Are Today's New Pilots Well Trained

[Pac Rotors]

At Simon's funeral the other day I got to talking with a number of high time Kiwi and overseas pilots and the general consensus is that a lot of the new students coming through the schools dont really have the experience to make it in the real world.

I decided to look into it a little and the majority of instructors dont have any experience actually out working helicopters, whether it be longline, ag, offshore etc. Their only experience has been teaching other students to fly. It would be great to somehow harness all the experience of our 10,000 + hr guys worldwide that have actually worked a helicopter, and enable them to pass it on to students.

This is not meant to put down the current instructors out there, just to highlight that once the experienced guys retire, are killed etc that experience is lost forever if not passed on.

Would welcome everyones thoughts on this as presume it would be the same anywhere in the world.

[Hughes500]

I agree entirely, not that I have 10000 hours but in the thousands, but the problem starts at the basic training stage. Over here in UK there is an enormous push for PPLH's to pass within 45 hours. I currently find that the teaching syllabus is all based round an airport not out in the sticks. This means very little basic trainning actually happens where the young pilot is going to fly ie what and where a helicopter is designed to do.

Ask yourself what is the first thing a new pilot is going to do when he has just passed - take the machine home to is garden / back yard let alone flying in hills / mountains lowering cloud bases etc etc.

The new JAR system of teaching PPLH now includes 5 hours of instrument awareness why ?? This is not an instrument rating surely most young pilots need more training in off airport operations rather than basic instrument awareness. Lets face it most punters who hire a machine fly in good weather !!! ( at the early stage )

While I have harped on about Private licence, remember that some of these guys will become tomorrows CPLH's espically as ex mil guys dry up and the airlines pay more and have better working conditions.

On the positive side JAR now require an instructor to have a CPLH and 400 hours before he can instruct. Catch 22 here who empolys a commerical pilot with 150 hours so he can becme an instructor unless he self funds. All that is happening mid term is a lack of people coming through the system and a self perpetuating problem of lack of experience / lack of new blood etc etc.

Interested in your comments espically from the powers if they dare !!

[ravenx]

I thought it was 300 hours and a CPL(H)

[RW-1]

Pac,

Thinking about this and I do agree with you and the observation, but I don't think it is related to the passing of students at a certain timeframe.

While that is an issue, I believe the real reason the experienced guys information isn't passed on is the perpetual movement of pilots, the experienced guy is doing that flying that you are referring to, he doesn't want to instruct per say.

So the wheel goes round and round, students who work their way up to CFI (US) and then begin instructing others how to fly, but no one is teaching them about flying the particular job until they either get there and are picked up, or they go out and take a short course, self paid.

I'm sure there are high time real world pilots out there who do instruct, but IMO not too many, they "paid their duyes" and moved into the larger birds, etc.

A vicious cycle it is. Add to that that what some would consider good entry level jobs to build skills, like pipline patrol are given out with time requirements that the entry level pilot doesn't have. To get the experience you have to already have it, catch-22.

Just my .02

(BTW, supposedly the BSO 135 will be outside today or tommorow, I have a camera ready ... :) )

------------------
Marc

[Roofus]

This here subject is a real tough one. & a very important one too!
To do most of the 'specialist' jobs out there you need experience.
One way for new guys to get hours is on the North Sea. I know it doesn't provide low-level & mountain flying, but it does provide experience in hostile conditions. Rig deck landings help precision techniques aswell as general airmanship. There is also the chance to get involved in load lifting & long lining.
The better Captains up there are very happy to pass on their experience in a constructive manner.
At the going rate of 800 hours per year it will also help build hours.

The subject of a poorer standard of 'new' guy.... is he poorer? or is it that commercial pressures mean that operators are demanding too much from 'new' pilots?

I don't agree with instructors being 'fresh' faced themselves. No-one should instruct without having first 'done it' themselves. The problem is that instructors pay at most schools is crap. The only way, as I see it, to put that experience back into the circle is to make the pay & conditions attractive enough to pull the 'big boys' away from North Sea commands etc & into instructing!

I'd also agree that the training is very much around the airfield. It needs to branch out more.............much more!

[The Nr Fairy]

From the JAA website, JAR-FCL 2.335 FI(H) Pre-requisites says:

Before being permitted to begin an approved course of training for a FI(H) rating an applicant shall have:

(a) completed at least 300 hours of flight time of which at least 100 hours shall be as pilot-in-command if holding a ATPL(H) or CPL(H) or 200 hours as pilot-in-command if holding a PPL(H);

(b) met the knowledge requirements for a CPL(H) as set out in AMC FCL 2.470(b);

(c) received at least 10 hours instrument flight instruction of which not more than five hours may be instrument ground time in a FNPT II or a flight simulator;

(d) completed at least 20 hours of cross-country flight as pilot-in-command; and

(e) passed a specific pre-entry flight test with an FI qualified as in JAR-FCL 2.330(f) based upon the proficiency check as set out in Appendix 3 to JAR-FCL 2.240 within the six months preceding the start of the course. The flight test will assess the ability of the applicant to undertake the course.

Link is http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/jar/jar.fcl.2.335.htm



------------------
For the last bloody time, it's "The En Ar Fairy" . . .

[paco]

I have always thought that instructors should not become such until they have at least 1500 hours. And how can you teach anyone real world experience in 100 hours?

The IR flying is all very well, but that only gets you out of trouble - there should be very much more emphasis on how not to get into it.

I find the standard of poling is taught very well - it's the operational attitude that is missing.

If the authorities won't do it, then maybe the commercial guys will - what about a pilot finishing school?

cheers

phil

------------------
CARs in Plain English?
You bet!
www.electrocution.com/aviation.htm

[200psi]

Perhaps this is an area where the military system is better in that only after several years of line flying and assesment as to suitability does a pilot get offered the oportunity to instruct.

Perhaps there should be regulations in place to restrict the current practice of newly qualified pilots going on, almost straight away to do instructor ratings.

[Pac Rotors]

Maybe PACO is on to something. Do you think it would be possible to have some sort of finishing school that all they do is teach things like longline, "real world" confined area landings, ag ops, mountin flying etc.

This could be taught by the higher time pilots and a potential IP would have to go through one of these courses. I reckon it would make a big impact and allow the experienced guys to pass on some of their practical knowledge without having to teach a student from the ab initio stage.

Comments are welcome. :)

[paco]

I think it would work quite well - already in Canada, some companies are sending pilots on extended stays to mountain courses. It's but a short step to add some more stuff, but it need not necessarily be all in flying hours - operational stuff can be taught in the classroom, and very well with modern teaching techniques.

You could either have a residential school, or a recognised body that grants a "franchise" for other schools to teach to that standard, due to distances involved. Then we get some sort of standardisation and something tangible for insurance companies to play with, and maybe we won't get the ridiculous amounts of minimum time demanded for elementary tasks.

Gentlemen, we have done it to ourselves - customers have way too much input as it is, because they don't trust us, which is hardly surprising when companies that should know better (and pilots) either undercut the proper rate or treat machines so abysmally that they break. That is not the way to gain respect.

The lack of qualified staff will be even more acute next year, and the year after, as the 100-hour guys are not going to get 1000 hours between now and then, so we've got to do something. The last time this type of experience gap happened in UK (just before Air Europe died), fixed wing companies were going broke because they didn't have pilots. Just keep an eye on Flight International's jobs page to see what I mean - the proportion of helicopter jobs (and smaller FW ones) is rising steadily.

Phil

------------------
CARs in Plain English?
You bet!
www.electrocution.com/aviation.htm

[Robsibk]

To Phil!

I don't understand most companies!If they are looking for low time pilots why don't tell them that they get a job ,but they have to pay part of the training the companie is giving them to become more experienced,so both sides would be happy.The low time pilot has a job and the companie has a pilot that is paying to be part of that companie.
Maybee it sounds a bit easy but I'm shure that lot's of low time pilots woudn't mind to spend money on that way.After all if you have to fly every year a couple of hours to keep in line,its the same.........or not?

Roberto

[paco]

No, I don't understand most companies either! I had occasion recently to ask about a job at a major company over here, knowing that they desperately need IFR pilots, and suggested they sponsor me for about 2 hours flying just to get the test (I was exempt the main course), and I would even pay for it when funds were better, but no chance!

As it happens I'm with a way better company now, but it did seem a bit short-sighted. I appreciate that they get burnt a lot (that was on of the major cash leaks from Noerthern Mountain), but they would have had to do more than that for indoctrination training anyway.

Talking of NM - it also seemed strange to me that perfectly capable guys with licences were sitting behind ops desks when I was doing at least 30 hours per month solo. If the hangar rats could have been released for short periods, not only would they have had some sort of incentive, but it would have been cheaper to train them when their turn came round because they were current. I'm sure it's no different elsewhere, which is sad.

Then again, whoever said that common senses came into it?

Phil

[HeloTeacher]

Canada uses 250 hrs PIC prior to commencing the instructor rating (H). That is an OK minimum, should be more.

Canadian Military is 1 operational tour (about 3 years) and a minimum of 700 hrs total time (again, for helos).

I have taught in both systems ab initio and as a company training captain and as a civil IFR captain with co-pilots of varying experience levels.

Enough background.

If you want to end the cycle of low-time instructors, up the minimums and force the schools to pay more. The cost of a licence will go up. Less new 100-hr wonders will be produced. The operators will still hire just as many as they already do. Right now the only ones willing to pay for the rating are the lower time guys who need to build the hours and are willing to work for peanuts.

With regards to paying for training. I hope I'm out of the business before this happens. Training is a cost of doing business. It SHOULD be included in the rate you are charging your customer. If one operator gets the pilots to pay for the training, and cuts his rate accordingly, other operators are forced to do the same. Stay away from this garbage.

As far as finishing schools...they are called employers. The variety of jobs where helicopters can be employed are many and no 100 or 150 hr pilot is going to be competent at all of them in a 20 or 30 hour course. Go to work at your skill level, get some experience, then add skills. I see too many new pilots, a few months into flying and with a whopping 250 hrs, who figure they are ready to strap on a long-line and head off into the mountains.

If you rush yourself in this business you are likely to rush yourself into an accident and maybe an early grave. Hopefully without taking anyone with you. Its one thing to practice with a line at the airport and a training pilot beside you in case you screw up, its quite another to be out there in the field on a crappy day with the customer threatening to go across the ramp if you can't meet his bag count.

[Robsibk]

to Helo Taecher!

I agree with you when you say that if you rush in this busines ,you will rush into an accident but if in the next years is a short pass of pilots with 1000 hours then probably the pilots with less hours will have to do the jobs this guys are doing now with 1000 hours ,being rushed by the company becouse they have no pilots with that experience,so increasing the possibility for accidents.
That's why I don't understand that companies are looking so long till no more pilots with 500 to 1000 hours will be in the industry!Then you will have high time or Low time pilots but not between them!

Maybee I see that wrong,I'M a low time pilot!

Roberto

[paco]

Quite agree - customers are going to have to use low time guys or not get the job done at all, so it's up to us to make sure they are as prepared as possible.

Phil

[imabell]

i read in a forum recently that flying helicopters was a piece of cake and any one can do it. it is good to see that train of thought is not the norm.

low hour instuctors are keen and truly believe that they have a lot to contribute to the new student. that is because they are low hour instructors.

pilots that have accumulated lots of hours with different types of experience usually say

"i don't know how you can do that instructing it would scare the crap out of me".

these are the people that are needed in the training industry, people that can relate the skill levels needed for different jobs.
the great proportion of high timers can do all the different skills with no problems but the low time instructor is just one blind or sight impaired person leading another of the blind variety. what you end up with is a pilot that has learnt to fly to the level of his instructors own incompetence. this student may have exelled with an experienced person.

most of the low hour instructors have never had a proper job or proper guidance, that is visible in the way that they conduct themselves and operate helicopters in general. some of these guys are genuine and really try to do the right thing by their fellow learners, some are hopeless.

interns don't teach at teaching hospitals.
just out of law school graduates don't teach at university in their first year.

the old system was developed by the airlines cadet schemes many years ago but has turned into a system of exploitation of an abundant supply of cheap workers.

something should definitly be done to raise the bar of ability of our future pilots but it will be difficult.




------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow