CRAB you asked me a Question. I answered it. That's why I posted.
I am not really sure you realise what the "I" in "TRI" stands for. It means "Instructor". I am also SFI, SFE and TRE. The CAA tells me I am "Qualified" to hold these ratings and authorisations.
Now I know there is a difference between FI and TRI in their privileges. However the core elements, especially Part-01, teaching and learning, are the same. Instructing MPIFR on a heavy helicopter I would suspect is every bit as challenging as Instruction a student on an R22. However having not done both I will give the FI the benifit of the doubt!
So I am not sure what your idea of a "proper" Instructor is but as always CRAB you only play to your own strengths. SAR, FI, MILITARY blah blah blah.
In so far as your intimation that I am somehow a less capable Instructor because I follow the rules and try to remain within the guidelines laid down by the Authority who issues my Licence and TRE/TRE authorisations this simply does not make any sense at all.
I believe again you are confusing "Training Style and Techniques" with the "Conduct of Training".
As for the "Pelican" logo I really like that analogy. However if the Instructor is giving everything he has to progress the student.....and you believe that.....why do you argue against the principle of Flight Briefings prior to flying critical exercises in the actual Helicopter.
why do you believe that those of us who ALSO follow your Pelican analogy don't qualify in your eyes. Is it a CFS Hero thing or simply because you were a CRAB, which of course in my eyes, being a Pongo, automatically means you are pompous and use a lot of brill-cream.
I agree with all you say about instructing techniques, not frightening the student but stretching his consort zone. I get all that. However, this discussion started as follows:
An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.
YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.
Can you please explain WHY you believe the actions of the Instructor were OK.?
I would really appreciate an answer that sticks to the facts not some rambling post telling us how great you are, which, by the way, I am sure is true!
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 25th Jan 2017 at 08:15.