UK standards for instructing SEP

[mad_jock]

Following from multiple threads on the different methods of skinning a cat with teaching methods and the apparent lack of anyone to wanting to document how the prefered method of doing things is in the UK.

There are threads abundant on ATC forum on zone infringements crap RT.

From previous threads people think it's acceptable to teach outside the POH of the aircraft.

Its a bloody nightmare for ppl's having to bugger about relearning how to do their instructor's perversions every flight with one its no wonder they avoid instructor flights.

If all this crap could get documented and standards applied across the country we wouldn't have the problems with retention and reluctance of ppl's to have the occasional instructor flight.

I could just imagine going for an "instructor" flight now with 1000hours instructing under my belt. It would be a bloody nightmare if the person in question didn't like flaps in the turn on base, steeper than 3 deg approach angle, steep turns operated as an emergency procedure to 60 degrees and all the other multituded of differences individuals like teaching. It would proberly be "aye whatever" and continue doing what I have always done. And i wouldn't tell them I was an instructor in a previous life.

And if people wern't so pissed off getting bollocked all the time and retrained every flight they might just think it a good idea ever 6 months to go for a nav ex with an instructor and stop all these bloody zone infringments.

Is it not time someone bit the bullet and actually said this is what they actually want. It would actually improve safety.

Come on BEagle I disagree with some of your differences of operating (but disagree is a strong word) but if they were applied across the board it would lead to a happier PPL population who would at least know what was required and safer. Can you not get together with Mr Hays and some other of the elder statesmen that know what they are doing and get this lot sorted over a crate of whisky.

MJ

PS i was in a quandry about using BEagles name but he talks alot of sense all of the time and everything he says is safe. Its an opinon thing and not meant to force him into a reply.

Anyway out to the pub now, happy xmas

[funfly]

AGREE TOTALLY
My wife, who is still learning to fly, was doing circuits with an instructor who was very pedantic about her bearings and turning points on a particular circuit. She was taken out by the CFI and he criticised her for making the circuit too big and looking at the DI instesd of the runway. Previously she had had the same critisism about putting carb heat on downwind when another instructor told her you always put it on at final. Then taking carb heat out, some have told her over the threshold some after landing...the story goes on and on.
I'm not saying which technique is correct and which is not - it doesn't matter half the time - but the fact remains that within a club different instructors not only give different procedures but are capable of chastising a pupil for not being 'right'. This can make life very confusing for the student.
We've seen here the arguments about carb heat but in the end it would be better to teach one option consistantly. Time when nearing the end of PPL training to explain to students the various options and arguments for these variations.
Perhaps instructors should sometimes listen to their pupils. When was the last time you asked a pupil about what part of training in your school had made life difficult/easier?

[Mordacai]

Couldn't agree more, I have over 1400 instructional hours to my name, and make a real effort to teach 'basic fundamentals' rather than 'Iain's pet peeves'. Its quite funny though, I do have to pinch myself sometimes when I'm about to open my mouth.

It doesn't just affect the basic PPL'er though, I recently strolled up to an aircraft renter who inisted in a checkout (I imagine for insurance). The CFI who checked me out was a typical 'my way or the highway' instructor, I smiled sweetly, did it his way, and had a little chuckle to myself!

Fellow instructors, please think before you open yer gob!

[mad_jock]

The old crusty bastard CFI's are the worst culprits for enforcing daft standards and out dated practises. And usually they are the bloody examiners as well so the whole thing is never ending.

Someone needs to get a grip or the whole thing is going to get worse and worse.

MJ

[Whirlybird]

I agree with you all, but it's not so easy in practice...

We've seen here the arguments about carb heat but in the end it would be better to teach one option consistantly.

Yes, but who is to decide that option?

If it's going to be "the powers that be" who teach the FI courses, we need something that will apply across all aircraft and all airfields - and that won't really work for circuit procedures for a start; I'm not even sure it'll work for use of carb heat.

OK, so maybe it should be each CFI. Well, I don't know if my experiences are typical, but I've so far instructed part time, both at small "one-man" type of flying schools. In neither have I had much feedback on precisely how to teach each exercise. The first CFI was an unsatisfactory individual anyway, so we'll leave him out of this. The second tends to trust me, and leave me to get on with it - I'm an instructor, after all, is his attitude. If I ask him how to teach anything in particular, he'll tell me. But I don't ask exactly where he turns base in the circuit, or even precisely how he teaches take-offs. For the latter, I didn't even know there was more than one way of doing it; I taught the way I'd learned. I only realised when one student complained about being taught things two different ways!

Now, this CFI is a good guy and an excellent instructor, and when I pointed out the problem we decided we'd need to do something about it. But short of going over the whole syllabus, how?

So yes, I agree with all you said, MJ, but how are we going to change things in practice?

[incubus]

Airlines operate SOPs. Flying schools need to operate SOPs and do in the form of a flying orders book - it may just need more info.

I think it would be asking too much to create the same standards across the whole of the UK flight training fraternity because you will always have nuances based on fleet makeup, local requirements and so on. The same cannot be said for a purely local SOP, even including collaboration between training organizatons who operate out of the same field.

It does need people to go through the syllabus with a critical eye and highlight areas where there is the potential for variance. Decide on the best one, document it. Document acceptable alternatives (if any) and conditions for their use.

When that is done, you have a standards document which is good until it needs to be revised. Instructors should know it. Students can have access to it and it becomes the songsheet off which everybodu sings
:ok:

[Say again s l o w l y]

The basis for any "way" of flying, is the POH. Where to put carb heat on or off is an obvious example.

"Crusty" CFI's are not always to blame, but we must remember that there is often more than one way of doing something.

When I fly with someone who has a licence, unless they are doing something dangerous or contrary to the POH, then I won't try and change how they are operating to try and fit how I would do something.

We are there to ensure that they are safe and competent and advise as and where needed. That is the skill, not simply forcing your opinion on someone.

In a school, all the FI's should try and teach the same methods, but not all PPL's respond well to this technique. I personally prefer to see a finished "product"who isn't going to kill themselves and has worked out what is best for them, rather than "Monkey see, Monkey do" without any real thought behind their actions.

A wise and exceedingly crusty CFI once told me " The worst worst sort of students are the one's who do EXACTLY what I tell them. The good ones are those that can translate the crap coming out of my mouth into what I WANT them to do, not what I am telling them."

We need different techniques and different styles of teaching, god forbid we end up with a load of identi-kit PPL's without the wherewithall and experiences to try different things when something out of the ordinary happens.

[DB6]

Valid point, MJ, however I would hazard a guess that the problem is more prevalent in those instructors with low hours/limited experience who won't necessarily know there is more than one way to teach a given manoeuvre. One of the prerequisites for becoming an examiner is a reasonable amout of experience so I would hope that, by the time people do get that far, they will know that the end result is generally more important than how it is achieved. Unless you are in a tightly controlled instructional environment (e.g. military or Oxford/Jerez etc.) where the method becomes more significant, then how something is done is not important as long as it is safe.
Perhaps FIC instructors are the best placed bods to impart the knowledge that there are different methods for teaching e.g. PFLs, final approach techniques (unless thay already do)?

[mad_jock]

Yes every one has made good constructive points.

Low houred instructors have a lot to learn, to be fair to them. If they haven't been taught the various methods and a pilot comes out with them they think they are doing there job by reteaching. They don't have the experence to operate outside what they know, so to get themselves back into the comfort zone they insist its done thier way. Thus pissing said pilot off who has proberly been taught that way and passed thier test and has been fying quite happy for the last 18 months.

And the experenced instructors are sometimes the worst with 1000's of hours experence to weigh down thier moral right for the pilot to do it thier way.

The different ways to teach someone is quite rightly a dynamic thing with the instructor using thier proffessional skill to determine the best method of teaching.

The examiner experence these days doesn't really need to be that high if you look at Lasors.

Incubs has hit the nail on the head with the point i was making. The standards are for methods which are acceptable. And if the PPL does one of the documented methods to a satisfactory standard the PPL should be left alone.

I am not wanting a script on how every flight in the UK should be carried out.

JUst a document that EVERYONE can use, it shouldn't be restricted to a Instructors book or an examiners guide. Its to be refered to, and use as guidance when it comes to check rides, learning, teaching etc.

A flight with an instructor is considered akin to going to the dentist by most PPL's becuase of the inconsistancy of acceptable methods by the Instructors.

The problem with FIC instructors is they are as bad as everyone else with their own way of doing things

If you can think of a better way of breaking down this idea and getting PPL's to see the instructors as more of a reasource to be used than a pain in the arse that they have to put up with. Please stick your ideas in the pot.

For example one that used to wind me up as a PPL.

Checklists

Do we use the check list or not in the air?

Go on one check ride and you will get the instructor saying they should be done from memory and its best to have your head out the window not reading a check list.

Now in the very same school you can get.

Use the check list they wouldn't have written them down if you wern't meant to read them. Bollocks if your flying a 737 they use the checklist everytime.

I resorted to asking the instructors first. And 50% of the time got told "I am checking your flying and need to see what you do" Then sods law is I choose the oppersite method to the one they wanted. Lecture then starts which i know already into the reason why their method is the correct one.

As an ex-instructor personally I couldn't give a toss either way as long as they were done. In a SEP I was current and know I wouldn't read them but in a different type which i wasn't that familar with I would.

The standard document i would like would have on the subject.

Use of checklist while in the Air:

Methods

1) Checklist run form Memory.

2) Checklist read from checklist.

Prefered method is read from checklist but run from memory is acceptable if the check list completed as per the POH.

MJ

[Say again s l o w l y]

In the 737 a check list is just that. A list to check and make sure you have already done everything. You do not read it and follow it like most "checklists" in GA.

With a single crew operation all checks that are done when the a/c is in motion, should be from memory. When stopped on the ground. Read it if you like. However I prefer people to know where everything should be without reference to a list.

This is an area of inconsistancy and is very much the sort of thing that should be standardised. CFI's should hold standardisation meetings with all their FI's to sort this sort of thing out. I'm going to have one in the new year as I've noticed a few differences cropping up recently.

Whirly came up with a comment about her use of carb heat in the 150 to an instructor and in my opinion it was exactly the right thing to do. If you are comfortable with how you fly and are safe, then it is not up to the FI to "re-train" you in the hours flight. If you are a danger and doing stupid things, then I will be telling you what to do, but otherwise tell them to keep schtum or explain that you do it in a certain way for a reason.

How can we stop "over eager" FI's? Not sure, but we CFI's have to take the lead in establishing what is acceptable and what isn't. This needs to be disseminated to the FI's, who can then pass it on to the PPL's they fly with.

[DFC]

1. Don't teach what is not on the sylabus i.e. don't treach 60 deg bank turns when only 45 deg is on the sylabus. Get them back after the PPL for more "advanced" stuff if they want.

2. Have a system in place for students to report "differences" i.e. where instructors ask for things to be done differently. These differences are then discussed and an agreed method is used.

3. If one does not ask for feedback one will not get it. Break the PPL or whatever course into stages and ensure that the student provides feedback at the end of each part.

There is 3 for starters.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

You have just both made an example of the problems students face.

1) some instructors are teaching to 45deg some are teaching to 60 degs and won't accept anything less. Both have in there heart they are doing the right thing. I think the book says somewhere in between.

2) it was an example SAS which you fell into the standard instructor thing of justifying your method which you think is right. Who's right I don't know or care. Someone just tell me which one is the one that the powers that be want taught to students.

The problem with CFI setting the standards which they are meant to do already is that it just means that the school teaches the same. The students still have problems where they go some where else in the UK, or even the school across the road.

Who is going to set the standards for the CFI? An are the students going to know what the national standards are.
Otherwise how is the student going to know that what they are taught is "Industry Standard" which is going to be excepted by all instructors.

The feedback thing is a very good point. Someone external from the school needs to be able to take feedback on questions give a answer follow up and have the power to say to the CFI this isn't acceptable get it sorted. Why are your check rides geting **** for doing what the book says.

Most of the time now if someone has a problem with a school its blanked by the CAA. Not interested they say the school passes the checks etc etc. Please supply evidence to prove your point.

That person which we all know but can't mention. After I finished there were over 6 letters to the CAA complaining about the training standards from different individuals . The method he conducted the test, the method he conducted his RT tests.

Result bloody nothing "you need to proved positive proof of lack of standards" err there is 10 of us willing to go to court.

Yep but your PPL's and he is an examiner we are not touching him.

MJ

[Cactus99]

Is it just me or has anyone else thought about the AOPA sylabus for PPL training?? When I did my FIC, thats how I was taught, that was the bible!

Now the AOPA sylabus is available to all students and indeed Instructors/ CFI's. So here we have a common, documented, industry wide method of how to teach/ fly.

Taking, the Carb. Heat as an example, I teach to select to HOT whenever RPM below 2000. That avoids the issue of taking Carb. heat on final, base or wherever else you maybe. Its a catch all method. Others maybe different.

The fact is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and flying is the same. There are safe ways and unsafe ways.

Some more grist for the mill chaps.

[unfazed]

Standardised training syllabus is a nice aspiration but could easily lead to "flying by committee"

I will take my chances with self motivated, individual, professional diversity anyday.

I can just imagine the committee debating "when to put carb heat on" this would most likely be an annual event with no clear outcome, oh and the committee would need to stay in nice hotels in scenic holiday spots.

Cynical I know but in the real world natural selection leads to the adoption of sensible practices (well most of the time). If you try to get rid of human individuality, uniqueness and opinion (where discretion is valid) then we will all fly like clones with no enthusiasm or self expression and the world of aviation would be very dull indeed.

[DB6]

There are a couple of standards documents which go a long way to answering many of these questions available on the CAA website. Any time I know somebody is coming up for test I try and ask them in advance to read Standards Document 19 - Guidance for Applicants for PPL Skill Test. It has chapter and verse and is not always widely known about. PPL instructors can also learn a lot from that and other documents (e.g. 14). There was one for examiners for the skill test too which told you what examiners should be looking for (and therefore, one could imply, instructors should be teaching) but I can't find that one just now. Well worth a read anyway.
The link is here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=22)

[Whirlybird]

If you try to get rid of human individuality, uniqueness and opinion (where discretion is valid) then we will all fly like clones with no enthusiasm or self expression and the world of aviation would be very dull indeed.

There's nothing wrong with different instructors teaching in different ways. I think all students are capable of understanding that there is more than one way to do something, and certainly more than one way to teach it.

The problems start, for students, when an instructor wants it done his or her way, for no particular reason. The attitude of: "I always turn downwind THERE, and I teach my students to do that, and that's how I want it done, and the reason is because that's what we do and because I say so.

It's that attitude which has no place in instructing. And that's what annoys PPLs, and why they'd sooner go to the dentist than fly with an instructor. And that's what we need to get rid of.

There are also the instructors who criticise destructively, to the point that a PPL can end up feeling he/she doesn't know how to fly at all. There are other ways of getting something across, like the nice chap on my f/w biannual check, who said to me, "You're fine; you're a bit rusty, and you need to practise, but you know that already". I had no problem with that. But if he'd said, "Your steep turns are crap, your PFL wasn't much better and if we'd had a real engine failure you'd have crashed"....would that really have helped me to improve?

Some instructors just need to know how to teach - not to teach flying, but to teach PEOPLE! It's the FI courses that should be teaching this. Or revalidation seminars - I'm going on my first one fairly soon; do they teach this kind of stuff; if not, well they should. AOPA and other organisations who run these courses, if you're reading this thread, TAKE NOTE! ! !

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think M_J you are missing the point somewhat.

I am not teaching someone to fly in a particular manner, I am teaching them to work out how to get an a/c safely from A to B using their own nous and deal with any problems that may come up.

I couldn't care less where someone puts on the carb heat or turns onto downwind as long as it is appropriate for the a/c they are flying, the conditions at the time or how a particular aerodrome operates.

That is what we should all be teaching, not any catch all, one size fits all garbage about you must do it one way and one way only.

I will always mention different techniques to people if I see them doing something unusual or different, but I would never be offended if they told me that they preferred "their" method.

At the end of it, we should be teaching people to be pilots, not just a/c drivers who give little thought to their actions or the consequences of them. They need to be able to tell FI's when to shut up if their advice isn't needed, but they need to be able to listen without getting huffy if they are deemed to need further training or that they aren't good enough.

[Whirlybird]

SAS,

Everything you say is absolutely spot-on. :ok: What I, and MJ, and others are complaining about are the instructors - quite a number - who don't teach in that way. Who are basically on a massive ego trip, who want things done their way. What do we do about these instructors?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Unfortunately, there is only one way, find someone you get on with in your club/school or by word of mouth. If you start requesting to fly with a particular person over another, then the message soon gets through.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If you start requesting to fly with a particular person over another, then the message soon gets through. Doesn't work with clubs where the CFI has a policy that every student must fly with more than one instructor (one instructor might consistently miss something, for example, or have an area whether they are a bit weaker than others).

[Say again s l o w l y]

That shouldn't be a problem, as you won't fly with two instructors on a regular basis hopefully. Only as an occasional check, but I take your point. However if the FI starts giving you totally different instructions from an other in the club, then have a chat with the CFI. H/She maybe unaware of this and would value your input/concerns. I certainly would.

If it is that much of a problem though, change clubs!

[mad_jock]

The point of this post is not to set a one way only method of operating.

Its to set a document which sets a range of methods which are acceptable to be used in a SEP. If the individual uses one of these methods. There should be no retraining during or post flight.

To be honest SAS your not the type of person that this type of document is going to affect anyway by the sounds of it.

And the well they could always change schools means that the person has wasted money on the industrys problem of lack of standards. There isn't a reporting system to maintain standards so the person is a couple of hundred quid out of pocket for no gain. Pissed off and disinterested in flying any more.

There also seems to be this miss understanding that people actually change their method of operating just because on a checkride the instructor says "no you should really do it this way"

They nod they smile think " Aye right I passed my PPL doing this method" and as soon as the Instructor has buggered off they continue doing exactly as they did before because they know that the next instructor they have a flight with is going to tell them to do it another way. Once someone has over 100hours I doudt very much if they are going to change. And your not going to do it with 1 hour every 2 years. I am sure you have your local owners who cause mayhem every time they fly. They come in for there 1 hour get talked to for a hour afterwards get thier license signed and next week same as usual. And if you refuse to sign there log book they just drive up the road to Perth or Dundee and do it there and again mayhem the next week. Result for flight safety NIL.

From personal experence getting rid of certain american habits it takes quite a bit of structured training to permantly remove habits ingrained from intial training.

There is a problem in the industry with a them and us attitude with PPL's who the large majority avoid flying with an instructor. Or if they do they stick to the same one so the don't have to suffer being lectured about stuff they already know.


MJ

[BEagle]

Weeeellll....

As a CFI, I ask that all FIs teach the same things using the same techniques. Thus we have the Standard Closing Angle technique for visual navigation, the Point-and-Power technique for the final approach and the Constant Sight Line technique for PFLs as our standard methods.

But just occasionally the odd bit of rubbish floats along- such as DRIBL or DABL checks or whatever the bloody things purport to be. These are politely stamped on before they become established. As is the utter nonsense of mistaking 'Select, Hold, Trim' with a misunderstood 'Attitude Power Trim' concept - which all stemmed from some old Oxford ar$e many years ago who didn't really understand what CFS were driving at, hijacked a mnemonic and then misapplied it...

Style is acceptable; standards are essential.

Incidentally, I'd far sooner have an experienced PPL holder teaching at PPL level, or an ex-military FI, or a retired airline pilot than most low-time hours builders. In what other field of life are novices taught by anything other than well-qualified, experienced people? Just why is hours building as a FI considered acceptable?

[Send Clowns]

In what other field of life are novices taught by anything other than well-qualified, experienced people?Errmm - schools? In fact most areas, really. The experts in many fields do not go into teaching, and it is left to a sub-branch who have little experience of the real world. At least in aviation there is a core of instructors with experience, and at least we are only talking about private aviation, as most CPL instructors do have commercial experience (I believe it is to be made a requirement for new CPL instructors).

My take on the debate is to teach the club's standard techniques (clubs with in-house trained instructors have such things!) but accept anything that is a standard practice and safe in someone I have not taught. It might not be what I teach, and I might prefer my way, but I know that there is more than one way to skin a cat. A reasonable comparrison would be a CPL test with a CAA examiner. In the navigation section the examiner should pass you if you use any reasonable claculation technique (and you find your destination). You only fail if you use no technique or if your technique is not valid or unsafe.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why is it acceptable? Because with the current system, we have no choice.

Market forces mean that no-one stays as a career FI anymore unless they have an income from elsewhere and we won't allow enthusiastic "amateurs" to do the job.

Daft I know, but until the wages increase to a level that is liveable and GA flying actually becomes something to aspire to, rather than as a stepping stone to big shiny and boring airline flying, then nothing will change and we'll just have to muddle along as we are.

[Dan Winterland]

Some sort of effective standardisation body has been overdue for a long long time IMHO. Standarsiation of sorts rest with the Panel Examiners, but they have very limited resources or ability to ensure standards other than at the training of instructors. After that, instructors are on their own and free to teach whatever they want.

The only civilian school I insructed at had very high standards with a CFI who made sure his instructors were teaching the same thing, stuck to the syllabus and made sure their instructing was of a high standard. However, I was frequently aghast at some of the thing that student from other schools had been taught. Stuff that had never been a part of any syllabus ever and/or were downright dangerous.

Standardisation should not be at the club level. Some standardisation has been introduced with Instructor seminars, but these are too infrequent to be effective. And it doesn't help that anyone can write a book on 'how to fly' with no regulation whatsoever - there have been some right old b0llocks written in the past.

We need an organisation to oversee instruction standards and a form of unified books and manuals. It needn't be large and I don't think it should cost much - and the benefits will be shorter times to complete training and a safer product.

Stell helmet donned, heading for the trench!

PS, the CFI I refered to may or may not be a very prominent ppruner!!

[BEagle]

Presumably a 'Stell' helmet is painted orange Dan?

Looking at some of the FI seminar topics on offer, I don't want to be force fed 'how to teach' stuff or to be taught how to use a sticky pen and OHP. But neither do I want to be talked down to by a lecturer full of his own importance stuck on transmit.

Regrettably,too much time is devoted to the rather fatuous 'syndicate exercises' which are a complete waste of time.

We need standardisation discussions, solutions to common student faults, updates on new policy - that sort of thing. For example, how many people know that a re-test following a PPL Skill Test partial pass now only requires assessment of the aerodrome departure procedure plus the failed items - the return and landing is no longer assessed unless it was an earlier fail item.

And how many FIs understand the changes in C of A regulations pre-EASA?

Seminars should tell us all this - not just huggy-fluffy trick cyclist teachy-learny guff.

[eindekker]

Not wishing to hijack this topic, but just to clarify BEagle's last post regarding a partial pass at the PPL skill test (and referring to NOTEX A2/2005).

"An applicant failing only one section at the first attempt in a Series shall have gained a PARTIAL PASS. The second attempt will always require the applicant to retake the Departure (Section 1) and the Section failed at the first attempt."

[DB6]

Be fair, BEags! The Notex only arrived yesterday! I agree with your last post though, that would be a very valuable use of those seminars. What about it Ontrack at al?
Going back to the post before that though - your insistence on the CFS techniques you mention is all very well, but what happens if someone comes to you half way through their PPL having been taught - for want of a better phrase - 'Campbell' techniques? Do you reteach your way, continue with what they've already learnt or what? And what if someone comes to you for test and uses those same 'Campbell' techniques?
This whole subject is a valid point for discussion however it is in danger of being overstated, I don't think the scourge of the Inflexible Instructor is quite as prevalent as could be inferred from reading this thread.

[BEagle]

OK, yes, it's a very recent Notex. But equally, how many people know what's now required on a SEP revalidation LPC? Or whether the visual navigation section is still required if the applicant revalidates a IMC Rating on the same flight? All Notexes and other changes over the preceding 3 years should certainly be briefed at the seminar. Somewhat more important at revalidation time than 'Human factors in the teaching and learning process', I would wager!

If someone came to us having been taught other techniques, we would assess him/her first before deciding on the course of action. If the final approach and landing technique is OK, we wouldn't re-teach 'point and power'. We would correct any errors, of course, and would certainly teach Standard Closing Angle because this keeps people closer to track than other techniques and is less likely to lead to airspace violations as a consequence.

Some people are truly awful though. A so-called experienced FAA PPL holder was so utterly dreadful that we couldn't send him solo. He let the aeroplane fly him rather than him controlling it; I can only assume his continued existence as a pilot was more by luck than by judgement.

The proof of the 'CFS' techniques is that most students find them easier, solo earlier and are more confident when flying navigation exercises. That's good enough for me!

[unfazed]

A so-called experienced FAA PPL holder was so utterly dreadful that we couldn't send him solo. He let the aeroplane fly him rather than him controlling it; I can only assume his continued existence as a pilot was more by luck than by judgement.


Beagle - Can't you find any UK PPL examples ? Funny how it's always the dreadful FAA PPL who is always so crap. Or is it your perception and prejudices that colour your filter of the outside world.

My perception is that there is not a major problem, most FI's, are hard working, focused individuals doing a good job. But then again I am one myself so my perception might be clouded - But then this is an Instructors Forum.

[BEagle]

"Beagle - Can't you find any UK PPL examples ? Funny how it's always the dreadful FAA PPL who is always so crap."

Well, actually I don't think I can. Sloppy ones, perhaps - but I haven't come across a UK PPL holder who has been truly dangerous.......yet. The FAA PPL person in question wasn't a product of the new generation of instant PPL schools, but had learned a while ago. He even co-owned an aeroplane at one stage. But his flying and airmanship were truly alarming. I really don't know how he got through his last FAA BFR as they are normally quite exacting.

But who on earth taught him to slam the controls up against the stops whilst checking full and free movement on the ground? That was something totally new to me! His landing technique consisted of aiming the aircraft vaguely downwards, then waiting for the runway to appear before slamming the throttle shut and hoping....he just didn't exercise any real control over the aeroplane.

[unfazed]

Well, actually I don't think I can

Why does that not surprise me ?

It looks like your "perception filter" is looking for something, finding it and then reinforcing that belief.

How well do you think you would perform in the USA with an instructor who has the same filter as yours but looking to find "UK PPL's who cannot fly properly"

[Say again s l o w l y]

I have flown with people from all over the world and I have also noticed that most of the bloody awful ones have been trained in the States. However, some of the very best I've flown with were also trained in the States.

What does his tell me? Not a lot really, but everyone who has learnt abroad has had to have had some "recurrency" training of some description. Whether it's explaining the differences in R/T or airspace.
But the big one is teaching them how to navigate visually, rather than beacon hop. That is one that has come up each and every time, but only with people trained in the US.

[unfazed]

Say again slowly


Maybe that's because radio nav is a fundamental part of their basic training and they have a high level of investment in that infrastructure.

"Recurrent" training or "differences" training, there is quite a difference between the two. With recurrency you normally end up with some arrogant twit who say's "you don't do it like that ....you should be doing it like this". With differences training you get an instructor who say's "I know you are used to doing it that way but here in Blighty it might be better for you to do it this way"

The instructor with experience and awareness of both training systems has the advantage over the insular bigot who despises a certain group of pilots based on what passport they hold and where they trained.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Knowing how people are trained in a different system is irrelevant in my eyes as a JAR/UK instructor.

I initially trained in Oz, where things were very different, especially from the airspace and navigation point of view.

Was I arrogant enough to think that I didn't need difference training? No. I knew fine well there were some major changes, so I tried to learn as much about these before I started flying in the U.K again.

In the U.K visual Nav is just that, I doubt whether it's any different in the US. They may have more beacons, but I doubt the FAA system doesn't train people in the basics of navigating without the use of aids.
It is just laziness that makes people ignore map reading over following a VOR track. If you had an IR, I could almost understand it, but a basic PPL. I don't think so.

I don't hold with any them or us argument, so I can only speak from experience, exactly what I think BEagle has done here. rather than from any bigoted standpoint.

[unfazed]

SAS

I am making a general point related to standard setting and certainly not wishing to make persoanl attacks on people who I have never met (apologies if that is how it came across).

My point is that a common standard for UK training is a noble aspiration however you will still have pilots from other countries doing it "their way"

The crap FAA PPL is as much a racial prejudicial stereotype as the English villain portrayed in most Hollywood films.

[BEagle]

unfazed, stop talking like a total ar$e with your trick-cyclist gobbldegook about 'perception filters' and racial stereotyping. The fact that this British pilot held a FAA PPL was immaterial - he'd have been equally crap had it been a Martian PPL.

I just don't understand how anyone that bad had recently passed a FAA BFR.

I've flown with pilots who've had Australian, New Zealand, Cypriot, Dutch, FAA, Canadian and Kenyan licences. This pilot was very poor; the fact that his licence was a FAA licence does not mean that all FAA PPL holders are necessarily weaker than holders of other PPLs.

[unfazed]

Beagle

Looks like I hit a bit of a sore point there !

If anyone is proving what an arse they are it is you

My point is that if you have a mindset that is seeking crap and filtering out good then you are bound to find what you are seeking.

[BEagle]

It sounds as though your perception is indeed as clouded as you suggested yourself.

The wise instructor and examiner is always on his/her guard when flying with an unfamiliar pilot, particularly one who purports to be experienced. As was instilled into me at CFS, it's the good students who are potentially the most dangerous as they tend to lull you into a false sense of security.

Assume the little beggars are out to kill you until they prove to the contrary!

[BigEndBob]

I had an experience with a chap who was going to instruct at our club. So i sat with him for some local familiarization, he nearly stalled in at 6 feet above the runway until i woke up grabbed hold of the controls and recovered the situation. He admitted he froze on the controls. He later became a Captain with a well known small airline.

Another chap who stuffed an aircraft into a hillside in imc, wanted to get airborne after his long recovery from hospital.
We entered imc whilst flying and he was quite happy to descend over high terrain whilst still imc!
Both of the above where UK trained instructors.
No matter where they have been trained there will always be some pilots who who are crap.

[unfazed]

Depends on your personal outlook

Pint half empty ???

[BEagle]

This half full/half empty nonsense has always amused me. Some really daft psychobabble is spun around it!

I would say "The quantity indicator displays 50% contents".

Surely the actual answer should describe the progress achieved towards the final result? So, if filling something up then at 50% quantity it's half full; whereas if emptying it then it's half empty at 50% quantity?

Psychobabbling trick cyclists come just below estate agents and snake oil salesmen in my league of charlatans!

[DB6]

Now now chaps, calm down, calm down. It's a whole other topic but BEagle does have a point, unfazed. When I first became an instrutor the CFI took me aside and gave me several tips, one of which was 'if a guy comes to you with a US PPL, BE CAREFUL. They may be just fine but they may not - be on your guard'. I thought that piece of advice a little strange until some years later when a chap did just that - wanted a checkout to hire an aircraft with a US PPL. When you've been instructing for a while you get know the difference between someone who is not very good and one who has been badly taught. This guy was the latter AND HOW! It's hard to expain if you haven't experienced it but I knew that is he was turned loose he WOULD crash, not to mention busting all manner of airspace and not being able to talk to anyone while doing it. Truly remedial and when I debriefed him on UK standards he agreed and was retaught - turned out fine. It's not a myth and it's by no means widespread but some people come back from America with a piece of paper that is literally worse than useless.
Now back to the original thread.........

[mad_jock]

If you get caught out by a Check out ride quite honestly its your own fault.

We have all had the odd person who we thought was OK pull a blinder lets face it. Everyone does it occasionally.

Now back to the issue of standards.

I doudt very much if any of the methods employed in the Uk is significantly different to any other countrys.

The methods employed by the RAF in the intial years of aviation have become pretty much standard around the world. Basically because they proved without doudt they work. The americans have as usual gone the easy way in some respects. They are right in someways the British have always been known for doing things the hard way. Its a pretty well know concept in the armed forces of the British way and the American way. 95% of the time you will get away with doing the US method. By the time that they realise it should have really done it the British way its to late.

Now how do we get PPL's not pissed off with getting constantly retrained when they are using perfectly acceptable methods? If they are crap and dangerous deal with it. I suspect most of us wouldn't pass each others check rides if it was done blind without the instructor know what thay had sitting next to them.

It would be great if the CAA tasked a new staff examiner who's face isn't known. Tour the country with a fresh PPL and 70hour log book and see how many times they get re-trained, informed they arn't doing it properly and they have to do it this way.

MJ

[youngskywalker]

Geez, the Wright brothers must have been truly crap! I'm British trained and believe myself to be of a decent standard, but I can say with all my heart that the hardest of all check out's have been in the U.S! I have an FAA CPL Multi too and I sweated buckets over that!

I can only presume that when Boeing designed the 747 they must have asked the Brit's to test fly it??

I think that the general standards in the UK are as good as anywhere else and we could continue this argument forever, as mentioned earlier you will get crap everywhere, I can think of at least 5 airline pilots in the UK with whom I would not allow my family to fly on the same aircraft...ever

Anyway, back to the original topic...

[unfazed]

When I first became an instrutor the CFI took me aside and gave me several tips, one of which was 'if a guy comes to you with a US PPL, BE CAREFUL. They may be just fine but they may not - be on your guard'.

Say's it all I think

And so the "ancient mysteries" of this noble art,:8 and cycle of prejudice is passed from "master" to "grasshopper"

[slim_slag]

It's really the examiner's job of enforcing standards at SEP level. If an instructor sends students up who aren't ready then this should be made known to the regulator who should find out why. Problem I see is that examiners tend to make a judgement call at PPL level on whether the student is 'safe' to embark on his licence to learn. The vast majority of the time this will work out OK, but you will get some muppets fall through the cracks, but no system will ever prevent this happening. I am sure there are muppets flying jets who get through the tough quality control at airlines.

Anecdotal stories about FAA/JAA/CAA individual cases are good for after dinner speeches but not much else. I've had a fair few CAA checkout candidates, the vast majority of whom are safe to go with minimal difference training. Recent currency appears to be key and not whether their licence came from the back of a cornflake packet. However looking at the recent changes to the JAA PPL, they do seem to be including new stuff the FAA has had in there for some time. No doubt JAA will one day be requiring GPS approaches in suitably equipped aircraft when taking the IR, and in the JAA registered plane the ADF will be something you use to listen to the sports results.

[BEagle]

I doubt whether even the JAA would require woodworking tools to be registered - either with or without ADF receivers.

[youngskywalker]

Heard that old one many times too! Really ought to change my breakfast cereal, wish I could find one of those crap FAA CPL's in my cornflakes...really, I have no idea how I have survived, and for 12 years too, bugger me, must have been luck I guess. It's bad enough that I wasnt trained by the RAF, but to go through a flying club and then get a US licence...time for me gentlemen, is running out.............

[Forward Slip]

It seems to me that people will always slag off what they don't know or don't understand the whole FAA vs JAA argument is getting just a little tiresome (to say the least)
I have dual qualifications CPl Multi IR from JAA/FAA and a JAA FI and can honestly say that both Authorities have there strong points and both have there weak points. There is no substantial difference between the syllabi both are looking for "safe private pilots" who are going to continue learning as their experience increases.
As for the comments about FAA pilots getting their licenses from cereal boxes and being dangerous "utter bollox"is the only phrase that comes to mind.
We have all had PPL's try to kill us during their training and some even insist on trying during dual checks!!!
Rant Over :E