J
JohnGalt
Guest
.....
Last edited by a moderator:
What's your goal here and what exactly is the "Chief Pilot" offering?I want to start working on my Commercial rating, I'm currently instrument rated and have all the prereq's. I'm hoping ya'll can help with advice and recomendations about training.
The overall consensus seems that this is the easiest rating to get and folks on the boards make mention of it as something to knock out in a short time or even over a long weekend. The only thing contrary to this school of thought comes from a long conversation at one local flight school.
The chief instructor says my Commercial's going to be the most difficult and broad reaching training and he made some pretty good points as to why it should be this way. He agrees that the PTS standards are not terribly difficult and he could probably prepare anyone to pass the checkride in about a week. His real point is, just becasue you get the piece of paper, does that really mean you're qualified to be a professional pilot? Will you be prepared to work everyday and be competant in all aspects of the job? Will anyone be willing to hire you?
His example is this: A local small business hires you to fly their Cirrus (or Bonanza or Matrix or other unpressurized single) and you should be prepared to handle all aspects of the job. You'll be the company's pilot and be responsible for the airplane, all flights and ultimately everyone on-board.
Instructor made some very strong points in that being a commercial pilot means much more than fulfilling the FAA required maneuvers. In his program there's to be lots of ADM and CRM, all types of emergency procedures, huge amounts of meteorology, big picture cross country planning and scenario based training, avanced aerodynamics plus aircraft systems covered in great detail. Basically the end result is that I should be a one-man, single engine, flight department capable of planning all operations and overseeing the maintenance of an aircraft for this theoretical small business.
This really opened my eyes because it'd be great to have a theoretical job like that. (I understand the liklihood is almost non-existent) But in the real world there's a lot more to professional flying than knocking out half a dozen maneuvers, precise landings and knowing how prop and gear work.
Let's say I invest the extra time and money, at the end of the day I'd end up with the same piece of paper that says CP-ASEL-IA as with the quickie weekend course. I would undoubtedly be a much better pilot, but how would I ever convince a potential employer of this? Would it really be worth it?
What do you folks think? Which sounds like the right way to go?
But the normal way to get that experience is as an junior pilot in a flight department somewhere, or as a CFI in a flight school/rental operation. Most potential employers will look for that experience rather than training.Basically the end result is that I should be a one-man, single engine, flight department capable of planning all operations and overseeing the maintenance of an aircraft for this theoretical small business.
That was my first impression too.While the chief instructor's points are well taken, it sounds like a sales pitch for an expensive training program to me.
The thing is that being a commercial pilot covers a whole spectrum of activities and there is no way anyone is going to be good at all of them. A 747 pilot is not going to easily transition to being a cropduster and vice versa. I would say that most commercial pilots get training on their specific job from their employer rather than from a school. School only provides you with the basics.This leads me to another question: How do you differentiate between the pilot selling rides at the local grass strip and the guy flying a business owned Pilatus under Part 91? They both would likely have the same CP-ASEL-IA but the daily flying would be worlds apart.
It seems like in aviation there should be a way to tell the differences in training and knowledge. The average joe can quantify the difference between an engineer who went to MIT vs ITT, or the doc who graduated from Johns Hopkins vs Banana Republic Med Skool.
What's the equivalent in pilot training?
Thanks for the good advice. Sounds like the best way to go is do what it takes to pass the checkride and then learn from experience. That certainly will save time and money. Though I am pretty surprised that the real world differences between private pilot and commercial pilot are so slim.
This leads me to another question: How do you differentiate between the pilot selling rides at the local grass strip and the guy flying a business owned Pilatus under Part 91? They both would likely have the same CP-ASEL-IA but the daily flying would be worlds apart.
It seems like in aviation there should be a way to tell the differences in training and knowledge. The average joe can quantify the difference between an engineer who went to MIT vs ITT, or the doc who graduated from Johns Hopkins vs Banana Republic Med Skool.
What's the equivalent in pilot training?
This leads me to another question: How do you differentiate between the pilot selling rides at the local grass strip and the guy flying a business owned Pilatus under Part 91? They both would likely have the same CP-ASEL-IA but the daily flying would be worlds apart.
It seems like in aviation there should be a way to tell the differences in training and knowledge. The average joe can quantify the difference between an engineer who went to MIT vs ITT, or the doc who graduated from Johns Hopkins vs Banana Republic Med Skool.
What's the equivalent in pilot training?
Well, for one thing the Pilatus will have transition training and a Type Rating (unless you're not referring to the turboprop) while the grass strip/sight seeing flyer will have to deal with the FSDO. Neither situation will stop training after getting the commercial ticket.
I like your engineer example. To the average guy, he probably really can't tell the difference in competence between MIT and ITT grads but either one may ( and I type *may* quite deliberately) be competent to complete a required engineering task. Now a state certification (Professional Engineer) may help the average guy assess the engineer, it certainly doesn't ensure competence for a particular task.
What's the difference between a "brilliant" vs "competent" engineer/doctor/whatever? The results when they come up against a problem they've never seen before.
Actually it does - the same might apply to test pilots...None of which has bearing on the question at hand...
Actually it does - the same might apply to test pilots...
I'm addressing the question about the difference between an ITT or MIT grad as applied to pilots... Nobody "new" in their field is very good no matter where they trained.Actually, it doesn't. We're discussing new commercial pilots and the training requirements. Not practicing professionals established in their field.
I like your engineer example. To the average guy, he probably really can't tell the difference in competence between MIT and ITT grads
I'm addressing the question about the difference between an ITT or MIT grad as applied to pilots... Nobody "new" in their field is very good no matter where they trained.
No, I said the difference between competent and brilliant would be seen when they ran into something they'd never seen or done before. And to me that difference is a matter of talent AND possibly an education that that recognizes and nurtures talent (which is not the same thing as skill).No you weren't. You were saying the difference in brilliance and competent depended on their body of work.
But the OP asked about training to be a commercial pilot, not training to be an engineer. I think the two activities are completely different. In engineering the problems are much more complex but the time frame for coming up with a solution is longer. In flying the problems are much simpler but they need to be solved right away. You don't have days, weeks or months to think about it. You also can't do much research or experimentation. If you have a problem flying you may have been taught how to deal with it in training; you may have had something similar happen before; or you may have read something about it somewhere in the past. The key is trying to come up with this information in a timely manner. Although you need a reasonable amount of intelligence, I don't think that brilliance or a fine education is the key to being a good pilot. I think that flexibility, the ability to multitask and being good about keeping all your ducks in a row are more important characteristics.No, I said the difference between competent and brilliant would be seen when they ran into something they'd never seen or done before. And to me that difference is a matter of talent AND possibly an education that that recognizes and nurtures talent (which is not the same thing as skill).
But the OP asked about training to be a commercial pilot, not training to be an engineer. I think the two activities are completely different. In engineering the problems are much more complex but the time frame for coming up with a solution is longer. In flying the problems are much simpler but they need to be solved right away. You don't have days, weeks or months to think about it. You also can't do much research or experimentation. If you have a problem flying you may have been taught how to deal with it in training; you may have had something similar happen before; or you may have read something about it somewhere in the past. The key is trying to come up with this information in a timely manner. Although you need a reasonable amount of intelligence, I don't think that brilliance or a fine education is the key to being a good pilot. I think that flexibility, the ability to multitask and being good about keeping all your ducks in a row are more important characteristics.
The difference between Joe's Flying Service using a couple of old 140 Cherokees and an Arrow, and an AABI-accredited professional pilot program at a regionally-accredited university run jointly with the training arm of a Part 121 RJ air carrier using a fleet of glass panel airplanes and flight simulation devices up to and including regional jet simulators.What's the equivalent in pilot training?
That's why employers have job applications and require (and, one hopes, check) resumes.That's the point I'm trying to determine, there's no way to tell from someone's certificate if he went to Joe's or an accredited program. At some point the certificates both say nothing more than Commercial Pilot whether you went thru a quickie course or a more thorough program.
The CFI.What's the equivalent in pilot training?
That's why employers have job applications and require (and, one hopes, check) resumes.