Hi Kurt,
Your comments appear to compare apples and oranges. Tandy's potential
buyer needed more information if he/she was to make an informed
decision.
My first paragraph was intended as a warning that there remain from the
dawn of aviation some examiners who consider passing on of the gift of
flight to mere mortals entirely unwarranted and therefore limited to
occasional and unpredictable moments of uncharacteristic compassion.
I was wrong to omit the occasional CFI that exhibits such an attitude.
My wife found my CFI unacceptable, and learned to fly under another. I
applaud her decision. One size does not fit all.
My second paragraph presumed an Ercoupe owner learning in his own plane
that was coming up on his/her check ride and taking Ed Burkhead's
advice to do it in a three-control airplane. For someone essentially
"ready", this should be a relatively specialized "transitional"
instruction solely addressing the difference between abilities the
student pilot had already learned and added abilities needed to get
through a Cessna 150 or Cherokee check ride with a reasonable
expectation of success.
Such a person would likely go to a FBO or "flying Club" for a rental.
Some of these have familiarization or proficiency requirements that
border on punitive. Some don't. Cost is a concern to the student
pilot, just as an FBO cannot stay in business renting to the
unqualified.
I stand by my comments as to anyone in aviation out to "prove
something". They are too self centered to offer a simple and unbiased
check ride, finding more pleasure in the role of long suffering bully.
Learning to fly is a challenging process that should be joyful. A CFI
or Examiner with a "hidden agenda" today is an abuser of the
instructional process. Nothing more.
Instructors very nearly washed out a pilot who went on to become a
high-scoring P-51 jockey nicknamed "Gabby" (I can't spell Polish
names). The last step of the Instructor's job is to recommend a
student for a flight testing ONLY when he/she is properly prepared to
pass it. That call is usually before a conservative student believes
he/she is ready. The student with good judgment and the instructor are
likely to "know" at the same time.
Examiners do not receive instruction in or testing for clairvoyance.
Every pilot involved in a fatal accident passed one or more flight
tests. Their purpose is not to "prove" the confidence of a student's
instructor in the student's skills misplaced.
The Private Pilot license is a "License to learn" and the qualification
is basic proficiency and not a demonstration of expertise without flaw.
If check ride candidates endorsed by a competent instructors do not
pass 70-80% of the time, likely the students are not the source of the
problem.
Just my opinions,
WRB
--
On Jan 26, 2009, at 20:30, [email protected] wrote:
You know, as a CFI, I got accused of milking them for more money. I
can think of two pilots in particular. They both went somewhere else,
found another instructor, and another examiner, and both got their
license. Both are now dead, from airplane accidents.
You just have to let it roll off your back. Sometimes those "hard
asses" are try to cover their ass and yours.
Kurt
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:16:39 -0600, William R. Bayne wrote
> Hi Tandy,
>
> It depends on the examiner he would ultimately have. More than a few
got their private learning in a coupe and took their check ride in it.
I picked my own examiner, and I urge everyone to do so. For a check
ride in a 415-C or CD you want a reasonable one that doesn't weigh a
lot (females have an advantage). The examiner with a "reputation" for
being a hard ass is on an ego trip one indulges only at considerable
risk to their pocketbook and confidence. Avoid them.
>
> Much of the transition time "required" to transition from a
two-control Ercoupe to a rented Cessna 150 or Cherokee can be "milking
the process" by the FBO and/or instructor...it's not that big of a
deal, but they make their calculated profit on every hour they sell;
and so may be (unreasonably?) conservative in dual time "requirements"
before renting for solo flight test use.
>
> Consider also that anyone who gets their "unlimited" license in a
Cessna 150 or Cherokee and then tries to hop in a Grumman Yankee
without professional help will likely kill themselves on the first
flight. The same is true with almost any tail dragger (there is no
"tri-gear only" restriction). Similarly, the adverse yaw
characteristic of a Taylorcraft makes it a whole different bird in the
air than a three-control coupe or Cherokee (and that is most
definitely NOT a compliment).
>
> It is more than worthwhile to learn to pilot a coupe well from the
right seat, and to keep that skill current. I taught myself on a calm
spring day, but having an instructor or competent coupe pilot friend
along for the first three touch-and-goes may be a better choice for
some. This ability makes it easy to get non-professional competent
help before solo flight in an unfamiliar aircraft type from a
competent and proficient owner or prior owner.
>
> I would go so far as to say that 99% of the people who learn to fly
in a two-control Ercoupe could fly a three-control one without help
(if crosswinds were limited to 10 MPH), and could take a check ride in
one with one hour of familiarization in it by a knowledgeable
instructor.
>
> Is anyone instructing in and/or renting three-control coupes? If so,
we need a list kept current.
>
> The better option for a student "cleared for the check ride" by his
instructor may be to get "signed off" by his/her instructor for solo
flight to and from wherever there is a three-control coupe (AND an
acceptable examiner) available. This doesn't have to be local.
>
> The fact that you can't demonstrate recovery from a spin in a coupe
on the check ride should mean nothing. ALL possible instruments useful
for instrument flight do not HAVE to be in the plane used for an
instrument ticket check ride. Instrument proficiency only has to be
demonstrated with (minimum) equipment installed.
>
> Does anyone know if a person trains for a Sport Pilot license in a
two-control coupe and takes the check ride in it receives a
two-control restriction endorsement or not? The endorsement (or lack
thereof) on a license does not make a pilot safe.
>
> It is the proficiency of the pilot, and his/her judgment, that makes
a safe pilot. Most examiners do not expect perfection. What they do
expect is good judgment. They expect the applicant to know their
limitations, and stay well within them; and some will pass an
applicant who does something wrong, knows it, and demonstrates they
can then do it right (not get rattled).
>
> Every newly minted "private pilot" should never cease to expand and
polish their minimum skill set to exquisite sharpness in a
never-ending quest for perfection aloft. There is much joy, confidence
and safety thusly achievable.
>
> Regards,
>
> William R. Bayne
> .____|-(o)-|____.
> (Copyright 2009)
>
> --
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:07, Tandy Allen wrote:
>
>
Guys - A possible buyer of my Coupe wants it to learn to fly in.
Would his certificate be restricted to flying Coupes?
>
> Tandy
