Definitely take your advice. When I instruct my students, they learn pretty fast and appreciated my lecture. I saw many instructors speak perfectly but not willing to teach or be difficult to student. I post here to help whoever wants to try. And Thanks all your guys’ advances, I will look into it and make it better in the future

 

Forget about the OP's crappy flight school. Take a look at alphaaero who is pushing a zero carbon agenda. are you going to fly electric tesla planes that require carbon to produce? will the x/c be limited to 300 miles for the next plug? you realize you are a carbon based life form and you would literally have to kill yourself to achieve carbon zero with cant be achieved anyways. whos the libtard that works there who is she is she in hr? whats her name? jfc.

 

Not buying it.

Clearly, English is your second language. It appears, as noted above, that you designed your own web site. Unless you're pitching it to people who speak whatever your primary language is (Spanish or French, perhaps?), then your target audience should probably be the students you hope to garner; if the intended student base of your company are those with English as a second language, then you should probably include other languages as choices for viewing the site. If you intend native English speakers, then you really need to fix that web site. The punctuation, the language, and the grammar sound like it was written by a seventh grade Jr. High drop-out.

Your web site states "Be a Better Pilot, Fly Aircraft in a Professional Way," and yet features incomplete sentences, incorrect English, and incorrect math on the flight training costs. Your "contact us" email is a gmail. account. It looks like one guy has put a web site together for himself to pick up students, and named it after his first name. A gmail account? Hard to get cheaper than that. At a minimum, get someone who does have English as a primary language, to fix the web site. There are literally hundreds of millions of people from whom you can choose.

You appear to be renting two Cessna 172's, but have a picture of a Cirrus with the BRS CAPS parachute deployed, and the statement, "For Absolute 100% Safety, Our Fleet Installed BRS Parachute System. Even We Lost Wings, Our Aircraft Still Fly, With Parachute Mount on Airframe, Everyone Safe Landed."

You do not need to capitalize every word in every sentence. Are you suggesting that you installed BRS parachutes on your two Cessna 172's? The phraseology sounds like you had a parachute deployment after losing a wing. Is this the case? If not, you should probably fix the web site. It sounds like you are saying that without wings, the airplane will fly (it will not). You should probably fix the web site. It sounds like you state that your airraft lost wings, but everyone landed safely. The BRS system comes with a warning that deployment will result in destruction of the aircraft and may result in injury or death, and anyone who knows anything about the BRS system knows that the moment the system is deployed, the aircraft is done flying and is only descending in an unairworthy condition under canopy, assuming that the system works. You really need someone to review, and fix that web site.


Ouch.

Do you really have a "100% Checkride Pass Rate?" That's out of "Thousands of Hours Flight Instruction Experience?" If so, an enviable success rate, but one that is deserving of a more professional web site. And something other than a .gmail. business address. Seriously. Pay for a proper address or domain.

You advertise a "-$61,000 Saving on Training Cost Than Others." That's a negative number. Technically, a negative savings is a cost, which means, as it's written, that you cost $61,000 more than others, though the language is incorrect and confusing, and makes one wonder if you mean that all your students added together have saved that much cumulatively, or perhaps some other means.

I appreciate that your students like your lectures, but fix your web site. Especially as you're advertising it on this site.

"Libtard?"

Nothing says one has "redneck dumbass" tattooed across his forehead more than using that in a sentence.

​​​​​​​If you're going to pretend to be a professional, try to act like one.

 

This "zone of no movement" sounds like an overcomplicated term for what we called (and still call) the "aiming point". This is the problem with flight training....too many ways trying to complicate the simple and explain away pilot deficiencies. Over 50 hours and not ready to solo? Sorry, but it sounds like one of the few who "just can't get it"
Flying is no different than any other type of skill/talent. Medicine, law, dancing, playing guitar, boxing....some people just can't do it and find something else. Its not a judgement on the person or their worth. Its just a fact of life we have to accept that flying is something they (or worse yet someone they have for a passenger) would be better off if they do not do it.
I grew up in a very small town, Appalachian North Georgia (here come the stereotypes). The nearest flight school was nearly a 2 hour drive each way and money was tight. It took me the better part of 18 months to solo, but I did it in just over 24 flight hours. The idea of being at 54 hours, unsoloed, is unimaginable. I think there is something bigger than "soaking" going on here.
I had a student when I was a CFI who just wasn't getting it. I tried everything (I was no rookie, had about 2000 dual given at the time). At around 40 hours, I asked her to change to one of the older and more experienced instructors. Perhaps the problem was me, you know sometimes a student just "clicks" better with someone else.
He flew with her about 20 more hours, all the while telling her "this may not be for you", yet she was determined to continue. She eventually did solo, but later failed her Private Pilot checkride, twice, before giving up. It was sad to watch her persist in it, only to eventually give up. But the sober fact is that she was destined to kill herself or someone else in an airplane had she continued. Now don't get the wrong picture. She was no dim bulb. She was smart, engaging and absorbed ground subjects very quickly. In fact, she has since made quite a success of herself in the business world and I'm very happy for her. But flying was just not the thing for her.
What we seem to have here in the OP is not a matter of a plateau or one task. At 54 hours, I think there's just not "the gears" for flying. Just my opinion based on what I have seen in 4000+ hours of giving instruction. I'd have to fly with someone before I could say anything for sure, but it seems this guy may just have to ask himself is this is for him.

 

Completely unrelated to the thread topic, but on quiet evenings when the air is still, do you ever hear banjos?

I thought mine was really bad tinitus, but it turns out that it's just Earl Scruggs.

 

The national average is around 80 hrs for the Private.
That includes the very old, the very young and the start-stop start-stop.
Its possible the don’t care -CFI handed off to the indifferent- CFI to the Im-just-here-till-a-regional-calls CFI.
That combined to a couple of start-stops and you’re easily over 50 hrs.

 

We're talking about time to solo, not get the certificate. He's over 50 hours and has not even soloed.

 

"The national average is around 80 hrs for the Private"

i thought the national average was 65 hours? has this gone up? i know someone with 65 hours who hasnt soloed. You should solo in 10-15 hours. I knew someone with 40 hours who didnt know what a VOR was. Their CFI didnt know what a spark plug was. i know someone with a 310 who has 1000 hours with their multi rating that didnt know what vmc was. I guess there is a lot more cowboy instruction out there than people realize.

 

Hours don't mean much. In fact, they don't mean squat. For example, a student whose school is an hour ferry from the practice area might have considerably more hours at solo time than one at an uncontrolled field with everything nearby. A student who can only fly once every two months is going to take a lot longer. A student with multiple instructors (not unusual in the rush to grab the big brass ring, for instructors to flush through a school like sludge in a pipe) will take longer. A school which sets a minimum time for the student, will cause the student to take longer. Some training aircraft will take longer. Switching types of training aircraft, may prolong the process. Life happens, and family emergencies, funding, work, scheduling, maintenance, weather, or any number of other things might intervene to delay training and delays tend to cause repeat training. One step forward, one or two back. When I did my solo, I was in high school and bicycling 30 miles each way to the airport, and solo was a year in the making. Private another year.

If I were to receive a student who told me he was ready to solo, I wouldn't simply sign him off and send him into the air. I'd evaluate him myself, apply any training I deemed appropriate, and by mutual agreement, solo him. A student who has several instructors might repeat this process.

It's not really appropriate, without having flown with a student and with scant detail, to make a determination that the student isn't fit to fly, based on the number of hours he might have. I've had students who soloed quickly and hammered out their certification in the minimum 40 hours; my first student was done in 40.5 hours, passed with flying colors. Others took longer, or wanted more time. I never pushed anyone, nor insisted that they meet an hour-based deadline. I've even had students who held pilot certification, but who didn't feel comfortable doing this or that, who insisted that an instructor go with them all the time. I had no issue with that. A safe call on their part. Some might say overly conservative, but they were fine, and knew their limitations and drew a line well inside of them. Personal choice.

I have had students who seemed to not get it, who struggled, and in a couple of cases, I determined that I couldn't move them any further toward their goal. I asked another instructor to fly with them, and they progressed. The student continued and did well with that instructor. Because teaching is all about the student, placing the students interests first and foremost should be the norm, but it isn't always the case. If a student hasn't soloed by 50 hours, I'd be interested in meeting them, flying with them, and seeing what needed doing; it's true that not everyone is cut out for flying, but in several decades, I think there have been few enough I could describe that way that I could count them on one hand. One student had 100+ hours; he was in his seventies, and he wasn't progressing, but he didn't want to stop, and so long as he wanted to keep going up, and so long as he understood our assessment, I had no problem continuing. He understood he wasn't going to solo or certify, but he enjoyed the flying, and that was fine. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a student based on hours; I'd much rather fly with that student, spend time talking with that student, and make a determination that way. Hours don't mean squat.

 

Well said.

I know quite a few students that all soloed and got PPL at different hours only to all end up with CPL and roughly the same amount of hours.