flight training

[BeaverDreamer]

PilotDAR, I realize it's your own opinion but my opinion certainly differs. I certainly do feel the last two comments in your summary are simply incorrect.

On the other hand, the new instructor must compete with many other pilots for that job, and doing it well is a little more difficult to impress the boss with, though still possible.

Any CFI worth the position will be extremely impressed by any new Class 4 that displays a good attitude and willingness to learn.

The experience you gain in the role of instructor, though flying, won't make you a well rounded pilot as fast as getting out on your own, on your own initiative, making and correcting your own mistakes, in different flying environments.

Depending how you define fast, a new instructor will accumulate hours much more rapidly than almost any new pilot flying their own airplane. And if you take the average instructor with 300 hours instructing and the average new pilot with 300 hours of their own recreational flying, in almost all cases the instructor will be the better pilot.

*edited to correct the Forum's incorrect quote attribution

I disagree with the instructor being the better pilot. Not always the case but as far as 702/703 skills the guy who has been flying to all kinds of different areas and airports in many different types of terrain will have developed decision making skills and flying skills that are not gained flying around the circuit for hours every day.

I personally am of the opinion that 200 hour pilots should not become instructors unless they intend to instruct as a career, not just a stepping stone.

[PilotDAR]

And if you take the average instructor with 300 hours instructing and the average new pilot with 300 hours of their own recreational flying, in almost all cases the instructor will be the better pilot.

My opinion on this is weak, but I still hold it, and believe it enough that I will present it. I do not rush to the opinion that 300 hours right seat, in the circuit and back an forth to the training area, highly supervised will make as good a pilot as a pilot flying in all sorts of conditions and places, supervising themselves, and making their own decisions. Very long cross country flights, and managing the unexpected events which present themselves in a non supervised training environment.

There is no wrong answer here, but it's important that pilots at least consider paths other than going directly from learner to teacher, with no experience building in between. A pilot may be well respected for the variation in their flying experience, every bit as much as the number of hours. I have been historically asked more often if I have experience flying X type, or to Y location, rather than how many flying hours I have. Particularly insurance companies will consider what you have flown, and where, with equal interest to straight accumulation of flying time. You can have a thousand hours, or an hour a thousand times...

[5x5]

PilotDAR, I respect your opinions and appreciate your contributions to the forum as you take the time to thoughtfully express and explain your point of view. However, it does concern me anytime people climb on any variation of the "flight instruction and flight instructors suck" theme.

One particular phrase that galls me is "one hour a thousand times". If you think about it, almost all flying tends to be like that and can be presented that way if you want to denigrate it. Float flying at a camp is just flying from whatever the closest city is back and forth to the same camp(s) - over and over again. Small charter operators typically have repeat customers or contracts that require flying the same routes - over and over again. Larger sched service operators are even more of exactly the same routes, only longer - over and over again. And airlines, the holy grail that most pilots pine for are perhaps the epitome of the same thing - over and over again although this time with your proverbial "feet up on the desk" as the aircraft flies itself.

Every job has its own pros and cons just as every pilot has their particular set of attributes and weaknesses. I really think it's unfair and not that well thought out when opinions that paint any large group of people with a single brush are made.

An instructor has to deal with numerous situations each and every hour "in the circuit" caused by unique students, the intensity and number of other aircraft present in the circuit, monitoring but not being in steady, direct control of the aircraft at all times, managing all the changing variables that it entails while guiding the student who is struggling with simply the basic machinations of flying the plane. All the while keeping in the mind the goals on the developmental progress of that individual student.

They also have to manage their and their students schedules without the help of any flight planning department or true dispatch department. And dealing one on one with each and every customer requires much more effort than simply showing up to pilot an airplane with paying customers in the back that basically you only have to smile at (optional) as they enter the aircraft.

It's difficult for any of us to describe and debate any topic on the internet due to the nature of written and not truly interactive communication and that leads to a tendency for quick hit and catch phrase kind of comments. I just would like people to be a little more thoughtful and respectful of others and their choices on their career path. Each job has its own particular challenges and shortcomings. There is no "best" way to go this world, aviation or otherwise.

[PilotDAR]

Yes, 5X5, your points are valid, and well made. I do not seek to be negative about a person who chooses to be an effective and efficient instructor - good for them, we need those committed pilots.

That said, a new instructor who, themselves has never actually flown a very long solo cross country, or experienced a real forced approach or precautionary landing, or checked themselves out on a different type, will be at a disadvantage in providing the full breadth of "experience" to a student, even within the realm of the flying being flown for a basic PPL. This is not intended as a negative statement, but rather a reminder to all pilots, that solo, free as a bird, and responsible for yourself flying ('cause you're far from home, and not mentored) is very important for new pilots, simply to build experience. Without that experience, you're not as well rounded as a pilot. You're cheating yourself if you embark on the "around the flying school only" first phase of your career.

Yes, the "hour a thousand times...". I have flown with pilots and instructors who fly by rote, rather than understanding. It takes little deviation from the norm to throw them off, and it can seem that a hard restart can be needed mid flight to get their skills applied to a suddenly new task. I ask pilots I mentor when was the last time that they flew a forced approach to a stop on the ground from a thousand feet. The common answer is not reassuring. Many have flown down to a hundred feet, declared the area "makable" and go around. But it seems to not be rote to get the plane stopped safely from a thousand feet power off. Other skills, like actually selecting a non runway to safely land for a pee on a long flight, or finishing the flight with something stuck, or otherwise not useable.

I hope all new instructors aspire more to fill their experience. They have a good group of skills, but those skills in and of themselves are not, in my opinion, the whole skill of a great pilot, those skills are a part. I'm not knocking them, just hoping to inspire additional humble skill gathering too!