GAPAN Senior Instructor forum - Cranwell

[G-KEST]

Just a note to say how much I personally enjoyed the GAPAN/CFS event on 9 March at Cranwell. It was good to meet so many old friends from the instructor/examiner fraternity and to exchange ideas for the future.
There was a fair bit in the presentations on improving the professional aspect of instructing with useful items on the duty of care and insurance matters. An RAF CFS staff instructor gave a most interesting talk on the development of a tool for the objective assessment of airmanship that certainly has applications in the civil field. The idea of a single UK "Central Flying Instructor School" was mooted along with the proposal that it be funded by a training levy on the airlines - I really do think this to be "pie in the sky" and if adopted would escalate the already astronomic cost of the JAR-FCL instructor rating system totally out of sight. Several speakers from the floor bemoaned the present situation and harked back to the days before the BCPL when the majority of instructors had PPL's and, within the club or group environment, could be remunerated. One from the northeast of England expressed concern at flying training being squeezed out of his local airport with the increase in flights by low cost carriers and the airport operators wish to maximise income from airline traffic charges.
Hopefully this will be an event that is repeated in future. Congratulations to GAPAN, Central Flying School and especially to Dorothy Pooley for arranging this initial effort.
Trapper 69

[BEagle]

"Several speakers from the floor bemoaned the present situation and harked back to the days before the BCPL when the majority of instructors had PPL's and, within the club or group environment, could be remunerated."

Err, no they certainly didn't. They might have said that the current requirement to take the CPL exams is hardly relevant to flight instruction, but I don't recall a single speaker suggesting that a return to remuneration of PPL-holding FIs was needed. Neither did anyone oppose the clearly stated view that "There's no point in harking back to days gone by"

Surprised that you didn't raise the issue of your recent papers in such a gathering of senior FIs.....

[EL SID]

I would also like to express that I too enjoyed the seminar and though I was well put together, well thought-out especially Dorothy Pooley’s proposals. David Duckworth’s talk on customer care highlighted something that seems to be sorely lacking in our industry. The presentation on airmanship by Squadron Leader Malcolm Hunt on the RAF’s identification where and how airmanship plays a part in training and the ongoing addressing of safety issues in accident prevention and loss management was intriguing to say the least, perhaps this is an issue we in civil aviation could look at it our training procedures.
On the contentious issue of a central instructor training school, I think it needs to be put into the context of the proposal of a dedicated Instructor license. Then if one looks at perhaps an integrated/modular course of 200 hours that one would have to do to get a CPL then it makes a lot of sense. Put an IR in the 200-hour pot it would end up cheaper than the way we are doing the moment where the 30-hour course is an add-on the existing 200 hours (which an integrated student still has make up the shortfall before they can do the course in any case). I think with little effort and some imagination that a syllabus could be drawn up which still gives the candidate 100 hours pic, but the balance one can used for the IR, the 30-hour instructor course, and aerobatics. So at the student comes out at the end with all the normal restrictions such as night, aerobatic, IR already lifted as part of the license with the exception of the 25 supervised solos and 200 hours of instruction still remaining to remove the FI(R), so one can consider that if the student does not have to do a MCC course and all the other bits relevant to airline flying then it should be cheaper than doing the CPL/IR then the instructor course as we are doing at the moment, so the financial prospect of setting up a central flying school may be less pie-in-the-sky than it appears. If the idea of a central flying school bothers the industry, then perhaps one should look a revamped course for FIC instructors to be able to teach the new license, and this would be conducted though approved schools, or indeed a central instructor school, add to this the suggestion that Instructor test should be booked via the CAA as is the case for the CPL test then the whole proposal makes a lot of sense and falls into context.
So if one takes the exam subjects for the IR and adds to it the technical subjects relevant to instruction, i.e. Principals of Flight Engines and Airframes etc then it is still quite close to the CPL exams. Additional subjects would be teaching and learning and other issues relevant to Instruction such as psychology and airmanship along with student and business management and customer care in some form being essential subjects. I think pre-entry section via psychometric tests and interview would be essential to select the right personality profile for a prospective instructor.
Something I would like to see sooner rather than later would be the Instructor holding the approval rather than the registered facility, this way the instructor would call the shots not, the too often the fairly unscrupulous, school owner. If one takes what happens in the USA, FBO’s rent out aircraft and provide facilities for instructors but the instructor is paid by the student and the FBO operator gets his cut from the aircraft rental for training and afterwards the PPL rentals from the former students.
If one considers the proposal to have an independent Instructor organisation, then this body could have a web site with all the member profiles on it so a student could find an Instructor of their choice in their neighbourhood, much in the same way one can find an AME from the CAA web site. This body could advertise in the popular aviation press and attend aviation events and promote the member’s services as well as recreational flying. This would enable the instructor to be less dependent on slaving for a Flight School owner as they would be bring the business to the school rather than the other way around and thus improve the financial lot of the independent instructor.

El cielo es azul, es tan el mar - tiempo al aviate!

[G-KEST]

Hello BEagle,
Selective hearing is always a problem.
The forum was a great start to an enhanced presence of GAPAN in the world of instruction today and in the future.
I enjoyed it immensely though the discussions I had in the breaks with many certainly gave encouragement to my views expressed in the papers written for the PFA which do have support from the two other areas of the NPPL represented by the BGA and the BMAA.
To be slightly facetious perhaps like all the types produced by your pseudonym company they were overengineered, too costly to produce and eventually bankrupted the organisation.
Change is long overdue and the proposals for the NPPL(SSEA) might well have a revitalising effect on general aviation in the UK. This to the benefit of all including FTO's and instructors but especially the vast number of folk who cannot afford the present costs associated with the JAR-PPL or the present instructor rating.
Trapper 69

[BEagle]

I note that you accept your hearing during the meeting was indeed selective....

No-one I spoke to agreed with your ideas. Most were vehemently against and instead supported the excellent initiative of Dorothy to raise instructional quality.

I shall refrain from commenting further as it is only fair that your papers are given impartial consideration. I have ensured that both the GAPAN and AOPA Instructor Committees will have had the opportunity to review them before the next NPPL Policy and Steering Committee meeting; perhaps we will be in a position to debate them at that stage.

[DFC]

Why set up a central instructor trainig establishment whem qualified instructors can come in from abroad and operate without reference to such an establishment or when potential instructors can complete courses in a number of other States and gain a JAA FI(R) rating?

Has anyone worked out the posibility of having the JARs amended to require such an establishment?

Regards,

DFC

[Stampe]

Well said DFC we,re in Europe now just a small part of a much bigger game.Don,t know why GAPAN has to try to find a role for itself, most of its members are retired or at the end of their careers(RAPAN would be more appropriate) a great luncheon club I believe!!.The authorities should listen only to organisations such as AOPA,Balpa,and the PFA who represent those owning and operating aircraft and organisations in todays difficult commercial enviroment.Their membership is also visible and open to all appropriately qualified.Enjoy your retirements guys it doesn,t last for ever!!

[BEagle]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, Stampe, but I think you'll find that GAPAN does considerably more 'behind the scenes' work than you realise. All of which is voluntary and not from a standpoint of those with vested commercial interests.

If you wish to learn more, see www.gapan.org .

It is far more than a 'great luncheon club'.......

[walkingthewalk]

Here we go again :{

[homeguard]

I believe the GAPAN forum was a genuine and a welcome first which sought to reach the much wider community of Instructors than it had previously. Thank you GAPAN, I am going to join.

An enormous amount of work had been undertaken by the speakers to present their arguments, with the aid of Powerpoint (as usual sometimes didn't work at all or was unreadable in part owing to poor definition and choice of colour), while just as unforgivable the presentors insisted on standing in almost no light other than the incidental odd rays from the podium text strip light. David Cockburn being the trooper that he is by now - many years of touring the country giving his safety lectures - was not to be defeated and nimbly moved to centre stage into the light of the otherwise ineffective projector and stayed there. Good move!

But what of the arguements. The Career Instructor - what is one of those? The title of 'Professional Flying Instructor' I do understand. I will always wish to leave it up to the individual as to whether instructing is to be a career or not! A 'Central Flying Instructor School' - put total control of the training of the professionals into the hands of a small click working within a 'Central Flying Instructor School' would be a disaster. Even if the candidate did have GCSE's ('O'' levels for the staff) and the Odd 'A' Level, so what. Such snobbery is not acceptable in the modern world! So inward an idea that participants to such a ghastly form would soon drown in the own vomit. I was glad to hear the discontent from some on the floor at the suggestion that the PPL standards have fallen, really! Fallen from what some others asked. One attendee suggested that if standards had fallen at all then that was to be measured against the much higher instructing standards, currently being achieved, than ever was before. I agree. Malcom Hunts humility towards the task was applaudable and far more realistic.

Thank you once more Dorothy and others for all your hard work and hospitality and I look forward to the next time. One comment though - please much more time to listen to contributors from the floor and less of the lectures. Might hear some new, fresh and good ideas, after all we were described as the countries "Senior Instructors" and should have something to say. Well, we did at length over tea!

[BlueLine]

A seperate instructor's licence is an interesting concept!

As one can only give instruction for the licence one holds (JAR-FCL 1.310), such instructors could presumably only train other instructors; a sort of perpetual motion?

[juggernaut]

The instructors conference at Cranwell was well worth attending. Dorothy and Malcolm had obviously put a lot of time and effort into organising the event. I did however consider some of her ideas utopian - A minimum education requirement for instructors and a selection interview to weed out unsuitable candidates? A centralised instructors training establishment to ensure standardisation? Cranwell itself sprang to mind. Teacher training instead of CPL? Possibly a good idea. The problem at the moment in my view is the present system which requires 'CPL knowledge' this ensures that prospective instructors are well along the CPL route and most hold a frozen ATPL when enrolling on an FIC course. a typical candidate being ex Oxford and unemployed. This instuctor will probably hold the rating for less than 3 years and his/her prime mover is the hour building aspect en-route to an airline job. We need to see a change in the training for sure but my view is that I would not like to see the above items implemented. I also found the insurance aspects alarming. If you are self employed the chances are you are not insured and a student can sue you and remove any of your assets. I was also surprised that some instructors were against the licenced airfield requirement being withdrawn, surely this would be a good thing and reduce the cost of training. In the 3 axis microlighting world it is not a requirement, why should it be applied just to us?

[Stampe]

Sadly standards will remain at rock bottom as long as people attempt to make a living from light aviation.In this country volumes are insufficient to sustain a viable industry.I,ve been instructing for 25 years including a spell as an FIC instructor. Many years ago I realised attempts to recover my costs were not worth the hassle and nowadays for my company flying club (£60 per hour all in on an immaculate warrior) and people I like I instruct /examine for nothing.Its part of my aviation hobby and a way of putting back just part of the joy that flying little aeroplanes gives me.We need to look to to the gliding world and club flying in France to see a way forward,the club enviroment holds the answer.Beagle I have many friends /colleagues in Gapan and see your minutes every month indeed your debate tends to mirror that of the organisation I work with .What I can,t understand is why GAPAN tries to make itself a controlling body ??it tried to take over instructor examining a few years ago now it seems to want to control all Instructor training.The feeling is that Gapan is easily highjacked by a few individuals pushing their own commercially motivated plans to stimulate otherwise lacklustre careers on the fringes of aviation.Surely better to be a body of senior aviation figures celebrating illustrious careers and assisting future generations of aviators where possible.

[walkingthewalk]

Re. GAPAN and "a body of senior aviation figures celebrating illustrious careers ".

I feel that this needs to be made transparent. The role of GAPAN must be explained in the context of flying regulation in this country. At best, they appear to be confusing to those who don't know them and at worse they can appear to be doing what the last post is hinting at. :bored:

[BEagle]

Stampe - thank you for clarifying matters. Your original post didn't convey quite the same direction of opinion to me.

I have my own views on the desirability or otherwise of any 'Central Flight Instructor School' for civil FIs; however, I certainly agree that industry as a whole should be more selective with accepting FI applicants for training. In my view there should be tighter control of quality standards of FI training - but I don't subscribe to the view that a single 'central' organisation would ever succeed alone, mainly due to the immense commercial opposition which would arise when the inevitable RIA was circulated.

Actually I think that we have some pretty good standards at the moment, all bar a few exceptions. Perhaps a little tightening up of the rigging here and there is all that's really needed - not a whole new boat!

[martinidoc]

I too would like to take this opportunity of thanking Dorothy and Malcolm for organising a spendid day in a spendid setting. The meeting was certainly highly thought provoking.

Thanks also to the Commandant for allowing us the special priviledge of flying into Cranwell in the JP, it was quite a nostalgic moment.

To answer some of the points raised above, I think the various proposals need to be considered in the light of practicalities. As far as a central FI school is concerned, it is unlikely that the opposition from etablished FICs combined with the substantial capital investment required would make this feasible, certainly in the short term.

However, consider the reasoning behind this concept. It is primarily about standardisation. There is no reason why as a first step, there should not be a "functional CFIS" where the existing FICs form an alliance to agree standards, and improve teaching materials and techniques. This would have some economy of scale benefits without being too radical and threatening. Such an alliance would have much greater influence at CAA/JAA level, and might eventually bring about modifications to the relationship between FIs and CPLs, so that appropriate modules for the FI Licence could be credited subsequently to ATPL. Importantly the curriculum for the FIC could be made relevant to FIs and the redundant CPL material ommitted.

As to which body should coordinate this, well frankly I don't think it matters too much as long as there is broad support from the instructor community. That being said there is probably considerable merit in using an existing structure such as GAPAN, which already has important links and an infra-structure. (I was not a member until the forum, but I shall be applying for membership). At least GAPAN has taken the initiative, and someone has to.

I think it is perhaps a little synical to assume that their motive is some megalomaniac attempt to control flight training. I think it far more likely that their primary intention is to improve the quality of training.

One final thought, given the RAF's increasing reliance upon civilian flight training organisations, might it not be possible to collaborate with CFS to build and adapt probably the finest Central FI school in the world to meet civilian requirements. Of course there are differences in training requirements, but we have a very great deal in common.

[lady in red]

Stampe, were you actually at the Forum and listening to the debate? If so you would have realised that the whole point of the Forum was to encourage discussion and stimulate review by the senior members of what should be a Profession but is often treated as the lowest form of life or a stepping stone to driving a computerised bus.

The purpose was not to provide answers but to raise important topics for discussion. Feedback forms were distributed and the answers welcomed with a view to reviewing the next steps and perhaps another Forum. Do you know what the definition of Forum is? Suggest you go back to the Romans...

If you were listening at the Forum you would have heard about the proposal to set up an Inernational association for Flying Instructors which would have the many aims suggested but being totally devoted to the needs of instructors would be wholly unlike any other organisation whose vested interests are aircraft owners or builders. Nobody opposed the idea and the committee are awaiting the feedback...

Meanwhile others are unclear about the purpose of the Guild or who is eligible to join. By definition if you are learning to fly or have held a licence for more than two years you may join - in the first category as an Associate and after that as Freeman or (after holding a Professional Licence for 5 years) as Upper Freeman. Members range from teenagers to retired pilots with illustrious careers, in their 80s or 90s. It is a pity that some people despise the luncheon club aspect as very useful networking can be achieved and at the one occasion I attended I was privileged to hear John Hutchinson talk about the fascinating subject of the Concorde accident among other wonderful anecdotes. For me a most marvellous occasion and well worth taking a day off work.

The Guild also has scholarships for PPLs and FI ratings - what other organisation provides the latter? For the next ten years it will be providing a Helicopter Instructor scholarship.

It would be advisable for those who criticise the work of the Guild and its constituent membership to note that a large number of instructors have joined in the past couple of years and that many members are nowhere near retirement age. (I am only in my 40s but perhaps you all think I should have retired by now).

[homeguard]

Lady in Red, you put your money where your mouth is. Thank you for that. You deserve the thanks and the congratulations that you have received.

Having attended the 'Forum' I am going to join GAPAN once I get the time to fill in the very long form and arrange the required two seconders. Nothing wrong with a good lunch. We can all winge from a keyboard and achieve nothing.

I don't agree with some of what was claimed on the day, such as the standard of instructing is now lower than what it used to be, but we will never resolve that cherry. However the Roman Forum took many forms and one of them was to be very elitist and lecture the population ad nauseam. The other was to be an open debate with the odd citizen thrown to the Lions when they went too far with their opinions.

A lot was argued over the morning, lunch and afternoon breaks and I for one would have liked to have had the time within the structure of the day to hear all the arguments aired within the forum itself. Two ten minute sessions left no time for that.

With the establishment of JAA and now EASA I too think that it is critical that an international association of Instructors is formed and I for one will also be happy to put my money where my mouth is and help you do it, however I can.

[lady in red]

How many of you would be interested in forming an International Flying Instructor Association to provide an organisation to protect and develop Instructors' needs, interests etc. as described at the Forum? PMs please!