A "real" Part 61 syllabus

M

Mach.12

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
86
Location
Dahlonega
Display Name
Display name:
Mach.12
Does anyone have a syllabus that is based on something other than the 40 hour minimum?

I'm having problems with knowing when to deviate from the 40 hour syllabus which requires an unrealistic performance progression for most part 61 folks flying a couple times a week in my opinion. Plus, I would like something more realistic to give to my students from the outset.

Anyone have something around 50-55 hours?

Thanks, all
 
Uhh, just don't go beyond a certain "lesson" until the student masters that lesson. Most of the syllabi I have seen are divided in "lessons" rather than "hours".
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Uhh, just don't go beyond a certain "lesson" until the student masters that lesson. Most of the syllabi I have seen are divided in "lessons" rather than "hours".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's what I'm having to do now, but at a certain point the lightbulb will come on and the student will say one of three things:

1. They have to deviate from the syllabus once every four flights...that's 25%...I really suck at this and probably shouldn't waste my time.

2. If I am deviating so much and the instructor is telling me I'm doing fine, then why are they using an obviously flawed program of instruction?

3. This instructor is trying to cheat me...he doesn't stick to the syllabus that the Chief instructor gave me.

Anyone with any other thoughts?
 
Our syllabus for private is 53 hours total, 42 dual, 10 solo, and 1 hr for the checkride. Most of the extra time is just dual review.
 
First off, let's clarify one point. It is not deviating from the syllabus. It is not proceeding until a lesson is complete. It may take more than one flight to complete a lesson

Mach.12 said:
1. They have to deviate from the syllabus once every four flights...that's 25%...I really suck at this and probably shouldn't waste my time.
Click to expand...

50 hours as opposed to 40? If you have done your job as a CFI, you would have told the student that although the minimum hours required is 40, national average is 55 hours and it more than likely will take more than 40 hours.

2. If I am deviating so much and the instructor is telling me I'm doing fine, then why are they using an obviously flawed program of instruction?
Click to expand...

Then you as a CFI need to explain that the syllabus is a guideline and that individual performance will ultimately dictate progress.

3. This instructor is trying to cheat me...he doesn't stick to the syllabus that the Chief instructor gave me.
Click to expand...

Again, it isn't deviating from the syllabus. It is making sure the lessons in the syllabus are learned.

These issues you have listed seem like a lack of communication between the student and instructor to me.
 
Not really looking to get into a ****ing contest here so I'll just ask the original question again.

Does anyone have a PPL Part 61 syllabus that stretches a little longer...say 50-55 hours?

Thanks

Jason
 
Mach.12 said:
Not really looking to get into a ****ing contest here so I'll just ask the original question again.

Does anyone have a PPL Part 61 syllabus that stretches a little longer...say 50-55 hours?

Thanks

Jason
Click to expand...

It's not a contest, it an educational process. And one that you need to learn, also. As already mentioned here, remove the "hours" and replace with "competent" No one learns at the same rate. Many on this list have been CFIs for years, some have been teachers for years. No one learns at the same pace nor at the same level of competency in the same amount of time.

Don't like the syllabus you're using? Then write one that satisfies your requirements. Think of it as a learning process to aid your students.
 
murphey said:
It's not a contest, it an educational process. And one that you need to learn, also. As already mentioned here, remove the "hours" and replace with "competent" No one learns at the same rate. Many on this list have been CFIs for years, some have been teachers for years. No one learns at the same pace nor at the same level of competency in the same amount of time.

Don't like the syllabus you're using? Then write one that satisfies your requirements. Think of it as a learning process to aid your students.
Click to expand...



Ok...again...there are folks out there who use a syllabus that is greater than 40 hours. I understand there may be some proprietary issues involved, but, if someone has one that they can share and not get fired, please do so.

I am not in a position to create my own or make changes to the current one. I can only go to my boss and make the argument that 40 hours is unrealistic and that "these training organizations and using these syllabuses (syllabi) that are over 40 and maybe we should look at changing or incorporating somethings from them into our syllabus."

Thanks

Jason
 
Mach.12 said:
Ok...again...there are folks out there who use a syllabus that is greater than 40 hours. I understand there may be some proprietary issues involved, but, if someone has one that they can share and not get fired, please do so.

I am not in a position to create my own or make changes to the current one. I can only go to my boss and make the argument that 40 hours is unrealistic and that "these training organizations and using these syllabuses (syllabi) that are over 40 and maybe we should look at changing or incorporating somethings from them into our syllabus."

Thanks

Jason
Click to expand...
Jason, I'll add my concurrence to what Greg said. In my mind, a syllabus that actually specifies a number of hours is flawed. That being said, have a look at http://www.safepilots.org/public-documents/. As a result of the symposium this year, SAFE has procured a number of syllabi that are free for the taking from that link.
 
Mach.12 said:
Ok...again...there are folks out there who use a syllabus that is greater than 40 hours. I understand there may be some proprietary issues involved, but, if someone has one that they can share and not get fired, please do so.

I am not in a position to create my own or make changes to the current one. I can only go to my boss and make the argument that 40 hours is unrealistic and that "these training organizations and using these syllabuses (syllabi) that are over 40 and maybe we should look at changing or incorporating somethings from them into our syllabus."

Thanks

Jason
Click to expand...
The trouble is that a syllabus, while a good tool, is NOT a one-size fit's all deal. There are some students that may finish per the syllabus, but most will likely not. Then you have to deal with weather, etc...

Ryan
 
I have never heard of "a 40 hour syllabus" or "a 55 hour syllabus". Maybe you should make your own? :confused:
 
What Greg says - I follow a syllabus and sometimes lessons are doubled or even tripled. Sometimes a lesson may be skipped entirely. Sometimes I'll have to make one specifically for the challenges we face. It's a general guide - shouldn't be set in stone.
 
My students who go over 40 hours do not do so in a common way which would allow a single syllabus to accomodate them with any more precision than the CPC/King Syllabus we already use.

I suspect this is what the others are implying with their commentary, not that you are a CFI who should be urinated upon.
 
schmookeeg said:
My students who go over 40 hours do not do so in a common way which would allow a single syllabus to accomodate them with any more precision than the CPC/King Syllabus we already use.

I suspect this is what the others are implying with their commentary, not that you are a CFI who should be urinated upon.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that the OP has little input to the Chief Pilot who's distributed documentation to all the students, and everyone takes it as the Gospel. If this is true, then using another syllabus is not going to solve the problem. At some point the Chief will discover your new syllabus and wonder (not so politely) why you aren't using the Official Gospel.
 
dmspilot said:
I have never heard of "a 40 hour syllabus" or "a 55 hour syllabus".
Click to expand...
What he and Greg said -- the syllabus should based on stages of learning, not hours. If it takes longer to complete a lesson, you take that extra time and only when the completion standards are achieved do you move on to the next lesson.

Think of it as baseball, not football. There's no set time for an inning -- the inning is over when three outs are achieved, no sooner, and no later. If your student is Mariano Rivera, it may not take very long at all to get through a particular inning (lesson), but if s/he's Kevin Gregg, it may be a lot longer and more agonizing before it's done. However, at the end of the day, the time it took to play the inning is not important as long as you get those three outs.

Since every student is different, if you try to develop an hours-based syllabus, you'll end up having to rewrite it for each student, and that's a fairly pointless waste of the instructor's time.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
What he and Greg said -- the syllabus should based on stages of learning, not hours. If it takes longer to complete a lesson, you take that extra time and only when the completion standards are achieved do you move on to the next lesson.

Think of it as baseball, not football. There's no set time for an inning -- the inning is over when three outs are achieved, no sooner, and no later. If your student is Mariano Rivera, it may not take very long at all to get through a particular inning (lesson), but if s/he's Kevin Gregg, it may be a lot longer and more agonizing before it's done. However, at the end of the day, the time it took to play the inning is not important as long as you get those three outs.

Since every student is different, if you try to develop an hours-based syllabus, you'll end up having to rewrite it for each student, and that's a fairly pointless waste of the instructor's time.
Click to expand...

I guess then my question to you is how do you communicate that. It sounds perfectly reasonable to you and I but if you look at it in the context of a future/student pilot, it seems off.

Student "the FAA says I only need 40 hours"

Me "that's the minimum, the average is 50-55"

Student "are you serious? That's a 25% increase from the FAA STANDARD"

Me. "yes, but it's like a baseball inning vs football quarter...youre performance dictates the completion."

Student "well the syllabus says I should on lesson 4, not 2. This is the 5th time we've flown and we've never kept on time schedule"

That's a conversation I had. The next statement from the CFI is either, you are not meeting the standard or the syllabus isn't really designed for a part time student. Either one is bad.

Regarding hours. How do you give them a good comprehensive estimate of the total price if you don't break it down by the syllabus hours? Before investing thousands of $$$ I expect the provider to point to exactly what I'm paying for. That's just good business in my mind.

Perhaps...having been ripped off in aviation in the past...I'm over thinking this, but if SAFE, NAFI or the FAA says 55 hours is the average, then there should be syllabuseseses using that metric with the idea that it is a much better conversation to a student to say "hey, this syllabus was written for the average guy...your flying 4 times a week and have great eye hand coordination since you work in the circus juggling chainsaws...we'll probably be done around 45-50 hours, but it depends on your progress."

Just my thoughts. I was hoping someone would've already done this, but I guess I'll need to build it.
 
Mach.12 said:
I guess then my question to you is how do you communicate that. It sounds perfectly reasonable to you and I but if you look at it in the context of a future/student pilot, it seems off.

Student "the FAA says I only need 40 hours"

Me "that's the minimum, the average is 50-55"

Student "are you serious? That's a 25% increase from the FAA STANDARD"

Me. "yes, but it's like a baseball inning vs football quarter...youre performance dictates the completion."

Student "well the syllabus says I should on lesson 4, not 2. This is the 5th time we've flown and we've never kept on time schedule"

That's a conversation I had. The next statement from the CFI is either, you are not meeting the standard or the syllabus isn't really designed for a part time student. Either one is bad.

Regarding hours. How do you give them a good comprehensive estimate of the total price if you don't break it down by the syllabus hours? Before investing thousands of $$$ I expect the provider to point to exactly what I'm paying for. That's just good business in my mind.

Perhaps...having been ripped off in aviation in the past...I'm over thinking this, but if SAFE, NAFI or the FAA says 55 hours is the average, then there should be syllabuseseses using that metric with the idea that it is a much better conversation to a student to say "hey, this syllabus was written for the average guy...your flying 4 times a week and have great eye hand coordination since you work in the circus juggling chainsaws...we'll probably be done around 45-50 hours, but it depends on your progress."

Just my thoughts. I was hoping someone would've already done this, but I guess I'll need to build it.
Click to expand...
You set the story from the start. I tell my students that the regulations require 40 hours and if they perform amazingly it's possible they could complete it in that but highly unlikely. I then tell them that they're going to take as long as it takes to make them a safe aviator and I keep them very updated as we go with regards to their progress. This is important, make sure the student knows where they are in the training, what needs to be done yet, and why they're at where they are.

If a student suddenly starts demanding results by a certain hour from me I tell them that is entirely up to themselves. I don't cave to their pressure and I honestly avoid students like that. I won't teach someone I don't like - I don't need the money.

The student needs to trust you.

How can someone feel ripped off if they know they're progress, what needs to be done, and know that the progress is up to them? If they still feel ripped off either you failed to communicate that or the student is an idiot. If the student is an idiot let them find an idiot instructor.
 
It's important to stress that the FAA does not anywhere state that a PPL ONLY takes 40 hours. It says minimum. Part of FOI involves understanding how your student learns.

You've mentioned, "part time student", and this comes into play. It's important to let your student know that if the don't train consistently, they will repeat lessons. Also, just in general, they will repeat some lessons because it's just not natural for them.

Let them know that it's not entirely uncommon for a student who only flies 2 hours per week and studies 2 hours per week to take 80 flight hours and a couple hundred study hours to become proficient enough to pass the checkride.

As for the syllabus, just white-out the hours. Or, use the PTS as a syllabus. Have them keep their own copy, and you can check off what they're proficient in.

Sometimes it helps to skip something they're stuck on, and go for something you think they might grasp, just so they can have an accomplishment under their belt.

Lastly, don't let your student's uncertainty become yours. Be patient, helpful, etc, but ultimately it's your student's choice. Even if you DO explain all of this to your student, there will be some who just want to quit. It might be that it's harder than they thought, or maybe they are under other stress which is making them less interested.
 
Mach.12 said:
I guess then my question to you is how do you communicate that. It sounds perfectly reasonable to you and I but if you look at it in the context of a future/student pilot, it seems off.

Me. "yes, but it's like a baseball inning vs football quarter...youre performance dictates the completion."
Click to expand...

Fantastic analogy! I wish someone had explained it this way to me when I was a student pilot. I would have been much less aggravated. But then, I had the classic idiot CFI who had an ignorant student who didn't know any better.
 
dmspilot said:
I have never heard of "a 40 hour syllabus" or "a 55 hour syllabus". Maybe you should make your own? :confused:
Click to expand...

Eh? Have you bothered to look at what Gleim, among others, publishes? It has X number of hours for each learning task, with the grand total coming out to near 40 hours.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Eh? Have you bothered to look at what Gleim, among others, publishes? It has X number of hours for each learning task, with the grand total coming out to near 40 hours.
Click to expand...
On the links I gave above (http://www.safepilots.org/public-documents/), neither QRef (Bridgette Doremire and Gene Hudson) nor Scott Obrien list hours. And ASA provides hours, but says:
Training Syllabus
The 35.0 hours of flight training and 35.0 hours of ground training, as required by 14 CFR Part 141 (40.0 hours of flight training and no minimum time for ground training is specified for Part 61 programs) will be accomplished in three stages. Each of these instructional units is described in the following pages. The aeronautical experience must include 35.0 hours in an airplane; however, a ground training device acceptable to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may be substituted for 20 percent of the required time if the ground trainer complies with 14 CFR Part 141.41(a), and may be substituted for 15 percent of the required time if the ground trainer complies with 14 CFR Part 141.41(b). A Basic Aviation Training Device (Basic ATD) may be used for 2.5 hours of the required time.

Hours shown for each lesson for flight training, preflight briefing, and post-flight critique are offered as a guide to the instructor. Specified minimum times for an entire stage must be complied with, but time used for an individual lesson may be adjusted to the student’s needs. The instructor is responsible for ensuring all requirements are met.

At points where normal student progress should meet the requirements of the Practical Test Standards for a Task included in an Area of Operation, the Area of Operation and Task are listed under Completion Standards;
however, it is not mandatory that the instructor sign off the Task in order for the lesson to be considered complete.

Private Pilot Course Hours
This syllabus complies with 14 CFR Part 141 requirements. To follow a Part 61 curriculum, add 5 hours of solo flight time, for a total of 40 hours. Part 61 requires 10 hours of solo time, including 5 hours of solo cross-country (with the long cross-country being 150 nm).

Ground instruction for Flight Lessons include preflight briefings and post-flight critiques.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine) Personally I disagree with this approach, and I don't think that it is possible to provide an accurate quote for the number of hours required, because you as the instructor do not control all the variables, including student dedication, aptitude, time availability, etc. You can use a 55 or 65 or whatever hour as a baseline and tell the student that it will probably take this many hours and that their performance may vary, or you can use the 40 hours and say that it will cost at least this much.
 
In 20 years of flying, I think I have met only a couple of people that got their PPL in 40 hours. The majority of people I know, myself and my students have ranged 60 to 75 hours. The 40 syllabus is good as has been mentioned. But also like mentioned, you can not move from one lesson to the next without all requirements met. So if there is a student mastering stalls, slow flight, etc. but is struggling with steep turns, they can't move forward. In any part 61 school I have been, even though you are struggling with steep turns, you can still move forward to touch and goes while still working on steep turns. But fact still is you can only go so far without steep turns.
 
TommyG said:
In 20 years of flying, I think I have met only a couple of people that got their PPL in 40 hours. The majority of people I know, myself and my students have ranged 60 to 75 hours. The 40 syllabus is good as has been mentioned. But also like mentioned, you can not move from one lesson to the next without all requirements met. So if there is a student mastering stalls, slow flight, etc. but is struggling with steep turns, they can't move forward. In any part 61 school I have been, even though you are struggling with steep turns, you can still move forward to touch and goes while still working on steep turns. But fact still is you can only go so far without steep turns.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that a part 61 school doesn't use a syllabus and thus has this flexibility? A part 61 school can (and should) use a syllabus and does, even when using one, have the flexibility you mentioned. I believe that a part 141 school also has some flexibility, but I'm not sure just how much.
 
gprellwitz said:
or you can use the 40 hours and say that it will cost at least this much.
Click to expand...

I just now checked Gleim's explanation for its breakout of the 41 (or 36) hours in its syllabus, and it describes them as guidance to insure all minimum requirements have been met; so effectively "at least this much." Specifically, from Gleim:

"The times listed are for instructor/student guidance only and are not meant to be mandatory times. These times will ensure that the minimum time requirements for aeronautical and flight training are in compliance either with Part 141, Appendix B Private Pilot Certification Course, or with FAR Part 61."
 
Mach.12 said:
Student "the FAA says I only need 40 hours"

Me "that's the minimum, the average is 50-55"

Student "are you serious? That's a 25% increase from the FAA STANDARD"
Click to expand...

This student has a simplistic view of pilot training requirements and it is your job to educate him.

Obviously it is not a situation where you fly for 40 hours and are automatically awarded a pilot certificate at the end. The FAA does not say the student "only needs 40 hours", the FAA says the student must have at least 40 hours as well as about a hundred other things.

Show the student all of the requirements in 14 CFR 61 and in the PTS. "No one can cover all of these in 40 hours....it takes longer than that to pass the tests, check all the boxes, and become a safet pilot...the average is 55...blahblahblah". If the student still doesn't get it, he or she is a writeoff.
 
Mach.12 said:
I guess then my question to you is how do you communicate that. It sounds perfectly reasonable to you and I but if you look at it in the context of a future/student pilot, it seems off.

Student "the FAA says I only need 40 hours"

Me "that's the minimum, the average is 50-55"

Student "are you serious? That's a 25% increase from the FAA STANDARD"

Me. "yes, but it's like a baseball inning vs football quarter...youre performance dictates the completion."

Student "well the syllabus says I should on lesson 4, not 2. This is the 5th time we've flown and we've never kept on time schedule"
Click to expand...
If you're having that discussion, then the instructor has already failed in his/her responsibilities to the trainee back when you started training, and failed to explain things properly before you started training. There's no way the syllabus can say what lesson someone should be on outside of having met the completion standards for each preceding lesson. If the trainee thinks s/he should be on Lesson 4, and the instructor has the trainee on Lesson 2, then the instructor has either failed to keep the trainee appraised of his/her performance vis a vis the completion standards for each lesson, or the instructor has failed to explain the concept of "train to proficiency" to the trainee. Short of a trainee who is so obtuse as to refuse to accept the instructor's evaluation of his/her performance (and I'll leave discussion of FITS and "learner centered evaluation" for another day), this situation is the result of the instructor's failure, not a bad syllabus.

Regarding hours. How do you give them a good comprehensive estimate of the total price if you don't break it down by the syllabus hours?
Click to expand...
You make the estimate based on actual average performance of trainees in this program with upper and lower bounds based on, say, the middle 90% of results.

Before investing thousands of $$$ I expect the provider to point to exactly what I'm paying for. That's just good business in my mind.
Click to expand...
"Exactly" isn't possible in this business, and the flight school should explain that to its trainees up front. However, a range of costs based on reasonable expectations and foreseeable ranges of outcomes is possible, and prospective trainees should expect such an honest approach to the problem.

Perhaps...having been ripped off in aviation in the past...I'm over thinking this, but if SAFE, NAFI or the FAA says 55 hours is the average, then there should be syllabuseseses using that metric with the idea that it is a much better conversation to a student to say "hey, this syllabus was written for the average guy...your flying 4 times a week and have great eye hand coordination since you work in the circus juggling chainsaws...we'll probably be done around 45-50 hours, but it depends on your progress."
Click to expand...
One more time -- the syllabus should never be based on hours. It should be based purely on achievement of completion standards. Estimates of expected time to completion may be made, but it should be made clear that those estimates are based on median performance, and include upper and lower bounds based on the range of past experiences by trainees in the program.

Just my thoughts. I was hoping someone would've already done this, but I guess I'll need to build it.
Click to expand...
You can build anything you want, but if it's based on some set number of hours, it won't be any better than a syllabus based on 40 hours.
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
Fantastic analogy!
Click to expand...
Thank you. FWIW, that idea sprang full-grown from my head like Athena from Zeus this morning as I was typing my response -- I'd never thought of it in those terms until this discussion. I hope others find it useful -- and a tip of the hat my way when you do wouldn't be unappreciated.:D
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If you're having that discussion, then the instructor has already failed in his/her responsibilities to the trainee back when you started training, and failed to explain things properly before you started training. There's no way the syllabus can say what lesson someone should be on outside of having met the completion standards for each preceding lesson. If the trainee thinks s/he should be on Lesson 4, and the instructor has the trainee on Lesson 2, then the instructor has either failed to keep the trainee appraised of his/her performance vis a vis the completion standards for each lesson, or the instructor has failed to explain the concept of "train to proficiency" to the trainee. Short of a trainee who is so obtuse as to refuse to accept the instructor's evaluation of his/her performance (and I'll leave discussion of FITS and "learner centered evaluation" for another day), this situation is the result of the instructor's failure, not a bad syllabus.

You make the estimate based on actual average performance of trainees in this program with upper and lower bounds based on, say, the middle 90% of results.

"Exactly" isn't possible in this business, and the flight school should explain that to its trainees up front. However, a range of costs based on reasonable expectations and foreseeable ranges of outcomes is possible, and prospective trainees should expect such an honest approach to the problem.

One more time -- the syllabus should never be based on hours. It should be based purely on achievement of completion standards. Estimates of expected time to completion may be made, but it should be made clear that those estimates are based on median performance, and include upper and lower bounds based on the range of past experiences by trainees in the program.

You can build anything you want, but if it's based on some set number of hours, it won't be any better than a syllabus based on 40 hours.
Click to expand...

Edit................ this is directed at mach.12 .. not Ron...

+1.

If a student is questioning their given point along a average timeline and insist they need to be further along in the training process then that student is destined to be a future Cirrus owner with dreams of a parachute dancing in their heads.... Craters in the ground will result.. After a few of those, the local FSDO will politely ask you,, well maybe not politely, " why is the last batch of students of yours just smoking holes in the" ground"?:dunno::dunno::mad:.. IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You can build anything you want, but if it's based on some set number of hours, it won't be any better than a syllabus based on 40 hours.
Click to expand...

sure it will be. If the average is 55 and I build a logical syllabus based on that number and root it in a foundation of the PTS standards, then it will be better than a 40 hour one that is essentially a lie to the student.

I understand nothing is perfect and I'm not trying to make a one size fits all, but everyone here is agreeing that a 40 hour Syllabus is unrealistic, yet arguing that it shouldn't be changed in the textual form? Just make changes as you go? I got that students learn at a different pace, but if most of your students complete in a certain number of hours wouldn't you want to build them a guide based on that?

I think if you look at this in the context of a future student pilot, it really seems fishy. You give them a printed product based on 40 hours but then you tell them that's a fallacy and we will barely follow it. Or, worse, you give them a program of instruction and tell them you will make the training times up as we go along flying on your credit card? Doesn't seem like a good way to get folks into flying who have time and budget considerations.

I have expended my two cents. Thanks for the insightful comments to those who gave them.
 
Mach.12 said:
sure it will be. If the average is 55 and I build a logical syllabus based on that number and root it in a foundation of the PTS standards, then it will be better than a 40 hour one that is essentially a lie to the student.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know how my instructor did it, but i passed my private pilot checkride at 41 hours. I "wasted" a few hours, and passed my Multi-engine add on ride at 60 hours (6 hours ME training).


If I was doing well enough to fit this mythical "40 hour" syllabus, fine. But if YOU impeded my progress because YOUR syllabus was based on 55 hours, I would be a new level of ****ed.
 
Ron Levy said:
One more time -- the syllabus should never be based on hours. It should be based purely on achievement of completion standards. Estimates of expected time to completion may be made, but it should be made clear that those estimates are based on median performance, and include upper and lower bounds based on the range of past experiences by trainees in the program.
Click to expand...
8 hour training day * 9 days:idea:
(see where I'm going with this?)

Mach.12 said:
I understand nothing is perfect and I'm not trying to make a one size fits all, but everyone here is agreeing that a 40 hour Syllabus is unrealistic, yet arguing that it shouldn't be changed in the textual form? Just make changes as you go? I got that students learn at a different pace, but if most of your students complete in a certain number of hours wouldn't you want to build them a guide based on that?
Click to expand...

Mach- As a PPL 141 student, I agree with you that the system is flawed. However, the study skills of the average student is the real culprit. Although we had a syllabus, I had an instructor that told me that these are the minimums hours that the school agreed to spend with a student on each skill as agreed to with the FAA. The syllabus was based on 35 hours to completion. The guy who works at the FBO, when got his money together to start flying came close (IIRC it was 37hrs and he's now an 'almost' IR pilot).

My personal experience was quick transition through some portions and normal progress through others. I didn't have any real plateaus (although it felt like it at times). I also had 2 instructors (and they're not all equal).

Each person has to find it within themselves to complete the course for their own personal reasons. It's one of the beauties of the 1/2 of 1% club.
 
If you don't want to spend the time in the beginning going over the syllabus, explaining what it is and what it isn't, and setting appropriate expectations...

Take the syllabus.
Erase any reference to hours.

Have the student schedule you and the airplane in long enough blocks of time so you can complete all the tasks in each "lesson". This may mean a three hour (or longer) block.
 
Yeah seriously, time is really incidental. Sure if they fly like everyday and are passionate they just might just finish it in 40 hours, if they fly once a month they may never finish it. If you are measuring success in hours though you are not being objective and that is unfair to the student. The school I teach at has 26 lessons. I tell students right off the bat that the national average is 55hrs and even at 40hrs you could repeat 14 lessons (assuming 1hr lessons) and still make it so don't get discouraged if we do a lesson over again. A little discretion is necessary though, after all it would be a little silly to practice 8 they things the a bored of because the already get it just to do 1 thing the need work on. Even if you don't pass them to the next lesson you can still incorporate new stuff while they work on the things the have not yet mastered. Have cold objective lesson completion standards, forget time. Tell them to expect between .8 and 1.2 and [besides X/C] just leave it at that. The way to learn is to have fun, the way to have fun is for it to be a fair challenge to objective standards to move on to the next lesson. Flying around in circles while looking a your watch is waste of their time and yours. There are no bad students only bad teachers.

<---<^>--->
 
Ron Levy said:
How long have you been instructing? Believe me, after nearly 40 years as a CFI, I guarantee there are bad students as well as bad teachers.
Click to expand...

Good god yes. One of ny engineering clients is an idiot who cannot retain anything. His eyes glaze over in the first sentence. He doesn't learn, period.
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
What Tim and Ron said. There are most definitely bad students. Ones who dont do assigned readinv or assigned hw. Show up to class unprepared.... Definitely goes both ways.
 
Ron Levy said:
How long have you been instructing? Believe me, after nearly 40 years as a CFI, I guarantee there are bad students as well as bad teachers.
Click to expand...

Well only 4 compared to your 40... but yes the students who come unprepared are the worst. Goes back to what someone said earlier aout leading a horse to water..

<---<^>--->
 
So many things can affect how many hours it will take that telling a student "it will take X hours is just irresponsible". When I was involved with flight training we always gave a range of hours, expected cost, and the caveat that in the end it was up to the student to show up prepared, make the time available in their schedule, and to communicate with us about what they needed because everyone learns differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top