Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Flight Instructor Selection

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Flight Instructor Selection

Old 13th Apr 2015, 09:43
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
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??
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 13:15
  #42 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PITTS

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.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 14:56
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 16:08
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 611 Likes on 267 Posts
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?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 18:06
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
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?
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 18:06
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 611 Likes on 267 Posts
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.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 18:12
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
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.
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2015, 21:08
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 611 Likes on 267 Posts
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!
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 00:10
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snoop

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
Norman Deplume is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 04:43
  #50 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't forget .........

....... 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.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 22:48
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
xenophobic, nationalistic, sexist or racist

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

Can you answer my question please?
Norman Deplume is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2015, 10:20
  #52 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Norman

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.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2015, 18:35
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Norman Deplume is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 09:16
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
good we all agree but if we talking UK what evidence are we basing this poor quality low time ego fuelled instructor upon?
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 09:27
  #55 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pitts

Originally Posted by Pittsextra
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.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 09:44
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
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?
Pittsextra is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 14:47
  #57 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 15:55
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
pilot and apprentice is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 17:21
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 71
Posts: 4,133
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
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
paco is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2015, 19:19
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 611 Likes on 267 Posts
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.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.