RAeS Conference on the selection and training of Flight Instructors

[Geoffersincornwall]

I'll be speaking at this RAeS conference next month. It will have a token rotary wing element so our contribution has to be a good one if we are to be noticed. Anybody got any strong feelings about these issues please stick them down on this thread.

This is the link to the conference details:

Are we facing a Pilot Instructor shortfall?* (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ac38a64bdf1972cb7f00d5c98&id=70c2da43b0&e=d544e66ff9)

G

[Non-PC Plod]

I don't feel we have a shortfall in the sense that it is very easy to recruit a pilot and make him an instructor. That in no sense suggests that he will be a GOOD instructor.
The main problem that I see is a complete lack of standardisation and oversight of elements such as the Teaching & Learning modules of instructor courses, and the Assessment of Competence itself. As I am sure you are aware, depending on where you experience an A of C, it could be anything across the spectrum from serious grilling to a walk in the park. Likewise we have the complete spectrum of instructor abilities out there, from very good to not at all good. Unless EASA can apply a common standard of oversight and assessment, we will always find the lowest common denominator.

I'll be speaking at this RAeS conference next month. It will have a token rotary wing element so our contribution has to be a good one if we are to be noticed. Anybody got any strong feelings about these issues please stick them down on this thread.

This is the link to the conference details:

Are we facing a Pilot Instructor shortfall?* (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ac38a64bdf1972cb7f00d5c98&id=70c2da43b0&e=d544e66ff9)

G

[ahwalk01]

I wouldn't mind attending but price seems to be a determining factor.

It is an important topic and one which may benefit from a clear career pathway or airline pipeline approach as we see stateside, or even a mentoring scheme.

On a personal note, the sooner the FAA-EASA bilateral is fixed the better, there aren't many N-reg only CFI guys like me but it doesn't encourage one at all.

I'd love to get more involved here if the opportunity arose.

Alex.

[Geoffersincornwall]

One of the issues we need to explore is the extent to which self-selection leads to a smaller 'gene-pool' of those with what it takes to be an effective commercial instructor teaching complex aircraft to a population of students (often self selected) with less than the ideal level of skills required.

If the 'gene-pool' is full of pilots who are at best mediocre then finding the right material will require a very positive approach by those doing the instructor recruiting. Unfortunately that's not what we see happening. I have first hand (but anecdotal) reports of instructors being appointed because:

1. They are friends with the CP, Ops Director or Chief Instructor.
2. They are compliant with management's views on how to minimise training costs.
3. They have a CFI rating (despite having never actually been employed in a teaching post).
4. They are the right colour, race, creed or religion.
5. They are the only one able to speak ICAO Level 4 English or the only one available to do the TRI course.

Remember I am talking about the global pilot population here so don't get on your high horse if you think I am being defamatory about YOUR world. There are many other fish in the sea out there and our industry is becoming increasingly globalised.

In the airline world instructor selection is very structured but it seems it is anything but in the helicopter world.

G.

[[email protected]]

One more to add to your list from my anecdotal evidence:

6. They have been in the company for longer than others who have got instructional qualifications and skills.

Perhaps at some stage, having a military A2 qualification might be worth something????

[Geoffersincornwall]

In the worldwide currency of aviation the value of an A2 is, I'm afraid lost on the majority. As an A2 holder myself I have yet to come across anyone in the sim training world that even knows what it means.

To even understand the value you would need to have the skills and understanding of the instructor fraternity - something rarely found amongst the management figures that run our world.

Whether it be operator or regulator, have a look around you, how many of those decision makers can count a significant spell at the very sharp end of delivering the training. Whether it be ab initio or type training, the complexities of the job need to be properly understood. I don't believe they are but I sense a mood for change. Maybe this conference can be a catalyst?

G.

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - let's hope so. There are a great many ex-mil A2s out there in commercial aviation who are unused in their areas of expertise.

[Pittsextra]

Can you articulate the additional qualities that come from being an A2 instructor, how that translates in the practical environment and what the resistances/barriers have existed for the introduction of the same to date.

[Geoffersincornwall]

The numerical representation of the mil instructor in the general pilot population is regrettably diminishing. Given our industry is (was?) expanding then we have to look at who is replacing these highly trained and experienced teachers?

The answer is that the bulk of training is now being conducted by TRI's. These are often (but not always) quality people who have been given a 5 day classroom course on teaching and learning and, hey presto, emerge as the definitive member of the instructor population in the commercial world. They are given a spell in the cockpit to get their ducks in a row and then what.......

......they get in the queue to do their IOS (how to work a simulator) course before joining the rapidly expanding band of SFI's. These 'unfortunates' will be shoved into the instructor's seat with little (or no!) preparation for the job of teaching from a seat behind the crew, without a set of controls and with only his or her voice to do the teaching. A completely different skill-set compared with the aircraft TRI yet no mandatory SFI course required to deliver those skills.

I echo NonPC-Plod in a plea for rigour. ATO's are working hard to deliver compliance but we are immersed in a tick-box culture reliant on good intend and honest endeavour at a time when the rewards awaiting the successful aviator are worth every penny of risk associated with lies, deceit, bribery and corruption.

It is no coincidence that the Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index Map https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results is a pretty accurate reflection of the integrity of the world's pilot training and licensing systems. Look carefully - it's not funny.

G.

[Geoffersincornwall]

In my day (1970's) the mil instructor system worked like this:

1. 3 month course of integrated ground and flight training with approx 70 flight hours of training under the watchful eye of a Central Flying School Tutor. 50% of the flying was with the tutor and 50% with a colleague delivering/receiving the lesson of the day. You graduate as a B2 category - a probationer.
2. At your training unit you would be standardised on the aircraft you would be instructing on and expected to be re-examined after 6 months and recategorised 'B1'. With that cat you can authorise your own flights within certain defined limits and were essentially then a 'jobbing' instructor.
3. If recommended you could sit an assessment for A2 category which was an all day process of interview (essentially a verbal examination of your technical and related aviation knowledge) including a sortie brief that will include one or maybe two exercises from the normal pilot training course. There is then a flight test which may include some exercises 'off the cuff' to test your knowledge of other exercises.
4. The highest accolade is for the A1 Cat and I have no experience of this process but I believe the only people eligible to award this cat are CFS Tutors.

Maybe CRAB can expand/ modify/update what I have said.

The key thing about the A2 is his experience and general knowledge about teaching aviators. His contribution has been proven to be beyond the theoretical and deeply into the practical.

G.

[[email protected]]

Nothing much has changed geoffers - I did my A2 in 1991 and the same process is in force now.

Pitts - a working category for a military QHI/QFI is B1 - that means you are a solid average instructor who can conduct the whole syllabus in your unit. During the work-up from B2 to B1 you would fly regularly with an A2 instructor (or higher) to assess your progress and refine your instructional technique.

As geoffers said, you have to be recognised as instructing at a higher level and then recommended to attempt an A2 upgrade - it is viewed with a level of trepidation by candidates as it does put your flying ability, instructional ability and aviation knowledge under a microscope and you have to be graded above average across the board.

The purpose of the A2 is to recognise and reward good instructional ability and to create a structure by which senior flying and supervising positions can be filled with a measure of confidence because the candidates have passed a difficult professional assessment. Sadly, no extra pay goes along with it.

A1 recognises exceptional instructional ability and aviation knowledge - there are a few (one of my colleagues recently upgraded) but most A2s have had enough of being checked and examined and not as many go for A1 as might be expected.

The system of checking and mentoring has a proven track record of success and the structured syllabus gives both candidate and examiner the ability to prepare for and assess the test.

Will we see anything like this in commercial aviation? Only in big organisations with their own training setup I suspect.

[Geoffersincornwall]

The problem with up-skilling the instructor workforce is that employers are wary of creating a requirement for skill levels that are expensive to deliver and make the instructors concerned a valuable, highly prized and therefore potentially highly priced commodity. Nevertheless it is essential that we try to achieve exactly that - a corps of highly skilled and experienced trainers.

There is an inbuilt, maybe sub-conscious, desire to have floods of quick-and-easy-to-train TRI's that can be found on every street corner and are cheap to hire.

As Non-PC Plod said, finding someone - anyone! - to fill the billet is not hard but finding the right kind of 'someone' sure is.

G

[Pittsextra]

Being practical in the private world if you adopted the same gradings structure I think those that worked hard to gain a higher grade would find more demand for their service and as a result effectively be paid more?

If we talk helicopter instructors - given very many become FI's as part of gaining hours enroute to an entirely different flying career- I'd think any differentiater would be happily adopted.

Besides career on a personal development side I think most pilots (privately if not publicly) are mindful of the experience and standards that come from the military and as a result would enjoy the opportunity to have their flying challenged.

What I think is weak currently is the obsession with flying hours as a quantity with no thought to their quality.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Geoffrey's and Crab. I think it is easy to convince yourselves that the CFS system produces a "proper" instructor. However, the general level of experience for a military candidate is significantly lower than the average offshore TRI candidate.

My story. I had over 10k in my logbook when I put my hand up to play. Military, police, HEMS, charter and offshore experience with a proper wedge of flight time on 5 multi engine types.

I first did a core course. 3 weeks of ground school. Followed by LTC Training being mentored and the checked for the qualification. 6 months of LTC consolidation followed bt TRI Technical course, CRM Facilitators course and Tec Refresher on my current type. Then almost 3 months of mentored TRI Training followed by the CAA check ride for TRI. 6moths of TRI Consolidation followed by the 2 week TRE Stadardisation course with about 20 hours in the sim. 5 test observation, 5 tests under supervision followed by the CAA TRE AoC.

A process that took over 1 full year. And note this was not a course to allow me to teach newbies how to fly. Just Type Ratings and Licence Tests.

My Company at the time placed huge value on the length of time we were mentored and supervised and in my opinion I received a very high quality of prep and training.

I never did the QHI course so I cannot compare but given the quality of the QHIs I have experienced and their relative inexperience when they do the QHI course, it is commendable just how good that course must be as all QHIs I have experienced have been top notch.

DB

[Non-PC Plod]

DB,

Your company clearly has a very similar outlook on the rigorous training regime required to get a competent instructor that the military do. Unfortunately, elsewhere, you can churn out a TRI in less than a month.

[Geoffersincornwall]

We have to be cautious about a tendency to be UK-centric - or even Euro-centric in our observations.

If you review that map on the Transparency International site you will get an idea of scale of the problem. Increased globalisation means that you could be working for a company in any of those countries in a darker shade of red.

You could also be working alongside folk that originate from those countries in a completely different region. Although you will find excellent pilots from every corner of the globe those countries with weak and leaky licensing systems will encourage the 'wannabe' self improver (who really needs more extensive training) to lie and cheat his or her way into the industry.

I've sampled the kind of chicanery that goes on first hand and have the scars to prove it so if you are naive enough to think that Europe is immune from such things then think again. What goes on elsewhere would make you very disappointed indeed.

As to comparisons with military pilots it is worthwhile to contemplate that an offshore pilot may well have 5.000 or even 10,000 times the same 'hour' compared with the many different missions a mil pilot may have under his or her belt. I don't want to compare apples with oranges but instead look at the depth of training on offer to the two candidates. I am sure that the civil world will view the scale of a QHI course to be unaffordable but we should also be prepared to stand up and shout that the current approach is simply not good enough. A better compromise has to be found.


G.

[Pittsextra]

We have to be cautious about a tendency to be UK-centric - or even Euro-centric in our observations.

If you review that map on the Transparency International site you will get an idea of scale of the problem. Increased globalisation means that you could be working for a company in any of those countries in a darker shade of red.

You could also be working alongside folk that originate from those countries in a completely different region. Although you will find excellent pilots from every corner of the globe those countries with weak and leaky licensing systems will encourage the 'wannabe' self improver (who really needs more extensive training) to lie and cheat his or her way into the industry.

I've sampled the kind of chicanery that goes on first hand and have the scars to prove it so if you are naive enough to think that Europe is immune from such things then think again. What goes on elsewhere would make you very disappointed indeed.

So you seem to be saying that these territories not only have a domestic issue but that the poor quality, in fact fraud? is being exported? Without check or balance?

we should also be prepared to stand up and shout that the current approach is simply not good enough.

And what happened when you stood up and shouted at the relevant authority?

[Geoffersincornwall]

Next time you are walking through town and come across a nice-looking brick wall then go and stand so that your toes are just touching it. Now engage it in conversation and you will be amused at the lack of dialogue. This is what you get when you try yelling at any arm of government. And in a way it is as it should be. You win by force of argument and with evidence. There will be an opportunity for both at the conference next month.

Wherever systems rely on honesty and integrity in order to function then there will be opportunities for fraud. We should not be surprised, the rewards can be great indeed - a license, a rating - a career!!

Not that the risks are great either, the two flight instructors that I worked with in recent years were both sacked by their previous employers for falsifying their qualifications/logs but are still gainfully employed, as instructors, with other reputable companies. He who cheats wins it seems.

Of course situations like the German Wings incident and the Glasgow dustcart incident will throw a spotlight on the problem but I doubt that we will seek greater oversight of ANY of our systems that rely on the 'applicant' telling the whole truth. We will simply wait until after the accident then throw the book at the wrongdoers - assuming they are still around.

We need to focus on replacing the checking of 'qualifications' with the checking of 'competence'. If you say you can do it then show me - I'll believe it when I see it.

Then we get on to the question of how we do that and then we will need to get into another discussion.

G

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Geoffers I am slightly bemused by your last post. An Instructor is already subject to regular AoC and LPC. Also if your are about to employ a guy surely you will assess his competence at tha juncture.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I have no doubt that the two instructors I have referred to could pass a competency check but would you really want somebody in your team that one day might be the subject of some difficult questions about 'integrity' - or is that a dirty word these days?

Clearly there is more to those stories and I would be happy to oblige in a PM should you feel the need.

Maybe you are also using your experience in UK as a reference - UK is not perfect but look again at the Transparency International Map and try to imagine what it's like in countries where licenses and rating can - one way or another - be bought.

My guess is that it's a lot more difficult for a 'fraudster' to hide in the military and with the diminishing influence of the military content in our industry then the propensity for fraud will grow methinks.

G.

[[email protected]]

And it's nothing new - a chap from an African nation (famed for telephone and letter scams) turned up at CFSH in the 80s with a claimed 2000 hours and declared by his military to be an experienced pilot ready for QHI training. It turned out what hours he had (and they weren't 2000) were all straight line flying up and down a road from A to B and back, day VMC only.