Multiple Instructors, what's up with that?

[gileraguy]

the web is the best place to solicit opinions, so here goes:

a couple of my rated associates reckon the flight school I used to be with was "milking" me.

This was beacuse they kept changing instructors on me.

The first change was at my request, as I didn't seem to"click" with the instructor my associate had used. Also, he took me up in a 172 when I was of the understanding theat I was going to train on the 152. His comment when I was paying for the lessoon and asked him about it, was "that I would have to fly the 172 for my Navs anyway..."

So IP 2 is Ok, I think we get along and do five lessons(3.5hrs)

Then, I arrive to do my first session of circuits and there's a new instructor. He tells me IP2 is busy training in a Banderante(?) and he will be taking me.

IP3 is not bad and I come back for my second session of circuits, IP3 breifs me and then informs me that, because of some restrictions on his license and the operation of the school, I will have to have another IP(4) for the session!

I do one session with IP4, then I miss a month and come back and I'm slotted in with IP1 again! ( I must mention here that he wears cowboy boots?)

Anyway, I do five more hours doing circuits with a guy I didn't choose and found myself losing motivation.

I change schools, find a great IP(5) and start in a PA28, then he changes jobs and the school shuts down?

maybe its my luck, but I'd love to get some unbiased IP opinions...

is four instructors in 12 hours a lot?:eek:

gileraguy.

[DFC]

If the only complaint about the training you received is that one of the instructors wore cowboy boots then the training provied can not have been that bad.

IP3 is not bad and I come back for my second session of circuits, IP3 breifs me and then informs me that, because of some restrictions on his license and the operation of the school, I will have to have another IP(4) for the session!


Seems like this instructor was not authorised to supervise first solo flights and was ensuring that you were flying with an instructor who was in the flights prior to first solo.


I do one session with IP4, then I miss a month

So again no complaints about the quality of instruction provied by any of the instructors.

Do you honestly expect "IP4" to keep room for you in their student list when you "miss a month"?

Overall I would congratulate the school for looking after you so well - change instructor at your request, line you up for solo, slot you back in after a month away and all without a single complaint from you about the quality of the training or that various instructors had different ways of doing various things.


So IP 2 is Ok, I think we get along and do five lessons(3.5hrs)



If the school was milking you, that probably would have been five lessons (5.0) hours with 3.5 hours training and 1.5 hours padding it out so that each lesson was exactly 1 hour long.


I do five more hours doing circuits with a guy I didn't choose and found myself losing motivation


The Head of Training / CFI should have formally interviewed you the first time to seek out the exact reasons why you requested an instructor change and then decided if it was a reasonable request or not. Wearing cowboy boots is not a valid reason. There should have been a record of that interview etc on your file and when paired with the instructor again you could have pointed out the error.

However, you do 5 hours training without commenting and now say that you are losing motivation.

I have to wonder how much you want to be the tail that wags the dog i.e. you want to choose who you fly with rather than leaving that decision to the experts - Head of Training / CFI because as we can see from your objection to being changed from an instructor who could not send you solo to one who could, you are not best placed to decide who should teach you.

Next thing we will have teenagers sitting on teacher interview boards for their schools (and I know lots of schools where a few terms are far more expensive than any PPL course).

Perhaps you find this a bit harsh but I can not see any complaint about the quality fo training in your post. Should you ever become a professional pilot you will have to fly with who you are told to fly with, when you are told to fly with them and unless you have a valid reason (the Captain wearing cowboy boots or not clicking with you not being suitable) then you have to be a professional about it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" Next thing we will have teenagers sitting in on teacher interview boards for their schools. "

No problem with that line of thinking if it is aviation related because teenagers can be flight instructors so why not have then sit on interview boards.

After all if they are mature enough to teach people to fly why not let them share their knowledge in all areas? :)

[foxmoth]

The main things I would take issue with here is that after your month off you then got put back - and kept with - the instructor YOU had requested to be changed from because you did not click,

I would also query "that I would have to fly the 172 for my Navs anyway...", not sure exactly how things work in Oz, but no reason that I know of this should be the case.

[Duchess_Driver]

to seek out the exact reasons why you requested an instructor change


Yep - fine....no problems with that bit.....


and then decided if it was a reasonable request or not.


...utter crap.

As a student if I don't like the guy I'm flying with then I am entirely within my right to ask to change to someone who puts me at ease rather than on edge - or who I can relate to rather than someone who doesn't understand the way I learn best. If you can't or wont accomodate my request for a different instructor then my money goes somewhere else.

As an instructor, if I feel that my teaching style doesn't suit a certain individual then I have an obligation to that student and to my employer to switch the student off my schedule. This is after a discussion with the CFI/HOT and the student concerned but we should always strive to provide the best quality teaching in the best possible learning environment we can create.

Duchess

[DFC]

Glad to hear that you always have the spare capacity available with all instructors to just let students choose who they want to fly with.

Hey, why not line the instructors up and say "pick one". Great chance to avoid the one who wears cowboy boots!! :}

Requests for instructor changes are very serious matters and those that are deemed to be "unjustified" (for want of a better phrase) are subject to resources which are not always available and based on the student's training needs - none of which were identified in the original post.


As an instructor, if I feel that my teaching style doesn't suit a certain individual then I have an obligation to that student and to my employer to switch the student off my schedule


Head of Training / CFI comes across that and says - the student gets changed (because the instructor's ability is in doubt) and the instructor receives remedial training to correct failings in their "teaching style". Should be a one-off situation.

Instructors have to be capable of adapting to the student.

As a student if I don't like the guy I'm flying with then I am entirely within my right to ask to change to someone who puts me at ease rather than on edge - or who I can relate to rather than someone who doesn't understand the way I learn best. If you can't or wont accomodate my request for a different instructor then my money goes somewhere else.

No. As a student you are entitled to expect that every instructor will put you at ease, provide an atmosphere that you like, can relate to and will enable you to learn in the best ppssible way. If you request another instructor because of an instructor failing in any of the above then that instructor requires remedial training. If however, you simply don't like the instructor's cowboy boots then I am afraid that any instructor change will be subject to availability and the suitable progress of your training.

At a well organised, staffed and standardised organisation, the instruction provided should be consistent regardless of who provides it. Therefore, there should be little to gain (from a quality training point of view) by changing instructors.

The important thing to remember is that every time an instructor change is agreed to, the instructor who the student is leaving must have some remedial training to fix the problem otherwise you might as well give them their P45 because this is going to happen again and for every student that asks for a change, there are two that simply stop turning up.

try giving someone a P45 for wearing cowboy boots and see how much it costs you!! :)

[gileraguy]

...as it seems to have distracted things somewhat.

I never said that the boots were the reason I asked for another instructor!

I was debriefed by the CFI after the initial lesson and I commented that I would like to try another IP. I did find one I was comfortable with.

Should I have expected to stay with IP2? or informed of any changes to HIS flying so I could re-arrange things to keep flying with the instructor I felt most at ease with?

My main point was that [my rated associatesfelt that there was something remiss in my training with that organisation, with so many instructors in a short time.

I always thought that you had one IP for ALL your instruction...thats the way it is in most of the autobiographies I have read.

I tend to agree with the following comment:

At a well organised, staffed and standardised organisation, the instruction provided should be consistent regardless of who provides it. Therefore, there should be little to gain (from a quality training point of view) by changing instructors.

so the question is thrown back on to the organisation: I was paying for lessons for, why were my instructors changed on me?

Don't miss the point that I WAS happy with IP2 and felt at ease with him. (at least until we were practicing stalls and he put a bootfull of rudder in and snapped us into a spin, but then again it was an Aerobat we were flying. It still shocked and unnerved me as it was the first spin in the A/C)

well, thats another can of worms opened.... I'll just get me coat...

[protectthehornet]

I am from the USA...I take it you are in England.

First off...you and your pals are right. You should not have had so many instructors in the first 12 hours or so.

It is fine to get a new instructor if you don't ''click''. I have seen some terrible mismatches in instructors/students.

I disagree with some of the comments above.

next time you try to learn to fly, go to the ''boss'' of the flying school, whether it is the chief flight instructor or the general manager. explain to him/her that you want only one instructor (phase checks aside) and that you prefer someone with a mature attitude and a good amount of experience as an instructor. And that you would prefer to cancel a lesson rather than go up with a different instructor.

One...you should only be flying one type of plane for your first 60 hours or so.

Two...Of all the types you mentioned, I feel the PA28 is the best plane to learn in...provided it is properly maintained.

Three...spend time at the airport and observe as many traffic patterns/landings (what you guys call ''circuits'') as possible.

Four...when you are learning takeoffs and landings...do not do touch and goes...full stop taxi back landings are the proper way to learn landings.

five...with an instructor...be sure to get real cross wind landing training in real cross winds. I prefer and teach such landings with full flaps contrary to one school of thought which says to use partial flaps.

be sure to read the book: "Stick and Rudder" and memorize it as you would the Bible. Like your life depends upon it...because it does.

Nothing is wrong with cowboy boots...but the worst pilots I've ever seen wear cowboy boots.

In a PA 28...either athletic shoes or business like shoes are the right things to wear.

Cowboy boots are a tipoff to me...so go with your ''gut'' and don't listen to some of these guys on the forum.

[protectthehornet]

in addition to being the student, you are also the customer.

don't listen to this bit about having to fly with whoever you are assigned...this isn't the air force or an airline

you pay the money...you are the boss (to the extent safety allows)

[Mechta]

I was on a course earlier in the year, being trained as a UAV pilot. Over the first nineteen lessons, I had twelve different instructors!

When it came to a review with course provider, I asked if they ever had instructor meetings with all the instructors present, to standardise methods of instruction. They said that wasn't possible! Add in conflicting data between different training documents, manuals etc, plus the instructors speaking English as their second language and you can imagine what 'fun' we had when it came to the exams.

It is natural that you will click better sith some instructors than others. It is also normal that your preferred instructor won't always be available. If you could give your first and second choice of instructor for a lesson, or rebook, that would not be unreasonable, given that you are the paying customer.

Two or three instructors gives necessary variety; more than that means you are likely to go over the same stuff and slowing down the learning process.

I found in gliding that if I tried to do what one instructor taught me, with a different instructor, I would get criticised for doing it wrong. I was not alone in finding this, and it is important for instructors to be aware of each others methods. As part of the pre-flight brief it is worth decribing what you have been taught for different phases of the flight, to see if the instructor agrees or wants to see different methods.



,

[foxmoth]

A couple of interesting points here -

DFC, there is a difference between an instructor knowing his stuff and having the personality that gells with all students - he/she may know it all and be very good at putting things over, but if you have never had a student where where the two of you have not quite clicked then you have either not been instructing very long, have been very lucky, or are just too insensitive to what is going on with your students. I once had a student that ALL the instructors in the school had gone through (about 6), he had got to 60 hours and still not gone solo - these were not bad instructors and I did not teach him anything new - I just changed the emphasis and he then went on to complete his PPL.

Protectthehornet, some good points, but IMHO some are impractical and/or unnecessary, no problem with the occasional change of instructor as long as there is good standardisation within the school, though it should not be a frequent occurence.
As for Four...when you are learning takeoffs and landings...do not do touch and goes...full stop taxi back landings are the proper way to learn landings. - this might be fine where you are, but TOTALLY impractical at some fields, in many places you might only get 3 circuits in for an hours lessons - very inefficient and an expensive way to learn.

[S-Works]

In a PA 28...either athletic shoes or business like shoes are the right things to wear.

I prefer flip flops personally.....

On a serious note:

Four...when you are learning takeoffs and landings...do not do touch and goes...full stop taxi back landings are the proper way to learn landings

I would like to understand your thinking on that. When I teach tailwheel I do teach full stops as as any tailwheel pilot will tell you getting to a full stop and the taxi is the hard bit. Bit for a standard spam can I don't see the benefit.

[DFC]

don't listen to this bit about having to fly with whoever you are assigned...this isn't the air force or an airline

you pay the money...you are the boss (to the extent safety allows)


No. You pay the money.....you are the customer and your rights and responsibilities are limited to those of a customer. Don't get involved in the responsibilities and rights of the Seller.

Stop and think that if you think you can fly with whoever you like, it is probably more a case of the instructors flying with whoever they like and if they don't like you..........

Tell me, how does this customer who decides who they fly with pick their first instructor?.....white? black? asian?, male?, female?, non-cowboy boot wearer, blond????????

Come on, let us know the expert criteria that a student can use to corectly pick the best teacher?

Bring your 15 year old into school and tell the Principal that you want them to choose their teacher?........see what the response is :)

----------

Mechta,

You have highlighted some organisational failings but bad organisations usually have bad instructors. i.e. one goes with the other.

Choose the organisation wisely and one will seldom have a problem with the staff.

----------


I once had a student that ALL the instructors in the school had gone through (about 6), he had got to 60 hours and still not gone solo - these were not bad instructors


They were bad instructors. The CFI / Head of Training was an idiot to permit this severe failure in basic professional standards. This student had 7 instructors who as you say "did not teach".

Unprofessional organisations and their instructors have either never even read or at least do not remember the basic theory of teaching that they (should) have spent quite a time learning on their instructor course.

Seems to me that organisations providing flight training such as the one you describe can not say that they are "teaching" anything.......they are simply assisting people to self-learn.......and if the student can't teach themselves they are lost and pass the buck from one to another to another until eventually the student either gives up or figures it out for themselves.

How many parents would be happy if their teenager had six different teachers for a subject in the year prior to their exams and none of whom made suitable progress towards the aims of the training?

To say that an instructor may not "click" with a particular student and thus the student should be taught by another goes totally in the face of what being a professional teacher is all about. How can such a teacher ever expect to cope with a class of 12 individuals of various ages, backgrounds, attitudes, learning styles and ability but still get the theory of flight across so that every student leaves with all of the need to know and most of the nice to know?

For every reason that a student requests an instructor change there is either a problem with the instructor that requires fixing or a problem with the student that needs to be fixed.

Either way simply changing instructors fixes nothing and brushes the problem under the carpet.

---------

Overall the problem is that in some organisations we have students who know nothing about teaching acting like they do and instructors who know nothing about teaching pretending they do.

Until every organisation has proper professional well trained well audited staff then the organisations providing sub-standard training are going to outnumber the quality ones.

[S-Works]

Until every organisation has proper professional well trained well audited staff then the organisations providing sub-standard training are going to outnumber the quality ones

It is one of those rare occasions that we agree. We have a fully documented audit procedure and CAA approved Quality Manual. Courses are audited internally every quarter and every year an external auditor from one of the group companies comes and does a full audit.

Our Instructors are standardised on starting and then once a year by me as HOT. All our Instructors teach the same material in the same way. That produces high quality consistent training. Without a framework people will just make their own interpretation and that generally leads to sub standard training IMHO.

[S-Works]

Indeed. Which is why I said:

Without a framework people will just make their own interpretation and that generally leads to sub standard training IMHO.

Standardisation and a proper audit able framework. Once that is in place then it is down to the instructor to adapt within that framework.

[Checkboard]

Four...when you are learning takeoffs and landings...do not do touch and goes...full stop taxi back landings are the proper way to learn landings.While I agree that student new to circuits can become so overloaded with the "& Go" portion of a "Touch & Go" that they don't obtain the full benefit of the previous landing it isn't necessary to make it a "full stop" each time. For the first couple of lessons, I always simply took control after the touch down, and flew the "& Go" portion myself, to allow the student to think about the previous landing effort.

[protectthehornet]

I stand by my statement regarding full stop vs. touch and go landings. If you are flying from a field that is SO busy...simply fly to a less used field for the actual practice. Or get up early at dawn to avoid traffic (often the winds are lighter and easier for the new student to gain a better sense of what he is doing vs. what the wind and turbulence are doing)

You (the basic, pre solo student) are learning landings not touch and goes. One must debrief after each landing and there is not enough time while EXPEDITING A TAKEOFF. This sets up bad habit patterns. Notice the excuse used by one poster...it becomes too expensive.

Certainly practice go arounds and other recovery type maneuvers as well.

AS for using your rights as a customer. It doesn't take a genius to know that if you are not progressing, or feel that your needs are not met that you find a new instructor...make that different instructor.

If you are not recovering from an illness...get a second opinion (from another physician). If your golf score isn't going down with one golf instructor...time to try another (if in good faith you have done your part).


I've often seen the arguments used in this thread by instructors who later change their mind after using my guidelines.

Remember, you are learning to fly in a civilian atmosphere. You are not required to fly against the huns in 10 hours.

[Dudley Henriques]

I stand by my statement regarding full stop vs. touch and go landings. If you are flying from a field that is SO busy...simply fly to a less used field for the actual practice. Or get up early at dawn to avoid traffic (often the winds are lighter and easier for the new student to gain a better sense of what he is doing vs. what the wind and turbulence are doing)

You (the basic, pre solo student) are learning landings not touch and goes. One must debrief after each landing and there is not enough time while EXPEDITING A TAKEOFF. This sets up bad habit patterns. Notice the excuse used by one poster...it becomes too expensive.

Certainly practice go arounds and other recovery type maneuvers as well.

AS for using your rights as a customer. It doesn't take a genius to know that if you are not progressing, or feel that your needs are not met that you find a new instructor...make that different instructor.

If you are not recovering from an illness...get a second opinion (from another physician). If your golf score isn't going down with one golf instructor...time to try another (if in good faith you have done your part).


I've often seen the arguments used in this thread by instructors who later change their mind after using my guidelines.

Remember, you are learning to fly in a civilian atmosphere. You are not required to fly against the huns in 10 hours.

In every seminar I've given to CFI's through the years I've always included a segment on how instructors can use the learning curve to better advantage. The issue of touch and go's is always a front burner discussion.

My advice on the issue has always remained the same.
Instructors working out of controlled high traffic airports were always encouraged to take students transitioning from the high/low air work phase into take offs and landings to nearby low density non controlled environments for initial pattern work for a specific reason.
In initial landing training, it was HIGHLY encouraged that full stop landings be made thus allowing the period taxiing back for the next takeoff to be used for two specific purposes;
1. To allow the instructor the time to discuss in a non stressful environment the last landing and to prepare the student for the next takeoff.
2. To allow the student time to relax, and ABSORB what was learned on the last landing.

A great many instructors unfortunately don't realize that the period of greatest RETENTION and COMPREHENSION occurs during periods when the student is not physically flying the airplane.

You can of course teach the student either way; be it touch and go's or full stop, but everything considered, even the added cost of full stop landings, it has been my experience over time that there is an ultimate gain in quality if the above procedures are used.

Touch and go's can best be utilized as part of the natural process involved with missed approaches and go arounds prior to student solo.

Every instructor should seek to find the best technique that suits their specific situations involving specific students.
Dudley Henriques

[foxmoth]

Bring your 15 year old into school and tell the Principal that you want them to choose their teacher?........see what the response is

Well when I went into school about my 15 year old who was having a problem with ONE teacher in one particular subject (yes she had more than one teacher - each one taught a different subject and she was doing exceptionally well apart from this one subject), after discussion they changed her to a different class and her progress in that subject went to what it should be.

As far as They were bad instructors. The CFI / Head of Training was an idiot to permit this severe failure in basic professional standards. This student had 7 instructors who as you say "did not teach".
- If you do not know the instructors,the circumstances or the student then how can you make a proper judgement??? This was widely regarded as a VERY well run school, the particular student had not been chopped and changed - 2 main instructors in the first 40 hours then changing them to try and see if that would help at the end.

I do agree that Tell me, how does this customer who decides who they fly with pick their first instructor?, but this is NOT what happened here, the student flew with the Instructor then requested a change - one other thing you seem to ignore is that this may be a bad instructor, even the best schools occasionally end up with one on their books, it may even be a bad school, so the student AND CUSTOMER does have the right to choose both - otherwise you can end up with him giving up.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The touch and go versus full stop landings debate is an interesting one.

The choice of which type of landings one chooses will depend on many factors and will be based on what exactly it is you are teaching the student.

There are different circumstances and different airplane handling techniques that will have to be taken into consideration when deciding if you will use touch and goes or full stop landings for a given lesson.

I hope this does not bore everyone but I would like to use teaching water landings in a PBY to point out why I normally teach an average of around ten touch and goes to every full stop landing when giving type endorcements to pilots in the PBY.

The PBY is very critical attitude wise during touch down and the planing segment of a landing on water, if the pitch attitude is to nose low on touch down it will result in the start of a porpoise, if the pitch attitude is to nose high on touch down it will result in the start of a porpoise.

Porpoising if allowed to continue will quickly progress into total loss of control and the possible loss of the airplane and the people on board.

I have a set pattern for teaching the proper pitch attitude at touch down and it involves three minute circuits with all touch and goes performed with the throttles closed from two hundred feet to water contact at which time they use power to keep the pitch attitude stable and then apply take off power for the go portion of the touch and go.

Generally I have two pilots learning at the same time and they each fly ten touch and goes then observe the other pilot doing ten touch and goes.

This relatively short circuit performing exactly the same final approach attitude / air speed and flare height for the touch down tends to burn the picture into their memory banks in a very short time and once they are proficient at the task they retain the picture throughout the rest of the water flying carer.

Now as to the subject of de-briefing of each landing I agree that that is a very important factor in teaching landings......however in that it is impractical to de-brief each landing when doing three minute circuits I debrief at the end of the flight using the camcorder that was running during the time they were flying.

When they fu.k up a landing I rewind the recording to the point in the approach they started to get out of shape attitude or airspeed wise and stop the recording and ask them to show me with a laser pointer where they were looking and what they were thinking they were seeing at that point in the approach...we then discuss it until the student understands where it all started to go wrong and how to correct it the next time.

I hope you all got through all that without falling asleep as I thought it might be of some value to see how others teach the art of landing and taking off again on airplanes that have very critical handling issues in a given environment.

[Cows getting bigger]

Chuck, I presume in your scenario you are teaching people who already have a degree of experience? My experience with SEP PPL students is one of limited capacity, high workload and a tendency to tire (most are deterioriating after their 5th or 6th cct).

Personally, I find that when teaching the landing it often needs to be broken down into constituent parts. Nail the approach; recognise the position/height to 'flare'; achieve the desired attitude; reduce throttle to idle; arrest sink, keep straight. I think we all would agree that landing is the most difficult and important skill for a pilot to master and it does not come naturally. I prefer to get the student focussed on landing the aircraft and not allowing them to worry about the re-configuration etc required for a T&G. Indeed, I flew with a student PPL the other week who was so keen on re-configuring the aircraft they raised the flap before the landing had even been completed. :eek: Anyway, for that reason I start teaching with full stop landings and then, once the student has become more comfortable, we then progress to T&Gs. Like you, I like short, sharp ccts so that the picture/procedure becomes easily imprinted. Unfortunately in CAA land we rarely have the opportunity to do anything other than a standard, 6-7 minute rectangular bomber pattern which does little for continuity. If the airfield is quiet and we're trying to perfect landing, I will do a set of 'mini ccts' allowing the student less time to 'forget'.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 0.2 cents

With respect to multiple instructors. Instructors are not robots so I do not think it is unreasonable to evaluate how things are going after the first few hours. But and this is a big but..... it should IMO be a possible consequence of the real issue which is failure to progress. I have a seen a few circumstances, particularly with new instructors, where it was better for all concerned to bring in an experienced instructor to get a student who is struggling off to a good start. What should never happen IMO is a school who is changing instructors for the booking convienience of the school. I strongly believe that is vital to have no instructor changes for the first flight to solo portion at the very least. However under no circumstances should the type of aircraft change before solo.

With respect to touch and go landings. In a perfect world all landings to full stop would be ideal but it is simply not practicable at many airports. However one can often get stop and go landings which a good comprimise and which help put a definite break between the landing and the takeoff, a particularly valuable feature for the early landing lessons.

[Dudley Henriques]

With respect to touch and go landings. In a perfect world all landings to full stop would be ideal but it is simply not practicable at many airports. However one can often get stop and go landings which a good compromise and which help put a definite break between the landing and the takeoff, a particularly valuable feature for the early landing lessons.

It's for this exact reason that instructors operating out of high density traffic airports should make it a practice to locate nearby satellite fields where students can be taken for initial landings and takeoffs.
In the United States anyway, I've never once seen a situation where this was not possible and/or feasible.
Dudley Henriques

[Unhinged]

Hey Gileraguy,
Seems like a lot of the advice/opinions you've received here have come from people with good experience in other countries' training systems, or who for some reason seem to think you're in the UK. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the system you're in. Training in the UK is good; but the way that flight training fits into the larger aviation picture is different - not better or worse, just fundamentally different.

In the Australian training environment, a student who has that many instructors in that amount of training time has every right to feel that things aren't right. It doesn't necessarily mean your school is milking you, but it does mean that things aren't as organised as you should expect them to be. Unless you specifically asked or agreed to be moved between instructors, then there is good benefit in consistency especially for the first 15 or so hours - say up to first or second solo.

I have a very few students who find value in working with whichever instructor is free on the day, but most students find that a few bits of stability in a stressful environment (eg. a familiar face in the aircraft) helps keep things on an even keel.

Cowboy boots would have certainly given me cause to wonder, but putting you in the 172 and then charging for it like that would have had me in the CFI's office straight away, dragging the instructor by the ear.

You are the customer - One of your rights is to choose with whom, when and how you will spend your money. If you find an instructor you like, then stick with them for a solid period of time. After 10-20 hours, do a lesson with another instructor that you are comfortable with based on interactions you've had around the flying school. If it goes ok, then stick with that instructor for a solid period of time. You'll get the benefits of consistency (know what's happening, easier communication, consistent progress), and the benefits of variety (don't end up getting your instructor's bad habits as well as their good ones, find more than one way of accomplishing each task)

Some instructors are in it for the instructing, and some are not. Some are very good indeed and some are complete rubbish. Choose carefully - it is your right and responsibility to do so.

[DFC]

You are the customer - One of your rights is to choose with whom, when and how you will spend your money.


You can choose what school you will spend your money with but the school is within their rights to choose what instructor will teach you. If you have received sub-standard service from that instructor then you have effectively received sub-standard training from the school and a way to fix that is for you to either stay with that school but have the instructor re-educated or be given a different instructor or change school.

i.e. your contract is with the school.

The schools that can accomodate regular requests for instructor changes without any disruption have two problems;

1. Their instructors are below standard; and

2. They are not very busy

2 usually being the result of 1.

You may be thinking of number 1. However, the school has to think of what's best for everyone. Do I agree to your demand to fly with instructor B because you don't like instructor A's flying boots and re-shuffle the students that B already has?

I have instructed in a number of environments and not just flight instruction. Many of the cases where practical skills were taught, the student had a different instructor each exercise. This was (in that particular example) essential to ensure that reports of progress (or the lack thereof) were the balanced view of the instructing team and not simply an individual opinion.

----------------


- If you do not know the instructors,the circumstances or the student then how can you make a proper judgement??? This was widely regarded as a VERY well run school, the particular student had not been chopped and changed - 2 main instructors in the first 40 hours then changing them to try and see if that would help at the end.



I don't have to know the instructors to know that a student not going solo by 40 hours (5 hours above the entire course length) without some serious investigation and then being handed from instructor to instructor until they have nearly twice the cource length (in terms of hours) completed but not passed exercise 12/13 but had 7 instructors has been severely failed by the school. In such a case, they would easily get a vast part of their money back should the persue it.

Glad to hear that your child has been accomodated. Did you follow up the situation to ensure that the failing teacher received the appropriate retraining.........or is another student going to suffer the same situation?

[DFC]

The biggest problem with UK PPL level instruction os that mostly it is done upside down.

The most junior and least experienced instructors with the shortest service and thus more of an unknown quantity are given the responsibility for attracting new students via trial lessons and then making progress with them as well as retaining them during the hardest parts of the course - up to first solo.

New instructors should start with post solo training and the most experienced instructors should be doing the trial lessons, initial training and the final revision before test.

What other organisation promotes the apprentice to head of sales on day 1?

Too much emphasis is put on getting new instructors unrestricted rather than providing career development. CFI's / supervising instructors should be far less free with their recomendations.

Let new instructors teach post solo exercises until they have grasped the basics and then after some training be let loose to train navigation and then when they have quoite a bit of experience, start them teaching exercises 4 to 11. Finally the most experienced can teach 3 and 12/13.

The good schools will have enough of suitable good instructors who have the experience to teach all of the above and it is at that point that the school can experince the benefit of it's investment in staff training.

It is only when the instructor has demonstrated an ability to teach every aspect well that they should be recomended to have the restriction removed. If that means it takes a very long time then so be it.

[foxmoth]

I don't have to know the instructors to know that a student not going solo by 40 hours (5 hours above the entire course length) without some serious investigation and then being handed from instructor to instructor until they have nearly twice the cource length (in terms of hours) completed but not passed exercise 12/13 but had 7 instructors has been severely failed by the school. In such a case, they would easily get a vast part of their money back should the persue it.

Glad to hear that your child has been accomodated. Did you follow up the situation to ensure that the failing teacher received the appropriate retraining.........or is another student going to suffer the same situation?

You are of course quite correct that this needed serious investigation - who said this had not happened??? This particular student was one of the very few that I have come across who was advised, after investigation by the CFI (a CAA panel examiner and highly respected CFI who many came to for Instructor courses) and a number of different approaches to the problem, that he should not continue - he chose to, up to this point, as said, he had mainly flown with just a couple of instructors, he then ended up flying with other instructors, generally keeping the same instructor for 5 hour blocks or so, but this was very frustrating for the instructors to try much more than this.
As far as my daughters teacher goes, again, not a bad teacher for many children, but for some reason there was a personality clash, in my view not a requirement for training - this does happen in all kinds of schools.

[DFC]

I use to teach full stop taxi backs and then use the taxi time to debrief the previous circuit, however later I found it more effective to teach touch and goes as this way we could get more circuits in. In order to reduce the workload for my students I would take control after they landed and then take off myself, using the initial climb to debrief the student on the previous circuit and landing. Later when they became more experienced I would get them to do the takeoff as well.

When it came close to them going solo I would then start teaching full stop taxi backs as this is what they would be doing by themselves. I found this system worked quite well and most of my students learned at a faster pace than most.


Students should be getting comfortable with the take-off from exercise 9 onwards because they have been doing it since probably 6B. AT somewhere like Bournemouth, the student lands the instructor re-configures and when told to, the student applies power for take-off and does what they have been doing several times before.

The only time I would stop and taxi-back is if they are having problems and we need some quiet time or we are going to do something like a short or soft field take-off exercise. However, since they can be done on the first take-off, the need for stop and taxi-back displays a bit of a problem in deciding the order of trainig to avoid unnecessary breaks.


using the initial climb to debrief the student on the previous circuit and landing


What do you teach that student about the critical aspect of the initial climb? - teach as you do and do as you teach.

The aeroplane is for practice. The value of talking in the aircraft while moving is 10% of the value obtained by doing the same brief in a quiet room.

The taxi is recognised as being one of the more critical parts of a flight but this is often ignored. Don't speak of items unrelated to taxi unless the aircraft is stopped - teach as you do and do as you teach.

The 12/13 exercise must be built in stages but ther take-off should be taught in small stages starting with exercise 4A - demo, 4B - follow through, 6A, 6B, 7/8, 9, 10A, 10B, 11A practice........At a minimum they should have done 5 take-offs before they start 12/13. Thus the keeping straight, rotation, climb attitude and climb should already be covered and simply needing polish.

They also need to be able to climb, descend (7/8) turn and climbing/descending turn (9) and fly straight and level (6) because they have already completed those exercises.

Therefore leaving the flare and landing out, what is new in the circuit beyond the quickfire repetition (learning by rote) of basic handling skills previously learned?

If the student can't fly the circuit then the instructor has failed to teach them exercises 1 to 11.

If the student needs a further brief in the air then end the exercise and do the brief. Don't waste their money since they are going to associate you getting some free flying (while mouthing off about something that they clearly do not understand) with them not making progress and put 1 and 2 together to get 3.

[Whirlybird]

Only just found this thread, but when discussing students who fail to go solo after more than 40 hours, perhaps you'd benefit from hearing from someone who was once in that position, ie ME!

I started f/w flying before I ever discovered helicopters, for those who don't know me. I wasn't a natural pilot, but I suspect that without things going wrong I would have been an average student. But I had an instructor I didn't get on with, got very scared quite early on while trying to land, and after that lost confidence completely. Being stubborn, I gritted my teeth and stuck with that instructor for quite a few more hours, until the school suggested changing as I was getting nowhere. I was also so lacking in confidence by that time that I could barely drive to the flying school, never mind fly!

My new instructor now had a very, very difficult job. He wasn't just trying to teach me to land, he had to deal with someone with severe lack of confidence problems. It's a very different skill, and not one they teach you on FI courses, or they didn't on mine anyway (some years later of course!). But anyway, he talked a lot, and tried to calm me down, but it didn't really work. Looking back, I think he was a very good instructor, but not for me at the time.

I eventually got an instructor as stubborn as I was, but also very calm and phlegmatic. He simply kept at it. He didn't do anything special, or say a lot, but he never gave up on me, and he never got upset or acted as though I had a problem. It wouldn't have worked for everyone. He was a lowish hours hour builder, but his personality and approach happened to be what I needed at the time. He eventually sent me solo...after a total of 48 hours!

The point I'm rather longwindedly making is that this 'good' v 'bad' instructor thing simply isn't that simple when you're dealing with individuals and something as complex as learning to fly.

[Centaurus]

If however, you simply don't like the instructor's cowboy boots

I would be very wary of any instructor that wears cowboy boots especially if he is not a real cowboy. Be especially careful if he also touches you on the hand or knee in order to "correct" your handling of the aircraft. Worse than cowboy boots are these instructors that wear Tom Cruise aviator sun glasses over their foreheads or insist on wearing very dark sunglasses looking like a blowfly with magnification x5 and fail to remove said sun glasses when talking to you. Bad manners indeed. :ok:

[DFC]

Alister,


How do you debrief a student after each circuit?


I don't. It can't (and should not) be done. De-briefing is for the end of the exercise.


then I'll give them some quick feedback at the next convenient time whilst in the air


Now that is more like it. A short quick simple pointer regarding one aspect that needs to be corrected and try again. If you do 5 circuits and correct one item each circuit then you will have improved 4 items for the next time.


Landing is the challenging part for the majority of student pilots.


No. being in full control of the aircraft and realising what is happening when close to the ground is what people have problems with. Solve that and landing is a piece of cake.


DFC - How many students do you know who have a problem taking off and climbing?


Most if not all. There is a difference between completing a safe take-off and initial climb and the usual case of careering down the runway, pulling back on the stick and establishing the aircraft in a climb with the brain still back at the threshold.

Ask your student next time to safely level off as soon as possible once airbourne and fly level just above the runway..........if they manage to level off below 50ft I would be surprised....because in the initial take-off and climb, they are mostly just there for the ride.


Think about all the students time and money you are wasting from terminating a lesson early. They'll end up paying more taxi time then air time.


I don't know what your organisation's system is but most places these days charge take-off to landing plus a fixed figure eg 10 minutes or 0.2

Landing and taxiback to try again a few times is going to count as flight time for as long as it takes while ending the exercise simply costs the fixed taxi time which was part of the lesson anyway is also part of the required training. Briefing a problem in the air to fix it is mostly a waste of time because of the situation, the distractions and the fact that the student is there to fly as much for their money as they can - not for you to fly and talk at them.

This is just as bad as the instructor who sits there yacking on and on and on with little bits of encouragement, hints, corrections. Far better to tell the student what they need to do and then see what they do, let them do it without input from you (other than safety) and then you have the ideal situation;

The student has done it "their way".

You either say that is OK or "their way" need to be changed by x.

Now they can relate to something that they have done compared to what they need to do and can try again.

People learn better by making mistakes and then when they are made aware of the mistake, trying it again without making the same mistake.

----------
Whirlybird,

Thanks for showing us a good eample of the fact that often, students are their own worst enemy i.e. your "gritting your teeth".

Makes me wonder how it had to get so bad when someone should have picked up on it much earlier i.e. phase checks. If you were progressing normally at 5, 10, 15 hours, how did you end up at 20 or 30 hours without a major investigation no matter how much you were gritting your teeth?

You have demonstrated the failing of the idea that the student chooses the instructor / one student one instructor. The school was probably (incorrectly) waiting for you to ask for a change or complying with your request for no change (incorrect again).

The great thing about a student flying with 2 or 3 instructors is that eventhough all 3 may be 100% great instructors, the student will usually latch onto one in a certain way and while that does not mean that instructor should then become exclusive to that student, they should realise the situation and use it to manage the overall training.

Nothing better than a quiet moment straight and level during which some general chat comes round to something that effectively gets an answer to "how do you like flying with Bob?".........and being able to measure the true effect of the "Sure ........I don't mind flying with Bob".

[protectthehornet]

U guys from across the pond...we are seperated by a common language!

You all sound like you have the exact same book...that each lesson is numbered and that everyone uses the same method.

It also sounds like you don't use a ''hobbs meter'' for recording time.

And anyone who signs a ''contract'' with a flying school is probably making a mistake...most people here pay as you go...and if things aren't going well...the money stops.


I taught people to fly near San Francisco, CA (USA). It is considered one of the most demanding areas of our nation to learn to fly...with almost a dozen airports of varying size in a small area. A small airport, small runway, constant cross winds. It took longer than average to solo anyone here...but they could land on their spot better than those learning at a long runway without crosswinds. Indeed, radio work takes as much time as control manipulation.

Each student learns in a different manner. There are fears to overcome. Lack of aptitude (I've told more than one student he or she is not really cut out for flying and to save their money).

I encourage all flight instructors (and we use different terminology here...different certificates like CFI, CFII, MEI....I have all) to ask their students what comes across better in terms of learning. And it must be money aside.

I encourage you to take your students to the instructor bench (it occurs to me that you guys don't even know what this is...a bench (chair) near the runway where one can observe solos, landings etc) along with a radio and watch landings/approaches.

I would also include a good amonut of go arounds as practice.

The real trick to landing can be taught in two unusual ways.

ONE. Go to a department store and get on the down escalator (moving stairs) and have the student note the ''spot'' doesn't move along the glideslope of the escalator.

TWO. Have the student stand up on level ground and practice going up and down on his toes and have him perceive the difference using periphreal vision...I rever to "STick and Rudder" here and have the student get used to judging his height above the runway in this fashion.

I have also taken a student out on the runway and (on a long runway mind you) and have had them hold the pitch attitude in landing while doing a high speed taxi/skip off. Confidence in side/periphreal vision must be learned instead of lowering the nose to see over the cowl.

And finally, try adjusting the seat...a remarkable improvement in some landing performance can be found by properly determining an eye height/seat height.

[protectthehornet]

alister

please don't interpret my thoughts as being too dogmatic...I am simply being direct, but I also insist that the student be put first in the unique world of learning to fly...and the safety of the student even before the learning.

of course some of your fellow jaa posters are just fine...but I gain a sense of expediting rather than teaching.

oh, by the way...the most difficult students I've had were from NASA AMES research center...aeronautical engineers can be tough...they think too much! ;-)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am really out of the loop trying to follow this discussion because I haven't the faintest clue what the following means.

12 13 exercises:

4A 4B 6A 7/8 10A 10B 11A.

Trying to follow a discussion based on lesson plan numbers I can't recall ever reading means I shouldn't even be in this discussion. :sad::sad:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Not knowing the exercise numbers when talking about PPL training is about the same as not knowing what "on the step" means when talking about Canso conversion training.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Really, do you actually think that way BPF? Or do you just automatically jump at every comment I make because quite frankly I find your comment insulting.

Are you telling me the exercise numbers are the same in all countries?

And I do not refer to PBY training as " Canso " training because not many people outside of Canada would know what I am talking about.

While we are doing this dance Big Pistons do you really think that it would be all that difficult for me to refresh my memory on the PPL lesson plans or do you think that instructing at the more advanced level somehow cause one to forget the basics?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Trying to follow a discussion based on lesson plan numbers I can't recall ever reading means I shouldn't even be in this discussion. :sad::sad:


I agreed with your statement, so where is the problem ?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I guess I worded it wrong so let me try again.

I believe the lesson plan numbers refer to the British CAA lesson plans do they not?

I have not seen their lesson plans....

Does that clear this up a bit? :)

[Cows getting bigger]

Here you go Chuck. The numbering is common across JAA (and I guess will be adopted by EASA). Ordinarily, exercises 4, 6, 8 and 10b are split into 2 (sometimes 3) parts for ease of teaching. You may hear someone mention either 4a or 4(i), they mean the same. For example, the first part of exercise 4 would be effects of controls including secondary effects and the use of trim. The second part of the exercise (4b or 4(ii)) would incorporate effects of speed/slipstream and flaps. There is no formal routine to be followed but the examiner would be looking for evidence that each exercise had been completed.

1 Familiarisation with the aeroplane
1E Emergency drills
2 Preparation for, and action after flight
3 Air experience
4 Effects of controls
5 Taxying
5E Emergencies
6 Straight and level
7 Climbing
8 Descending
9 Turning
10A Slow flight
10B Stalling
11 Spin avoidance
12 Take-off and climb to downwind position
13 The circuit, approach and landing
12/13E Emergencies on take-off and landing
14 First solo
15 Advanced turning
16 Forced landing without power
17 Precautionary landing
18A Navigation
18B Navigation at lower levels
18C Radio navigation
19 Basic instrument flying

There is a more complete breakdown here (http://www.avianoord.nl/backpage/upload/File/jarsyllabus_PPL.pdf) with the flying requirements being listed from page 27.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Thank you Cows getting bigger.

AS I thought the numbering system is different to what we have here in Canada and not being sure of the differences it is difficult to know exactly what they mean.

Don't pay any attention to the reactions of Big Pistons Forever as any post by me on any aviation forum is like a Spanish bull seeing a red cape being waved
in front of it, he just lowers his head and charges. :ugh:

Now back to the regular programming. :E:ok::)

[Hspilot23]

Having multiple instructors is a great idea and is indeed necessary in order for a student to develop their own style. But not at the pre-solo phase!!

Our 141 CPC mandates and encourages the use of several instructors throughout the course of private, instrument, commercial, and instructor training. Although one CFI is the primary, other CFI's perform stage checks and cover flights from time to time.

By all means, fly with however many instructors you want (I think over the course of time i've had 10 or so), it will only help your perspective.

But your school let you down by passing you around like that during your pre-solo training. Too much instability is detrimental to the majority of student pilots at that time. After you do a couple cross-countries its a good idea to branch out. After you get the private rating and go back for advanced training it is a great idea, if you want to, to see all the ways to skin that cat.

[corsair]

In my first 13 hours. I had 11 Instructors. That has to be a record.

[A37575]

The numbering is common across JAA

And thus broadly follows the original sequence numbers used by the Royal Air Force during and maybe even before World War 2. Published in RAF Air Publication A.P 3225.
Sequence 1. Familiarisation.
2. Preparation for Flight.
3. Air Experience.
4. Effects of Controls.
5. Control of aircraft on ground.
6. Straight and Level.
7. Climbing and Descending.
8. Stalling.
9. Turning.
10. Spinning.
11. Take off and climb downwind position.
12. Approach and Landing.
13. First solo.
14. Consolidation period.
15. Instrument/weather procedure.
16. Low flying.
17. Forced landings.
18. Aerobatics.
19. Night flying.
20. Pilot navigation.
21. Formation flying.

History is indeed facinating.

[debiassi]

To revert back to the original question, I think its important to note that different people have different teaching styles and of course individuals respond in different ways so as a customer, if you arrive upon an instructor who you feel you learn from and get along with, by all means you should state you prefer to be taught by that instructor. What you will have to realise however is that you are one of many and that instructor will invariably have other duties and commitments. It may mean your training will take longer in the long run as if there is a certain amount of time between lessons, then a more significant part of the next lesson will be spent refreshing from the previous lesson. Regarding the 172 issue, I personally think its a good thing to be checked out in different aircraft prior to gaining your ppl as you will already have time on type on something you will possibly wish to fly further down the line. Trust me you will soon get fed up and outgrow a c150. If however you think this is too much to take in then by all means state that you wish to only train in the aircraft you are familliar with. I am sure you will find the service provider to have a sympathetic ear.
Hope this helps
:ok: