Private rating check ride - what did you spend, time and/or dollar-wise?

[Spirit of '69]

Ya know, I think 141 schools on average are going to take a bit longer for training. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 141 syllabus requires taking flights in order, and being proficient to move on. I am in the unique position of transferring half-way through my private from one school (141) to another (61). For example, if the next sequenced lesson in 141 is settling w/ power, or throttle chops, you have to wait for ceilings that allow for those maneuvers. 61 you can just move on to quick stops or off airports.

 

Proficiency is subjective as well. At the private level, a basic understanding and ability to perform to private standards is up to the instructor. Typically the instructor rides you pretty hard so the dpe checkride is a breeze. Striking the right balance of toughness is important, especially @ $300 or so an hour. If you are at a school with multiple instructors, try them all and find one that "finds the hook" to make you perform your best. That will affect your performance and attitude, and in the end, your price for training.

[Spirit of '69]

dpe's in our area are $700-$1200 from what I have gathered. Not a bad gig if you can get it!

[Spike]

Nick9er

 

While you do not give specifics of your flight school training program, I can only speculate, they may be new to 141, or maybe even new to training altogether. This in itself is not uncommon.

 

Regardless, per the 141 requirements, you should know exactly where you stand with regards to your flight training program. For example, you said you have not taken the stage two check while incurring 45 hours of training. Why is that? Each lesson should have a detailed completion requirement and a comment section which outlines why you have, or have not, achieved said lesson requirements. Having said that, have you repeated lessons? If so why? If not, the reasons either way should be stated in the comment section as it’s required for 141 certification. Basically, there should be no surprises, and while you define yourself as average, maybe this is not the case. Sorry…….

 

The initial intent of 141 certification was to reduce minimums for certification by the fact the feds were regulating/approving the training program and therefore achieving a higher standard…. The reality is (was) they were only trying to help.... Helicopter 141 training programs are an administrative benefit and nothing more (comparatively speaking).

 

Unfortunately for the uneducated student, 141 has become a method for unscrupulous operators to soak their students by padding the syllabus and thus requiring the naive student to follow the program….. Hence, they can slow you down and require you to pay more, by simply requiring you to do more. This is why new prospective students need to be fully aware of the pitfalls when he or she is seeking to enter into this business.

 

Spike

Edited November 10, 2011 by Spike

[Tom22]

Nick9er

 

Unfortunately for the uneducated student, 141 has become a method for unscrupulous operators to soak their students by padding the syllabus and thus requiring the naive student to follow the program….. Hence, they can slow you down and require you to pay more, by simply requiring you to do more. This is why new prospective students need to be fully aware of the pitfalls when he or she is seeking to enter into this business.

 

 

 

Well said. I have witnessed nefarious use of a 141 syllabus.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Tom22

[Spirit of '69]

A helpful owner or instructor can give you the average time in flight hours students have needed to complete their ratings. This is in general, but my first school was up front that 50-60 hrs was the norm for a student new to aviation. I was on pace for a 60-70 hrs to achieve my private, which I attribute more to my method of flying pay-as-i-go which left me not flying consistently, thus re-learning what I just learned the week prior, not a nefarious school. It just happens. I soloed @ 39 hrs. As it happened, I could get financing and college credit from another school, and I finished my private @ 62 hrs by flying those last 20hrs in 3 1/2 weeks.

 

I'd like to hear from people's experiences of "nefarious schools" practices. A lot of training delays can happen, causing costs to surpass your budget, weather, a bad instructor, lack of preparation on your part, and the fact flying choppers is hard, and not everyone picks it up right away. It would be unfortunate to mar the reputation of a school based on the need for a scapegoat.

[Nick9er]

A helpful owner or instructor can give you the average time in flight hours students have needed to complete their ratings. This is in general, but my first school was up front that 50-60 hrs was the norm for a student new to aviation. I was on pace for a 60-70 hrs to achieve my private, which I attribute more to my method of flying pay-as-i-go which left me not flying consistently, thus re-learning what I just learned the week prior, not a nefarious school. It just happens. I soloed @ 39 hrs. As it happened, I could get financing and college credit from another school, and I finished my private @ 62 hrs by flying those last 20hrs in 3 1/2 weeks.

 

I'd like to hear from people's experiences of "nefarious schools" practices. A lot of training delays can happen, causing costs to surpass your budget, weather, a bad instructor, lack of preparation on your part, and the fact flying choppers is hard, and not everyone picks it up right away. It would be unfortunate to mar the reputation of a school based on the need for a scapegoat.

 

Where did you up transferring to when you finished your private rating?

[Flybull]

I flew the R-22 at a part 61 school in the midwest, paying as I went as well, and was ready for the CP's mock check-ride just prior to the real deal right at 43 hours. At the time I was about a 300 hour fixed-wing pilot.

 

Job loss, divorce, yada, yada.... at that point put me out of the rotor flying business (and almost all flying) for about 5 years. I just recently started back up out here in the Tahoe area and took my check-ride after an additional 15 hours, nearly all of which were in the R-44 (apparently I gained a few #'s in 5 years.... )

 

Even after such a long break, it didn't take long to get back in the saddle. And for sure, I'm definitely not a "super" pilot. Average to above average maybe.....

 

All that being said.... in your situation, I'd say there might be a little something rotten in Denmark.....

 

Good luck with figuring it out!

[Flying Pig]

To get to the check ride, I was at just under 80 hours and a bit of ground (141 school). The range at that school was 70-100+ hours, and yes this is on the high side.

 

I just want to make sure Im reading this right.....You had 80hrs when you took your Private, and the average for that school was 70-100hours? If your not making your appointment with your examiner by 50-55hrs TT helicopter, something is wrong.

[nightsta1ker]

Nothing against the R22 helicopter but this is typical of Robinson (part 141 in particular) schools. I think the R22 is a great aircraft, I would even go as far as saying it is a great training aircraft. But I don't think it is a good PRIMARY trainer. It takes students much longer to get the basics down. It takes them much longer to get to a point where they are proficient to solo. and by the time all that is done, and they are getting into the cross country stuff, they are already sitting at 30-40 hours. I got my PPLH in the S300C in 2003 and I took my checkride at 37.5 hours. The checkride was done in an hour and we had to burn an hour and a half just to hit my 40, so the examiner turned it into a lesson and we went and did some mountain flying. I am not saying this to brag, I attribute my fast learning to the quality of instruction I received and the dedication and professionalism of my instructors at that school.

 

Granted, the student has to meet the instructor half-way. If not, things are going to progress slower than they should. The student should be just as professional, and just as dedicated to learning as the instructor is to teaching if they are both going to be successful. This relationship of mutual respect and dedication is CRITICAL. Now I have seen my fair share of students since I started flying. Trained with some guys that were too wishy washy. Didn't fly often enough. Took long breaks in between. Had financial issues. Didn't want to study on their own. Couldn't be persuaded to take their written's. Had issues with the instruction (usually older men who don't like to be "bossed around")etc. etc. etc. Those students are not going to get their rating in 40 hours or maybe even 50 or 60, even if they have the greatest instructor in the world. But if you are a student and you feel you are doing your part, and the school is stringing you on or letting you down, you need to start looking at your options. It's a tough time for everyone right now and there are definitely schools out there that want to milk you for every last penny. If your check pilot is expecting perfection from a private student, he's not doing it right. You should be safe and competent in judgement and be able to do the maneuvers to standard (which are pretty wide) for your private. You should be pretty polished for your Commercial, and by the time you get your CFI your skills should be polished to a high shine. Sounds to me like they want you to fly to CFI standards for your private rating. In my opinion, that's not the way to put out quality pilots.

[Spike]

It takes students much longer to get the basics down. It takes them much longer to get to a point where they are proficient to solo. and by the time all that is done, and they are getting into the cross country stuff, they are already sitting at 30-40 hours. I got my PPLH in the S300C in 2003 and I took my checkride at 37.5 hours. The checkride was done in an hour and we had to burn an hour and a half just to hit my 40, so the examiner turned it into a lesson and we went and did some mountain flying.

 

Everybody is different. I had students easily make that same timeframe in a R22….. The again, I had 100hr Private Pilots as well…. As a CFI, never attempt to place a student in a box (what do you mean you people!......) or better said, don't judge a book by its cover, regardless of the machine being flown. The CFI does the best he can with the machine he is employed to fly and thats it….

 

If you’ve done this for any length of time, you know what I mean…..

 

This doesn’t apply to an R44 because, if you’re learning in an R44 and not meeting the exact minimums, welcome to the Bernie Madoff school of helicopter flight instruction……

Edited May 20, 2012 by Spike

[nightsta1ker]

Everybody is different. I had students easily make that same timeframe in a R22….. The again, I had 100hr Private Pilots as well…. As a CFI, never attempt to place a student in a box (what do you mean you people!......) or better said, don't judge a book by its cover, regardless of the machine being flown. The CFI does the best he can with the machine he is employed to fly and thats it….

 

If you’ve done this for any length of time, you know what I mean…..

 

This doesn’t apply to an R44 because, if you’re learning in an R44 and not meeting the exact minimums, welcome to the Bernie Madoff school of helicopter flight instruction……

 

This is true, but in my experience the average hours to solo and pass checkrides is 10-20 hours higher at R22 schools than it is at Schweizer schools. That does not speak for all schools out there! That's just my experience, and that's really all I can speak from, isn't it?

[Flying Pig]

I do think it takes new students longer to master the R22. I had about 50hrs in the 300C, about 400 in the MD500, itermixed with about 1500 fixed wing and it took me about 7hrs of dual to do my CFI in an R22. When I was handed my newly minted helo CFI, I had 10.1 total in the 22. I actually found the R22 relatively easy to fly (after I was already a pilot) It took me a few minutes to get the hover solid with the rocker-arm-thingy, and after a few autos and the low RPM horn scaring the #$%^ out of me, I was nailing every one afterwards. But I think day 1, hour 1 the R22 does require A LOT out of a new student where the 300 was very forgiving.

 

But to answer your first question. I did my private at Civic Helicopters in the 300C. My checkride was hour 41. I think I spent about $12K-ish

Edited May 20, 2012 by Flying Pig

[Spike]

This is true, but in my experience the average hours to solo and pass checkrides is 10-20 hours higher at R22 schools than it is at Schweizer schools. That does not speak for all schools out there! That's just my experience, and that's really all I can speak from, isn't it?

 

In my experience, the primary factor regarding the amount of hours a student gains pre-solo/checkride is the CFI, not the machine. Sure, the 300 is more forgiving but it doesn’t necessary mean the R22 is more difficult to fly to the point of hindering a student’s progress. It’s the CFI coupled with specific fight school polices and, the Robinson SFAR that hinder a student (not to mention the student himself). Unfortunately, most flight schools use the SFAR as a finishing point and subsequently work backwards. This is bad for the student as it boosts their time up unnecessarily by approximately, you guessed it, 10 to 20 hours….. Those 10 to 20 hours has a dollar amount attached to it and schools use it accordingly to fill their pockets…

 

Granted the flight instruction sector has changed since I was involved. In my opinion gathered by what I read, hear and see it hasn’t improved…

Edited May 20, 2012 by Spike

[nightsta1ker]

I'm not an R22 hater. But I have my experiences in both and I strongly feel that the S300 has better properties for a primary trainer. The R22 has good properties for advanced training. If I were to start my own school and I could pick my aircraft of choice without needing to worry about cost, I would have two S300s (one instrument configured) for primary training, two R22s for commercial and CFI training, and an R44 for commercial work. The R22 is a great aircraft for pilots that need to hone their skills. I just don't think it's the best pick for initial private pilot training.

[Spike]

I'm not an R22 hater. But I have my experiences in both and I strongly feel that the S300 has better properties for a primary trainer. The R22 has good properties for advanced training. If I were to start my own school and I could pick my aircraft of choice without needing to worry about cost, I would have two S300s (one instrument configured) for primary training, two R22s for commercial and CFI training, and an R44 for commercial work. The R22 is a great aircraft for pilots that need to hone their skills. I just don't think it's the best pick for initial private pilot training.

 

My experience in these machines may be considered limited but with probably just under a couple thousand hours between the two, I’d say, it all depends on the instructor and school policy. A helicopter, is a helicopter, is a helicopter……. Short of that, students pay to fly what they want to fly and what’s available… Ultimately, it’s their choice and the R22 it just another machine….

[nightsta1ker]

With all due respect (and I mean that), I think your argument is flawed. School policy is often driven by insurance requirements. Insurance requirements are often driven by accident rates. Why are accident rates higher in the R22 than the S300C if they are essentially the same, as you seem to be suggesting. Why did the manufacturer impose an SFAR on his own aircraft that severely restricts it's use by low time pilots? School policy, experience, professionalism and dedication by instructors surely plays a large role. But teaching in the 22 IS different. Every instructor I have met that has taught in both preferred the 300 (4 including myself) you being the one exception (at least so far). That's just my opinion.

 

edit:

On top of that, I don't like getting people their PPL in an aircraft that they can't then take their family and friends flyin in. It's so anti-climactic to work so hard, spend so much money, and at the finish line you can't even take your spouse for a ride. Hell I'm a CFI and I can't take anyone for a ride. I've got 80 hours in the damn things but the school policy (I think insurance driven) is that I must have the safety course to take passengers. I have little interest in doing it because I can just take people up in the ole 300.

Edited May 21, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[pilot#476398]

With all due respect (and I mean that), I think your argument is flawed. School policy is often driven by insurance requirements. Insurance requirements are often driven by accident rates. Why are accident rates higher in the R22 than the S300C if they are essentially the same, as you seem to be suggesting. Why did the manufacturer impose an SFAR on his own aircraft that severely restricts it's use by low time pilots? School policy, experience, professionalism and dedication by instructors surely plays a large role. But teaching in the 22 IS different. Every instructor I have met that has taught in both preferred the 300 (4 including myself) you being the one exception (at least so far). That's just my opinion.

 

edit:

On top of that, I don't like getting people their PPL in an aircraft that they can't then take their family and friends flyin in. It's so anti-climactic to work so hard, spend so much money, and at the finish line you can't even take your spouse for a ride. Hell I'm a CFI and I can't take anyone for a ride. I've got 80 hours in the damn things but the school policy (I think insurance driven) is that I must have the safety course to take passengers. I have little interest in doing it because I can just take people up in the ole 300.

 

People always use accident rates when arguing against Robbies, but how many R22s are there compared to 300s, and what type of flying is being done in them?

 

Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in SFAR 73 that states a new PPL cannot take passengers? I guess it just depends on your school.

 

The safety course is a good idea no matter what you fly!

[Spike]

With all due respect (and I mean that), I think your argument is flawed. School policy is often driven by insurance requirements. Insurance requirements are often driven by accident rates. Why are accident rates higher in the R22 than the S300C if they are essentially the same, as you seem to be suggesting. Why did the manufacturer impose an SFAR on his own aircraft that severely restricts it's use by low time pilots? School policy, experience, professionalism and dedication by instructors surely plays a large role. But teaching in the 22 IS different. Every instructor I have met that has taught in both preferred the 300 (4 including myself) you being the one exception (at least so far). That's just my opinion.

 

edit:

On top of that, I don't like getting people their PPL in an aircraft that they can't then take their family and friends flyin in. It's so anti-climactic to work so hard, spend so much money, and at the finish line you can't even take your spouse for a ride. Hell I'm a CFI and I can't take anyone for a ride. I've got 80 hours in the damn things but the school policy (I think insurance driven) is that I must have the safety course to take passengers. I have little interest in doing it because I can just take people up in the ole 300.

 

This is neither an argument nor a debate. I’m simply stating what I’ve experienced with both machines as a CFI. Plus, I really don’t care as I haven’t flow either airframe in 17 years (nor need to thank goodness). However, the kids of today seem to have forgotten, there was a time when the R22 didn’t have a SFAR. Or why it was implemented in the first place (if you believe the feds explanation, then I have a bridge to sell you in Alabama…) Sure, an R22 is different but that goes without saying. A Bell is different from a Eurocopter too… All machines have their positives and negatives. It takes a talented instructor to mitigate those negatives. Unfortunately, this may be crux of the issue with the current commentary on today’s pool of pilots…..

 

Furthermore, the R22 is, and continues to be, the most popular airframe utilized in the training market and as entry level machine. With that, you’re gonna have a high accident rate. It just boils down to the law of averages after that…..

 

Lastly, as stated, school policy is a factor and its school policy which prevents a private pilot from taking up passengers….

[nightsta1ker]

 

 

People always use accident rates when arguing against Robbies, but how many R22s are there compared to 300s, and what type of flying is being done in them?

 

Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in SFAR 73 that states a new PPL cannot take passengers? I guess it just depends on your school.

 

The safety course is a good idea no matter what you fly!

 

Generally when comparing accident rates you are taking number of accidents vs how many aircraft are flying into account. That's why it's an accident RATE, rather than just the number of accidents. As far as what kind o flying was being done, I could ALMOST say that's irrelevant. You can do more utility type work with a schweizer and utility work often carries a higher level of risk.

 

Besides as much as people use accident rate against the r22, r22 defenders use what you said as a defense. It's a circular argument that is probably 30% fact (because the facts are not very comprehensive) and 70% opinion.

 

Like I said, I'm not an R22 hater. I love flying them. I am going to try to refrain from repeating myself again.

 

Regarding the safety course, I agree it is a good idea to take a safety course, but the fact that you can get in any other non type certificated helicopter (including turbines) and operate them without a mandatory safety course speaks volumes to me. I have never been to a schweizer/Sikorsky safety course for the 300, but I have flown many safe and uneventful flights in them. Now I am instructing in them. The system is doing it's job without interference from the manufacturer. RHC has decided that the system on it's own is not good enough to produce safe pilots of their helicopters.

[nightsta1ker]

 

 

This is neither an argument nor a debate. I’m simply stating what I’ve experienced with both machines as a CFI. Plus, I really don’t care as I haven’t flow either airframe in 17 years (nor need to thank goodness). However, the kids of today seem to have forgotten, there was a time when the R22 didn’t have a SFAR. Or why it was implemented in the first place (if you believe the feds explanation, then I have a bridge to sell you in Alabama…) Sure, an R22 is different but that goes without saying. A Bell is different from a Eurocopter too… All machines have their positives and negatives. It takes a talented instructor to mitigate those negatives. Unfortunately, this may be crux of the issue with the current commentary on today’s pool of pilots…..

 

Furthermore, the R22 is, and continues to be, the most popular airframe utilized in the training market and as entry level machine. With that, you’re gonna have a high accident rate. It just boils down to the law of averages after that…..

 

Lastly, as stated, school policy is a factor and its school policy which prevents a private pilot from taking up passengers….

 

I was using the word argument in the text of "discourse used to persuade". I know were not heatedly bickering over this. It's a civilized discussion being conducted by rational adults with slightly differing experiences and opinions. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm just voicing my opinion. As are you. I would love to hear your version of how the RHC safety course came about. I always thought it was because Frank got tired of being sued so he decided to do everything in his power to make it as difficult as possible.

 

Also. I was also under the impression that the R22 became, and remained popular as a trainer because of it's low operating cost and ease of use (the difference between starting a 22 and a 300 is significant...), not necessarily because it was the safest or best choice (opinion!).

 

[pilot#476398]

Generally when comparing accident rates you are taking number of accidents vs how many aircraft are flying into account. That's why it's an accident RATE, rather than just the number of accidents. As far as what kind o flying was being done, I could ALMOST say that's irrelevant. You can do more utility type work with a schweizer and utility work often carries a higher level of risk.

 

I don't agree that utility work is riskier than flight instruction (the R22's primary job) but I would like to point out that the R22 is widely used in cattle mustering, as well as hog control, pipeline patrol, etc. Therefore to say that the 300 can do more utility work, well,...show me the stats! Not to turn this into a 300 vs. R22 debate.

 

As for SFAR 73, I believe it is the ONLY reason a student would take more hours to get rated! However, I do believe that it is a load of crap! While I was flying a 300 once with no governor AND no low-rpm warning system (with a low-inertia rotor), I could not help to think that this death trap has no SFAR but the R22 does!?

 

...but, to each his own.

[Flying Pig]

Here is my thought....and nothing to do with easier or harder. I did all my training in the 300. Then through work built about 400hrs in the 500E before I did my CFI. I did my CFI in the R22. I really wanted to instruct part time for some extra cash, plus I really like teaching. Im already an airplane CFI part time, so I have that interest. However, guess what kids? No teaching for me until I get another 30 hrs of Robbie time (Ive built about 10ish since my CFI). So in my area, Im unemployable as a CFI. So if your thinking about getting into CFI work professionally, unless you KNOW your going to be teaching in 300's. Youd be better off, I think to do it all in an R22 or you may find yourself unemployable. Once your rated, getting dialed in on a 300 will be a piece of cake. Or, if you can, do your private in a 300, then the rest in the R22 or mix it up. Just make sure you get your SFAR taken care of as it relates to being a CFI before you run out of money.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Flying Pig

[nightsta1ker]

, I could not help to think that this death trap has no SFAR but the R22 does!?

 

...but, to each his own.

 

OK, so I looked up the number of helicopters of each type on the U.S. Registry. I had to do some math to add up all the different variants of each make. Keep in mind this is looking only at U.S. registered aircraft and the U.S. NTSB database.

 

There are about 800 registered variants of the 269/300 helicopter operating in the U.S. There are about a 1000 registered variants of the R22 in the U.S.

 

The annual fatal accident rate for the 269/300 is 2. This is pretty consistent going back through the last 10 years.

 

The annual fatal accident rate for the R22 is over 5 (average would be about 4 per year but 2009 was a bad one for the Robbie Rangers with 7 fatal accidents).

 

I would say with a decent margin, that the R22 is still more of a 'deathtrap' than the 300 (with or without a governor, low rotor warning horn, SFAR or mandatory safety course).

 

Now unfortunately there is no way to look at hours flown per aircraft type, which I presume will be your next return argument. *sigh* So to go any farther with this argument of one being a death-trap or not, is getting into the realm of fiction.

 

I don't really think either one of them is a "death trap". I don't need a low rotor horn on a 300. I'm properly trained not to need it. And the rotor RPM does not bleed off fast enough to warrant it like on the R22. It has a MUCH higher inertia rotor than the 22. And I don't need a governor either (though I do miss not needing to mess with it...). My ears are attuned to the sound of the engine/rotors. When the sound drops, I need to give it a little throttle, if it starts to whine, I need to roll off. A quick glance when I detect a change in sound confirms what my ears are telling me. It's no sweat with enough practice.

Edited May 22, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[JBX11B]

Guess I'm going to be the odd duck here, 31 hrs in a R22 for a pvt add-on, just over 9K including examiner's fee. Did it in a little over a month, I don't believe 50 - 90+ hrs is necessary for a pvt rating, might have something to do with schools and many instructors with the "141" mentality that believe a prescribed # of hrs is req'd despite student ability and commitment. (no I didn't skate by, I flew to commercial pts standards) OR it could be a monetary issue favoring the school and/or the instructor, I passed on a school after meeting w' an instructor that deemed I would fly at least the national avg. of hrs (whatever that is) and attend his groundschool, as I saw it, his course syllabus was designed to waste my valueable time and hard earned $$.

[pilot#476398]

I don't really think either one of them is a "death trap". I don't need a low rotor horn on a 300. I'm properly trained not to need it. And the rotor RPM does not bleed off fast enough to warrant it like on the R22. It has a MUCH higher inertia rotor than the 22. And I don't need a governor either (though I do miss not needing to mess with it...). My ears are attuned to the sound of the engine/rotors. When the sound drops, I need to give it a little throttle, if it starts to whine, I need to roll off. A quick glance when I detect a change in sound confirms what my ears are telling me. It's no sweat with enough practice.

 

I'm happy that you're so well trained that you don't need a low-rpm horn. Me, I prefer to have it, and since they do exist it seems very irresponsable to not have them in every helicopter,...but oh' well? By the way, if the 300 has a "MUCH" higher inertia rotor than the R22 it certainly didn't feel like it in the auto!

 

If someone is paying me to fly, I'll gladly fly whatever they want, but if I'm the one paying its the R22 hands down! At least with the R22 you won't be looking for that "needle in a haystack" 300 school to hire you when your own school doesn't!

 

You want the odds in your favor, train in the R22!