New Bloke, I almost agree with what you say. If I was doing a check ride with somebody I would make every attempt to sit down and shut up…and merely draw peoples attention to points of a operational nature but guess what? If that’s what you do then you’re probably doing the wrong thing.
I sit down some of the time and cringe at the sight at what some pilots get up to and in the past (long ago) I always thought that it wasn’t my position to re-teach or critique the way in how they flew. I thought that I was there to assess whether they flew to an above minimum standard. “If I would sent my Granny up for a circuit with these Kamikaze pilots then they are fit to fly”. I no longer think that’s the case…
Apart from the legal liability or “Duty of Care” that an instructor accepts when he does any type of training or check flight, I think he/she has a moral responsibility to teach and instruct when and where required.
First, a pilot should always be familiar with the Pilot’s Operating Handbook and the Company’s Part B (or equivalent) applicable to the aircraft flown – familiarity with these documents eliminates any confusion most of the time. It says where and when carby heat should be used, where and when flap is to be retracted and where and when anything else is to be done. If the manual is properly prepared then it is very easy to rationalise the way your pilots fly. Standardisation is the easiest way of maintaining an assurance of quality. It doesn’t matter if your student has 70 hours or 3000 hours – everybody should be expected to fly exactly the same way. What you are saying is that you shouldn’t bring points of concern to the pilot under check because since they’ve lasted this long they’ll be okay in the future!
One thing I am really fussy with is “grey areas” or “periods of indecision”. I like providing pilots with either a black or white answer to almost everything. Most private pilots aren’t capable of making a sensible operational decision so your company’s policy should make the decision for them. An example of this is the TKOF in a twin engine aircraft. Every man and his dog have a different method and application of Vr, TOSS, V2, Vyse, Vxse. I have only ever flown with a few pilots who understand the application of the airspeeds and then flown accordingly. If I am doing an endorsement I make it my duty to re-teach them the TKOF procedure…I make them fully aware of it and if they aren’t happy with it they can find somebody else to fly with. I think this is amusing – Instructors will teach airspeed and performance configurations for Traumahawks but as the aircraft gets bigger it seems the amount of care and precision gets less.
Of topic….back to the point (sorry).
Maybe I have an “airline” type attitude in reference to the type of quality assurance and standard of training but I think that safety depends on it. The most “affordable safety” is a good attitude and healthy understanding of how things MUST be done. This is Free but it worth a fortune.
What you’re saying is that “she’ll be right mate”. Very slack indeed. If you are not going to pick a student up on his or her errors you are placing a lot of faith in the “other” instructor. Who is to say he knew what he was doing? Who’s to say he was even any good? Isn’t the student being ripped off if you don’t mention what you think can be improved on. Maybe we should change our name from “Instructor” to “Sitthereandshutuptor”.
Until guys like you start to evaluate the industries standards GA will continue to go downhill…