Would people pay more to train with an expert?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 51st State
Age: 60
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
Perfume of all types: Its just scented water worth points of pennies!
Pharmaceutical drugs: Worth pennies sell for thousands of pounds and most of them dont even work!!!
Regards to all
N/S
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!!
Perfume of all types: Its just scented water worth points of pennies!
Pharmaceutical drugs: Worth pennies sell for thousands of pounds and most of them dont even work!!!
Regards to all
N/S
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COF's pay.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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".
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".
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favourite business quote!
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sunny Florida, USA
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advanced Training Course?
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?
F
F
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: northeast usa
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI and Becoming a Professional Pilot
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dennis how are you doing?
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
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
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 467 Likes
on
247 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 21st Mar 2007 at 19:25. Reason: Too many actuallies, actually.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Cheers
Whirls
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI fees
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hihover: I think you make some great suggestions in your list , 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
, 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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI fees for advanced training
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!
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!