Quality of instructors; on the way down!!!

[marsman]

The quality of instructors and people who want to become instructors seems to be decaying rapidly IMHO. There seems to be loads of young men around my local airfield (in the south) who are either in the process of becoming instructors or are actually instructors themselves. They seem little bothered about teaching people to fly and seem to know very little themselves.. perhaps not anymore than those they are teaching.

All that these men have done is obtainined the right qualifications, and then due to not having any luck in the airline employment sector gone and got themselves instructor ratings- "as thats the next box to tick!"

It would transpire that most havent even thought what instructing entails. Seems very poor to me.:bored:

[Dude~]

Care to say where they are?

[hardcase]

i can agree, i have seen (and employed) people that only want hours to get the "all important airline job". :*

But not all FI's are like this....certainly not in my school, or they don't last too long. i have just taken on a new FI(r) and he is very good.:ok:

[VFE]

Since the old self improver route went caput following the introduction of JAR, perhaps you guys could suggest other ways these young guys could get into the world of commercial aviation.

I doubt very much whether the majority view instruction with the cavalier attitude you suspect anyway. It doesn't take an awful lot of intelligence from an aspiring instructor to realise just how important a good instructor is to a student and as with old school teachers, you always remember the good ones. The pilot ego alone should ensure they all do their utmost to provide instruction to the best of their ability and even the old dog instructors had to start somewhere, it's just that this route is now officially closed.

Don't blame the young pilots themselves - it is the resultant effect of the 'new' regulatory system.

VFE.

[P.Pilcher]

Gentlemen complaining about the falling quality of instructors, may I respectfully ask you whether you want to be taught to fly, or do you want to learn? A keen student who reads up on his/her lessons, asks pertinent questions and is keen to get on tends to get a better deal out of the instructors that you describe.

Just a thought.

P.P.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

There was a time when flying instruction was just as much a profession within aviation as crop spraying or airline flying. That dedication has largely disappeared. Flight instruction should not be a means to build hours but hour building should be one of the rewards of instruction.:sad:

[VFE]

When the pay for instructing warrants the grandiose title of 'profession' then things might improve for the rosy-eyed nostalgics out there but it's the chicken and the egg scenario. Fewer PPL'ers seem interested in shelling out extra cash just to instruct at weekends alongside their daily job. Most of the old school self improver instructors were instructing with a view to flying airliners whether you saw it that way at the time or not I'm afraid.

Show me a school who'll pay at least £25'000 a year and you'll see many more CPL's happily instruct for them for the rest of thier lives, and forget all about airliners and hosties.

VFE.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Is the standard of FI's on the way down?

Personally, I don't think so. There have always been muppets about and there always will be, even if FI's earnt £10k a week.

Instructing has always been an hour building route for prospective jet jockeys, there is no difference now than at any other time in this respect.

What we are losing however, is people who have any experience of the private flying world. Most people from an integrated course with an FI rating know about as much about PPL's as I do about basket weaving. (I'm sure I could understand the principles involved but the actual knowledge escapes me.)

If FI's could be paid properly, then we may see more "career" FI's, but they will still be in the minority as very few people spend the thick end of £50K to end up earning 25K a year, no matter what the job. So most will still end up disappearing when an airline job comes up.

With the current system there is no way to avoid it and I very much doubt any of the licencing bodies have the b*lls to fix this problem properly for the long term future.

[flybymike]

SAS, So are you saying then that you think the solution is the return to the good old days of remunerated PPL /FI instructors, together with abandonment all of that essential (yes I am joking) ATPL theory knowledge? ?

[BEagle]

1. The right to give remunerated flight instruction should be a Rating, not a Licence privilege.
2. Instructors should only instruct to the level of the Licence and Rating they hold themselves.
3. Theoretical knowledge should be 'adequate for the level of instruction given' rather than 'commercial level'.
4. There must be NO reduction of current instructional skill standards.

This would facilitate part-time PPL instruction given by experienced PPL holders who have neither the time nor inclination to become airline pilots. But it would offer an alternative to the current system rather than replace it. The instructional population would then consist of a mix of part-timers with second careers, plus youngsters on the traditional system.

However, there would be nothing to stop an aspirant airline pilot obtaining a PPL/FI Rating before embarking upon 'hours building', he/she would be faced with much lower initial capital outlay than under the current system and might also be able to save towards the cost of CPL/IR training as under the 'self-improver' scheme. A few years' PPL instruction might also improve the pilot's own flying standards and theoretical knowledge before CPL/IR training.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I agree with BEagle on this. I think the FI rating should be a stand alone device that allows the holder to be paid no matter what licence they have. It needs to be more difficult and longer course overall to ensure standards are kept up or even improved.

Whilst occasionally having ATPL theory knowledge may seem useful, it really isn't if you are teaching purely to PPL standard.
(Though I don't differentiate what I teach compared to whom I'm teaching. They all get told the same old nonsense!..)

[RVR800]

The standalone CPL would die as the PPL-FI route was re-introduced
(NO POINT IN IT)

This thread ties up to the point of all the exams for JAR CPL - as a standalone its worthless outside of instructing

[G-KEST]

IMHO (and not very humble at that) the quality of our average instructor has deteriorated over the last few decades and especially since theintroduction of the BCPL and now JAR-FCL.

I fully agree that the rating has been and always will be a stepping stone towards a career in CAT for all but a dedicated few. This few (this unhappy few, I am tempted to add) cover the gamut of hopeless to magnificent in terms of ability and I do speak from over 50 years as an instructor including 27 as an FIE.

What really concerns me is the reduction in basic handling skills and in particular a common reluctance to get near the edge of the envelope in terms of stalling and spinning. Many seem afraid and underconfident and this surely communicates over to the student. What a pity.

I feel the reintroduction of the renumerated PPL instructor in a club environment is long overdue. This along with a major reassessment of what technical knowledge is really necessary to train to NPPL or PPL level.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[flybymike]

I did my PPL/IMC 23 years ago with PPL IMC rated instructors whom at the time to my way of thinking seemed to know what they were talking about, had plenty of the right sort of experience and wisdom, and not all of whom by any means wanted to join the airlines . Maybe its my age and perception of the youth these days, but it seems to me that the same Motivation just isnt there for instruction from the airline wannabees. Those with many years private flying experience must surely make better instructors in the pure PPL environment, than the temporary modular route aspiring ATPLs. I have always had a bit of a hankering to instruct myself over the years but by the time I found myself where I am now with the time, money and experience to do it, I suddenly found I would have to jump through all sorts of seemingly unnecessary hoops to get there so have never bothered. Totally , utterly and completely agree with all said by SAS Beagle and Gkest!

[BEagle]

The remunerated PPL/FI would also re-open the door to chaps with vast instructional experience but who now, thanks purely to anno domini, are limited to holding NPPLs.

Why should they not be permitted to be at least CRI(SPA)s or, in cases such as yours Trapper69, CREs?

Regarding stalling/spinning, you have only to read the utter twaddle posted by some on other threads to see how poorly that is taught these days. But most PPL holders never get close to the stall on their own - indeed it is hard enought to get them to fly at VAPP rather than VAPP + 20 on the final approach..... Where they do seem to get themselves into trouble is with airspace violations. Which brings me to the conclusion that too many FIs have not been teaching navigation correctly - or accepting that they should be capable of giving some elementary GPS instruction to PPL holders.

[Sleeve Wing]

As in the majority of their posts, BEagle and G-KEST turn up trumps again with very sound observations of the present situation.
Also as a current X, I am in constant dismay at the degree of flying acumen shown close to the edges of the envelope in many situations.
These are necessary skills and unfortunately are often not taught properly by a number of instructors to the extent that candidates are sometimes genuinely in fear of demonstrating basic exercises.
Stalling, steep turns, spiral dive recoveries are examples where dubious control technique, poor speed/pitch appreciation and inadequate use of rudder are often barely acceptable.
My own thoughts are that a number of inexperienced (?) instructors tend to rush Exercises 4 to 11 in order to get swiftly onto circuit training and the magic first solo. This results in a lack of appreciation of basic control technique necessary to understand what is happening in later, more advanced handling.
I also teach IMC and aerobatics. Sound revision of all such basics are more often than not a prerequisite to any advancement in the teaching of either of these capabilities.
The reintroduction once again of remunerated PPL Instructors, without the need for professional backgrounds, would indeed fulfil very well the requirement for mature, sound instruction. This would offer the added ability to relate to the level of competence to be achieved (along the lines of a "creamie") without the personal desire, impatience and ambition of a pending "promotion" at the earliest opportunity.
Rgds, Sleeve.

[RVR800]

This thread seems to suggest that by chopping theoretical and practical requirements i.e. Binning CPL theory and CPL practical then we will get a better FI product.

Some school owners real motivation is to reduce costs of FIs by replacing those intent on paying back fATPL loans with retired guys with reduced medical standards as single crew........:ouch:

Waits to be flamed....

[Say again s l o w l y]

I don't think anyone here is advocating reducing standards in anyway. Infact I think these proposals will make life easier for all FI's long-term. Hopefully we could turn being an FI into a career again rather than just being a stepping stone.

It won't stop fATPL's becoming instructors and it may mean that they finally get paid properly as well.

[BigEndBob]

I think the vast majority or instructors do a good job. If i think back to my PPL training i think it was pretty awful and have similiar comments from others who also trained in the late seventies early eighties.
I can remember hardly ever having any ground briefs, the qualify XC dual route was flown by my instructor whilst i read the map, hadn't got a clue what to do if i got lost, other than i was pretty good at map reading which ultimately is what you need to navigate. Diversion? Whats that!

If there are hazy areas, its either lack of experience or confidence in certain maneouvres, stalls/spins. Let a more experienced instructor cover these lessons. A 200 hour instructor is not going to have the same confidence as a 2000 hour instructor. Its up to CFI to take the less experienced under their wing and help them, not knock them by saying they are crap.

[ASIAN FROG]

That's the trend!!! If you let the MPL reduces to 60 hours the total number of hours and the remaining part of the training done in Simulators by guys from the BIG BUSINESS, because nearly none a school can offer a FFS, forget about the job of professional FI!

[homeguard]

I'm not convinced that the new Instructors are so awful. What is true is that the average Instructor is considerably younger and is now on a 'self improver' fast track to the airline job with very few older and mature individuals coming into the system. It is the lack of maturity that we have lost and also the continuity of instructing staff.

Economics set the wage pay not flying school owners or commitees. The UK interpretation of JAR has been the main cause of our problems both for our Instructors and the flying schools alike. This problem will not be remedid until we have a dedecated Instructor Qualififcation with it's own exams and testing regime. Instructing should be taken out of the Public Transport (Carriage of Passengers) law.

The FI(r) system is in itself a nonsense and dosn't recognise a difference between a rookie and an experienced and mature instructor nor even that the FI(r) has even taught the complete syllabus before becoming unrestricted and being able to work unsupervised - ugh, sorry as a restricted FI they don't even need to be supervised! The FI(r) becomes unrestricted simply by filling in a form having had no further advanced instructor training nor assessment but will simply have knocked off the required hours perhaps over a couple of months.

[RVR800]

The problem is that more people now get a CPL than PPL if you believe the CAA consultancy report (Pilot Magazine)

GA is on 'a downward spiral' according to the CAA report which itself is in denial about the trends so evident in its own data and the consultants report.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/Trends%20in%20GA%20M%20Robinson%20201205.pdf

Costs are too high and we are not competing with the FAA system. Many vote with their cheque book becoming FAA PPL-IR 'N' class owners.

We are held to ransom by a multi-national self-serving bureauocracy intent upon adding cost and intent upon over regulation.....

The CAA are increasing costs above inflation. The JAA are obsessed with airliners they ignore GA by accepting the poor take-up on ratings like the PPL and IR concentrating instead on The Multi-Pilot Rating that as Asian Frog says will futher divide GA from the the airline community

The government want to turn many airfields into housing estates by accelerating th eplanning process and GA may suffer from the green lobby unless new technolgy can be approved and developed quickly - fat chance....

[eason67]

I don't agree with anyone's comments on allowing pilots with NPPL's or PPL's to train as a flying instructor for renumeration.
A proper CPL course tones up PPL skills and demands accuracy in flying. The medical required is Class 1 and thats important due to the physical requirements of a flying instructor. The exams you need to pass are more geared to the airlines, thats true, but thats because the norm is to move on eventually to bigger stuff (not necessarily better!).
An instructor should have experience and detailed knowledge, not just in terms of flying hours by the way.
I'm young-ish, just finishing my FiC and passionate about passing on my love for flying to others. I have criticisms about how I was taught to fly but aim not to repeat them myself. The course is hard, fun and requires depth of knowledge. There has to be a standard for taking the course and a PPL or NPPL isn't sufficient in my view.
Sorry! :sad:

[Say again s l o w l y]

In the real world the type of licence you have is an irrelevance. I have met and flown with some ATPL's who I consider to be a danger to all around them and some PPL's who have my highest respect.

The key is to try and get everyone who teaches up to a certain standard.

One thing you'll come to realise in the future is how little you actually know about being a PPL, and since that is what most FI's teach, what on earth does an integrated fATPL holder know about it?
There is an awful lot more to teaching people to fly than just stick and rudder skills and I've not seen a single course that could ever replace experience for giving you the knowledge you'll need, and that is something an experienced PPL wil always have over someone straight from school even if they do have an almighty CPL.......

[BEagle]

Quite right, S a S!

Incidentally, a Class 1 medical is not compulsory for instructing; it is possible for PPL holders to conduct non-remunerated PPL instruction (although they still have to learn all about the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone and know how wide the red stripes need to be on the streamers below tethered kites....:rolleyes: ).

Young eager puppy FIs building their hours pre-airline application do indeed need supervising very carefully!

[unfazed]

I'm with Homeguard on this one , I do not think that the quality of instructors is poor, what I do know is that all FI holders have demonstrated skill and knowledge to a certain standard and have demonstrated committment and staying power. Most of my colleagues are well trained, confident, outgoing and well capable of teaching students how to fly and make good decisions

I am a "mature" self improver with a lot of experience as a PPL holder under my belt, most of my colleagues are fast track academy graduates and they are good instructors !

Maybe it depends on the standard of the school that you work at ? and the standard set at interview / check flight.:)

[FlyingForFun]

This isn't a subject I have very strong thoughts on. But after reading the thread, the conclusions I've drawn are that there are a number of problems, or perceived problems. Specifically:
The ground exams are putting experienced private pilots off of becoming an instructor
There are too many people entering instruction without very much experience
Instructors don't get paid enough
So, my proposed solutions:
The CPL exams are only really useful for flying light aircraft - in most cases, instructing. So, rather than remove the requirement for CPL exams, lets change the CPL syllabus so that it is geared towards flying light aircraft
Increase the experience requirements. The comments on this thread suggest that the perceived lack of experience specifically relates to the fact that people come off of CPL/IR courses having never done any private flying, then teach people to be private pilots. So how about a requirement for 200 hours P1. This is deliberately higher than the requirement for either modular or integrated CPL, so once an hour-building pilot has his CPL/IR he will be required to do more P1 flying (in a private flying environment) before he can become an instructor.
The increased experience requirements will hopefully reduce the number of hour-builders entering the profession, and cause a short-term instructor shortage. This shortage would be dealt with by schools putting up their instructors' wages, encouraging experienced private pilots to become instructors.
Note that nowhere on here have I suggested removing the requirement for a CPL - I have, instead, suggested reducing the theoretical knowledge requirements. In fact, I would be all for removing the option for a PPL to be able to instruct.

SaS's point about there being some very good PPLs and some very poor ATPLs is absolutely true. It's all very well saying that some PPLs are good - but how do we ensure that it's only the good ones who become instructors? With the system as it stands at the moment, it is possible for someone to pass a PPL (which, lets face it, is not a test of a "good" pilot, only a test of a "safe" pilot), and then become an instructor without any real check on the quality of his flying. There is the pre-entry test before starting the instructor course, but that's a bit of a joke because it is carried out by the FIC instructor, who has a good commercial reason for passing the candidate (i.e. the candidate will not be able to train with him, and he will loose money, if the candidate fails the pre-entry test). And then there is the FI(R) test at the end of the course - but that's a test of instructing, not a test of flying. So that's why I think it's important to go through some kind of advanced training and testing, and the CPL is ideal.

FFF
---------

[greeners]

FFF - wise words, and certainly reflecting much of the sentiment at the GAPAN/CFS FI forum at Cranwell yesterday.

Interesting that one school of thought (championed by AOPA amongst others) is pushing for a return to the PPL FI (similar to what I understand is about to happen with the NPPL, Microlights and SLMGs), whilst another (lead by Dorothy Pooley et al) is promoting a specific Instructor's Licence, not unlike FFF's 'PPL focussed' CPL, allowing for paid instruction and a greater level of theoretical knowledge and flying skill.

Personally I think that the skill level requirement for FIs is under-rated, and again yesterday the point was strongly made that it is very difficult to teach beyond your own standard. FIs must also have the additional capacity to demonstrate accurate flying whilst teaching, monitoring the student, and carrying out all of the nav/comms/lookout airmanship tasks.

As already highlighted, the FIC pre-flight test is a complete joke. Have it done independently? The CAA only have 7 fixed wing examiners who are already hugely busy.

I'm sure that there are some experienced PPLs out there who would make terrific instructors. I have also flown with a number of PPLs who would like to go down this route and would make dreadful FIs.

[homeguard]

I really don't think we should allow the CAA or anybody else to decide who is the right sought of chap or gal to be a Flying Instructor. Such ideas are usually subjective and will be wrong. The world is littered with very successful people who were earlier told that they would never do any good. And any way, one mans meat is another mans poison. It certainly shouldn't be for a regulatory body to restrict entrants in order to boost the income, careers or the viabilty of schools. Economics do that already. The prices and wages are set by what the man in the street has left in his pocket.
The suitablity of an Instructor to instruct should be an essentiall element of the training and will be assessed for the required standard by test. The pre-course test is simply to ensure that the potential instructor has the required minimum knowledge and basic flying ability to be further trained and as such it cannot and should not be a filtering mechanism.
The point about the CPL exams is not that they are difficult but that they are not relevant to instructing although certain elements of the exams are. A potential pilot instructor may have passed the CPL/ATPL exams but still not have seen a POH or how to research the ANO or AIP. They are usually given extracts.
A dedicated FI exam and test preceded by proper ground training to that end will be better to ensure that all instructors have the required relevant knowledge needed to pass onto their students. The ground course should not be based on feedback questions and exam technique but a considered, thoughtful progress to the standard of lnowledge and how to pass it on. A lot more emphasis must also be made on how to brief (without powerpoint) clearly and succinctly while maintaining the students attention - that is to teach. Power Point is an aid but not a method! I'm appalled sometimes at the standard of briefing that I've witnessed at various seminars and God knows what they say to the student in the aeroplane..

[greeners]

The pre-course test is simply to ensure that the potential instructor has the required minimum knowledge and basic flying ability to be further trained and as such it cannot and should not be a filtering mechanism..

Sorry, look again at what has been written and I'm afraid that you are way off base.

[BEagle]

greeners,

There is no intention in the AOPA initiative of reducing the flying and instructional skills of the prospective FI, so whether the FI would hold a PPL or CPL should be irrelevant. The main changes proposed are far more relevant theoretical knowledge requirements, plus greater emphasis on instructional techniques and the ability to impart instruction.

[RVR800]

I agree with FFF that the CPL theory needs changing so that is more closely meets the needs of the flight instructor.. Of course one issue is what how to train people generically across a whole load of different areas. As an FI I could instruct at Jerez or teach PPLs so the licence should encapsulate all those potential career routes.

Im afraid that lot of this discussion is really about reducing cost and time for PPL people wanting to teach rather than improving standards.. they could then accept a lower wage because of their reduced training costs

The CPL is a level above PPL and normally one would expect that person to have a higher standard of flying.

The teaching bit comes after that - FIC instructors should not have to teach Bloggs to fly just to teach...

As for a teaching qualification - one could do one at the local college and it will cover a whole load of stuff not taught to FIs about teaching.. Blooms Theory - Psychomotor skills domain etc..

[blagger]

Hasn't the RAF churned out top quality QFIs for years without reams of painful courses of largely pointless exams? Surely the CFS course is a good model for a future FI rating/licence - a concentrated flying course with interspersed and relevant groundschool. People graduate with 'restricted' abilities and then progress through upgrades by reattending CFS to do further short flying/groundschool. Most importantly as well, the course is taught to a detailed syllabus with quality supporting Flight Training Publications detailing standardised ac handling and teaching points.

I am working towards my FI rating (nearly finished all the CPL groundschool) and have brought various books/syllabuses to read up, but there is no coherent information on the actual teaching points of the exercises. The best is the On-Track info that is modelled on the CFS notes.

[timzsta]

I was chatting to an FIE today and he is of the opinion that the quality of FI's being produced today is higher than that of the old BCPL days. Where he believes the standard is higher is quality of briefing / debriefing and theoretical knowledge.

I have just begun as an FI with only 50 odd hours instructor in the book but I have always been amazed by what you hear when people say "never become an instructor just for the hours". I think by the nature of what we pilots are none of us would become an FI with the attitude of "it's for the hours alone, don't care how good I am at it". It goes IMHO against the very grain that makes us cut out to be professional pilots.

Having spoken to guys I did FI course with we are all loving every minute of it. Nothing more satisfying then seeing a student struggle with something, then finally get it right, then you ask them to do it one more time and they get it right again. I have taken more satisfaction from that then extra 50 hours in the logbook.

[Croqueteer]

:confused: You are mainly speaking about pilots on the way up. What about geriatrics like myself? I have over 15,000hrs, of which 2500 is in singles with about 1200hrs instructing, although retired I still fly my own aircraft, and would like to resume instructing, but the hoops are just too many and too expensive, and the annual requirements too much, so what useful info and experience I might have to give is wasted. I know I could walk into a club tomorrow and give a valuable day's teaching, but the CAA don't see it like that. I'm sure a great many feel the same way, what a waste of a resource.

[Whopity]

and would like to resume instructing, but the hoops are just too many and too expensive, and the annual requirements too much From what you say you have a valid licence and have held a FI rating, so all you need to do to instruct again is enough refreshing to pass a FI test. That will get you going for 3 years, whereupon you then only need a FI test assuming you have 100 hours instructing over the past 3 years. In the good old days you would have had to do the FI test every 25 months! Is that really too difficult if you have so much to offer?

[Human Factor]

At the end of the day, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Ok, that's actually a little harsh as there are some excellent flying club instructors out there. There are however, a fair few tits. I get £8.00 per flying hour to instruct. Admittedly I do it for fun and I'm fortunate that I fly for a decent living to pay the bills. There is no way on earth I could afford to do that full time. I have friends who do and they struggle. Seriously struggle.

The fact remains that you will almost never attract a decent standard of career instructor if that is all that schools/clubs are prepared to pay. I deliberately exclude the professional instructors at schools such as OATS and some of those who got into aviation at a later stage and are considered an unattractive proposition by the airlines (having said that, a middle-aged instructor friend has just been recruited for her first airline job).

If I were a full-time instructor at my current school, I would make approximately £15000 gross per year which would barely cover modest rent in the Home Counties, let alone a mortgage. Pension, what's that? Rest assured, I won't be instructing for a living as I wouldn't be able to stay in my current house (which isn't exactly Blenheim Palace anyway).

Sadly, anyone with talent follows the market and heads for the cash (airlines) at the first opportunity. Market forces. I appreciate there are always exceptions that prove the rule (usually with some other form of income) but there are a large number who remain who are either building hours for the airlines or are not suitable for them in the first place. That is not a basis for quality PPL instruction. Some of the suggestions already made would mitigate that. Bring back the BCPL maybe?

Ultimately though, I say again: Market Forces.

[unfazed]

It won't stop fATPL's becoming instructors and it may mean that they finally get paid properly as well

Dream on ! I fail to see how removing the requirement for CPL will suddenly increase wages and allow us all to drive around in Bentleys ?

I do agree that if the exams are not relevant then the exams should be changed

SaS and Beagle - This is a theme that you guys have been banging on about for a long time now in perfect unison, suspect that you are CFI's or club managers (or both). If you chant constantly then others may well take up the same chanting but come on be honest .....how will it really improve quality of teaching and make us all rich (well unless you are a club owner, CFI or manager perhaps).:confused:

[B Fraser]

(having said that, a middle-aged instructor friend has just been recruited for her first airline job)

I'll tell her you said that ;) She parties with the very best of them matey and could show most of us a clean pair of heels !

[Say again s l o w l y]

To get instructing paid properly, it needs to be seen as a career in itself, rather than a stepping stone. This will never happen with most fATPL holders, why? Because they have spent many many thousands of pounds to become an airline pilot, rather than an FI.

Someone who is desperate to get a foot on the ladder is more likely to accept being taken advantage of, for proof of this, just look at F/O's in Ryanair and other places that insist on people paying for ratings. They are willing to be shafted just to get some experience.

There should be nothing to stop someone who holds an fATPL from becoming an FI, some make excellent instructors, but we need to keep this industry ticking over as the schools and students require, rather than at the whims of airline recruitment.

The chaos that is caused by FI's leaving has to be seen to be believed and with the current rate of recruitment, we are starting to see a real shortage of instructors, both experienced and inexperienced.

I don't want to put fATPL's out of work, I was one once and I hope I did a good job, but when the call to go to an airline came, I didn't think twice and was gone within a couple of days, leaving massive holes in the schedule and gaps in people's subsequent training.
I'm not proud of it, but what else could I have done when I got the call and was told I was starting a type course on the Monday? (That was on a Friday afternoon.)

As a CFI the most important thing to me is the quality of training we provide and to be honest I couldn't give two hoots what licence any of my FI's have as long as they teach to the highest standard. I never want to see a time where FI's cannot get paid. That would defeat the whole purpose to me.

This debate is not as simple as just removing the need to have a CPL to get paid. I have laid out my opinion which I think would be best for the industry as a whole, not just for FI's looking for the first step along the career path.

[theresalwaysone]

Ive seen very experienced airline pilots who made lousy instructors, the most important quality an instructor can have is the vocation to teach, the licence/ rating and knowldge is secondary to the attitude.

A good CFI manages his instructors and brings them on especially new ones. The main problem with schools and clubs is the lack of this professional management .

I remember a peculiar chap at Birmingham who spent ages studying for professional licences etc and eventually took over all the flying schools at Bham. He managed to blag his way through an IR and a CPL and an QFI rating but the one he never managed to get was a FIC rating -why because he just wasnt good enough.

[DFC]

Rather than have people required to hold the licence they teach for or above, they should be required to demonstrate experience in the field they will teach.

Thus people teaching at PPL level would have to demonstrate x number of hours including x hours crosscountry (to different fields), to teach the IMC, the person would have to show that they have held an IMC rating and have x hours as an IMC holder or have extra training required and so on.

Then we would not have the case of the integrated "graduate" teaching PPL flying, night and IMC while having absolutely no experience of anything they are teaching towards.

A perfect example I came across recently was a "graduate" who held an IR and was teaching the IMC rating to a student but had never done any IFR IMC flying outside of the airway system and did not know that for example IMC pilots generally plan their flights using the 1:500,000 chart and not an Aerad Chart.

The same instructor teaches PPL level including night but has only done one half decent crosscountry flight (CPL qualifier) outside the training system.

I am sure that they will make an excellent co-pilot and will gain experience under the watchfull eye of the Captain......but are they really equipped to teach subjects they know little about...i.e. operating as a PPL?

Why is it assumed that a CPL knows how to operate as a PPL?

Regards,

DFC

[theresalwaysone]

Exactly. i remember on an Aztec charter meeting a PPL at Prestwick once who had just flown in from Bham but unlike me VFR. He thought I was a bit of a hero because I had flown up the airway in a twin with the autopilot engaged most of the way. I pointed out that it was in fact he that was the hero and had shown far more skill by navigating VFR over an assortment of terrain etc without an autopilot just reading a map in a SE a/c.

Most PPL flying is much more demanding than than its equivalent professional flying in protected airspace with ATC helping at every stage and so demands a totally different instructor with a different level of knowledge. I think anyway.

[Leclairage]

The truth is that there are some ****e Instructors, and there are some really brilliant ones.
I learned to fly with Cabair, and they had a plentiful supply of both variants.

It is (alas) up to the poor, unknowing student to find find for him/herself an instructor who (a) knows their subject, and (b) suits the student.
I spent a lot of money with Cabair before I found an instructor who met both criteria.

(If Cabair's legal team wish to take issue with me, all this is already well documented!)

That said, as a result of spending my money with Cabair, I have (so far) enjoyed over 300 hours of P1 flying which has taken me to Tenerife, Ibetha, US etc.

Caveat Emptor !

[theresalwaysone]

If Cabairs legal team do contact you let me know because I beleive they were formerly the London School of Flying at Elstree and their well known CPL GFT instructor at the time(1976) Brian something or other was the worst instructor I have ever come across.

Continuing with the thread standards seem to have improved on the sylabus and tests but there is the same old attitude around, in fact possibly worse--low hour self appointed experts!

[selfin]

On the subject of attitude, much of what's on this archived post (http://www.aviation.org.uk/htm/crm.htm) applies.