UK Pilot Falling Standards

[HALF A PILOT]

As a responsible helicopter instructor in the UK, I together with a number of my fellow instructors are very aware of the falling standards of many ( not all) pilots. The following refers mainly to private pilots , but some commercial as well.
We feel responsible and do on many occassions offer our services to pilots to brush up on many of even the basic of items. OK , If you run a flying club you can impose a club rule to be checked out every 30 days etc.
However I am refering mainly to the owner business man that owns his own helicopter, who often, is too busy, too proud, or just may think that you are just after some more of his precious money and point blank does not want to pay.
In the last year, just to mention a few, I have encountered, one guy out of check for a year and three months, one guy regularly flying IMC (YES, IN A SINGLE HELI AND ALSO OUT OF CHECK) , one guy had not done an auto rotation for 15 months, one guy regularly DRINKS (and I don't mean one drink!) and flies his helicopter on a regular basis. I have just been approached by a guy to do his first turbine conversion, he thought he had "100" hours, but now he has found his log book he hasn't filled it in for 9 months , it seems more like 70 hrs. This particular chap has been taught by a PROMINENT UK company in a popular machine, he doesn't know what VNE is, doesn't know the gross weight of the aircraft he has done his 70 hrs in, never heard of FREDA checks and has not even heard of weight and balance calculations!!!!!
I welcome your experiences or suggestions,, I want to sleep at night!!!

[Dantruck]

I'm not yet an instructor, but I know what you mean.

From memory, among the changes JAR brought to annual pilot licence renewals was the requirement to receive two hours instructor training per type per year, to include a Licence Proficiency Check (LPC) check-ride with an examiner. Previously in the UK a pilot only had to show evidence of 12-hours minimum in the previous 12months in his logbook.

It is my understanding that this change was, in part, designed to pull in those private owners who previously never had to revisit an instructor or examiner, and never do an auto, etc, as you describe. It sounds from what you are saying that this attempt is failing.

That's doubly unfortunate as all the self-fly-hire type such as myself, who could never get near a helicopter without passing an instructor on the apron before JAR, got hit with the increased fees and extra hassle, and are now made to re-test on both R22 and R44 as if they were different types entirely. Net result: those of us on a budget get no more instructional refreshers than before, and get to go flying less often because our money is eaten up in examiner fees.

I hope someone at CAA/JAA is listening, because SFH'ers are the majority in the UK, and now they get less experience.

[HALF A PILOT]

To stay current prior to JAR it was actually 5 hrs in 13 months and then be signed off by an instructor, no check flight or ride was required.

[Whirlygig]

Dantruck

I thought that the new minimum under JAR was 2 hours per type per annum, one of which must be an Licence Proficiency Check with an examiner; I don't think that both of the two hours have to be instructional.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[Dantruck]

HALF A PILOT

I stand corrected. Sorry, it was five, you're right. I trawled up the figure 12 from my own personal minimum list. Well, it was early in the morning and the vino hasn't worn-off from last night.

...and Whirlygig

You may well be right. I have heard so many versions of the 'correct' interpretation of the rules I'm not sure it is possible to truly know the definitive answer. Every school/instructor has a tendency to lean toward whatever lines their pocket that little bit more, I guess. Can't blame 'em really, I suppose.

I personally don't object to any 'extra' training. Afterall I never learned to fly to save money. I'd rather be as safe as I can afford.

[Hilico]

My third lesson, R22. Instructor says "I've already done the pre-flight, but you do the 3-2-1 before we go." So I check oil levels in engine, MRGB, TRGB, then both the belts and the TR itself. Get back to the cockpit. Instructor: "Very good. X got his licence last Tuesday and still can't remember that."

It's not as if they don't know about it...

[Up & Away]

"because our money is eaten up in examiner fees"

Go to an Examiner that will do more than just take your money.

I charge by the day/halfday so will give extra briefs /extra flying instruction as required before the actual 'test'. Just shop around

[Whirlybird]

Dantruck,

Get a copy of LASORS for around 10 quid, and don't let schools pull the wool over your eyes with respect to LPCs etc.

Half a Pilot,

I'm a very new instructor, but...

Difficult to know who to blame. PPLs (and others) forget things they've been taught. They may also learn the same things in different ways; my first instructor was American trained, and didn't teach FREDA checks, but he taught the same checks in a different way, ie, I still did them. OTOH, I found out later that certain things HAD been missed out in my early training. ...and it's hard to find out what you haven't been taught that you should have. So often it depends on the individual instructor. and if a student changes instrutor part way through the course, there may be student notes, but will they say whether or not he/she has done...the 'A' check, emergency procedures, weight and balance, after take-off checks, to mention but a few? I think not. And the hapless student can't ask about something he doesn't know exists!

[Crashondeck]

I doubt that this is a problem peculiar to rotary pilots - I'm sure it happens with fixed wing too.

Many PPL(H) holders I've come across (I'm talking those who do not wish to persue a career in aviation) are well off and generally have managed to achieve this through taking risks in business. Helicopters to them are either a tool for getting for A to B or a means of leisure - they are not beyond taking a few risks/short cuts in either their business life or their time off. This inevitably results in a lowering of standards.

But they are not wholy to blame.

Ultimately a flying instructor has to teach the following:
1. Fly the aircraft
2. Pass the exams
3. Navigate and Communicate
4. Airmanship

The last one is the one that has no syllabus, but is just as important as the other 3. Airmanship is not so much learnt, rather etched into the student as an attitude. It comes from the experience and attitude of the instructor, based on the instructor's own training, experience AND attitude.

So who is to blame?

Sometimes the pilots themselves, who regardless of training will always fly the way they want to.
Sometimes the instructor for not instilling airmanship in their students.
Sometimes the chief pilot/chief instructor for not monitoring the quality of their instructors.
Sometimes the examiners for letting all of the above to get away with poor quality.

Doesn't matter how much experience (PPL, CPL or ATPL) you have, the moment a helicopter is strapped to your back, you cease to be anything other than a helicopter pilot - a professional helicopter pilot.

[Flying Lawyer]

I think the currency requirements are reasonable and sensible.
The old system mentioned above was a pointless exercise which did little or nothing to enhance flight safety. There was no flight test, and the person countersigning the logbook didn't necessarily know whether the times recorded were accurate or even whether the flights were flown.
The system worked reasonably well only because the vast majority of PPLs hire aircraft and schools imposed stricter requirements than the law. The current requirements apply equally to all PPLs.
Flying is potentially hazardous, and helicopter flying less forgiving than fixed-wing. I think don't think it's unreasonable that we should have to demonstrate our proficiency periodically.

'examiners fees'
If all an examiner does for his fee is give a check ride then it's time to find someone else. If an examiner signed me off without pointing out any errors, or suggesting any improvements in technique, then I'd regard that flight as a waste of time and money. Fortunately, it's never happened. I don't believe any PPL can be so good that he/she can't benefit from a flight with a professional.
I use Al Gwilt for Gazelle checkrides, and either HeliAir or Biggin Hill Helicopters for the Jetranger, and always learn something from the flights.

[DBChopper]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was worried. I know of one elderly owner/PPL whose check A one day, after the machine had not flown for about a month, took him less than two minutes. It was completed while holding a conversation with me - in fact I walked off in the end in case it was me distracting him but that was it - check complete! It would have been as much use to have looked it over from the car window, for it's lack of thoroughness. Sadly, I suspect his attitude would not change now no matter how much instructional brow-beating he was subjected to...

I guess it's down to the individual. I have been lucky to have been taught and checked-out by some highly skilled, responsible and safety-conscious pilots, but, in any case, I have a safety-conscious attitude myself so I take that sort of thing on board. When I watch the checks and flying antics of some (and I stress only some ) of my fellow pilots, it makes me cringe... :ugh:

[Helinut]

I used to be a TRE in the PPL field prior to JAR FCL coming in. In the UK system it was possible for a PPL post-licence issue never to EVER fly with an instructor ever again. As others mention, this "privilege" was in practice only available to owner-drivers.

I experienced a number of PPL owner-drivers whose flying capability was woefully out of practice. They could "pole along" OK, but emergency procedures were so distant to them that many would have been of little use if a real emergency had occurred.

The obvious example was autorotations. In any light single, the response to an engine failure needs to be prompt. If the lever does not go down, anything subsequent is hypothetical and pointless, of course!

For me, the LPC was one of the few positive benefits of JAR FCL - it has mostly been a catalogue of disasters, increased costs and admin to no good purpose.

Of course, the ones to be worried about were those who could not be persuaded to do continuation training at all!

Most of the TREs/examiners I know are fairly thorough. If you come across one who, at the least, does not do a thorough post-flight bebrief then complain. I think they will be rare though, because it is a great pleasure to do that sort of work!

I used to worry most about student's attitudes. With a suitable amount of practice, most students could learn to "make the moves". It would not always be pretty, but it would work. But people's attitudes were much more difficult. It is easy for an instructor to have a bad effect on a student's attitude (poor example etc.) but so so difficult to change a person's attitude for the good.

The successful, pushy businessman type used to forcing his way to a successful conclusion in business deals was my nightmare. I was always worried about him pushing on into bad weather beyond his capability.

Incidentally, I recently renewed my fixed wing licence which had elapsed about 5 years ago. I could not believe how straightforward (by comparison) the equivalent emergencies were in a plank, and how much time there was to sort out an engine failure.

[ali250]

As a current TRE I can only say that the CAA have made a change for the better. A working Commercial Pilot will have a base check twice and one line check a year. Private Pilots fly the same aircraft with passengers over our heads every day; the only differences between the two are financial. I think it was unreasonable that they did not need checking until recently!

All any pilot needs to keep current are two hours on each type and an LPC, the LPC can be included within the two hours. It’s a shame that some pilots think it’s a ploy to line the instructors pockets. If you have to use an instructor then use him/her, make them work, do things that you can’t do on your own! Engine Off landings come to mind. Think of it as a work out, tone yourself up and have some fun.

To give you one example I had one particular private owner sat in my office waiting his turn for his first LPC after ten years of being unchecked. He had sweaty palms and a feeling of extreme nervousness. Funny really because he’s a dentist by trade. Anyway, once he was settled into the flight and he realised I wasn’t going to bite his head off he actually enjoyed the practice emergencies. In fact we spent a lot of time doing engine offs. Remember he hasn’t done this for over ten years. Now he looks forward to it.

Pilots who are out of currency are uninsured when they fly. So any flying school will pick that one up, I hope? If they are a private owner then I can see why the system can break down. Ignorance is really no excuse and there are always those who buck any system. Perhaps the insurance company could ask for a checklist? Make sure their medical and LPC is current? After all they are the one’s underwriting the risk.

I’m sorry for making a long comment but I do feel strongly about the subject of standards, and I feel the introduction of the LPC can only help improve the situation. However, the quality of instructors is a whole new subject, Half A Pilot. Perhaps that issue should be dealt with on it’s own?

[Helinut]

I suspect that helicopters attract some people who do PPLs with interests and goals rather different from most other aviators. They treat flying more as an extension of driving, and a helicopter like a car. This, of course, isn't really adequate in flying which needs a more thorough and professional approach and attitude.

[Hoverman]

A lot of the problem starts with unprofessional instructors who're too lazy to teach properly.

How many FI's go out every time with the stude and go through the pre-flight? The stages used to be 'You go out and do the checks and I'll be out in a minute' progressing to 'Start it up and I'll come out' as the stude progressed. Is it any different now? I doubt it.

And how often does a FI do a W&B with a student?
Once? Twice? And a PPL's expected to remember how to do it when nobody checks him except in the ground exams.

[Camp Freddie]

Hoverman,

as a former instructor I will defend them a bit.

pre flight:
I would always go through the whole check A, item by item the first time from the list with the student with me showing them, the next time, I would get them to show me, and the next time send them out on their own and get them to write down any items they werent sure about and I would show them those items again, the idea to make them use to working on their own and developing confidence with good background knowledge.

start up:
I would sit with them time after time doing the startup, after maybe 10-15 hours they would be doing them perfectly, so I would send them on their own as a confidence building measure and would come out initially straight after start and ultimately just before takeoff

w&b:
many times we would check together we were within mauw, but only a few times do a C of G, the idea to get them to think for themselves about when to do it.

the time pressures on instructors are ridiculous, what other profession has so much work to do for so much time for which they are recieving no payment apart from the flight time.
when flying schools pay people properly they would notice the difference I think.

If the instructor has ethics it will be passed on, but ultimately it is the lazy self fly hirers who turn up with max passengers put full fuel in it, dont look at the weather, dont remember the limits, and think check flights are an annoying interruption to their day that should take some responsibilty for themselves.

the 40 something business man who is a bit arrogant makes the worst type of self fly hirer in my opinion, they need you while they are getting their licence, but try to treat you like one of their employees when they have passed, they think that because they can fly themselves from hither to thither that this exempts them from LPC's etc which thankfully is the 1 chance we have to bring these people to reality. !

[HALF A PILOT]

Hoverman

I think your being a bit unfair making that statement. I am getting the feeling you are implying the insructors who don't hold a commercial licence are unprofessional. I know several instructors that hold a PPL H with lots of hours and years of experience, some with 4,5 or even 8000 hrs under their belt and 20 types on their licence. If your trying to blame instructors, I would respectfully suggest, that through no fault of their own, the new JAR instructors that have only qualified in the last 2 years or so with quite often only just 300 hours CANNOT, however good their intention, possibly be as proficient as a chap with x 000's of hours. When I had 300 hours I was still learning, I still am.

[Bronx]

when flying schools pay people properly they would notice the difference I think.
What d'ya call properly?? :eek:

Going by what I read on Prune, British FI's teaching PPLH get £25-30 an hour. They're probably the best paid in the world. American FI's don't get paid near that.

[Whirlybird]

HALF A PILOT,

Nowhere in his post does Hoverman distinguish between instructors with CPLs and those without. Neither, as far as I can see, is he talking about teaching ability. Of course a new instructor with 330 hours (300 plus the 30 required on the FI course) will not be as proficent as the instructor with thousands of hours. But that's not the point. Hoverman was talking about pre-flight checks, start-ups etc. It really doesn't take thousands of hours to learn to teach those. You simply need to want to do it.

When I was doing my PPL(H), my first instructor laughed when I couldn't reach the rotors from the step on the R22, and said not to worry; someone else could always do that bit for me. I won't be patronised; I got a ladder and demanded that he show me what to check. I had to more or less beg for a second lesson on the "A" check. Had I been less conscientious, a lot of stuff would have been missed - and some things were anyway. I think I was perceived as a nice middle-aged woman who might possibly get a PPL and fly occasionally, but not to be taken too seriously. Instructors shouldn't make assumptions or short-change their students. But I assure you, some do!!!!

[ali250]

I think the point is being missed here! Student’s become the product of their school.

I agree whole-heartedly the lazier the instructor etc. etc. However, the school has a lot to do with making sure standards are kept up, for example progress checks and instructor meetings. Half a Pilot states that new pilots cannot be as good as more experienced pilots. I beg to differ there, the standards I’ve seen from new instructors has been very high, they are consciences and tend not to forget things. After all it is not just about doing fabulous engine offs especially if the student can’t do a lookout turn before departing into the circuit!

Camp Freddie you seem to forget, the school only gets paid by the hour from the customer! The school doesn’t get paid for the briefing rooms or the hangarage or the rates or the heating bill or the tea bill or the advertising bill etc. etc. it all has to come out of the hourly rate charged for the machine. Surely the same applies to the instructors that they give the whole lesson, which includes briefing, and in most cases more importantly, the debriefing and instructor notes! I think this is known as professionalism.

[Winnie]

OK, I'm an instructor but I seem to have missed something, what is the FREDA checks, can somebody elaborate?

Thanx in advance:D

[headsethair]

See "Minis banned in Robinsons". Says it all :O

[Robbo Jock]

Winnie,

If you mean the departure/en-route/approach/downwind checks that we're taught over here, they are:

F - Fuel: Still on? Still got some? Any leaks? Still got _enough_?
R - Radio: Still on? Right Frequency? Need to make a call? Transponder transponding and is it the right number?
E - Engine: Still running? (:D ) T's and P's in the green?
D - DI/Direction: DI (if you've got one) aligned with Compass (hopefully, you've got one of them)? Flying parallel with duty runway (in the circuit)? Going in the right direction (on a navex)?
A - Altitude: Altimeter set? Still reasonably clear of the green/brown/wet bits? At circuit height/cruise altitude/cleared altitude/MSA?

If you mean is FREDA the buxom blonde miniskirted lass that needs checking out, that headsethair could be referring to, I don't know, I've never met her. :D

[md 600 driver]

camp fredy
the time pressures on instructors are ridiculous, what other profession has so much work to do for so much time for which they are recieving no payment apart from the flight time.
when flying schools pay people properly they would notice the difference I think.

thats not the same at all flying schools i paid for ground school by the hour [also paid for g/school for fixed wing different school]

also to ali250

please dont blame the students for the way instrucors are paid they pay the rates that the school they enrolled in charge
how this is made up is up to them not the student
steve

[Whirlybird]

Oh come on, pay's not that bad. F/w instructors' pay is, but not rotary (in the UK anyway). OK, suppose instead of £40/hr (approx) for flying, instructors were paid £20/hr for both flying and briefing/teaching checks, would that sound OK? And for every flying hour, I don't think there's more than an hour of other stuff, is there?

If you average, say, three hours per day flying (and three hours of briefings etc), 5 days a week, that's nearly £29,000 a year, allowing for a 48 week working year. Not brilliant, but not awful either.

[Crashondeck]

Sounds like I missed out somewhere - when I was instructing a never made anything like that - £20k was more like it. Are instructors really getting 700+ hours a year?

[ali250]

md 600 driver

Ground school for exams or ground school for the air exercise? What I’m talking about and I think Camp Freddie is also talking about is the briefing for the flying lesson. Ground school for exams is chargeable and the instructors do get paid for that, well they do down ‘ere!

You also think instructors are under enormous pressure. Can you explain that?

[Camp Freddie]

Bronx,

being paid properly means pay that is reasonable given the hours of attendance, I do not call £20k a year for about 60 hours a week being there reasonable !

ali250,

I am fully aware of how the school gets its money, just because there are many instructors working so hard for so little return doesnt make it right.

also dont lecture me on professionalism, i spent hundreds of hours doing unpaid ground school with students to give them all the tools to be a good pilot, I suspect I am at least as professional as you !

md 600 driver,

if your school doesnt pay like that great, I have not personally experienced it though, a retainer was the best I ever managed before I got a "proper" job, being proper is no reflection on the instructor I mean to attack the companys that use /employ them


I will not accept that poor pay for hard work is a good idea for anyone.

[Bronx]

Camp F

If you're paid by the hour, you're paid by the hour - period.

If you're self-employed and you don't have enough customers to make your annual income a good figure then putting your price per hour up don't see to be a very good way to get more customers. :confused:

Ain't price just a product of demand and supply?

[The Nr Fairy]

Does this accident report (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_025538.hcsp) illustrate the point ?

[MD900 Explorer]

At the end of the day, the responsibility of letting a pilot self fly hire at an establishment comes down to the establishment. :confused:

I know some flying schools that will not let you self fly hire a 206 unless you have 20hrs on type, or you get a safety pilot with you. Another school i know where if you arn't current on the type in the preceeding 90 days (i.e 5 circuits) you need rechecking.

Should'nt it be down to the flying schools to self police this issue of, who is safe enough to fly one of their helicopters.

I mean, have a set of criteria that have to met before the hiring pilot is allowed to self fly. e.g like having intensive emergency procedures instruction for the type. Autorotations to the ground, or at the very least to 10ft. ( on that note i understand that there are only certain instructors who are authorised to do a full auto to the ground?)

Would'nt this then safe guard the institution hiring out the helicopter and the pilot. Yes there is obviously a financial issue here, but flying never was cheap, so why compromise on safety for the sake of an hour or so, doing revisional training with an instructor.

As for the guys who own their own, it comes down to their own self judgement, but then most of the people who own their own have low hours and fall into the categories of "unconsciously incompetant, Consciously competant etc" and that can be a dangerous time. Between 400-1000 hours, must be a nightmare for the pilots who know it all, as that is when most accidents happen. (HASEL checks must be a hassel right?)

The whole idea of self regulation is a great one, but where does the buck stop. I think it also comes down to self-pride. (Have i filled in my log book correctly. Do i do a full DI on the helicopter before i fly? Do i know emergency procedures for the type of helicopter flown? When was the last time that i looked through my books that i used for my PPL/CPL exams, etc? :confused:

Back to the instructor issue, should instructors have more than 330 under their belt before they can instruct. It is obvious to see that an instructor that has say only 400 hours won't be able to emphasise to the student what an instructor of say 5000 hours will be able to, in the way of safety, drills, good airmanship...etc :hmm:


MD 900 Explorer :confused:

[cyclic flare]

One of my students has just passed his ppl skills test.

Prior to his test we did several hours on EOL's, quick stops etc.

He is a very good operator of the machine (R22).

On the day of the test we did an hours revision prior to his test then off he went with the examiner

The examiner is an extremely experienced pilot, 35 years flying, ex Mil etc etc but in my opinion a poor operator of the R22.

My student passed with flying colours, great but following my discussion with the student afterwards on how did the auto's go, PFL's etc. They did'nt do any. They also did no Quick stops, sloping ground, vortex in fact no type of emergency at all.

They just went for a fly round for an hour and now he got his licence. I am completely happy with the standard of the student and will have no problem recommending him fom SFH.

This is not just a one off i know other examiners who are equally as useless.

Falling standards is not all down to the students / PPL's

[DBChopper]

...which must beg the very simple question - how and why is this person still working as an examiner? Surely there must be a minumum standard laid out in JAR that a student must prove to an examiner that he/she has attained? In this case it is clear that Cyclic Flare has insisted on a thorough and competent standard in his student, but doesn't a student also deserve the chance to prove themselves at the culmination of a course?

My GFT (pre-JAR licence, but only just) contained, if memory serves, at least one of every type of emergency I had practised during the course and questions on some others. EOLs, PFLs, VRS recovery, sloping ground, engine failure in the hover, steep turns were all covered. I can't say I flew at my absolute best under test conditions, but I got out of the helicopter at the end feeling I'd been made to prove my worth.

I know it seems to go against the grain to rat on one's colleagues, but if this examiner is himself performing so poorly, then others must have noticed it too - surely someone must be in a position to stand up to him and tell him enough's enough?

Or am I missing the point?
:confused:

[Helinut]

DBChopper,

Yes, what should be in a GFT is prescribed fairly rigidly in JAR FCL, and then repeated on the form that the examiner has to complete. I cannot see any justification for this approach by an examiner, but which student/pilot being tested is going to report him, if they are passed by the "examiner"?