Selecting An Instructor | Older Wiser?
 

Hello APC,

Pros and Cons on selecting your first Flight Instructor. Older Wiser? Or, Younger Hungry? Are those fair comparisons?

My flight training is now imminent. I'm putting together my final thoughts on whether I'll do 141 or 61. With 141, I know that I do not get to select my FI. However, with 61, I do. And, that's my focus in this thread.

I'm leaning 61 with a hardcover syllabus type FI. A 61 FI with a structured approach and preferably someone who has read Gregory M. Penglis' book, "The Complete Guide To Flight Instruction," and willing to essentially proceed using that Model of Instruction in preparing me for the oral, written and flight exams required by the FAA. If you have not read Gregory's book in Flight Instruction, its a great page turner.

Also, how many days per week are optimal without becoming over saturated to the point of never being able to fully connect the dots from one week's lesson to the next? It is my understanding that some of this has a lot to do with the approach of the FI. I've read and heard that if the FI does not deliver a 'dot' this week, then there won't be link to the next 'dot' for the student the following week.

Ergo, the student begins to wander in their training, never fully integrating what they should be integrating in order to progress in their training. The Haze Effect, where the student's knowledge is hazy, fuzzy and really not focused, sharp and clear - leading to the need for another Flight Instructor to later come in and force the student to unlearn what they never learned correctly the first time - all because they never got into a routine of connecting Weekly Dots and eventually forming a Chain of properly seated and unbreakable Knowledge.

Does the Younger FI understand this enough to deliver it? Should I be concerned about an Older FI, no longer having the fire and passion for Instructing - just doing it as a hobby to pass time? I've heard that former Airline Pilots who still love to fly and who also like to teach, make some of the best Flight Instructors. True, or False?

We have a current system that nearly forces those who want to become Professional Airline Pilots into first being "Teachers" of Students. Not everyone can teach or instruct. Its a Calling. It requires a Gift. You have to really want to Teach and Instruct, in order to do it well, IMO - regardless of subject matter. Teaching requires amazing (uncommon) communication skills that not everybody has under their belt.

Someone could be a great Pilot, but communicating the who, what, when, why, where and how of flying might not be their strong suit. Or, they might now have the patience and intuition for teaching at a high level. Often times, Women, do better than Men in these categories. Women, can be naturally more intuitive and patient - which will be required when giving critical instruction.

How far do I go in investigating the background of my Flight Instructor? I recently toured a house for sale. The real estate agent's name was all over the town. They looked very credible. The agent was rude during the tour and unprofessional at one point. It caused us to leave the Open House, shaking our heads.

After further investigation, I discovered that the agent's husband was a convicted felon, that the agent herself had been involved in fraudulent real estate deals from Massachusetts to California, and that both of them had filed bankruptcy so many times that one Judge even commented on how well they knew the bankruptcy court system in the US in one of their case commentaries. Essentially, this real estate agent was dirty - filthy and had been fleeing Subpoenas and Summons in several states. Yet, there they were, showing a house valued in the millions like it was no bid deal.

So, how do we investigate whether or not we have the right FI and that their credentials and background are solid?

Thanks.

Older ones can be hungry, if there's enough money involved. If you offer a premium and a set weekly guarantee, you could find an older, wiser CFI who would put your schedule first, and then schedule any other work around you.


Not sure what a "dot" is in this context. But I would say the optimal is a range, and of course depends on your availability, your distractions (family, job if any, etc), and your study habits/learning ability. Also how much of a hurry are you in, and how motivated?

Training 2-3 times each week is the minimum to prevent incurring time and cost due to regression (two steps forward, one step back).

Most people could handle training twice a day six days/week if they really had to. That leaves one day for rest/study, and there would be daily study/preparation in the evenings, leaving little time for anything else besides eat/sleep/exercise. Each training "session" would consist of student prep/study (1-3 hours), typically 1-2 hours ground with the CFI, and 2-3 hours flight. You would likely have to pay a premium to get an instructor to commit to this regime for an extended period.

You know yourself best. If you want to enjoy the ride somewhat, maybe do 6-8 sessions/week.

An older instructor would probably be better than a younger in all regards IF they are willing to commit to your desired schedule. They most likely will tell you up front if they can't work as much as you envision. If I were retired and flexible I would enjoy jamming a motivated student through a custom fast-track program. Or doing the same thing slower, just nice to have a road-map, goals, and a motivated partner to work with.



All true. Time-building CFI's tend to be less experienced, possibly less professional, possibly less motivated, and likely to leave for the airlines when they have 1475 hours. The only upside to them is that they are usually willing to fly a lot, any time, and are probably going to be less expensive than a long-time professional CFI.

Now with that said... long-time career CFI's tend to be odd ducks, if they have talent why are they not making millions at the airlines? Usually there's some personality quirk going on (often harmless). CFI's who retired from airlines or other professions are probably less likely to be "characters". You do not necessarily need a CFI with jet experience... an experienced general aviation CFI will teach you everything you need to know to safely build GA experience.

This is not really a problem with CFI's. I would just do a detailed interview, and ask for references. Then start training, if the guy doesn't work out, find another one.

You could do an online background check if desired, but a CFI can't really rip you off unless you deposit a large sum up front (Don't do that. Ever).

A CFI who has a medical (needed for private pilot training) would have to report criminal activity to the FAA, and I believe they do check that when you renew your medical.

May I say I feel you’re overthinking it a little bit...?
Private Pilot is not rocket science nor is it brain surgery.
A Chief Flight Instructor or assistant Chief should assign an instructor to you based on ‘best fit’ and not on whose turn it is to get a student.
That’s what we did anyway.
Part 141 requires stage checks with a designated instructor, usually the Chief.
For one it puts you in a testing environment and get you used to performing while you’re being graded and even more importantly it’s a check on how well your instructor has taught you.
I recommend against self employed instructors who’ve developed their “own system” or who’ve retired from the airlines. Very little of that transfers into teaching little airplanes.
I’ve been a Chief FI, asst Chief and Check Pilot 141 and now fly for an Airline.
Private pilot training should be fun and enjoyable and exciting and rewarding and preferably with somebody you get along with.

777is right on, so is the tiredsoul.

Too much thinking: When I moved to Fort Lauderdale 19 years ago from Dallas, needed to find a new dentist.
Looked for the nearest one to my house who took my insurance.
Great choice, still go there. (Learned later they are all female in the office, everybody. Love it. No planning or screening)

As for your CFI: Pick one, meet him or her, do a flight. If the chemistry is good, keep going. If not, you still learned something and can log the flight time.
To learn a be a good pilot is up to YOU, not the airplane or the instructor.
He or she can help you, but your motivation and aptitude is much more important than the CFI next to you.
Yes, a bad one can screw you, but in general we are ok and love to fly.
(Ex CFI-II-MEI, 10-12 renewals)

Well, at least they kept one promise which was to eventually convert all routes to jet. Back when I was looking at them, I got something in the mail that announced the acquisition of the second CRJ. I wonder how many CRJs and ERJs they have in the fleet now.


You are reading my mail. I've actually ruled that path out after further investigation. You allude to it - the Time involved. I too, think it would be a very sound way to actually take a step down to the Phenom 300. If you've been flying an ERJ or CRJ, or even the E-175 then certainly that's a step down when you get to the CJ4, P300 or PC-24. But, getting to the right or left seat of something like through a corporation would seem to take an eternity, given the schedule I'd like to keep.

I'm giving myself about two (2) full years from start to finish to get this done. For three reasons:

1) Hoping for Embraer to continue upgrading the Phenom 300E. I've got the feeling that the "E" designation is the first in a series of Phenom 300 transformations to a faster and longer range Phenom. That will take time.

2) I've been hoping for a long time for Cessna to redesign the CJ4. They've made incremental improvements over the years and it is a better CJ4 then originally. But, the competition really does demand something even more improved. That will take time.

3) The order book on the PC-24 is still closed and will be until Pilatus flushes its initial orders through production and finalize a more forward looking production line/facility. That's going to take at lest a year minimum. Right now, that VLJ in terms of overall performance is the new kid and the biggest, fastest kid on the block with the longest legs.

There would be a number #4 here, but I doubt it will ever happen. That would be Embraer receiving enough interest to do a Large VLJ variant of their Legacy 450 - which personally I felt should have been single pilot certified from the start. It has all of the flight envelope protection technology imaginable - which is one of the things that makes it a great single pilot platform, IMO. It is classified as "Mid-Size" but its a tiny mid-size on par with the Hawker 850XP. Though slightly larger, on paper the performance is very similar. I've always thought the 850XP should/could have been single pilot certified as well.

This is where the PC-24 really shines, IMO. Bigger, stronger airframe, faster, over 2,000nm range and with its own set of flight envelope protection features. If they can get through the order book, start taking orders again and deliver in a reasonable amount of time, this would be my first choice hands down. The problem for me right now, is their current order book and current production capabilities. Whether they will ramp up or not remains to be seen.

I think you missed the other thread. They are both connected in actuality. A mere pilots license is the least of my concerns:

Private
Instrument
Commercial
Multi-Engine
3-4 thousand hours of time building in preparation for a VLJ
VLJ Type Rating (owner/operator/pilot)
A two (2) year Training and Time Building Program

I have to build that program because none exists for that purpose. So, in constructing it, I don't have a choice but to over think things at this phase. Once I have full plan and execute on it, then I'm on track and can just go with the flow at that point.

Unless I can walk into a bookstore and read about such a program from someone having already done it, then I've got to piece it together bit by bit until I have a coherent whole. That's why I'm asking these questions.



Love the stage check idea. Sounds like a good way to level up.


Sounds good. How honest are those Stage Checks? What I mean is that if the Part 141 has incentive to move students through, how much of the training is focused on retention of knowledge having just been transferred for the purpose of passing a Stage Check? In other words, I remember people who used to cram for Physics. They'd pass the test - but I would not trust them to gear near a particle accelerator in actual implementation. Short term Learning and long term Retention can sometimes turn out to be two different things.


Very interesting point. How much of their background would transfer to Very Light Jets and what I'd need to be able to do in order to be proficient at that level? How much of what I learned at the Private, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-Engine level would transfer to into a VLJ? I constantly hear jet pilots talk about staying ahead of the aircraft. Would a non-former jet pilot flight instructor know more about staying ahead of the aircraft than a former jet pilot flight instructor and who would do a better job of helping remain ahead of the aircraft at all times?

I'm trying to mitigate risk in my training because what I learn in training, I will take with me into time building. I'm trying to flush out as much error up front as possible.


Much appreciated. You seem to have a lot of experience. So, I respect your opinion. Honestly, I can't think of anything more fun than flying. The whole reason behind a VLJ for me is to compress time and extend my reach around the world in which I need to travel. Netjets, Flight Options, etc., they all do the same thing. But, I don't get to enjoy flying the aircraft with them. I would with my own. In addition, we (my family) want to engage in a lot more travel than what TSA will allow us to remain sane doing. I just can't tolerate TSA anymore.

I get flight delays - that is going to happen no matter who you fly with. Sitting around and waiting to hear back from Departure Control or whomever for that clearance is going to happen. Burning fuel on the ground, or flat out asking for a return to the ramp to shut down until clearance is ready could happen, too. Ridiculous fees just for breathing airport air (landing, ramp, etc., etc.). Inflated Jet-A prices (Hello Signature Aviation. Hello Atlantic Aviation.) I'm ready for all that and more because it will be worth the added freedom.

All that stuff I'm prepared to deal with. What I want to try to reduce is Training Risk, because that will definitely spill over into Time Building and that's not where I want to compound risk because I made some really poor Instructor choices not thinking things through.

Thanks for the help.

I have read your other thread.
The main problem you’ll encounter is the processing speed of your brain.
Most people when they walk in the door have a processing speed of 65-70mph. Not joking......it’s the speed limit.
They can process information and make decisions relatively well as they themselves are moving at that speed and so is other traffic.
Why do people start driving slower as they get older? Their processing speed slows down and they can’t deal with situations and information that quickly anymore.
Below 10,000 everybody flies the same maximum mandated speed which is 250kts aka about 300mph.
You can’t really put a 2 year time frame on your plan if your brain is not ready for that speed yet.
Initially in a light single you’ll work at 120kts which is the cruise speed of pretty much anything with 160-180hp.
Cirrus it’s up to 180kts, same as light twins.
A single engine turbine will get you in the same speed range as a VLJ below 10,000.
Unless you’ve had a heart attack nobody dies in cruise flight.
Most trouble is in the first 18,000 and the last 18,000 feet of your flight and things go into critical stage below 10,000.
This is the Terminal Area and I mean that just as ominous as it sounds as this is where people make mistakes that will kill them. Departure procedures, arrival procedures, instrument approaches, terrain clearance, situational awareness and a big killer...weather.
Enroute in cruise you can avoid weather but you can’t in the Departure or Arrival phase, you’ll have to deal with it. All while you’re moving at 250kts/300mph.
This is the biggest problem with ( with all respect) non-professional pilots moving up into professional airplanes too quickly. Their processing speed is not commensurate with the equipment they’re flying .
The flightschool i was working at had at some point in time plans to put a Diamond Jet single engine VLJ on the line and we were planning/discussing stages of training programs to get somebody from walk-in to owner.
Then 2008 hit and the bottom fell out of the VLJ market.
You seem to have one problem less then most people, you have the funds.
But money can’t buy you two things: common sense and experience.
You can’t buy experience you’ll have to earn it.
My recommendation is to train in “glass cockpit” from Day 1. Do your Instrument rating right after your PPL under Part 141 in the same airplane type you did your Private in.
Do a significant portion of your instrument training at night. Then take a couple months off from training and go timebuild flying under IFR rules.
Be extremely cautious with flying IMC.
That’s no place to be for somebody with no experience.
Build that up very slowly. Overcast day at 7000’? File at 8000’ ( with no icing).
As your experience increases overcast at 6000’? Fly at 7000’ and so on.
Don’t joke around with IMC. It kills everyday.
I’ll get off my soap box.
What I stated about PPL still applies though, it’s the fun stage of flight training and should be approached as such. Doesn’t meant the training isn’t taken seriously.

- Speed Range in general (I'll bring a slower expectation at first)
- Speed Range under 10,000 in the Terminal Area (focus, focus, focus)
- Learn how to stay ahead of the aircraft (any aircraft)
- Progressively increase IMC experience with time (don't rush it)
- Do Private and Instrument in-series with no gap
- Combine night flying with instrument training (looking forward to this)
- Take a break from training between Instrument and Commercial
- Build IFR Time during break from training (increasing IMC experience)

Got it.

First, I don't see you placing much emphasis on getting me to the Fast Twin stage like some of the other members here. Is there something going on in your experience that causes you to not care so much about the Twin, yet?

Second, you placed no emphasis at all on first learning to fly Conventional Instruments and learning how to work the numbers manually in-flight as a practical matter. Does this mean that in today's GA, having grass roots (hard core) conventional instrument skill and knowledge is no longer necessary (so-called steam gauges)? What happens when/if the Glass fails?

Don't mind the soapbox. I need it.

Thank you for the input!

Csy Mon, thanks! Just trying to avoid the one that will screw you. ;) Or, at least mitigate my exposure to as few of them as humanly possible along the way. There are no guarantees in life, but I can at least try to get it right the first time.

Let me try to give one (1) relevant example of why I made this thread. Let's say that we both agree to start flight training on Monday morning next week.

Let's assume we've already done the first ground lesson. Question: What's going to be my very first in-flight training lesson from you? What concept during that very first flight do you want to convey to me as your student? What's the very first thing you want me to know, do and experience in the cockpit?

Thanks.

Probably OK to get into the weeds while interviewing a CFI. But if you get too analytical on a regular basis, the CFI will find it annoying, and it will likely interfere with the relationship and your training.

You don't want to be the student the CFI complains about after he belly's up to the bar at the end of the day and orders a triple.

If you pick an experienced CFI carefully, he'll have the right road-map in mind (and should share that with you). He'll also have an intuitive knack for making adjustments as needed.

And, that underlies my dilemma. How is it possible for the student to wrap their head around the totality of everything they are responsible for learning, retaining and executing - when their learning style absolutely requires drilling down to a level of minute detail on every single subject they study - which as you say, causes the CFI to truncate the process because they have a personal hang-up with a highly detail oriented student?

Which gets back to my original question about the CFI's actual Teaching capacity. The absolute best Teachers in the world thrive on highly detailed questions from students, because they use them as springboards to connect dots in the students mind.

Looking at the equation from the opposite end, one could say that given the number of GA incidents by otherwise licensed pilots that something is wrong with either the System on the back-end or the Training on the front-end. Thus, the reason I traverse through the weeds to find the truth of the matter before I begin my training.

Hopefully, I'm able to weed out training problems in the majority that causes a pilot much later in his flying career, run an AP Test flying through IMC while his aircraft is basically turning nose down, exceeding Vo while rotating through 75 degrees of bank, to the point where he's now completely confused about what to do next because he's spatially disoriented. As just one of countless problems with either the System or the Training.


That's what I wanted to hear. I don't want to end up upside down in IMC (basically inverted for all practical sake), no idea where my horizon is located, yanking back on the yoke as the airspeed indicator rips through 400 kts. Unless, of course, I'm flying an F-22 in which case - that might actually be fun. In a Phenom 300.... not so much.

So, yes. Sign me up for the Intuitive CFI with a Strategy & Heart for Teaching. The Art of Teaching and imparting correct knowledge well seated in the students mind for life, ain't always easy.

I don't fear screwing up in the cockpit. After I'm well trained, I should be able to catch my errors and solve in-flight problems not of own making in most all cases. My biggest fear is being taught by someone who does not truly belong in the Teaching Business and therefore, I get partial information, or information that's so cloudy and nebulous that it requires another CFI to come in and clean up the mess left behind by the first.

Trust, is the operative word here.

These statements are concerning to me.
You’ve already been told you’re too focused on the details.
I’m starting to think you’re taking us for a ride and either a Flightsimmer or something else is wrong.
If you would be this bombastic and over-the-top in my office I’d politely tell you we’re not interested in training you and show you the door.
There’s something strange going on.
Doesn’t matter. It’s the interwebz and you can be whatever you want.
But I’m calling foul on this one.

OP,

Seriously, you need to relax. Just go fly, start working on your PPC and see where that takes you. It’s good to have a plan, but you’re going over the top, and likely step 1 of your plan won’t go as planned, so keep that in mind. You’re not going to learn a thing, if you’re focused on the last step.

I had the ultimate goal of being a Fighter Pilot and then Airline pilot. I started on the civilian track, got all of my ratings, CFI’d for years, joined the Air Force did well in training, flew F16’s, T38’s, got out and got my Airline job. All along the way, my philosophy was to do the very best at my current job. It’s like losing weight or paying off all of your debt (a la Dave Ramsey), have the end goal, but it’s a daily battle.

I’m assuming you’re well off ($30+ mil net worth) since you’re considering buying a VLJ. Why not take a hiatus and go to FlightSafety Academy? I trained there in the early 90’s, it was not quite as good as military training, but pretty dang close it terms of structure.

When someone tells me not to worry too much about the details.... I get very concerned as to why. That's exactly where the Devil likes to hide out. In the details. Down in the weeds.

I only told half the story. I said I'm getting prepared for a VLJ. What I did not say was that I'm also getting prepared for either an H135 or an H145 as well. Both will sleep at night in the same hanger. I've got a lot of work to do and a whole lot to learn. Both are high performance aircraft. Fixed wing and rotor. I'm finally able to fulfill some dreams and make them a daily reality. If that's too over the top for you, I understand. I get it.

Let's just conclude that you have your opinion. I've already explained what I'm trying to accomplish, what my starting point will be and why the details matter to me from the outset.

In the meantime, beyond the naysayers, I've got to get myself prepared (efficiently and optimally) for the next 20-25 years of flying aircraft that most private pilots won't be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to fly. That's just the bottom line. I have to do that without the heavy background as a Pilot starting out.

I don't merely have ratings to worry about here. I also have capital outlay to be concerned with as well. That changes how you think about what you are doing and how you go about doing it. I can't just wander into this without a clear plan and I won't have a "flight department" managing things for me.

Adequate Hanger Facilities
Maintenance Schedules
Unscheduled Repairs
Aircraft Security
Asset Management
Accounts Receivable
Legal Entity Structuring

Those are things I have to content with in addition to Flight Planning and Flying. I had to do the homework on those things first, just to figure out whether or not being an 'Owner' is worth the hassle (and it is something of a hassle in some areas).

You cannot do this correctly without being forward thinking and that means figuring out what the details look like at every step. For me, owning is going to be exactly like running a Business and you don't do that without getting deep into the details, first.

Thanks for your opinion! That's what I came for.

Let's face it. A lot of people wander not into aviation, but into a "Job" in aviation. They know where they want to be in aviation, but they cannot control their own destiny, as often times that is determined by hiring quotas, the needs of the government at the time and economic conditions completely out of their control.

Can I just go out and start flying? Yes. Is that focused enough for what I'm trying to accomplish? Probably, not.

I'm in control of the largest variable involved in one's aviation career and that's the type and kind of aircraft they fly. Often times, people have to fly what's available at the time and according to the schedule that's available at the time. I get to create all of that. That means planning and forward thinking.

There is significant capital outlay involved here and that adds a different dimension as well. There's the Business Operations dimension of ownership at this level as well. There is also the Asset Management dimension. There's a lot going on. I wish I had the freedom to be so 'loose' in approaching all this. I don't and for some fairly obvious reasons.

I have trips planned to manufacturers for the purpose of placing orders. Just going out to get a Pilots license so I can see where that takes me, is probably not going to work.

I need a roadmap. I need a flight plan for the flight plan.

Who the hell knows. Maybe there are others out there like me looking for the same roadmap. Maybe I'll write a book about it when I'm done - to help others build that path for themselves.

This is not about mere ratings. There is so much more involved here. I wish I could explain it better. There are big pieces that need to be pulled together and they have to fit. Making sure the Training is solid, is just one piece of the whole.

I just don't want to screw-up one of the big pieces of that whole, because I failed to focus on the details when I should have. A little anxiety? Hell, yeah. Roughly $17 mln after the fact spent, sure - I want some cushion in the knowledge that I'm doing things the right way. Who the heck wouldn't!


Flight Safety

Yes. I've investigated them for a while now. There is nothing I don't like about them - but that's just from the outside looking in. I've been down to Florida, looked at the primary facility, took the tour and was impressed at ever step. So, why am I not doing Flight Safety? Honestly, I did the same exact thing with ATP in Sacremento, California.

After having toured both, I walk away feeling good but wondered whether or not I could better tailor things for my needs through a Part 61 path that included Flight Instruction specifically from someone having an extensive Jet background - going through all phases with that Instructor: Private/Instrument/Commercial/Multi-Engine. Maintaining a structured approach the entire time.

So, that's where I am right now - trying to figure that out. Outside of a Part 61 path, Flight Safety is clearly at the top of the list, followed by ATP. ATP is local to me, which makes the logistics easier. And, yes - with Flight Safety, I would need to relocate for a while. But, I'm willing to that, too. My Wife, has already given me the go-ahead for a temporary move down to Florida.

Its go time. I just don't want to screw-up something big. That's all. I don't mind small errors - I'm human. However, I like to avoid huge errors whenever possible - instead of just walking right into them with my head down.

My next (and final) step is to go out and try to meet-up with other VLJ owners, if possible. I know two of them already and one of them has a YouTube channel where they make regular posts. The other I met while researching available hanger space at a local airport (a real pain in the butt out where I live, by the way). He owns/flies a Phenom 100 locally. Hopefully, through both of them I'll meet more owners willing to share advice. I'm trying to cover as many bases as possible before making final decision on a Training path.

Hey, thanks for your story. I appreciate it and I appreciate your service. I'm pretty sure you had a blast in the Talon and especially the Falcon, no doubt.

A detailed, in-depth, approach to learning the material would be welcomed by any CFI worth his salt. I was referring over-analyzing the instructional process, or the instructor-student relationship during training.

The training system is a bit antiquated, although the FAA's recent emphasis on flight management and judgement, in addition to just technical skills, is a step in the right direction.

Fundamentally, the "problem" is the regulatory framework is far more permissive than most modern Americans are accustomed to. It provides great flexibility for highly skilled and experienced pilots to do things which would be dangerous for many other pilots. For safety it relies very much on individual responsibility, not so much the built-in systemic protections we are accustomed to in most other aspects of life.

It can run the full spectrum, your choice. Motorcycle analogy again.... anything from a 19 year-old with a brand-new ducati tearing up a two-lane mountain road on Friday night, to an MD and his wife on a big cruiser riding the coast highway at 45 mph on Sunday morning.

Use generous personal minimums while building experience and you'll be fine.


You'll be fine. Just make sure you can hand-fly your plane in IMC (and deal with unusual attitudes). Aerobatic training would be a great idea, enhances your SA and comfort in any attitude. But unusual attitude training teaches you how to get out of unusual attitudes without wrecking the plane (aerobatic planes are much stronger than normal aircraft).

You could consider doing your Private/Instrument and add the type rating and always fly with a professional pilot to keep an eye on things.
Lots of owner pilots fly this way.
Insurance company will be happier also.
And you seriously need to stop over analyzing the minutiae.
You’re getting nowhere with this.


I’m just going to leave this here:
https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-posts-preliminary-report-on-cleveland-cj-crash

Got it. Let me just give you an idea of where all this comes from and what drives my questions. Just so you understand why I think the way I do:

Title: The Complete Guide To Flight Instruction
Author: Gregory M. Penglis
Publisher: Rainbows Books, Inc.
Date: 1994
ISBN: 1-56825-012-6

Page 12: Excerpt


I've read a few other books on "Flight Training." This was the most down to earth read I've ever had as Gregory, cuts through the clutter to get straight to the crux of the relationship between Student/Instructor and what makes that relationship as optimal as it can be for the benefit of the Student and to the professional satisfaction of the Instructor.

It has become my Flight Instruction Guidance Bible. It is a dogeared, crusty, wrinkled old paperback with pages almost falling out. But, when it became time to finally put my training program together, I ran back to it like a child running back into the arms of his father.

This is where I get my questions from. This is the source of my analysis. I've never read a book on flight instruction that was written as if it was custom tailored for me. It speaks to every aspect that's important to me, where others failed to do so. It brings up important issues that other books failed to bring up. It answers important and necessary questions that other books don't even bother to ask.

This is my Bible. And, I seek an Instructor who has been baptized according to its doctrine. Ok, that last part was just a joke - but you get my point. :D It is a really good book on what I should be looking for in Flight Instruction and I'm trying to follow its guidelines - that's all.

One of the things Gregory, talks about is precisely what you touch upon. The student should always be clear and free to grill the Instructor on things the student is having difficulty with, stop the instruction at any time the student feels the need to do so in order to get clarity, and all without the instructor throwing a tissy fit because the student had the audacity to take control of his/her Education. Gregory, feels that good Instructors should be bigger than that and expect that good students will have in-depth questions throughout the training process.

Yes, I've looked him up (he was local to where I now live). He was my first choice for Instructor. He's no longer giving instruction to my great chagrin - retired.


I really do appreciate the advice and your understanding of the underlying premise here. Thank you. :)

Have you ever actually sat in a Phenom 300? Try it out....you'll see the LAST thing any of us want is more range. Especially in the Captain seat if that stupid water barrier is installed.

Thus far:

Phenom 100 and 300 (sat)
CJ3 (sat)
CJ4 (sat w/G3000 demo)
Premier 1 (sat)
Eclipse 500 (sat)
SJ30/SyberJet (never sat)

I thought the Eclipse was interesting, but its size and performance aren't quite at the level of the others. Ironically, the SyberJet (SJ30) is probably the blacksheep of the entire VLJ community right now including being the absolute best performer hands down.

The Sino Swearingen SJ-30. This is where the dream began for me in earnest. I've always dreamed of owning an "airplane" someday since I was a kid. But, it was not until I came across the old SJ-30, that the dream became a Jet Dream (pun definitely intended). The problem with the SJ-30 for me was its stumbling development history. Still, there's nothing with the same performance at cruise, cabin pressurization and long range of the SJ-30/SyberJet, on the market today. The SJ-30 is the little jet that lit the fire for me as an adult many years ago.



Now, that's very interesting indeed. One of the most attractive things about the SJ-30 for me was just that, its range, cabin pressurization and cruise speed. For a VLJ it has range approximating medium jets (even more in some cases). At 2,500nm max range, it brought Hilo (PHTO) into question from California. It also brought into focus the concept of a Wet Footprint. And, it launched me into studying Flight Over Water in general (an interesting topic all by itself).

I was learning about the maximum distance an aircraft could fly over water with just one engine after passing a suitable alternate (PNR), as well as how to calculate the ETP on just one engine. As you might imagine, for a non-pilot it got rather confusing - especially when trying to figure out ETOPS calculations.

I figured out that the SJ-30 would in theory have 412nm remaining as it reached the edge of Hilo from KSFO for example (of course, the descent phase would begin before that) which is less than 60 minutes flight time in the cruise config. Considering NBAA IFR reserves, it would stretch the SJ-30's legs further than comfortable for me. Though, on paper alone the number say it would work. However, those numbers don't take into consideration winds aloft which would be a nearly constant headwind for that flight. I would not want to fly that close to reserves given a single engine failure scenario because there is no PNR or ETP between California KSFO or KOAK. Or, said another way the PNR would be the original departure airport, making the ETP, mathematically speaking, infinite for all practical purposes.

Still, the very fact that you can talk about ETP, ETOPS and NBAA IFR reserves from California to Hilo in a VLJ of any kind, is remarkable to say the least and the SJ-30 is the only VLJ on the market where such a discussion is even remotely sane or approachable. I still love this little jet and always will. It is my sincerest hope that someday, SyberJet is able to put the capital behind it sufficient to scale it up to meet the cabin size challenge brought by the others (CJ4, Phenom 300 and PC-24). Everyone's personal opinion about the old Sino Swearingen program aside. If you don't have long range needs and larger cabin size requirements, there is probably no more fun and no better performing VLJ anywhere.

Sea level cabin pressure at FL410 and 430+kts without a tailwind makes long trips short. And, 480+kts in high speed cruise with still more than 2,100nm range. There's no VLJ anywhere on the market even today that comes close and this design is well more than 20 years old. Amazing little airplane. I think the fact that is a "little airplane" has also been part of its problem - its cabin is considerably restrictive and probably even smaller than the much slower and much newer in design, HondaJet.

The HondaJet never made my final cut because its cabin size and range relative to the competition was measurably weaker. At the same time, it was never meant to compete head-to-head with the Phenom 300 or CJ4. However, I really like the HondaJet concept and was very impressed by Honda's methodical approach and their commitment to making it a reality. I think Honda, as a company should be applauded for what they've accomplished with that program. Where others in aviation failed to deliver, Honda having no business aviation background or history actually made it happen - and they did it ahead of schedule. Of course, they were flush with cash when they began the program which never hurts a new airplane design.

I'm kind of in the same boat. Haven't flown for 15 years and getting back in the saddle. I have my commercial and instrument and looking to get my flight review and IPC done before moving on to get my CFI. I found a club at an airport with good rates for both planes and instructor. The only instructor who has an opening is an old fella who I have nothing against, but one of the first things he told me was there will not be an ipad in the plane. Unfortunately the planes certainly show their age. They are pretty beat up and some people have said the maintenance is okay at best. Their 182RG has been out of service for 6 months. The planes are not GPS equipped (there goes my enthusiasm for doing RNAV approaches, and my wife bought me an iPad for my birthday). He never flew jets or turbo props and has been instructing since the 70's. He tends to throw dirt on the other instructors, but whatever. I'm supposed to start flying with him next week, but just his tone and attitude pushes me away.

I'm 37 and I told him my intentions are to get my CFI and CFII and eventually go corporate or maybe a regional. His response, "Good luck with that, I don't see it happening". This was after a 10 minutes of first meeting him.

There is an FBO closer to me and the Chief Instructor is a former 767 captain and a guy who you could sit at the airport and talk aviation with until the cows come home. He told me to shoot for the stars because it is certainly possible. Really nice aircraft that are all GPS equipped and the instructors are all super nice. Unfortunately, their rates are much higher.

At this point I'm tempted to pay more for a guy who supports what I'm working towards than some grumpy instructor who does not have much respect for anyone else.

Interesting. I found that rates have gone up 200% to 300% out where I live relative to what they were back when I took my first (and last) 4hrs of flight instruction. I remember back when a C-172 wet was $47 and the Instructor rate was $30. Today, C-172s are going for $175 out where I live and Instructors are going for $100 or more. I also remember $27 152s wet. Things have really changed.


I am 100% certain (after reading him) that APC member JohnBurke would completely agree: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/2541622-post10.html. Vintage stuff. I'm probably going to have a poster size print out of this pinned to my wall during my entire Flight Training Phase. If this guy were a CFI in my area, we'd get along real well.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that I want a 'conventional' instrumented cockpit during Private and Instrument Training. The problem that I'm running into is that I also want to transition into a Twin immediately after my Instrument, to commence with the Twin-Turbine Time Build Phase.

That Twin, will most likely be a Conquest II and it will be the preparation platform for the VLJ. Therefore, it needs to be Glass. That means I'll have to add an Extension Phase between Instrument and Multi-Engine that keeps me flying a 'conventional' instrumented aircraft for a longer period of time. How many hours, I don't know - but I'm guessing near the 300hr mark (PIC/IFR/IMC) before transition to the Conquest II.


FWIW, during my research, when I found scenarios like this, I respectfully thanked them for the tour, took the pamphlet and then walked. Personally, I want the equipment to be sound and the maintenance to be solid.

There are so many different types of "Instrument Approaches" out there. When I look at them all, the system engineering architect in my screams insanity at the top of my lungs. But, when I look at how US airspace has evolved over the years, then I can see how there would be such a jumble of instrument approach types. You listed just one, the RNAV approach.

I'd like to begin a thread that compares Instrument Approach Types to Required Equipment On-Board. Just to get an idea of how much real world experience one could obtain by flying a "conventionally instrumented" aircraft through their Instrument Rating. Not all instrument approaches require the same on-board equipment. In addition, it is my understanding that the FAA is constantly changing instrument approach types - taking away some and adding others. Not sure how a thread like that would go around here, however.


If I had such doubts, I would not train under their instruction - without question.


A dream killer? Personally, I don't tolerate dream killers, don't hang around them and try not to associate with them. Nothing gets done in this world without somebody first dreaming about it, then working hard/smart to make it a reality. Go for your CFI, CFII and find a way to make your corporate or regional dream a flat out reality.

You might find this interesting and/or somewhat helpful (not sure): NetJets Pilot Interview Profiles



In my life experience, quality often times cost more money. Just the way the world rotates on its axis. Definitely, not always true but often times it is. The question is, how much hunting do you want to do in order to drive costs down while maintaining higher quality instruction. The former 76 Captain coupled to the stated environment in which you found him and your initial feelings about him, seems like a better alternative.

I want to work with real people. I like honest people. I trust people who tell it like it is without sugar coating things. I like ethical people and people who have a moral backbone. I like working with competent people, smart people, wise people and those who like to get things done on time, on budget and on schedule. But, I can't sustain Dream Killers. That's just not who I am at the core. I would never have gotten to where I am in life and business today, had I allowed Dream Killers a place in my life.

You have to distinguish the difference between a Dream Killer with no purpose other than to kill your dream and that guy who is simply telling it like it is for your own good. My suggestion: Spend more time with both of them and let your gut inform you about their real intent.

Maybe the crusty guy was just having a bad day. People are allowed to have bad days. Maybe the up tempo guy was putting on a show, but underneath could care less how well you learn what he has to teach. When in doubt about character (because that's what we are truly talking about here), spend more time in their presence and observe the inner lining of their disposition, general attitude about life and their demeanor.


Was he just having a really bad day? And, was the other guy just a really good showman? Or, did you witness their true character on first contact? Maybe go back and offer to take them both out to lunch in exchange for some conversation about flight training.

I'm going through the exact same process that you are and the lunch thing actually works! I've weeded out two Instructors already and placed one on the finalist list already. The first Instructor came Gold Plated, Gold Rated and Gold Certified (according to the flight clubs website). He was truly a pompous, arrogant ***. However, his picture on the website looks very innocent and when you meet him for the first time, he seems pleasant. It is not until you spend time with him, that certain character traits are revealed. I simply paid the tab, shook hands and went on to the next "lunch."

I'm using the "lunch" thing as the icebreaker. I've already had one Instructor say that he did not have time for lunch. I said, thank you very much for your time and went home. I've had another Instructor say that he'd have to get in-touch with me about having lunch. I said, thank you very much for your time and went home. I'm investing the time, energy and effort up front to find the Instructor that is right for what I'm trying to accomplish.

^^ What a write up. Thank you! The lunch is a really good idea. May have to put that into play.

The older fella could certainly have had a bad day. Lord knows I've had my share. He did answer all my questions, but I was not expecting the way he did it because I have never experienced that kind of attitude from any instructor I've had in the past. I am going to go fly with him once and we'll go from there.

Advanced Instruction where I am is $50/hr, but this guy is $35. 172 in my area goes for roughly $110 wet and the club is at $80 wet. That's a pretty significant savings for an hour of flying, but a lot of it comes down to the guy sitting next to me. I've also just considered using the club to get my currency then get out of dodge.

Thanks again for the reply, certainly gave me a few other things to think about.

Back to the ‘brain processing speed’.
I would recommend starting with ‘glass’ and not finishing with it.
You would be better off doing Private and IR in Glass Cockpit so you have a thorough understanding of the intricacies and how and when they can be a help or a hindrance.
You can fly a XC without the GPS you know. Using a paper chart in hand.
Learning the glass is a way faster and way more complex and expensive airplane is a learning curve which is much steeper then necessary.
I once laughed at a flightschool that installed G430’s like 15 years ago in a C152 till I realized the option of exposure to this type of equipment at $85/hr vs $160/hr and 90kts vs 150kts.
Again, you’re basing your plan on assumptions but you’re lacking the experience and exposure to make those assumptions.

You can teach the right way in glass or analogue and you can equally teach the wrong way in glass or analogue.

I'll share with you my first flight story and the kind of Pilot I flew with on that day.

I have around 4 to 5 flight instruction hours that took place more than 20 years ago. That's all my logbook shows. I actually still have the logbook after all this time:

https://monosnap.com/file/fzZloLUHu4...99GYk8h9Re.png

https://monosnap.com/file/djVIbo5YNO...yEKISl9mBa.png
https://monosnap.com/file/SwPBaBm4MV...ENIzzFiqfK.png

I kept this old unwritten Jeppesen paperback novel because I knew the dream would never die and that I'd be back at some point along the way. The reason for that belief has a lot to do with the story I'm about to tell you and the Pilot who made that story possible in my life.

I met a guy on my job one day, not knowing at the time that he was a pilot. He was about 15 years my senior in chronological age. He saw me reading a book about an F4 Phantom pilot named Randy "Duke" Cunningham, during my break and asked me about it. Over the course of the conversation as he ate his pizza, I found out he was a CFI, CFII and MEI. What he found out was that I was very interested in airplanes, too. One thing lead to another during the conversation and he invited me to fly out with him on his regular trip to Auburn and back that Saturday morning. Of course, I thought it was just going to be my first small airplane ride from the back seat somewhere. I had no idea what was coming next.

I arrived at the south gate and parked, he got there before me and we both went through on his security code. He was the first at the flying club that morning, opened the door, turned on some lights and did some paperwork in order to check out the airplane. I thought he'd be flying a Cessna of some kind. We walked out to a Tiger Grumman AA-5B. He asked me if I knew much about the Tiger, being an avid reader of airplane books. I told him, I've never seen one.

He removed the tie down chains and began his preflight. He said, "The very first thing I do when approaching the airplane is to look for anything suspicious lying around on the ground near it." He said, "Then I stand back away from the airplane to see if it still looks like an airplane should look." He was looking for low hanging fruit, obvious things that were broken or hanging off the airplane. He then went deeper into his preflight, explaining every little detail point-by-point. He then told me how to avoid trouble on the ramp walking too close to propellers or jet engine intakes and exhausts. He explained the concept of a hot magneto and how propellers should be respected at all times - remaining clear of the arch whenever possible. He gave a quick brief of the flight to come. The excitement level at this point was off the charts for me personally. But, I still had no clue was about to happen next.

We start to get into the airplane and I instinctively walk around to the right side. He said, "Where ya going! You're sitting left seat - this is your airplane today." He was a Psych Major in College and it was starting to show. He actually had me thinking it was literally "MY AIRPLANE" in just a nanosecond. So, I reversed course, walked around to the left wing and he showed me how to mount a Tiger Grumman from the wing. I thought I was 'Duke' Cunningham, for a moment there climbing on the wing and stepping into a 'cockpit' for the first time. Felt good. I had no idea what the heck I was doing, obviously. I was just following his instructions. Anyway, we get into the airplane, get the seats, seat belts, shoulder harnesses adjusted and locked.

I was ready to watch him do everything, while I sat back and enjoyed the ride.

He then reaches over hands me a plastic laminated card and says, "Start reading it. Its called a checklist." He said, "I know you are a fast reader, because I've seen you reading before, remember?" He said, "Let me know when you are finished." I'm pretty intuitive. I thought he was just going to quiz me as he went along doing his thing. I said, "Ok......... I'm done."

Information is one thing. Making it Knowledge and applying it is quite another.

He explained what ATIS was and showed me how to get it using the radios. He explained that he previously got a weather briefing, read through each line for the en route portion and concluded that flight was a "Go." He turns to me, as if he's serious and says, "Out of pure curiosity, exactly what would you need to accomplish in order to properly start the engine?" I looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He said, "Its in your hands. You just read it, remember?"

I said to myself: He wants me to literally start the airplane! You gotta be kidding me!

I looked at the sheet, found "Before Starting Engine" and just started reading the numbered list aloud. He stepped through every single number with me assuming I knew absolutely nothing about any of them - which was very true. This was my Introduction to the Tiger Grumman AA5B Checklist......... an actual Engine Start. I was stoked! And, I successfully started the engine, too. At this point, I'm thinking its over. My chores are over. I got to start an engine today (highly unexpected) and I'm going to enjoy a nice flight. What a wonderful day, right. Wrong. It was about to get way more interesting than that.

After engine warm-up at idle, he said, "I want you to get taxi clearance from ground control." He told me what to say and to simply repeat it after pressing the button that he pointed to. He had me practice it with him a few times prior. He gave me a cue when the radios were quiet and said, "Go." I pushed the button and got taxi clearance. He said, "Outstanding." I figured, surely I'm done at this stage. He then said, "I want you to taxi us to the run-up area."

At this point, I'm feeling really good and admittedly, kind of cocky. I will admit that - I will offer that freely. I should not have - but it was enthralling up to this point because I'm doing the work. I have no idea (yet - that will come later) what I'm doing. But, things are moving along nicely at this point. So, I am feeling my oats a little. He shows me how to use the rudder pedals properly to maneuver on the ground and how just a little power will get things moving. He manages Mixture Control the entire time (we never got into that). After showing me how to move the airplane on the ground a few times, he let's me taxi. We start off smoothly but the airplane starts to move right - I tap the left side and tack back to the taxi line. Basically, I was all over the taxiway, but got things a little smoother as we came to the run-up area where he had me turn into the wind, stop and set the parking brake. Of course, at this point, I don't know how far he's going to go in allowing me to do things - so I just wait for the next instruction.

Sure enough, right on cue. He has me go through the Before Take-Off checks. This time I was ready and jumped right into the numbers. Again, he took the time to step me through each item and required that I perform each task - quickly summarizing the reason behind each check along the way. Just like that, I had finished the Before Take-Off. He told me to re-read the Normal Take-Off checks again. I did. He told me to get clearance to taxi to the runway for departure. Just like before, he rehearsed everything with me then waited until the radios were clear enough and said, "Go." I called Tower and get clearance to taxi, but missed the "Taxi and Hold Short" instruction.

I started taxiing in the direction he pointed, trying to keep the airplane on the taxiway. He then explained "Taxi and Hold Short." We held short. Tower came back with clearance for take-off runway 27R. He told me where to look for traffic in-bound before taxiing out. He had me position the aircraft on the runway as best I could on center line. He said, "Step through the short list for me and call it out." I called it out. As I reached the end of the short list, he says that he has the airplane now. I let go. We head down the runway. I'm thinking to myself, man that was tough. But, it was still not over. Not by a long shot.

We climb out. He does what appears to be a lot of "pilot stuff" on the way up. I'm thinking, gee I've got a lot to learn. He handles the radios and that's where things got really strange for me. I was completely a fish out of water when it came to understanding what ATC was saying.

Once we got level, he went to work again assigning me unexpected tasks. He then took me through the concept of Pitch-Power-Trim. The first thing he showed me was how to trim the airplane for straight and level flight - keeping the nose/wings on the horizon and the ball centered. I was mere minutes in my first small airplane for the very first time and he had me engaged in figuring out Coordinated Flight. I trimmed straight and level, he would mess it up for me and then have me trim it again for straight and level until I got good at it. I could now keep an airplane level on the horizon, which was a very big question in my mind before taking off.

Pitch-Power-Trim was my very first in-flight lesson.

He then showed me Roll-Power-Trim. How to slowly roll the airplane into a turn while keeping the nose on the horizon and the ball centered. I distinctly remember the words: "Step on the ball if you need to. Ball goes right, step on it. Ball goes left, step on it." He had a knack for making things simple and clear, then having you do it yourself. When I screwed up, he said "I've got the airplane" - straightened things up and then told me to "try again until you get it right." Try again. Try again. Try again. Those words ring down through all these years. He had me climbing, descending, turning, adding and taking away power - all using Pitch-Power-Trim and Roll-Power-Trim.

He then demonstrated power-on stalls and then simulated power-off stalls. He then told me to replicate what he just did. So, I pulled power and continuously pulled back the nose slowly until the buffet/stall warning horn - lowered the nose to break the stall, added full power until the wings were flying again and slowly lifted the back to the horizon then pulled power. He congratulated me on my first successful stall recovery. I did a few more.

He then demonstrated Spin Recovery, but did so very carefully. He first walked through a two spin recovery, then a one spin recovery and finally a less than one spin recovery. He cycled back through each one (2, 1 and less than 1) a couple more times. The last two times he had me lightly touching the controls (yoke and rudder pedals). He called it "shadowing the controls," just to know what he was doing with them. He then set power and mixture had me try it. From straight and level, I kept increasing back pressure keeping the wings level, airspeed dropped and just before the buffet he had me put in left rudder. Sure enough, the airplane rolled into a left wing down spin. I immediately applied full opposite right rudder and pushed the nose down until the spin stopped. Releasing rudder pressure, adding power and slowing pulling wings level - I completed my first spin recovery. He would not let me do two spins. I practiced a few more one spin recoveries and then he gave me an altitude to climb to and a heading to fly which got us back on course.

I experienced a lot in just 30+ minutes heading out to Auburn. This guy was a great Teacher and he knew how to get you engaged in the actual learning process - to the point where you were teaching yourself and he was guiding, demonstrating and modeling for you. Though, I was not his official paid student at this point, the decision for me to make him my Instructor from that point was already made in my mind.

We landed in Auburn. He took care of his business and then walked me through the preflight outside the airplane. We got back in where I was once again given the checklist duties. With his supervision, I did the engine start, he walked me through making radio calls to Auburn Traffic (Auburn has no tower) and then I taxied to the runway. This time, along with the checklist, he had me do the actual take-off and climb. I was beside myself when he suggested it. He set the mixture. I held the brakes in while adding take-off power - then released the brakes. Airplane starts going forward and left. He explained earlier that I might need to tap the right brake to keep the airplane headed straight down the runway but that as airspeed increased, I would need to use right rudder instead of the brake. That indeed came true. He basically guided me on how much rudder to use the whole way until he said, "Ease straight back on the yoke until the nose comes off the ground." I did and it flew off the ground!

I let go of the rudder after initial climb by accident. He had me reapply right rudder and a little right aileron to keep things lined up and the ball centered. He then had me pitch until the climb indicator showed 750 feet per minute and then had me trim to maintain that climb speed. I said, this was just like Pitch-Power-Trim. He said, "Exactly." Nodding his head with a smile. He got back on the radios doing more complicated sounding "pilot stuff" and I just held the climb. He said, "They gave us a squawk I want you to enter." I had no idea, so I said, "How?" He said that he would dial the first two numbers and I would dial the last two. Again, modeling by example a new task. I got the squawk in and he had me push a button to identify.

After more complicated sounding "pilot stuff" on the radio, he said, "We have a heading and altitude." He gave me the heading first and I began slowly turning toward it while climbing. I said, "Like Roll-Power-Trim." He said, "Piece of cake." Of course, it was even easier because the Power was already in and the Trim was already done! I said, "Climb-outs are not too difficult." He said, "Now, you're learning." We kept climbing. He kept doing more complicated radio pilot stuff and I kept making heading changes as a result. Turning through a couple different headings while climbing - we finally reach 3,900 where I level off - reduce power and trim.

On the way back to KOAK, he kept focusing my attention on slow flight, steady descents and slow descending turns. After practicing these three things repeatedly we finally got closer to KOAK. We're cruising along when he tells me that I should fly the approach and he would take over the landing at the appropriate time. I said, "Just let me know what to do." He said, "You've already done it." I said, "When?" He said, "On the way over. That's what you've been practicing." That's what all the slow flight stuff was all about and now I understood why.

He handled the radios once again, gave me a heading to fly and told me to configure the airplane for a descent down to 1,200 feet. I looked at the altimeter and realized we had a little under 2,800 feet to descend. I immediately thought, Pitch-Power-Trim. I put the nose down, pulled power until the speed stabilized, trimmed until soft and just held it there. Somehow, I magically ended up right at a 500 foot per minute rate of descent - just as he was saying, "Good. I want you to maintain a 500 foot rate of descent." I'm still not sure if he was just boosting my confidence here or not.

My speed was a bit too high, but wings/nose were on the horizon with the ball in the middle. He then told me to pull power slightly and watch what happens. I thought the airplane would slow down by pulling power. It got even faster. He said, "To slow things down, start raising the nose slightly." I thought to myself, *that can't be right!* - but I did it and sure enough the airplane begins to slow without climbing! He said, "You just changed the pitch attitude to control speed. This is called Pitch-For-Speed. We'll talk about it later." Obviously, I thought this was Yoda territory. I was flying with Yoda!

Before we got to 1,200 feet, he told me to "Start putting nose and wings on the horizon again and do what's necessary to maintain your speed - check your ball." This was one of those moments where an Instructor demonstrates how golden they are. He did not tell what to do in order to maintain speed, he already taught me that. He told me to do what was necessary. This forces me to only consider what he had previously taught. It was a master stroke of teaching brilliance on his part. All I knew at that time was what he already instructed. So, I slightly pulled the nose back to the horizon with wings level and ball centered, then slowly applied power until the speed stabilized - because that's what was "necessary" at the time and the only thing I knew. I then re-trimmed the airplane. He said, "Piece of cake."

He reinforced what I had already learned through direct application inside a brand new task. Absolute, brilliance as a Teacher. This made it feel like I was learning something of value. Something that kept me in control of the airplane.

After he worked the radios again (more complex pilot chatter), he said that he wanted me to do the same thing from 1,200 feet down to 700 feet. More brilliance on his part because he set things up so that we were already flying the Base Leg. That meant I would only have one turn before entering Final. He kept things manageable for me while keeping things flowing in a plausible learning scenario as well. He told me to put in the flaps like I did on the way over practicing Slow Flight. Again, making concepts very easy to understand in the cockpit based on things I've already done.

I lowered flaps one notch, the nose would blip up slightly (been there done that). I slightly pushed the yoke through the blip. Speed started to bleed off - he said, "As speed bleeds off slowly, put the nose down until you reach a nice slow rate of descent - about 250 feet per minute - this will also stabilize your speed." More Pitch-Power-Trim used as a tool to control the airplane. Sure enough, 250 actually held at about 95kts.

Airplane started down nice and controlled while slowing slightly. We came down through 900 feet and he tells me to "Start your turn towards the runway - exactly with the same roll rate you did on the way over here - step on the ball easy if you have to. That's all you have to do."

I gently roll into a right hand turn trying to keep the same rate of descent. Ball goes left, I step on it easy. I roll out too far inside center line. He said, "You are too far right of the runway. How would you get left with what you know about flying right this moment?" More brilliance. Asking the student to figure things out based on what they already know. I said, "Roll-Pitch-Trim." He said, "You are already trimmed and pitched. Just roll. Do it!" I gently rolled left keeping the nose down - ball goes slightly right - I step a little on the ball. Airplane heads back to center line at about 750 feet. He showed me how to reference the engine cowling underneath the runway numbers and told me to keep the edge of the cowling tucked directly under the numbers all the way down using Pitch.

I flew the airplane down to 500 feet to an airspeed of about 75kts. He finally takes over and says, "My airplane now." He then talked me through everything he was doing to make the landing - namely how he shifted his focus out to the far end of the runway, monitoring the nose's height relative to the far end just before touch down. We taxied, parked and he walked me through the shut down again before letting me do it. I set the parking brake and flipped some switches. We pushed back the canopy on the Tiger Grumman and did another in-cockpit debrief on some of the things that were done on approach.

I basically, did not want to get out of the airplane that day. I could have slept there the entire week and been just fine doing so. We got back into the club and Yoda explained more details behind the things he was having me do in the air and that's when light bulbs began flaring off one after the other in my head. If he had merely told me these things on the ground, none of it would have made any sense. First he demonstrated. Then he had me replicate. Then he explained the why behind it all. That approach to Training and Teaching guaranteed that I would never forget and that I would understand the why behind the how.

That was my "Introductory" flight. I remember it vividly to this day, obviously. I will never forget it, most likely. I still laugh when I think about what I accomplished that day. Not because I was smart or because I was a natural pilot. I laugh now but because a Master Instructor showed that he could get a complete neophyte into the air and flying within minutes (literally minutes). From taxi, to take-off, to climb, to cruise and approach. All in just one hour of instruction. Who the heck does that other than a Master Instructor or Master Pilot. Some kind of Yoda Instructor, is what I had that day.

Will I find another Yoda this time around? I don't know. However, I sure hope we are both fortunate enough to land Instructors like that as we re-enter the world of GA! I later went on to do a handful of official flight instruction hours with that same individual as the log book above attests. Shortly thereafter, life happened, I could no longer justify the cost of flight instruction and had to bow out. But, like I said - I knew some day I would return like the Jedi. And, now I am back - much like you. 20 years later, but back nonetheless. Time to finally get this done.



No problem. May we both find a Yoda to instruct us. A good Instructor can get optimal performance out of their Student.

There is not a single syllabus out there that has you doing stalls and spins, even a demo, in the first four lessons.
It’s absolutely counter productive.
First lesson should be mostly demo, mainly ‘Primary and Secondary’ effects of flight controls.
See, this is a syllabus:
http://flymall.org/docs/WIFApdf/WIFAsyllabus.pdf
Random one I grabbed off the internet but it shows the building block method of flight instruction.
You almost need to wipe your slate of a lot of preconceived notions and start over fresh.
If you start with an elaborate frame work of expectations, both from Training and from your own expected performance you’re going to encounter some issues.

That's a great story. There used to be one of these "Yoda's" in my area. He fell to Alzheimer's a couple years ago and I haven't seen him since. Great man and not only had a passion for teaching, but knew how to communicate with every personality.

I wish you the best of luck in your training!

I'm glad you made this post. I've seen lots of posts on-line where new pilots are trying to hash this out for themselves. If this goes to much into the weeds, just let me know.

1) What's the reason behind going Glass right off the bat and will it make me a better pilot in the long run? Or, do I go Glass right from the start because that's what the future holds - there is no Conventional Cockpit anymore for VLJ aircraft? I guess if you wanted to order an aircraft with an all conventional cockpit, you could work with the OEM to do so. I'm not sure. I've never asked them.

2) Correct me if I'm wrong (I' here to learn), but the real debate seems to be around Glass Navigation vs Conventional Navigation. I don't see many debates on Glass EIS vs Conventional EIS, as just one example. People seem to be mostly debating wether integrating GPS/NAV/COMM in a single MFD for training purposes is the right thing to do - as opposed to training with individual Conventional instruments in those areas. The two big areas of debate seem to be the GPS/NAV interaction, if I'm not mistaken.

3) Do you know of any study that compares in-flight Glass Failure Rates with in-flight Conventional Failure Rates as well as what caused the failures?

4) What is it about Glass vs Conventional that causes so much division in GA these days when it comes to training focus?

For decades prior, pilots got along just fine without EFIS. I'm not opposed to technology. In fact, I love it. It is because I come from technology, that I ask these questions. I know how easily it can be faulted, broken into and/or compromised - presenting a nightmare for its End-Users.


Functional Glass Standardization

Has the FAA implemented any type of Front-End UI design standards for GA Glass used in the cockpit? I'm sure companies like Garmin and Avidyne need product distinction as a selling point. Nobology, Buttonology and now Tapology - the different ways to interact with the PFD/MFD units between manufacturers can cause issues for pilots - even after being "checked out" in a specific type of aircraft having unfamiliar EFIS.

Is the Input Component Integration behind these Glass systems fully standardized in General Aviation today? I'm trying to get at what could or would cause them to fail - as opposed to Conventional Instruments. Could it be the way in which the integration paths were designed, or who actually does the physical installation. Often times, we read reports where a high time pilot has an in-flight emergency or difficulty with their aircraft in-flight just minutes after getting their aircraft back from maintenance, a repair facility or an installation of some kind of new piece of equipment or component. I've read a number of reports, articles and stories like that over the years. Accidents After Maintenance, Repairs and/or New Equipment Installation. Someone should write a book on that subject - I think it would be an interesting read.

I would hallucinate that a Lancair, RV or Glasair Kit Builder would be infinitely more educated, skilled and knowledgeable about GA Avionics Components, than the average Private Pilot - or just about any Pilot, for that matter. The kit builder must design their panel from start to finish - which undoubtedly means digging into the minutia and specific details of the Input Component Hardware (and its associated wiring) on the back side of that neat looking panel they have slaved over for years in development. Maybe Kit Builders are a good source of information about how reliable both Conventional and Glass happen to be behind the scenes - or more to the point - behind the Panel itself.

I've heard that often times a Kit Builder will select Conventional over Glass simply as a function of cost. The issue of trust also seems to come up with kit building pilots when speaking to them about their preference for Conventional over Glass.

My decision to ultimately go with the CJ4 places Collins Proline 21 in the cockpit. A decision to go with the Phenom 300 places Garmin G3000 in the cockpit. A decision to wait and go with the PC-24 places Honeywell Primus Apex into the cockpit. Three (3) entirely different approaches to engineering an integrated cockpit for the single pilot. The last time I checked, there was no standard establish for the Front-End UI of such fully integrated systems. So, you cannot learn one system, then port skills over into another system with the same Front-End experience. They all operate differently from a pure UI standpoint, yet they allegedly deliver similar or same results: GPS/NAV/COMM, AP integration, etc.. Product distinction, yes. Consistency in the cockpit, no.


Summary

In light of all this, how does training in an environment having an older GNS 430W and GNS 530W, or the now outdated G500 and G600, or the current G1000, or G2000 help matters when Garmin is capable making shifts in their core product line faster than a bullet train?

If I train Conventionally from Private through Instrument, grind out good quality Instrument Time in a Conventional Single-Engine up to about 350 hours PIC/IFR/IMC, then go buy a Conquest II in order to obtain the best that Garmin has to offer, I'd still have to AML retrofit that Cessna 441 with Dual Garmin G600 TXi (PFD) and Dual Garmin GTN 750 (MFD). That would be the closest you could bring a Conquest II towards either VLJ on my list.

So, here we have the crux of the matter. Dual G600TXi/GTN750 as the EFIS is nothing like Proline 21 EFIS, and neither of those is like Primus Apex EFIS. It is however, a close cousin to Garmin G3000, which puts the Phenom 300 in the most advantageous position - as it probably provides the easiest transition path on a pure Avionics basis alone. Unfortunately, neither Collins nor Honeywell, produce anything for this end of the spectrum in General Aviation. Thus, there is no like minded "transition" path in avionics from Light Aircraft to VLJ given those OEMs.



I'm trying to follow you here. If that XC in an EFIS cockpit, wouldn't there need to be room on the Panel for the appropriate set of Conventional Instruments in order to do the basic Attitude Instrument Flying stuff? Wouldn't you at least need Instruments for Performance/Control/Navigation:

- Airspeed
- Attitude
- Altitude
- Heading
- Vertical Speed
- VOR

If that is the case and you have a Glass cockpit but elect to not use the GPS in an attempt to sharpen your Conventional skills, don't you need the Panel real estate to mount those instruments and wouldn't that eliminate the necessary real estate for the larger EFIS panels? As I say, I'm trying to follow you.


Yep. I get what you are saying about "speed" and how it is probably better to have exposure to "Glass" at a slower rate where things don't happen as fast. That's understood. But, that's a different question than the one I'm asking. I'm asking about the Model itself, as opposed to how the Model functions. The Model of training under Conventional, as opposed to the Model of training under Glass and which one affords the student the ability to become a better pilot as a result. Does that differential exist?

If there is no difference at all, then certainly getting early exposure to something that approximates what I'll encounter in the VLJ ultimately, probably makes much more sense. However, if there is a differentiation in the two Models of training, then I need to consider those differences and understand what the distinctions look like and how they will affect me down range in the VLJ, if at all.


Great post! Thanks again for the input. :)

Sorry to hear about the degradation in his health. Yoda's are good guys. Thanks and all the best on your journey as well. :)

Finally found a quality Flight Instructor.

I was somewhat surprised to find him so quickly. I honestly thought this was going to take a long while given my training requirements, but the search is finally over.

I just found a former Airline Pilot, current Primary Flight Instructor and former UPRT Instructor. He's semi-retired and periodically flies a Citation V on a Single Pilot Waiver for a private individual - not too far from where I live, ironically. He flies the Citation mostly weekends, if and when he does and has the bulk of the week free right now as a matter of fact.

His attitude about life in general is authentically positive. He's in his mid 60s, works out regularly and seems to be in great shape for his age. He seems like a pleasure to be around long-term, easy to talk with, non-assumptive, a good active and engaged listener, still loves to fly and seems to be a natural teacher. Apparently, he's not in it for the money. He Teaches because he loves flying and enjoys sharing his knowledge with others who love flying.

Strangely, I met him pulling his aircraft out of his hanger this weekend, after being referred to him from a Helicopter Flight Instructor I was having a conversation with at a local airport about my research. Turns out that individual was also a student of his some years back. A referral that turned out very good indeed.

When we approached him, he was clearly about to go flying. It was just after 2pm or so. I got introduced and by 4pm, we were still standing by his airplane talking. I started to feel a bit hawkish on his personal time and told him so, but he said it was no problem and that he'd had a conversation like ours before with another individual looking to get into jets. So, he could appreciate where I was coming from.

During our two hour long conversation standing next to his G58, l felt comfortable enough letting him know in-person what my plans were and asking him for his advice. I asked him straight out about going from zero to VLJ and whether or not it could be done. He said: "Of course, it can be done. More pilots are doing it now than ever before." I told him about my conceptual outline for a Training & Time Building program that took the best components from Part 61 and Part 141, then asked for his opinion. That's when he backed up the truck and began to literally unloaded on me. I learned more from him in two hours than I have in 4 weeks of being online, hands down.

A few things about his advice. He said that based on what I was trying to accomplish and that given money for training was not a factor, he liked the idea of me doing:

- Independent Ground School w/passed Written Exam before actual flight instruction began. Either in a conventional classroom setting environment, or through a good self-pace study program (he likes either Jeppesen or Sporty's). However, he thinks there needs to be a very firm and specific time table for completion once started. He makes himself available for Ground School phone consultation once per week until course completion. He does not recommend simultaneous Ground and Flight instruction for a number of different reasons that he explained to me, all of which now make a ton of sense after he explained why.

- A full-time syllabus driven VFR Private Pilot Flight Training schedule Mon-Fri. Up to 1 hour ground before flight, 2 hour flight core instruction and Up to 1 hour ground after flight. Totaling 4 hours instruction per day, plus 2-3 hours text based self-study and/or simulator self-study. Revisiting Ground School subject matter during daily Flight Instruction given. Pass Oral/Flight. Immediately, plan and fly 10 unique VFR cross countries each 2-3 hours in duration round trip with 5 simulated missed approaches to planned alternates and 15 additional VFR night landings locally. Than take his Stage Check Ride, which he promises would be far more difficult than what the DPE gave. He would use that check ride to bring out issues that I need to clean up before Instrument Training began. He said, he would initiate Instrument Training until I cleaned up any issues that remained.

- A full-time syllabus driven IFR Flight Training schedule Mon-Fri. Up to 1 hour ground before flight, 2 hour flight core instruction and Up to 1 hour ground after flight. Basically, the exact same time based structure the Private took.

He outlines a lot more than what I'm going to spend my time covering here. This was basically the beginning of what he thought would be the right approach to get me ready. His ideas on Instrument Training, I found very interesting and I like his ideas on integrating Multi-Engine Training and Instrument Training.

Lastly, I was both surprised and delighted at the fact that he actually likes my idea of using a Twin Turboprop as the baseline foundation for getting VLJ prepared and he thought the idea I had for Scheduling unique and individual Flight Plans in a routine Part 135 simulated fashion was good. He said that such a structured approach would yield the Time as PIC that I needed, but would also continue expanding the challenges through each new flight plan filed. He agrees that high density altitude airport experience is important, mountain flying experience is seen as important to him and good amount of night time landings with increasing experience at unfamiliar airports during high traffic periods were all good ideas. So, a fair amount of my research was validated.

He said, he would modify his syllabus to match my needs - but that some of the changes would not come until the Multi-Engine Training, where he'd literally be creating a new syllabus matched to the Conquest II. He said, the best options is to get a Conquest II wither with Glass already installed, or be willing to have it installed. I told him that's no problem.

So, I have to get on that Conquest II, right now. There's a lot involved in that and the time it will take to get the cockpit set-up the way we need will also take time. That process can be running while the Private and Instrument training is underway, so that the Twin is ready when its time to make a move on the Multi-Engine Training. This brings buying a Conquest II immediately into focus and my very next task.

I love it when good plan starts to come together and I especially love it when when working with quality people. This guy is really good people. I really think I just lucked out on finding him. Just good timing, I guess.

That's it for me around here. Time to go hunt down a 441 (finally)!

Here's to those who never quit on their dreams. Cheers! :)

I have tried both... There are pros and cons.
My opinion is, that an old instructor can be more serious, and teaching not only regular stuff, but also all of his experience, as much as he can. Not as patient as a young and enthusiastic one, but the experience is more important.... I can learn things what trainees with beginner instructors can not.

When my FI was on holiday, I had a fun/training flight with other FIs, and I think, young ones are full with passion and explain everything , just to show their knowledge... and I also think that middle age people can reach burnout syndrome after teaching many years and not stepping up on the career ladder. Old guys have no burnout asif they still are in the aviation industry, they had no burnout at middle age, and as they are old and feel the world still needs them :)

The most important thing is trust. Your FI needs to know your mood and even mental problems, like if you have a huge family problem or whatsoever, you can not give 100%. And (s)he needs to know that.
It's possible only when you trust this person... with your life. Bacground check is a bit easier in the internet world but... just listen to your inner voice.
if you feel something is not okay, usually it's because something is not okay.

I know you already said you found a CFI. For those looking, there's no magical recipe for finding the right instructor for you. There's going to be a lot of chemistry involved with it and how well you and the CFI "mesh".

The first quality you should look for and it should be fairly obvious right away is: Is the CFI looking out for your best interest? I hated to see or hear about students throw their money away on useless training or flights that they didn't need.

I had 4 different CFIs along the way in my training. My first was the owner of the school and about killed me when he convinced me I was ready to solo with only having 6 hours. Fortunately, he hired a new instructor who was honest and had a desire to ensure I wasn't a danger to myself or others. We started from the beginning and he was an awesome CFI. My next CFI for my commercial certificates was again very young. We got along great and he also was knowledgable and only wanted to be a great CFI. My next CFI was when I wanted to be an instructor. He was the owner of the school and again, left a lot to be desired and had no interest in actual teaching. When I went for my practical, I wasn't prepared at all for the oral and it didn't take long for the DPE to fail me.

My experience with instructors is the opposite of what most people would expect.

Back when I took my first and only 4-5 hours of flight instruction over 20 years ago, I thought Flying was very much like Golf in many respects. Flying has its cycle: Take-Off, Climb, Cruise, Descent, Approach and Landing. Golf has its legs that complete its cycle: Outbound leg (Front 9) and Inbound leg (Back 9). Flying has potential hazards and potential trouble. Golf has hazards and potential trouble. Flying requires very specific skill. Golf, unlike many other sports on earth requires very specific skill and command of the golf swing. A flight must be managed by the pilot. A round of golf must be managed by the player.

Flight Management. Course Management. Avoiding hazards in golf. Avoiding trouble in flying. Being conservative in the cockpit is wise. Being conservative on the golf course is often wise. Executing the right instrument approach to landing is important. Executing the right iron approach into a green is important. Placing the aircraft on the numbers during landing is important. Placing the ball under the hole on the approach shot is important.

I find lots of parallels in the mental attitude required to do both things well. Both Golf and Flying require you to stay out of trouble. If you can do that, you can have a good flight and a good round. Getting greedy can cost you in both. Allowing ego to run the show can cost you in both. Breaking the rules can (and will guaranteed) cost you in both. Both have Regulations and Rules. Both have penalties for breaking Regulations and Rules. Both require mental discipline. Both as fun as heck. Both provide the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

One problem, however. The airplane has an Autopilot. I've never found a way to put my golf on AP! :D The airplane has GPS. I've also never found a good way to put my ball flight into GPS Nav mode all the way to the green or to get my ball to Track On Course via Waypoints during a putt. :eek: Someday, Id' like to simply call the Proshop for Vectors to the hole!

Good post!



Thank you both, jarinawoz and magoo6541. You've both captured the spirit of what the thread was supposed to be all about and you actually read the OP, clearly.

jarinawoz, that part about trust in your post is something I've found to be extremely important. magoo6541, the experience you had with CFIs that were not truly focused on being a good "teacher," is precisely what I've tried to avoid in my pre-training research. That's one of the primary reasons why I focused so much Teaching Competence in pre-training research.

I met again with my perspective CFI. I asked for his version of a "First Lesson" flight. He wholeheartedly agreed, said it was a great idea and stated that "it was often concerning to him that past students of mine did not ask for a first lesson flight, to test me as their prospective instructor." His words, not mine. He appreciated the fact that I asked for it and was more than willing to provide it.

He passed "the test" with flying colors. The test was not of his knowledge about flying. Of course, he's already a CFI and a former Airline Pilot. Of course, he knew how to fly. The "First Lesson" test was about his Teaching Competence. He blew me away with his ability to be the "Explainer In-Chief." He really knows how to communicate ideas, concepts and difficult to grasp theories.

He loves putting the aircraft in the hands of his student after modeling for them what's to be done. He connects dots from one concept to another by showing you how they relate to each other and why they are important to flying the airplane. We spent an hour in flight. I was so impressed that I asked for another hour. He was delighted to stay in the air for another hour. I felt it was money very well invested, not spent. I don't consider it "spending." It was an investment in myself and my future as a pilot.

You are right, magoo6541. Finding the right CFI can happen in different ways. I thought I would be making the rounds and doing a bunch of "First Lesson" flights with a number of different CFIs before finding the right one. That did not happen. Mine came through referral of all things from a Helicopter Instructor who went with me and made an in-person introduction with the guy he recommended. Completely unexpected, but that's the way it worked out for me.

You have to get out there and engage people. Talk about your intentions and see what unfolds by way of meetings, introductions or referrals. I'm now convinced you can meet a great CFI just about anywhere. It really all depends on Timing.

He created a custom Syllabus tailored for my training. He modified portions of his already existing syllabus, printed it out and brought it with him. This means that he listened to me during our first meeting and he took what I said to heart. He understands what it means to fly jets. He understands the challenges I have ahead of me in getting to the VLJ as single pilot. He completely agrees with me that there should be a custom tailored path for doing what I'm proposing. And, he can train me from Private and all other ratings through Multi-Engine in the Conquest II, where I plan to spend about 2-3 years developing real IFR/IMC/Night skill and awareness.

I was not going to post here anymore, but I did read both your posts and found them to be very much in-line with what this thread should have been all about.

Thanks! All the best to both of you as you make progress in your flying careers (personal or professional)! :)

In the mean time us mere mortals with no concept of how to fly a jet or sliver of knowledge about flight instructing will be taking bets.

Pick the one you click the best with.... you dont wanna be stuck in a cockpit with someone you are meh with in terms of compatability, i dont care how good of a teacher they are... if you have fun and enjoy who you are with it will be better than if you dread it.

The flight school i work at has lots of retired airline guys flying charter and working as a CFI in their down time... Some younger guys also, who i enjoy and wouldnt mind having as my own CFI.



older isnt always wiser either...

I had a 25 year old CFI and he was an amazing one... wanted his hours to go to a regional but didnt let that get in the way of what he was doing in the "now" which was passing all his students through their rides and helping them get to the point he was at.

goodluck;)

Where I trained they have young instructors in their mid 20s who just became instructors. Plenty of Air Force fighter pilots including an F16 guy who did a three year tour with the Thunderbirds. Old, retired guys who wanted something to do and got into flying late in life. And an 80something year old chief pilot/instructor who was very sharp and, despite his sometimes grouchiness, a great pilot and instructor. He had lots of little tips and techniques to share.

My favorite pilot to fly with was the old, very experienced chief pilot due to all of his experience and no BS attitude. He had a lot to offer and you learned something new every time you flew with him.

Gosh... magoo6541!! I can imagine, I had the same problem... Forcing a solo, when you totally feel you are not ready for it... But what to do? Just refuse it all the time, then.... ? How you will feel you are ready, when you are always stressed?

Wise words, November Seven :)