New ATPL Pilots

[flying paddy]

HI

I would like to run this past all flight instructors, and see if anyone out their agrees or has had similar expirence.
I am an instructor at a major airport and as such I have had to check out the occassional ATPL pilot for SE flying. Now I am in no way doubting their ability to operate a 737 but I have discovered that all the new pilots coming out of these so called major flight schools, (oxford, CTC etc) are sadly lacking in what I would call basic flying skills. I get the feeling that these chaps are being taught to press buttons and pass exams, and are lacking in some basic understanding. So much so that one FO was in my opinion not safe to fly, and on asked why he had done such a stupid thing, he answered that he had been told that, that was what had to do as taught at his school. If anyone has an opioion on this please continue.
Just as a side issue my thoughts are that at the moment these chaps are flying on the backs of senior Captains. The question I have is what happens when they are gone, and the cr@p hits the fan in years to come.
Flying Paddy

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are a fewthat I have met and worked with who do seem to be a bit lacking in the airmanship department.

I have heard some horror stories from Capt's about newbie F/O's but I've also seen some high time instructors/low time airline pilots do some pretty stupid things aswell.

I still don't think you can beat the experience that can be gained by working as an FI for a bit. People skills are just part of it.
I have to say that not much scares me any more!!

Maybe I'm biased because that's how I started my career.

[DFC]

What did they do that you say "he had done such a stupid thing"?

Regards,

DFC

[flying paddy]

Hi
The pilot in question had just taken of from a runway 3000 m long, and I did an EFATO drill, his response was to try and land the aircraft on the grass to yhe side, and not back on the 2000 m of runway ahead. On asked why, I was told that at oxford he was told to land on the grass ????????. I dont think this has anything to do with being an instuctor, but more to do with the standard of instructor training him.

flying paddy

[conor_mc]

If I was cynical, I'd say it might be that a for-real emergency which had the potential to close a runway (if it got really messy, that is) would be a bit embarassing for the school in question.

But now that I think of it, maybe not.

I think the main issue here is not so much what the pilot in question was doing, but that he did not understand the reason why he was doing it.

[Send Clowns]

conor_mc makes a very interesting distinction.

I would also suggest he might have done an integrated course. This is very short on hours but also on responsibility. The pilot never signs for an aircraft, always being signed off by an instructor. They are not flying independently, but IMHO being monitored too closely. This encourages literal interpretation, and lack of thought as to the reasons behind actions.

I have taken over students from an instructor who had completed an integrated course, and they had not been taught as PPL students should be. The limitations of their previous instructor's experience really did show.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I'll second that. Integrated courses are fine for churning out potential first officers, what they aren't good at is teaching people how to be a commander. A very different thing from just being good at the basic mechanics of flying an aircraft.

It won't change until we get some quality, long term instructors. I don't want to sound patronising or insult anyone, but how can someone who has the bare minimum of experience really teach to a high enough standard?

(caveat, yes there are some fantastic instructors out there, but all the best have long and varied careers behind them. The general standard of instruction that I've come across is pretty dire and I've certainly had my eyes opened recently by somethings I've seen.)

One thing that certainly does seem to be missing from the integrated course is any form of hour building, where you just go off and explore the U.K or Europe. You learn a massive amount from doing this, far more than another couple of session in the local training area.

I am speaking as an CAP509'er here aswell.

[BEagle]

And just think what it'll be like should the infamous MPL ever come about....

In the military, people are selectedto become QFIs. Whereas anyone with the money can pay for a course in the civil world.

What are the failure rates across the board at FTOs teaching the FIC?

[StudentInDebt]

I'll second that. Integrated courses are fine for churning out potential first officers, what they aren't good at is teaching people how to be a commander. A very different thing from just being good at the basic mechanics of flying an aircraft.

I don't get your point here, (A)FIs have traditionally nearly always been low houred to start with. Their skill as an instructor and a pilot has only developed with experience...

It won't change until we get some quality, long term instructors. I don't want to sound patronising or insult anyone, but how can someone who has the bare minimum of experience really teach to a high enough standard?

The answer is they can't (see above). So we have a chicken and egg scenario - either instructors have potentially years of experience behind them and are paid a salary commesurate with this experience (and PPL training effectively ends in the UK), or instructors are low-houred but not teaching to a high enough standard. Even the cheaper (for the flying schools) PPL/FI option has the problem that one has to have experience flying and, I would argue, instructing to be a good instructor.

Perhaps the modular CPL produces better stick and rudder people, they must do nearly 150 hours of hour building after all (but how valuable is this when it is unstructured?). This is certainly better than the Integrated student's 150 hours of Put,P1(s), SPIC and 50 hours simulator which is soley aimed at a pass in the IRT!

But, and this goes for both types of pilot, they are most likely to learn to fly an aeroplane "properly" during their FIC. Following the course they then spend a fair bit of time consolidating this new information as they try to pass it onto their unwitting students. Eventually, given enough time, they will become good instructors but then they have become the quality, long term instructors

ps I apologise for my appalling grammar and sentence construction

[tonker]

I recently had an interview where i was sat in a room with nothing but ex Oxford students. Being modular and therefore having lepracy i eventually struck up conversation with a young well spoken lady who was part of the Oxford clic.

oxford"Where are you from she asked begrudginly"

me"Oh i'm an instructor form ey bye gum north"

oxford"Instructing(smirk on face), instructing...couldn't do THAT"

me"Thats because your probably crap i exclaimed(smirk on my face)

oxford"What....what do you mean"

me"Well it's not all about ticking boxes and turning knobs, you actually have to have an understanding of the subject and it's hard work"(although nobody had spoken to me i was now enroute Coventry on the highest speed train)

oxford"I do know what i'm talking about, i'm going to be an airline pilot"

me"right then airline pilot tell us all what FORCES turns an aeroplane"(potential smirk on face)

oxford" well..well you turn the knob on the dash to alter the flight director something or other"

me "CORRECT well done" just what i thought!

Childish,maybe unfair but totaly satisfying

[Say again s l o w l y]

New instructors are invariably low houred, but the problem is that as soon as they start to become good at the job, they get employed by an airline and you are back at square one.

The major issue isn't 'stick and rudder skills,' of course they are important, but knowledge and the ability to communicate it is by far the most important skill a good FI requires. This is something you are born with, not a skill that it is easy to learn.

Someone who is teaching people to become PPL's, would ideally have some background as one. The whole point of having a licence as a PPL is to go places and see things. It is not purely about being able to pass the IRT!

The 30 hr instructor course doesn't teach you how to fly the a/c properly, it hopefully gives you the skills to teach, but it is only 30 hrs long. Not exactly a huge amount.

I would have no problem with PPL's teaching as long as they could get paid. I know some very competent PPL's who would make excellent instructors, but they can't spare the time to go off and get their CPL writtens and to be honest, once you've passed those you may as well do the flight test and get a full on CPL and get paid for it.

[normal_nigel]

Yes but the trouble is a lot of instructors who come to airlines through the Self Improver- Regional Carrier- Big Airline route etc are pedantics who have no sight of the big picture.

They bring a flying school mentality of operation to the airline.

The RJ fleet at BACX is a prime example, I'm told.

One guy wants regional QNH set on the standby for Gods sake. We don't operate airliners like that.

Stick with what you're good at.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Doesn't the company have an SOP that deals with what is set on the altimeter and when? Most companies do.

I have to say that I find your comments NN to be utterly daft and insulting. There are good self improvers and awful integrated students and vice versa.

What is a 'flying club' mentality? Why are self improvers pedantic?

How I trained originally makes no difference to how I operate now. That was a long time ago and I've certainly learned a huge amount since then and have learnt a lot from the people I've flown with and guess what, some of them were 'self improvers.'

[StudentInDebt]

I think N_N works for BA and if that is the case there are also the arrogant cadets and direct entry integrated course chappies who are generally revilled by the line captains thanks to their overwhelming sense of superiority, lack of flying skills, lack of situational awareness, inability to communicate politely with any other member of the crew and their doctrinal approach operating the aircraft. Most of them have probably calmed down now that they have realised that being a **** does not make you popular.

From what I've read in other threads some BA cadets were chopped from BACX because they weren't able to pass the turbo-prop course, I wonder if how these pedantic instructors managed it.

WRT to the standby altimeter the copy of the BA 757/767 Flying manual I have states:

When the aircraft has climbed above MSA and transition altitude/height, 1013/29.92 should be set on the altimeter subscale, except where terrain is a consideration or on short sectors, when an appropriate QNH may be set.

I suppose that makes me pedantic :cool:

The 30 hr instructor course doesn\\\'t teach you how to fly the a/c properly, it hopefully gives you the skills to teach, but it is only 30 hrs long.

Perhaps I should have said it shows you how to fly an aircraft properly. I don\\\'t think it gives you the skills to teach, it gives you the very basic tools to demonstrate how to fly an aircraft, you then develop the teaching skills required to do it well with experience and your own ability.

[normal_nigel]

And having trained quite a few ex flying instructors to fly Boeings, I also find that some of them are know-alls who find it difficult to accept criticism non defensively.

Of course the first two replies on here wouldn't back that up at all would they?

I'm sure many flying instructors are very good at what they do.

One arrogant idiot I know is a fantastic aerobatic pilot. However, he wouldn't last two minutes in a multi crew environment.

Flying is about different skills and applying them in different areas.

Some people are best suited to flying school environments and some to multi crew airline ones.

Neither makes you better than the other, but they don't always cross very well.

I do recall this thread was started by a FI slagging off an approved school cadet. I suggest the FI should not judge so easily until he has sampled the life of a 737 FO.

Oh and a point of order.

No BA cadet has been chopped by BACX

Now if you can't debate sensibly I suggest this is why many FI's fail large airline selection.

[StudentInDebt]

N_N

There will always be some people who aren't really suited to airline flying whether they be from an instructing, RAF or integrated course background. People from different backgrounds tend to categorise people from other backgrounds and hence the sterotypes begin. Doesn't mean to say that everyone from that background fits the shoe, just that a minority do and they make the best targets. For example BA has a reputation for pilots who think they are next to God in the big scheme of things, the truth is that the vast majority of them are decent people but you only seem to meet the godlike ones.

You assert that "lots of instructors.... are pedantics who have no sight of the big picture", this is fairly broad in the stroke that it paints yet in your subsequent reply you say that only "some are know-alls....". Does this mean you may have been a little bit over-melodramatic initially? Why did you single out ex-instructors for criticism when, as a trainer, presumably you teach all backgrounds and abilities to fly aeroplanes, all of whom will have their own style when they initially come to you.

Yes this thread was started by someone questioning the ability and flying skills of an integrated cadet (who did do something a bit daft) and then going on to ask whether this was typical of the integrated product. There was no slagging off of said person just a question over their ability. When you check someone out on a light aircraft you build up a big picture of what their flying is like throughout the checkout, if they are not safe to go on their own in your opinion you don't sign them off. This is much the same as releasing a new type rated FO to the line, if you don't think they can do it if the skipper keels over you don't let them go.

Your point of order is accepted, it seems your BACX collegues don't agree though.

Now if you can't debate sensibly I suggest this is why many FI's fail large airline selection
:D

[normal_nigel]

Student

Fair points made.

With regard to "a lot" or "some" I have had quite a lot of FI's who have needed to work to adapt to the airline life (amazingly after being with different carriers in some cases). Maybe I have seen a few more than the norm. Maybe in the greater scheme of things it is an insignificant amount. One of the overriding traits though has been the training needed to get these people away from the minutae and round to the big picture and multi crew CRM.

The whole point of my post really is to defend an attack on the approved system by someone who, for whatever reasons, has never been through it.

"Cadets" offer the most consistent standard for the airlines and their training systems. I have found that although standards obviously vary from person to person, the band of ability is not only high but narrow, ie the difference beteen the very best and the worst is not massive.

The same cannot be said for RAF or particularly Self Ims. You still get very good ones but I feel the "band" is wider. Maybe this is to do with the fact cadets are "groomed" for the airline way of life or the selection procedure?

However RAF and SI's bring different skills and experience to the table (not always relevent though, ie a whole career flying single crew fighters or C152's!)

That said, one bad sim from a SI on conversion does not make anyone a muppet, nor does a bad day in a light aircraft make us "ATPL" holders muppets.

I wouldn't feel comfortable in a Warrior (11 years since I've flown one) without decent instruction first.

Similarly, I would expect a FI to be equally unprepared for a realistic ride in a 767 sim, with an engine failure on rotate out of Entebbe, at MTOW, where the margin for success or dire fatal failure is a degree or two in pitch.

As for airmanship, that is not the preserve of light aircraft pilots.

NN

[tonker]

Does anyone else see the irony in the statement that NOT all instructors are suited to the "multi crew" enviroment.

If your not suited you'd best not instruct!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillieBob]

BEagle - The failure rates across the board at FTOs teaching the FIC are pretty close to zero. Any FIE who had the temerity to fail a candidate would pretty soon find himself out of business.

This is all because the CAA has, as usual, ducked its responsibilities and refuses to allocate examiners - candidates and FTOs are thus free to choose the examiner who will give them the easiest ride. The CPL Skill Test suffers, to a lesser extent, from the same disease.

[ATP_Al]

Great story Tonker - I nearly fell off my chair when I read it!

A pilot's view of GA seems to depend on how they trained. Those that start out as private pilots make a real effort to master light aircraft before moving on, and tend to appreciate instructors because their knowledge kept them alive during that first few hundred hours post-PPL.

On integrated courses, the light aircraft seem to be regarded as means to an end rather than something to be fully mastered. All disciplines of flying are not one and the same, but maybe students should strive to become a competent commander of a PA28 before chasing that jet command!

On the subject of instructor retention, perhaps the best way forward is encourage pilots to instruct part time whilst working for the airlines. Some of the best instructors I have flown with have done this, and it's something I aspire to do when I finally get that first job!

Al

[BEagle]

"One guy wants regional QNH set on the standby for Gods sake. We don't operate airliners like that."

What do you mean by 'Regional QNH'? Not a term I've heard used in the UK.

If you mean the 'Regional Pressure Setting', then I agree that it has no relevance in your people-tube operations. However, if you mean the aerodrome QNH (or TMA QNH for LTMA, for example), then I would disagree as, for example, the base of the LTMA below the Transition Altitude is defined by that value - as perhaps you might care to note?

Regrettably, many of your 'ex-FI' applicants have perhaps been wet-behind-the-ears 'hours builders' with an arrogance derived from many hours of trial flying lessons in C152s....

The FI world doesn't want them either!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Speaking as an FI and 737 pilot, I'm not convinced about the differences between modular and integrated students.

An instructor learns an awful lot about life in general and these lessons can come in very useful in an airliner cockpit, but this is getting away from the original point.

I am an ex-integrated student and whilst the training I recived was adequate to pass the tests, I realise now that there was an awful lot missing. This is one of the reasons I still instruct part-time. I'd like to do my bit to try and ensure that other people don't miss out as I did.

Airline flying is very different from bouncing around in a light a/c, but if I was in a jet and the sh** was hitting the fan, I'd far rather have an ex-instructor (who's learnt the meaning of fear in an a/c already!) than some wet behind the ears 250hr cadet who's never been outside of a structured environment and rarely had to think laterally.

One of the reasons I'm not a fan of this new MPL debacle that may be soon thrust upon us.

There is nothing wrong with serving an apprenticeship, be it as an FI, air taxi pilot or in a manky old turbo prop.

One last thing, on a recent base training detail, I watched a supposed 'high flying' cadet bugger up more than I thought humanly possible, the TRI he was with even had to resort to "Lower the nose, raise the nose, more power, less power" in other words exactly what an FI has to do with a new student learning the absolute basics. Whilst the other ex-FI's on board was spot on from start to finish.

Again, I know who I'd rather be sitting next to. Not conclusive I know, but it just shows that it's all really down to the individual.

[BEagle]

Point of order - we don't say "Lower the nose", we say "SELECT a lower pitch attitude"!......

Talking to mate in the CAA yesterday, I mentioned the infernal MPL ('Microsoft' Pilots' Licence). My view being that the absolute minimum 'mandraulic' flying that should ever be accepted is the current CPL without IR, but including the MEP Class Rating. NOTHING LESS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED! But the MPL applicant may then do all his beacon-bashing, MCC and CRM training in Flight Simulators, followed by his multi-pilot IR and Type Rating on the specific Type's simulator plus live base training.

It seems that Lufthansa still believe in the Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines Gert Frobe style of teaching and learning - "There is nothing a German cannot do! We do it like we do everything else - form the book of instructions. We have been taught this for generations!" - as the whole idea came from them in the first place. They didn't bother to elicit LBA support for their idea either!

[huckleberry58]

'Lower the nose' worked fine for me in the air. My students understood that. 'Select a lower pitch attitude' hmm... have to process that abit more in their heads and in a time critical situation it just doesn't work for me. For me, that phrase would belong in the brief/debrief.

[BigEndBob]

Being a flying instructor with thousands of hours does not necessarily make you a good multi crew airline pilot.
Instructing is not a multi crew operation. We are teaching people to be sole, self reliant problem solvers ( other than what can be offered by ATC).
I had 5000hrs instructing when i flunked out of line training (pre Mcc Crm).
Thought i was a good PNF, but got behind on my PF flying.
Got the impression that it was a bit monkey see-monkey do environment. Could see how the intergrated coursers might do better. I wanted to do eveything in the cockpit rather than getting used to sharing the tasks. So felt disconnected from what was going on.
At least i didn't crash the simulator like the instructor did and pulled off a double engine pfl at night from 5000 feet, so the instructing came in useful!

[StudentInDebt]

Regrettably, many of your 'ex-FI' applicants have perhaps been wet-behind-the-ears 'hours builders' with an arrogance derived from many hours of trial flying lessons in C152s.... The FI world doesn't want them either!

Well thats nice!! I was a "wet-behind-the-ears" instructor when I started, thankfully it seems someone in the FI world did want me and I spent 3 years instructing full-time before I moved into the airline world and out of poverty. I did many trial lessons in 152s, I'm not sure how one becomes arrogant doing so!! Some of the guys I worked with didn't want to be flying piston singles and since leaving they haven't been back in one.

From these and other comments you've made Beagle, do you feel that the FI course should have a minimum number of hours entry requirement far in excess of the current figure? If so what form should that experience take?

[BEagle]

RTFP!

'Perhaps' and 'many' are not synonymous with 'all' or 'every'.....

Yes, I do think that there should be more assessment and selection for FIs; I would prefer that they should also have a few hundred hours PPL experience plus an IMC rating as the minimum before assessment - rather than just having passed a CPL course plus lots of frankly irrlevant theoretical exams....

PPL/FIs should also be entitled to receive remuneration as one of their rating, not licence, privileges.

PPL, build experience, then FI course if able to pass selection, then FI time. Then take the CPL, IR and airline route. Less expensive courses to pay off before starting on the CPL route (around £10K?) - and an opportunity to be a part-time FI with a 'real' job until you've saved enough to help pay for the CPL/IR....

Which is what used to happen some years ago.

[Cloud 99]

I have read with interest the previous posts.

There does seem to be a bit of "what I Do is Better than You"

How about seeing it in other ways.

CASE 1: I have some great flying instructors who have done everything modular, yet these guys have the ability not just to teach but to instill a sense of responsibility and make you think about WHY you went wrong-not just that you did. I my opinion you need to make mistakes to be able to learn from them. I envy their handling skills and knowledge of their aircraft.

CASE 2: The newbie integrated student has been trained to expect an airline environment. Has in depth knowledge of the FMS, EFIS, fuel control systems. They haven't picked up the bad habits some people may have. They then have to fly second officer, training on the aircraft with long-term high hours guys who know the machine inside out. I envy their skills.

I suppose my point here is if the FI's out there took the time to speak with some integrated students they might realise that some of them actually can fly and aren't just there to be a "high flyer" but do care about their skills; and some of the straight into the airlines guys went along to their local flying school and watched how hard the instructors worked and how skilled they actually are; then we might all get along just fine.

Of course there are pilots who get in their aircraft fly from A to B then go home without much thought to what they actually encountered that day, but that goes whether they are flying a PA28 or a 737. Maybe we could all learn something.

Just my thoughts. (however don't agree with the MPL-taking things just too far).

99

[mad_jock]

Intergrated have been spoon fed all of their training.

What annoys me is they don't have to have the 200hours that modular CPL's have to have.

So they have no PIC proper time when they have to make thier own go/no go. They haven't actually done the PPL course. They don't have a bloody clue whats involved unless they went intergrated after getting a PPL.

I have only seen 1 instructor who went this route and I am not impressed.

MJ

[Spongey Brakes]

I agree with mad_jock; as somebody who is currently following the modular route in one of the large FTOs I am possibly slightly biased. When I completed my PPL and started hour building on my own I suddenly realised how much I had being relying on my instructor's judgement.

While hour building for 150 hrs in a 152 won't get you ready for a 737 sim check, it will make you stand on your own two feet and will force YOU to question yourself and make sure what you are doing is safe.

Most of the people following the integrated route have never flown on their own except from a 2km runway in the states with 100km+ vis. While this mightn't be a factor if they walk straight into a RHS on an airbus, for those integrated students who don't make the cut for BA or whoever, I can't help but wonder if they are suitably equipped to go into other jobs where they can't rely on EFIS, FD and the pro in the LHS.

[Send Clowns]

Normal Nigel

What is wrong with having Regional Pressure Setting (there is no such thing as regional QNH - you'd get a bollocking in the military for even expressing that term, and it shows lack of understanding of altimetry) on the second altimeter? For a RyanAir flight squawking 7000 IFR into the arse end of Ireland, for example. There is no point to having a second altimeter unless you use it for measuring terrain separation. The primary gives you separation from aircraft.

However, if there is a different procedure in your company, I am certain any instructor could learn that very easily. All I have known have actually been far more flexible in theier approach to flying than the integrated graduates I have known who have gone straight to airlines.

Much as I hate to defend the RAF, having been commissioned in the RN, the serving and ex-RAF or ex-UAS I have flown with or known who have few hours have been better than the integrated graduates I have been around. Sorry, but it is my experience. They have the flexibility and the presence of mind to be commanders that I saw lacking in integrated graduates. The latter knew what they should be doing, the former also knew why, and what else they could do.

How can anyone board a 737, after 3000 hours, as the first aircraft he has ever signed for?

btw, with all my recent experience in PA28s and similar, and no instrument or twin flying for 3 years, after about 3 hours handling I took a number 1 failure at 100' in a Tristar sim, with a flight director problem. I hand flew it in a visual circuit to land. I know a 767 is no harder as I have flown BA's sim, so I assume I could do the same. Instructors fly accurately, to a degree or two of pitch, every day. I never flew that well until I was on an FI course. It prepares anyone very well for flying absolutely anything, because you have to relearn teh very basics, which are common to all hand flying.

Billie Bob

My examiner failed another FI candidate on the same day I sat my test. He is still used by the person who taught me to test some of his students.

tonker

Great one.

One of my groundschool colleagues is a BA captain. Chatting to one of his fellows when he was an FO he asked how this lad had come to fly, and was told that the lad was a CEP, a cadet. My friend replied "Oh I am sorry" much to the confusion of Mr Cadet.

"Why"?

"Well, you've never really flown an aeroplane." :p

My friend, it must be said, was qualified on pretty much every RN helicopter, the Harrier and I believe also the Hunter before using BA for a boring but reliable pot of cash while he thoroughly enjoys teaching our students, and buzzes low level in police helicopters. In other words he really has flown, and can fly!

[Human Factor]

There is no point to having a second altimeter unless you use it for measuring terrain separation. The primary gives you separation from aircraft.

Pretty much correct. The only exception being above the transition level where it backs up the primary altimeters, particularly relevant for RVSM. During climb and decent it is set to a relevant pressure setting (generally QNH at the departure/arrival airfield).

[Maude Charlee]

Being ex-UAS myself, I can't really support the argument that they turn out the best pilots. My training was very much 'monkey see, monkey do'. I had no understanding whatsoever why I was doing what I was doing, just that if the QFI says 'do it', I do it. Although we were supposed to read our groundschool files, we didn't and nobody challenged us about it, or saw to it that we did. The emphasis was very much on the flying, and more on the handling accuracy than the airmanship. I never learnt how to navigate, except by recognising familiar ground features by sight, I knew nothing of engine handling (even though it was the Bulldog and hence a VP prop), nothing about the avionics or nav kit, and nothing at all about aerodynamics.

That said, I loved the flying I did, and the emphasis on stick and rudder skills has probably helped with my later flying.

Not until I decided to return to aviation some 10 years later and do my ATPL, did I learn anything at all on any of the above subjects. Only then did the dim lightbulb in my head illuminate on the whats and whys. Being integrated at one of the large FTOs, I can sympathise with the view that they are merely sausage factories designed to churn out homogenous products to be used as the raw ingredients at the airlines.

However, I also cannot accept the view that students taking the integrated path have limited ability or experience when compared to modular students (of course there are tossers, but there are tossers everywhere you will ever go). Most of my course already had previous flying experience, some of them well beyond 100+ hrs, and the integrated choice was something that suited their purposes, much as the modular choice is for those who go that route. We're not all 18 year old BA wannabees. As for the 'land on the grass' story, well, Oxford was my FTO and that is nothing I've ever heard from any of the FIs down there, and it certainly is SOP.

Similarly, there are many GA jobs after licence issue other than FI positions. I would be very disappointed to think that FIs consider themselves superior to the rest of us, particularly when FIs often have considerably less hands-on time per hour in the air due to the very nature of their job. As a survey pilot, my role is very much about hands-on flying, and accuracy and airmanship are the two things that prevent me meeting my maker prematurely.

Be careful about blowing your trumpets too. There are far too many PPLs chugging around in a variety of contraptions, who like a number of motorists, are a source of mystery as to where they obtained their licences. Some of the blame for their lack of ability and airmanship has to lie with their FI, and unlike the ATPL holder, these people have been specifically trained to fly SEP.

[Dimensional]

MC:

My training was very much 'monkey see, monkey do'. I had no understanding whatsoever why I was doing what I was doing, just that if the QFI says 'do it', I do it. Although we were supposed to read our groundschool files, we didn't and nobody challenged us about it, or saw to it that we did. The emphasis was very much on the flying, and more on the handling accuracy than the airmanship. I never learnt how to navigate, except by recognising familiar ground features by sight, I knew nothing of engine handling (even though it was the Bulldog and hence a VP prop), nothing about the avionics or nav kit, and nothing at all about aerodynamics.

I can't let that stand. As someone who's recently finished the whole EFT syllabus with a UAS, I've got a whole world more experience during the 60 hours doing things the 'military' way -- both operationally (nav, ATC proceedures, IF etc) and theoretically (learning the aerodynamic aspects of aerobatics does wonders for a man's understanding) than I ever did during my PPL. If you didn't get that, then that's a failing of yours -- surely as a motivated stude you read your notes? ;) I know *I* certainly, and the other studes with me, get more than enough questions our way, and any tendency to slack would be met with rapprochement and the kind of b*llocking only a CFI can deliver...

I find this whole thread of interest as I can reliably relate to the comments in here about a specific large FTO not too far from one of the Great Universities (not Hull, Blackadder...) I'm working on the same airfield this summer, for an engineering company, but staying in the O*T accommodation, and spending a fair amount of time around the studes. There's a definite clique thing there, but that's understandable given the training course system. However, the few discussions I've had with studes various (complete with gold bars and "wings") has revealed a distinct lack of background understanding and much more of a 'monkey see, monkey do' attitude than I'd care for in someone who could potentially be charged with delivering me transatlantically...

For instance, the topic of spinning came up recently. Most of the studes I spoke to had the barest of understanding of autorotation and all it involves (admittedly, I'd rather they didn't practice spinning a 737). But even things like stalling, or aircraft dynamics, seem a mystery to most of the studes I've spoken to here. What's more, they treat even the PA-28 like an airliner -- dragging the poor aircraft in on perfect 3 degree glidepaths from 5 miles out on the wrong side of the drag curve...

Despite my relative complete lack of experience, even *I* can see that some of these guys and girls are being let down a bit, prely by virtue of doing the whole course, from ab initio to fATPL in just over a year. Some of them *also* have a bit of an attitude (one of them turned round to me and said, "You don't know what you're talking about, I've got about 100 hours!") but that's something you'd get in all walks of life, I'd have thought.

[BEagle]

MC - which UAS? Your comments don't surprise me, I regret to say. But thanks for posting them.

As a UAS QFI, I was frankly appalled at my fellow QFIs laziness when it came to teaching navigation or the use of the Bulldog's nav kit. Far, far too many of them would just poke off into the 'local training area' and prat about doing aeros and PFLs, then back for circuits. Most of them couldn't find their own ar$ehole without a mirror...

Similarly, the average QFI understanding of - or ability to teach - aerodynamics was woefully inadequate.

The 'Janet and John do UAS' kiddy books you were given were an utter joke - and well below PPL level.

And as for that CPL farm which teaches kids to fly PA28s like airliners....:{ But their students' attitude is 'Learn, regurgitate, dump' rather than "I'll squirrel that away for future reference".

[BigEndBob]

I had interview several years ago at Barkston Heath for instructor job, overall first impression was poor of the place.
I assume most there were ex mil.

The CFI who checked me out slammed the throttle open on the poor Slingsby. Couldn't land the aircraft properly on crosswind demo of how they did the circuit and whilst sat in instructor room overheard instructor debrief to another instructor of how it would help if student could at least draw line on a map if they were going on a nav exercise.

A lot of training depends on the individual instructor rather than the establishment they train at.

[Blackshift]

While hour building for 150 hrs in a 152 won't get you ready for a 737 sim check, it will make you stand on your own two feet and will force YOU to question yourself and make sure what you are doing is safe. .... Spongy Brakes surely gets to the heart of the issue being flagged up here.

This is as much about the character building side of airmanship rather than solely about aircraft handling skills.

Moreover as an FI you have to be able to explain the hows an whys of what you do IN ADDITION to being able to demonstrate the process to (what is hopefully at the very least) a reasonable standard - otherwise you will simply not survive as an instructor.

You will surely become much more conscious of exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it when you are expected to explain to a curious student actions that you might otherwise perform relatively unconsciously after even the best of initial pilot training?

I think these debates often assume the guise of slagging match with each camp trying to paint its grass as the greenest because of an unspoken "jealousy" of the advantages to be gained on the other side.

I for one freely admit that I wish I had the time and money as a younger man to at least have the option of undertaking a full-time "CAP509" course (as they were called in the olden days), and perhaps even a network of contacts to land me the dream commercial job of my choice thereafter.

Well tough-sh*t I didn't, and I'm not going to get all bitter and twisted about those that did by saying that me and all my self improver mates are all better pilots.

When I think of some of the daft things I have done in aeroplanes in the past, especially at around 100-300hrs, it is hardly fair to single out guys who are trained for an airline environment for cock-ups in a relatively unfamiliar GA environment with not a lot of hours under their belt in order to justify the path of my own life-story.

I'm sure that many of them will persevere with GA to become as good as many self improvers and some even better than most. Moreover they are in all probability likely to perform better, at least at the initial stages, in a Multi Crew environment due to their comparitive lack of culture-shock.

However, I shall come off the fence at this point by GUESSING that the self-improver MIGHT have a slight comparitive advantage, all other things remaining equal, at the later stage of selection for command due to his early ingrained habits of self-reliance during hour building, instructing or whatever, in the world of GA.

So what is lost on the swings, might well be gained on the roundabouts (...although some of us have probably spent far too much time farting about on the swings for this to be of any help!)

Even if this is true, because all other things are never really equal in such circumstances, it is not necessarily very significant.

For example, I learnt all about the pitfalls of the "machismo complex" and developed decision-making skills in often quite dangerous circumstances as a motorcycle courier in my early twenties, and took those lessons with me to the world of aviation. Likewise it would be foolish to assume that the integrated training discussed here somehow discourages or even robs its graduates of their ability to excercise such transferrable skills.

The other guy up for command might be an accomplished solo yachtsman, or mountaineer, whose ability in the cockpit is scarecely likely to be diminished by the fact that he was the product of an integrated course eight years ago.

Us, and them....
....and after all we're only, ordinary men - Roger Waters

[BillieBob]

I had interview several years ago at Barkston Heath for instructor job, overall first impression was poor of the place. or, in other words, I didn't get the job.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Four years ago I was teaching Cadets. Now I have Cadet First Officers.

The types who were crap students are also crap FO's and it comes down to personality and aptitude. Not how they were trained.

I don't think handling skills come into it and therefore there's precious little gained by having 1500hrs light aircraft time or 200. Apart from fear.

You can see it in their eyes. Something non-standard, some moderate turbulence, a go-around looking likely because of somone on the runway, a sudden autopilot disconnect in the cruise - anything. As an instructor you've been damn scared a few times and had a few close shaves. You've generally learnt to douse the adrenalin and not panic and that usually things are OK in a few seconds. I don't think the 200hrs brigade have that and as a result can get panicky where an ex instructor wouldn't or perhaps wouldn't show it.

Thats about the biggest thing I've noticed.

Cheers

WWW

[BigEndBob]

No i didn't get the job BB.

When you are asked by the CFI to wait in the waiting room for 45 minutes, then to be asked what am i doing there by the cleaner because everyone has gone home....yes you do get a bad impression of the place.

[normal_nigel]

Send in the clowns.

Dreadfully sorry to use the incorrect term old bean. Its just I don't bother with such GA terms anymore.

You set standard as a back up for RVSM etc as mentioned above. If you set regional blah blah are you expected to ask each Air Traffic Unit what it is? That would work with Maastrict I'm sure.

Its a GA thing and has been sneked into BACX (so I'm told) by the ever increasing FI fraternity sailing up the Mersey to MAN.

WWW

How long have you been an airline pilot? How many "cadets" (well ex-cadets)have you experienced?

Weren't you GA until fairly recently?

I ask because I see none of the fear you talk of in our TEP's (new term for ex-cadets). In fact they do rather well flying into some of the world's most challenging fields, particularly BOG (alas no longer). On the two occasions I have had minor incidents (with TEP's) they have reacted quickly and correctly.

Also, unlike many airlines, they are allowed to land in more than 15 knots across,call STOP, touch speedbrakes and flaps etc.

Oh well, maybe we just got the best?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

normal_nigel - sorry but the BA cadets were not as good as the Aer Lingus or Airtours cadets in the bar room opinion of the Flying Instructors I worked with. I left GA employment nearly 5 years ago and am now a Captain on the 737 and soon 319.

My observations are nothing dramatic and I expect they disappear after just a short time in the job. Anyone with less than a thousand hours TT hasn't really seen or experienced much so its only natural that they are a bit more 'flighty' than someone who spent a few years knocking about the world of GA.

Oh and ours land in 25kts X wind, can't call Stop, and do pretty well (flying 6 sector days) into some challenging airports.

Cheers

WWW

[Say again s l o w l y]

N_N, I'm not sure if you deliberately go out of your way to sound like a twonk or if it's the BA 'way.'

BA cadets have always been pretty good, but they aren't the be-all and end all of aviation.

I have been in some pretty dicey spots with all sorts of pilots (ex-raf, ex-instructors and cadets) and all have coped well. Some better than others, but no group stands out particularily from any other.

N_N, have you ever actually been an instructor? If not, then what do you really know about the FI world? Walk a mile in someone's shoes and all that...

I think WWW has it right when talking about not panicking, that seems to be the biggest difference.

[normal_nigel]

Twonk???

If you are going to insult me please do it properly.

I am a training captain but have never instructed on light aircraft.

WWW


sorry but the BA cadets were not as good as the Aer Lingus or Airtours cadets in the bar room opinion of the Flying Instructors I worked with.

Admirable anti-BAism. However if you are correct why do you think EI or Airtours were better then?

I would expect the standard to be dictated by the school and the instruction, as a random sample of cadets from the three companies should be roughly the same (my earlier comments re "the best" were TIC).

Could it be that your bar room talk was a reflection on the poor standard of instruction given to the BA people, or just people talking bollocks and letting their anti Big Airways chips surface?

I would also go so far as to say your airline experience is limited.

Do you think you are better suited to a command than an ex-cadet? Is you FI background relevent or do you think their airline training is more suited?

I ask because we are now seeing the first ex-cadets from the 1987 Prestwick/Oxford era with 744 Training Captain jobs in their mid 30's. They seem to be doing a pretty good job as well.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

No anti-BAism.

Just that the Lingus courses had high esprit de corps more banter and generally worked better as a team and seemed more grateful of the opportunity they had landed. The Airtours courses were similarly thought of and seemed to contain a high proportion of Total Aviation People, i.e. they might have been keen PPL'rs, in the Air Cadets or possibly even spotters.

BA cadets were similarly fine people - nobody ever said they weren't and frankly I think you've got a chip on your shoulder about BA bashing. BA cadets were nothing special and nothing bad and in the opinion of some instructors other airlines seemed to choose better cadets. And, Yes I didn't get a BA cadetship but then neither did I get a BMI or Airtours or Lingus or FlyBe or Britannia or Atlantique one either and I've not got room on my shoulders for that many chips - trust me, I'm over it.


My thoughts on the subject were posted with the caveat that I have both been an airline cadet flying instructor and am now an airline Captain who gets to fly with cadet FO's. Thereby establishing that I have a possibly interesting insight into the thread topic.

I have a sense that you think ego is entering the debate. I couldn't give a stuff if your airline is bigger than mine, whether you think I'm inexperienced or whether or not 'your' cadets are better than 'our' cadets! I'm sure BA suits you but trust me I can't think of anything worse than having to drag myself to Heathrow to go on BA shorthaul tours of Europe. Longhaul I've no interest in anyway.

I reiterate my one and only point which is that I think very low houred FO's an be more panicky. This is understandable and disappears with hours. Those with perhaps a few years flying GA kit have had many more scares and close shaves and perhaps as a result are slightly more steely eyed. Pop psychology I know.

Cheers

WWW

[normal_nigel]

No chip. No need to have. I'm where I want to be.

However, some people who aren't, display the chips ;)

You may have instructed cadets at college and flown with them. This indeed gives you a fine insight and you are entitled to your opinion.

As does mine, having trained cadets and their trainers ;)

The frozen rabit in the headlights I haven't seen.

I've seen inexperience from new TEP's and I've seen appalling multi crew performance and also dangerous arrogance from FI's.

The inexperience is far easier to remedy, in fact it fixes itself.

The other doesn't.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Hey, I'm 30 in the LHS of a new Jet out in the region where I want to be home every night to the gorgeous woman I'm marrying next week.

There ain't no chips here either.

:)

WWW

[normal_nigel]

Don't protest too loudly!

Never said you ;)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Good lord! I've just done a search on Normal_Nigels posting histrory... talk about reinforcing a stereotype:



1. Doesn't like Flying Club types 'breaking out'.

There's a lot of Flying Club types that break into Commercial aviation and suddenly know everything there is to know.


2. Doesn't like the common people who can't afford to fly with the right airline.

What a load of crap. The bucket and spade brigade don't just
make charter flying unpleasant they make life unpleasant with their underclass chav ways, lager, B+H and their children. A curse on Britain thats getting worse. Decent working class has given way to an underclass who all travel on charter flights.

Now I'm not saying BA passengers are all wonderful. On the contrary. However I know where I prefer to sit.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy your longhaul experience with BA. Obviously M class isn't all its cracked up to be. I wouldn't know. I haven't had to travel anything less than club for about 8 years.

Oh well you enjoy your knees up to your chin on My Travel to Sandford. I'll stick to the flat bed and champers as usual.

Another thing, why was the original thread locked? We're the boys not playing nicely enough for the sterile little world of pprune??


3. Doesn't sound like much sympathy for the Military pilots either.

Topic: Red Arrows To Finish - Has Tony Gone Too Far?? (Merged x 2)

Yeah

Who cares?

Less egos for us to put up with when they join the real world.

NN


4. But he does seem to have a high regard for himself.

What do you think pilots should get paid? £20000, £30000pa? My mate who is a barrister and has trained and spent time working up his profession (almost identical time to me) earns £265000 pa.

He doesn't sign for an aircraft with $2 billion of liability as every BA captain does every day at work. And neither do you so don't be bitter about pilots pay just because you don't earn it.

I have far better qualifications than him and law training is just time consuming. I don't begrudge him his money, I just think BA captains should earn about the same. Yes I am being serious.

Now answer my question. What do you think pilots should be paid? (a tube driver gets about £40000 pa I'm told).

Engineers do a crucial important job but they aint there when the **** hits the fan in flight.

NN

---

Normal_Nigel - I don't think you are as I know quite a few BA pilots and they are all charming. But somehow, I cannot for the life of me think how, BA pilots have acquired something of a 'reputation'....

Cheers

WWW

[normal_nigel]

Is that because I tell it like I see it and don't butter up to the Old Boys PPrune way of things?

Or does it amuse you to take 4 quotes (all I still stand by) from the last 4 years or so and post them with no context?

Also www, you have to remember I've been in the airline game more than 5 minutes, and have seen a lot more than you.

After all, you were scraping around BALPA employement confernences as late as 1999 were you not?

Maybe when you have served some time you may remove your rose tinted specs.

Now back to the debate...

[Bart O'Lynn]

Well as everyone is hiding their dislikes behind "in my experience " here goes.

I have been flying 17 years, have 14000 hrs, 2000 as an instructor and am/have been a line trainer on 5 types. 7000 in some of the worst bush,warzone areas in the world from light twins upto mil transports. the balance as f/o and cpt on 737ng.
In the first existance the most inflexible non achieveing bush drivers were the Brits , ex raf followed by FI types. Too much attitude, obsession with petty rules not comensurate with the conditions. Very few adapted, most legged iit back to blighty yelping about unproffessionalism or any other security blanket.

In my later reincranation the worst captains were the self abusers/FI types. Like Scared rabbits in the headlights on say a nasty night in the balkans, cockpit crm gradient that franz klammer could ski down. (reverting under stress maybe to a windy day in a pa28) Now the shining stars are the cadets we have employed, bright, knowledgeable and talented. They put their senior Ex fi fos to shame in all situations. Except probably bashing circuit after circuit in a pa28. But then thats not 65 tonnes into a cat 3 airfield in greece 200 people in the back. Thats what they were trained for. Dragging in that pa28 paid off because these guys fly the jet well. Better than someone with old skills to loose. and i include myself in that grouping.

WWW the danger in this country is that people who made it on their own against the will of the establishment become bigger career bigots once in the system, than the dianosaurs that caused their problems in the early stage of their career. Nothing like new money eh. Fact ..approved trianing is the future. I dont agree but thats how it is.
I date you from the 1999 balpa conference and remember some of your attempts to get work. Youve done well but have considered you may still harbour a grudge subconciously against the rich kids. We each have our tales of abuse and rejection , I now judge each by their performance not their age or training...........Except ex raf instructors who have to get a management job of any sort to sate their egos. Care to comment nigel. Or where is flashhart when you need a laugh

[normal_nigel]

Good Lord I've been searching WWW's history

Hey I got TWO letters from BA telling me I was not good enough for their training scheme

British Airways have been putting 200hr guys and gals into heavy jets operating out of the London TMA since 1963.

So an endorsement of the scheme and an admission of failure to get in.

No chips at all then and no bias as to who were the "best " cadets. In fact, I think you must be the instructor that our guys tell us about.

Oh and if you did Met in 1998, have you only had a licence for 7 years?

Your experience overwhelms me.

Bart

Career bigots.

Accurate phrase. They are also the type that likes to see the door close behind them.

Interesting observations from your bush days etc.

Bit of a different perspective from the " airline FO's can't fly PA28's but I'm not jealous honestly" brigade.

[Bart O'Lynn]

Btw w.w.w

A cadet may get a command after 3yrs from school, say 3000 hrs, i dont necessarily agree with that hr level in general (see ryr posts), however you as a first job at easy may have been promoted with about the same hr/time frame on the jet. Your previous is therefore irrelevant as you were both deemed suitable. From my greater time in the industry observing i would wager than in the enviroment you have been assessed in the cadet would revert under pressure to a more jet like response. Human factors mate, not a dig. I know i dont always fall back on the right experince block under pressure.

Maybe it this that bothers you and the FI fraternity about cadets. They are more suited to the enviroment for the future.

I am a self abuser as well but appreciate when i sit next to a talented youth and take pride when they adapt some of my philosophies combine it with their current knowledge to become a better pilot than me. Maybe not as experienced, but better suited for the future

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Oh I love a good debate me.

1. I never said cadets were crap or anything approaching that. I said the only slight difference was being slightly more flighty. Maybe. Other were having much more of a go and I was essentially saying there is no difference, it doesn't really matter if you did 5000hrs GA or not. Thats an ENDORSEMENT of cadets a REFUTATION that there is anything wrong or different or lacking in them. OK - get that into your heads if nothing else.

2. Normal_Nigel, I've been defending cadet training for many many years now as that quote shows. There are always people who scoff that 200hr guys should not be put into large jets and I've always pointed out the BA have done it very successfully for decades. I don't hate BA either. Yes I applied to them and no I didn't get in. But in the end its worked out much much better for me. I was lucky I didn't get accepted because things worked out better in the long run. But you never know that at the time of course.

3. I don't claim any vast experience. I just accurately imply what my experience is. An Jerez FI and a current 737 Captain. Attempting to refute my view by pointing out that you have more hours, fly a bigger airplane, are a training captain or WHATEVER is a fairly weak strategy.

So lets here people's views and insights and stop waving willys at each other, please.

Cheers

WWW

[Bart O'Lynn]

There would only be one occasion where i would wave my willy at you darling and that would be to dry it off after proving my point to you.;)

[normal_nigel]

Now its getting good;)

[Dr Pepper670]

I ask because we are now seeing the first ex-cadets from the 1987 Prestwick/Oxford era with 744 Training Captain jobs in their mid 30's. They seem to be doing a pretty good job as well. Is this the same lot who had to drop in for "ahem" more fuel at Manchester a couple of months back because they forgot how much fuel is needed for an elongated 3 engine jaunt across the pond :confused:

[normal_nigel]

Very good.

Actually he was an ex Flying Instructor. Air Force, I believe.

Also, would you like to share with us your 2/3/4 engine and airline experience?

You can miss out anything below,say,20 tonnes.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Yeah, thats a lame shot. I'd have made the same call in his boots.

For god's sake lets not take this debate past 500hrs of airline flying because trust me - after that you can't and won't see a difference.

Cheeers

WWW

[Gazeem]

Ah,

come on guys,

Don't make up whatever you do!

This has been one of the best Pprune threads for a long time!

Gaz

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

OK - I think all cadets can'tfly for toffee and that most instructors are no-hope rednecks; discuss.


Aye


WWW

ps All cadetships seem to be a thing of the past.

[Blackshift]

...or to approach the original debate from a slightly different perspective in order to avoid the somewhat pointless cadets/instructors polarisation emerging here (not least because some cadets later become instructors), let's consider the example of a pilot with, say, 500hrs+ Single Pilot IFR in light twins (who may or may not have been an integrated student to start with and may or me not be an instructor).

Now as far as I can gather this sort of experience amounts to pretty much a black-belt in General Aviation and is probably just about the most demanding fixed-wing civilian flying there is, and yet the transition to Multi Crew might nevertheless be a bit more difficult than for a cadet coming straight out of an integrated course.

Like a lot of ex-mil types, he is more likely to piss-off a few of those showboating skippers who prefer the company of a slightly more humble sidekick on the flightdeck who who can be relied on to meekly toe-the-line i.e. someone who behaves like a well trained Pilot's Assistant rather than an Assisting Pilot.

When these types do the hiring, a freshly minted integrated graduate will therefore have the advantage over a more experienced pilot from a single crew background.

However, which of the two is more likely to have the perspicacity to identify and self-confidence to burst a bubble of complacency and/or authoritarianism in order to break a chain of events which could result in an incident/accident?

And yet the percieved temerity of his attitude in such circumstances is at risk the same kind of archetypal putdown as that attempted on WWW by n_n :-

would you like to share with us your 2/3/4 engine and airline experience?
You can miss out anything below,say,20 tonnes."What possible relevance this has in any case to the issue being raised in the initial post of this thread escapes me.

Such breathtaking arrogance and dismissiveness is simply indicative of a culture of one-upmanship where a delusion of superiority, and what is worse, infallibility is measured by the number, type and size of engines as well as the number of passengers "strapped to one's back".

This reminds me of a chat I had yesterday with a bus driver who told me that he is studying for a black cab licence - perhaps it is strange that he has not considered the reduced social prestige of only being able to carry the equivalent population of a household rather than a hamlet, and with such a smaller engine?

....or perhaps it is simply that he doesn't have any unresolved issues in the trouser department.

There is a strange sort of kiss-up/kick-down, fag-turned-prefect mentality - as famously lampooned by the TV character Blackadder - that unfortunately characterises some of those who are able to advance themselves in heirarchies everywhere.

It has accurately been identified as a potentialy dangerous factor on the flight deck and is gradually becoming an anachronism as our understanding human factors in society in general, and aviation safety in particular, continues to evolve beyond an age of of tyrants and slaves.

Before operating in a multi crew environment, self-improvers are likely develop a greater immunity to this specific danger due to their more flexible, varied and independent experience as pilots compared to those integrated students who have only ever flown in a more externally managed environment.

Although, as I have stated before, like all such generalisations there will be many exceptions - especially with regard to the influence of other experiences and life skills.

[VITODRAGO]

I AGREE WITH flying paddy 100%. ALSO BIG JETTS ARE MUCH EASIER AND SAFE TO FLY THEN LIGHT TWINS. WHEN LOW TIME FO COME TO FLY LITTLE SE I CAN SEE THEY FORGOT OR MAY BE NEVER TOLD HOW TO USE THE RUDDER, PLUS MANY OTHER THINGS AND MOST OF ALL THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE GOOD, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL SINCE AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY SHOW TO ME BELOW AVERAGE SKILLS AND AIRMANSHIP IN MY CHECK OUTS. ON THE OTHER SIDE FO WITH 1000+ HOURS ON PROPELLER MADE AS FI OR AS PILOTS IN OTHER WAYS ARE CONCRETE REAL AVIATOR.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

So if 1000hrs light twin GA experience is a black belt in aviation experience why are so many black belts trying and failing to get into airlines every day of the year?

It has truly often puzzled me.

Cheers

WWW

[Blackshift]

1. Too many Blackadders doing the hiring.

2. Too many Baldricks on the market.

[Bart O'Lynn]

Well i had 7000 hrs light and medium twin before a jet. how effing black can a belt be.Didnt make me a better jet pilot. Made me an operator with a bigger database of war stories
Come one W.W.W. show us yer willy.

Vito...ballacks

To the other fellow you are right in the context of speaking up. however sometimes combined with a misunderstanding of crm,or notechs (if they are upto date) you end up with a gobby knowall who is a hinderance to everyone with their missaplication of their percieved experience and cant let go of their past FI staus. ,or something like that. Ends up just policing the captain (in his head and via his chip) instead of providing input. I am a self abusing ex FI bush jockey,and i find cadets overall more suited to the enviroment in general, and not afraid to apply correct notech philosophy. As you can see from my reply to vito i'm a well balanced person open to ther opinions etc etc.

W.W.W we are waiting

[Say again s l o w l y]

My my, this thread has certainly taken on a life of its own.

N_N, I have no wish to personally insult you, it is too easy to on an anonymous forum. I far prefer to insult people face to face!

Stick and rudder skills are important, but there is an awful lot more to airline flying than just that. This is where all arguments for and against any 'group' fall on their ar*e.

It may surprise you to find out that not all of us want to work for B.A. Actually it would be at the bottom of my list, one of the reasons I have never applied. I'd rather not wait 10 years for a command or get shafted by the seniority system just because I'd be the new boy.
I don't resent anyone who works there, infact I have many friends and ex-colleagues who have joined BA. Some love it, some less so, but am I jealous? Of course not, each to their own.

There was only one reason that ever made me want to join BA and tragically she was retired recently. I'd even have worked for Ryanair if they'd offered the chance to fly Concorde.

I always get asked why I still instruct and my response is simple. I enjoy it far more than flying for the airlines. I got into flying because I have always had a passion for it. This still remains and flying light a/c is the most enjoyable section of aviation that exists for me.

Personally I'd always like to fly with someone who has had a varied career, nothing to do with them being 'better' in any way, but they are usually a damn-sight more interesting to sit next to or have a beer with.

WWW, why are twin jockey's trying to get into the airlines? 2 things, Money and self preservation.

Hands up who'd stay working for an airline if they could earn the same amount flying G/A? I'd be out like a shot.

[Blackshift]

BO'L et al

***RTFP FERGAWDSSAKES!!!***

Being a better jet pilot per se is not the issue here - it is about how integrated graduates perform comparitively as single crew in light A/C, and whether the answer to this question is perhaps likely to suggest that there is perhaps a systemic failure to properly prepare them for a future as commanders of any aircraft.

Now I am in no way doubting their ability to operate a 737 but I have discovered that all the new pilots coming out of these so called major flight schools, (oxford, CTC etc) are sadly lacking in what I would call basic flying skills. ...it is clear from the rest of what Flying Paddy has to say here, that by this he is primarily referring to their ability to make sensible command decisions as opposed to automatic Pavlovian responses.

This is not a personal issue, it is about a system of training which might be failing its students in this key area.

As my esteemed colleague SAS, himself the graduate of an integrated course, goes on to say:-
Integrated courses are fine for churning out potential first officers, what they aren't good at is teaching people how to be a commander. A very different thing from just being good at the basic mechanics of flying an aircraft.Furthermore, I have put forward the suggestion that there may be more than a few captains out there who prefer to work alongside those who are simply diligently prepared for a career as an F/O, thereby encouraging this practice.

Now, let's stick to the point please Gentlemen...

...and it's got nowt to do with WWW's willy either! :rolleyes:

[Bart O'Lynn]

Blackshift...you're wrong ....your turn

[Blackshift]

I congratulate you on your concise and astutely unassailable Marxist dialectic - I know better than to argue with that...:uhoh:

You win Groucho!

[Dusty_B]

Even as a PPL student, I could tell who were the Intergrated FIs and who were the Modular/Self Improver/Ex-Mil FIs.

The sausage factory FIs couldn't answer my questions as well.

[dropshort105]

Guys we all make a living in the same sky, the Airline guys do work in a different world to the G.A. guys each has its problems and each has its rewards, as instructors in whatever field you are in its up to you to teach people what they need to know, dont bitch about his/her ability dont catigorise, teach, fix the problem, educate.:ok:

[Mr R Sole]

As someone who did his training on an integrated course, I might be a bit better qualified to make comment. However I did a PPL before I did my CAP509 and afterwards I instructed fulltime and still do a bit of FI work from time to time. So in some respects I have seen it from both corners of the discussion.

My Oxford course gave me the knowledge to get started on my first multi crew job but in my opinion the hands on skills were simply not there and I passed my IR first time! My instrument skills were up to speed but since the IR is normally completed last, I noticed on my FI course that my visual skills had degraded remarkably! An integrated course gives you the basics but in my view nothing more but the FI course really taught me about flying and decision making which the former is non existent in a commercial training environment since the Captain is going to be the prime decision maker in a multi crew environment.

If I was a recruiter then my preference would be for the hour builder/ ex instructor over the integrated student because the product is on the whole better, providing they can get out of the single pilot mentality without too much problem. Flying a public transport aircraft with 200 hours is a tall order and the confidence will simply not be there when they start flying since their comfort zone for operating the aircraft will consist of highly automated approaches with ideally little visual flying! A new integrated student will also create a very steep cockpit gradient where they will be very reluctant to challenge their colleague if things should go pear shaped since their experience is low.

Some people who work as instructors or aerial photographers struggle when changing to a multi crew environment but that in my view is down to the person's attitude and not their ability.

[Maude Charlee]

Multi crew and CRM

Depends how you conduct your photography. I would agree if it is single crew - pilot acting as both PIC and photographer (assuming you live long enough to make it to another job). However, having spent 3 years as a survey pilot, working with a photographer (and very experienced PPL) as an additional crew member, I would challenge the opinion that it leaves you lacking in that department.

We have to work very closely, and as the task can require high levels of concentration whilst we both perform our primary function, communication is often nothing more than a small movement of the hand from the photographer to indicate where he wants the a/c positioned. I know his requirements so well, that I'm very often adjusting our position as he indicates it, or knowing exactly when to look out the corner of my eye for the next signal. On task, we very often split the workload too, with the photographer handling the majority of the R/T, and en-route assisting with navigation (although to be fair, the flights are VFR and it isn't enormously demanding).

I couldn't agree more that it is all about attitude though. You can change somebody's ability to do a job far more easily that their attitude towards it, and I would take the 'can do' mentality any day over the 'do I have to'.

[DFC]

Given the choice between an Integrated course graduate with some FI experience and an ex mil pilot with some FI experience, which would you choose and why?

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

Personally I'd choose the ex-mil person, depending on their attitude. If the choice was between a newly qualified integrated student and someone who's just left the RAF.
Why?
Simply because they are likely to be more experienced pilots and have been through a far more rigorous training program than any civvy pilot.

If the integrated pilot had a lot of experience post qualification, then I wouldn't make a differentiation based on background, but base any choice on the individual and how they would fit into the team.

[unfazed]

Why bash integrated course pilots ?

They have proved that they have the desire and determination by passing some very tough exams, they have completed the course.

In the older system BCPL's were not exactly Concord standard but they learned like everyone else by doing.

Todays youngsters have a lot more hoops to jump through and a lot more expense - They also have a multitude of backgrounds and experiences.

Just because they are in a different system doesn't mean they are no good !

And no I am not one myself (self sponsored via the longer route)

[shortstripper]

Forgive the cherry picking, I couldn't resist!

It won't change until we get some quality, long term instructors. I don't want to sound patronising or insult anyone, but how can someone who has the bare minimum of experience really teach to a high enough standard?

PPL instructors as in days of old would fit the bill :p

The answer is they can't (see above). So we have a chicken and egg scenario - either instructors have potentially years of experience behind them and are paid a salary commesurate with this experience (and PPL training effectively ends in the UK), or instructors are low-houred but not teaching to a high enough standard. Even the cheaper (for the flying schools) PPL/FI option has the problem that one has to have experience flying and, I would argue, instructing to be a good instructor.

Are you saying PPL/FI option is a no-go due to lack of experience? There are plenty of PPL's out there with vast amounts of experience, so .... PPL instructors as in days of old would fit the bill :p

New instructors are invariably low houred, but the problem is that as soon as they start to become good at the job, they get employed by an airline and you are back at square one. .... PPL instructors as in days of old would fit the bill :p

I would have no problem with PPL's teaching as long as they could get paid. I know some very competent PPL's who would make excellent instructors, but they can't spare the time to go off and get their CPL writtens and to be honest, once you've passed those you may as well do the flight test and get a full on CPL and get paid for it. ... Are you softening to the idea then SAS? I seem to remember you thought it was a bad idea some time ago.

On the subject of instructor retention, perhaps the best way forward is encourage pilots to instruct part time whilst working for the airlines. Some of the best instructors I have flown with have done this, and it's something I aspire to do when I finally get that first job! ... I'd second that!

PPL/FIs should also be entitled to receive remuneration as one of their rating, not licence, privileges. andPPL, build experience, then FI course if able to pass selection, then FI time. Then take the CPL, IR and airline route. Less expensive courses to pay off before starting on the CPL route (around £10K?) - and an opportunity to be a part-time FI with a 'real' job until you've saved enough to help pay for the CPL/IR.... andWhich is what used to happen some years ago. ... How true! (although we don't all aspire to be CPL's at all, just instructors :\ )

I ask because we are now seeing the first ex-cadets from the 1987 Prestwick/Oxford era with 744 Training Captain jobs in their mid 30's. They seem to be doing a pretty good job as well. .... Is it that long ago? I applied and jumped through a couple of the hoops, I was however, an older entrant with maybe an "O" level or two, too few and didn't make it :ugh: Now I'm just a PPL with a desire to instruct.

So if 1000hrs light twin GA experience is a black belt in aviation experience why are so many black belts trying and failing to get into airlines every day of the year? .... Character?

I always get asked why I still instruct and my response is simple. I enjoy it far more than flying for the airlines. I got into flying because I have always had a passion for it. This still remains and flying light a/c is the most enjoyable section of aviation that exists for me. .... Hmmmm, I used to think you were smug, but you're starting to earn my respect :) lol

The sausage factory FIs couldn't answer my questions as well. .... I bet an experienced PPL turned instructor could, even without a CPL :8

All in all, I'd say bring back PPL/FI's .... but then I'm biased :E

SS

[Mister Geezer]

On the subject of instructor retention, perhaps the best way forward is encourage pilots to instruct part time whilst working for the airlines. Some of the best instructors I have flown with have done this, and it's something I aspire to do when I finally get that first job!

My bread winner is flying for the airlines and I still instruct part time when I can. However at the end of the day I have nothing to gain from it whatsoever and will be out of pocket when my FI renewal comes next year! When you put it into that context - no wonder many people simply use it as a stepping stone for bigger and better things.

Bring back the old system of the AFI and QFI. The procedure of 'unrestricting' yourself on experience and solo sign off alone does not weed out any unsuitable instructors that shouldn't hold a full FI rating

[unfazed]

Shortstripper - are you seriously trying suggesting that somebody with a PPL has more knowledge and experience to pass on then somebaody who has got off their Ar%e passed some very testing examinations and gained some very credible qualifications by passing very demanding checkrides ?

"I don't think so !"

The only thing that you would achieve by allowing PPL's to instruct would be a very definite lowering of standards (yes I know there are exceptions but I am talking about averages). Many PPL's have poor habits and have picked these up whilst gaining "experience"

The only reason I can see for allowing PPL's to instruct on a part time basis is to provide certain FTO's with better profit margins.

[shortstripper]

Unfazed

Are you seriously suggesting that someone holding the CPL exams, and a couple of hundred hours has more knowledge and experience than a PPL of 20 or 30 years of diverse experience?

Get a grip man! I'm not saying a PPL/FI is always going to be superior, but equally don't think that someone who has gained qualifications quickly will always be better by virtue of said qualifications. I have met the odd CPL/frozen ATPL FI's who don't even know what the PFA is, have never flown into a farm strip or flown anything other than a couple of club types!

The only reason I can see for allowing PPL's to instruct on a part time basis is to provide certain FTO's with better profit margins.

If you cannot see further than that, then I'm amazed you can consider yourself an intelligent human being! Sorry to be so damning, but I've always gone along in life respecting both those of higher and lower experience or academic achievement. The reason? Because life has taught me that all have something to give, even if at first it's not obvious. If you're really that stupid I could go into all the reasons why PPL/FI's would benefit the GA community, but I think you'd learn more by thinking that one out yourself .... or is that too difficult?

:mad:

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

I have met the odd CPL/frozen ATPL FI's who don't even know what the PFA is, have never flown into a farm strip or flown anything other than a couple of club types!

I know even more PPL's who aren't any better. I've also met quite a few PPL's who aren't safe to be let loose in a golf cart let alone an aircraft! I certainly wouldn't want them teaching anywhere near me.

The best idea is to make the FI rating almost stand alone. Higher standards to get into it and a longer course. If you have it, you can teach and get paid properly. If you have a PPL, you can teach upto that level, CPL to CPL etc......

It's not rocket science.......

[shortstripper]

I'd be more han happy with that idea SAS.

It's true there are plenty of hopeless PPL's out there, but the same applies to the curret crop of FI's (hence this thread). PPL/FI's used to exist and did a bloody good job on the whole; yep, there were bad ones I'll admit. The thing is, like you say, each should be judged on his/her merit and not on the sweeping bias that some CPL's have that they are Oh! so superior in skill and experience! Most are, but usually only once they've been around a few years. Also, don't forget there are ex-forces and even downgraded ATPL's who now have just a PPL but might like to instruct. Do they suddenly loose all that experience just because they don't want the hassle of maintaning a CPL after there military or airline career is over?

Sorry my reply to unfazed was a bit flame-like, but sweeping statements about lowly PPL's are so pathetic they make me angry!

SS

[tunalic2]

I think that this thread has a done a fantastic job of demonstrating that, people (ok not a mori pole but those on this thread at least ) will tend to look favourably at a person who has a similar background to themselves.

Human nature?

so we might assume that

The recruiters of an airline who had a similar personal training path are more likely to favour yours.

Now with HR departments utilised by larger companies to prevent this, it shouldn't happen, unless they are run by humans, in which case they could possiby apply similar subconscious thought process's.

Human nature?

So we can conclude that life is not fair but we can learn some of the pitfalls and prepare.:ok:

There can be no perfect selection process, but we can do our best and learn what they are and prepare for them. Taking our backgrounds proudly with us , If we don't fit, would we want to be there ?
(I could fit anywhere for a couple of years and 1500 hrs come the replies!)

So if he did land on the grass with an engine failure would it be so bad? it would keep the runway open, if it was a bad landing and arguably a bit softer and more forgivng of any (godforbid us perfectionists) lateral movement. Bad I suppose if he didnt have the answer to why , but not bad when you have instructed him.
No such thing as a stupid question.

T2

[Send Clowns]

You hit the nub of the problem we had, tunalic. Most graduates of integrated courses have a lot less similarity of background to the PPL students than most modular graduates do. Most have never done a PPL, don't know what it is like and never had that amateur's enthusiasm.

[unfazed]

I'm amazed you can consider yourself an intelligent human being

Shortstripper - Just for the record I never claimed to be intelligent ! I am just stating a fact. Teaching is not just about teaching the mechanics of flight (we can teach monkeys that). It is about instilling confidence, judgement, airmanship, decision making and the right attitude.

I think that your rather personal rant at my post displays your lack of some of these things (my opinion).

Anyway why don't you pass the exams and gain an FI rating if it is so easy and you are so gifted ???

[shortstripper]

Yes well, sorry about the rant. I tried to explain in subsequent posts the reasons I get ticked off with the attitude that mere PPL's are incapable of instructing. I guess you're unable to even consider them and answer why you dismiss them in a fuller way?

Teaching is not just about teaching the mechanics of flight (we can teach monkeys that). It is about instilling confidence, judgement, airmanship, decision making and the right attitude. .... Surely that's what the FI course should do isn't it? I know it's lacking in that way, but please do explain why a CPL has better teaching skills than a PPL?

I'd happily take the exams if I was allowed to these days without having to attend compulsory ground school! For anyone working and with a family, this is virtually impossible to do!

I don't know how long you've been around in the world of aviation, but t seems that you don't know what used to happen, why things changed or that PPL/FI's taught many of your CPL/ATPL colleagues their basic skills.

SS

[unfazed]

I'd happily take the exams if I was allowed to these days without having to attend compulsory ground school! For anyone working and with a family, this is virtually impossible to do

Not true ! I have a family and a full time job - there are plenty of distance learning options which allow you to study in your "spare" time - worked for me.

I do not dismiss "mere PPL's" but once you have taken the ATPL or CPL exams you will have more knowledge of the subject material and a better depth of understanding.


I have been around long enough to know that there weren't as many "obstacles" to overcome in the past.

The FI course shows you how to teach the subject to somebody else (you know it but may not necessarily be able to get it across to another person). The CPL course sharpens up your flying skills and highlights any deficiencies - it raises your game and demands that you do not make mistakes and ensures that you can think
on your feet and change your plans if weather deteriorates etc.

Some other countries do have unpaid PPL's who teach and I don't have a problem with that - that is a true "club" approach to flying and reduces cost if done ethically. My concern is around professional instructors who have put in the time and effort who find that they are working alongside PPL instructors who have not gained the required level of knowledge or skill and who provide free labour to a profit driven company. In the latter scenario standards will drop and the only winner will be the private profit driven organisation.

[shortstripper]

Unfazed,

Actually you do have to attend ground school. Not full time, but at least two or three, two week consolidation periods, whether you need them or not. Unfortunately I'm a dairy farm manager and agriculture does not lend itself to extended "holidays", so for me it's just not a viable option at present. Personally I have been flying over 20 years and have lived and breathed aviation (ok in an amateur sense) since childhood. I certainly know enough "in depth" to teach to PPL level, which would obviously be my personal ceiling.
The CPL course sharpens up your flying skills and highlights any deficiencies - it raises your game and demands that you do not make mistakes and ensures that you can think on your feet and change your plans if weather deteriorates etc.

So a couple of hundred hours and a 25 hour flying course makes you a Sky God? and a PPL can't think well enough to change plans when the weather deteriorates? Hmmmmm.

I'm also pretty sure the FI course should polish up bad habits and sloppy flying. I've know that the flying accuracy required to pass the FI course is equal to, if not better than the CPL course.

However, I'm not just arguing from my personal standpoint, but also for the PPL with thousands of hours who finds £5000 for a FI rating enough, without the added £2000 to get the CPL papers! Or the ex forces pilot with no desire to go commercial, or the ex ATPL who doesn't want the cost of maintaining medical or licence at CPL level ... to highlight just a few cases. OK the last already has the CPL and could be a PPL/FI under present rules anyway (but he'd still just be a PPL).


Some other countries do have unpaid PPL's who teach and I don't have a problem with that - that is a true "club" approach to flying and reduces cost if done ethically. My concern is around professional instructors who have put in the time and effort who find that they are working alongside PPL instructors who have not gained the required level of knowledge or skill and who provide free labour to a profit driven company. In the latter scenario standards will drop and the only winner will be the private profit driven organisation. .Some countries? You can here! ... but until fairly recently you didn't need to go through an expensive pre course (compulsory CPL ground training) before taking the FI one. You can still be a PPL/FI but it will cost at least an extra £2000 over what it used to, for what is on the whole, irrelevant knowledge at PPL level. Also having paid more to get there, you can no longer be paid once you get there. I was taught by a mixture of CPL and PPL instructors, all of which were paid and all of which were professional.

My concern is around professional instructors who have put in the time and effort who find that they are working alongside PPL instructors who have not gained the required level of knowledge or skill and who provide free labour to a profit driven company. In the latter scenario standards will drop and the only winner will be the private profit driven organisation. Hmmmm, funny how we used to all be taught by PPL instructors at club level years ago with no problems, and that it's just recently that everyone is bemoaning the drop in standards of both teaching and the PPL's (even CPL's) who are emerging?

SS

[unfazed]

Are you seriously telling me that with the current crisis in dairy farming that you can't find a couple of weeks for a bit of study review ?

I can see from your reference to "Sky God" that you have a bit of an attitude towards the CPL, oh well you are entitled to an opinion even if it is wrong !

You are also an expert on the FI course so once again I will bow to your superior knowledge.



However, I'm not just arguing from my personal standpoint, but also for the PPL with thousands of hours who finds £5000 for a FI rating enough, without the added £2000 to get the CPL papers Tell me ablout it !! I know because I made some sacrifices to get through these courses. How about no nice cosy conservatory, no annual holiday and while were at it why not sell the car and forget about nice furniture (no pain no gain).

, irrelevant knowledge Oh dear pattern emerging !

Hmmmm, funny how we used to all be taught by PPL instructors at club level years ago with no problems Yes and we also used to send our grandkids up the chimney but times do change. Years ago there was a club ethos and flying was (on the whole) much more sociable - it was also a tad more elitist as well. Like I said earlier I do not have a problem with the concept of PPL instructors but I happen to believe that we are living in a much more commercially driven age and there is a real danger of instructors being exploited (ppl or cpl).

If I was you I would like to get rid of the hassle and cost of extra training so that I could teach part time, but then again who will look after the cows while you are teaching ?

[shortstripper]

Are you seriously telling me that with the current crisis in dairy farming that you can't find a couple of weeks for a bit of study review ? Actually YES! Due to the current crisis we are short staffed and I have very little time off. In the last year I have had days off yes, but I've only managed a single one week holiday, and I couldn't really be selfish enough to denigh my kids a bit of my time for my own selfish reasons. As for 2 X 2 weeks? Impossible! However, I'm kind of hoping that won't always be the case so I'd hope in the future more time to be able to do more, even the CPL's if needs be. You've missed my point again though! It's the principal and not necessarily how things work for me personally. Oh and by the way ... How about no nice cosy conservatory, no annual holiday and while were at it why not sell the car and forget about nice furniture (no pain no gain). I drive a car that I rebuilt from a £150 wreck, I live in a tied house and funnily enough just recently built a conservatory from reclaimed materials .. total cost £400. I already do without purely by virtue of low income, large family and a flying habit (which is maintained just about as cheaply as is possible). Please don't make assumptions about your sacrifices being greater than mine or vice versa. Niether of us know enough about the others circumstances to go there!

I can see from your reference to "Sky God" that you have a bit of an attitude towards the CPL, oh well you are entitled to an opinion even if it is wrong ! Absolutely wrong yourself! I have no issue at all with CPL's and plenty of ATPL friends to boot. It was your attitude and implication that having a CPL suddenly makes you able to make piloting decisions so far above PPL capabilities! All this when you can get a CPL with only 200 odd hours now. Makes me wonder how the 2000 hr+ PPL ever managed to survive at all?

Please don't get me wrong (you have so far), I have the greatest respect for anyone who has, as you say, (loose quote) "got off there behind and worked hard to get a CPL" but equally I do not think you can dismiss a PPL as a complete novice purely because he/she has not gone for a higher qualification.

If I was you I would like to get rid of the hassle and cost of extra training so that I could teach part time, but then again who will look after the cows while you are teaching ?

I'm not ready to instruct yet anyway (no time, no money), but if I was, I could manage a few hours in the middle of the day, or a day a week .... it's the CPL groundschool I personally could not manage. So you are wrong again! It's not sour grapes on my part, It's a dislike of egotistical fools who can't see past their own circumstances and seek to belittle others because they see their own level as superior. I knew a scruffy little man once who was never happier than being a lowly winch driver at a well known gliding club ... turned out he was one of the most senior training captains at BA!

SS

[Send Clowns]

The FI(R) is already a far better course for teaching good pure flying skills than the CPL is. I have never flown as well as I did when with 300 hours under my belt I went back to the basics, to learn how to teach them. I had the experience to fully understand what I was being shown to teach. There is no need at all for the practical flying for a pilot to have a CPL.

There is no need to learn the whole CPL theory course either, although an intermediate course would be very useful. That could be included with an FI(R) course as an extra for PPL holders.

Shortstripper

You can do the CPL theory full-time section in 2 one-week courses if that is any help. It is only 2 weeks for the ATPL course. Call GTS in Bournemouth as your nearest course provider; I think they still do it ( www.gtserv.co.uk ). Bring the kids along for a holiday in sunny Bournemouth! You might be able to do the flying at Shoreham, we could certainly do so here.

Good luck in finding a way!

[unfazed]

Shortstripper

I can tell that you have very firm views on this. Good luck to you and I hope that you find the time to gain an FI qualification however you do it !

[shortstripper]

Thankyou both,

Yes you're right unfazed, I do have strong views on this, and I'm not alone (not all by PPL's either). I'm not ready yet, not by time, money or even the currency enough to feel up to trying! That was never my point. I will go for it in the "not too distant future" but feel there are plenty of others out there who are not only ready, but also very very capable. I would just like to see the PPL taught as a PPL and not as a stepping stone to an airline career. Fast track CPL/FI's tend to know little of what recreational flying is about and often forget that many of their punters do not aspire to fly 747's. What they want (sometimes) or need (though they may not realise) is to be taught basic good airmanship, proper handling techniques for smaller aircraft and to be shown what lays beyond the flying school enviroment. Nothing wrong with fast tracking, but I think PPL instructors would be well suited to teaching PPL's and CPL instructors suited to taking that training further. In short, I think there is room for both!

SS

[unfazed]

Shortstripper


I am sorry to see that you have a very specific view of flying instructors. As far as you are concerned they are all young, all fast track ATPL's looking for an airline career and lacking in real world experience. That is where your inexperience shows. Go to any flying school and have a look around, you will see a few "grey hairs" around with tons of the type of experience that you feel is lacking. Flying instructors have exactly the same love of flying that you have.

Your perception is just that a perception, when you pass your FI or CPL you will be at a different viewing point and your perception will be different.

[shortstripper]

Oh Gawld! I can see this never ending :rolleyes:

I am sorry to see that you have a very specific view of flying instructors. As far as you are concerned they are all young, all fast track ATPL's looking for an airline career and lacking in real world experience. That is where your inexperience shows. Go to any flying school and have a look around, you will see a few "grey hairs" around with tons of the type of experience that you feel is lacking. Flying instructors have exactly the same love of flying that you have.

Where did that come from? When did I say "All instructors"? or even "all" fast track CPL/FI's. Yes there are PLENTY of good instructors of all types and background, but there are also plenty who are simply there to build hours! Not that that is a new thing either I'll admit. You STILL don't see where I'm coming from with regard to PPL/FI's do you? ... That's where your lack of experience shows.

SS

[unfazed]

Shortstripper

I am sorry, you are right, I have no idea what you are banging on about !

As you stated earlier it is possible to gain an FI qualification as a PPL, so anyone with a PPL who has the determination can teach PPL's.