ATP CFI program
06-23-2007, 03:03 AM
#51
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Originally Posted by N6724G
But all of you except low wages when you go to a regional airline. And Ithink everyone who is a pilot fell in love with the idea of flying a jet
Last edited by Cubdriver; 06-23-2007 at 03:09 PM.
06-23-2007, 01:56 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Flight Instructor
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by Slice
Not all of us started in jets at a regional...or a commuter as it use to be named. It's accept, btw.
06-24-2007, 11:13 PM
#54
Unreserved
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: H60 ME/IP
Posts: 18
Insider's point of view
Wow,
six pages of back and forth arguments on who is better between traditional track & fast track CFIs; all started because of someone asking about the possibility of becoming a CFI in 15 days.
Answer to the question: Yes. The fact that there are many flight schools and academies producing them is evidence that it is possible to attain the certificate in so little time.
Now, when it comes to the proficiency level and competence, I have to give some insider's view and professional opinion as a CFI. I will start with my background.
I obtained my certificates and ratings through FBOs, local flight schools, and Ari Ben Aviator. I also attended U.S. Army Flight School to fly helicopters. After a year as an Army aviator, I went to ATP and obtained CFI, CFII, and MEI. As an aviator, since the beginning of my flying, I was a dedicated and disciplined student of aviation (just like many here); I am still one (you never stop learning). I've been a Part 61 and Part 141 instructor. Enough about me, I just needed to introduce my experience (not much by any means).
What I observed from ATP is that it is a good academy, just like any FBO or flight school can be. The academy provides very standardized training and every instructor who instructs in it goes through stardardization just like any Part 141 instructor is supposed to go through before starting instruction.
Is ATP's training similar to airline training? I don't know, I don't fly for the airlines. However, as a military aviator who has been through serious standardization, cockpit resource management and aircrew coordination training, I can say that, from my observation, ATP's training environment is intended for pilots flying in crews.
The academy is meant for those who are seriously dedicated. A lot of material is thrown at the students in so little time that only a person who has self discipline can actually grasp all that knowledge. Many of the students are very dedicated to learning. I made a few friends there who are elsewhere flying bigger and better things. However, I did come accross some who had gotten all the way through their commercial certificate by failure and re-attempts and still had not gotten the clue that they needed to study and become proficient in aviation knowledge (This guys, in my opinion, slipped through the cracks. I don't know if they made it through the CFI course).
The CFI program was a little intense, there was a lot of information thrown to the students in too little time, but the information was not something that was foreign. ATP prepares the CFI applicants (both career track and CFI program) by giving them the reading materials far in advance. That reading material consists of all FAA handbooks, important ACs, PTS, and useful guides). It is the students responsibility to study the material before initiating the course.
The first week of the course is spent in the classroom developing lesson plans and teaching them to instructors and classmates. (In Jacksonville, the instructor (who is mentioned earlier in this thread) is a DPE who used to work for the FAA; it is true, he has written some of the regulations that we as pilots use today. The second week consists of performing and instructing the maneuvers and taking the practical test. I think this enough insiders info for now.
As an aviator who has come up through what many call "the traditional way", I can say that no one comes out from the ATP course a proficient instructor. On that same note, having worked with other instructors who came from more traditional ways, I can say that traditional instructor applicants are not proficient when they finish their "traditional training" either. That proficiency that so many are arguing about is not gained until the instructor sets foot in a cockpit and begins instruction. It is clearly not a matter of "fast track or traditional track".
Comparing ATP instructors (or fast track instructors) to traditional instructors on the basis of their experience is pointless. They both learned the same FAA material and trained for the instructor certificate in similar ways. The only difference is the amount of time they spent achieving the result. Experience is a matter of what they have trained in.
The ATP instructor experience is mostly in multi-engine aircraft; the traditional instructor has probably flown more single-engine time. Put both against each other and both will run circles around each other when it comes to demonstrating their territory. The career ATP instructor, with about 50 hours of SEL, will probably lose a contest against the traditional instructor with over two hundred hours of SEL experience. Bring a traditional instructor with about 30 hours of multi-engine time against an ATP instructor with over 200 hours of MEL experience and chances are, the ATP instructor has more proficiency.
Having said all previous, I say the following to all future persons who aspire to be pilots. Attain your training through the fast track or traditional way. Heck, do it the military way if you so desire. The outcome is the same; you become a certified pilot. What kind of pilot you become depends completely on you; you make that difference. I will say this as a professional aviator, and I know many feel the same way, if you become a pilot, we (the already professional pilots) expect you to be a proficient one. You should expect no less of those who come behind you. You owe it to the public and the souls on your aircraft.
For those who aspire to be instructors, approach the goal with professionalism. The certificate you are about to receive will give you the right to put people in the air with the rest of us (and yourself). That is a big responsibilty on your shoulders. You should train people to a high level of proficiency and nothing less; although that is only attained with time, it should be your goal.
There is nothing wrong with being a flight instructor to build more flight time and move on to bigger and better things; just don't cut a student short of training because of your agenda. Give them the benefit of a good lesson.
So long,
Luis
six pages of back and forth arguments on who is better between traditional track & fast track CFIs; all started because of someone asking about the possibility of becoming a CFI in 15 days.
Answer to the question: Yes. The fact that there are many flight schools and academies producing them is evidence that it is possible to attain the certificate in so little time.
Now, when it comes to the proficiency level and competence, I have to give some insider's view and professional opinion as a CFI. I will start with my background.
I obtained my certificates and ratings through FBOs, local flight schools, and Ari Ben Aviator. I also attended U.S. Army Flight School to fly helicopters. After a year as an Army aviator, I went to ATP and obtained CFI, CFII, and MEI. As an aviator, since the beginning of my flying, I was a dedicated and disciplined student of aviation (just like many here); I am still one (you never stop learning). I've been a Part 61 and Part 141 instructor. Enough about me, I just needed to introduce my experience (not much by any means).
What I observed from ATP is that it is a good academy, just like any FBO or flight school can be. The academy provides very standardized training and every instructor who instructs in it goes through stardardization just like any Part 141 instructor is supposed to go through before starting instruction.
Is ATP's training similar to airline training? I don't know, I don't fly for the airlines. However, as a military aviator who has been through serious standardization, cockpit resource management and aircrew coordination training, I can say that, from my observation, ATP's training environment is intended for pilots flying in crews.
The academy is meant for those who are seriously dedicated. A lot of material is thrown at the students in so little time that only a person who has self discipline can actually grasp all that knowledge. Many of the students are very dedicated to learning. I made a few friends there who are elsewhere flying bigger and better things. However, I did come accross some who had gotten all the way through their commercial certificate by failure and re-attempts and still had not gotten the clue that they needed to study and become proficient in aviation knowledge (This guys, in my opinion, slipped through the cracks. I don't know if they made it through the CFI course).
The CFI program was a little intense, there was a lot of information thrown to the students in too little time, but the information was not something that was foreign. ATP prepares the CFI applicants (both career track and CFI program) by giving them the reading materials far in advance. That reading material consists of all FAA handbooks, important ACs, PTS, and useful guides). It is the students responsibility to study the material before initiating the course.
The first week of the course is spent in the classroom developing lesson plans and teaching them to instructors and classmates. (In Jacksonville, the instructor (who is mentioned earlier in this thread) is a DPE who used to work for the FAA; it is true, he has written some of the regulations that we as pilots use today. The second week consists of performing and instructing the maneuvers and taking the practical test. I think this enough insiders info for now.
As an aviator who has come up through what many call "the traditional way", I can say that no one comes out from the ATP course a proficient instructor. On that same note, having worked with other instructors who came from more traditional ways, I can say that traditional instructor applicants are not proficient when they finish their "traditional training" either. That proficiency that so many are arguing about is not gained until the instructor sets foot in a cockpit and begins instruction. It is clearly not a matter of "fast track or traditional track".
Comparing ATP instructors (or fast track instructors) to traditional instructors on the basis of their experience is pointless. They both learned the same FAA material and trained for the instructor certificate in similar ways. The only difference is the amount of time they spent achieving the result. Experience is a matter of what they have trained in.
The ATP instructor experience is mostly in multi-engine aircraft; the traditional instructor has probably flown more single-engine time. Put both against each other and both will run circles around each other when it comes to demonstrating their territory. The career ATP instructor, with about 50 hours of SEL, will probably lose a contest against the traditional instructor with over two hundred hours of SEL experience. Bring a traditional instructor with about 30 hours of multi-engine time against an ATP instructor with over 200 hours of MEL experience and chances are, the ATP instructor has more proficiency.
Having said all previous, I say the following to all future persons who aspire to be pilots. Attain your training through the fast track or traditional way. Heck, do it the military way if you so desire. The outcome is the same; you become a certified pilot. What kind of pilot you become depends completely on you; you make that difference. I will say this as a professional aviator, and I know many feel the same way, if you become a pilot, we (the already professional pilots) expect you to be a proficient one. You should expect no less of those who come behind you. You owe it to the public and the souls on your aircraft.
For those who aspire to be instructors, approach the goal with professionalism. The certificate you are about to receive will give you the right to put people in the air with the rest of us (and yourself). That is a big responsibilty on your shoulders. You should train people to a high level of proficiency and nothing less; although that is only attained with time, it should be your goal.
There is nothing wrong with being a flight instructor to build more flight time and move on to bigger and better things; just don't cut a student short of training because of your agenda. Give them the benefit of a good lesson.
So long,
Luis
06-27-2007, 06:02 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: E145 Right Side
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by UH60driver
Answer to the question: Yes. The fact that there are many flight schools and academies producing them is evidence that it is possible to attain the certificate in so little time.
What I observed from ATP is that it is a good academy, just like any FBO or flight school can be. The academy provides very standardized training and every instructor who instructs in it goes through stardardization just like any Part 141 instructor is supposed to go through before starting instruction.
The academy is meant for those who are seriously dedicated. A lot of material is thrown at the students in so little time that only a person who has self discipline can actually grasp all that knowledge. Many of the students are very dedicated to learning. I made a few friends there who are elsewhere flying bigger and better things. However, I did come accross some who had gotten all the way through their commercial certificate by failure and re-attempts and still had not gotten the clue that they needed to study and become proficient in aviation knowledge (This guys, in my opinion, slipped through the cracks. I don't know if they made it through the CFI course).
Comparing ATP instructors (or fast track instructors) to traditional instructors on the basis of their experience is pointless. They both learned the same FAA material and trained for the instructor certificate in similar ways. The only difference is the amount of time they spent achieving the result. Experience is a matter of what they have trained in.
The ATP instructor experience is mostly in multi-engine aircraft; the traditional instructor has probably flown more single-engine time. Put both against each other and both will run circles around each other when it comes to demonstrating their territory. The career ATP instructor, with about 50 hours of SEL, will probably lose a contest against the traditional instructor with over two hundred hours of SEL experience. Bring a traditional instructor with about 30 hours of multi-engine time against an ATP instructor with over 200 hours of MEL experience and chances are, the ATP instructor has more proficiency.
Having said all previous, I say the following to all future persons who aspire to be pilots. Attain your training through the fast track or traditional way. Heck, do it the military way if you so desire. The outcome is the same; you become a certified pilot. What kind of pilot you become depends completely on you; you make that difference. I will say this as a professional aviator, and I know many feel the same way, if you become a pilot, we (the already professional pilots) expect you to be a proficient one. You should expect no less of those who come behind you. You owe it to the public and the souls on your aircraft.
There is nothing wrong with being a flight instructor to build more flight time and move on to bigger and better things; just don't cut a student short of training because of your agenda. Give them the benefit of a good lesson.
What I observed from ATP is that it is a good academy, just like any FBO or flight school can be. The academy provides very standardized training and every instructor who instructs in it goes through stardardization just like any Part 141 instructor is supposed to go through before starting instruction.
The academy is meant for those who are seriously dedicated. A lot of material is thrown at the students in so little time that only a person who has self discipline can actually grasp all that knowledge. Many of the students are very dedicated to learning. I made a few friends there who are elsewhere flying bigger and better things. However, I did come accross some who had gotten all the way through their commercial certificate by failure and re-attempts and still had not gotten the clue that they needed to study and become proficient in aviation knowledge (This guys, in my opinion, slipped through the cracks. I don't know if they made it through the CFI course).
Comparing ATP instructors (or fast track instructors) to traditional instructors on the basis of their experience is pointless. They both learned the same FAA material and trained for the instructor certificate in similar ways. The only difference is the amount of time they spent achieving the result. Experience is a matter of what they have trained in.
The ATP instructor experience is mostly in multi-engine aircraft; the traditional instructor has probably flown more single-engine time. Put both against each other and both will run circles around each other when it comes to demonstrating their territory. The career ATP instructor, with about 50 hours of SEL, will probably lose a contest against the traditional instructor with over two hundred hours of SEL experience. Bring a traditional instructor with about 30 hours of multi-engine time against an ATP instructor with over 200 hours of MEL experience and chances are, the ATP instructor has more proficiency.
Having said all previous, I say the following to all future persons who aspire to be pilots. Attain your training through the fast track or traditional way. Heck, do it the military way if you so desire. The outcome is the same; you become a certified pilot. What kind of pilot you become depends completely on you; you make that difference. I will say this as a professional aviator, and I know many feel the same way, if you become a pilot, we (the already professional pilots) expect you to be a proficient one. You should expect no less of those who come behind you. You owe it to the public and the souls on your aircraft.
There is nothing wrong with being a flight instructor to build more flight time and move on to bigger and better things; just don't cut a student short of training because of your agenda. Give them the benefit of a good lesson.
Originally Posted by UH60driver
The first week of the course is spent in the classroom developing lesson plans and teaching them to instructors and classmates. (In Jacksonville, the instructor (who is mentioned earlier in this thread) is a DPE who used to work for the FAA; it is true, he has written some of the regulations that we as pilots use today. The second week consists of performing and instructing the maneuvers and taking the practical test. I think this enough insiders info for now.
Wow LUIS I'm glad you posted this. Surprised no one has jumped down your throat yet... Thanks for summing everything I've been trying to say in these last 6 Pages. It's amazing how quite these forums have been. I've been doing my cross countries. Now I got 157hours... So Where are you guys Now????
06-27-2007, 09:42 AM
#57
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 159
It doesn't matter whether you got your CFI'S in 15 days or one year. What you get at the completion of both courses is a brand new never used cfi ratings. Having said that, it does take experience using those ratings to become a competent instructor. You and your first student will be learning new things. He how to fly and you how to effectively teach the concepts to him that you have learned.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
