Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: NAFI poll

Expand Messages
  • jrlaw98
    All, I will throw one observation into this mix but qualify remarks with Sport-Pilot Airplane . My experience is with a Cub and a Tecnam Bravo. Because of
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      All,

      I will throw one observation into this mix but qualify remarks with "Sport-Pilot Airplane". My experience is with a Cub and a Tecnam Bravo.

      Because of size and weight, the effects of wind and thermals, (I'm in Texas), magnify difficulty in handling. I was flipped 90 degrees in clear air several weeks ago. I also have time in a 172 and even a T6 Texan. Experience in lighter aircraft translates to experience in more adverse weather. For example, acquiring a PP rating in a 172 at 40 hours would not have the same experience with handling in adverse condiitons as someone acquiring a SP rating in a LSA at 20 hours. This depends on the location of course - some get ratings in areas or seasons where there is little or no wind. We see PP's from other areas come down here and refuse to fly when a local Sport-Pilot says no problem. The bottom line is that a Sport Pilot's 20 hours can be worth more experience than hours in a heavier aircraft, and hours in some areas of the country can be worth more experience than hours in another area.

      v/r

      James R. Lawrence

      --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "skyraiderav" <cdillis@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Helen,
      >
      > I'm sorry it took you 1,000 hours to build the experience/confidence to become "a reasonable flight instructor." I know pilots who are outstanding flight instructors with a fraction of those hours. I've also flown with instructors with many thousands of hours who aren't so good.
      >
      > If your beef is with the low number of hours required to get a CFI or SPI rating, then ok... make that argument. But to have the hours provided by an SPI not count toward higher ratings... that's another argument all together.
      >
      > It is absolutely ridiculous that a duly certified Sport Pilot who wants to upgrade to a PPL would have to go through 40 hours of training just because he got his SP license from an SPI and not a CFI. Why should he pay the price just because his instructor wasn't able to give him the "There I was... flying low level surveys over Canada" stories.
      >
      > Standards are standards. If a pilot meets the standards, that should be the end of the story.
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Chris
      > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I agree with you on the teaching point however, I don't feel that I had
      > > enough knowledge or experience to be a reasonable flight instructor
      > > until I had about 1000 hours under my belt. By then I had flown coast
      > > to coast, flown low level survey in the US and Canada with USFS, had
      > > hunted ELTs in horribly congested airspace working all forms of ATC
      > > while simultaniously directing a ground crew, managed several aircraft,
      > > bought my own plane, and had a heck of a lot of other interesting real
      > > world flying experiences under my belt. Being a good CFI is a coupling
      > > of knowledge and experience with ability to teach.
      > >
      > > Helen
      > >
      > > Bill Watson wrote:
      > > > I'd have to disagree. I have found that the number of hours has very little
      > > > to do with the teaching skills of any of the instructors I have had. As far
      > > > as that goes, the more hours a pilot has seems to point to the more hours it
      > > > will take to convert a pilot to UL (not yet teaching SP-soon). More hours is
      > > > not nearly as meaningful as what those hours were doing. I still don't get
      > > > the theory that a CFI getting 10,000 hours teaching the pattern somehow
      > > > makes them more qualified to fly airliners than 1,000 or even 100 hours. You
      > > > need to have a measuring stick, but number of hours is a little lacking. The
      > > > CFI being able to land a 747 has nothing at all to do with their ability to
      > > > convey their knowledge. They even had to create the concept of CRM just to
      > > > get them to talk.
      > > >
      > > > I propose that if a CFI-SP or CFI-h can manage to teach a pilot candidate to
      > > > such a proficiency that they can convince a DPE that they pass the checkride
      > > > - then they pass the checkride! If your checkride test is lacking, then that
      > > > is where you apply the repairs.
      > > >
      > > > My $$$$$.02
      > > > Bill Watson
      > > > bill@
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com]
      > > > On Behalf Of Helen Woods
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:03 PM
      > > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: NAFI poll
      > > >
      > > > They both need to be changed.
      > > >
      > > > Helen
      > > >
      > > > Lyle Cox wrote:
      > > >
      > > >> Hmmmm..well.it is possible for a "real CFI" to be teaching in as
      > > >> little as 200 hours. The sport CFI, can do it in 150. The "real CFI"
      > > >> had to spend 40 hours in training for IFR, which takes them down to
      > > >> 160 hours..then another 10 in complex airplanes, which brings them
      > > >> down to 150 hours. That's not much difference, is it?
      > > >>
      > > >> Lyle Cox
      > > >>
      > > >> Fun Aero Sports Logo
      > > >>
      > > >> Fun Aero Sports, LLC
      > > >>
      > > >> 3344 Long Creek Drive
      > > >>
      > > >> Fort Collins, CO 80528
      > > >>
      > > >> 970-631-3983
      > > >>
      > > >> www.funaerosports.com
      > > >>
      > > >> *From:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
      > > >> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Abid Farooqui
      > > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:15 PM
      > > >> *To:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
      > > >> *Subject:* Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: NAFI poll
      > > >>
      > > >> LOL.
      > > >> The argument to vote "No" that people are using is simple Helen.
      > > >> Sub-part H instructors of airplane category are simply angry if its
      > > >> done the other way. They feel they are being victimized of sub-part k
      > > >> airplane instructors are given the capability to train easily to 15
      > > >> hours and that 15 hours counts. That's time away from their income.
      > > >> Sorry to be very blunt here.
      > > >> In the end it will only hurt the number of pilots produced. Sometimes
      > > >> you have to look at the big picture and on balance what's good for the
      > > >> whole industry.
      > > >> The fact of the matter Helen is that yes subpart H CFI's have low time
      > > >> requirements according to many and subpart k CFI's also have even
      > > >> lower time requirements and private pilot time requirements are really
      > > >> not enough and sport pilot time requirements are not enough either.
      > > >> BUT these are ALL MINIMUM time requirements. The average for even a
      > > >> private pilot is about 60+ hours of training not 40. Average for a SP
      > > >> is 33 not 20 hours.
      > > >> It depends on when the instructor giving the endorsement feel that
      > > >> they are ready. There is no hidden agenda here. These are MINIMUM
      > > >> requirements. No one has to give their endorsement that this guy is
      > > >> ready to become an instructor in 100 hours. They can wait till 200
      > > >> hours or whatever it takes. No need to increase minimums by
      > > >> regulation. We expect examiners and instructors certificated by the
      > > >> FAA to give out endorsements and licenses to be adults here.
      > > >>
      > > >> Last time I checked we were -not- in Europe.
      > > >> Abid
      > > >>
      > > >> Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: NAFI poll
      > > >>
      > > >> As you know, I've been working the phone on this issue since OSH. The
      > > >> number one thing that I hear over and over again that I fully agree
      > > >> with is that the flight time requirements for a subpart K instructor
      > > >> are ridiculously low. I had almost that amount of total time when I
      > > >> finished my PPL and I know I didn't know squat at that point. I think
      > > >> most in the subpart H comunity believe that the flight time
      > > >> requirements even for a subpart H instructor are way too low and to
      > > >> cut them further for a subpart K instructor has us shaking our heads
      > > >> in disbelief. I suspect that if the flight time requirements were
      > > >> raised for subpart K to something more reasonable, you'd see a lot of
      > > >> people changing their minds on this issue of credit given.
      > > >>
      > > >> Helen
      > > >>
      > > >> Aug 19, 2009 09:45:26 AM, Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
      > > >> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      > > >>
      > > >> I just voted in the pole, which asked the question, "Should training
      > > >> received from a sport-pilot instructor be applicable to other ratings
      > > >> and or certificates?" I have to say... I'm absolutely shocked by the
      > > >> number of "No" votes. I figured there'd be a couple, but the score was
      > > >> 71 - Yes to 50 - No.
      > > >>
      > > >> I'm curious... What is the argument people are using to say the
      > > >> training provided by a sport pilot instructor should not count toward
      > > >> a PPL or beyond? Regardless of whether a Sport Pilot got his training
      > > >> from a CFI or a SPI... that Sport Pilot still had to fly to the exact
      > > >> same Practical Test Standards. Any comments?
      > > >>
      > > >> - Chris
      > > >>
      > > >> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
      > > >> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>, Helen Woods wrote:
      > > >>
      > > >>> NAFI members, please be sure to cast your vote!
      > > >>>
      > > >>> http://www.nafinet.org/poll/
      > > >>>
      > > >>> Helen
      > > >>>
      > > >>
      > > >>
      > > >>
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • gilan34711
      I just looked at the percentages in the poll and right now 41% say no. So if they don t feel the training should count towards PPL then are they also saying SP
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I just looked at the percentages in the poll and right now 41% say no. So if they don't feel the training should count towards PPL then are they also saying SP are not safe pilots because they weren't trained by a CFI? Or do they even consider a SP a pilot at all?? Seems the NO voters are saying to the SPIs out there that the training they are giving isn't real pilot training. How can you read anything other then that into it? Hey Chris I guess you aren't really giving pilot training as a SPI. Sure are some crazy ideas out there.




        "Chris" <cdillis@...> wrote:
        >
        > I just voted in the pole, which asked the question, "Should training received from a sport-pilot instructor be applicable to other ratings and or certificates?" I have to say... I'm absolutely shocked by the number of "No" votes. I figured there'd be a couple, but the score was 71 - Yes to 50 - No.
        >
        > I'm curious... What is the argument people are using to say the training provided by a sport pilot instructor should not count toward a PPL or beyond? Regardless of whether a Sport Pilot got his training from a CFI or a SPI... that Sport Pilot still had to fly to the exact same Practical Test Standards. Any comments?
        >
        > - Chris
        >
        > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@> wrote:
        > >
        > > NAFI members, please be sure to cast your vote!
        > >
        > > http://www.nafinet.org/poll/
        > >
        > > Helen
        > >
        >
      • rickpitcher
        ... Heheheh... Yeah, I remember reading some polls in a UL forum saying that only UL flyers are REAL pilots and Spurt-pileits don t know nuthin !!! I think
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "gilan34711" <Rex@...> wrote:
          >
          > I just looked at the percentages in the poll and right now 41% say no. So if they don't feel the training should count towards PPL then are they also saying SP are not safe pilots because they weren't trained by a CFI? Or do they even consider a SP a pilot at all?? Seems the NO voters are saying to the SPIs out there that the training they are giving isn't real pilot training. How can you read anything other then that into it? Hey Chris I guess you aren't really giving pilot training as a SPI. Sure are some crazy ideas out there.
          >

          Heheheh...
          Yeah, I remember reading some polls in a UL forum saying that only UL flyers are REAL pilots and Spurt-pileits don't know nuthin'!!!
          I think it's the us-v/s-them mentality, divide and conquer, those OTHER guys aren't cool like US!

          SP's don't get NO respect ;)

          pilot Rick
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.