Flight Instructor Competence

[Golf Alpha Whisky]

It is obvious that the large majority of FI's at flying clubs are doing it for hours building and / or for the fun of flying. However I have never subscribed to the view that just because you are competent at a specific skill, you are qualified to teach it!

In various walks of life I have come across people who are very skilled at a particular task but could not teach for toffee. For me being able to teach is not the same as being competent in a specific area.

When doing my training it was very evident that there were varying degrees of ability to teach all from "qualified" instructors ranging from excellent, to border line to pretty poor. In addition when jumping from instructoir to instructor there often appeared to be personal choices in teaching and doing various manouevres (Xwind TO / landings for example).

Anyhow my point is - how rigid is the Instructors course in teaching people to TEACH? Or is it a brush up on theoretical and technical aspects of flying skills and aircraft?

Also - how is the performance of an instructor monitored?

[RVR800]

The CPL is the knowledge the FI is teaching that knowledge

[fallen eagle]

I had almost 20 years instructing I now work in a large high school 1600 pupils as a technician therein is my qualification to make this statement.Teaching is an art form to which very few people aspire it is a gift being able to impart knowledge to another person/persons almost without them knowing.This can only be done if teacher/instructor and student/pupil are receptive to not just information being passed but there also has to be a gelling of personalities because both parties need to feel as though the end result has been achieved successfuly.As for the school environment this is not easy to achieve with modern attitudes towards anyone or anthing like authority the avarage schoolteacher will just give up and count the huge salary ,compared to a flying instructor, that they receive for not very much in return.To sum up there have always been the hour building not very proficient instructors though they may well be reasonable pilots its because the industry has always paid FIs crap wages, so find somone who has been instructing for longer than it takes to build the hours for an ATPL probably with grey hair and quite scruffy smokes and likes a drink may even swear and pound to a penny you will have found a real instructor.Oh yes the Pannel of Examiners are supposed to be able to judge who can and cannot instruct.
Says it all I spose

[Mark 1]

The FI course is generally about 3 weeks duration, and the "teaching and learning" element of the course probably amounts to about 1 day's worth.
Compared to say a PGCE, there will be little depth to the techniques, psychology etc. of the teaching process.

The way round this is to use a fairly prescribed formulaic approach, which has a proven record of reasonable success. When starting out, most instructors seemto stick fairly tightly to the formula that they've been taught, and to develop their style and technique with experience.

The model used is mostly based around those developed by the military with emphasis on pupils with a rather different aptitude and motivation to the average civil student pilot.

X-winds is an example of where there are alternative techniques with no clear winner, and instructors will be biased towards the method with which they are most comfortable.

The only time an instructor is forced to have their teaching performance assessed, is if they do a renewal flight test with an examiner (FIE), and this could be as infrequent as every six years, and will only cover a snapshot of the training syllabus.

Most schools like to be consistent in their teaching approach, so it would be worth discussing any issues with the instructor concerned or CFI. It should be possible to resolve most of them.

[rotorfossil]

Unfortunately the ability to teach is very little related to handling competence, although obviously a certain minimum is necessary. To teach well you have to really want to and there are large elements of psychology involved which are generally very poorly covered in flying instructor courses due to their abbreviated nature. In many years in the business, I have come across outstanding pilots who were lousy instructors and conversely, others who's handling skills left a bit to be desired but had a continuous record of success with their happy students.
It is also a truth that it seems to be human nature to deviate from the instructional party line unless almost continuously checked and advised. A fault of the present system where instructors are usually only tested every six years and CFI's are too busy and reluctant to bear the cost of standardisation rides. Anyway how many instructors actually stay in the business for six years and therefore never get checked.

[Whopity]

At lest the UK trains its Flight Instructors, in many countries they simply pass a handling test with an examiner and are then certified to instruct.

The UK FI course was 28 hours flying with arround 56 hours groundschool however that was largely theoretical training.

The current FI course has 125 hours of teaching theory and practice as well as 30 hours flight training. Within the 125 hours is a 35 hour teaching and learning element; must be an awfully long day if this can be taught in a day!

125 + 30 = 155 hours 155/8 = 19 working days at least!

Its difficut for a flying instructor to earn a living wage, let alone cover the cost of the training, which is I suspect is a dam site better than that given to the average "recreational activities instructors" many of whoom probably earn twice as much.

[FlyingForFun]

Picking up on various points from GAW's original post:
It is obvious that the large majority of FI's at flying clubs are doing it for hours building and / or for the fun of flying
That may be true, but how does it reflect on "Flight Instructor Competence"? It seems an odd way of opening a thread with this title.
I have never subscribed to the view that just because you are competent at a specific skill, you are qualified to teach it! In various walks of life I have come across people who are very skilled at a particular task but could not teach for toffee. For me being able to teach is not the same as being competent in a specific area.
I couldn't agree more.
when jumping from instructoir to instructor there often appeared to be personal choices in teaching and doing various manouevres (Xwind TO / landings for example).
That's because there is more than one way of doing something. A good instructor will a) make sure he is conversant with a range of techniques, b) be able to teach those techniques and c) recognise that when a specific technique doesn't work for a given student, another technique might work better. But, again, I don't see how a statement that there is more than one technique reflects on the competence of individual instructors.

On the other hand, schools may choose to standardise the techniques they use. This will be down to the CFI, and not to the individual instructors.
Anyhow my point is - how rigid is the Instructors course in teaching people to TEACH?
My experience of the course is that it was a course in teaching, and used the PPL syllabus as a vehicle to achieve that aim. By the time an FIC student reaches the end of the course, he should be able to take any skill with which he is reasonably competent and teach it using the techniques learnt on the course. As you gain experience of instructing, though, you will develope your own techniques.

It is true that the course is much shorter than, say, a PGCE (to draw on Mark 1's comparison). My sister is a primary school teacher, and probably the biggest difference between her job and mine is that my students are, without exception, motivated and enthusiastic about what they are doing. Because of that, a lot of the psychology that my sister uses at work is redundant in my job, because I don't have to worry about motivating my students. I'm sure that there is a vast amount of extra learning which could be done in this area, but I think you have to consider how much extra benefit there is compared to the effort needed.
Also - how is the performance of an instructor monitored?
The FI rating needs to be revalidated every three years. Although it's true that it's not necessary to do a test every three years (you can, instead, revalidate by a combination of experience and attending a seminar), I think it's fair to say that very few people choose not to do a test. If nothing else, in order to have enough experience to be able to choose this option are probably working as instructors regularly, and wouldn't want to take time off to attend a seminar. But I might be wrong on this one.

GAW, I think your original question as per the title of the thread is valid, but I'm a little confused as to how some of the issues you have raised are connected to it.

FFF
---------------

[hotcloud]

I have been a part time career instuctor for 9 years, and absolutely love the job. Luckly I have a type B personality, that is to say I don't tend to get worked up. For those who are familiar with Myers Briggs, my personality type profile is ISTP. ISTP's are cool onlookers, non judgemental and seek sensation.

I have always had a chilled out personality, and put some fun into the teaching. However I do take the work seriously and safety is of vital importance. Stalling exercises are conducted at least 3,500 ft above AGL, and I always, always insist on the Students undertaking the HASELL checks. However when conducting a stalling exercise, such as the aircraft in the approach configuration about to turn finals, I will inject some humour. In my demonstration, I take the role of the Sunday pilot who is nattering to his friend and not paying attention to the airspeed and attitude of the aircraft. Stall warner goes and Mr Sunday pilot is still oblivious to what is going on, then wham bang, wing drop. The point I am making is that flying low and slow is dangerous, but at the same time making the flight memerable and enjoyable. I also believe a good instructor adapts his/her style of teaching depending on the personality of the student. I am aware that students have different learning styles, some prefer visual learning, others prefer slogging through books, some need you to go that extra mile due to their lack of academic skills. infact some of my best students have struggled with the written exams, but because of the enthusiasm from the student and immense patients from myself, we have got through, and what a great feeling that is.

Personally I think it is vital for the FI course to include a section on personality profiles, you would get a better understanding of the students perspective. There is no doubt about it, the student will have a different perpective of the flight when compared to the instructor, and it is important that the instructor is aware of that. My full time job is Head of Human Resources in a Prison, and in the last few years all Heads of HR had to get the Charted Institute of Personnel Development qualification. It was hard work, but it gave me a better understanding on how people tick, a large section was on learning styles and personality types.

In summary a good instuctor has to have passion for the job, be people orientated, keep calm, and definately not shout or belittle the student. Instructors who belittle students should definately not teach, even if the instructor is highly skilled at flying the aircraft, it shatters confidence.