Advice for the New Student: How to Maximize Your Training and Minimize Your Cost

Part 2: Choosing a School

By Gene Benson

Many people and at least one governmental agency which shall go unnamed, (but it's initials begin with "F", end with "A", and there's an "A" in the middle) think that there are two kinds of flight schools, "approved" and "unapproved".  It's true that some schools have undertaken the process of becoming "approved" and they are commonly referred to as "Part 141" schools. Schools that have not chosen to jump through those hoops are referred to as "Part 61" schools. These numbers are a reference to the respective parts of the Federal Aviation Regulations under which these schools operate. I have a somewhat different opinion. I believe that there are three kinds of flight schools. I would characterize flight schools as "good", "sufficient", and "don't go there".

Choosing a flight school on whether or not it has been "approved" by the FAA is a mistake. In my many years in the flight training business, I have observed many "good", "sufficient", and "don't go there" schools. some of each category have been "approved" and some have been "unapproved". Simply, having the FAA stamp of approval doesn't guarantee quality training or legitimate business practices. All that the FAA approval guarantees is that there is an established curriculum and that there is a chief flight instructor who meets some very minimal requirements.

Sometimes training at an "approved" or FAR Part 141 school can actually be a detriment. The FAA requires strict adherence to the training syllabus. While I am a very strong advocate of following a syllabus, there are times when adjustments need to be made. For example, each lesson in a Part 141 training syllabus must be done in order. Maybe lesson #8 is on short and soft field takeoffs and landings and lesson #9 is on crosswind takeoffs and landings. If the wind is screaming across the runway on the day that lesson #8 is scheduled, the lesson at a Part 141 school will probably be cancelled because soft field procedures cannot safely be performed in a strong crosswind. In the Part 61 or "unapproved" flight school, lesson #9 could be flown to take advantage of the good crosswind practice and lesson #8 would be flown on a more calm day. Of course, some lessons must be done in sequence, under FAR Part 141, the instructor is allowed very little discretion.

I think that the best of both worlds is when a flight school operates under FAR Part 61 but conducts operations generally following FAR Part 141. That way, the needed structure is in place, but it is possible to be flexible to suit weather conditions and individual student needs. In any case, I would strongly recommend training a school that uses a standardized curriculum rather than one where each instructor has his or her own curriculum. If each instructor operates independently, there will be a significant disruption in training if it becomes necessary to change instructors midstream.

The question of whether it is better to train at a small airport or a larger one served by a control tower. Sometimes the geography of where the student is located will dictate the kind of airport. While there are advantages and disadvantages in training at each kind of airport, the difference isn't significant enough to warrant making a long drive for flight lessons. The advantage of training at a "non-controlled" airport is in having less air traffic and therefore fewer delays. Once the engine has started, the student is paying the same hourly rate whether flying or waiting in a line for takeoff. The advantage training at an airport with a control tower is that radio communications quickly become second nature. I have seen many students who trained at non-controlled airports who were fearful of transiting any airspace in which radio communications was required. These students had trained as small, non-towered airports and had never become really comfortable handling communications. The communications with control towers required during private pilot training is very minimal. Probably the best situation is to train at a non-towered airport, but to make sure that at least half of the flights go into airspace where communications with Air Traffic Control (ATC) are possible.

One very important difference between flight schools is how they handle the insurance issue. Aviation insurance is quite complex and I have written a three-part article concerning it in "Commentary" section so I won't go into all the details here. To keep matters simple here, some flight schools provide all of the insurance necessary but most don't. The student pilot will almost certainly need to buy some additional insurance. The question becomes, "How much?" The cost of insurance has to be figured into the cost of the training. When comparing relative costs of several flight schools, the relative cost of insurance must be figured in. Some schools will provide a more comprehensive insurance package but charge a higher hourly rate to pay for it. some schools will attempt to attract students with a low hourly rate, but will provide little or no insurance coverage.

How a particular flight school maintains its airplanes is important for obvious reasons. the FAA has very strict maintenance requirements for flight school airplanes, right? Wrong! The maintenance requirements for airplanes used by flight schools is only a little bit higher than what is required for a personal airplane and this isn't very much. Airlines and charter operations have much more strict requirements, but flight schools are exempt from most of those mandates. For example, every aircraft engine has a recommended number of operating hours after which the manufacturer recommends that it be overhauled. This number of hours is referred to at the time between overhaul  or "TBO". Airlines and charter operators must comply with this TBO but flight schools and individual owners are not required to do so. There are also things called service bulletins issued by the airplane and component manufacturers. These are maintenance procedures designed to correct or prevent some problem that was discovered after the airplane or component was designed. Once again, airlines and charter operators are required to comply with service bulletins but individual owners and flight schools are not. Some flight schools voluntarily comply with engine TBOs and service bulletins and some do not.

Here's a technique that I use whenever I want to determine how well an airplane has been maintained. I check three things. First, I look at the tires. Airplane tires are cheap when compared to automobile tires so there is no reason not to change them when they are worn. Next, I look for any evidence of oil leaks. Any black streaks around the cowling or any little spots of wet oil under the airplane are dead giveaways. Finally, I gently tug on the ailerons. Anything more than about a tenth of an inch of play suggests worn hinges that are easily replaced. None of these three items, unless excessive, is likely to result in an unsafe airplane. But, failure to attend to these relatively common and easily corrected items suggests to me that the airplane might not be maintained to a very hard standard.

In summary, there are plenty of factors involved in choosing a flight school. The prospective student shouldn't be shy about visiting several schools and asking pointed questions about insurance, aircraft maintenance, curriculum, etc. The individual should plan on spending a couple of hours just observing what goes on. Whether or not students and instructors seem to be happy is a pretty good indicator of the quality of the school.

In closing, I will just offer one piece of advice: Never, repeat never, give any flight school any money up front.