This isn't the first time I've written about a local business or service-provider that might not be close to you at all, but it's been over a year and I have more than one post of this nature in the queue.

I'm starting with Oklahoma Aviation--not an airline, but a flight-training school, aircraft management and rental operation. My experience is specifically with the flight school, and all I can and will say about the plane-rental side is that I know the planes are modern, clean, and well taken care of.  For the remainder of this post, when I speak of 'Oklahoma Aviation,' (or OKAV) I am writing only about their flight school.

My first contact with OKAV was about seven weeks ago, when I emailed a few flight schools in my general area.  I heard back from only two of them, and went to visit both.  In addition to clearly being a very professional operation, I was won over by the fact that OKAV is an FAA-certified Part 141 training school (this means they have had their training syllabus approved by the FAA; and that training for the Private Pilot certificate can be completed in as few as 35 hours); have a fleet of very modern training aircraft; the owner is a genuinely thoughtful, nice, and responsive person who clearly cares a great deal about his business (and in a way that's very client-friendly); they have six (going on seven) instructors all of whom I know are highly competent and very experienced, and--perhaps most important--I really clicked with one particular instructor when I made the rounds meeting people.  As I heard recently on an aviation podcast:  You're going to spend around 80 hours one-on-one with the instructor, with at least half that time in a small cockpit, and so it's very important that you really get along well and can learn from your instructor given his or her personality and teaching style. 

My main training plane

To elaborate on some of those points:  

• In addition to having an FAA-approved curriculum, OKAV is also a Cessna training center.  The former is important because under "Part 61," instructors are free to teach students however they'd like, in whatever order they'd like, as long as they teach certain things.  While many people learn to fly under Part 61, a Part-141 approved school / instructor at least to me seems likely to have things together a bit more.  I know I am opening myself up to comments from instructors who teach under Part 61, or students who've successfully trained under Part 61, but I'll just say that for me, given my particular criteria, a Part 141 school is preferable.  When you are trying to find an instructor or flight school, by all means consider the differences (and similarities) between the two, and go with whatever you feel is best for you.  I'll even concede that if you find a Part 61 instructor whom you just looove, and the Part 141 instructor you click with most is only a "good fit," then go with the guy or woman you looove.  Ultimately I believe that is more important than whether you're training undre Part 141 or Part 61.  Enough of that.  On the second point--OKAV being a Cessna trainin center--it doesn't mean a *ton* but does mean that they have had their operations approved to a certain extent by Cessna, and have to maintain certain minimum standards to keep that association.  This wasn't a big part of my decision, to be honest.

• Although you might think a plane built in 1999 is super old, keep in mind that the age of the plane is simply the age of the *airframe*.  Under FAA regulations, planes need their engines and various other parts replaced at regular intervals, and the 1999 plane I flew in a couple of weeks ago had an engine with maybe 13 hours on it.  It is very common to find flight schools and airplane-rental shops with planes from the 1970's.  Not so much the 1960's, but many people train in planes built in the 1970's.  It is really rare to find a flight school where you can do all of your training in planes built in the last 10 years.  I personally have done all but three of my flights in a 2006 Cessna 172 Skyhawk, with two of the exceptions being in a 2009 Skyhawk and one in a 1999 Skyhawk. If I'm telling you that the 1999 plane just got a new engine, and that I believe plenty of planes from the 1970's are airworthy, why do I even care about the year the plane was built?  First, even the Cessna Skyhawk has had subtle but significant improvements that emerged around 1996.  Those improvements make the plane much more docile, easy to control, and safer.  Additionally, I want to learn in a plane with a "glass cockpit" (i.e., a computerized set of instruments integrated with GPS and traffic and terrain awareness, with the old-fashioned vacuum-based gagues as back-ups, rather than a plane with only primary instruments as vacuum gagues and maybe a separate GPS).  The vacuum gagues are fine, but as someone who wants to go on to obtain an Instrument rating (i.e., one that will let me fly in clouds and bad weather) and who would generally like to rent and fly in planes with modern GPS systems, terrain, weather and traffic awareness features, it makes sense to learn in a plane that has those features.  Just below you can see a photo of the cockpit of the 2006 Skyhawk.  The round things between the two control yokes are the backup vacuum gagues.

The two computer-screens are the Garmin G1000 system.

• Not mentioned above, another nice thing about learning to fly with Oklahoma Aviation is that they are based at Wiley Post Airport.  That is nice because it (a) has a control tower (meaning I get to learn how to communicate with ATC on a regular basis), (b) isn't that busy (so I'm not spending time {and money} sitting on the taxiway waiting to take-off) and (c) doesn't see any heavy-jet traffic, so I don't have to deal with the turbulence their engine-wakes produce.

I have enjoyed every minute of my flight training so far.  After my first 1.5 months my primary instructor became very busy overall, and I have had lessons with another instructor who I also get along with well.  It actually is a bit of a benefit to fly with a different instructor now and then, because every instructor is different, and you pick up new things from different pilots.  

I would recommend that you speak candidly with any flight-school owner and the instructor you choose regarding the instructor's student load and the possibility that it will increase during your training.  I would also make sure that you figure out and discuss with your potential instructor your general available times for lessons, to make sure (s)he doesn't already have a large number of students who want to fly when you do.  Working with a substitute instructor has its benefits--as described above--but beyond a certain point, you begin to lose efficiency.  I would not be particularly happy if I had to work with a substitute more frequently than once every seven or eight lessons--and I don't think you would, either.  OKAV and my instructor have been able to accomodate my schedule and I am fortunate that they are smart about expansion (i.e., hiring new instructors as they grow).  As things stand, I feel that at the conclusion of my training for the Private Pilot license, I will be highly prepared not only for my checkride (the practical exam necessary to earn the license), but more importantly, to be a safe and effective pilot who is more-than ready to continue training (in my case, towards the Instrument rating).

Flying is wonderful.  If you're in the Oklahoma City area, check out Oklahoma Aviation.  If you're not, find a flight school that "feels" right to you (the last thing you want is to have any doubts about the instructors, the planes, or the rigor of the planes' maintenance), and start flying. 

Update! 

On January 9, 2012, I flew my first solo flight.  For non-aviatiors:  That means I flew without an instructor on board.  The lesson started uneventfully:  My instructor told me we would be staying in the traffic pattern and doing a few touch-and-go landings and emergency procedures.  My first two landings were fine.  On the third, he pulled out the power as we were on final approach and told me to do a "dead-stick" (i.e., power-off, simulated emergency) landing.  I managed to put the plane down just after the runway threshold.  As we took off for our fourth landing, I noticed him reach into the back seat, grab my log book, and do some writing.  I was pretty sure I knew what that meant:  He was endorsing my logbook so that I could do solo flights at Wiley Post airport and in the local area.  After the landing, he asked me, "do you have a photo ID and your Student Pilot Certificate with you?"  I answered in the affirmative, and he said, "okay then, I want you to taxi us over to parking.  I'll hop out and you will do two touch-and-go landings and one landing to a full stop.  Then come back and park the plane."  

He hopped out, and reminded me, "the plane is going to take off a lot more quickly without me in there with you.  Have fun!"  I told him I would definitely have fun.

My first solo was fine--my landings weren't perfect, but they weren't bad, either.  I came back to park, my instructor came outside to meet me and asked me how it felt.  I considered saying something along the lines of "I never realized just how boring it makes things to have you in the plane," but thought he might take that the wrong way (despite his quick and good sense of humor).  So I told him it was insanely fun--which it was.  He said that he and my backup instructor had come outside to watch.  I'm glad I didn't know they would be watching, because that would have made me a bit nervous, I think.  

Then it was time for the ceremonial Post-First-Solo picture (below).  Look at that beautiful sky.

Since then, I did another solo.  This one was 1.1 hours long.  I practiced ground-reference maneuvers in the practice grounds, and then flew to El Reno airport where I practiced short- and soft-field takeoffs and landings.  I did about 7 or 8 there, and then, when I realized I was in danger of making my instructor's next student wait to start her lesson, I got back in touch with Oke City Approach and told them I was headed back to Wiley Post.  I managed to grab video of that flight, and I plan to post that as soon as I've edited it down.  Something tells me you don't want to watch me go through checklists, and that you'd prefer something closer to six than sixty minutes in length.