Commercial training advice

Go to a new school... Get the rating... Use it to learn the trade...

What these guys are saying in effect, is that if you are not already qualified to be the Commander of the Space Shuttle then there is no point in even taking that first hour of dual as a student... Looks like big egos and bigger mouths, from my perch... (jeeez)

denny-o
 
JohnGalt said:
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?
Click to expand...
What's your goal here and what exactly is the "Chief Pilot" offering?

He's certainly correct in saying that just by passing the commercial written and practical test you won't be truly qualified to run a "one man flight department" but I'm not certain that your Chief Pilot can bring you to that level on his own in any amount of time. And unless you have specific plans
to start your own charter operation or corporate flight department, I'm not aware of any reason why the plain ol' CPL training wouldn't suffice for your needs.

Most folks working on their CPL have one of a few possible near term goals that call for a CPL. There are independent employment scenarios such as aerial photography, cropdusting, ferry pilot, CFI, etc. that require the CPL and don't come with a need for any kind of "flight department". Then there's the freight dog route which a lot of pilots have followed to build time while making almost enough to live on. A CPL is also sufficient to legally qualify you for a position as a copilot in a part 123 charter flight operation. Then there's a bunch of pilots like myself who have no immediate commercial aviation aspirations but wanted to partake in an additional training experience to sharpen one's skills and perhaps scrape off some bad habits. AFaIK, in none of the above scenarios does the need arise for any "one man flight department" beyond what most of us already do as private pilots.
 
I'm about ready to take my commercial ride, hoping the weather will work out this weekend. I did about 5 hours of flying preparing for the test.

No FAA certificate automatically makes you an amazing pilot capable of making perfect decisions. They just help you do things legally.
 
With a brand-new commercial certificate, you'll be able to be paid to fly. What does that mean in real life? Not much.

First, any professional operator under FAR 121 or 135 will have specific additional requirements and hoops for a newly hired commercial pilot to jump through - training, qualifications, etc all specified by the FAA. So you'll be in competition for those jobs, all of which will want significant time and experience.

No problem, you think. "I'll just go fly for somebody under part 91!". Well, not so fast. There is a huge somewhat "invisible" layer of oversight in professional flying under part 91 dictated by the insurance companies. They'll want certain experience and training as well.

The typical things you can do are:
Become a private pilot for an airplane owner (like a businessman who isn't a pilot). Good, but the insurance companies will be driving the qualifications you need to have. And these jobs are rare.
Free-lance ferry flying. Again, assuming you can get the necessary insurance coverage...

Bottom line - with the exception of self-employed ferry flying, pretty much any employer who hires you as a commercial pilot will have a specified training and standardization program for you to get through - and that will cover a lot of what this school is talking about.

There's value in:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

It reminds me of when I went to College for Music Production and Engineering. The program was relatively new, so when I went to look for a job as an assistant engineer in a recording studio I was told "Everyone starts as a gopher getting coffee and such. In a year or so you might get to assist." Nowadays the education is more recognized and respected so folks who graduate do get to do meaningful work right away.

My advice would be to focus on getting the commercial certificate, then getting the instructor certificate, and then looking for a flying or teaching job.
 
Also, in our part of the country you can fly pipeline work. Boring but a good way to build time. Don't know if there's much of that in the Atlanta area though???
 
While the chief instructor's points are well taken, it sounds like a sales pitch for an expensive training program to me. Nobody is going to hire an ink-wet CP-ASEL-IA to run a corporate flight department, no matter what training program they've completed. And nobody expects a new-hire co-pilot or flight instructor to have that level of knowledge and experience, either. Do what it takes to get the ticket, knowing that it's only an entry pass to the bottom of the professional aviation food-chain, and that you'll have to build experience and work up from there.
 
In the two years between getting my commercial Certificate an my CFI I had exactly Zero flights that required a commercial certificate. Flying a Jump plane might have been a possiblity, or possibly getting hired as an Apprentice 135 pilot might have been an option but I had a job and wasn't looking for more at the time, neither would have paid much more that lunch money.

Simply put unless you have a job pretty much already in mind and some inroads to it, it is unlikely you will do much of anything with just your commercial certificate. IF you already have your MEI, you might be able apprentice into a flying job such as Freight in the Dark.

Brian
 
I think the truth is somewhere in between your original impression and what the flight school is telling you - while the commercial can be done quicker than other ratings, I don't think I'd call it the easiest by any means. The commercial written is another story, though. I would say that one was by far the easiest of all the written exams.

While it took more time, I thought the private was easier than commercial. The thing about the commercial is that you are held to a higher standard both in the flight test and the oral. If your commercial oral is not more difficult than your private, then the examiner is doing a diservice. But even then, it is not as difficult as they are making it out to be. They are making it sound like an ATP rating.
 
A lot of what that chief pilot said should apply to all pilot certificates. Including private.

I am not a commercial pilot, and am still quite a low time pilot, but this guy is trying to scare you and get you to do a huge expensive training program. Seriously, every certificate is a license to learn, and you gotta start somewhere.

And Of course there is a lot more to being a pilot than flying FAA manuevers to PTS standards, that applies to all levels.

I think Ron put it pretty well.
 
Experience is what will make you a good pilot not the training in your commercial ratings, the reqs for the rating are nothing more than some maneuvers, flying the plane smooth and talk of what you can and cant do as a commercial pilot.

I often tell new CFI's your first 10 students are what will make you an instructor, not some overpriced "flight academy"

Get the rating done however you can and go out and build some experience(how ever you can) that can further your judgement and make yourself standout professional pilot.

Good luck to you , now go get the rating.
 
Last edited:
What you'll use the certificate for is important.

I would also suggest that gaining as much real-world experience as you can will give you as much or more benefit than a whole boatload of dual on what that real-world experience would be like.

The most important thing about the commercial is not the maneuvers. It is realizing that the FAA, and more importantly your passengers, are going to hold you to a higher standard. You need to be the pilot they think you are, and take your responsibility to them seriously.
 
JohnGalt said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
JohnGalt said:
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?
Click to expand...

Except for combat flying, test piloting or bush piloting, there really isn't one. Most commercial flying is specifically designed to stay WAY inside the operating envelope. So as long as you have folks who've demonstrated that ability, there's little use for Bob Hoover at the controls of your G-V.

I know in the CG we had prior service army, navy, and marine aviators - and there were significant differences in their flying "styles".
 
JohnGalt said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Clark1961 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No type rating for the PC-12... But you can bet there will be a requirement for SimCom or FlightSafety or another formal "school" before any insurer will let you act as PIC.

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.
 
The future NTSB final report on the Otter crash last summer that killed Senator Ted Stevens among others will likely note that the PIC, though he was an ATP with more than 15k (IIRC) hours and the former chief pilot of Alaska Airlines, had less than 200 total hours in the type of operation he was conducting that day.
 
TMetzinger said:
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.
Click to expand...

None of which has bearing on the question at hand...
 
TMetzinger said:
Actually it does - the same might apply to test pilots...
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't. We're discussing new commercial pilots and the training requirements. Not practicing professionals established in their field.
 
Clark1961 said:
Actually, it doesn't. We're discussing new commercial pilots and the training requirements. Not practicing professionals established in their field.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Clark1961 said:
I like your engineer example. To the average guy, he probably really can't tell the difference in competence between MIT and ITT grads
Click to expand...

Well I sure hope he could - ITT doesn't have a school of engineering and doesn't grant any engineering degrees.
 
TMetzinger said:
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.
Click to expand...

No you weren't. You were saying the difference in brilliance and competent depended on their body of work.
 
Clark1961 said:
No you weren't. You were saying the difference in brilliance and competent depended on their body of work.
Click to expand...
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).
 
TMetzinger said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Everskyward said:
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.
Click to expand...

No argument. My original response to the question indicated that there really wasn't a difference in education that mattered to pilots, with the possible exception of test pilots.
 
JohnGalt said:
What's the equivalent in pilot training?
Click to expand...
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.
 
JohnGalt said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's why employers have job applications and require (and, one hopes, check) resumes.
 
JohnGalt said:
What's the equivalent in pilot training?
Click to expand...
The CFI.

Assuming you are talking about a Commercial-Only pilot.

The CFI is the certificate that the employer uses to help select a better trained commercial-only pilot.
 
Ron's advise is good. One point I'd mention, is that if you are looking for a commercial job after you get the ticket, the number one thing that will get you a job is personal skills, honesty, and connections, as well as who you know. I got hired to do aerial photography job for the first time just weeks out of my ticket thanks to my instructor's recommendation and that was a real help. That's the one reason I would recommend looking around for an instructor who actually has a lot of businessmen clients and connections to those kinds of operations. I suspect you're less likely to make those connections at the big academies.

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top