Quote:
This is the problem. The point of view above is directly out of either Flying Magazine or AOPA pilot, and was a point of view by a cheif flight instructor from Texas who dislikes academy style training. I am not picking on you n57flyguy, but your post is just a regergitation of what was written in the magazine. The graduates of these programs had to go through the same training as a mom and pop fbo, they just get it done quicker.
Secondly, the graduates had to pass a CFI/CFII/MEI checkride and the FAA gave their blessing by awarding their certificates to instruct. As every CFI knows, the CFI is nothing more than a license to learn and teach. A CFI will gain his experience teaching and learn more than he ever knew before about flying and teaching. This woman does not even give them a chance because of her biased views about academy training. They may get an interview, but not the job because of her bias. This is her choice to do so because it is her sandlot and she can choose who plays there and who doesn't. It comes down to the catch 22. How does one get the experience, if one does not allow them to get the experience.
|
Loblaw ... are you thinking of Arlynn McMahon? I know she has that opinion and expresses it through AOPA's publications. She's a Chief Flight Instructor in Kentucky.
Tom Beneson (I believe it was him) did do up a pretty good article in the latest FLYING. It discussed the differences in scope of training ... rigid, structured environments geared toward preparing for an airline career vs. growing up in the GA, mom-and-pop environment.