Flight Instructor Selection

[Geoffersincornwall]

I had a discussion with colleagues recently about the way we in the rotary wing world select and train flight instructors.

If we try to pin down 'Aviation Industry Best Practice' we can run into a conundrum. In the airline world (yes I know what you are going to say but I did say the 'aviation industry' without specifying the helicopter world) they do it like this:

1. Selection - you need to be recommended by the current training community.
2. Psychological Assessment - Visit to the 'trick-cyclist' to decide if you have the core qualities required for this demanding task.
3. At least one, maybe two 4-hour sim checks.
4. Technical exam - do you know your stuff?

If you pass that lot then you can qualify to instruct only after a comprehensive training course, months of mentoring and the regular checks to keep you up to scratch.

The question is "what do we do in the rotary world? Does any operator come even close to that degree of attention to detail when creating a new TRI?" I don't think so.

Your thoughts and contributions would be appreciated as i am trying to justify the assertion that we should also be adopting that approach because I have a feeling that the current systems employed are not producing what we need for trainers working on these complex new types. What exactly is the helicopter industry 'best practice'?

G.

[TeeS]

I had to do the 'trick cyclist' thing for a job interview once. He passed me, I've never trusted them since!! :)

TeeS

[Ascend Charlie]

In the civil world, it is like this:
1. Selection - you need to have a pocketful of money.
2. Psychological Assessment - is this guy crazy enough to part with big bucks without having a job lined up afterwards?.
3. Put him through the course.
4. Try to squeeze a few more hours out of his bank account

If you pass that lot then you can qualify to instruct only after signing up for a Return of Service contract. Then work his @ss off because he is cheaper than the other Gr 1 or 2 instructors around.

[Helilog56]

After 39 years in the helicopter industry (flying), my opinion of what would be an industry "best practice", is not take low time, newly licenced pilots and think they should become qualified flight instructors.

A qualified instructor in my opinion should be able to draw upon years and flight hours, of valuable work experience to teach more than just a basic air exercise.
Mentoring of inexperienced pilots (or maintenence personell) seems to be becoming a lost practice these days.

Using instructing for time building to me, is a poor approach for a good start in this industry.

[multycpl]

"Using instructing for time building to me, is a poor approach for a good start in this industry"


Hmmm then how does one get onto the merry go round of ' must have hours to get a job. Cant get hours unless you have a job - to get a job you must have hours ...etc.. ?


Suggestions on how to get the required time without instructing please. :rolleyes:

[helimutt]

I've seen a certain Canadian company train a TRE in less than a week, and a TRI in less than that. From scratch!!!! Go figure.

[fly911]

What multycpl said......

[GoodGrief]

A high time commercial pilot does not necessarily make a good instructor.

[Sir Korsky]

The most successful flight instructors are those that simply love to teach. Enthusiasm is directly proportional to quality training.

[Helilog56]

I knew this would illicit some critical response. In Canada, commercial operators hire low time pilots very frequently....the next couple of years requires mentoring, teaching, and nurturing by other experienced company pilots and personell.....more and more responsibility is delegated to the newbie as he/she developes. During a lot of that time they have worked in the hangar also learning maintenance practices, and worked as ground crew support....works very well for us here.

Agreed, a high time pilot is no guarantee of a good instructor, Sir Korsky said it best that enthusiasm and a love for the industry makes for good instructors....I couldn't agree more...I take a break often and go back and help at a friends flight school here in BC and love to work with the ab initio and lessor experienced pilots.

I think we did the math a while back on the instructors at Chinook Helicopters, and the experience level sat at around 134 years and over 115,00 flight hours combined.....we see students arrive from every corner of the world to train here, one could ask any of them, and one would pretty much always hear they had a good instruction and value.
Canadian operators place a lot of credibility in a good product being turned out of the schools....they have been taught more than the basics. We are geographically blessed with unpredictable weather and mountains that are right out our back door....want to compare our 100 hour low timer to say a Florida sunny day candidate taught by a 160 instructor.....:rolleyes:

[jymil]

Hmmm then how does one get onto the merry go round of ' must have hours to get a job. Cant get hours unless you have a job - to get a job you must have hours ...etc.. ?

This is also what's wrong with the helicopter industry. Companies should train rookie pilots instead of relying on somebody else doing this job for them (i.e. military or self-funded training). To drive my point home: if multi-engine experience is always a prerequisite for a multi-engine pilot job, then nobody would qualify .. it's a catch-22.

Now I'm not saying companies should pay for pedestrian-to-cpl training, but there are plenty of jobs which a 500hr pilot can do. And likewise, job requirements asking for 1000+hrs turbine time don't make sense to me. You might learn something for the first 50hrs of turbine flying, but the remaining 950hrs are no more "valuable" than flying an R44 for example.

[Ascend Charlie]

It's the insurance companies that dictate the experience levels. If it costs the charter company $20,000 a year to have cover for all their 1000-hr-plus pilots but it costs $50,000 a year to have newbies, which way do you think they will go?

But in Oz we let newbies fly the simple stuff, and don't let them near an instructor rating until they have 400 hours. Or at least it used to be that, but the new Grade 3 starts them sooner, can't say yet if that is a good idea or not.

[[email protected]]

Much of this thread seems to be discussing the qualities required for ab initio instruction... apples and pears? No, because if you accept low hours and experience as an acceptable standard for basic training, why would you insist on higher levels for TRI? If you are suitable for basic instruction then, in theory, you are suitable for advanced instruction according to accepted industry practice.

Personally I had 1500 hours before training as a QHI and, in the mil at least, this was regarded as a minimum because you had so little credibility without meaningful experience.

With 200 hours you know less than bugger all about helicopter flying and even less about teaching other people. Go and do a job to get experience before instructing - all this hours building guff is an excuse for paying less to teach the punters, rather than employing a suitably experienced pilot who won't work for bugger-all money.

[krypton_john]

Crab, this is clearly not ideal, but it is how it works in GA since... forever.

Without this path, there would likely be no GA. The military would be the sole source of helicopter training.

How could it ever work any other way?

[Geoffersincornwall]

No matter how much I wish to sympathise with your feelings about the pathways into the industry we are not doing ourselves any favours by using young bloods and flight instructors.

In the last eight years I have trained 350 pilots from 49 different countries and what I saw was on the whole pretty depressing. Whilst many could do their daily job well enough most were hopeless in the IFR environment despite having a current IR and similarly most struggled as soon as things started to go wrong.

If there is a general malaise out there then I suspect it is down to the paucity of good training both basic and advanced and to make a difference we need top class TRI's and SFI's who really know the art of 'teaching' rather than just 'course delivery'.

By allowing an affordable pathway to self-selected wannabes we are, in my opinion creating a downward spiral of standards and the current system of prof checks is doing nothing to help given it's repetitious and unambitious nature.

If we chose only the best to be the instructors of tomorrow in the same way as the major airlines then maybe we can turn this baby around - it isn't going to be quick and it isn't going to be easy. I'm for snuffing out 200 hour CFI's and forcing the industry to recruit into tailor made training programmes that deliver what the industry needs, competent aviators.

G.

[krypton_john]

GiC ... agreed!

But where is the money going to come from?

[paco]

It is true that a high time pilot does not necessarily make a good instructor, but neither does a low time pilot necessarily make a bad one. We've hired them here - they started off as students but we hired them because their qualities were obvious. One got sponsored as an instructor by the Guild and is now on the N Sea as a Captain in a very short time. I have flown with 1 000 hour ilots whith whom I would trust anything and 10 000 hour pilots with whom I wouldn't trust a pram.

The problem is that the basic training needs a little more. There is a lot you can include in the training that will form good habits for later life, but you can't get that experience without having done the job. That, to me, is more where the problem lies.

I have always though that there is room for a pilot finishing school, because you can't get a job with a basic licence anyway. It could be staffed by experienced pilots who wouldn't need to be FIs necessarily as the student could be the captain. Maybe that will be my next progression.... :)

Phil

[fly911]

- More experienced instructors require higher pay. That's unlikely to happen. Besides, you don't need an ATP to teach basic flying skills.

- I think that it's great that low time instructors teach zero time students for a number of reasons.

1) The lessons are fresh in the instructor's mind and since both have low time, the instructor and student can relate better.

2) There's no pressure to take a flight in marginal weather as is often the case in real-world flying. The instructor and student can stay at the home base and practice pattern work or hover work or ground school.

3) It's a great and safe way to build time.

4) It's income for the school.

5) To a new student, it's a reason to get that CFI or CFII certificate.

6) It gives all involved a chance to network and make contacts for that next job.

7) It keeps the cost of learning to fly within reach of what might otherwise be an impossible dream.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Since when did aviation become a charity? From where I sit it isn't working. It feels like we are in a downward spiral where low time low experienced people are turning out too many substandard helicopter pilots.

If the industry is to survive the leap into modern technology machinery then we need to get real.

Giving people a hand up ? All for it, but what we have now is the wrong kind of hand up. We need to realise that we need structured courses for people selected on the basis of skill and aptitude.

Self-selection on the basis of whoever can get the money simply isn't a sensible way forward. It's illogical, dangerous and will not deliver a safe and effective helicopter industry.

G. :ok:

[OTGLU]

Most points are valid in this discussion, a student will only be as good as their instruction. The qualities of a good instructor are alot to do with the individuals' characteristics and their ability to relay the subject matter dependent on the students learning styles and aptitude. But without the experience, it can be hard to convey the impact and justification of that teaching aspect.

Many newly qualified pilots would jump at the chance to mentored and supervised to better their skills and abilities, I am one of them, but sadly there are not many such opportunities, and scrimping to achieve FI to gain some employment in the industry is the rung that most can get to first.

Additiojnal courses following qualification would also be great, but a self sponsored individual would rather spend the money on an FI or IR to progress employment, if a CPL pass plus becomes compulsory, are we pricing out people joining the aviation fraternity?

[Geoffersincornwall]

There have been many tears shed on the way to a CPL by many who have shed beads of sweat to get the cash necessary but can't you see the irony? They would all be 'self-selected' and which operator would overlook someone with a CFI or CFII?

That leads to a population of instructors NOT necessarily equipped with what it takes to be a good effective and fair 'teacher'. Setting out to get the best job with the most money does not fit the profile of someone who has to see teaching as a vocation, requiring patience, skill, knowledge and that vital ingredient - experience.

Some of the tales of woe I have been told recently about 'the worst instructor I have ever come across' make my hair stand on end. He or she is the one person in our system that can bring about change. We deserve a system that delivers instructors able to do the job to the very highest standard. We currently seem to depend on well meaning but inadequate aviators who may have the potential to be much better but we have accepted that poor is just good enough.

Heaven help us. :sad:

[Ascend Charlie]

Just because you have enough money to pay for a helicopter licence, it doesn't mean that you are entitled to a job. There are only a limited number of vacancies, and an excess of applicants is great for the employer but not so great for the newbie.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Short termism will be the death of us ! If you added up the cost of the dings we are accumulating then maybe we could put a price - sorry I mean a 'value' on 'Best Practice'.

G. :{

[OTGLU]

I agree with your comments, it is a sad fact that because it has now become a common perception that 'you need an FI to get the hours to get a real job', it creates the mannerisms, which are noticed by the paying student, that there is no interest in the role. It is a stepping stone almost. That compounded with the limited experience of the new instructor increases the risk of dilution of the quality that could be produced. That student could then be one day, the individual who is conducting the pleasure flight, trial lesson your son/ daughter is on, or even your new co-pilot.

As Ascend Charlie states, a licence doesn't entitle you to a job, there is a massive responsibility on the training organisation to select at intervew the right candidates, and then provide that platform to give the level of service that is needed in producing quality aviation practioners?

[paco]

Although we have discontinued training for many individuals, when it comes right down to it, provided that the student meets a minimum standard, a training organisation is not about to say goodbye to income, even though they know that student either won't get a job in the first place or won't keep it if they get one.

In my humble opinion, 4 attempts at a theoretical exam are too many, but those are the current rules.

Phil

[Geoffersincornwall]

The worst of that system is that once the CFI or CFII is on your licence you never actually have to have a training job to keep it. One guy I met was a Chief Pilot of a twin turbine outfit with an IFR capability with a CFI and a CFII rating but despite his advancing years had never ..... never.... seen the inside of a cloud.

I also met a company FSO who was in despair because the Ops Director's first port of call when looking for TRI candidates was those with a CFI rating. It was proof that you can earn more if you invest in a CFI course but the notion that you have to be able to do the job as 'teacher' was lost on the way. Shameful.

G. :{:ugh:

PS . Yes I know it's different under EASA but those who work under FAA or similar will know what I mean.

[jymil]

Hi Phil,
coming back on your statement about the pilot finishing school .. do you still fly in the UK ? I basically want to do some time building for a couple of days in the UK. And instead of senslessly flying around, it might be better to learn some tricks of the trade from you ..

[paco]

Yeah, I'm still around :) I'm planning to do some stuff in Scotland, mountain flying, slinging that kind of stuff. It's early days yet, but I have a syllabus framed out and am waiting for some graphics for the notes to be finished but I'm sure there is something that can be done. Certainly hour building.

We can certainly start a PM conversation.

Phil

[Fanous_CZ]

This is very interesting reading. Especially for me as a newbie.

I have managed to get far enough to get my CPL. I am at the stage trying to earn and save money to get my FI. Even though I feel it is wrong to teach without a real job experience, I want to do it. I think I have some good results teaching what I do for living. So I like to think it could work. But that's not why I write here. I feel like I didn't choose the best schools sofar. So choosing the right place to get me up to the FI might be the last chance for me to have a great influence on the final result of my career. Last thing I want, as someone here said, is to become a customer again. I want to find some place where they would raise me, during the time-building and the FI course, as one of them.

So please, could anyone advice, where in The United Kingdom should I spent my last possible money?

Thanks
Frank

[topendtorque]

it has got to be all about flying standards and knowledge standards. not just taught how to pass an exam.

I think you will find that engineers examinations are designed to test the applicants deep and retained knowledge. not just a memory test of a last minute cram. for this i am truly grateful, we have to trust them.

that is the difference.

pilots are not worth a cracker if they cannot hold a precise hover (somewhere near the fuel bowser thanks Einstein the hose is only fifty metres long)

land if the engine quits,

carry out enough pre checks to be able to navigate off a map of bugger all features when i have hung a set of fencing pliers over the compass,

find a spot to go to and demonstrate discipline in executing an instant plan to get there if the engine quits, oh, and be able to tell someone about it to

maintaining the RRPM if the engine quits (without me warning you thanks Einstein)

fly precisely, be ahead of the aircraft, don't fly where the faster F/W cannot see you, (because you know what, F/W drivers are different Einstein) etc.

and yes I totally agree with afore posters. in my trade I have seen heaps of people, of both sex, who have been sticking a horse between their legs for many years, which seems to give them a license to look down on others as peons, but in reality those who look down the most, (especially females) have never progressed past being a useless blasted jackeroo.

[Geoffersincornwall]

You mean we need Competence Based Training ? Would that it be so!

God help us, I have been doing essentially the same prof checks for more than forty years and the training I deliver is often just a rehearsal of the Prof Check. That means that we only ever practice the same old, same old, same old, stale and well worn manoeuvres that say NOTHING about how well a pilot performs in the real world of work.

Please tell me that there is someone out there in EASA who realises we are heading for a brick wall and need to change the way we do things. It's not like this in the airline world so why is it so hard??????

G.

[Pittsextra]

Thing is Geoff I'm not sure by what metric supports the view that we are currently churning out a sub standard PPL (H)'s or that these come from low time FI's. From this:-

"It feels like we are in a downward spiral where low time low experienced people are turning out too many substandard helicopter pilots. "


Over the last 15 years the accident rate for PPL (H) has been going down and actually do nothing more than look at all helicopter accidents reported by the AAIB since the beginning of 2012. The average P1 time for these accidents is over 5200hrs and of the 38 reported incidents only 13 were flying on a PPL and there were just 4 student or training accidents.

So is it really as bad as its being suggested?

[Geoffersincornwall]

My teaching of ab initio PPL's was a long time ago and I guess I am not really focussing on that sector. What I see is the result of the development of the PPL into a 'working' pilot who has been heavily influenced by his foundational years and his transition into the world of operational flying. Don't forget that my perspective is a global one not just confined to the European or even the North American and antipodean worlds.

All the lack of PPL accidents means is that we are getting better at doing simple stuff and staying away from the killers like loss of control, CFIT and inadvertent IMC. As I said the average CPL is good at doing his job which is almost always one carried out in VMC but also may carry the need for an IFR capability that is rarely used. Often the only IFR in IMC logged (I mean genuine cloud flying or night flying without NVG's) is the prof check and annual recurrent training. This leaves the poorly trained open to the vagaries of bad weather and technical failures that test him (her) beyond their abilities.

When you have a system that sets 'minimums' of every metric then they have a habit of becoming the target standard. If you use the minimum as your standard then the normal every day fluctuations in human performance will deliver days when you fall below that standard. That's why customers that care (the bigger oil companies for example) will demand more than the regulatory minimum.

We care a lot about the failures of human factors in our flying world but fail to recognise the failures of the regulatory humans who have failed to give us a structure that is truly fit for purpose.

G.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I was asked to explain my final paragraph about the regulators and their relationship with human factors. What I am saying is that if you design a system to be used by intelligent human beings and then ignore their propensity to abuse the system where ever possible then you are succumbing to the tendency to laziness and a willingness to accept that the vagaries of human performance will mean that there will be occasional and maybe frequent failure to deliver consistent performance at the minimum level.

The regulators in my opinion, should be saying "if this is the minimum acceptable standard then the regulations must be set higher to ensure that the population does not routinely descend below that minimum level.

To issue a life-long certificate of competence as an instructor despite never having had an instructional job for a minimum amount of time is the worst kind of regulation that places 'hope' above 'expectation'. To allow multiple on line re-takes of licence examinations is the same. We know that if we have the ability to abuse the system then it will happen. In my time I have had to work with two instructors who were dismissed from previous employers for fraudulently gaining licence qualifications - the worst is they are both still working as instructors despite this transgression. Please, someone, tell me we are heading in the right direction.

G.

[[email protected]]

Sadly Geoffers, I don't think we are:ugh:

As you well know, military instructors are checked every year (at least) and any period away from instructing would require a full assessment by their new unit. There is also a professional progression (B2 to A1) which allows employers (OCs) to assess the suitability of a candidate for a particular position.

Perhaps when such a structure is mandated in the 'real' world then standards will rise but, unless a new FI is lucky enough to be taken under the wing of a good mentor, they are pretty much left to rely on good luck.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Perhaps the most important aspect of military aviation is that they do not, as a rule, pay for an expensive and extensive training course so you can wear it on your CV as a 'trophy'. You do the course because you are destined to spend the next one or two (or more) years working as a Flight Instructor. Teaching day in day out for that period gives you the skills to be able to properly understand the teaching and learning process whereas a dicky little 'box-ticking' number will at best only equip you to repeat your PPL experience to those wannabes with enough money to throw at the task.

I cannot see for the life of me why this transparent problem is so difficult for the authorities to understand. If the industry wants pilots there should be no structural subsidy in the form of weak and ineffective regulations but instead the industry must put their hands in their pockets and run proper 'cadet' schemes that have proved successful in the past. Only when operating companies have to pay are they then concerned about the value they get for their money.

If I have to say this one more time I'll go off pop but from where I sit more than 50% of the pilots I train are below the required standard. Yes we can get most of that 50% through a TR course because a TR course is another example of 'box-ticking' at it's 'best'. I am not alone, I mentioned this to a colleague yesterday and he said that he wouldn't want to fly with many of the people we see if they were passengers let alone occupying a front seat. Hyperbole is a poor form of communication but sometimes it helps to get the message across.

What ever happened to Competence Based Training?

G.

[griffothefog]

should there be a pre course evaluation test?
I don't know, but I will be a TRI by the months end with only a 30 year old expired FAA CFI certificate...
I do have however 12,000 hours of pitfall experience to fall back on/pass on to my students... Is this enough?
I feel I have a lot to give back to aviation, but am still unsure that I am suitably qualified, especially after a tick the box AW course.

[Geoffersincornwall]

That's pretty much up to you Griff but the depth and breadth of your experience gives you a mile or two start on those that have arrived with a lot less. You have almost certainly been on the receiving end of both good and bad instructors so chances are you know what works and what doesn't and combined with the fact that your length of time in the industry will give you a basic understanding of the human psyche you will face the challenge in good shape.

Best of luck, enjoy.

Geoffers

[NZHeliks]

I've spent over 2 years talking to schools, pilots, technicians, Engineers before deciding on the best place to give myself the best chance of a step up into the industry and found this:

Many schools have under 500 hour instructions which were all C cat (FI I think?) which to me were still students themselves. I was told a CPL H is just a licence to learn, how can a pilot with little hours tech experience they don't have?

Schools had no "work experience" to tech you, just a syllabus that was inline with CAA. I feel there's a lot more than just learning to fly and getting a plastic card with your name on it. From a background of engineering, SOP, risk management systems and a like, I feel the learning how a aviation business runs, it's safety practices and procedures is key to being a pilot.

I've been lucky to find a commercial helicopter business that runs up to 4 students with 2 very high hour (3000 to 8000) B Cat (CFI ??) instructors who encourage us to be part of the business and help out were we can, meet other pilots / engineers that fly in from other companies and generally take in as much exposure to the industry as we can.

In an answer to the thread I feel there should be a higher minimum hour limit to gain a C cat, better and ongoing training to keep that C cat and extra training in real world aviation like the engineering side were your with an experienced person for a good number of hours to understand and practice safe flying.

Should CFI training be like an apprenticeship that's reviewed and tested in a constant time bracket?

Like others have said, you will never improve the industry unless you start with good basic training at the start, for that training to be pasted to the next generation of pilots when it's there time to pass on there skills.

[fly911]

If you are planning to go on to advanced ratings in the U.S. (or not), it may be in your best interest to seek out a Gold Seal Flight Instructor.

[Pittsextra]

Perhaps the most important aspect of military aviation is that they do not, as a rule, pay for an expensive and extensive training course so you can wear it on your CV as a 'trophy'. You do the course because you are destined to spend the next one or two (or more) years working as a Flight Instructor. Teaching day in day out for that period gives you the skills to be able to properly understand the teaching and learning process whereas a dicky little 'box-ticking' number will at best only equip you to repeat your PPL experience to those wannabes with enough money to throw at the task.

I cannot see for the life of me why this transparent problem is so difficult for the authorities to understand. If the industry wants pilots there should be no structural subsidy in the form of weak and ineffective regulations but instead the industry must put their hands in their pockets and run proper 'cadet' schemes that have proved successful in the past. Only when operating companies have to pay are they then concerned about the value they get for their money.

These two things are not different and commercially for helicopters could never be different and actually I don't understand the catch all language.

Firstly why is there a trophy to any of this? This has rapidly gone down a path that suggests that anything funded privately is junk and only motivated by ego. Not only that but that anyone engaged in military aviation is only motivated by the job without any thought to his future commercial worth... On both counts that is utter nonsense.

The problem to much of this boxing ticking is rooted in the way from day 1 hours are logged and pretty much everything is based upon that metric. PPL (H), x hours, CPL pre-requisites x more hours, and so it goes all the way to turbine time, instrument time, etc.

The whole thing by its very nature a box ticking exercise.

Moving on from that how is this to work differently from today? Or rather it could but how would it be realistic??

industry must put their hands in their pockets and run proper 'cadet' schemes that have proved successful in the past. Only when operating companies have to pay are they then concerned about the value they get for their money

To "run" a scheme would need everyone to universally accept that the current system is defective and what metric will that be judged? Then even were there to be a metric which aligned with that view (which I don't believe there is) the capital investment would be huge. Beyond which how does it cater for the smaller companies with an AOC's? Does PDG need an entire in house training organisation?

No? You say all the training could be undertaken from one central training centre?? PDG would just fund their own cadet?? Oh ok..... So what about if Mr Deep pockets is self funding his own course? Then suddenly that course is in someway junk??

Although given the margins seem so thin that, for example, at one end of the scale an organisation as large as CHC is on the brink because of a Petrobas contract wobble because of a helicopter tech issue and the price of crude to local organisations who continually go pop having won a pipeline contract on a bunch of assumptions and leave nothing on the table... Anyone remember how well the National Grid contract treats helicopter companies? Sterling helicopters what happened to them??

[Geoffersincornwall]

Please don't turn language designed to generate some passion turn into paranoia. Many colleagues took the route via self funding and are doing a damn good job. The problem is not the general concept of self funding but the functionality of it. ANY system that interacts with humans and that can be abused WILL BE abused, sometimes deliberately and sometimes because the pathway is not robust enough to ensure a uniformly high standard.

Just because the 'little guys' can't cope it doesn't mean that we have to accept that a lower standard is OK otherwise they won't survive. I don't believe that to be the case. There will always be pilots willing to work for less but that does not mean that they have to be trained by a system that is staffed by low timers. We are shooting ourselves in the foot and telling ourselves it's OK because......

When are we going to realise that by tolerating the current system we are creating a spiral of decline. Our industry has forever been cyclical and those that feed on the crumbs at the bottom of the market don't deserve hand-outs. If the customer can't afford the rate for the job then maybe a helicopter is not the tool for the job.

Imagine having this argument about the training of surgeons. If we don't have enough respect for our own industry then maybe we deserve to be treated like truck drivers or cattlemen but that's not what I see when pilots display amazing skill and knowledge in a complex modern helicopter. I spent a lot of years in the single engine charter world and I know how tough it is but we do ourselves no favours by exposing poorly trained (but potentially good pilot material) to the risks and difficulties they will encounter when they have been trained by a system that does not stand up to close examination. When I tell non aviators how it is at the moment they are dumbfounded that we could be so dumb.

By all means let's not throw the baby (self-funders) out with the bathwater but for heavens sake give them a chance to deliver a decent standard and give them an instructor corps worthy of the title.

G.

[Pittsextra]

Hi Geoff - its not paranoia, I'm just picking up on a theme running in this thread.

What I struggle to connect is self-funding and the structure of any training syllabus, its examination, the pass rate and re-validation.

You seem to be saying that the quality of helicopter instructor is poor because they are private pilots, self-funded and wannabe CPL's. Yet still with no metric for the measurement of this quality beyond the anecdotal.

Our industry has forever been cyclical and those that feed on the crumbs at the bottom of the market don't deserve hand-outs. If the customer can't afford the rate for the job then maybe a helicopter is not the tool for the job.


They don't get hand-outs nor ask for them BUT there is a huge range that covers a single turbine helicopter driven by a CPL....

Imagine having this argument about the training of surgeons. If we don't have enough respect for our own industry then maybe we deserve to be treated like truck drivers or cattlemen but that's not what I see when pilots display amazing skill and knowledge in a complex modern helicopter.

This is a fair point but actually isn't this the real issue and different from the initial point? Ultimately its real knowledge of systems that become the challenge and yet who is the owner of that element of training?

I spent a lot of years in the single engine charter world and I know how tough it is but we do ourselves no favours by exposing poorly trained (but potentially good pilot material) to the risks and difficulties they will encounter when they have been trained by a system that does not stand up to close examination. When I tell non aviators how it is at the moment they are dumbfounded that we could be so dumb.

But what is the evidence for these poorly trained pilots? OR the benchmark for the poor training syllabus? Are instructors or examiners feeding back that our PPL / CPL isn't fit for purpose?? Its a genuine question - i don't know.

[[email protected]]

You seem to be saying that the quality of helicopter instructor is poor because they are private pilots, self-funded and wannabe CPL's. Yet still with no metric for the measurement of this quality beyond the anecdotal. Pitts, you can't ignore the anecdotal or the blindingly obvious - if you wanted to learn a complex and challenging new skill, would you choose the guy who has only just learned to do it himself or the guy who has plenty of experience?

I know it is unfair to generalise as some pilots do have natural abaility, both at flying and instructing but they are very few and far between.

If they are honest, how many of those who earned their hours as a low time FI really thought they knew what they were doing or considered that is was the blind led by the partially sighted?

[Pittsextra]

Hello Crab -

When you ask "you can't ignore the anecdotal or blindingly obvious". Its an entirely different thing to ask "which would you prefer" to then extend it to suggest the industry is dominated by low time, ego driven wannabee instructor pilots and a system that doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Also consider the fact that your question can not be taken in isolation of the commercial reality of both training market and the pilot himself who may do the training.

How many ex-mil helicopter pilots will become available to GA training organisations? Most are either looking to gain other type ratings to become commercially enhanced on leaving, privately contracted SAR service, Oil and Gas overseas (loan service may have helped form contacts if you got it) or some other tax free work in the middle east . I'd guess any with a passion for instruction would seek to work at Shawbury first?

How many ex-RAF or soon to be ex SAR captains do you think will be actively seeking to work freelance for £30-40 per hour teaching effects of controls, climbing and descending etc...?? I'll sell that to you at zero.

Maybe the low time FI's have struggled, maybe its for reasons beyond the flying element - how about simply interacting with strange people and the pressure of articulating the course? Isn't there always going to be a beginners nerves element to all of these things? But I don't see this reflected in accident rates and actually you could argue that the very worse sausage factory for helicopter GA is also the most successful - so the customers either haven't noticed or don't seem to care.

The point is you can argue for change but the reasons need to be clearer IMO and what do you change to?

[[email protected]]

Fair points LFZ but how much post-graduate training is available for those newbie instructors?

I don't want to keep on about the mil system but a new FI would have to fly with a much more experienced FI every month for 6 -9 months whilst he amassed around 100 hours instruction.

Then he would undergo an upgrade assessment with a senior examiner. Thereafter he would be checked 6 monthly by his immediate boss and then annually by the senior examiners.

What processes are put in place to ensure safe and structured progression of FIs in the civilian world?

If all you know is what you learn on your FI course and then you have to make do without any further guidance, you could easily be making the same mistakes with students over and over again, teaching them incorrect techniques so a high- time FI could be no better than a low-time one, he would just have more hours.

[Pittsextra]

I don't want to keep on about the mil system but a new FI would have to fly with a much more experienced FI every month for 6 -9 months whilst he amassed around 100 hours instruction.

Then he would undergo an upgrade assessment with a senior examiner. Thereafter he would be checked 6 monthly by his immediate boss and then annually by the senior examiners.

Agree that would be a great thing and hard to find a reason why anyone would object to that in industry.

[[email protected]]

The point is you can argue for change but the reasons need to be clearer IMO and what do you change to? I don't know the answer to that question but if someone in Geoffers' position is seeing poor quality pilots in commercial aviation there must be something wrong.

Perhaps the reason the GA accident rate isn't higher is because they keep within their limited capabilities and it is only the arrogant or very unlucky ones who end up in a smoking wreck.

As someone who has been instructing continuously since 1989 I find it very disappointing that there isn't some better-mandated structure for FIs (at least if it was mandated then someone would have to put their hand in their pocket to pay for it). I have enjoyed mentoring junior instructors over the years - it is very rewarding - but unless there is a requirement for it, it just won't happen.

A tricky topic. that is for sure!

[Norman Deplume]

I agree with Crab.

Also, the first thing that has to change is this idea that to get from AFI to FI you have to supervise x amount of solos. That means nothing, absolutely nothing.

That just encourages people to send students on a solo flight regardless of whether or not they should fly a solo exercise.

Why don't they require an AFI to teach every exercise in the syllabus, then have a retraining session to iron out all of their questions (they will have many) and then have a retest to become an unrestricted FI?

Somebody please tell me.....

Also, the above aside, someones enthusiasm is more important than knowledge. If you know lots but can't pass it on, then you are a not a good instructor. You firstly have to care about your students, but also have the ability to pass on the info, and know why you are passing on the info. Not just go through a syllabus blindly because that is what it says. It's like Chinese whispers

Lack of standardisation is rife. CAA examiners/Instructors can't agree, so how the **** are the men on the ground supposed to know what is the right way.

Ask 2 different instructors/examiners and you will get at least 3 different answers as to what is right and why.

I just had an FI test in a foreign country and was told by an airforce QHI that my downwind check was wrong. I used FREDAH. his check was FREDAH but in a different order........

I could go on but it would get me rumbled ;)

I have to go know, there is a knock at the door

[Geoffersincornwall]

....... that I have focussed my comments in a global context. I am guessing that the current conversation relates to those areas of aviation that can be considered 'mature' but we can still recognise the dysfunctional nature of the 'systems' for the selection, training and mentoring of the FI community within them. What hope then for the less 'mature' regions of our world?

When you look at the global context you cannot use accident stats or incident reports as a realistic metric for in many cases the accident reporting and investigation procedures in many jurisdictions are not aligned with international norms. I have found that no region of the world has a monopoly on the ability to produce good quality aviators (the raw material for FI training programmes) and similarly those areas we would expect to be above the average are quite capable of turning out pilots that you wouldn't want to allow anywhere near a close friend or relative.

I have recently seen a map of the world which depicted in shades of orange the degree to which their governments were considered to be 'open'. It seemed to coincide quite well with the Transparency International's map of world corruption as well as my qualitative ratings of the many helicopter pilot licensing/training systems out there.

As a final point I have come across excellent pilots from every part of the world so my observations should not be taken as xenophobic, nationalistic, sexist or racist...... that just how it is.

G.

[Norman Deplume]

xenophobic, nationalistic, sexist or racist

Erm....who said you were being any of the above???:confused: All you said previously was good up until then.

Can you answer my question please?

[Geoffersincornwall]

Regrettably there always seems to be at least one ppruner somewhere eager to see the worst in any post so I was merely trying to head them off at the pass. When discussing which part of the world delivers the best pilots it is, as you can imagine, a potential mine field. The answer - as I have made clear I hope - is that no one region has a monopoly on either excellence or otherwise.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic :-)

G.

[Norman Deplume]

No offence meant mate.

All good comments so far. I was just was questioning you bringing up .....erm whatever it was. no probs. Just a comms breakdown. This is tinernet, not 2 guys talking int pub. Meanings and intentions can easily get lost on electric typewriters, I mean computers :). No offence meant.


No offence, and please keep up your thoughts, I am definitely interested in what you have to say.

Edited to add that I also agree with you.

[Pittsextra]

good we all agree but if we talking UK what evidence are we basing this poor quality low time ego fuelled instructor upon?

[Geoffersincornwall]

good we all agree but if we talking UK what evidence are we basing this poor quality low time ego fuelled instructor upon?

We are not talking UK. Of the 350 or so unfortunates to have suffered at my hands only 10% were from UK so my assertions relate to the global pilot population.

G.

[Pittsextra]

Arh ok - but of the biggest region that you are talking about what is the evidence?

Sorry to push but clearly the first steps to any solution is to quantify what the problem is?

[Geoffersincornwall]

Arh ok - but of the biggest region that you are talking about what is the evidence?

Sorry to push but clearly the first steps to any solution is to quantify what the problem is?

Difficult to know where to start. When a student asks you one week after the tech ground course why it's not possible to fly the helicopter with no hydraulics...... when the student crashes after a double AP fail downwind in the circuit - VMC daytime ..... when the students are hoary old hands but don't have the faintest idea why they need to calculate the aircraft mass prior to take off ... when a brief period descending through cloud from VMC on top to VMC below results in inverted flight ..... when despite having two AP's in ATT mode they find it impossible to establish a stable hover .... or fly a profile correctly twice in succession ...... or land and take off on sloping ground using the correct technique ..... or calculate the CG ..... or even understand why they need to know the CG.

I have had pilots with that sort of shortcoming from every corner of the globe but generally speaking the more mature areas are less likely to exhibit these problems. As I said earlier there is a remarkable correlation between the business corruption index found on the Transparency International website http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results and the apparent quality of pilot training. The more the perception of corruption in business the worse the pilot training would appear to be. We are left to ponder that remarkable fact. Please also reflect on the fact that I have trained some excellent pilots from those less mature places too so it can be done.

G

[pilot and apprentice]

Geoffers, I have to agree with your assessment. As a check and training pilot in both the VFR and IFR worlds and crossing a few continents I have also witnessed, to my dismay, the disparity of skills and knowledge you are talking about. I personally believe that in addition to competency based training there needs to be a move toward competency based employment but that is a topic for another discussion.

I have to say that the instructional world you are describing is very much what Helilog56 tried to describe earlier: what we have had in Canada. There are some attempts lately to dumb it down by both industry and individuals but the essence of the system remains: 4 tiers of instructional licencing, required mentoring/supervision, legislated recency and recheck, and (importantly) a minimum experience level for receipt of the rating.

This system isn't perfect but it very closely mirrors the military system that Crab has described. Because of an accident that put a serious hiccup in my career many years ago, I have passed through both certification processes. The biggest difference was the quality of the instructional courses: the military was far superior to any civil instructional course I have received since.

The key ingredient to this system is an entry barrier of 400 hours PIC to obtaining an instructional rating. As all of you cry out in dismay remember that a very large helicopter industry does very well relying on this system. Yes, training in Canada costs more. There are fewer places to train. They also pay better because they compete with commercial operators for staff. Better pay means it is more attractive for experienced pilots to consider instructing in their off season whether that be weekends, winter, or the back side of an equal rotation. There are also very skilled pilots whose career is flight instruction. The higher pay means it is a viable way to feed the kids.

Commercial operators then are forced to get low time pilots from a licence to employability without relying on the feeder system that other nations use and these guys and gals must prove their work ethic to get through the process.

Flaws and abuses in the system? Of course. As has been said here, any system will be abused by the individuals who have that proclivity. Do weak pilots carry on? Yes, but not nearly at the rate I have seen elsewhere.


Back to the original question of how to choose TRI/TRE candidates. I believe that it should be the Chief Pilots and existing Trainers who identify the line pilots with good skills and knowledge. These are then encouraged to learn more instructional skills by steady progression through LTC, TRI, SFI, TRE, etc. The individual who just really wants the extra pay and is beating down the door is just as likely to be the wrong candidate. Yes, seen that many times. Pay close attention to the one who has the respect of his colleagues but does not covet the 'title' of Training Pilot.

[paco]

Or when you get asked if the radio altimeter works on QFE or QNH?

I have had students who have never done a C of G - how they got their PPL I will never know.

Phil

[[email protected]]

Geoffers, P&A and Paco - those faults would be worrying from a basic student but from a commercially rated pilot they are horrifying. I think I'll stick to military instruction, at least the quality is reasonably high in most cases and shortcomings are readily and easily addressed.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Geoffers, P&A and Paco - those faults would be worrying from a basic student but from a commercially rated pilot they are horrifying. I think I'll stick to military instruction, at least the quality is reasonably high in most cases and shortcomings are readily and easily addressed.

There is a fundamental truth about the quality of any function and that is that you cannot understand what 'good' is until you have experienced it. For many out there the like of a CFS QHI course would be something so far removed from their personal experience that they have difficulty believing that you are serious when discussing the finer points of being a professional aviator.

I long for the joy of toiling in the ordered and predictable world of the military instructor. To be back in an environment where the instructor's skills are closely matched to the needs of a 'standardised' student (selection, aptitude, medical, pipeline etc.). Instead I struggle with an assortment of (mostly) self selected guys and gals who are where they are for so many different reasons I could write (another?) novel about their adventures and not bore you one iota. The notion that a TR course (for example) is provided with candidates that meet the ATO's entry standards is one of life's cruel jokes. This despite a real effort by the ATO to get that part of the equation right. Somehow it seems that one IR'd, twin rated and current professional can be a million miles away from another with identical credentials. One is a breeze and the other your worst nightmare.

Heaven forbid that his ICAO level 4 was bought for a carton of ciggies and then life gets really interesting. Worse still - yes it can be worse - your candidate may require an interpreter !! There isn't enough time to go through the pain and anguish teaching with an interpreter causes. Most of the difficulties are down to a shortage of teaching time as this remains the same as a normal course. An interpreter unfamiliar with aviation terminology may add to your woes.

All of this points to the need to ensure that the FI's of tomorrow are (a) carefully chosen, & (b) well prepared. As the crucial element in the whole training process the FI/TRI/SFI holds the key to success. The regulators need to understand that this role is not to be used as a convenient lever to ease well meaning folk into the world of work but a critical function in the creation of a capable and professional aviators. It deserves a lot more respect than it currently receives and in my opinion we cannot, should not, continue with the existing progression that focusses on the FI as a mere 'step' from the low time world of the 'newbee' to the sharp end of rotary employment.

G

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Personally I'm a big believer in having plenty of hours. While some low hours people are extremely capable, and some high time people are awful (both as pilots and instructors), in general I feel that hours gives the instructor:

1. Confidence in operating the aircraft in a variety of locations/weather conditions as well as being better placed when the aircraft malfunctions
2. Direct experience of dealing with various personality types/learning styles (ideally this would allow the instructor to create a learning environment which suits each student...not always the case, I accept!)
3. Credibility.

Although there is no set minimum, even the lowest-houred CFS students will have very nearly 1000 hours before they start the QHI course. How practical is this for the civ world? Not at all, I'm sure!

[Geoffersincornwall]

[QUOTE=
Although there is no set minimum, even the lowest-houred CFS students will have very nearly 1000 hours before they start the QHI course. How practical is this for the civ world? Not at all, I'm sure![/QUOTE]

Why not? 1000 hours of working in many markets would equate to two or three years of experience. If I was looking for a surgeon to train other surgeons I would hope he would have more than that for sure. Let's get away from the notion that what is good for the would-be FI is good for the training system. Surely it should be the other way around? What delivers good quality instructors should be good for the would-be member of that community.

There is an old saying in aviation that you 'cannot teach 'experience' ' - but surely, in order to teach you need experience.

G.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why not?


Only for the reasons already mentioned about the cost to an individual of getting all those hours, and the also valid point that the people with lots of hours expect higher wages than many flying schools seem to offer.


surely, in order to teach you need experience


Couldn't agree more.

[pilot and apprentice]

:
Why not?
Only for the reasons already mentioned about the cost to an individual of getting all those hours, and the also valid point that the people with lots of hours expect higher wages than many flying schools seem to offer.

Actually, that is the why. Buying the time is no longer an option so hours need to be worked. The system (industry) will find a way if it must.

And yes, wages go up to attract the experience needed.
===========
My personal take on the question of "is experience needed" is this:

A newly licenced FI can certainly repeat the lessons he was taught, the manoeuvres as written and what is in the textbook, which will suffice to pass an exam. He will not have the intangibles that TourqueOfTheDevil spoke about. Those intangibles make a difference. They are what will keep the newly licenced student from having an accident in those first hours of work.

Also, I know that as I entered the instructional role I gained great insight from talking to the older/more experienced A1/A2's (military) and working part-time instructors (civil). Their advice and mentorship allowed me to do my job more effectively and efficiently (so better value for the customer/student's money) by helping me learn the tricks of the trade. It is a trade in itself.

Again, back to the OP. The progression in the large ME-IFR operation should start with Line Training Captain before progression to TRI, etc. Learn to walk before running....

[Geoffersincornwall]

But surely that's my point. Someone has done a good job on a soft-hearted regulator and convinced them that it's in the industry's interests to have access to pilots who have achieved the (min for serious players) magic 500 hours courtesy of allowing them to teach newbies. Of course nobody thought to say "but that means we have the blind leading the blind". They got that bit all wrong.

I know you will come back and say "but how do we grow youngsters from 150 hours to that magic figure?" Well I have to say that the helicopter industry has to be one of the most innovative industries in the world and if we cannot find a solution then we have no hope. Of course no operator will volunteer to pay the bill for the necessary training required to create an affordable co-pilot when someone else can be persuaded to pick up the bill. (as I have said earlier nobody I explain the current system to - where newly qualified pilots are allowed to qualify as instructors and then teach the next generation - can believe we can be that crazy).

If I was a cartoonist I would draw a picture of the operator as a tailor fitting the regulator with a new suit that is two sizes too big. They are standing in front of the mirror with the operator saying "there you are sir, a perfect fit", while holding a fistful of material in the small of his 'customer's' back. When the regulator looks in the mirror it looks like a good deal. A view from the front show a lapel badge with the word 'SUCKER' on it.

G