Originally Posted by
A320LGW
..........Unable to hold an altitude, not knowing how to use a VOR, not knowing how to intercept a radial, setting heading on course and vice versa, not knowing how to hold (forget how to join one), unable to fly towards intercepting a localiser and certainly unable to fly a stable ILS approach.
So one cannot simply say modular = good and integrated = bad, I am sure both systems have produced good and bad people..........
........ Natural, raw ability is born in the person, it is not and cannot be taught by any training programme.......
A320LGW is making some interesting and valid points.
Unless the ATOs Standards Departments ensure that new FIs are competent before being released to instruct, there are going to be issues. They set the ‘standard’ and also act as the QUALITY DEPARTMENT.
Carrying out a Progress Test can be very revealing as to the way the students are taught, and the quality of instruction.
Having multiple instructors in any phase of training is not recommended. Continuity is very important especially for the weaker brethren.
The fundamental skill which must be taught early in the training is accurate TRIMMING for the various visual attitudes and becomes a critical skill to fly a stabilised ILS approach.
The best way to teach students in the applied IF phase is to practice the route/approaches in the simulator the day before flying it the following day. The more routes and airports used during training the better.
A far greater awareness and airmanship develops.
Simply flying routes A & B prior to IR test does not develop the necessary skills, and results in the comments made by A320.
There is also high degree of correlation between learning curve demonstrated in IR training phase for CPL/IR issue and that seen during the MCC/JOC/APS course.
The experienced IR instructor will predict with a high degree of certainty whether the student is the “right stuff”.