Quality of Flight School Aircraft

[Dan Thomas]

What bothers me about obvious broken stuff on airplanes is that this is only the stuff you *can see*. It should really make you wonder about what deferred mx you CAN'T see.

That there. Pretty much guaranteed there are horror stories buried there.

Normal for older steam gauges.

Not with me. We were doing a lot of training, and gave instrument training right from the start, in the PPL. You want all those gyros working right.

Older well used airplanes have this problem. It usually takes a couple or three tries to get the door to latch correctly.

The OP is flying several different C172Ms. Those airplanes have a latching plunger that engages the doorpost. There is no way that door should pop open in flight. On the ground, the plunger only engages the toothed roller, and wind rocking the airplane can pop it loose. The 150 locks like that, too. That 172M either needs considerable latch adjustments, or the doorpost is torn out some.

Not from where I sit. Our 172s rent for $145 an hour and primary instruction is $50. We do not see any of the issues you mention, and our airplanes get prompt attention when needed.

When I looked after our schools' fleet, everything worked unless there was a real good reason. In Canada, a defective turn coordinator in a flight-training airplane is a no-go item. The student is paying good bucks for that airplane, and it isn't fair that so much stuff is inop or just plain worn out. I bet the seat rails in the OP's airplanes are not only worn out, but have more than the allowable cracks, and the latching mechanism has weak or broken or missing springs, or worn-down latching pins. I've seen it all. Too many mechanics just don't take this stuff seriously.

Do any Lycomings have a threaded dip stick? Not sure, but if not, maybe it's just the dipstick o-ring.

The stick has a cast aluminum cap with threads, that screws into the plastic dipstick/fill tube. It's most likely that the plastic threads in the OP's airplane are worn right out, probably since the same engine has been field-overhauled way too many times, with stuff like this used over and over until it's beyond shot. I never saw worn-out threads there, but we bought Lycoming factory overhauls. Lyc doesn't fool with reclaiming all this stuff. They grab new stuff. About all they reuse is the crank (if it's good), the case, con rods, maybe some gears. Everything gets NDT'd. One nice thing about buying from them is that you have the new engine on hand when the old one is ready to get pulled, and the airplane isn't down for weeks waiting for its engine to be overhauled.

I installed LED landing and taxi lights. It made economic sense. A dead light scrubs a night flight, so you lose the revenue, tick off the student, and spend shop time replacing it. Incandescent landing lights are only good for maybe 25 hours (I've had them burn out at 4 hours) while the LEDs are good for thousands. They're working when you need them.


I'd be looking for a flight school whose owner has better ethics and higher standards.

 

[Lucky man]

I always thought the 172's I flew were pretty beat, but I didn't realize how bad until I did a mountain flight with another school. It was amazing how much nicer their plane was than the one I was learning in.

I ended up buying a 182 and finishing my training in it after my wife and I decided the school's planes were too beat.

After I purchased my plane, the school had a seat track failure that was written up in AOPA's flight school magazine. Last year they had another plane lose an engine during a training flight.

If a school has crappy planes I'd change schools.

Have fun with learning to fly!!

 

[TommyG]

Majority of flight school aircraft are beat to hell. Some schools operate on thin profit margins and really can’t fix them the right way. Some schools will only fix to what keeps the plane legal. Some schools do put the proper care into the planes.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Majority of flight school aircraft are beat to hell. Some schools operate on thin profit margins and really can’t fix them the right way. Some schools will only fix to what keeps the plane legal. Some schools do put the proper care into the planes.

If they can't keep them airworthy, they're doing something wrong. Either they're raking off too much profit and letting the maintenance get behind, or they're not charging enough. Sometimes the attitudes of the instructors or owners alienate the students, who then go elsewhere, and the school then has to lower its prices to try to get more traffic. And sometimes they just let those airplanes get so bad that nobody will fly them for more than a few hours, or the government guys come in and ground everything.

One has to be proactive with maintenance. Stay ahead of stuff. Do the preventive maintenance, like alternator and magneto internal inspections, vacuum pump vane wear inspections, all that sort of stuff. Replace engine controls at engine replacement. Nothing is more expensive than some stupid failure on a long cross-country so that it takes days or weeks to get the thing fixed and back home.

Well, almost nothing. The most expensive is a fatal accident that the investigators blame on shoddy maintenance. The lawsuits and judgements finish the school off, maybe its owners, too. That seat rail stuff is just waiting for a chance to kill. Crappy gyros at night over dark countryside is another. That has caused crashes in the past.

 

[Ed Haywood]

If they can't keep them airworthy, they're doing something wrong. Either they're raking off too much profit and letting the maintenance get behind, or they're not charging enough. Sometimes the attitudes of the instructors or owners alienate the students, who then go elsewhere, and the school then has to lower its prices to try to get more traffic. And sometimes they just let those airplanes get so bad that nobody will fly them for more than a few hours, or the government guys come in and ground everything.

One has to be proactive with maintenance. Stay ahead of stuff. Do the preventive maintenance, like alternator and magneto internal inspections, vacuum pump vane wear inspections, all that sort of stuff. Replace engine controls at engine replacement. Nothing is more expensive than some stupid failure on a long cross-country so that it takes days or weeks to get the thing fixed and back home.

Well, almost nothing. The most expensive is a fatal accident that the investigators blame on shoddy maintenance. The lawsuits and judgements finish the school off, maybe its owners, too. That seat rail stuff is just waiting for a chance to kill. Crappy gyros at night over dark countryside is another. That has caused crashes in the past.

Seems like removing vacuum system and replacing gyros with G5's would be high on the list of improvements for most schools. Flashy stuff like that helps with marketing.

 

[BMan]

Thank you for the feedback, folks. I was seriously thinking I expected too much. A buddy told me he had some ratty training Cessnas when he took lessons years ago but had nothing like I saw over the past couple months. I'm checking out another flight school at a Delta hopefully later today (want to stay tower proficient) that offers 61 and 141 with no sales-push-BS (same $250/hr). We'll see how the progress transfer will work; at least they utilize the King online ground school I paid for to minimize the hassle.

To get my flying itch scratched for now, I'm heading to lunch with a friend in his 170B today. His plane is like flying a Cadillac compared to all the 172M birds I've been...um...subjected to.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Sometimes the attitudes of the instructors or owners alienate the students, who then go elsewhere, and the school then has to lower its prices to try to get more traffic.

I have never known a flight school to reduce prices for any reason.

 

[TommyG]

I have never known a flight school to reduce prices for any reason.

Reduce, that would never happen. I have seen student and CFI do preflight, start up, busy airport so a little time to get to run up area. Mag checks are a disaster, cancel flight, taxi back, tie down. School charged the student for the .4, CFI did not add time billing time. Student went back and forth, not sure what the final outcome was.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

School charged the student for the .4, CFI did not add time billing time. Student went back and forth, not sure what the final outcome was.

You could argue that it was a learning experience, but where I work, I think we would just eat the .4.

 

[schmookeeg]

I wonder if there's an auto rental place somewhere with a 1975/1976 basic 4 seater available to rent. If rented, I wonder what its squawk list would be like

Not excusing the school, and 250 with instructor is ok for a metro area, and terrible the more rural you get. But you're flying a 172M and they're fantastic but now long in the tooth and need constant care. Does the school have an R or S model on the line? Maybe you'll like it better for the probable $320/hr

 

[mondtster]

I wonder if there's an auto rental place somewhere with a 1975/1976 basic 4 seater available to rent. If rented, I wonder what its squawk list would be like

The small town airport courtesy cars might be a good benchmark for that.

 

[schmookeeg]

The small town airport courtesy cars might be a good benchmark for that.

and makes OP's squawk list seem insignificant.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Our courtesy car is a Cadillac CTS.

 

[Salty]

Cable ties are the new baling wire.

Actually, baling wire is accepted practice and even required all over every aircraft. As safety wire.

 

[RyanB]

I remember when I thought $115hr for a C172 was pricey. Oh if I could go back to those days…

 

[danhagan]

Thank you for the feedback, folks. I was seriously thinking I expected too much.

We pre-flight for a reason, but OTOH that's a lot to be dealing with even across a fleet. Also says something about the student and CFIs on the flight before yours not squawking the items ...

I remember when I thought $115hr for a C172 was pricey. Oh if I could go back to those days…

Training today is painful for these guys ... I started at $45 an hour wet 152 Sparrowhawk and thought they were getting pricey at the end at $60 ... CFIs were $25 and didn't charge for time not on the Hobbs (pre-and post flight free) ... back in 2007.

 

[RyanB]

We pre-flight for a reason, but OTOH that's a lot to be dealing with even across a fleet. Also says something about the student and CFIs on the flight before yours not squawking the items ...



Training today is painful for these guys ... I started at $45 an hour wet 152 Sparrowhawk and thought they were getting pricey at the end at $60 ... CFIs were $25 and didn't charge for time not on the Hobbs (pre-and post flight free) ... back in 2007.

Yeah, an hour and a half lesson is about $400 nowadays. It’s gone salty, but it doesn’t seem to be slowing demand so I guess they can keep charging it.

 

[danhagan]

Yeah, an hour and a half lesson is about $400 nowadays. It’s gone salty, but it doesn’t seem to be slowing demand so I guess they can keep charging it.

We have three pretty busy training facilities here in my area ... think a lot of the load are the rich kids from Mexico and other nations taking lessons here rather than in Arizona ...

 

[Dan Thomas]

I remember when I thought $115hr for a C172 was pricey. Oh if I could go back to those days…

When I was learning, $19 an hour hurt. 1967 C172. It was old. Six years old. How many students are flying six-year-old airplanes now?

 

[Dan Thomas]

I wonder if there's an auto rental place somewhere with a 1975/1976 basic 4 seater available to rent. If rented, I wonder what its squawk list would be like

Not excusing the school, and 250 with instructor is ok for a metro area, and terrible the more rural you get. But you're flying a 172M and they're fantastic but now long in the tooth and need constant care.

All airplanes need constant care. Our fleet had several 172Ms, and they sure didn't have squawks like the OP's. Sliding seats? No excuse for that whatever, even if you don't have the secondary seat stop affair that Cessna provided free. The installation was not a big deal. Dead or dying gyros? Just plain old, or they're starting those airplanes after being stored outside well below freezing. Doors that don't stay shut? That is worn parts and maybe a torn doorpost due to letting the wear go too long rather than fixing it properly.

Some cheapo schools will run their 172R/S airplanes that way, too, with dead lights and inop stuff in the panel. The first 172Rs are now approaching 30 years old, and if they have 15K hours, they will have similar issues if they haven't been cared for.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

In CA, train here, program or individual ratings in modern aircraft.

Become a Professional Pilot

Become an airline pilot with Sling Pilot Academy. We train pilots in fun, modern, sexy airplanes with glass cockpits. Start your flight training now.

www.slingpilotacademy.com

 

[RyanB]

How many students are flying six-year-old airplanes now?

Most don’t, but there’s actually a lot of flight schools that have began to modernize their fleet, but that comes with a price of course. Many schools have restart C172’s now.

 

[Zeldman]

I remember when I thought $115hr for a C172 was pricey. Oh if I could go back to those days…

I remember a time when the 152s I rented were $28.50, and the 172s were $35.00, and I had to save up for either of them...

 

[unsafervguy]

I’m nearing 20hrs of flight training but wondering if my expectations are too high or unwarranted in regards to the quality of C172M aircraft I’m flying? Here are just a few things, all on different aircraft (haven’t flown the same bird twice yet) caught in my preflight inspections or during flight:

• Landing light inop (it was OK due to daylight?)
• Navigation lights inop (nearing end of daylight)
• Strobes inop (early morning)
• Attitude indicator inop
• Heading Indicator needs huge adjustment every after every turn
• Turn coordinator inop
• Door does not stay shut (popped open in flight) – door closure issues with every plane, too
• Right seat (occupied by CFI) unlocked and slid all the way backward*
• Factory preset rudder trim tab very weirdly bent (then felt that affect when flying)
• Oil cap loose on filler neck, no threads to tighten it, oily mess** (I pushed my PIC-in-training rank on this one)

* CFI managed to get it locked in close enough to reach controls, thankfully.
** This last one I put my foot down and refused to fly (my CFI arrived afterward and agreed with me). However, a different CFI observing my preflight stated it’d be fine as is or just “tape it down”. Um…no…absolutely not. I’ve built engines and raced cars in the past; loose oil caps spit out oil and start a fire on a hot engine in short order; this plane spit out enough previously that it left puddles. How would a young high school kid know any better if they didn’t know engines?

Am I too picky about these things? Some strike me as real safety issues, particularly the last one; That oil cap issue I heard was previously squawked by others but not fixed. This has me hesitating to continue at this flight school but not sure if going somewhere else won’t come with a different set of issues. Feedback/thoughts or is it just me being a far too demanding newb? I don't want them to look at me on lesson day and think "oh great what's he gonna squawk about today?"

couple of issues here that should really concern you and your cfi should know this.
1. strobes in-op. the FAA issued a loi (letts letter 2017) stating that the strobes and beacon are parts of the same anticollision system. even if the system is not required by the regs, if installed it must work,and by used, all of it. by flying it with inop strobes (unless authorized by a approved MEL system) then you are flying an unairworthy aircraft.
2. assuming its a cessna, the AD for seat rails requires compliance. if the seat slides on it own the AD has not been properly complied with and again, you are flying an un-airworthy aircraft.
3. other inop equipment. the regs are clear that the equipment must be removed or disabled and placarded inop. if the equipment has been removed and weighs more than 1 lb then the weight an balance paperwork must also be update. most rental aircraft are not legal in respect to how the inop equipment has been documented.

as the PIC you can be violated for operating an aircraft in an un-airworthy state as the PIC has the final determination of airworthiness by regs.

most CFI's don't clearly understand the regs and do a poor job of teaching theses regs to students.

 

[BMan]

...as the PIC you can be violated for operating an aircraft in an un-airworthy state as the PIC has the final determination of airworthiness by regs...

Thank you for that and agreed. Everything got squawked, as far as I know, but I don't know the repair status for any of them. As a newb student I trusted them looking at the other "little stuff" as not a big deal (i.e. not required for VFR training) assuming flight schools would get in trouble otherwise. My gut was telling me these little things found over several aircraft are not right. The oil cap was the last straw and I said "No way I'm flying this". Not going back even if it would be $1/hr instead of $250. I'm fortunate to have alternatives.

 

[unsafervguy]

Thank you for the feedback, folks. I was seriously thinking I expected too much. A buddy told me he had some ratty training Cessnas when he took lessons years ago but had nothing like I saw over the past couple months. I'm checking out another flight school at a Delta hopefully later today (want to stay tower proficient) that offers 61 and 141 with no sales-push-BS (same $250/hr). We'll see how the progress transfer will work; at least they utilize the King online ground school I paid for to minimize the hassle.

To get my flying itch scratched for now, I'm heading to lunch with a friend in his 170B today. His plane is like flying a Cadillac compared to all the 172M birds I've been...um...subjected to.

dangerous move, once the tailwheel bug bites you the only cure it to buy one!

 

[StraightnLevel]

as the PIC you can be violated for operating an aircraft in an un-airworthy state as the PIC has the final determination of airworthiness by regs.

most CFI's don't clearly understand the regs and do a poor job of teaching theses regs to students.

Question:

When flying with a CFI prior to acquiring a license, is the CFI inherently the PIC? Put another way, who "owns" responsibility in a training scenario - the CFI or the student?

 

[unsafervguy]

Question:

When flying with a CFI prior to acquiring a license, is the CFI inherently the PIC? Put another way, who "owns" responsibility in a training scenario - the CFI or the student?

the cfi is the PIC as a student pilot cannot carry a passenger, so if the student was PIC they would be in violation of the regs. however, even though the CFI is the PIC the faa would probably at least want to have a discussion with the student to at least determine what he was taught about the FARS that were violated.

 

[mondtster]

the cfi is the PIC as a student pilot cannot carry a passenger, so if the student was PIC they would be in violation of the regs. however, even though the CFI is the PIC the faa would probably at least want to have a discussion with the student to at least determine what he was taught about the FARS that were violated.

Minor nit, but the flight instructor is not a passenger.

Edit: to be more clear, any time the instructor is providing instruction they are never a passenger.

 

[unsafervguy]

Minor nit, but the flight instructor is not a passenger.

Edit: to be more clear, any time the instructor is providing instruction they are never a passenger.

what i said is completely correct legally. this comes down to the definition of PIC.

61.1 Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight

because most training aircraft only require one crew member by certification, anybody else in the plane is by definition a passenger. a student pilot is not allowed to carry passengers, so they cannot be PIC with an instructor on board.

so what happens when a student is solo? there has to be a PIC in the aircraft. thats where 61.1 (3) comes in to play. a student pilot certificate meets the requirments of 61.1 (3) for being PIC as long as the student abides by the limitations of the certificate. which states "carrying passengers is prohibited" thats why a medical and student pilot certificate is required to solo.

as to you statement that a instructor is never a passenger, that is not legally true. again, the aircraft certification only requires one crew member so all others are legally passengers.

in the case of an instructor and a certificated pilot in a plane it comes down to 61.1 (1) and (2) to decide who is legal PIC. again in most training aircraft there can only be one because the certificate only requires 1 crew member. it may or may not be the instructor.

the only reason that a flight instructor can log PIC with a certificated pilot as a student is because of 61.51 e (3)

(3) A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

notice it says is rated to act, not acting as. when a certificated pilot and an instructor are flying together they both can log PIC if the student is ACTING as PIC under 61.1 or is sole manipulator of the controls under 61.51 and the CFI is logging under 61.51 (e).

as a side note, if a lot of NTSB reports you will see the phrase. "pilot rated passenger". again, because unless the certification of the airplane requires more than one crew member, there can be only one pilot, everyone else on board is passenger legally.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

because most training aircraft only require one crew member by certification, anybody else in the plane is by definition a passenger.

I disagree. When I am teaching student pilots how to land at night, I do not have to be current on night landings because there is no passenger in the airplane.

 

[unsafervguy]

I disagree. When I am teaching student pilots how to land at night, I do not have to be current on night landings because there is no passenger in the airplane.

that interpretation from the FAA has more to do with the contradiction of the fars with themselves. the way they worded it is interesting. the have pretty much made an instructor a required crew member without really saying it to make other fars that would apply not apply without changing the fars. the whole loa for teaching in experimentals was another example of how they do that until a court said no way, fix the regs. the fars are lacking in definition of what constitutes instruction and how it interacts with other fars.

 

[mondtster]

I disagree. When I am teaching student pilots how to land at night, I do not have to be current on night landings because there is no passenger in the airplane.

Even if they are rated, neither the pilot or the instructor has to because there is no passenger.

Here’s an LOI addressing the status of whether an instructor is a passenger or not:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Schaffner_2014_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

 

[murphey]

If I see duct tape or bailing wire anywhere on one of their fleet ships, I'm going to call it quits there.

What? You're not familiar with 100 kt duct tape?

(*grins*)

 

[unsafervguy]

Even if they are rated, neither the pilot or the instructor has to because there is no passenger.

Here’s an LOI addressing the status of whether an instructor is a passenger or not:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Schaffner_2014_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

yes, but that is just an interpretation by the faa, not a ruling by a judge. notice how it is worded,

"We agree that, for purposes of section 61.57(b), an authorized instructor providing instruction in
an aircraft is not considered a passenger with respect to the person receiving instruction.

it only applies to 61.57(b), and also extended to 61.57(a) by the letter. not when a instructor is with a student pilot for primary instruction, which is what I was describing.


the fars do not address the definition of a passenger except as it applies to 121 and 135. by writing those LOI's they are saying we, as the agency that enforces the rules, don't think that this is what the rules says. a lot easier to do that go through the FAR process to legally clarify the definition. that has in the past, jump up and bit the FAA. the LOA mess pertaining to instruction in EAB aircraft a couple of years ago is a perfect example. a court said that the FAA interpretation was wrong and they had to fix the fars. by the legal definition of the FAR's your either a required crewmember or not. if your not a crew member your a passenger. the FAA has basicly said we do not want to write the fars to codify their interpretation and everybody is happy with it, so it has never gone before a judge. I think if it went before a judge, the judge would overrule the interpretation force the FAA to seek a change in the FARS to codify their interpretation.

 

[TrueCourse]

I didn’t realize how fortunate I was when getting primary and instrument training many years ago. The sales department was as active as the rental and training side so we flew newer, and typically well equipped, aircraft. It wasn’t until i started using a worn out PA44 in a flying club did I realize it. Today in the same scenario with newer airplanes I wouldn’t be able to afford it.

 

[Pinecone]

I wonder if there's an auto rental place somewhere with a 1975/1976 basic 4 seater available to rent. If rented, I wonder what its squawk list would be like

Used to be a few locations of Rent-A-Wreck places. But not nearly 50 year old cars.

A guy and I looked at getting a Rent-A-Wreck for a TDY where the rental would be out of our pocket. We upgraded about 2 levels to get something we would actually get in a drive.

 

[mondtster]

the LOA mess pertaining to instruction in EAB aircraft a couple of years ago is a perfect example. a court said that the FAA interpretation was wrong and they had to fix the fars. by the legal definition of the FAR's your either a required crewmember or not. if your not a crew member your a passenger. the FAA has basicly said we do not want to write the fars to codify their interpretation and everybody is happy with it, so it has never gone before a judge. I think if it went before a judge, the judge would overrule the interpretation force the FAA to seek a change in the FARS to codify their interpretation.

Considering that the LODA requirement for experimental instruction was rescinded, the only thing that case is good for is an example of lawfare. The rules got changed to force an operator into submission and once they were forced into submission the rules magically got reversed.

 

[unsafervguy]

Considering that the LODA requirement for experimental instruction was rescinded, the only thing that case is good for is an example of lawfare. The rules got changed to force an operator into submission and once they were forced into submission the rules magically got reversed.

sorry. it was not magically reversed. it was changed in the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, the bill stated,
A flight instructor, registered owner, lessor, or lessee of an aircraft shall not be required to obtain a letter of deviation authority from the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to allow, conduct or receive flight training, checking, and testing in an experimental aircraft if–


(1) the flight instructor is not providing both the training and the aircraft;


(2) no person advertises or broadly offers the aircraft as available for flight training, checking, or testing; and


(3) no person receives compensation for use of the aircraft for a specific flight during which flight training, checking, or testing was received, other than expenses for owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft.

so they had congress change the FAR, as required by the law, not just changed their interpretation of the exsisting law.