Any CFI's out there utilize FITS in their training?? What are your opinions of it use??

Yeah, I teach it for Private, Instrument, and Commercial.

It is beneficial for the motivated student, but for students that don't have a strong desire to fly, it often ends up taking more time than in Part 61 syllabi.

The whole scenario based idea kind of goes out the window, some scenarios get used but sometimes making them up is pointless for the flight. The application of FITS in Commerical is much better than that of Private and Instrument because we can simulate actual commercial operations.

I forgot what it means, If it I remember right it means that the FAA IS THE SHIZIT. but you get the idea of how much I use it. I do agree that it's good to give good scenarios to students.

While I agree scenario's are good, I think the whole FITS concept is a load of crap. It works out well for those going into the TAA aircraft that have all the gee-whiz avionics and panels, whom will use the Auto-pilot 99% of the time after they get their license, etc... but for the rest of the world, I really think it hinders real-world experience in manuevering the aircraft, and truly knowing it's capabilities, as well as the students. But as Woodfinx mentioned, and I agree, that commercial applicants can most benefit from this type of teaching, and honestly probably should be the only ones that get this type of teaching.

This also fits in with the change in progression. Used to be everyone trained in C150/152's, cherokee 140's, cubs, etc... Now we're not only going to the TAA's in new and traditional aircraft, these people aren't taking the baby-step approach to new planes, hence moving 172/182/arrow to something more complex, straight to 180KTAS planes that move faster than their brains.

Just my opinion, I need to get off this soapbox.

I don't necessarily believe that at all, it depends on the student. I did Private/Instrument combined FITS with most of my time in a Diamond DA-40 G1000 but I can fly round dials no problem, I actually prefer them. Partial panel in the G1000 usually entails losing your PFD and having to fly with the MFD and the backup Altimeter, Attitude, and Airspeed gauges, much worse than anything I was given while flying round dials.

As for the FITS approach as a whole, we are maintaining the 80% required to keep our 141 certificate and on average students are finishing in less time than Part 61 and our old 141 syllabus. Most people complain about lack of experience but in all honesty despite the time, its the same ticket, same ride that everyone takes.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. There are some things folks need to see, and I feel the FITS approach doesn't give those opportunities. Even with identical programs, in the end it's even moreso controlled by what the instructors capabilities and comfort levels are.

But then you have to weigh how much experience you really get from doing multiple 1 hour maneuver and landing practice flights to meet your time requirements.

My basic lesson usually was about 1.3-1.6 flights, with a full gamet of T/o's and landings, manuevers, different airports, navigation, etc.. I taught both at a college, and at a strict part 61 for folks that only had intentions of getting their private license. Average time to check-ride competency was around 65hrs for most of my students, and I had 100% pass-rate on 11 sign-offs(9-private, 2 instrument at that FBO, plus about 2-3 others almost ready when I left). Honestly I had several that did extra hours just to build their confidence, which is never a bad thing, I loved the initiative that several of my students posessed.

Honestly, an any of the programs I've taught in, or observed, rarely is any student 'ready' at 40 hours. At the college program, they planned it at 50, and it was very structured.

We can agree to disagree

For primary students, I wasn't a fan. You have to crawl before you can walk and the fundamentals are just that.

For instrument and commercial, I liked it. I think it was very practical because you could add a real-world situation to the lesson. However, isn't that what we should be doing every day as instructors?

The private/instrument syllabus was a trainwreck. You should know that. It just doesn't work out that well. It skips the entire principle of building blocks. I hated it. With a passion.

The commercial is great. Although, looking back, I don't think that most of us instructors really understood the 135 thing at all. At least not the peripheral stuff you have to do. How could we? None of the original guys who taught it had worked anywhere but MTSU. Since I do 135 charter now, I know I'd really be able to show a student what that demands.

I will tell you this, partial panel in a G1000 is a joke. Unless the system has a catastrophic failure, there is hardly any difference in the way you fly. Might not be able to use the autopilot, but that's no loss if you have the handflying skills. If it does have a catastrophic failure (like loss of both screens) you can only hope to find VMC and stay there anyhow.