Jack Tyler wrote:
What a disappointment. It's clear the 'nomination process' was designed to minimize the staff time <snip> AOPA needs to improve that process
Not only that, Jack. If these awards are to be meaningful, AOPA needs to divulge the criteria used in the selection process. They haven't done so.
This year's winners are now posted to
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/awardwinners/2012winners.html (congratulations to those schools and instructors so honored), but with absolutely
no indication as to how the selections were made. Were the awards based upon number of nominations submitted? Number of students enrolled? Of students completing licenses? Of safety record of graduates? Advanced ratings pursued? Number of students paying dues to AOPA? Buying aircraft? Becoming flight instructors themselves? Number of aircraft on the flight line? Revenues generated? In short, just what does AOPA consider worthy of recognition? It would be nice if they told us their objectives, so we CFIs and flight school operators could strive for excellence -- however AOPA defines that.
BTW, I know several of the award winners. Good instructors at good schools, IMHO. The common denominator I have seen is that they mostly represent
very large FBOs. Apparently, AOPA accepts what many women maintain and most men deny:
size matters.
_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org