Best School?

[412driver]

because the best instructors in the fraser valley are teaching on a 47.............

 

and the one that isn't ........ wishes he was

[SMALL MOVEMENTS]

Fortunately there is more than the 'Fraser Valley'...

[Cole]

A follow up note on what 412D said, in my opinion, you'll need to find an instructor who can teach well, the right instructor can teach you all you'll need to know in any machine.

 

Like I said, thats the way I see it. It's alot more of who's sitting next to you then what you're sitting in. From what I hear there are some amazing instructors out on the coast, lots of them seem to be at the 47 schools so perhaps theres good reasoning behind it, perhaps it's coincedence.

 

Drop in and talk to Rob at Premier if you're intrested in learning out on the coast, I've talked to some of his students and people who have hired them and I've heard nothing but good things so far. If you are intrested in learning anywhere, or at least willing to make the move for training, give Wendell Maki a call at Kootenay Valley Helicopters in Creston, I can't say enough good things about KVH.

 

Good luck

Cole

[Flash]

OK.....think about that......would you want a kid with a new licence and ZERO experience teaching you how to fly? Or would you rather have someone with ALOT of experience teaching you to fly...

 

 

If meaning that with the zero (not really but meh) experience teaching you will easily get a job flying 1000hrs / year and then you can easily jump to air ambulance/rigs/SAR vs spending 3 years on the ground to "be assest and "learn" the ropes" with hardly any chance of having stick time, but all the chance to be used as cheap labor (exceptions apply of course) just to fly with somebody with alot of experience, then I would take the first. And don't say I am looking for the easy way, I am rather choosing what's more logical in succeeding as a pilot.

 

Even tho theoretically it should be opposite BECAUSE you are flying with somebody with alot of experience. But this Canada!

[go coastal]

Regarding the opinions about which machine is the "best" to train in:

 

I don't think enough has been said here about how important it is to also consider the terrain in which you will be learning to fly. Along with a good instructor, your training environment can have a large impact on your ability to be able to make a relatively easy transition in to the good old "Real World"! That is to say, if you find yourself doing circuits at the airport for the majority of your training flights, then you are probably losing out. While it is very important to feel comfortable operating in and around airports, I would argue it is even more important to feel comfortable when you find yourself 75 miles from the nearest prepared landing area. The more training that you can conduct over confined areas the better. After all, what is the chances that a chip light or engine failure are going to occur above an airport. When it does really happen you are likely going to have to put it down between a rock and a hard place. ( I am not suggesting here that you should ever get into the habit of practicing autos without a suitable landing area available.)

 

Some schools (i.m.h.o.) don't put nearly enough emphasis on teaching a student to properly assess and enter into a confined area. Perhaps this is because such training areas are not located close by, perhaps not. In any event, landing in confines is an absolutely HUGE part of the flying that all operational helicopter pilots are required to do. Learning to fly in an environment that is "littered" with confined areas makes it an inevitability that a student will become comfortable with this aspect of their new career relatively early on.

 

As a past instructor, it is my opinion that the machine you train on is not even close to the most important factor in choosing your training school. There is way more to it than that. I am certainly not slagging the 47 here, I just don't think that whether you train on a 47, R22, Schweizer or Enstrom is going to make the difference in getting a job or not.

 

Instructor, training areas, class/instructor ratio, ground school, machine, exposure to the operational world of flying, etc. These and many more factors should be considered when choosing a school.

 

My two cents.

 

Ben

[ISE DA BY]

I trained with Canadian in Markham, Ont. a few years ago and thinking back, operationally there would be some better schools in regards to confined areas. But on the other hand, while driving seismic trailers back and forth to Wabasca and wrapping longlines for over a year without touching a machine except to wash it or push it out of the hangar, does it matter? I was in company training for 25 hours that spring with a couple guys from the Penticton school who paid over double what I did, and we're all flying the same wagons doing the same #### now. I've been long enough paying off 45K from the 22 let alone 100 plus from Penticton. Not taking anything from that school, both are top notch, but for the initial investment, just get your blue slip and go job hunting. Cheers.

[Stab Bar]

What about Bob Reimer at Coast Heli College in Victoria. I've heard he was one of the best skinners out there when he was flying in the industry? Just a thought

[rotorheadrob]

The machine "is" a Major factor in your training. The helicopter is the tool the instructor uses to teach with. In order to fully understand the requirements and responsibilities of a commercial pilot you need to be in a machine that can simulate it, and in order to be completely proficient at emergencies you should be in a machine that will allow an instructor to let you try. The 47 is tough, so I can let them see the results of there errors. It's one thing to have a student mimic the instructor, its a totally other thing to let the student rotate violently after they do it wrong.

 

How many of you guys and gals who trained in a 22 were able to practice "full" right pedals to the ground for an hour strait , or engine failures from a 30ft hover, hydraulic failures into confined areas.

I could go on but someone will give me shyit for being long winded.

 

Power recoveries don't count, all auto's should be to the ground, ( at the end of training I have to show students how to do a power recovery, as the hundreds of auto's they do are all TO THE GROUND) how about no wind or even down wind auto's.

 

You can talk all you like, but I know first hand the 47 is an amazing teaching tool, I could never allow a student to do as much as I do in those light little ultralight machines. And with the 47 G4 model I can take a student out for a REAL days work. :punk:

 

And by the way, my 47 G4 ( GSKY ) can lift an empty R22. Learning to bring a load into a confined area with out the added turbine cost is the best value for your dollar.

 

R22's were designed as a cheap personal back yard machine, kinda like my quad, a toy.

 

So please some one tell me why a school uses a 22, accept for the fact the DOC is cheaper than my quad.

 

My thoughts

 

Rob

[DrDukeSolomon]

Having trained on both the 22 and the 47...

 

Without a doubt, the 47 is the way to go and makes better pilots!

 

the Duke

[littlebird500]

I highly recommend training with Bob Reimer at Coast Helicopter Collage.If you want to do lots of full on auto's to landing with R22 or 206 with great variety of terrain for confines.Bob knows everything and anything about helicopters or operational flying and he will pass as much of this knowledge on to you as you can take in.I know Bob's reputation for training plus my good attitude and personality are the big reasons for me getting my first job.