Flight Training at Essendon
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere around 27degrees
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underneath The Radar............
I'll be the first to acknowledge that MB can offer one the benefit of having to deal with a somewhat busier/higher density circuit area and a handy training area, but please don't be so pitifully narrow-minded so as to think that your view is 'the' view.
From my experience of many years of operating out of EN, including learning to fly there:
- ATC delays/restrictions were minimal (excluding departures to the Northwest obviously), in any case no worse than AF, JT, BK etc.
- Valuable experience/discipline can be obtained in the very environment that you as a professional pilot will ultimately have to deal with on a daily basis.
- Any benefit from the 'busy' MB circuit is more than compensated for in a pilot having to exercise due consideration/airmanship in sharing airspace and runways with King Airs, Global Express's, Iskras, DC-3s, GIVs etc.
- "Long transits" to training areas always offered valuable navigational experience which was tempered with weather appreciation that was generally more crucial to the days outcome.
- Large landing fees???? No more 'expensive' than elsewhere I've always thought.
- Taxi times were also comparable to anywhere else (unless you got stuck behind transitting MB aircraft that alway seemed to stop at the runway exits.) and certainly no longer than 13L & 17L at MB.
Of course, that is MHO.........and I can accept that others may be at variance to that.
I should also ponder the question to those interested parties..........."How many areodromes are there in Australia where GFPT holders have the choice of flying to 2 or 3 others airfields??????"
Luvjet, NAT/DAC is not the "one" option at EN for your so called "complete" career. I trained with, trained others at, and worked for, the one organisation at EN and they still exist there in that capacity. While I'm not endorsing any particular choice (that will be up to wannaflyrightnow!), clearly your option is not the only "one!"
Rant over............
I'll be the first to acknowledge that MB can offer one the benefit of having to deal with a somewhat busier/higher density circuit area and a handy training area, but please don't be so pitifully narrow-minded so as to think that your view is 'the' view.
- airspace restrictions/clearances not available (wasted $$$)
- long transits to training area (wasted $$$)
- long transits to MPC/BSS for circuits (wasted $$$)
- large landing fees (wasted $$$)
- long taxis (wasted $$$)
- long transits to training area (wasted $$$)
- long transits to MPC/BSS for circuits (wasted $$$)
- large landing fees (wasted $$$)
- long taxis (wasted $$$)
- ATC delays/restrictions were minimal (excluding departures to the Northwest obviously), in any case no worse than AF, JT, BK etc.
- Valuable experience/discipline can be obtained in the very environment that you as a professional pilot will ultimately have to deal with on a daily basis.
- Any benefit from the 'busy' MB circuit is more than compensated for in a pilot having to exercise due consideration/airmanship in sharing airspace and runways with King Airs, Global Express's, Iskras, DC-3s, GIVs etc.
- "Long transits" to training areas always offered valuable navigational experience which was tempered with weather appreciation that was generally more crucial to the days outcome.
- Large landing fees???? No more 'expensive' than elsewhere I've always thought.
- Taxi times were also comparable to anywhere else (unless you got stuck behind transitting MB aircraft that alway seemed to stop at the runway exits.) and certainly no longer than 13L & 17L at MB.
Of course, that is MHO.........and I can accept that others may be at variance to that.
I should also ponder the question to those interested parties..........."How many areodromes are there in Australia where GFPT holders have the choice of flying to 2 or 3 others airfields??????"
Luvjet, NAT/DAC is not the "one" option at EN for your so called "complete" career. I trained with, trained others at, and worked for, the one organisation at EN and they still exist there in that capacity. While I'm not endorsing any particular choice (that will be up to wannaflyrightnow!), clearly your option is not the only "one!"
Rant over............
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Says who?
So how much are they charging to get experience through Direct Air? A colleague of mine told me they were fairly expensive and that any line experience one obtained through their links with Direct Air was outweighed by the costs.
I think you'll find that those who went that way are actually doing bloody well for themselves, so there's little support for it there.
I think it all comes down to attitude, like in all jobs at the end of the day. The worth of what you undertake is determined by your attitude in the end.
520.
Reverseflow etc etc etc. Suggest a less superfluous user name would help with replies.
Apart from cross-country exercises it has always been desirable to keep dual instruction to one hour block time or less. Most country flying schools where the training area is on the spot stick to this. A glance at the CASA Flight Instructor's Manual reveals the suggested sequence of training for GFPT (restricted PPL) includes anything from 45 minutes to one hour period lengths. That means the time needed for a specific sequence such as circuits, operation of controls and other ab-initio sequences before the student reaches saturation point.
Transits from Essendon to BCS and return use up at least 30 minutes. More if the training area west of BCS is used. That leaves less than 30 minutes for the specific sequences which may include climbing to specific minimum altitudes below CTA once in the BCS training area. Is it no wonder that average time to first solo when operating from EN to the BCS area is in excess of 15-18 hours. In fact, the CFI of one flying school at EN who used BCS, boasted that he refused to allow any student to solo before 20 hours in order to ensure the student gained situational awareness experience. Now that is a rip-off.
The place for dedicated navigational training is after the GFPT if the student so wishes and not when the student is learning to fly basic manoeuvres prior to first solo. It is indeed unfortunate that EN training is not permitted and operations are restricted to departures and arrivals to BCS and elsewhere. But to pretend transits to BCS are not in reality a waste of hard earned student money is a bit beyond the pale.
"Long transits" to training areas always offered valuable navigational experience which was tempered with weather appreciation that was generally more crucial to the days outcome
Transits from Essendon to BCS and return use up at least 30 minutes. More if the training area west of BCS is used. That leaves less than 30 minutes for the specific sequences which may include climbing to specific minimum altitudes below CTA once in the BCS training area. Is it no wonder that average time to first solo when operating from EN to the BCS area is in excess of 15-18 hours. In fact, the CFI of one flying school at EN who used BCS, boasted that he refused to allow any student to solo before 20 hours in order to ensure the student gained situational awareness experience. Now that is a rip-off.
The place for dedicated navigational training is after the GFPT if the student so wishes and not when the student is learning to fly basic manoeuvres prior to first solo. It is indeed unfortunate that EN training is not permitted and operations are restricted to departures and arrivals to BCS and elsewhere. But to pretend transits to BCS are not in reality a waste of hard earned student money is a bit beyond the pale.
Last edited by Centaurus; 20th May 2006 at 13:33.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YMEN
Age: 66
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Solo at YMPC this week in 10.2 Hours. 
Student has Prec search and Forced landings.
The student will have GFPT well inside 25 and probably 22 hours.
Pearsons and Direct Air do NOT use YBSS for training. Would suggest that YBCS (Cairns) would be one hell of a Navigation exercise from Essendon. That would be ripping of the student!
As an instructor it is a challenge and a goal to get the student up to speed in the shortest time possible. We should always be aware of what it is costing the student!
Paul
Student has Prec search and Forced landings.The student will have GFPT well inside 25 and probably 22 hours.
Pearsons and Direct Air do NOT use YBSS for training. Would suggest that YBCS (Cairns) would be one hell of a Navigation exercise from Essendon. That would be ripping of the student!
As an instructor it is a challenge and a goal to get the student up to speed in the shortest time possible. We should always be aware of what it is costing the student!
Paul
Ozaztec. I stuffed up - I really meant Bacchus. No names of EN flying school operators were mentioned in my post. It was a general observation of the penalties of using Bacchus from EN and burning up hours. 10 hours to first solo operating from EN is very well done - usually because of an experienced instructor.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere around 27degrees
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus,
You could always use an abbreviation such as below, or as you suggested, not reply at all! Obviously your attention span is somewhat limited by these sorts of things, otherwise you would have read to the end of the first sentence were I indicated that all 'individuals' are entitled to their own view/opinion, but that they should not suggest this is the only possibility!
I was not saying that EN-based training is 'the' way to go, so to speak, merely pointing out what I believe to be some of the pros and cons.
That is my view, and I stand by it!
As for, "the place for dedicated navigational training" being post-GFPT. I agree with one exception. If a student can foresee that they may have a considerable break in their training (eg. to save up for their navs, change in financial circumstances etc.), having the option of four or five airfields and their respective training areas to fly to, will surely provide greater scope for variety, fun and interesting aviating!
Just something else for the individual to consider.
As I said, my two cents.
Paul........Well done!
RFKB
You could always use an abbreviation such as below, or as you suggested, not reply at all! Obviously your attention span is somewhat limited by these sorts of things, otherwise you would have read to the end of the first sentence were I indicated that all 'individuals' are entitled to their own view/opinion, but that they should not suggest this is the only possibility!
I was not saying that EN-based training is 'the' way to go, so to speak, merely pointing out what I believe to be some of the pros and cons.
That is my view, and I stand by it!
As for, "the place for dedicated navigational training" being post-GFPT. I agree with one exception. If a student can foresee that they may have a considerable break in their training (eg. to save up for their navs, change in financial circumstances etc.), having the option of four or five airfields and their respective training areas to fly to, will surely provide greater scope for variety, fun and interesting aviating!
Just something else for the individual to consider.
As I said, my two cents.
Paul........Well done!
RFKB
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reverseflowferoburna,
yeah ....who.....
you have about four other schools (thats if they are still operating) , i challange you to name one that can provide the training and then have the capacity to provide a salaried position within the organisation and provide you with close to max hours monthly.
i might go on a vacation now and come back in about a month. i bet you will still be thinking. (or not)
yeah ....who.....
you have about four other schools (thats if they are still operating) , i challange you to name one that can provide the training and then have the capacity to provide a salaried position within the organisation and provide you with close to max hours monthly.
i might go on a vacation now and come back in about a month. i bet you will still be thinking. (or not)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere around 27degrees
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luv, I said Pet.......I said Luv,
I was not aware anyone had mentioned a salaried position nor flying max hours........as I have not!!! That is not to say that there weren't any salaried employees working there though. I simply stated that I trained at the place that offered me my first form of employment, which included instruction and charter.
When I left Melbourne, it was for full-time employment on a turbine powered aircraft...........thereby proving that NAT/DAC is not the only option.
And no, I'll not be naming them, that was not the intent of my post, I'm not attempting to persuade Wannaflyrightnow towards one organisation or another.
Have a nice holiday!
RF
I was not aware anyone had mentioned a salaried position nor flying max hours........as I have not!!! That is not to say that there weren't any salaried employees working there though. I simply stated that I trained at the place that offered me my first form of employment, which included instruction and charter.
When I left Melbourne, it was for full-time employment on a turbine powered aircraft...........thereby proving that NAT/DAC is not the only option.
And no, I'll not be naming them, that was not the intent of my post, I'm not attempting to persuade Wannaflyrightnow towards one organisation or another.
Have a nice holiday!
RF
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When considering any flying school, one should look at the instructor ranks and the experience of the line instructors and the CFI. Whilst it is likely that you will fly with junior instructors, you should insist on having one instructor at least until you go solo. If they chop and change on you, that is not good and more than enough reason to look elsewhere. If you think you are getting screwed about then insist that you fly with a senior instructor. Stick with the same one and considering canceling a lesson if your usual instructor is not available. As a general rule the quality of instruction is not as good as it was 15+ years ago, so it is all the more important that you assess the quality of the product from whatever school/s you are looking at, and you can usually only do that by asking about. If you believe you are not getting the best possible training then front the CFI and if he/she does not fix it, then go elsewhere.
I have no experience with the two schools mentioned, but a lot of experience in days gone by at EN. Yes, it is a good place to learn, but times have changed and you may well find that it is not good bang for the buck unless you receive good high quality instruction.
I agree with the comments that country flying schools are usually the best value, even if you have to take a few weeks off and do it full time.
Good luck
I have no experience with the two schools mentioned, but a lot of experience in days gone by at EN. Yes, it is a good place to learn, but times have changed and you may well find that it is not good bang for the buck unless you receive good high quality instruction.
I agree with the comments that country flying schools are usually the best value, even if you have to take a few weeks off and do it full time.
Good luck
