Would people pay more to train with an expert?

[DennisK]

Following on from the 'New instructors - getting that 1st job' thread, here's another aspect to mull over.


In semi retirement, I'm getting into the golf scene. Want to know about golf instructors ... My local young lady professional charges me £18 for thirty minutes one to one instruction.

However, if I were to pop across to Florida to take instruction from the guy who taught, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo and Nick Price, ie David Leadbetter, I'd better be prepared to fork out his standard fee of $10,000 per one day lesson ... and he's fully booked for three months.

So why are we 'crusty old farts' with ten thousand hours instruction time, working for fifty quid an hour?

Just as a conversation starter and best wishes to all the other COFs.

We were 300 hour youngsters once. Just keep your heads down lads and best wishes in getting that first job. I'll be leaving one vacancy quite soon.

Dennis Kenyon.



Split from another thread.
My title, not DennisK's.
Heliport

[B Sousa]

Go for the Golf Lessons, you get good, you will make more money, buy a Helicopter and get some moron to fly it for you. He can take care of his own ex-wives, mobile home, pickup truck and dog named Boo.

[ToTall]

DennisK: What about this; I give u golflessons and u help me with flying :}
I am good at golf, or at least that what my pro says :-)

[B Sousa]

If your in SA now, get Simon Hobday to give you a few lessons. He can probably outplay you at Golf and no doubt outdrink you with Castles.
he was a hoot while on tour.

[DennisK]

A dog named Boo ... now your'e talking. Where do I sign?

Dennis K

[ToTall]

B Sousa: Where in SA is he? I am on Oregon for the moment on a J1 visa :-)
Flying the 300CB but did my privat on a R44.

DennisK: just let me know when and where and I will grab my sponserd clubs and join u :-)

[Flying Lawyer]

DennisK So why are we 'crusty old farts' with ten thousand hours instruction time, working for fifty quid an hour?
Have you tried charging (say) £100 an hour?

The starting-point is demand and supply. If demand exceeds supply, prices go up. If supply exceeds demand, prices go down. (There are variable factors, obviously.)

So, do you measure demand by demand for FI's generally, or by demand for an FI with something special to offer. (Actual demand, or potential demand with proper marketing.)

If there is demand for a well-known FI's services, he (broadly) has 2 options:
charge the average FI rate and sell more lessons than the average FI;
charge more than the average rate, pitching his fees at a level which keeps him as busy as he wants to be but not so high that there isn't enough demand.

There seems to be little if any difference between the rate for relatively low hours FIs and the rate for FIs with ten thousand hours instruction time and excellent reputations. There could be, and arguably should be.
In the sports world, the more experienced the coach, the higher the charge.
Ladies tell me prices even increase in hairdressing salons depending upon the status of the shampoo artist. (But Ramone/Jason/Nicky is, of course, worth every penny he charges. :rolleyes: )

There are some names with constantly come up in this forum and elsewhere when people ask for recommendations - sometimes for beginners, more often for CPL, IR and FI instructors. eg In the UK, yourself at Shoreham, Mike Smith at HeliAir, Leon Smith and Mike Green at Helicopter Services, Al Gwilt for Gazelle conversions etc
Do top FI's charge more than the average? I doubt it.
Is it because they know people wouldn't, or couldn't afford to, pay the extra, or because they haven't tried?

Do the 'crusty old farts' with thousands of instruction hours do enough to market themselves as being worth more than newbie FIs? I don't think so.
Beginners might not know the 'big names' - but they would with marketing.

Would beginners be prepared to pay more for DennisK and other FIs in his league to teach them?
I don't know. Some would (I would); others might think it's not worth it at the basic stage - wrongly IMHO.
David Leadbetter's standard fee of $10,000 per one day lesson ... and he's fully booked for three months. Is David Leadbetter teaching beginners, or coaching already experienced players who want to improve and are willing (and able) to pay for a top coach to teach them?
I'm not suggesting any FI could charge those stratospheric fees because I don't think there would be the demand, but I suspect there'd be people prepared to pay way over the average FI rate for a 'big name' to perfect or advance their handling skills.
eg

FI, qualified 2 yrs, 400 hrs total, 200 hrs instruction @ £40 pr hr.

FI, qualified 30+ yrs, 13000 hrs total, 10000 hrs instruction, former World Freestyle Aerobatic Champion @ £100 pr hr.

or instead, go for a different market ....

CV as above: Master Classes (licenced pilots only) @ £250 pr hr.


Just some random thoughts in response to an interesting question.


FL

[scooter boy]

Dennis,
I am certain that you are well known enough to charge what you see as a fair price for your time.
Reputation is paramount in most professions and the gravitas that tens of thousands of hours of experience carries is something that I am sure there is a market for.

Only one way to find out...

SB

[Heliport]

I've deleted a post about FI's earnings/conditions in general.
We have lots of threads on whether FI's in general are underpaid or fairly paid, whether they should be salaried, t's & c's etc.



This thread is about a specific topic:


Top FIs with many thousands of hours training experience.

Should they charge significantly more than relatively low hours FIs?
Would people pay a premium for instruction from top FI's as they do in other fields?
Is there a market for Master Classes of the sort mentioned?

[Tailboom]

I totally agree with Flying Lawyer I for one would have paid more for being taught by a FI with more experience ( hope my FI isnt reading this ) my rate for instruction is £100.00 an hour or £450 for a daily rate which I think is reasonable. I asked a student I was teaching recently what he charged out in his profesion as a daily rate and he replied £650.00, its all down to your experience and reputation I suppose.

There are so many instructors out there that havn't been past the confines of the airport that they teach from, if you wanted more experience for flying a Hughes 300 / Enstrom then who better to fly with than Dennisk or a simular experienced instructor like Mike Smith they are definately worth more per hour !!

[DennisK]

Thanks for your notes 'Scooter Boy' ... I find this thread intriguing.

Ditto your experience, late last year, I completed a PPL(H) for an overseas client ... his daily fee was around £750 and he wasn't a golf professional!

One of the regular contributors you will see almost daily on our PP forum - has a fee of £1500 and for my pennorth, the man is worth every cent in the right circumstances.

So ... as has been suggested, it is up to we 'Crusty old Farts' to endeavour to crank up our fees, ie to try out the market. I'll investigate and report back for the other COFs.

Can I mention, that every minute I am in the training mode, I'd like to think my pilot is getting some high quality training based on my knowledge and experience.

My records show, that given a suitable student pilot, I seldom needed more than the 45 hour requirement to produce a 'skills test' candidate who had been taken the 'exta mile' to guarantee his/her pass. But for me that does assume an Enstrom/Schweizer trainer ... although I know the other experienced FIs on different marques do exactly the same .

Over to the forum please.

Dennis K

[Needlesplit]

Dennis et al,.

As has been mentioned above the key to this is marketing. I also think the marketplace is qualified ppl(h) pilots. I would suggest you devise an 'Advanced flying' course with your own certificate at the end of it.

Marketed in the right way and place you could charge considerably more than a standard hourly rate. If you want more info/help PM me it would be a very interesting project to work on.

Regards
N/S:ok:

[paco]

Needlesplit - I've just done a safety column for a well-known magazine in which I suggest that we need the equivalent of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, with people like Dennis on board.

For non-UK people, it's an organisation that grants an advanced driving test, in which you are examined by a volunteer class 1 police driver. After passing it, and getting the benefit of the examiner's experience, you get preferential insurance rates and better standing in court! :)

Phil

[B Sousa]

Neither Instructors nor Pilots appear to be financially rewarded for experience.
The only thing I have been able to see is that with experience most can go from job to job with less problem.
Some who have used this experience to move into either twins or larger and have reached the top as ATPs do obviously garner a bit more. Just compare Apples and Oranges with other jobs and their requirements and you will find at the back end that although it may be fun and sometimes personally rewarding, your not going to retire rich, if you are able to retire at all.

[Rushes]

An increased rate SHOULD come with experience, I would admit that their are some more deserved cases than others, but the point still stands. I agree with Dennisk and would be interested to hear results from fishing for a higher rate.

There seem to be many people that go to a flying school, all want the most experienced instructor, but for the same price!

But competetive markets are what they are. :ugh:



Rushes

[The Ferret]

There seem to be many people that go to a flying school, all want the most experienced instructor, but for the same price!
Rushes - you make a very valid point and one that needs to be taken into account when the market research is conducted into Dennis's question!
As far as Advanced Courses go, I know of a PPL(H) holder who recently flew in the S300 with an ex military FI and after witnessing some of the more advanced maneouvres - Dennis knows what I mean! - not generally seen in the PPL(H) syllabus (or even at CPL(H) level probably) expressed the need for a course based on advanced flying techniques - he said he would pay for it! He did not, however, say how much he would pay for it - but if it needs an experienced instructor to teach it then the cost should be appropriate.
The Ferret :cool: :cool: :cool:

[ShyTorque]

How does one define "expert" in this context?

[Whirlygig]

How does one define "expert" in this context?

Someone who used to be a pert? :uhoh:

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

Isn't that what droop stops are for? :(

[Up & Away]

Yes! Yes!!

Listen to the gripes from clients who have not been happy with some established 'schools'. Offer a service that is, I quote, "a thousand times better" and you can charge a higher daily/hourly rate.

I offer an extreme example maybe but my last student would have rather paid my prices from the start than have his last instructor's lack of experience actually 'crash' his helicopter within 8hours of the course.

ps.Come on Dennis are you saying you have only charged 50 quid an hour??

[Needlesplit]

At the risk of taking this debate in a different direction, that of who should have what knowledge, surely the original theme here was the remuneration for FI.s not the wisdom of flying training.

It could easily be argued that small light helicopters are difficult to fly well and have so many considerations that, say, fixed wing pilots dont have that the public should not be allowed near them at all! (Not a popular, or my, view methinks! Especially here on PPrune but we do live in a terrible Nanny state!)

Alternatively it could equally be argued that once qualified a PPL is generally left to their own devices and, just like the Advanced Drivers course, an Advanced flying course would be valuable and worthwhile contribution to flight safety.

As for trying out their new found skills, if properly taught and understood (as decided by the highly experienced and highly expensive FI.s) why shouldnt they use them?? Its like saying to a newly minted PPL "Well done but for goodness sake put the Heli back in the hangar now you're on your own - they're dangerous you know!"

Dont forget the RAF teach teenagers how to do aerobatics and fly around at Warp Factor Snot when they are often not in possession of a driving licence for a mini.

Surely, it all depends on the training!....... and that brings us back to where we started.

On a marketing note: It is clear from almost all industries on the planet that people will pay more (lots more) for a greater perceived value but it needs presenting in the appropriate manner, as I said in an earlier post it would be an interesting project to work on.

Incidentally, anyone who needs convincing that people pay well in excess of value consider these:

Hagendaz: Its just ice cream!!:ugh:

Perfume of all types: Its just scented water worth points of pennies!:rolleyes:

Pharmaceutical drugs: Worth pennies sell for thousands of pounds and most of them dont even work!!!:= :E

Regards to all

N/S :ok:

[levo]

Interesting

If you get a good instructor he /she is worth more than you can afford
A high time realy experienced instructor is a profesional person ie skilled
so there pay should reflect the quality of there performance
Unfortunatly i think there may be a lot of instructers who are under paid
becouse if you get one of the top ones he / she will save your life by teaching you all the little tricks of piloting these are usually high time pilots . the trouble is a new pilot instructure is desperate for a job so he takes a low wage so dear old instructor has to also take poor pay.

Unfortunatly this is the way of the world .

P.S. I have been taught by what i consider one of the best instructers and i think he was worth Every Pound i paid him. Good old (G.)

[DennisK]

Thanks 'Needlesplit' for the sage words ... all agreed but how/who/where is the medium to promote our cause.

This won't be the first time I have looked at the principle of charging significantly more for a significantly better service.

I started Skyline Helicopters at Wycombe in 1982 ... brand new, purpose built premises, rosewood desks for all staff, fresh newspapers and flowers for the customers every day. And the most qualified and experienced staff around at the time, (including that great man, Tony Clarke as CFI) I copied the USA system with glossy hangar floors, nicely overalled engineers and a 'personal' service. I charged some 25% more than the industry standard.

Result, I lost £50k the first quarter, so I dropped the charge out rates to the standard and instantly moved into profit.

Even now I'm not sure where the lesson was ... I just know I have never been unable to work out how to get the extra income for a better service.

And I'm not punting specifically for we older guys ... I know that right across the industry we should be charging a lot more than we do.

I took the Jag into a new servicing company a while back. I was greeted by the PR guy who showed me around, pointed out the facilities, (which were fairly normal) talked me through the reception procedure, the potted music, the plastic flowers in the showroom and the constant coffee, and casually mentioned it was "all available for only £100 an hour (plus VAT) with certified payment before I drove the car away."

Is there a lesson for me there?

PS. In semi retirement, I do charge fifty quid an hour for my past clients, but £75 is about the most I can get accepted generally.

More from you guys please.

Dennis K

[levo]

Dennis

Don,t undersell your self there are lots of people out there who would love to have advanced training with you and would be quite happy to pay for it

Once they realise what they are getting compared to a low time FI and its all the little extras that make it worth it

I traveled 60 miles to pick up my Fi feed him watered him praised him had him all day and then drove him home and tucked him in bed .There is only one reason for this the quality of the instructor so if you are a student look for them high time FIs you will come on a lot faster and be a lot better Pilot
Maybe there should be a hall of fame for old time FIs

Who taught you.

[kissmysquirrel]

DennisK, please don't think you couldn't get more per hour than you do. I think the problem in the past was maybe the helicopter industry wasn't as 'well utilised' as it is now. I think many people would be prepared to pay more for a better service. There is a northern based instructor who, for 'cpl training' charges more than £80/hr plus vat. That was the rate a couple of years ago so it must be much more by now.

I also have to mention that some low time instructors are very professional and along with that, very knowledgable, keen, and love what they do. A student couldn't tell what their experience was, and maybe some high time guys wouldn't tell either. The more hours you have doesn't necessarily mean you're a better instructor.
It's an industry where reputation is important. People like DK, MG, PS etc are well known and even booking their time isn't easy sometimes.

My suggestion to those who want more money, who have a well earned reputation, say to the customer, 'look, this is my daily rate £xxx. Take it or leave it'
You get what you pay for. Always remember the saying, "buy cheap. buy twice".

:ok:

[Whirlygig]

It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little.
When you pay too much, you lose a little money -
that's all.
When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because
the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add
something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to
pay for something better.

John Ruskin


Cheers



Whirls

[The Ferret]

Levo - leaving cost aside for the moment, what things would you like to see in an Advanced Training Course from Dennis or indeed any other suitably experienced and qualified FI?:ugh:

F
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[rotorspeed]

Knowing and highly respecting Dennis I had a quick look at this thread.

As FL essentially says, in an open market, market forces determine the rates any of us can get doing what we do. Marketing one's FI expertise better will undoubtedly generate higher rates, but how much higher? Enough to more than cover the cost of that marketing? Only trying it will tell.

I think a fundamental problem in comparing golf with flying is that in flying, like driving, one tends to have lessons to achieve the competence to obtain a specific licence, be it PPL, CPL, IR etc. In golf there is no licence (presumably - I barely play!), but commonly a continual desire to improve one's rating (handicap) for reasons of self-satisfaction and pride. Hence the desire to (a) have ongoing lessons, and (b) as effective ones as possible.

How many helicopter pilots pay to have lessons simply to improve their abilities, without it being a route towards obtaining a further licence? Few, I suspect. Now if an equivalent to a golf handicap system existed upon which pilots could measure themselves it would be a different matter! In fact, maybe Dennis you could create it - and fuel your own market!

[moosp]

I for one would pay extra for a more experienced instructor. Or possibly an instructor with "less" experience, say 1000 hours who has been examined to a higher standard, such an ATPL holder.

The hairdressing comparison is interesting. I think most new prospective pilots would understand if on their first visit to a school they were given a price schedule that went along the lines of:

Junior Instructor......30 $units
Senior Instructor.....50 $units
Chief Pilot..............80 $units

where $units is your local currency. The market would decide if in your area people were prepared to pay for the quality, or just the licence. Trainees might chose a more experienced instructor for certain excercises (such as autos?)

In a way trainees already pay more to travel a further distance to a school they prefer, so the principle holds.

Certainly as I have gained more experience, I look for a more experienced instructor who can give me added value. I am even considering travelling half way across the world for a short course with a man who has been recommended. I consider that the instruction will be worth the journey and his extra cost.

Pay for experience also might keep junior instructors in the job if they can see a financial progression. Too many leave for better pay when under a different promotion structure they might be persuaded to stay.

The more you think about it, the more you wonder why it has not been tried before. Or has it?

[toolguy]

Guys,

I feel that the system of having low time FI pilots train new pilots is going to cause real problems in the next year or two. As the supply of experienced instructor pilots dwindles, we will have generations of pilots trained by generations of other low time pilots in a short period of time. The potential for fundamental training errors will go up and we will probably see a spike in training accidents.

I am an advocate of a more realistic approach to training professional pilots. After receiving your CPL, with about 200 hours under your belt, you can work as a paid co-pilot, as lon as you fly with an ATP with an Instructors Rating, offshore, ems, vip, whatever. There is no substitute for experience, and the best way to get it is under the supervision of an experienced pilot in a professional environment. Medical Technicians, Cops, and mechanical trades all use this approach, and I don't know of any other profession where you start your career as an instructor teachning other new students.


:}

[hihover]

Very interesting thread!

Newly trained pilots becoming instructors has been around for years, the RAF were "creaming off" pilots as far back as I remember and so it continues to this day. The thrust behind this is quite simply economics in the military environment and in the commercial environment. A relatively new slant in the commercial environment is that this is now a recognised route for low-time pilots to build hours.

A 250 hour instructor teaching a basic (PPL) syllabus, under good supervision, should be able to cover the syllabus adequately. At that point, I am not conviced that a mega-instructor would be able to achieve any more nor am I conviced that the PPL candidate would perform any better having paid a higher price for "better" instruction.

Post basic training is where I believe the pilot blossoms. I think there are two distinct breeds here too....the pilot who is on a commercial course and will be seeking employment which I would hope involves a supervised progression in whatever job he takes. And then there is the PPL who has another career and just wants to be a PPL - I think this is the guy who would benefit from a short course given to him by a highly qualified/experienced expert with a good reputation.

I have to go....more to follow.

Tam Macklin

[ShyTorque]

Hihover,
The RAF did use "Creamie" QFIs but didn't do the same for QHIs, as far as I know (I was a QHI and latterly a QFI).

I was sent almost kicking and screaming to CFS(H) as a second tourist after four years squadron service with just 1400 hours. I felt extremely vulnerable because I knew there was so much I didn't know about helicopters (still don't after another 7,000 or so).

The reasoning behind the introduction of "creaming off", according to what I was always told during my 18 years worth, wasn't for financial reasons. It was actually to introduce some "young blood" to the FW training system. For many years, the core of CFS and the BFTS and AFTS staff(s) consisted of very experienced pilots. The "Creamie" QFI was very much in the minority, at least in the 1970s until the 1990s.

It may have changed now of course.

[md 600 driver]

Dennis
i would pay you anytime
steve

[diethelm]

You want walmart pricing, you get walmart quality.........but the again, walmart is the largest retailer......

This question can easily be expanded to ask whether or not we should also be using larger more expensive aircraft? Would turbine aircraft provide lower risk than small piston rotorcraft? Can you learn to hover more quickly in a 500 versus a R22? Sure but at what cost and what benefit relative to the cost.

The other natural quesiton is in basic training, can a high time instructor add value equal to the incremental cost than a low time instructor when teaching basic skills? Put another way, can an instructor at 2x fee teach you how to meet the practical skills twice as fast? (Technically, if the instructing fee is 20% of the total cost of training, if the fee was doubled they would only have to teach a skill in 4 hours that took a low time instructor 5 hours to be economically efficient. This naturally excludes ground school.)

Clearly in advanced training and training on type, high time and more experienced instructors will and can add more value. If you want to pay up, why not pay up and use test flight pilots as instructors who can really impart the wisdom?

At the end of the day, the system of using freshly minted CFI's to do basic training and build hours appears to meet the markets needs and the risk profile that the insurance companies watch very closely. Like everything it is about money.

Now there is a market for higher prices and higher skill levels and those that have them can clearly market them. My insurance requires it and even if it did not, I would pay up for them because they are worth it. But not everyone is in that position and we all do the best we can with the money we have.

[Whirlygig]

Perhaps one could also consider the caché of being trained by a top, well-known instructor; a bit like having an Oxbridge degree! ;)

Cheers

Whirls

[DennisK]

I see the thread is moving on to the area of 'advanced manoeuvres' and training, and here I can provide some further detail.

I am often asked to offer, 'aerobatic training' and IF I felt it could be done legally and safely, I'd want to do that. But there are difficulties ... the number one being that all flight manuals expressly prohibit 'aerobatic manoeuvres. I have always used the wording, display flying manoeuvres.

As a CAA approved DAE, I raised the matter last November at the yearly DAE meeting, albeit mainly with reference to the CAA's DA wording on the licence. Informally, Rob Metcalfe advised that if I would produce a 'display flying training syllabus - they might be able to 'agree' it. But not actually offer an 'approval' Generally the CAA position is that an 'aerobatic' manoeuvre is where the roll angle exceeds 90 degrees and 60 degrees in pitch. I would certainly offer such dual flying, but the next consideration is having an owner's permission for such manoeuvres. Also there is the matter of the insurance situation which has to be properly agreed.

I'd dearly like to see some suitably experienced and motivated youngsters take up the display flying, especially as I am on my home stretch! I've mentioned here before I want to see a nicely sponsored 'duo' heli display team arrive.

I'd produce the necessary display flying syllabus IF a fee of say £100 an hour was acceptable. I have approved half a dozen DAs but to date they have only been issued based on the pilot's own declared display routine.

As it would be a new field, I suppose the format would be a twenty hour course covering the established display manoeuvres which would be completed with a DA licence issue. Comments wanted on this aspect.

I appreciate, I have strayed from the original FI thread, but am really sounding out the industry for feedback.

Just to answer an earlier question ... as an ex RAF 'fast jet' guy, I entered the civil heli sales area in 1970 and was converted to the joys of rotary flying by that wonderful Northerner, Bill Bailey Senior ... and it is to Bill that I owe more than 30 wonderful years in heli aviation. Thanks Bill.

Dennis Kenyon.

[hihover]

Shy..

You are probably bang on with your points, I simply used the RAF creamies to highlight the point that brand new pilots immediately becoming instructors is not new.

I have a couple of thoughts on advanced training:

Who determines that someone is a worthwhile "expert" instructor? We cannot leave that up to individuals or to the schools themselves, we would be inundated with self-confessed experts selling advanced training. I believe word of mouth in this tight-knit environment would do the job well. A few stars have already been mentioned on this website and I know there are several others out there.

What manoeuvres would you expect to cover in an "Advanced Flying Course" The moment "advanced manoeuvring" is mentioned, aerobatics spring to mind and have already been discussed on this thread. Aerobatics are the furthest things from my mind when I consider advanced training. It has to be challenging and exciting, something different that stretches skills already posessed to a significantly higher standard as well as introducing new techniques/skills. The sort of thing I'd like to see in an advanced syllabus might be:

"Gate" Approaches
Low Level Engine off landings
Pinpoint accurate PFLs to a track junction for example, rather than to somewhere in Shropshire.
Precision hovering
Slinging loads
Mountain Flying
Yes OK, some mild display manoeuvres, wingovers or similar but much more than that needs to be left to the very few who have the time, inclination, money and ball$ to become proficient in helicopter aerobatics/displays.

Any exercise that is not covered as a normal part of the PPL course and expands on a pilot's basic skills could be included.

[mylesdw]

HiHover: I like your questions and I think, as you say, that the the first is difficult to quantify. Your list of sylabus items sounds good too.

When I was learning I had a young low hours instructor and although he was very good I always got the vague feeling that he objected to me trying to kill him! A few times I flew with one of the senior pilots from the school and it was great fun; among other things I remember doing:


Low hover operations at low RRPM.
Really flying into cloud and getting back out again.
Landing without using the pedals.
Much more sloping site work.
Going deeper into vortex ring
More work at 'furthest range' autos

[Rushes]

Hihover: I think you make some great suggestions in your list :ok: , my focus would be on the practical manoeuvres and techniques that may one day put you in a better position to keep the machine upright when all around you goes wrong!..... rather than aerobatic manoeuvres that may put you in that situation as you try to show your friends what you can do, but maybe you were not quite as far ahead of the curve as you thought you were!

Mylesdw: I'm afraid (and no offence mean't to you or your instructor), but I struggle to see why one would need to practise going further into vortex ring... surely its about understanding, recognising and avoiding/recovering early!
Though your suggestions to work on Autos, Pedal, T/R problems would be along the right lines IMHO, again they are techniques that one would hopefully be able to pull out of the bag if need be.


Rgds

Rushes

[DennisK]

Back again chaps with a few more pennorth ....

And I love the way this thread is homing in on the training essentials, that I would call 'advanced flying' and I aplogise for initially tracking away to the display manoeuvres aspect.

Our 'Controller' has the desired exercises for a syllabus nicely summed up ... I can tell this 'cos the hairs on the back of my neck lift a little at the thought of low level 'autos' and prolonged Vortex Ring.

In my view ... all the required specific exercises are in the Controller's list, but like him, I'm not sure about the requested 'gate' approaches.

This thread is boiling down to pulling together what so many of we COFs (see earlier thread) are already teaching on a 'piecemeal' basis, ie when the trainee pilot starts to ask the right questions and the extra cost can be accepted.

Subject to the availability of hours on the PPL(H) course, I usually include an hour or so of T/R failures, (I've had three !) which I teach with the trainee pilot's feet planted firmly on the cabin floor and the approach and landing is carried out using the standard lever/throttle combination. I also include the many varieties of forced landing techniques to a pinpoint landing site and ditto the EOLs. (I've had none!)

So are we all now saying, one of the COFs, (not me) might be formally asked to produce 'An advanced flying training syllabus' - which will include the Controller's list plus the other items also mentioned on the thread. This to be formally submitted to the Authority for 'approval' and such approval given to suitably qualified FIs.

Apart from the availability of an 'advanced level' of training for our newer pilots and the higher standard of piloting skills that it will produce, this further course will allow the higher instructor fees to be charged.

So a final question for our 'newer' pilots. (no COF replies please!) What hourly instructor charge would you accept for say ... a five hour course covering the above mentioned CAA approved advanced training exercises?

Now that is a $64,000 question.

Thanks for all the input lads.

Dennis Kenyon.

PS And thanks 'whirls' for the Ruskin item ... absolutely classic and how relevant!

[puntosaurus]

Dennis, you are one of a handful of pilots in this country who have carved out a reputation outside your immediate circle. Why on earth would you need or want CAA approval to have people learn at your feet, or official sanction to charge more than the 'going rate' ? Once the proposals have been through the Belgrano, all the fun and useful content will have gone out of it.

Put up a good website, charge whatever you can get away with (at least £100ph), and teach whatever you think is appropriate. The best model for this sort of thing that I know of is on the fixed wing side, where you can learn formation aerobatics (http://www.ultimatehigh.co.uk/) in an Extra 300 with an ex Red Arrows pilot. Now how cool is that !

[hihover]

Controller -

I agree with most of your advanced training manoeuvres, all good stuff but I do cringe at the thought of practicing stuck controls. Not certain I would be comfortable to include those.

A "Gate" Approach is probably what most of us do sub-consciously. It simply takes the new pilot away from flying a circuit every time he wants to land somewhere.

Provided the landing site recce is satisfactory (and this can be done as part of the manoeuvre), the pilot would enter his final approach through an imaginary gate downwind of the landing point and at about 300 ft off the ground. As the aircraft comes through the gate, ROD should be under control and less than 300fpm, airspeed should be reducing through 30 kts and the aircraft should be within 30 deg of the into wind heading.

Entry into the gate can be made from any direction downwind of the gate so we end up with a kind of funnel shape with the tip of the funnel on the landing point and the helicopter able to approach under the parameters above.

These are simply guidelines, they are not approach parameters written in any rule book. It is a very simple exercise.

I am very pleased to see that we are getting away from display flying manoeuvres when talking about advanced flying. Someone mentioned Advanced Vortex Ring.......fffffffforget it.

[Rushes]

I hate to suggest this, but it appears to me, and happily so, that we are looking at taking the more interesting parts of the JAA and FAA syllabi and molding them together..... well of a fashion!

Stuck controls seems more practised in the UK
Pinnacles and Confined areas more so in the US
Autos (Fan Stops) on certain phases of the circuit, more UK i think
Low RRPM recovery more so (on the R22) in the US, due to SFAR #73

I certainley think that having the ability to maneouvre an aircraft and milk its RRPM to achieve a particular landing site accuratley is a very important skill to achieve.... i wish i could! :eek:

I know there are many to add to the list.

It is also important not to understate the impact that good Ground Instruction and Mentoring have to play in the saftey of a pilot. Learn from someone with the right attitude towards CRM, Decision making, and all those other buzz words and one day it'll be just as important as your handling skills and pay dividends...... I'm sure we've all been there!!


Rgds


Rushes :ok:

[moosp]

Another one from the coal face which relates to this thread.

Today I spoke with one of the training/test pilots of one of the major helicopter manufacturers. I told him that I was going to travel to Australia to do some refresher and emergency type training on his manufacturer's turbine single. He said, "Why do you not fly with us, we can offer a full day refresher training, ground school and 1.5 in the air for x$. Is price your problem?"

True, the manufacturers refresher costs more than a flight school in Aus. (A school that I am very satisfied with.) But it did make me think, would I get better value for money by paying more and having a flight test pilot teach me, or would a very good instructor at a good school be sufficient?

I fly often with private pilots who do not consider cost anywhere in their decisions on flying. They want the best, and they will pay for it. They do their PPL on an R44 (like Frank wants) or a turbine. I truly believe that there is a developing market for both ab-intio "boutique" schools for those that have the money and want to say (viz Whirly) " been to Oxbridge" and advanced training from famous instructors.

Come on guys, what would you pay for an hour with Nick Lappos?

[ShyTorque]

An hour of what?......... he's just a fixed wing pilot, I heard. ;)

Anyway, I certainly don't want him showing me his stick displacement. :bored:

Only joking, only joking, I think there would be a queue...... at almost any price :ok:

[mylesdw]

Rushes: Fair comment. The vortex ring thing was because I said that I had not really felt much difference when my instructor first demonstrated it to me. I wanted to know what it felt like, rather than just watching the VSI. I realise with VR it is more about avoiding the situation in the first place but it would be nice to think that one could recognise the symptoms early.

[The Ferret]

This thread is developing nicely!
I am not going to include Mountain Flying and Underslung Load training here because these courses exist already but here is an initial stab at my list for a Helicopter Advanced Course:
:rolleyes: Advanced Autorotative PFLs to very specific points.
:rolleyes: Simulated engine failures to the ground just outside the HV Curve - say from a high OGE hover.
:rolleyes: Deeper into the incipient Vortex Ring State (sorry HiHover it's a good insight!)
:rolleyes: Formation flying.
:rolleyes: Some Display Maneouvres such as wingovers.
:rolleyes: Low level flying including EOLs.
:rolleyes: Stuck Pedal and Tail Rotor Failure techniques.
F
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Sulley]

I think it could work,but probably only if it was a compulsary aspect of the PPL course,that the last x number of hours should be with an instructor of a certain level of experience.
Otherwise it just comes down to cost,and for a new pilot the advantage of having that level of experience at hand could be lost.The rate at which the bank account was being drained,however,would be very evident.

[Heliport]

i agree that this 'advanced teaching' would be lost on most PPL students.

I think Sulley means the advantage of having that level of experience at hand would be lost to most PPL students if it wasn't compulsory - because the additional cost would deter them from doing it it if it was voluntary.

[hihover]

I won't get into the discussion about should we or shouldn't we include "Deeper into the incipient vortex ring" I prefer never to allow the hint of vortex ring through awareness and control of airspeed and ROD. However, if anyone feels it is beneficial rather than just exciting then I would certainly listen to their reasoning.

The Controller makes a very good point, very few PPLs are frequent flyers.

There must be some mileage in tailoring a course to suit individual needs, eg. a course that combines many of the exercises already mentioned but focusses on some rather than others based on the individual's outlook and local environment. In the end, the client is paying and if he wants to do 5 hours of PFLs and EOLs then I'd be quite happy to oblige, rather than give him a standard advanced syllabus containing exercises in which he is uninterested. Having said that, one aim of the course should be IMHO to broaden horizons.

So, who would benefit most from such a course?

I am sure there are several groups of rotary pilots who would benefit immensely, however, those that spring to mind immediately:

The infrequent flyer: The pilot who has not flown more than a few hours in the years since PPL.

The self-improver: The pilot who is taking the modular route to commercial qualification, most likely building hours without supervision or guidance and could do with a quality refresher.

The helicopter owner: Again, flies without supervision or guidance and could do with a quality refresher every now and again.

Who else?? Other than the obvious answer of....Everyone!

I would certainly be prepared to approach insurance companies with a suggested syllabus to try to lower premiums based on the effort the individual owner would be making to improve their flying skills - that has a value.

[Up & Away]

To establish any advaced course beyond PPL will make sure the new pilot is aware from the start that there is always more to learn.
The Examiner on annual check has the opportunity to earn his money by not only checking the basics but teaching or demonstating etc to clients request...I try to.
Sadly I tried the Insurance companies about five years ago ..with proof that the better training from specific instructors reduced the risks..yes good idea I was told but not a hope of getting it accepted.

[hihover]

5 years ago was still quite close to 9/11 and insurance companies were being very hard-nosed. I have seen a change in their attitudes and there is apparently more competition on the way, this may make it worth approaching them again.

I am in the process of having my own insurance reduced for good behaviour.

[SASless]

For what you pay in the UK these days for anything related to Aviation you ought to be attended by a host of experts as we speak.:{

[Whirlygig]

you ought to be attended by a host of experts as we speak

Some of are Dahling, some of us are!

Cheers

Whirls