Message-ID: <36335474.6C8B@ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 10:40:20 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Why do people not finish training?
References: <jaSJ1.13$gp1.132422@news.rdc1.sfba.home.com> <1998091020091700.QAA21318@ladder03.news.aol.com> <360ea790.0@news1.ibm.net> <362D45F1.589D82DA@ibm.net> <362DF770.65D8@ibm.net> <362E9DCE.42984195@ibm.net> <uxx6#d4$9GA.257@upnetnews03> <3632BC18.7228@value.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.136.15
X-Trace: 26 Oct 1998 02:48:25 GMT, 32.100.136.15
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 55
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.100.136.15
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:36703

Nancy Hattaway Miller wrote:

> Example: one instructor does not teach landings until the student has
> 12+ hours of airwork and ground reference. The next instructor teaches
> landings from day 1. I showed up with no experience or knowledge which
> he just expected that I *had*... and I just couldn't get the landings
> down. He wasn't big on pre- or post-flight briefings, and never seemed
> to have time for my questions. The third instructor, at about 24
> hours, asked me where the problem seemed to be--the approach, the 
> round out, the flare? And my response was, "What's a flare? I've never > been quite sure about that." (....) And, believe me,
> these three people are all fine instructors! It may not sound like 
> it from my experience, but they ARE!

Nancy, I am a very loyal person and when I was a student/new PPL
would passionately defend my CFI against all criticism.  So I respect
not wanting to criticize these people.

But IMO, if a CFI fails to ensure that a student understands the
maneuver to be practiced *before getting in the plane*, and fails
to discuss performance afterwards and make sure there aren't any
misunderstandings/misconceptions which are causing problems in the
student's plane handling, *they are not doing their job as a CFI*.

If an instructor never has time for a students questions, *they
are not doing their job as a CFI*.

In defense of CFIs, I will say that some students are reluctant
to pay for ground time, and naturally the CFI wants to eat.  It's
a foolish reluctance, IMO; explanations at $20/hr (or whatever)
on the ground are clearly more cost effective than explanations at
$55-75/hr in the air.

Flying is not so mystical and unique that the same principles
of other endeavors don't apply: if you want someone to do a good
job, you have to explain carefully just what it is you want them
to do.  If they don't do a good job that time, you have to explain
to them clearly just how what they did differed from the good
job you wanted them to do.

I don't see how someone who flouts this principle could possibly
be a 'fine instructor'.

I mention this not to critique Nancy's CFIs (it's done) but to
make clear to people who are currently training at least one
woman thinks *this is part of a CFI's job* and if the CFI isn't
doing it, the student should consider whether their progress is
being hindered by this lack and *find someone who will*.

Finding a good CFI is IMO *the* hardest and most frustrating part
of learning to fly.

Regards,
Snowbird


