SEP instructor standards

[mad_jock]

I have started a thread on Instructors forum about standards.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203610

Now i am not a current instructor but....

Please read the points i am making give your opinion as a PPL student or PPL low currency person. Instructors,examiners please rip the ****e out of me in instructors forum. And i would included those chaps like IO and the others who have way more real experence than your average instructor/ppl.

What do students get wound up about in check rides what are the differences that students get pissed off with instructors in the uK.

MJ

[Whirlybird]

Why do we get pissed off with instructors? OK, I may be a rotary FI, but I'm also a fairly average PPL(A) - just over 300 hours f/w flying over 8 years, and I avoid flying with an instructor. So I think I'm qualified to answer on this thread (I might comment on the other one too!). I think there are several reasons...

1) Money. It costs more to fly with an instructor. Some people simply can't afford it. Others think they don't need to. Still others would, if they felt they'd actually learn anything. So why do students think they can't learn anything from instructors, and are they right?

2) British culture. Anything called "instructing" or "teaching" means students regress to being like school kids. I used to teach Welsh at evening classes. I asked people if they wanted homework. They did, so I gave it to them, emphasising that it was optional. But they all got upset and embarrassed and acted like kids if they didn't do it. Is flying the same? Do pilots not want to fly with "teacher"?

3) Its a bloody nightmare for ppl's having to bugger about relearning how to do their instructor's perversions every flight with one its no wonder they avoid instructor flights. You said it, absolutely. So do something about egotism in instructors; there's no place for it.

OK, will that do for starters?

[IO540]

Making a list of things to moan about, and being able to do anything about it, are two different things.

I am 100% certain nothing will ever change - not until there is a complete change of attitude within the CAA resulting in a re-vamp (and hopefully a wholesale modernisation too) of the PPL. This won't happen until the whole lot retires.

I think a whole new syllabus is needed, and then one can look at the sort of people that should be teaching it. One problem is that nobody likes to be given something they regard as too prescriptive, which is why old attitudes about the "right way" to do something linger on for so long.

It's a bit like family law. FL practitioners (both lawyers and judges) are fiercely against having their freedoms curtailed. So there is a huge variation in decisions, and there is no prospect of certain changes being implemented. The fact that the stuff is usually heard behind closed doors just keeps it ticking along nicely. One could argue that lawyers have a far more powerful and effective lobby than anybody in GA, but in fact the flight training business is pretty powerful when it comes to lobbying the CAA - it's by far the strongest voice around I reckon; they just don't make their representations in public.

[kui2324]

When I came back from the US with my shiny new PPL I'd only ever flown with one instructor for teaching, one for a pre-solo check flight and the examiner.

The club I joined quite rightly checked me out, now I hated the idea of flying with a different instructor - more to do with my lack of confidence than the instructor. In the following three flights I had three different instructors. By the third one I hadn't even been allowed to taxy before I was being 're-taught' his way. I had a small hissy fit at the hold. Pointing out that it might be helpful to let me do it my way. If I was doing something downright dangerous then tell me, but could we maybe discuss it at the de-brief as to the variations in methods rather than reteach me all the way through the flight. Which is what we did and it worked.

This has not put either of us off. This guy is a brilliant instructor, all of them at the club where my shared aircraft is based are great. They are all approachable, will offer advice should it be sought without condescension or patronisation. Ages vary, and yes, they have either gone to the airlines or are heading that way. But three years later having now got over my issues, I seek these guys out to go fly with them. And they are quite happy to put up with me and will come fly with me on their days off. I learn something every time I fly with them - it also means that my revalidation flight is not a scary proposition.

The situation we have is in the minority but it shows that it can exist if the various personalities allow it to. The FI's have done different courses, learnt different techniques and like MJ points out in the other thread it does cause lots of issues with the students. Then throw in some of the examiners personal likes/dislikes and that's a whole new ball game.

As PPLs though, we shouldn't think that the learning stops the day we got our shiny licence.

[A and C]

On the whole I have to say that I find the situation very variable, there are still great amounts of folk lore that seem to be taught as "airmanship" just ask a number of instructors in the flying club when you should lean a Lycoming engine (answers below please) and note the responce.

I have always attempted to keep an open mind when it comes to flying with students and as long as the flight is safe I am happy to let them fly the aircraft any way they like, I might sujest another way to do something after the flight but as has been said above there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The flying instructor population is a strange thing, some young guys who just want to fly an airliner , career instructor group one who are a dedicated sorce of real talent, career instructor group two who are a bunch of guys who will never get an airline job as long as the sun sets in the west and think that the whole flying world has it in for them and instructors who fly for fun.

The trick as a student is to spot the instructor type and dump the instructor quickly if they are not up to scratch. You will get very little trouble from Career instructor group one and instructors who fly for fun (these are normaly retired or current proffesional pilots).

The trouble comes from the young guys who want to be airline pilots (padding out flights with big circuits and long "stableised approaches") because they need the hours however you can also find some very good young instructors who do a fine job within the limmits of there flying experience.

Career instructor group two should be avoided at all costs, they are usualy a talentless bunch of no hopers and this has been spotted by the airlines...... hence no airline job !.

CFI's have to keep a distance as they are responsable for the standards within a club and may seem a bit cold and distant but they are usualy OK as long as the position has not gone to there head.

[Say again s l o w l y]

CFI position going to your head? How's that work? I get more grief now than I ever did before and most of it is actually very constructive. A good CFI (IMHO) should not be stand offish, but able to find out exactly what goes on when you aren't there. That means having good relationships with students, PPL's and the other FI's.

Just because we maybe called the CFI doesn't mean we know it all and most of us welcome people coming to us with ideas and techniques. Some maybe rubbish, but many aren't and I'll gladly usurp someone's idea and put it into practice! (After telling everyone how I came up with it in some death defying situation. "There I was with nothing on the clock but the makers name.........")

[Gertrude the Wombat]

just ask a number of instructors in the flying club when you should lean a Lycoming engine (answers below please) I've had:

"Actually we don't mind if you never lean, which is why we don't teach it to students. It's lots cheaper for us if you just waste a bit of fuel than if you over-lean and we have to repair the engine."

With the result, of course, that when one does ask to be taught leaning later, putting the mixture back rich again is not an automatic part of planning or performing a descent ... but at least they taught me "mixture fully rich" in the downwind checks from lesson one, so I've never actually landed still leaned.

[IO540]

What is a "CFI"? (I mean in the UK context, not FAA)

I was once told (by a CFI) that any instructor who is authorised to instruct on any plane which the school happens to train in (which doesn't take much doing) can call himself a "CFI".

A&C: good points about instructors. Unfortunately, a PPL student has zero chance of being able to spot which type is which.

I would classify the instructor population a little more, however. If a student is reasonably technically minded and actually understands the aircraft and flight mechanics, there are many instructors who will get really p1ssed off by such a student. Others are happy to take such a person on board and enjoy the challenge.

I make no claims for being any good at flying, but I used to ask a lot of reasonable questions (mainly on why are certain procedures the way they are) and got treated very badly for it. Walking out of one school is a great way to blow away £2000 or so and I suspect many students never scrape up the courage to do that.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A CFI in the UK context is the Chief Flying Instructor. Basically the person who should set and control the standards of a school/club.

In theory any FI could be the CFI since there is no minimum requirement and no real definition of the role. There is an accepted level of experience however.

An encyclopedic knowledge of LASOR's and an ability to drink vast quantities of Tea/Coffee are pretty much the most important qualities. A good line in "war" stories helps as well!

[S-Works]

I have come accross a pretty broad spectrum of instructors during my time range from the plain disinterested hour builder to the first class career instructor. Sadly there are to many of the former and nowhere near enough of the latter.

I have no time for the self important think they know it alls with 300hrs under there belts waiting for an airline job. And in a quite a number of instances being the CFI has done nothing other than make an average instructor even more self righteous. Donning the CFI hat does not suddenly make them into a "skygod".

The standard of instructor is way to variable. As with many subjects I have to agree with IO540!

[speke2me]

as a low hrs student pilot, a question:

is there a formal grouping (Professional Body) or 'Institution' for FI's to join - like the Engineering institutions (IEE (electrical), IME (mechanical)), for example?

If not, what system do CFI's of UK clubs use to communicate with each other, and thus generally strive to acheive some form of commonality such that a student (or PPL checkride) should not notice too much difference between one FI and another?

Just interested to know....

[IO540]

No such system speke2me and if there was a trade body it would be like every other trade body in every other trade: you pay the joining fee and you.... become a member :O

The way to do this is to find an instructor you get on with, get your PPL, and get out there and do some flying, preferably with more experienced pilots. In fact, if you can get some interesting flying in with such pilots while you are still doing the PPL so much the better; just don't tell your instructor :O

[mad_jock]

speke2me there is no system hence the post.

The CAA dosn't currently do anything. And its up to the PPL's to put up with and pay for all the nonsense this creates.

MJ

[speke2me]

Thanks IO - a reply of appreciated intoned 'cynicism' that I suspect :O is very much more 'realism'. ;)

Just surprised that GA (in the 'very regulated' world of Aviation) doesn't at least give the lip-service to mounting a Prof Body that CFI's might at least meet up and discuss commonality on the odd Christmas piss-up. Ah well!

Much intend to fly as much as I can (or can afford hehe....), but weather buggering me at the mo - still early days so high cloud base req for stall training.

Bah humbug.



:{:ok:

[mad_jock]

speke2me


It would never work m8.

they all think they know better than the man sitting next to them and their way is the way thier planes are going to get flown.

MJ

[IO540]

The CAA is the key. If they do nothing, nothing will ever change.

speke2me: most aviation regulation (in the GA context) is there because it's always been there, not because of any need supported by evidence.

Once the jobs are created, the whole train just keeps rolling... and it rolls DOWNhill, unsuprisingly :O

[englishal]

I think it is important to have a bit of a laugh with your instructors. Any which are too serious and too proud of their gold stripes tend to be the bad ones......

You also get bad students I imagine. I knew a bloke who told his instructor "to stop telling him what to do all the time". I also knew the instructor as he taught me to fly, and he was brilliant. He was also complaining all the time because the instructor wouldn't let him go solo......he didn't seem to realise that you need to be able to land before you are allowed to solo. Suppose he thought it was number of hours which counted, not ability. Typical JAR boy :}

[Say again s l o w l y]

Enough of that. The vast majority of FI's and CFI's do a good job keeping most of you lot from killing yourselves. So lets keep a lid on the FI slagging here. As EAl hyas mentioned, there are both good and bad PPL's, FI's and Students, but to read on here you'd think all the FI's of the world were incompetent, egomaniacal, workshy incompetents. I'm sorry gentlemen, but that's rubbish.

There is a meeting every now and then for CFI's and the CAA, there was one earlier this year and some of us do actually talk to each other as well.
I think BEagle was at the seminar I mentioned, so I'm sure he'll put his 2p in about it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What has annoyed me from time to time about instructors:

(1) Failure to accept that there are more ways than theirs. Fine if teaching an ab-initio student, but I'm not and haven't been for many years.

(2) Talk too much. Just shut up occasionally and let me fly the aeroplane unless you've got something genuinely useful to say.

(3) Belief that their "standard technique" overrides that in the official POH. Maybe, just maybe, this is true - but (as has happened) I've taken the trouble to read the POH and the FI hasn't this cuts no ice with this aviator.

G

[EastMids]

Some years ago, I was doing a club checkout on a day when the cross-wind was pretty close to the club limits. On the first circuit I flew, on very short final when I set up for my preffered touchdown configuration of wing-down-opposite-rudder, the instructor said "Oh no. I don't want you to do it that way. I have control" and proceeded to land us with crab-into-wind-kick-off-at-touchdown method. I was a bit upset as in my opinion the situation at the time was not dangerous. The instructor then insisted that we carry on using his method, the end result being that given the relatively unfamiliar method he wanted me to use, my touchdowns were a little all over the place and he was almost reluctant to sign me off. I'm quite happy to learn and refine alternative methods, but on that occasion I'd have performed much better if left to my own (safe) way of landing in a crosswind.

I learned my lesson from that experience though. Now, if I fly with an instructor in a cross-wind, before we even get in the aeroplane I pre-brief the instructor on how I like to fly the approach and landing. And if the instructor disagrees, well at least there's time to discuss the relative merits of each of our views whilst we're still on the ground!

The list goes on, with an entire range of other things - I've flown with instructors often enough over the years to know that preferences for the use of things like carb-heat, fuel-pumps, landing-lights, flaps, blah, blah, blah vary from instructor to instructor. Whilst I don't pre-brief on all of these things, I'm aware enough now of some of the "differences" that [for example], when flying an approachy I might say something like "I normally take the carb heat off just before touchdown - is that how you teach it?" and if not, we can have a brief debate about the merits or otherwise of each method. I see checkouts as part of the ongoing learning process, and I find they work well particularly when we both have opinions and can bounce around ideas in an open way.

A

[Irish Steve]

OK, let's play with a scenario.

Instructor 1 is a very capable instructor, who's being flying since Noah decided that water wasn't a good thing to be living on.

He has trained a new instructor, Instructor 2. With the best will in the world, Instructor 2 will only learn a percentage of the things that Instructor No 1 knows. He now starts flying with students. The first issue is that he may not know all the methods that Instructor 1 knows and uses, so to make sure that he's comfortable when close to the ground, and maybe even more so when flying with a student that he does not know well, he will revert to what he's comfortable with, even if that causes the student some problems.

Now it gets interesting.

Instructor 2 relatively soon has to train instructor 3. With the best will in the world.................

Instructor 3 starts flying with students. His total overall knowledge is probably at best 75% of what instructor 1 knew, maybe less, so the chances are that a student flying with Instructor 3 is going to have to do everything exactly the way Instructor 3 does things, to avoid Instructor 3 getting severe pukker factor every time they get close to the ground.

Repeat this scenario more than a few times, because most of the instructors move on just as soon as they can get their Frozen ATPL/IR, and if Instructor 1 is no longer on the scene, what do you have. You have a lot of relatively inexperienced instructors who are scared to let their students do certain things close to the ground because they are not comfortable in their ability to recover the situation if the student does get it wrong, because they've not had enough flying experience themselves to develop the skills they need.

That's happening, probably more often than some people care to admit it is, it's happened to me, a few years ago, I went to a training organisation to do a specific rating and at the time, I had over 300 Hrs ME experience and a UK ME IMC, and I suceeded in scaring the first instructor I went with s**tless on our first flight, as he had the grand total of 20 Hrs total ME time, yet he was instructing, but wasn't in the least bit comfortable or confident in the aircraft, and with close on 300 hrs in a similar type, I knew exactly what the aircraft was capable of and got on with making it do it, but the instructor's experience levels were such, he couldn't cope with my different style of flying the aircraft, even though it was safe. I didn't need training how to fly a ME aircraft, I was there to do an ME IR, but we had to start somewhere.

Suffice to say that after that trip, and a discussion with the CFI, who had not looked too closely at my experience before allocating the instructor to me, there was a rapid change of instructor to someone who had sufficient ME and instructing experience to not get in my way, and from that point on, it worked fine, but they were lucky in that they had experienced instructors on call. Some training organisations don't have that level of resource available, and that's when things get difficult

In the same vein, a LONG time ago, as a very low hours student, I nearly got killed by an instructor that wasn't prepared to admit that he was way out of his depth, and we ended up in all sorts of strife as a result. I never flew with him again, and a few months later he was "advised" to find alternative employment outside of the aviation industry!!!


Part of the problem is that for years, instructing was a means to an end for too many people, so it didn't attract the money or the people that were genuinely interested in instructing, and we're now seeing the outcome of that, in a lot of cases, there are no longer instructors available with long experience, and that's making for the sort of issues that people have been complaining about.

There's more than one way to do certain tasks, and as long as what's being done is safe, the instructor should have the skills to allow the student to operate in the manner they are used to.

OK, if it's not safe, then by all means correct it, either by correcting the incorrect technique, or by teaching a more appropriate one, but only for the reason that it's necessary. If it's because the instructor is not comfortable with his (or her) ability to recover, then the instructor is the one that needs more training.

Controversial? Maybe. Accurate? I fear so.

[Whirlybird]

Irish Steve,

Interesting post. :ok:

As a low instructional hours helicopter FI and PPL(A), some of what you say makes sense....but not all of it.
He has trained a new instructor, Instructor 2. With the best will in the world, Instructor 2 will only learn a percentage of the things that Instructor No 1 knows.
As a point of information, all instructors are trained by extremely senior people on FI courses, so this shouldn't apply. Of course, a newly qualified FI has a lot to learn, but that's more about relating to people than teaching flying techniques. It shouldn't make that much difference to a lot of what's being discussed here.....but read on.
You have a lot of relatively inexperienced instructors who are scared to let their students do certain things close to the ground because they are not comfortable in their ability to recover the situation if the student does get it wrong, because they've not had enough flying experience themselves to develop the skills they need.
Yes, true. In the rotary world, we are the ones who don't teach auto-rotations to the ground; we teach them to the hover. We teach hovering a ittle higher than the Instructor No 1s of the rotary world. And I tell students this! What on earth is wrong with that? I tell them they may occasionally fly with the CFI so that he can check all is well, and he tells them they're better off flying with me as I'm new and enthusiastic and been recently trained, and he's lost that initial enthusiasm etc etc. It seems to work. There would be a problem if I insisted that things were done "my way", but I don't.
I had over 300 Hrs ME experience and a UK ME IMC, and I suceeded in scaring the first instructor I went with s**tless on our first flight, as he had the grand total of 20 Hrs total ME time, yet he was instructing, but wasn't in the least bit comfortable or confident in the aircraft
That is obviously crazy, and had I been your instructor, I would have told the CFI that myself. But I don't think it's typical of the kind of things that we have been discussiong so far...not that this makes it any less relevant of course!
OK, if it's not safe, then by all means correct it, either by correcting the incorrect technique, or by teaching a more appropriate one, but only for the reason that it's necessary. If it's because the instructor is not comfortable with his (or her) ability to recover, then the instructor is the one that needs more training.
Absolutely. But that doesn't apply to circuit procedures, to where to pull or not pull carb heat, not even to landing techniques in a f/w aircraft...come on, even I can manage either wing down or crab approaches, and I'm a pretty average PPL(A).

The real problem, with what you're discussiong and practically everything that's been said so far in this thread, is LACK OF PEOPLE SKILLS AMONG INSTRUCTORS. Egotism, trying to prove they're right, being scared to admit to inexperience, inability to relate to different types of people - these are the reasons for most of these problems. There are good and bad instructors, whether they have zillions of instructional hours or are straight out of their FI course. But what a number of them haven't learnt is that they are teaching people to fly, not teaching flying.

[mad_jock]

Whirls i think your being a bit harsh on Irish Steve. I can see where he is coming from.

As we both know and i am presuming the heli FIC is similar to the fixed FIC. THe course only gives you the tools of the trade in there most simplistic form.

After that you are restricted this is ment to be a period of mentored on the job training. With the unrestricted instructors passing on their words of wisdom when questions are asked.

Now in the current method of qualifying the through put of FI's is relativly high in the Fixed wing world with most FI's moving on before they hit 1000hrs instructing and alot of cases below 500hrs. The people with the people skills, ability to adapt etc are the ones the airlines want they go quicker.

So from the Unrestricted instructor training the restricted instructor is getting a lower level of mentoring than before.

All the methods and standards are currently enforced by word of mouth and preffered methods by individuals. And the people who are suffering for this are the PPL's. Who are avoiding flights with instructors because they really can't be bothered with the ear ache and work thats involved.

MJ

[IO540]

Most instructors, IME, know next to nothing about how to TEACH somebody something.

Some people are naturally better at it than others, and I guess the old-timers have picked stuff up as they went along.

[got caught]

Interesting post. As a person who has spent many a year developing my health care career, I've always found the
"try it this way, if it doesn't work, question it, and try it another way," method, the best way of learning. I'm sure there is some complex psychological theory behingd this, but it escapes me.

On commencing my PPL training, I was a little surprised and bemused to find out actually, that there was only one way of performing a certain task, and most things were learnt "rote" fashion. (BUMPH and FREDA checks for example.)

Initially, I found this a little frustrating, as I've always been used to questioning traditional methods of performing a task.

With hindsight, its pretty obvious now, why this type of "drill" learning was so important. If all hells going on in the cockpit, then I want to be able to almost automatically snap into survival mode.

I soon realised, however, that flying involves more than learning the "drills" required to fly and land the bloody thing, and in fact the PPL learning can be divided up into 3 distinct divisions:

Skills- usually learnt by repeatedly thinking about and performing a task.

Knowledge- gleamed from the usual sources (The Confuser being one of them!)

Attitude- I guess that this is the instructors main role- when is this pilot ready to take command of this aircraft. (usually tested by Mr Instructor giving me further grief, just as I thought that the pressure had really built -RT/Nav?Controlling the thing))

It did seem to work.

I may be wrong, I'm neither an instructor nor educationalist- but my view fom the sharp end of the stick

[IO540]

Never question traditional methods!

If you start questioning traditional methods, the whole of aviation as we know it will fall apart. Instructors will resign en-masse, flying schools will go out of business, the CAA will have to make its entire GA department redundant (they do have awfully generous final salary pensions though), aeroplanes will fall out of the sky. Navigation will be impossible, too.

You will be very lonely.

Just make sure nobody sees the GPS that you carry in your bag :O Even though I know it is only a backup :O :O

[tom775257]

<<Most instructors, IME, know next to nothing about how to TEACH somebody something.>>

That is a shame that you have had that experience. In practice how do you learn to teach? Sure enough I could pick up multiple faults easily enough but how do you get across to the student how to avoid those faults? I try my best to aid the process…I take control while I debrief them, I won’t talk while they are flying at early stages…I try to brief the student thoroughly and question whether they truly understand. If you ask a student whether they understand they will say yes. You have to ask them a question to test their knowledge etc. but I think the ability to teach well comes with experience. I find it hard to judge when a student is making a mistake or just needs more practice, for example.

The FIC course doesn’t cover everything needed to instruct. Secondly the FIC course is full of things that are ‘ Well you have to teach it this way for the test, but in real life you everyone teaches this differently.’ For example, how were you taught to climb? Was it ‘now I’ll teach you to enter the climb’…’now I’ll teach you to maintain the climb.’ That is the method for the test anyway…..

Finally how can you get career instructors that are talented? The answer is pay. It is easy to criticise people that are instructing as a path to the airlines; however for me it would be partly to try and gain back some of the huge amounts of cash spent on my flight training. Then think we have medicals/ IR renewals / SEP/MEP renewals etc to pay for. I thankfully work at a commercial school teaching PPLs for a relatively good wage, and I enjoy my job...however I still have my fingers crossed for my BACX interview.

[Say again s l o w l y]

IO you really have a chip on your shoulder about FI's. Where did you learn initially that was so awful?

The reality is though that "traditional" methods have been refined through the teaching of tens of thousands of students over the last 90 odd years. They may not work for everyone, but look at the average school or University and see how much allowance they make for personal learning styles... Not much.

I hear alot of slagging, but no constructive points. If FI's are so bad, then go and get a rating and start teaching. Initially, you'll go straight to the mnemonics and basic patterns when you realise how hard it is to teach someone with no ounce of mechanical skill or sometimes intelligence how to actually fly an a/c and do eveything else. It's only after time that you'll learn how to teach in different ways or to adjust what you are doing for a certain person.

It is not an easy job, but none of us ever complain about it, infact the only bitching you'll hear from FI's is about pay, conditions or how stupid some of the students/PPL's have been. Yes, bouncing around the circuit for the hundreth time that week can get a bit wearing but that's a minor gripe really.

There are certain things in flying that can be of a personal nature, crosswind landing techniques for example, BUT there are certain things that are laid down in stone and there is no room for "interpretation" in them at all.