3 point: so by not taking the lesson, how do you explain that to your cfi? Dont get wrong, I fully support your decision, but does this scenario place a large burden on an instructor that's struggling to make ends meet at the best of times - could customer choice dictate you no longer fit working there as you can't fly the 150 ?
Tins: you suggest your school would dictate the a/c type to the student and therefore cost of training based on this (totally agree btw)?
May point is that I have seen this occur - that the limits are "forgotten" in order to sell the work. Ie the choice is cost-lead by the customer & the instructor under pressure to remain employed. Hence my question, should a/c like this, that gives this potential, be an a/c destined for 2-up work
I guess where this question ces from is my generalised view that for
Most light singles, take 1 of the seats out and you're generally good to go (ie: in limits with enough fuel to actually do something!) - so I've extended thus generalisation to question the use of a 2-seater like the 150 knowing that a) limits are easily stressed/exceeded b) little option to manipulate fuel quantities & c) a low-rate,pay-on-use employment Market that's placing a high degree of pressure for the instructor to fly or make himself unemployed
Wouldn't it be better all-round if training was done in a/c less likely to create the above.
During my training, it was all c172 so never got into all this as that was the a/c at my school. These days I see that cost of training over-rides the sensible choice