turbine training for $300.00 per hour

[bossman]

What do you think of being able to go from scratch thru any rating you want in a turbine helicopter? It's being done in an Alouette 3130. Real world flying. Not patterns around an airport. The industry has needed this for a long time. You can train in a turbine for the cost of a R22 or 300cbi. Fly the mountains of West Virginia. These guys are for real.

[jdrockin]

Sounds great...um...you left out some information, though. You might consider revising the post...

[Guest rookie101]

hmm....no link, no mentioning of a flight school or what they do that is so 'real world'. I would suggest you place these things in your next post or at least edit it because for now your post isn't really helpful, just more of an annoying advertisment for nothing. Here is a discussion about all turbine training for those of you interested, besides you might as well get a little something helpful out of this topic .

 

http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/helicopterfor...1&hl=FH1100

 

*EDIT*

Upon checking your profile I came upon your 'homepage'

http://www.marpataviation.com/

I am going to assume this is the flight school your talking about?

[bossman]

Sounds great...um...you left out some information, though. You might consider revising the post...

Check out the bossman profile. You should get all the info from the website.

[Witch]

Marpat aviation.

 

Sounds like a good deal, but alas, I live sooo far away.

 

I wonder if lodging is nearby and how much turbine time does one need?

 

$300/hr is a great price. Maybe other schools might follow in competition for students. Can you imagine all turbine training done at Marpat? Others will follow. I love the free market.

 

But alas, I still need another 180 hours before I could consider attending.

 

Later.

[PhotoFlyer]

Real world flying? No flying around a pattern? As I recall, a standard pattern is part of real world flying, and makes airport operations safer. What "real world" maneuvers do you teach?

 

$300 an hour for an Alouette sounds a little too good to be true...

 

Whats the catch?

[bossman]

Real world flying? No flying around a pattern? As I recall, a standard pattern is part of real world flying, and makes airport operations safer. What "real world" maneuvers do you teach?

 

$300 an hour for an Alouette sounds a little too good to be true...

 

Whats the catch?

 

We did not say "no flying around the pattern", we teach off airport landings, confined area, standard stuff. What we try to do is take the students out of the airport environment and put them in touch with what a helicopter is supposed to be used for.There is no catch. Come fly with us.

[brushfire21]

Mr Bossman,

 

I am sure that you are doing what you can to build up your business, and as an owner of a business I know where your coming from. I have ran acrossed these same ads from you on other forums today looking for free advertising using a ploy technique in my opinion. If you were a contrinutor that was here for a while and slipped it in here and there, that would be one thing. But for your first post, to solicite (sp) looky-loos to your website. I (and am I am sure others who are being silent here) view it as bad ettiquite.

 

There are many others here that own flight schools, and they pay there dues and buy advertising space. I did read your topic about trying to see if there was any interest, but the way you did it and the way we had to look to see what your trying to do makes it seem like its advertising.

 

When you signed up, you had to read the guidelines for posting, and the last paragraph goes like this: "....Posting of advertisement without prior consent from Vertical Reference is grounds for registration removal, message deletion, or other actions by the website owner...." It looked lije it was grey area in my book.

 

I am not trying to be the police, but buy advertising space like everyone else does and suport the website. If you have a legitimate question about turbine training and if soon-to-be-pilots are interested in it, then ask us directly. We would be more than willing to chat it up, and discuss it. But dumping a website for us to look at that is your own business, seems cheap in my humble opinion. Enuff said, and this is way longer than I intended it to be.

 

http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/helicopterfor...t=boardrules....

[bossman]

Mr Bossman,

 

I am sure that you are doing what you can to build up your business, and as an owner of a business I know where your coming from. I have ran acrossed these same ads from you on other forums today looking for free advertising using a ploy technique in my opinion. If you were a contrinutor that was here for a while and slipped it in here and there, that would be one thing. But for your first post, to solicite (sp) looky-loos to your website. I (and am I am sure others who are being silent here) view it as bad ettiquite.

 

There are many others here that own flight schools, and they pay there dues and buy advertising space. I did read your topic about trying to see if there was any interest, but the way you did it and the way we had to look to see what your trying to do makes it seem like its advertising.

 

When you signed up, you had to read the guidelines for posting, and the last paragraph goes like this: "....Posting of advertisement without prior consent from Vertical Reference is grounds for registration removal, message deletion, or other actions by the website owner...." It looked lije it was grey area in my book.

 

I am not trying to be the police, but buy advertising space like everyone else does and suport the website. If you have a legitimate question about turbine training and if soon-to-be-pilots are interested in it, then ask us directly. We would be more than willing to chat it up, and discuss it. But dumping a website for us to look at that is your own business, seems cheap in my humble opinion. Enuff said, and this is way longer than I intended it to be.

 

http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/helicopterfor...t=boardrules....

 

I'm sorry if I offended you. Not intended. We just got started with this low cost turbine time and wanted to see how it would fly. We're already flying several students. I do pay for advertising. I'm sorry if my low cost does not sit well with you. You don't think that asking the community how they would like to be able to fly a turbine for $300.00 per hour is a legimate question? I've mentioned no website in these postings. Yes it is listed in my profile. It was asked for. Come fly with us.

[joker]

OK everyone, hands up if you first read this, thinking it was another "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is" scenario. I did!

 

Bossman,

 

I agree with what has been said. Your initial email was blatent advertising. You should know that this is generally not acceptable on a forum such as this. Tsk, tsk...I wag my finger in your general direction. In fact the biggest insult is that you try to pull the wool over our eyes, by claiming that you were simply asking "the community how they would like to be able to fly a turbine for $300.00 per hour." Let's be clear that the wool isn't pulled...this was very close to the mark w.r.t board rules.

 

Everyone,

 

HOWEVER, as we are a friendly board, I would like to say this. Let's give this guy (Mr. Bossman) a lucky break. A little free advertising (no I don't want to start a trend). Just let's give him the 'airtime' for the moment.

 

In return, for this gesture of goodwill, Mr. Bossman openly explains a little how it is his company can make such an offer to students and keep the operation finically profitable. How is it that he can make this claim on his website, where 99% of the flight schools I know, need to charge significantly more than his price for time in a turbine ship. In essence, where's the catch if there is one? The two pages of website text are a little sketchy in this respect.

 

I also ask that Mr. Bossman explain his 'Turbine Rating' that he speaks of carefully for the benifit of new pilots. I am not a new pilot, and I don't believe that the FAA has any such rating.

 

Lastly, I would ask Mr. Bossman to give us a sneak preview at a normal 'training schedule' that a student would go though. I am intrigued as to the program which would move a student on from what are commonly agreed as standard benchmarks (compentency in the traffic pattern, for example) and replace them with 'self selected real-world' skills, what ever they may be. How long is this course?

 

Tread carefully, Mr Bossman. Here you have a chance for the 'free advertising' to either pay off, or backfire. Remember, people can be very fickle when they think they are getting duped!

 

Let's let it run for a little, and then if moderators decide to do so, the thread is closed or deleted. Or, you can request that the thread be deleted and it will be done immediately by a mod.

 

 

Joker

[flingwing206]

...and it seems the folks over at PPRuNe are a bit less tolerant.

 

I too am interested to know the details, and see the curriculum. While I am not in a position to take advantage of such a program, I know plenty of folks who are.

[bossman]

OKeveryone, hands up if you read this, thinking it was another "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is" scenario. I did!

 

Bossman,

 

I agree with what has been said. Your initial email was blatent advertising. You should know that this is generally not acceptable on a forum such as this. Tsk, tsk...I wag my finger in your general direction. In fact the biggest insult is that you try to pull the wool over our eyes, by claiming that you were simply asking "the community how they would like to be able to fly a turbine for $300.00 per hour." Let's be clear that the wool isn't pulled...this was very close to the mark w.r.t board rules.

 

HOWEVER, as we are a friendly board, I would like to say this. Let's give this guy (Mr. Bossman) a lucky break. A little free advertising (no I don't want to start a trend). Just let's give him the 'airtime' for the moment.

 

In return, for this gesture of goodwill, Mr. Bossman openly explains a little how it is his company can make such an offer to students and keep the operation finically profitable. How is it that he can make this claim on his website, where 99% of the flight schools I know, need to charge significantly more than his price for time in a turbine ship.

 

I also ask that Mr. Bossman explain his 'Turbine Rating' that he speaks of carefully for the benifit of new pilots. I am not a new pilot, and I don't believe that the FAA has any such rating.

 

Lastly, I would ask Mr. Bossman to give us a sneak preview at a normal 'training schedule' that a student would go though. I am intrigued as to the program which would move a student on from what are commonly agreed as standard benchmarks (compentency in the traffic pattern, for example) and replace them with 'self selected real-world' skills, what ever they may be.

 

Joker

 

Joker,

We are the FBO on our field. Lower fuel cost. Other helicopter ops are profitable. Firefighting, pipeline, etc. Acquisition of the Alouettes at a very good price. Desire to aid young students and pilots in their endevor to achieve their dreams. We were young once. In todays insurance society it is very hard for a low time pilot to get the turbine time they need. Much less at a price they can afford. Don't knock us until you come visit us. We've been flying all of our lives. 35 years in business. Giving back.We never said anything about a "turbine rating" as far as I know it does not exist. We are saying that our students can acquire the rating they seek in a turbine helicopter. From day one they will be flying a turbine. The training schedule is that which is needed to meet the requirements of the rating under part 61. We never said that you would not be doing traffic patterns. We say that this is not all that is needed to fly a helicopter. The ground school that is required is done at a rate of $40.00 per hour. The amount needed varies with each student. Students fly when they want to. We teach 7 days a week. We have several flying even as we speak (if the morning fog has lifted). Our airport is located right on top of one of our mountains. Sometimes the fog can be a bother.

Yes we do have some self selected "real world" training that we think is needed. It comes from spending our lives with thousands of moving, rotating, beating, banging parts strapped to us. Come see us. We do a lot of hanger flying around here and some real world flying, also. Looking forward.

[bossman]

...and it seems the folks over at PPRuNe are a bit less tolerant.

 

I too am interested to know the details, and see the curriculum. While I am not in a position to take advantage of such a program, I know plenty of folks who are.

 

As of right now we are not a 141 flight school. We are in the process of making application. All our training is done under part 61. The curriculum varies with each student. We do a lot of local add-ons to the fixed wing.

Hopefully we will be able to offer part 141 early next year. Some students prefer part 61 because it is less formal. We'll do both. The add-on folks have other jobs and are not able to commit to a formal program.

[Voluptuary5]

Just curious what direction the main rotor would turn on those birds? They are made by Aérospatiale, a French company, no? And if those blades do turn clockwise, would that be a huge disadvantage for someone who wanted to fly in the U.S. (flying U.S. copters)?

 

-V5

[joker]

Mr. Bossman,

 

Thank you for a quick reply.

 

re. Turbine rating - I appologise, you you didn't mention a 'rating' on your site. I was latching onto the the mention of the 'Turbine Checkout' you mention on the second page of your site. I guess my mind made the link between a 'checkout' being some sort of test for some sort of 'rating'. All I said, is that maybe you can explain this a little for the benifit of new pilots.

 

You are also right - you have never said that your students do not fly patterns (apart from in the first post). However, you did / do suggest that the helicopter courses that most everyone else are teaching or taking are, by contrast to yours, less sufficient to equip pilots for the helicopter industry. This is a pretty heavy claim to make without some explanation, wouldn't you say?

 

The training schedule is that which is needed to meet the requirements of the rating under part 61.

Afterall, the training schedules I taught must have met the requirements of Part 61 (and 141) as I had a good passrate with students and used that fact to renew my instructor card!!! So the question is, how is your training schedule different to mine? Or are these 'real-world' elements in addition to mine? If so, how much extra does the course take? Is the total course cost increased?

 

Another point is this: I apparantly did not take these 'real-world skills'. However, I don't feel that I have missed out. In fact, I now find myself flying twins, night-IFR-Cross country on a daily basis. I don't feel I've missed out that much at all. What I'm saying is, how do you justify the necessity of these to a student, when people like me seem to do alright without!?

 

What the student needs to know is will these 'real-world' skills help him to get a job or are they just an extravagance?

 

So don't get me wrong. I am not knocking your operation here. I am simply saying, if you come in with bullish statements (that knock every other operation - as per your first post), you must expect to be scrutinised by your readers.

 

Whilst I don't think you were right to launch this thread in the way you did (and hope that you learn from this), I think you are doing ok at the moment. Stay polite and professional here would be my advice! You might just get away with it...just this once, though!

 

Joker

 

P.S.

 

Just a minor point but you said:

 

We never said that you would not be doing traffic patterns.

 

Didn't you open this thread with:

 

Real world flying. Not patterns around an airport.

[bossman]

Mr. Bossman,

 

Thank you for a quick reply.

 

re. Turbine rating - I appologise, you you didn't mention a 'rating' on your site. I was latching onto the the mention of the 'Turbine Checkout' you mention on the second page of your site. I guess my mind made the link between a 'checkout' being some sort of test for some sort of 'rating'. All I said, is that maybe you can explain this a little for the benifit of new pilots.

 

You are also right - you have never said that your students do not fly patterns. However, you did / do suggest that the helicopter courses that most everyone else are teaching or taking are, by contrast to yours, less sufficient to equip pilots for the helicopter industry. This is a pretty heavy claim to make without some explanation, wouldn't you say?

 

Afterall, the training schedules I taught must have met the requirements of Part 61 (and 141) as I had a good passrate with students and used that fact to renew my instructor card!!! So the question is, how is your training schedule different to mine? Or are these 'real-world' elements in addition to mine? If so, how much extra does the course take? Is the total course cost increased?

 

Another point is this: I apparantly did not take these 'real-world skills'. However, I don't feel that I have missed out. In fact, I now find myself flying twins, night-IFR-Cross country on a daily basis. I don't feel I've missed out that much at all.

 

What the student needs to know is will these 'real-world' skills help him to get a job?

 

So don't get me wrong. I am not knocking your operation here. I am simply saying, if you come in with bullish statements (that knock every other operation - as per your first post), you must expect to be scrutinised by your readers. Whilst I don't think you were right to launch this thread in the way you did, I think you are doing ok at the moment. Stay polite and professional here would be my advice! You might just get away with it...just this once! <_>

 

Joker

Joker,

I'm sorry if my low cost turbine time offends you. I did not say that other training programs were sub-standard. The course costs are not affected by our training variations. The hours required remain the same and are not increased. Our training environment is not big city. We are a very rural community. The nearest controlled airspace is 35 miles away. Yes, we do go there and teach in this environment, also. I gurantee that the skills we teach our students will help them get a job flying anywhere. They will be proud, safe pilots. I appreciate that you think that I am doing OK. It helps my ego. Come see us.

PS

This concept also helps us full figure guys have something to fly in. I weigh 300 pounds (all Muscle). Can't get in a Robbie.

[jehh]

Bossman, I'm curious as to what jobs your students are going to get with 150 hours of turbine time?

 

Are you planning to hire them all as CFIs? If not, are you going to put them to work at 150 hours yourself?

 

Last time I checked, 500 hours was required for part 135 jobs, so Part 91 is the only option for awhile. Your students will not be qualified to teach in R-22s or Schweizer 300s, so what is the plan after 150 hours of turbine time?

[Guest pokey]

This concept also helps us full figure guys have something to fly in. I weigh 300 pounds (all Muscle). Can't get in a Robbie.

 

 

H O L Y C O W ! ! !

 

just outtah curiosity i looked up Arnold Schwartzneggar's weight, its as follows:

 

"At his bodybuilding peak his chest was 57", waist 34", biceps 22", thighs 28?, calves 20", and his competition weight was 235 lbs (260 lbs off-season). "

 

Are you related to Herman Munster? Bossman?!

[joker]

waist 34", biceps 22"

 

They sound like my measurements!

[Guest pokey]

They sound like my measurements!

 

sounds like mine too joker, just the numbers dont match the particular bodypart

[brushfire21]

Mr. Bossman,

 

Thank you for the clarification on what your trying to do. It does seem really inexspensive, and I would love to get a few hours of stick time in one for the hell of it someday after I get my ppl. But I do think that some of the guys have a point about what the students are going to do once they get there 150-200 hours. When they go to teach (to build time), they won't have had any time in any piston type of aircraft, which is usually used for training purposes. Unless they find an employer that will hire them with low hours, or they pay more to build time up to 500-1000hrs, the students might be disadvantaged unless they also do there time in a piston style training aircraft. Doesn't make sense to stick a new CFI that has 200hours of turbine time and no time with a piston, into a S300 to start teaching students. Will employers want to hire these folks to teach with zero or little piston time? Just my perspective from a student mind you, that is looking at what I need to do and set goals and try to line out what I have to do to get a job after I get my ratings.

 

Seems like the program would be great for time building while adding ratings, or turbine transition, but the future will tell us how it goes for the students.

 

There are company's out there using the FH1000 with turbines as well for training, and I think the same concerns exist for the students there that don't get jobs with the company they did there initial training with.

 

But the cool thing is, that as more and more companies bring in turbine trainers, its less and less of the death traps that some are flying now that people are speaking of and getting into trouble with. And job prospects will get better and better, and maybe the piston will be something in a book that the new CFI's will talk about during groundtraining.

 

This is all just my perspective from the student side.

 

How does the Alouette do compared to the smaller piston ships for training? How do the students fair (learning curve and hours to complete etc) when solo'ing, AR's, and the like? Easy, harder or just different? Just curious here.

[bossman]

Just curious what direction the main rotor would turn on those birds? They are made by Aérospatiale, a French company, no? And if those blades do turn clockwise, would that be a huge disadvantage for someone who wanted to fly in the U.S. (flying U.S. copters)?

 

-V5

 

You are correct the rotors do turn the other way. It's not a problem. Just takes a couple of pick-ups to get used to. Look outside and do what needs to be done to keep the nose pointed in the direction you want it to be.

 

 

Mr. Bossman,

 

Thank you for the clarification on what your trying to do. It does seem really inexspensive, and I would love to get a few hours of stick time in one for the hell of it someday after I get my ppl. But I do think that some of the guys have a point about what the students are going to do once they get there 150-200 hours. When they go to teach (to build time), they won't have had any time in any piston type of aircraft, which is usually used for training purposes. Unless they find an employer that will hire them with low hours, or they pay more to build time up to 500-1000hrs, the students might be disadvantaged unless they also do there time in a piston style training aircraft. Doesn't make sense to stick a new CFI that has 200hours of turbine time and no time with a piston, into a S300 to start teaching students. Will employers want to hire these folks to teach with zero or little piston time? Just my perspective from a student mind you, that is looking at what I need to do and set goals and try to line out what I have to do to get a job after I get my ratings.

 

Seems like the program would be great for time building while adding ratings, or turbine transition, but the future will tell us how it goes for the students.

 

There are company's out there using the FH1000 with turbines as well for training, and I think the same concerns exist for the students there that don't get jobs with the company they did there initial training with.

 

But the cool thing is, that as more and more companies bring in turbine trainers, its less and less of the death traps that some are flying now that people are speaking of and getting into trouble with. And job prospects will get better and better, and maybe the piston will be something in a book that the new CFI's will talk about during groundtraining.

 

This is all just my perspective from the student side.

 

How does the Alouette do compared to the smaller piston ships for training? How do the students fair (learning curve and hours to complete etc) when solo'ing, AR's, and the like? Easy, harder or just different? Just curious here.

 

I can't see any problem with getting a CFI job whether you have 200 hrs. in a turbine or 200 hrs. in a piston. The only problem would be in a Robinson with the special SFAR. The Alouette handles great. A student climbing out of a piston would have no trouble adjusting after a couple of hours. The start is turn on the power, wait 30 seconds and flip a switch. The rotors engage as you increase RPM. The students are very happy with the aircraft. The time is the same. Depending on ability.

[bossman]

Bossman, I'm curious as to what jobs your students are going to get with 150 hours of turbine time?

 

Are you planning to hire them all as CFIs? If not, are you going to put them to work at 150 hours yourself?

 

Last time I checked, 500 hours was required for part 135 jobs, so Part 91 is the only option for awhile. Your students will not be qualified to teach in R-22s or Schweizer 300s, so what is the plan after 150 hours of turbine time?

 

The only one you could not teach in would be the Robinson with the special SFAR. You are only required to have 5 hours in type in any other aircraft. If a school is not willing to help you get 5 hours you don't need to work for them. We train all our Pilots and instructors in the Hueys, Sikorskys, Alouette, etc. at no charge when we hire them. Our insurance requires this check-out.

 

 

H O L Y C O W ! ! !

 

just outtah curiosity i looked up Arnold Schwartzneggar's weight, its as follows:

 

"At his bodybuilding peak his chest was 57", waist 34", biceps 22", thighs 28?, calves 20", and his competition weight was 235 lbs (260 lbs off-season). "

 

Are you related to Herman Munster? Bossman?!

 

Maybe the "all muscle" was not entirely correct. What I should of said was, muscle with a soft outer layer.

[67november]

Maybe the "all muscle" was not entirely correct. What I should of said was, muscle with a soft outer layer.

 

and that fine physiec(sp) is kept that way with daily 12 oz curls

[bossman]

and that fine physiec(sp) is kept that way with daily 12 oz curls

 

Had to quit the curls, got too attached to it. You need a picture of a B model under your call sign, brother.