turbine training for $300.00 per hour

[HH60Pilot]

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.

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.

 

I have to agree with what others are saying about not being able to get a job with only 200 hours in the Alouette. When we were using R22's, I couldn't hire an instructor without the SFAR73 requirements being met; which means 50 hours of R22 time. With our insurance program with the Schweizers, our carrier requires 10 dual and a total of 25 hours time in type before they can instruct. Either 50 hours of R22 time at $200 per hour for a total of $10,000 or a lesser amount for the Schweizer requirements is a large amount of additional money for someone to have pay before they can get a job as a CFI. Five hours may be the FAA minimum, but how many hours will it take for the low time instructor to be proficient in the new aircraft? I'm might guessing here, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't turn the keys to your helicopter over to a low time CFI that wasn't proficient in the Alouette. Just out of curiousity, how many hours total time and in make and model does your insurance company require of a low time CFI that trained the the R22 or S300 before they can teach in your Alouette?

 

In one of your previous postings you mentioned real world jobs such as Ag, Fire Fighting, Long-Line, etc. With only 200 hours, which employer will be able to hire a pilot to do these jobs? I have a feeling that the answer is zero based upon insurance requirements that the employers are stuck with.

 

It may have only taken you a couple of pick-ups to handle the pedals being opposite, but I have a feeling that a lower time pilot is going to need several hours and some practice autos to make things go smoothly. When I did a check out in the AS350, there was no issue for the pedals, but I'm a higher time pilot. I can guarantee you that it would have been sporting if I had done it with only 150 hours, and that is what I think most low time pilots will experience.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking turbine time, I got plenty of it when I was at Ft. Rucker (Yes, Air Force helicopter pilots train at Ft. Rucker). But, it's also not the cat's meow like some people think that it is; and turbine time doesn't mean a thing for a low time CFI trying to get a job at a school flying either R22's or the S300.

 

Anyway, that's just my two-cents.

 

Doug

[Heli-Ops]

Bossman - Yes I did read your reply but just because you have it in your resume doesnt explain how a brand new student who is looking at choosing a school to train at is going to gain any advantage over another school just because the other part of your company does real world flying.

 

I know for a fact that USFS and others who contract fire fighting helos wont touch a 200hr pilot and after a few phone calls to various other individuals the chances of a 200hr pilot being accepted for any of this real world flying is slim to none.

 

So bottom line, how does the real world flying line that you keep talking about help the guy or girl who is looking at choosing a school to train at. And please give us some straight answers without all the double talk, people here are not stupid. If you can justify why this benefits them, then great, all credit to you but if all thats posted is a smoke and mirrors answer then this thread might as well get put into the same catergory as the silverstate one.

[bossman]

Bossman - Yes I did read your reply but just because you have it in your resume doesnt explain how a brand new student who is looking at choosing a school to train at is going to gain any advantage over another school just because the other part of your company does real world flying.

 

I know for a fact that USFS and others who contract fire fighting helos wont touch a 200hr pilot and after a few phone calls to various other individuals the chances of a 200hr pilot being accepted for any of this real world flying is slim to none.

 

So bottom line, how does the real world flying line that you keep talking about help the guy or girl who is looking at choosing a school to train at. And please give us some straight answers without all the double talk, people here are not stupid. If you can justify why this benefits them, then great, all credit to you but if all thats posted is a smoke and mirrors answer then this thread might as well get put into the same catergory as the silverstate one.

OPs,

We do not spend days upon end flying around an airport pattern. I never insinuated that anyone on here was stupid. I don't claim to have the answers for low time pilots. I just try to prepare them for what they will encounter in todays world of helicopter flying. I hear all the time from students that have gained 150 hours of flying around an airport at one of the big time schools. Their catch phrase is "They didn't teach me that". The best thing that I can tell you is that we teach young pilots to be safe and try to help them survive as helicopter pilots.

[bossman]

I have to agree with what others are saying about not being able to get a job with only 200 hours in the Alouette. When we were using R22's, I couldn't hire an instructor without the SFAR73 requirements being met; which means 50 hours of R22 time. With our insurance program with the Schweizers, our carrier requires 10 dual and a total of 25 hours time in type before they can instruct. Either 50 hours of R22 time at $200 per hour for a total of $10,000 or a lesser amount for the Schweizer requirements is a large amount of additional money for someone to have pay before they can get a job as a CFI. Five hours may be the FAA minimum, but how many hours will it take for the low time instructor to be proficient in the new aircraft? I'm might guessing here, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't turn the keys to your helicopter over to a low time CFI that wasn't proficient in the Alouette. Just out of curiousity, how many hours total time and in make and model does your insurance company require of a low time CFI that trained the the R22 or S300 before they can teach in your Alouette?

 

In one of your previous postings you mentioned real world jobs such as Ag, Fire Fighting, Long-Line, etc. With only 200 hours, which employer will be able to hire a pilot to do these jobs? I have a feeling that the answer is zero based upon insurance requirements that the employers are stuck with.

 

It may have only taken you a couple of pick-ups to handle the pedals being opposite, but I have a feeling that a lower time pilot is going to need several hours and some practice autos to make things go smoothly. When I did a check out in the AS350, there was no issue for the pedals, but I'm a higher time pilot. I can guarantee you that it would have been sporting if I had done it with only 150 hours, and that is what I think most low time pilots will experience.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking turbine time, I got plenty of it when I was at Ft. Rucker (Yes, Air Force helicopter pilots train at Ft. Rucker). But, it's also not the cat's meow like some people think that it is; and turbine time doesn't mean a thing for a low time CFI trying to get a job at a school flying either R22's or the S300.

 

Anyway, that's just my two-cents.

 

Doug

Doug,

Our insurance only requires 10 hrs. in type. We may or may not require more ourselves. As you well know, each pilot is different. We do not cater to only low time pilots that want to build time in a Robbie or Schweizer. We do a lot of add-on corp. pilots. I know that nobody will hire a CFI for a Schweizer if they don't have Schweizer time. I've seen low time pilots do full down autos all day long and never screw up. Then I've seen them never get one right. It's all in the individual. That's what we do, we take care of the individual. We know that this is not a perfect idea. It is a hell of a deal for someone that wants to do turbine training. So now we are back to the individual. We offer another option, the piston guys act like they are afraid we are going to steal all their students. Can't handle them all. Just want to give a few the option.

[joker]

I hear all the time from students that have gained 150 hours of flying around an airport at one of the big time schools. Their catch phrase is "They didn't teach me that".

 

150 hours around an airport - Bossman, don't pretend that any of us would think that 150hrs of flying around an airport is the way to go! Of course its not. What is needed is a balance of time. Still, most crashes occur within 5 miles of the airfield. This is not an area that should be breezed over.

 

With all due respect, the discussion seems to be, not what or what is taught, but how much is relavant to their quest for further employment.

 

Also, we all know that student's are not necessariliy the best judges of what they should be taught. If I would have had my way, I'd done SWP and autos all the time in my training...because they're fun. My instructor fortunately kept me on track and I had to do 'boring' things like x or y.

 

Being the one who kick started this interesting debate, shall sumarise my thoughts in my final word.

 

1. What Bossman is offering sounds like a genuine offer. I can't see any malice in his offer. Maybe just a little too much 'poetic licence' in how he promotes them.

 

2. I do not think that the merits of all this turbine time (this early on in a person's career) are as profound as it is made out to be. Afterall, 2% of the first 150 hours is spent learning to make the aircraft work, the other 98% learning to be a pilot, and that can be done in any aircraft.

 

3. By that same token then, I would say that it is not possible to teach the list of 'real world skills (shown above)' to any sort of meaningful proficiency in a student's first 150 hours. Their knowledge and basic skill is simply not enough to be able to cope with the added skill sets.

 

4. HOWEVER, as 'tasters', then yes it is a great idea that students get a chance to experience (even at a superficial level that they would) 'real world ops'. This would give them an idea of what sort of area they wish to aim for in the future.

 

5. Any PADI divers here? - I am a PADI instructor, as well as an IANTD and BSAC instructor. I see a similarity with the 'Real World Skills' Bossman offers, to the PADI Speciality courses, where someone can go and take the 'Wreck Speciality' or 'Deep Diver Speciality' or 'Nitrox Speciality' after not many dives. Yet every year people die attempting wreck / deep dives they are not properly qalified for. I am careful to remind my students that these are just tasters! It doesn't mean they are qualified for a full penetration dive on the Britannia at 270 feet on a trimix or heliox mix!

 

Well, I see the same possible danger in Bossman's case. Is there a danger that these pilots' perception of their own skills will be higher than is? I could see the report now:

 

"Man dies trying to sling load his cow from one field to another! -

It turns out that the 150.1hr-pilot had had just a few hours of sling training at the RealWorldSchoolOfBossman, and had told the cow," it would be OK, I am an expert at this." Reports show that he'd also had close shaves while attempting Search And Rescue Missions, Ag Work, Longlining, Fire Fighting too."

 

6. It appears that this 0-PPL (turbine and 'real-world' elements)course better suited for a student learning for pleasure and not for a career. It would also benifit the pilot who nearing the end of his training and wishes to branch out a little or needs to make up his mind about which job to go for. At the top end, it is great for the old, bold pilot who wants to change a career path.

 

However, for a 0-CFII career student I don't know if all that turbine, the remote location airport and the 'real world' experiences are that useful at that stage of a long career.

 

 

OK, so there is my short summary and last word. Here's what I suggest. In true courtroom style, we let Bossman have a final say. Then (seeing as we seem to be going round and round, and Bossman has made all the points he can), we get off his case, either by simply leaving it out, or closing the thread. I think there is a limit to how much free advertising we can give him, due to the fact that he started this thread maliciously hunting for it!

 

Thanks everyone!

 

Joker

 

P.S. The debate that we see here will not be the last on this topic. As turbine engines become cheeper, more schools will find that this is actually more cost efficient. They will all use the, "Get your training all in turbines!" plug to attract students to mask the business reality of '...this aircraft gives us the best profit margin..." Hmmm, similar to the R22 debate, methinks!

[bossman]

150 hours around an airport - Bossman, don't pretend that any of us would think that 150hrs of flying around an airport is the way to go! Of course its not. What is needed is a balance of time. Still, most crashes occur within 5 miles of the airfield. This is not an area that should be breezed over.

 

With all due respect, the discussion seems to be, not what or what is taught, but how much is relavant to their quest for further employment.

 

Also, we all know that student's are not necessariliy the best judges of what they should be taught. If I would have had my way, I'd done SWP and autos all the time in my training...because they're fun. My instructor fortunately kept me on track and I had to do 'boring' things like x or y.

 

Being the one who kick started this interesting debate, shall sumarise my thoughts in my final word.

 

1. What Bossman is offering sounds like a genuine offer. I can't see any malice in his offer. Maybe just a little too much 'poetic licence' in how he promotes them.

 

2. I do not think that the merits of all this turbine time (this early on in a person's career) are as profound as it is made out to be. Afterall, 2% of the first 150 hours is spent learning to make the aircraft work, the other 98% learning to be a pilot, and that can be done in any aircraft.

 

3. By that same token then, I would say that it is not possible to teach the list of 'real world skills (shown above)' to any sort of meaningful proficiency in a student's first 150 hours. Their knowledge and basic skill is simply not enough to be able to cope with the added skill sets.

 

4. HOWEVER, as 'tasters', then yes it is a great idea that students get a chance to experience (even at a superficial level that they would) 'real world ops'. This would give them an idea of what sort of area they wish to aim for in the future.

 

5. Any PADI divers here? - I am a PADI instructor, as well as an IANTD and BSAC instructor. I see a similarity with the 'Real World Skills' Bossman offers, to the PADI Speciality courses, where someone can go and take the 'Wreck Speciality' or 'Deep Diver Speciality' or 'Nitrox Speciality' after not many dives. Yet every year people die attempting wreck / deep dives they are not properly qalified for. I am careful to remind my students that these are just tasters! It doesn't mean they are qualified for a full penetration dive on the Britannia at 270 feet on a trimix or heliox mix!

 

Well, I see the same possible danger in Bossman's case. Is there a danger that these pilots' perception of their own skills will be higher than is? I could see the report now:

 

"Man dies trying to sling load his cow from one field to another! -

It turns out that the 150.1hr-pilot had had just a few hours of sling training at the RealWorldSchoolOfBossman, and had told the cow," it would be OK, I am an expert at this." Reports show that he'd also had close shaves while attempting Search And Rescue Missions, Ag Work, Longlining, Fire Fighting too."

 

6. It appears that this 0-PPL (turbine and 'real-world' elements)course better suited for a student learning for pleasure and not for a career. It would also benifit the pilot who nearing the end of his training and wishes to branch out a little or needs to make up his mind about which job to go for. At the top end, it is great for the old, bold pilot who wants to change a career path.

 

However, for a 0-CFII career student I don't know if all that turbine, the remote location airport and the 'real world' experiences are that useful at that stage of a long career.

OK, so there is my short summary and last word. Here's what I suggest. In true courtroom style, we let Bossman have a final say. Then (seeing as we seem to be going round and round, and Bossman has made all the points he can), we get off his case, either by simply leaving it out, or closing the thread. I think there is a limit to how much free advertising we can give him, due to the fact that he started this thread maliciously hunting for it!

 

Thanks everyone!

 

Joker

 

P.S. The debate that we see here will not be the last on this topic. As turbine engines become cheeper, more schools will find that this is actually more cost efficient. They will all use the, "Get your training all in turbines!" plug to attract students to mask the business reality of '...this aircraft gives us the best profit margin..." Hmmm, similar to the R22 debate, methinks!

Joker,

You are pretty much wrong in everything you are saying. Ask the guys at Rucker what they think of training from scratch in a turbine. As we all know the other skills, longline, slingload, etc. come with time and practice.