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