Attributes of a training pilot.

[Village Idiot1]

I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts about the attributes of a good training Pilot, including previous experience and qualifications if considered important.

[gas-chamber]

A chief pilot I once worked for had a simple philosophy when selecting check and training captains. Those who pushed their case never got a look-in because he surmised that they were on some sort of ego trip or power trip. If they demonstrated nervousness in bad weather or got rattled when the first officer screwed up they were forever banished to line flying only. He selected trainers by flying with them and going for the quiet achievers who demonstrated above average handling skills and a willingness to give first officers flying when conditions were difficult. From the results and feedback obtained from their trainees he then selected checkies.

[greybeard]

You cannot make a pilot a trainer, you can't make a trainer of a pilot.

The training is either in a person or not, the trick for a supervisor is to spot the trait, encourage the skill to acheive a good result for the training and the students whether ab initio or Space Shuttle.

It has been the most rewarding of all the flying I have done to see a sucessful outcome of a trainig sorti at all levels, Cadet or Command assessment.

A good instructor will appear when the student is ready.

:ok:

[Fred Gassit]

The ability to simplify explanations/techniques etc. I think is a very good trait to possess and pass on.
Patience has to rate highly as well.

[oicur12]

A trainer must:

Fully understand they he/she does not have all the answers.

Be fully capable of uttering these words "I don't have the answer but I will find out" instead of making up an answer.

The above 2 traits are important to ensure the trainer does not:

Impose personal technique or opinion as though it were SOP or fact.

The most important words you can hear from a trainer when questioned about how something should be done are "It is not clearly stated in our manual. This is MY opinion only and this is how MOST do it but do not treat these words as gospel".

My flying (airline) is full of perpetuated folk lore that is often not backed up by published procedure. But this does not stop trainers from teaching folk lore as though it were fact. My common query is "where is that written". A common answer is "in the manual, chapter xx . . . .I think . . . .or at least it was . . . . or its just the way we have always done it . . . .etc"

Unless its a clearly stated procedure of course.

Just my opinion.

[Cravenmorehead]

I agree 100% with the above.
adherance to a good set of SOP's is essential. No confusion no pet theories just the facts in the legally published ops manual.
Easy!!! Then you have to get the student to study it now that's the tricky bit

[Village Idiot1]

Thanks for the input so far.

To expand a little what I am particularly interested in is what would you look for in an airline situation if you were looking for prospective training pilots.

What back ground/history and experience?
Considering the number of pilots available to a large organisation and the chance that they are not known very well by the people selecting them, what would you look for ? A history in training, high experience pilopts or a new Captain?
If we are talking jets would a newby on jets be sensible or do you think a minimum time on jets is necessary?

[oicur12]

"What back ground/history and experience?"

I don't actually think these are as relevant as the qualities I mentioned in my previous post. The best trainers I have had in an airline have been empathetic, patient, honest, knowledgeable and flexible.

I have had ex air force fast jet aces who couldn't teach a thing and ex GA youngens who could impart knowledge and inspire confidence with ease. And vice versa.

It's the personal qualities that count.

". . . .the chance that they are not known very well by the people selecting them". I have not experienced this. Every airline I have worked for has employed a system of selection where the candidate's well were known by those selecting.

"A history in training".

Perhaps. I suspect so but not essential. Someone with training experience would have the advantage of knowing what to expect from a candidate in certain tricky situations.

"high experience pilopts"

No.

"or a new Captain?"

For command training - maybe. For type training, no.

"would a newby on jets be sensible or do you think a minimum time on jets is necessary?"

Enough time on jets to be able to know the subject matter. The actual number is pure guess. 500 hours, 1000 hours, it's purely a manufactured number pulled from someone's ass - generally 50 years ago without any thought as to how relevant the number now is.

The best trainer for a new pilot to a jet is someone who has recent experience on the type of aircraft the new pilot has just come from. Instead of simply saying, "this is how we do it", a better technique is to say "this is how it compares to the xxx you were just flying. Instead of xxx mode, we call it xyx mode but it does the same thing".

This also applies from type to type. The best trainer is someone who has recently swapped types the same as you are about to do and can present the information in terms of difference's using concepts you can relate to.

The biggest obstacle to quality training (in some situations) is the governing authority and the archaic way in which you are taught and the useless information they require you to learn.

[Village Idiot1]

empathetic, patient, honest, knowledgeable and flexible.
There lies the problem!

How do you determine these characteristics if you don't know them?
Interviews do not always display a persons true character.

If you were going to advertise for a training pilot would you only seek a pilot who is empathetic, patient, honest, knowledgeable and flexible
Were I work we have training pilots that meet those characteristics, however they lack in other areas which put them into the not suitable list in my opinion.
They are too theoretical, not at all practical. They teach their version of what the rules are which is regularly 180 opposed to the written rule. They can recite a piece of legislation yet have difficulty understanding it. Little experience operating the aircraft type and in some cases little experience on jets, i.e. 300hrs total.
Their handling ability is well below average. No previous training experience.

[oicur12]

"How do you determine these characteristics if you don't know them?"

Easy. A good selection process could determine these attributes.

"Interviews do not always display a persons true character."

If done properly they do, which is to say they are generally NOT done properly in the airline industry, far from it.

I must clarify my position. My experience has only ever been one where trainers are selected from within the ranks of current line pilots and have a very known history.

"If you were going to advertise for a training pilot would you only seek a pilot who is empathetic, patient, honest, knowledgeable and flexible"

No. As I said, in addition they must have a minimum level of flying experience and maybe a minimal level of command experience too, depending on the training task.

"They are too theoretical, not at all practical. They teach their version . . . .etc"

Then your company has a poor selection process.