ATP Price Reduction

[juskl]

I never went to ATP, so I can only speak from observing numerous pilots whom did and whom I have flown with on rental checkouts, change of schools, etc.

From a positive, I can say that the pilots whom trained there are very flow oriented and very memorization based. Also they are extremely conservative in the style of flying. Not an unsafe or bad thing I guess.

But a C172 is just a C172 and not a twin or an RJ. I understand whole heartedly the rule of primacy concept and there is merit in it. The schools concept is based on getting someone to the right seat of a regional aircraft as soon as possible. Seems to work when the environment is good. But where this is hurting the students whom attend ATP, is when they try to get a job not at the regionals.

Giving flight training for example. The accelerated CFI program at ATP would not pass muster at my flight school. We look for safe, yet aggressive and experienced flight instructors whom know what an airplane and it's pilots are capable of. We do not teach fear (as in don't do a turning slip, because you will die or only do MCA at 5 to 10 degrees angle of bank due to the spin and die thing again). I think that the students only truly get their monies worth when they are getting a good overall education in aircraft control and capabilities versus flying protocols as an RJ would. But I could care less about teaching someone to get an airline job, whereas all atps does.

Dutch Rolls, Full Power take off attitude stalls (not 1800 rpms), turning stalls, delayed recovery stalls, cross control stalls, accelerated stalls, turning slips, and rudder use all seem foreign to students coming from all atps. But to the defense of all atps, the goal is not to be a pilot in small single engine aircraft or yet to teach in them. The goal is to get a job with a regional airline. To be very proficient in flows and checklists and procedures and memorizations (rote). What is lacking is correlation.

I think overall though, that much of the problems of ATP's reputation would be better served (as would the future students) if they had instuctors that were staying around for 2000 hours and not 200.

Honestly, there is a difference. Yes we all start somewhere, but it is through experience and the senior guys watching out for the junior ones, that the junior ones become experienced senior instructors (yeah, it sounds silly).

The market dictated the instuctors only "had" to stay 200 hours or so and were off to higher things. But I think this is what hurt the overall quality of instruction (on all levels). Maybe the downturn in the industry will help ATP retain instructors and thus increase instruction and customer service, maybe not.

But, the one thing that I will never get is the 8K penalty fee if someone wants to leave. That makes no sense to me. I know that several academy style schools do this (which does not make it right), but if a school has a good reputation and thinks that it is putting out a good product, why threaten with a fine if you want to say, go somewhere else, or take up basket weaving? Give the students their unspent monies back.

At my school, if you want your money on account back, just ask and ye shall receive. Change of mind or change of heart should not cost you. And if the school is really as good as it says it is, then what is the worry?

[Boris Badenov]

Originally Posted by juskl

Full Power take off attitude stalls (not 1800 rpms)

Please tell me you're kidding.

[turbomax97]

Yeah it's pretty fun in the seminole. It usually doesn't quite stall, it sort of bounces on its tail if that makes sense... The VSI just oscillates +/50 ft or so. Also, you're at a pretty nice 30 degrees of pitch or so.


BTW, I'm curious how the previous poster expects to teach dutch roll in a flight school.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by turbomax97

I'm curious how the previous poster expects to teach dutch roll in a flight school.

There's a flight training maneuver called Dutch Rolls as well. If I recall correctly, it involves rocking the airplane with the ailerons while using the rudder to keep the nose centered. I think it was described in the old AC 61-21A Flight Training Handbook, the one superseded by the Airplane Flying Handbook. I can't find a copy of the AC 61-21A to verify, though.

[Boris Badenov]

Originally Posted by turbomax97

Yeah it's pretty fun in the seminole.

I guess I meant I find it unbelievable that anyone can get away with teaching departure stalls in an airplane approved for them without actually doing it. Ludicrous. I guess they'll be ready for a stall on all those reduced power departures they do in their light twin.

[turbomax97]

Originally Posted by Boris Badenov

I guess I meant I find it unbelievable that anyone can get away with teaching departure stalls in an airplane approved for them without actually doing it. Ludicrous. I guess they'll be ready for a stall on all those reduced power departures they do in their light twin.

Yeah you're right. I don't recall ever taking off with 18 inches of manifold pressure in the seminole. Funny though because in the private training we went full power in the cessna. I don't see anything different between doing a power on in the two as far as objectives and techniques

[turbomax97]

Originally Posted by Berkut

There's a flight training maneuver called Dutch Rolls as well. If I recall correctly, it involves rocking the airplane with the ailerons while using the rudder to keep the nose centered. I think it was described in the old AC 61-21A Flight Training Handbook, the one superseded by the Airplane Flying Handbook. I can't find a copy of the AC 61-21A to verify, though.

http://www.geocities.com/narayan/dutchrol.pdf

Sounds like this is what you're referring to. I learned/ taught these for the purpose of rudder control and to demonstrate aircraft stability but didn't know it was published anywhere. Thank you sir!

I suppose since it's not a PTS area, it's just something passed onto students from their instructors.

[matt152]

Originally Posted by Boris Badenov

I guess I meant I find it unbelievable that anyone can get away with teaching departure stalls in an airplane approved for them without actually doing it. Ludicrous. I guess they'll be ready for a stall on all those reduced power departures they do in their light twin.

From the Airplane Flying Handbook on multiengine aircraft:

Engine power is then increased to that recommended
in the AFM/POH for the practice of power-on
stalls. In the absence of a recommended setting, use
approximately 65 percent of maximum available
power while placing the airplane in a pitch attitude that
will induce a stall. Other specified (reduced) power
settings may be used to simulate performance at higher
gross weights and density altitudes.

[Boris Badenov]

Clearly we've been doing it wrong all these years. I'd better write my POI.

[juskl]

Sorry, I was on vacation and just got back. No I am not kidding about the take off attitude stall. It is being taught that way, because the instructors are being taught that way and so on. It is poor teaching. The dutch roll is the manuever (coordination drill) for the use of the ailerons and rudder. It gets the students aggressive on the rudders and to fly the airplane, instead of sloppily pulling it around the sky.

Of the five students from ATP's that we have seen over the past month (two already MEI, CFII, yet fail to have both the CFI single and Commercial SEL). Not one could use the rudder for squat, and none had complete knowledge of stalls and the various types. They got beat up pretty good with us. But they are now proficient and have both experience and knowledge. But I guess stalls are just too old school for some of our posters. Sad.