Get what you pay for.
In this series:
- Part 1: Read this First
- Part 2: Save Up
- Part 3: Start Young
- Part 4: Choose a Reputable Flight School
- Part 5: Check Your Attitude at the Door
- Part 6: Study Hard
- Part 7: Stay Slim
- Part 8: Be Willing to Travel
- Part 9: Pay Your Dues
more to come…
The quality of your training will be determined by your flight school. And believe me, you want the best training you can get.
Some Basic Tips
Here’s a bunch of tips for choosing a flight school; sadly, most of them are “don’ts” because of the kinds of marketing tactics some schools use:
- Don’t be lured by ads for cheap training with promises of jobs at 300 hours of flight time. These schools are not interested in turning out quality pilots. They’re interested in attracting as many wannabes as possible to fill out their bottom line.
- Don’t get fooled by schools that make verbal promises about hiring all graduates as flight instructors. A verbal promise isn’t worth more than the paper it’s written on. Many flight schools will tell you anything you want to hear to get you to sign up. Besides, wouldn’t you rather get trained at a school that chooses the best CFIs as instructors than the one who takes any CFI as an instructor? And do you really think they can hire all of their graduates? What happens when graduates hired as CFIs outnumber students? How many hours of flying will you get then?
- Don’t look at the biggest or smallest schools. Look at schools somewhere in the middle. These are the ones where you’ll have the benefit of several CFIs on staff while still getting some level of personal attention.
- Check into the experience of the training staff. Find out how many hours of flight time the chief flight instructor and some of the other flight instructors have. Find out whether any of them have real-life flying experience. Flight schools that offer tour and charter services also offer opportunities for their CFIs to get the kind of experience they’ll use in future jobs.
- Once you’ve got the flight schools narrowed down to one or two, talk to some of the students and flight instructors there. See what they think. Try to get the contact information for one or two graduates who have moved on to see whether they thought their training at the school helped them succeed.
Don’t be lazy and take shortcuts here. Your future starts with your training. Do your homework. You’ll be amazed by what you learn.
Equipment
There are a lot of people who make a big deal over the kind of equipment used for flying. There are three basic helicopters used for training: Robinson R22, Schweitzer Schweizer 269/300 (which has a bunch of other names), and Enstrom F28F and 280FX. News flash: They’re all good.
The R22 is an extremely “squirrelly” helicopter. It really takes all of your attention to fly. Its two-bladed system makes it unsafe for aggressive or low-G maneuvers, but ground resonance is not an issue. Robinsons are widely respected and widely used in flight schools.
I can’t speak firsthand about the Schweitzer Schweizer since I’ve never flown one. I know that as a helicopter with a fully articulated rotor system, it’s capable of performing far more aggressive maneuvers than a Robinson. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing. It is susceptible to ground resonance. I have heard that its glide slope in autorotation is steeper than an R22 but can’t back that up with facts and figures.
I have flown an Enstrom and, in all honesty, I wasn’t impressed. The excessive vibrations really turned me off, but that could have been caused by the blades being out of balance or some other maintenance issue on that particular aircraft. It also has a fully articulated rotor system, but I can’t recall hearing anything about one getting into ground resonance. I don’t know enough about its flight characteristics to pass judgement on it.
Most pilots favor the helicopter they trained on. That’s true with me. Not only did I learn in an R22, but I owned an R22 Beta II for four years and put at least 1,000 hours on it. But who knows? If I’d trained in a 300, I might have all kinds of love for it instead.
I’m hoping that folks reading this who have more knowledge about the other two aircraft will comment on their experiences. (Warning: I will not allow an equipment-bashing comment thread to form for this post. Present facts about what you know; not hearsay about what you don’t.)
I certainly don’t think you should pass up a flight school because of the brand of its equipment. The age, maintenance quality, and condition is far more important. You want a flight school with its own hangar and maintenance facility. You might even want to take a look at it to make sure it’s relatively neat and clean and the mechanics look like they know what they’re doing. A place with friendly mechanics who are willing to talk to you when you have a mechanical problem or question will certainly help you get more out of your flight training.
There’s one other thing to keep in mind. Some flight schools have one or two turbine helicopters on hand that they use for charter work or even training. When trying to get you to sign with them, they might hint or even promise that they’ll give you a certain number of hours of turbine flight time. Get any promises in writing. It is not uncommon for flight schools to give students the impression they’d get turbine transition training in a package deal and then, for some reason, not provide it. Either the aircraft was down for maintenance or there were too many other pilots queued up for time in it or there was an additional fee that was never discussed. If a turbine aircraft is dangled like a carrot in front of you, get all the facts about flying it before signing up.
Beware of Package Deals
And that brings up the topic of package deals. My advice is this: Do not sign with a school that forces you to enter into a contract for all training and pay them a bunch of money up front. (This was also pointed out by Damien in comments for Part 2 of this series, which discussed funding your flight training.) You do not want to be contractually tied to any flight school (at least not without a contractual way out that won’t cost you anything) and you certainly don’t want them getting money upfront (beyond reasonable prepayments) for services yet to be rendered.
If there’s anything the Silver State debacle taught us, it’s that flight schools aren’t always around forever. If they fold with your money, you’re out of luck.
Equally important is that if you decide after a few weeks or months of training that you don’t like the flight school and want to continue training elsewhere, you have the freedom to do so. And believe me; this happens more often than you think.
Networking Potential
Keith, who has far more experience flying far more equipment in far more places than me, pointed out in comments to my earlier post about age:
I know several aspiring pilots who I have counseled about the helicopter business but I hesitate to recommend a school to them. My usual advice on schools has been pick the best ranked school that provides the greatest possible chance to get that first job.
It is a little discouraging to me to have to tell an aspiring career pilot that all the good grades, excellent flight reviews and mind numbing study may come to not if they don’t make that first job happen for themselves. Perseverance helps but choosing the right place to train and the connections and recommendations that come from certain schools and/or instructors might make all the difference. It is still a small industry where more positions are gained through personal recommendations and associations than any quantity of paper credentials. Your reputation in this industry begins at day one and for good or bad will follow you your entire career.
This is excellent advice for career pilots. I know of at least once school — now defunct — that had a terrible reputation for training. It got so bad that many employers would simply not consider any pilot that had that flight school listed on a resume. That’s a difficult hurdle to jump when you’re just starting out.
But I think what Keith’s saying goes beyond just choosing a flight school. I think it also has to do with how you represent yourself throughout training and your first few jobs. That’s attitude and I’ll cover that next.
I learned to fly at a military aero club in Hawaii. All of my instructors were very experienced. (One was a Hawaiian Airlines co-pilot. Another was a Navy lieutenant and one was 75 years old!) Most were instructing as a side job (Hawaii is expensive), and they were not trying to make a living at it. I benefitted greatly from their advanced experience, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
The above comments refer to my initial flight training in fixed wing aircraft. Many helicopter pilots elect to get their fixed wing certification first in order to build time less expensively. Much of this time counts toward future helicopter ratings.
Good post Maria. I hope that aspiring career pilots follow your advice and do some leg work and research before committing to any school, but its been my experience that most pilots will spend more time researching their next car purchase than their next career choice.
I don’t know why that is? There are enough resources including the information you are providing to arm any potential wannabee pilot with the questions they need to have answered when they check out a potential flight school.
You wouldn’t buy a car solely based on the salesperson and the dealerships close proximity to your residence would you? Make no mistake about flight school personnel, no matter what their title and expertise, salesperson is part of what they do.
Well put Keith. That’s why blogs like Maria’s are so important. Maria, regarding which aircraft is better for training, I can only offer the following. I received my initial helicopter training in the Hughes 269 and 300. I took my instrument training in an R-22. I also went through ag school in the Bell 47. I love flying the 300 and autorotations are a breeze. No stress. The Ground Resonance issue is really a non-issue with me. It’s easy to avoid and easy to get out of. If you have the opportunity to learn in a Bell 47, don’t count it out. It is, in my opinion a classic beauty, and will do a pretty extreme ag turn. Good with autorotations and more forgiving than the R-22 in that regard. The only drawback is that as soon as you sit in it, the theme from M*A*S*H keeps running through your head. Oh well. The R-22 did not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling, but I have a very experienced R-22 pilot friend that swears by it. I have never flown an Enstrom, so can not comment on it. All and all, picking an instructor in my opinion is more important than picking an aircraft.
@Keith
I’m convinced that people are looking for the easy way out. They’d rather have someone — even a stranger on a forum! — tell them which flight school to attend (or not attend) than to do their homework and pick the school that’s best for them.
And I definitely agree that everyone who works for a flight school is involved in sales. You really can’t believe much of what they tell you and MUST get all promises in writing.
@Mike Muench
I really do want to try a 300 now. Need to track one down in Phoenix and book an hour of dual. What the hell, right?
A good friend of mine owns a Bell 47G in pristine condition. I think it’s Serial Number 2. Does a lot of survey work with it. It’s the prettiest thing with that beautiful bubble. I have a photo around here somewhere; will have to dig it out. I got an hour in a Bell 47 years ago when I was still a pretty new pilot. Didn’t really experience it the way I could these days. Need to talk my friend into taking it out for a joy ride one day this spring.
Thought I’d give you my 2 cents on things. First, I’m a student pilot, and I’ve only flown a 300. Ground resonance is something you want to keep in mind with any fully-articulated rotor system, I’ve never experienced it firsthand. The ways to prevent it are to keep the oleo’s in good condition (preventing it on startup) and to not slam the skids into the ground (preventing it when landing). As long as your setdowns are good, and you are ready to pick back up (if you do get into ground resonance) you’ll be fine. As far as autorotations go, from 1000 feet, the 300 will come down about 1/2 mile from where you’re at. I also plan to try to get a few hours in both enstroms and 22′s as well. Just to see what I’m missing out on. Though, your story about the shaking of the enstrom makes me a little more hesitant about it.
@Duncan
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I really do want to get some stick time in a 300 now.
As for the Enstrom — I’m definitely not saying to skip it. I’m thinking that the one I flew must have been poorly balanced. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to fly such a rattletrap. If they were all like that, no one would fly them.
I think it’s a great idea to get stick time in as many aircraft as you can — even if it’s just an hour or two. Being able to compare multiple aircraft is a great thing. I’ve only had time in R22, R44, B206L, Hughes 500C, Rotorway Exec (really!), that Enstrom, and a Bell 47. Of those, I only feel qualified to talk about the first four. The R22 is nimble but squirrely. The Long Ranger flies much like the R44; the Hughes 500 was “heavy” as hell because no hydraulics. Interesting to compare.
Do you know where I could find a Instructor who is familiar and flown a Rotorway 162F Exec Helicopter?
Sure. The Rotorway factory. They have CFIs and provide training for all their kit buyers — or at least they did a few years ago, when I flew with them. Good luck!
yes, still do…thanks for the tip. Will look into it.
I forgot to mention the Hiller UH-12E. I have about 1100 hours in one and I love it. Stable as a rock. I can’t speak for the earlier versions like the C and D models. The E model has the Lycoming VO-540 which is a strong engine. There are places still around that teach in them. I can strongly recommend it.
@Maria Langer
First, a REPLY! Nice to know you actually read the comments.
One big difference I completely forgot to mention, is the lack of a governor. There is a correlator linking collective and throttle (as collective goes up, throttle increases) but it is not fantastic. I think it definitely increases pilot workload as any power change has to be anticipated with some throttle, and then the rpms fine-tuned once the new power setting is established. Makes it very easy to overspeed, unfortunately. As far as I know, enstroms are the same. Definitely worth pointing out for new pilots.
Now, I do think that learning in a non-governored ship has its benefits, I think having a governor does as well, by letting the student focus on learning basic control of the helicopter easier, when they are ready, they can always turn off the governor and get the benefit of learning to anticipate power changes with throttle.
@Duncan
Yep, I read the comments. I also moderate them and prevent a lot of the childish nonsense that goes on in many forums. I do have to say, other than the occasional spam that gets through the filters, there’s seldom any comments that need to be rejected as inappropriate.
The Robinsons also have a mechanical correlator, but its the electronic governor that does the fine-tuning work. You can actually feel it making slight adjustments in your hand as you fly.
It’s interesting to note that the R22′s original lack of the governor, coupled with its low-inertia rotor system, is part of what prompted SFAR 73, which has additional training requirements for Robinson pilots. Apparently, when the helicopter first came out, it was a big hit with Vietnam era vets and other experienced pilots (as well as inexperienced pilots, of course) who weren’t used to the unforgiving rotor system. They’d let the RPMs droop beyond what they could recover from and the helicopter would drop out of the sky. The governor was added as an option and then became standard. The low rotor RPM warning system, which I illustrated with a video here, activates at 97% RPM; I think that early warning is a throwback to those days.
Of course, Robinson pilots do train for low RPM recovery — as any helicopter pilot should — but thinking about RPMs and throttle is simply not a major part of the pilot’s workload. I also have mixed feelings about this. Although I love having throttle manipulation handled for me so I don’t have to deal with it and can enjoy flying just a bit more, I agree that there are some benefits to training without a governor. Back when I had about 500 hours of flight time, all in R22s, I had a governor failure and was a nervous wreck for the full 30 minutes it took me to ferry the aircraft to a mechanic who could fix it. (For the record, there was no problem doing it manually, especially with the correlator to help.) If I’d been trained on a governorless ship, I wouldn’t have been nervous at all.
I love the 269/300 series as an owner/operator as it lets us do many tasks fairly cheap. The US Army having operated 800 of them for 24 years helped make the design very robust with great time limits on the components. Please don’t take offense… but it’s spelled SCHWEIZER. :) No worries, because it is now a Sikorsky. I hope Sikorsky doesn’t drop the ball and the design suffers as I do see signs of that currently.
@apiaguy
Oops! No offense taken! Sorry I spelled it wrong. Let’s see if I can fix it in the post now…
I flew a 300 for around 800 hours. I love the 300. I would take it over a 22 anyday (I have flown one). They are nice for the extra speed but for maneuvers, the 300 is lovely. It is a much more stable platform than a 22. I have had ground resonance about 3 times but as Mike said above, it was a non issue. Pick it up gain and set it down a little more gently than the student did :).
Autos are great in it. Having done every type imaginable and taught them all too. One thing about the 300 is that in hot weather, snapping the throttle shut has caused numerous amounts of them to have an engine stall. Therefore, having to perform real full downs. I experienced this in Bakersfield on a very hot day.
Overall, the machine is great and it is a better choice for those who are heavier and taller.
I have never flown an Enstrom.
@Damien: Thanks for sharing this.
It’s great that so many pilots are filling in the blanks of my original post with comments about their own experiences in different aircraft. I think it’ll really help students to see that all of the training aircraft have fans.
Back in the 60s, Cessna realized that when someone buys an airplane, the vast majority purchase the make that they learn in. Wisely they opened a nationwide network of Cessna pilot centers. This would be the perfect opportunity for a leader like Sikorsky to do something similar with the 300. I understand that they may want to do one thing right. Manufacture. But at least partner with a school. I wonder why they don’t. For all that Silver State did wrong, they did show that there is a demand.
When I was at Bristow instructing, we had the top 15 executives from Sikorsky, including Jeff Pino, come down there for 5 hours of flight training each. I was lucky enough to be one of the instructors and they were with us for about 3 days. They had their S92 with them too. A great experience.
With regards to the choice of equipment to train in. If your intent is to be a career pilot and the first job you will likely have is as a flight instructor then one needs to consider the job market and what aircraft is the most used for flight training. If you train in the Robinson which I beleive represents the biggest job market you do not legally require much additonal training to instruct in another make. However the reverse is not true due to the SFAR requirements to give instruction in a Robinson.
Dan: This is a really good point. But I like the squirrel argument: R22s are so squirrelly that if you can fly one, you can fly anything else.
I would just like to first say that these blogs you offer are great and provided me with much food for thought on taking flight lessons.
I saw you listed the R22 here, but not much on the R44. I have taken one flight lesson so far (1hr) in an R44 Raven II. It is considerably more expensive than the R22, and so I am wondering if there is any real advantage to learning in the R44 as opposed to the R22. The person running the flight school said that most pilots will use the R44 as opposed to the R22 once out of flight school, and that in order for the insurance companies to cover flight of the R44, the pilot must have a certain number of hours in an R44. He went on to state that it would be the same, if not cheaper, to train in the 44 as opposed to training in the 22 and then getting hours in the 44 later.
Anyone have any insight on this matter? Thanks in advance for any advice.
I think the person running the flight school is pulling your leg, trying to get you to buy more costly flight time. If you can fly an R22, you can pretty much fly any helicopter. Hell, I went from an R22 to a Long Ranger — and switched back and forth from one to the other daily for a whole summer.
As for most pilots using the R44 right out of flight school — I don’t think that’s true at all. Most pilots who build the 1,000 or so hours they need to get a job (other than as a CFI) will be flying turbine aircraft. And CFIs are far more likely to fly R22s than R44s.
And as for it costing the same or less to get your ratings in an R44, he’s either outright lying to you or smoking something that would fail a drug test. How many R44 hours does he think you’ll need to fly an R44? SFAR 73 requires 10 (I think) to carry passengers and 20 (I think) to do flight instruction. While some insurance companies — for example, Pathfinder, might require more for commercial operations, do you really want to spend all that extra money to set yourself up for a job as a Robbie pilot? For not much more, you can probably get a turbine transition that’ll get you further in your career.
Talk to another flight school and see what they say. Good luck.
Thank you kindly for your insight.
Jon, It sounds like you got a short answer. Explain to the person running the flight school that you didn’t completely understand his answer and could he sit down with you and outline the pros and cons of learning in the R-22 as opposed to the R-44. BTW, you don’t have an overweight instructor, do you?
Having reluctantly trained someone for their add on CPL rotorcraft in a Bell 407 I can say that I believe that person would have perhaps taken twice the flight time hours to pass their check ride had the training been conducted in an R22. There are many who feel the same about the R44 in that there will be less hours required to reach proficiency. I am not so sure that is a good thing since part of the problem is you need to acquire a number of hours of flight time in order to be gainfully employed. With respect to the SFAR requirements to act as an Instructor in the Robinson you must have 200 hours total helicopter time and 5o hours in the R22 or the R44 as appropriate. You can “count” 25 hours of R22 time toward the R44 time requirements therefore reducing the R44 requirements to 25 hrs. You can NOT however do the reverse by counting R44 time toward the 50 hours R22 time. So in 200 hours flight time you could have 175hrs in an R22 and 25 hours in an R44 and all of your ratings and qualification to instruct in either aircraft. If you chose the R44 as the primary aircraft you would then fly 150 hours in an R44 and 50 hours in an R22 to accomplish the same thing. I think the math is clear as to which is the less expensive route. Even if you only flew the first 50 hours in the R44 and then switched to the R22 for the last 150 hours it would still be the more expensive route. As I pointed out in a previous post the largest job market is going to be in the Robinson as a flight instructor and most initial instruction is still occurring in the R22 simply from the expense stand point. IF your training is not career oriented then I would train in what you intend to fly such as the person did in the Bell 407. I do think there is some validity to the statement of less flight time in the R44 compared to the R22 to reach the same level of proficiency. Enough to cost the same, I doubt it.
Thanks for clarifying this, especially about the SFARs. I think you have a good point in that it’s easier to reach proficiency in an R44. An R44 is definitely easier to fly than an R22 — having just flown an R22 again for the first time in 6+ years, I can speak from recent experience.
But let’s also be realistic about the kind of school that would make a statement like that to a potential student. Is that the kind of flight school that’ll let the student take a check ride with the minimum required number of hours with proficiency? Or the kind of school that sells a package including XX number of hours and bills more for hours needed beyond that if the student doesn’t have the skills to pass a check ride? And then determines whether the student has those skills?
Let’s face it: there are too many flight schools out there that see a student strictly as revenue. Some schools will keep a deep-pocketed student in the system as long as possible — I know because it was done to me. A school that’s trying to sell a new student on training in a more expensive aircraft than needed strikes me as one that doesn’t have the student’s best interests in mind.
What’s the going rate for dual in an R44 these days? $500? $550? The R22 I just flew went for $250/hour dual. Is it worth twice as much per hour for primary training to do it in an R44? I don’t think so. And I question the ethics of any flight school that claims it is.