Dear Rod:
I want to work with an independent CFI while renting an airplane from a school. Some schools won’t even consider this. Another school was OK at first with my renting the airplane from them but paying the CFI separately. Now they say they want a cut of what I pay him—i.e., comparable to what they’d make from their in-house CFIs.
What do you think is fair in a situation like this?
—Ted
Greetings Ted:
Without going into all the gritty details and explanations, here’s the simple answer to your question. If it costs the FBO money to let you train with a freelance CFI (i.e., greater insurance costs, or increased cost of flight school supplies, et cetera.), then pay them the money they request. That’s fair. If there’s no cost to the FBO by having you train there, then make the case that they are turning away profit by forcing you to train elsewhere. I never worked for any flight school, but always freelanced by using a flight school’s aircraft for training without paying the school anything. How did I do it? I proved to the FBO that I’d bring them more money (and general benefits) by training my students there than elsewhere.
Dear Rod,
I am ready to start my private pilot training. I’m absolutely confused about whether to train in an airplane with Garmin G1000 glass-cockpit equipment or to train in a less-expensive Cessna with traditional flight instruments (the instructor called them steam gauges). I don’t have an unlimited budget, but I do want to train in the airplane that will make me a capable, confident pilot. Can you offer any guidance in this area?
Kind regards,
—Weldon
Greetings Weldon:
I’ve answered questions similar to this before, but your question is slightly different. You want to know what type of aircraft equipment will make you a capable and confident pilot. The answer is: The avionics equipment in the airplane has no effect whatsoever on how capable and confident you’ll become as a pilot.
Learning to fly an airplane is not about operating avionics, it’s about learning to fly an airplane. If you don’t learn how to use advanced avionics equipment during primary training, you can always learn how to use it later. If that weren’t the case, then no military pilots (who typically start training in single-engine, piston-powered, analog-gauged airplanes) would ever be capable of moving up to advanced jet aircraft.
So my advice is to first fly the airplane you can afford. Then fly the airplane that aesthetically pleases you. If you can only afford to train in a Cessna 150 or Piper Cub, then do so. With a good instructor, and whatever additional post-private-pilot training you need, you’ll be as confident and capable as any pilot who learned in a technically advanced aircraft. That’s a fact.
Dear Rod,
I was giving a flight review and simulated an engine failure by retarding the throttle to flight idle. This student was set up to land at a nontowered airport when he added power then reduced it back to flight idle. He did this several times, each time insisting that he was clearing the engine. I’ve never heard of this and actually thought he might be cheating by adding power to make the runway. Is this a normal procedure?
—K.V.
Greetings K.V.:
No, your student wasn’t cheating. He was using a very good procedure to ensure that the engine was still operational after running at flight idle for a given amount of time. The intent here is to increase power sufficiently to determine that the engine is operating normally and hasn’t quit because of carbon or lead fouling of the spark plugs, or suffered asphyxiation from carburetor ice. Normally, that means running the engine up to some moderate power setting then quickly retarding the throttle back to flight idle. I like to do this at least every 1,000 feet of descent. Doing so allows you to feel confident that your engine is still operating properly. Of course, clearing the engine every 10 seconds should be cause for suspicion, especially when it appears that the airplane is clearly beyond gliding distance from the chosen field.
Related Articles
