extremely isolated highest and lowest values. Zag back to the mean and you find 91 sitting on the high side of the negative outcome band, with both 121 and 135 sitting low side. Again, my was research into the totality of the data. I did not focus on individual cases that much, though I did find some vary interesting cases that I studied in 121 that was flat out shocking, but that typically came down to the hubris and the arrogance of the Captain, followed up by the fear and intimidation of the First Officer - resulting in a tragic situation needlessly unfolding when it absolutely did not have to. I've also studied 91 cases that were clearly related Pilots allowing themselves to fly into conditions that were beyond their skill level - resulting in a tragic situation that did not have to take place.

In other cases, there were clear and fundamental flaws in the 91 Pilot's handing of the aircraft. These are the cases that I paid special attention to because it gets to the heart of how they were trained and how they ultimately got passed on a check ride. These are the areas where I can hopefully make adjustments in my own training, so that I do not compound error with error while in the cockpit and under the stress of some kind of soluble emergency.

Stop doing whatever it is you are doing, start studying instead. And go fly.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...e_handbook/media/airplane_flying_handbook.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim_basic_chg_1_dtd_3-29-18.pdf
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfrv2_02.tpl#0
 
Stop doing whatever it is you are doing, start studying instead. And go fly.
No kidding!

944876BF-00D4-4AA9-BB20-09D0EEAC1554.gif

To OP: This thread isn’t about how much you can prove to us. We’re simply trying to offer advice, that’s it.
 
Bonanza, baron, king air, Cessna mustang jet.

It’s a good progression. I know someone that has done it. Took about 7 years and lots of training. Had a hired pilot/instructor/baby sitter with him once he started burning kerosene. I think now he flys single pilot about 80% if the time but still hires a typed pilot to help out for the more challenging trips.

Thank you! Very encouraging.

Do you have any idea how much time he spend as PIC in each aircraft? That might be a difficult (impossible) question for you to answer, I understand. The reason I ask, is that 7 years to make that swing move is a mighty long time. I was targeting about 3 years total for the entire transition from start to VLJ ready. But, I also plan to shift my lifestyle to basically full-time aviation (7-8 hours per day). Studying, Training and/or XC Time Building nearly every single day, Mon-Fri.

Interesting pick on the Bonanza. I've always loved the sound a Bonanza makes on taxi and especially on take-off. It has a very distinctive Bonanza acoustic. The one thing about the Bonanza that I don't like is the swing-over yoke design and the bridged yoke design. Obviously, the single-sided yoke can't be used as a training aircraft. The bridged yoke just looks awkward to my eye - I could probably get used to it. I prefer the dual-independent yokes, however.

Would you agree that he Bonanza makes for a good IFR cross-country platform and a descent initial training platform? I'd need to be in it for 300-400 hours all cross-country and maybe as much as 500 hours given the extended IFR solo time building segment I'm considering before moving to the twin. I really want to work hard on my cross-country IFR flying skills before migrating to twin turboprop time building.
 
I'm beginning to wonder...seems to know an awful amount for someone interested in learning to fly.

IMG_3543.JPG
 
I'm beginning to wonder...seems to know an awful amount for someone interested in learning to fly.

Can the moderator moderate this? Its basically off topic and a distraction.
 
Good lord dude! Go fly! @denverpilot you're in trouble lol.

I don’t think this poster is ever going to get anywhere near an airport. :) Not too concerned.

If he does and finds a good instructor and hands them his lists, the instructor is going to look at them, smile, nod, hand them back and say, very nice.

“Now let’s talk about lesson one and my requirements for you for THIS flight and my responsibilities. Once you master these we shall add more and you’ll be handed more responsibility until you’re ready to be Pilot In Command. Each flight I will be responsible for structuring a plan that builds upon the last and you will know your responsibilities that day before we fly.”

There’s some ahhhh personality issues and role setting here that need to be addressed or “jump all over the place boy” won’t be making any real progress. If he ever shows up.

I suspect the other common phrase throughout training will be, “Unless you want to be here today for eight hours and charged for all of it, you’re going to have to FOCUS on today’s lesson plan.”

Crawl before walk, walk before run... :) :) :)
 
Does the average student pilot sign up for a Part 141 school and then drop out once they gain an idea about what they like and don't like about it, before they go sign up for Part 61 flight instruction? Because, if that's the way the business works, I would probably seek to find another way to discover what I liked and did not like other than the syllabus. That would be one of the most inefficient methods for learning what I liked and did not like that I could imagine and one of the primary reasons why I came asking those with experience, first.
There is no "average student", and even if there was, you are not it. You can find out some things by talking to a school or an instructor, but there are no guarantees you will like their style of teaching. You can ask other students what they think, but that's only of limited use because you are not them. People have different styles of learning and teaching.
 
There is no "average student", and even if there was, you are not it.


It's sorta like this: mathematically, the average human being has one testicle and one teat. Consequently there ain't many average humans.

Every student learns differently, takes longer to learn one thing than another, reaches different plateaus, has different random experience with weather, aircraft, instructors, etc. You might be able to craft a hypothetical (and mythical) "average" student from the data but you'll never find a living breathing student that actually matches it.
 
BTW, DR750S - I must've missed this somewhere in all the posts, but why did you stop taking lessons the first time?
 
The Garrett’s do better at altitude than the Pratt’s but the only king air that has Garrett’s is the b100 and it doesn’t have a big enough wing to take advantage of the Garret’s. I find the Garrett’s to be obnoxiously loud on the ground but quieter and more fuel efficient than the Pratt’s in flight.

Thanks! The 441 runs with Garrett, BTW.

But don’t think for one minute you can accomplish what you are talking about without getting into the 7 figures. Buying a twin turbine is the cheapest part of operating one.

Yeah, I've looked at some annual numbers that others of put online. It appears as though you can get some slight relief in operational costs by doing unscheduled maintenance checks - a little bit like preventative maintenance on your car. Other than that, your statement does confirm what I've seen thus far. A lot of it seems to be the frequency of the TBO on the engines. This seems to add up when it comes to turbine engines as opposed to NA engines.

7 figures was my upper limit for my Training and Time Building phases. So, that includes all acquisition costs to get through a 3-4 year program including all SEL and Turboprop flying. I allocated the YoY operational costs for the SEL and Turboprop separately, as there will be several tax advantages with operating either aircraft annually. So, yes - I'm trying to keep it at or below the figure. The way I look at things, I'm willing to spend 1/10th of the VLJ cost on getting myself prepared for the VLJ over 3-4 years. At $1m, that's $333K or $250k per year in flat acquisition costs plus annualized operating expenses with a taper down as the SEL gets sold after the initial IFR time building phase out to 300-400 hours. So, at some point, I'll recover some of the acquisition costs and only be left with realized operational costs for both aircraft.

Point being, it won't cost as much as it might look on the surface in the final analysis. Its basically like an admittedly expensive SEL and Twin Turboprop lease arrangement. I need not just flight training and time building, but aircraft ownership experience as well before the arrival of the VLJ. This plan gives me all of that experience/education before hand. An education always comes with a price tag at the end of the day. I want to know what its really like to own progressively more complex aircraft before stepping up to a VLJ. I may Lease both to gain the same education, but I'd have to look at the differences in insurance requirements, maintenance responsibilities and tax implications with wise counsel at my side. Bottom line, I'm not buying a VLJ coming out of nowhere.
 
Always skeptical on the internet but if you have that kind of money to throw around buy a g1000 used cirrus or da40 or if MEturbine aircraft is your goal get something like a da42 and skip single engine altogether.

Both would blow the training and time building budget. As TarheelPilot says, the target is about 7 figures for training and time building which includes SEL and ME Turbine. So, I need to work within that budget. Regarding the DA42. I've been told that given it speed range with respect to approach speeds, it won't be the best alternative 'simulation' for the VLJ I'm contemplating. That same individual suggested that I might focus more on either the King Air F90/C90 or the Cessna Conquest II. They said, I might have to sacrifice a low time airframe, but I'd get a more paralleled experience in terms of speed flying the pattern (especially the descent and approach phase) relative to the VLJ I'm looking at.


Get your private and IR using any instructor then after being in aviation in the area you’ll run into the right guys to get training in the turbine stuff you wanna buy. Who cares about a big defined plan. Get your ppl study for the ifr then after all that mess worry how your gonna go from multi IR to a turbine. Any CFII should be able to get you zero to hero so just pick one who doesn’t annoy the **** out of you.

I found a CFI already. He seems just right for the job. However, I've subsequently decided to book a few more rides with additional CFIs, just to make sure I have something to compare to. The CFI I found can do Private, Instrument and Multi-Engine. But, it will depend on which Turboprop I end up with as to whether or not he'll need to get Typed, first. He's an older gentlemen, former Airline Captain who still loves to fly and teach. But, we are still getting to know each other. If he turns out to be anything like some of the stunted human beings who have replied negatively in this otherwise positive thread, then I'll dump him like yesterday's news - right on his ear. However, he does not initially appear to be a negativist and that's a really good start. Still, I've got two additional flights scheduled for this weekend with two other CFI who are not nearly as experienced - but I need something to compare the "Captain" too.


That’s assuming this is legit post 99percent sure it’s someone trolling.

I'm about 99% done! And, thank goodness. Some of the blithering nonsensical boneheaded people you have to put up with, when all you're doing is asking common sense questions, is rather frustrating. But, that's the way the internet bounces these days. I've basically learned to ignore them.

I appreciate your positive and genuine input to my request for help. :)
 
#4 is in response to a common reply to questions about whether you can log something: "it's your logbook, log what you want." But, from a regulatory standpoint, it is an official record of flight time qualifying for pilot certificates, ratings and privileges, and to show currency. That means entries have to follow FAR requirements.

Ah, I see. Thank you. So, I was right not to "log" the time when I flew a C5-B Galaxy, T-37 Tweet, T-38 Talon, F-15C Eagle and F-111 Raven. They were all dubbed as "incentive rides" and/or "incentive training programs" that the commander of cadets arranged when I was a lowly USAF/ROTC GMC Cadet many years ago, either form the Left or Back Seat - though I did get some stick/yoke time. I had an appointment to Colorado, coming out of high school one year ahead of my classmates and was "sponsored" by Congressman Ronald Dellums. After a long discussion with my parents back then, we decided that a more well rounded education was more important. So, I respectfully declined and applied to Berkeley. I was in Detachment 085 for two years until my vision tapered off and my changes of getting to UPT dashed. During that time however, I signed up for every "incentive program" I could get my hands on and was selected for two of them. That's how I got into the cockpits and flight decks of the aircraft which I never "logged" in my logbook.

Thanks for the legal notice. I never knew you could not do that. In fact, I was in the other camp. I just took it for granted that you could log such hours. In fact, I watched other Cadets do it. Some of those guys went on to UPT. One of them I know for certain ended up the EF-111 "Jamming" Raven. He used to be a listed CFI at one of the local airports out where I live years ago. I've lost track of him for many years now. Last I heard, he was into helicopters.

Strange, huh. The things we learn after the fact can sometimes be very interesting, indeed.


FAR And AIM? A little of both. If you are on the ground and a piece of equipment is not working properly, you have the time to look up whether it's required and whether it grounds the airplane. OTOH, if you are flying along and there is another aircraft converging at your altitude, there isn't time to look up right of way/collision avoidance rules.

Which is another way of saying: Damn! That's a lot of reading to do!

I appreciate your help in this thread! :)
 
...If he turns out to be anything like some of the stunted human beings who have replied negatively in this otherwise positive thread, then I'll dump him like yesterday's news - right on his ear. However, he does not initially appear to be a negativist and that's a really good start. ....

That's also presuming he doesn't dump you, if he has the experience you say he does and is a retired majors pilot, he might not want the risk of dealing with a debutant who thinks he knows much more than he does, especially if you do something stupid and try to blame it on everyone else, not everyone wants to have to deal with frivolous lawsuits, or tarnishing the end of a long aviation career.

Just because many people think your aspirations don't match reality doesn't mean they are a negativist.



..Some of the blithering nonsensical boneheaded people you have to put up with, when all you're doing is asking common sense questions, is rather frustrating. But, that's the way the internet bounces these days. I've basically learned to ignore them...

Yes all the boneheaded people like me who actually fly single pilot kerosine burners, who are only trying to paint a more realistic picture.

Ignoring everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't hurt in golf, might cost you money in business, but can easily straight kill you, your pax and anyone in the impact area in the world of aviation.


Take all your post PPL and scrap then for now.

Go get your PPL, go fly as a VFR pilot for a while, then the next step, etc, don't worry about fitting yourself for fancy running shoes when you can't even crawl yet.


Ether way, take it easy, be humble and make your self a safe and proficient pilot, smartly working your way up, or don't, we all will have lunch the next day, and some of us will even monitor 21.5 for ya.
 
See, here's the thing. You are being scared ****less and even thinking it would be an intrusive question to ask me something which is a completely normal part of learning to fly.

So, that's the State of The Art in GA today? That its normal for for CFI to lead you down the path of error and then compound that error by sending you down range to the DPE who halts the train wreck from taking place later? Man, if that's the case, I'm in serious trouble. LOL, I'm just kidding. But, I'm not kidding about the part where you say its "completely normal." That does bother me, if you are saying it was ok for the CFI to do that. I just hope that's not the case.


When I say close to solo, I mean I had met all the requirements and my maneuvers were sufficiently up to standard for me to progress to that next learning level (btw, that means enough to be safe in the controlled environment of local solo flight, not perfection). Like just about everyone else at that level, though, I had problems with landing. There are a variety of those. In my case it was getting and staying lined up on final. A bad case of drifting.

Did you train near the ocean, or on the leeward side of a mountain, or were the cross-winds just particularly strong at your home base? The reason I ask is because I distinctly remember having to use significant amount of rudder on departures (climb-out) at the three airports I trained at a long time ago. I was just being allowed to fly the pattern up to the actual landing itself as well. I remember a lot of rudder action then, too. In fact, I remember something called the Forward Slip.

My instructor was showing me that in the practice area - said I might have to use it when we got back. It worked nicely on the next approach I flew. Left Aileron + Right Rudder is all I remember these days. Its been so long ago. Yep, I remember as I type. We headed out towards the coast. The wind was so strong from the west, that it blew-out the downwind side of my turns around a point, forcing me to increase bank significantly in order to keep the point fixed. So much so, that one time my Instructor asked me to flatten out the bank angle because we were too slow for that much bank. Those forward slips were fun, though. I remember that.



Don't worry, Instructor #1 was not going to let me solo until it was corrected. And the only point of mentioning it is that, as good an instructor as he was, he missed a telltale clue of the source of my problem. #2 saw it and corrected it. And, had #1 not left, he probably would have done exactly what many good instructors do - have their student fly with someone else to get that valuable second perspective.

On that point, would it be considered "normal" for my CFI, after I'm deemed ready for the DPE check ride, to have me fly with a different CFI just as a sanity check, first? Second, what do you think about the idea of doing 4 or 5 grueling mock check rides before the actual check ride with the DPE? I'm talking about 4-5 1hr flights where you basically get the crap beat out of you by the other guy in the right seat, as they put you through something equivalent to that which would be 10 times more difficult than anything a DPE would throw at you? In other words, add 10 hours or so on the back end of the Private training cycle where I do nothing but mock check rides with my CFI, or another CFI who has been told to make it bloody in the cockpit? It should be a humbling experience when completed, but it should also make the actual check ride with the DPE a piece of cake, too. What are you thoughts on this final stage approach to prepping for the check ride?
 
I don’t think this poster is ever going to get anywhere near an airport. :) Not too concerned.

If he does and finds a good instructor and hands them his lists, the instructor is going to look at them, smile, nod, hand them back and say, very nice.

“Now let’s talk about lesson one and my requirements for you for THIS flight and my responsibilities. Once you master these we shall add more and you’ll be handed more responsibility until you’re ready to be Pilot In Command. Each flight I will be responsible for structuring a plan that builds upon the last and you will know your responsibilities that day before we fly.”

There’s some ahhhh personality issues and role setting here that need to be addressed or “jump all over the place boy” won’t be making any real progress. If he ever shows up.

I suspect the other common phrase throughout training will be, “Unless you want to be here today for eight hours and charged for all of it, you’re going to have to FOCUS on today’s lesson plan.”

Crawl before walk, walk before run... :) :) :)


Great advice!
 
The CFI I found can do Private, Instrument and Multi-Engine. But, it will depend on which Turboprop I end up with as to whether or not he'll need to get Typed, first.
Nobody is going to go through the trouble of getting a type rating for themselves, just so they can teach someone else. Sorry it doesn’t work that way, nor is it realistic.
 
There is no "average student", and even if there was, you are not it. You can find out some things by talking to a school or an instructor, but there are no guarantees you will like their style of teaching. You can ask other students what they think, but that's only of limited use because you are not them. People have different styles of learning and teaching.

So, based on that, would it be a good idea to get the Instructor engage in trying to explain a topic having nothing to do with flying, from a simple concept to a more complex one - in order to determine their ability to offer instructional level communication? Would this more clearly highlight someone who has both knowledge and communications skills commensurate with good teaching ability? Or, should I just have faith in the CFI designation and trust that coordinated instruction is being delivered?

From the Student side of the equation, I can guarantee 100% that I'm showing up ready and prepared each day. In fact, if the Instructor feels that on any given day that I showed up unprepared, unmotivated, slacking, dragging my but or in any way disconnected, aloof and/or habitually disinterested in learning, I would give he/she the contracted right to charge me quadruple (4 times their normal hourly rate) for that lesson. I am more than willing to sign such a contract - because I know I will never be in breach of contract. I will guarantee my substance, focus, preparation and attention to detail as a quality Student and am willing to do so in writing. Will I find a CFI willing to make an equivalent guarantee? Will they show up just as prepared, just as ready and then teach/instruct all that they know for that lesson?

Not everyone learns in the exact same way for sure. Equally as true, not everyone brings the same work ethic to the table and for a variety of different reasons. I think this is a very interesting question. Probably not one that's going to be appreciated very much, but very interesting nonetheless.
 
So, that's the State of The Art in GA today? That its normal for for CFI to lead you down the path of error and then compound that error by sending you down range to the DPE who halts the train wreck from taking place later? Man, if that's the case, I'm in serious trouble. LOL, I'm just kidding. But, I'm not kidding about the part where you say its "completely normal." That does bother me, if you are saying it was ok for the CFI to do that. I just hope that's not the case.
You are obviously reading something into what I wrote which is not there. Perhaps that's natural for you; perhaps intentional. Or, perhaps @mscard88 is correct in his assessment.
 
That's also presuming he doesn't dump you, if he has the experience you say he does and is a retired majors pilot, he might not want the risk of dealing with a debutant who thinks he knows much more than he does, especially if you do something stupid and try to blame it on everyone else, not everyone wants to have to deal with frivolous lawsuits, or tarnishing the end of a long aviation career.

Just because many people think your aspirations don't match reality doesn't mean they are a negativist.

LOL. Well put James. One of my instructors fits this to a T. He’s never negative but he’s certainly “fired” problem students who wouldn’t listen to him.

He’ll happily refer said problem student to a large number of people he knows to see if they can get through to them, too.

His stories in my prep to teach were always entertaining about the student or three who’ve bounced from instructor to instructor with absolutely nobody willing to put their CFI ticket on the line and sign off on a checkride.

Sad, too. But reality. In the end, someone has to sign saying they’re responsible for the student. Some students make that signature easy, some make it cringeworthy, some don’t get the signature at all.
 
BTW, DR750S - I must've missed this somewhere in all the posts, but why did you stop taking lessons the first time?

Company decided to relocate my unit over 100 miles away. From my office, you could look down on the runway. I worked that close to the airport. It was highly convenient logistically at that time and I was just starting my corporate career. I could literally walk to the airport from where I worked. I ended up at a different company, far way from that airport - shattering the dream commute. Subsequently, we relocated to the suburbs to buy our first house and my new job requires overnight travel. So, I no longer had a reliable schedule where I could commit to flight training. I ended up being in similar corporate roles for the next 15 years, until I decided to build my own business. At that point, there is no such thing as an 8 hour work day and I became obsessed with making my business a success over the next 17 years, which is where I am today.

Today, I'm in total control of my time which allows me to finally begin fulfilling some life long dreams. Owning and operating a jet safely is one of those dreams. I've wanted to do it since I was 8 years old. Apparently, now is the time. I figure that from this point forward, I can get about 20-25 good years of flying in before calling it quits - as long as I remain in good health. So, this is going to happen.

I'm just doing my own sanity check right now to make sure that I'm not planning anything extremely outside of that which is considered orthodoxy in the industry. I realize that what I'm trying to do is not routine or an every day occurrence in this business, but it is not unprecedented or impossible. It will take a lot of hard work, but nothing worth a damn was ever easy in my life. I've always had to scrape, fight, scrap and will into existence everything I've ever earned. So, I'm no stranger to hard work. What I'm also trying to add to this venture is the ability to work smart, as well as working hard.

If you've ever built anything from scratch (from pure dirt) no explanation is necessary and you know why planning and roadmaps are so vitally important. If you've never built anything from scratch, then most likely no explanation will ever be enough and the whole thing might seem like a pipe dream. I'm trying to build a personal flying career that includes a jet an do it with the utmost in safety and efficiency. That ain't gonna happen by magic, snapping my fingers, or just going out and taking lessons from the first guy I find holding a CFI Rating. Its going to take planning, execution, commitment, hard work, smart work and making sure the right people and facilities are in place at the right time along the journey.

So, when I ask questions, I'm doing it for the purpose of developing a bigger picture and so that I can make changes to that picture when and where appropriate, based on the wise counsel and wise advice of those who know something about flying. No such goal would ever be accomplished within the boundaries of safety and efficiency without some kind of strategic plan going forward. I don't want to stumble my way into a jet with bad habits that were never corrected. I want to earn my way into a jet with good habits that only need refinement and extension.

The goal is Flight Safety and longevity as a VLJ single pilot. No pun or reference to "FlightSafety International" intended.
 
...but aircraft ownership experience as well before the arrival of the VLJ. ... Bottom line, I'm not buying a VLJ coming out of nowhere.


Why not? Cirrus SR22 > Cirrus Jet?
 
Back
Top