Are all "good" pilots good instructors?

[Arnold E]

The answer to the above question. IMHO is no. Recently it would seem that some excellent pilots are not necessiseraly good instructors. I remember many years ago I bought a share in a taildragger and asked the very capable pilot to teach me how to fly it. After a full day of trying, I was still at the same piont as I started. I thought to myself that I had made a mistake and that I was not capable of flying a taildragger. I did, however get someone else to show me how it was done and within a few circuits I was, at least, able to get the aircraft on the ground in a safe manner. Since then I have only flown taildraggers . As I said earlier, the first "instructor" was an extremely good pilot and a very capable person in everything to do with aviation, (and is in fact my boss) but as a teacher he is hopeless. Maybe people here ask questions that, to the experts seem not worthy, however, maybe a helpfull answer is more worthy of an experienced person rather than scorn. What do you think??

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Frustrating, isn't it? :}

[eeper23]

I know some instructors who are in GA, and they are some of the most arrogant and stupidest pilots you will ever meet.

But to answer your question, no, I'm not an instructor and I'm a fantastic pilot. Probably the best pilot ever. Im not tooting my own horn here, its just my mum says I'm the best, and mums do know everything.

[Jabawocky]

I would make a brilliant instructor then!:}

even today I was a bad pilot.....and I admit it!.....minor oops at YBAF:sad:

I agree though.......and some instructors will be better with some students than others, and there is another dynamic to consider................."When the student is ready, the teacher appears"

[Tee Emm]

There is no correlation between a experienced pilot and an experienced flying instructor. Good instructors are as rare as hen's teeth. Experienced pilots are dime a dozen.

[Led Zep]

Teaching is an ability few possess.

[Xcel]

Tee Emm

There is no correlation between a experienced pilot and an experienced flying instructor. Good instructors are as rare as hen's teeth. Experienced pilots are dime a dozen.

he said good not experienced... I know some experienced pilots who arent good either.. but generally you would expect to get better, just begs to ask how bad they used to be when they used to be inexperienced...

agree though.. I found a very good instructor who was so fickle, eventually I followed him as he changed through at least 4 schools through the course of my 250 hours of training with him. Of course they all slowly got more expensive as we went, guess he slowly got paid more as word spread too...

[kumul1]

If you can have the knowlege and apply it perfectly, you're a good pilot,
If you can have the knowlege and impart it effectively, you're a good instructor.:ok:

[SarahLovesSeaplanes]

+1

In university I found the worst instructors were the brilliant professors. They would constantly ramble through theory at lightening speed and then get frustrated often saying things like, "come on people this is dirt simple we can't spend all day going over this stuff." Basically they were just to "smart, good, talented, whatever" and they couldn't understand why the rest of us couldn't pick things up quicker. It was frustrating for the prof and for us students.

I found the same when I got my pilots licence. My first instructor was a class 3 and did an excellent job of teaching me. He didn't have loads of airline or bush time but he understood why I was having a hard time with some concepts and thus he was able to find the right technique to get me past my trouble spots.

Later on I've had 1 or 2 checkouts with "very good / experienced" pilots and the checks were horrendous. One guy did a demo circuit in a 185 at 300 feet and cut the x-wind at the edge of the departure and the base at the end of the approach. I guess he wanted to show off his awesome skills but needless to say it was a very painful experience trying to learn from someone who thinks it's all child’s play and has very little paitience for new pilots who are just learning.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Are all "good" pilots good instructors?
Ah......that ol' chestnut!
Don'tcha love sweeping generalisations (i.e. "all")?
People, there are good instructors that are not very good pilots; good pilots that are not very good instructors, not very good pilots and instructors, and finally, yes there are those that are both good pilots and instructors.
It's remarkably similar to any other profession you may care to mention.
Now can we please put this infantile discussion to bed!:ugh:

[sky surfer]

NO...just have to look at some airline training and checking staff and you can see the vast differences in the ability to impart knowledge and get the best out of staff. AND yes Ive seen bad instructors and good pilots who have the abiliy to inspire the best out of people.:ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

One guy did a demo circuit in a 185 at 300 feet and cut the x-wind at the edge of the departure and the base at the end of the approach. I guess he wanted to show off his awesome skills but needless to say it was a very painful experience trying to learn from someone who thinks it's all child’s play and has very little paitience for new pilots who are just learning.

Unless he was flying wrecklessly Sarah a three hundred foot circuit is quite safe and is something you should be comfortable with if you are going to be flying in the bush or on sea planes. :):)

[Metro man]

Goes right up to airline level as well. Had a training captain who was an excellent pilot, knew the systems inside out BUT his idea of teaching involved screaming and abuse. Was even worse in the simulator where he could do what he liked.

I would be quite happy to be a passenger while he was handling an emergency, but he should never have been in the training department.

[The Green Goblin]

Good pilots that are instructors?

There are not many - cause all the good ones leave!

The experienced instructors that are left are usually bitter because they missed the boat for whatever reason or were late career starters that think they should have been an airline pilot and think they know it all.

A guy in TAC at JT (who I know reads these boards) is a classic example.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

To attract and keep good instructors the pay has to be sufficient to make it worth their while to instruct as a career.

Last time I checked flight instructors are the lowest paid pilots in aviation.

A good flight instructor should be paid equal to an airline captain.

[HEALY]

Chuck

I agree that good instructors should be paid alot more than what they are but you would have to charge guys $1000 per hour dual to fly a clapped out C152 to be able to afford them:}

[Mach E Avelli]

Flight instructor pay is the problem. Pay is linked to income generated for the operator, so instructors will always be at the bottom of the food chain. So, on the way up most do it do build hours for a better future. A few within those ranks are dedicated and do a great job, for as long as they are there. Sadly for students and flight schools, these are usually the ones that the airlines will eventually take.
This is NOT saying that there are not some good career instructors. I was very privileged to have been mentored in my early days by just such a guy, now passed on to the big hangar in the sky.
But is a good pilot a good instructor? Not always. Sometimes a pilot is so good he /she just does it naturally and so has a hard time understanding how anyone else could find learning to fly or upgrading to new levels in flying a difficult task for many lesser mortals. But if an instructor can't demonstrate mastery of whatever is being taught, that's no good either.

[RENURPP]

I don't believe a "bad" pilot can be a good instructor regardlss of how well he imparts his knowledge. A good instructor needs to be able to demonstrate the task he is teaching, not simply spruik on with theory.

A good pilot is definitely not always going to be a good instructor for some of the reasons above.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yes the rate a school would need to charge would be higher.

However the time the students take to get what ever license, rating they are training for would be less.

I don't know what you people make down on the other side of the planet but in Canada the instructors make around $25.00 an hour on the average.

It also takes about double the minimum time for PPL's to get their license so if the hourly wage was raised to say $100. 00 per hour the instructor could actually live off the money they made and the student would get far better training.

The industry would soon sort out who the good instructors are by their product.

When I was doing type ratings on the PBY I was charging 250 Euro per flight hour and was never out of work, so it can be done.

I have been retired for almost four years and am thinking of doing some more instruction...maybe on the new Husky Amphibian I am looking after for a friend of mine. :E

[Mr. Hat]

Teaching is something people go to university for. Its not just something you can decide to do overnight. Personally I think C & T people in at jet level should have at least a certificate IV (tafe) in workplace training and assesment. Of course most employers wouldn't dream of this sort "expense" which is actually an investment.

In 15 years of flying I've come across 2 people that were absolutely brilliant instructors. They didn't have any formal qualification from memory but were just outstanding professionals of the highest order.

So to answer your question: Are all "good" pilots good instructors? My answer is NO but they certainly have the potential given the right training.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
It will come as no surprise to many, but a CASA Instructor Rating course has very little effective training in "teaching".

Interestingly, the Gliding Federation of Australia instructor course has about half the course hours devoted to the subject of "adult education", which is not the same as teaching school kids. Teaching instructors to teach, not to fly, that "should" be a given. An Instructor course should not be (but all to often is) a remedial flying training exercise.

In short, the GFA course contains a lot of the material one would find in a Diploma of Education course, there is nothing special about "flying instruction" that makes normal educational theory inapplicable.

One of the best GA instructors I have come across was a TAFE teacher (including Dip.Ed.) for may years, before he became a flying instructor.

Some of the best airline SCCs I have come across started life as teachers. Without exception, all the "good" flying instructors I have ever had anything to do with were all technically very good pilots, better than the "company average", because any instructor has got to be able to demonstrate a sequence to the standard required, plus a margin of performance to fit in the instructional bit --- but it doesn't always happen, I have come across some shockers.

Having said all that, the cockpit of an airborne aeroplane is the world's worst classroom. Really smart flying schools (there are a few) are integrating simulators into PPL/CPL courses to a degree the traditionalists abhor.

All I can say about that is, that from experience checking the product, it works --- (and I am not talking about MPL) it is about time flying training move on past 1932.

Tootle pip!!

[Mr. Hat]

Having said all of the above though i did have one instructor that was a teacher and was an absolute asshole so like everything its a combination of many variables.

[ReverseFlight]

LeadSled's analysis confirms something I have noticed for some time - the path to a G3 under CASA's system.

After training for (minimum) 150 CPL hrs and 50 G3 hrs (all under VFR rules, SE), the freshly minted G3 goes out and teaches the ab initio, which is one of the traditional paths in Oz of building hours at flight schools.

In comparison, CASA only allows helicopter pilots to apply for a G2 (they only have 2 grades) when they have a minimum of 400 hrs. What's more, the minimum experience that industry operators require for instructional roles is between 1000 to 1500 hrs. This seems to place emphasis on being a good (i.e. at least experienced) pilot before even considering whether you'll make a good instructor.

Another comparison - let's look a typical FW training program in the USA (actual hrs may vary between different FTOs) and assuming most Ozzie FTOs are very close to the targets set down by CASA:

PPL 65 hrs min (more typically 80 hrs) + 10 sim
IR (pre-CPL) 75 hrs + 20 sim (20 + 20 in Oz, usually done post-CPL)
ME (pre-CPL) 38 hrs + 10 sim (whereas in Oz only 5 hours, again post-CPL)
CPL requirement = 178 hrs (totalling the 3 items above) + 40 sim (compares with min 150 hrs (integrated) CASA CPL, which does not have any IR or ME)
CFI SE is 14 hrs (but in Oz is another 50 hrs for G3)
CFI ME is 24 hrs (but in Oz another 50 hrs for META)
CFII = CFI with an IR (no further requirement under FAA) whereas CASA reserves this for G1s only

FAA seems to place a bit more emphasis on CPL training, especially the IR and ME sequences, while Oz tends to leave more hours to ratings and instructor training later. The FAA approach is another example of placing emphasis on training all-round, knowledgeable pilots before taking the step towards instructor training which concentrates more on knowledge-imparting techniques. I have certainly found that G3 training here in Oz is very much like brushing up on the stuff I missed or skipped at CPL.

Just my 2 cents' observation - not really trying to stir up a war between 2 sides of the bigger pond - they're just different systems.

[ZEEBEE]

Ah yes...but the biggest difference is American pilots have no idea how to fly VFR. In this country with minimal traffic, huge empty areas and usually very good weather VFR is a realistic option.

Certainly not my experience flying in the US. :=

Many, many pilots both comfortable AND proficient in VFR flying.

[ZEEBEE]

Interestingly, the Gliding Federation of Australia instructor course has about half the course hours devoted to the subject of "adult education", which is not the same as teaching school kids. Teaching instructors to teach, not to fly, that "should" be a given. An Instructor course should not be (but all to often is) a remedial flying training exercise.

I think that's a very good and important point.
Much of my training was in fact centred about the method and rate of information transfer in the cockpit environment .

It always puzzled me that there was no comparable information in the powered instructor syllabus.

Even more interestingly, several of my friends who had graduated from Teachers College were bowled over by the "phsychology of learning" sections in the GFA Instructors Handbook.
They claimed that their life would have been much easier had they not had to learn all that from experience.

[LeadSled]

Mr. Hat,

I concur, for every rule, there is an exception --- indeed you remind my of a wonderful example, former teacher, ex-agi., Chief Pilot with "7000" hours. Believe me, he had 1 hour, 7000 times. Another 12,000h or so to retirement didn't make a whole lot of difference.

Cynical,

I agree with ZeeBee, and would also say that I have always been impressed with the standard of stick and rudder skill with US pilot I fly with.

Probably something to do with the fact that FAA very much concentrate on handling skills, particularly low speed flight, a lack of which might kill you.

I know of no case where a minor error in "radio work" ( as we seem to increasingly call communications here) has cause an aircraft to stall, spin and burn.

We have long since lost sight of the important of the basics, in favour of turning out fully qualified aviation bush lawyers --- just look at the NVFR recency thread --- and the complex, convoluted and contradictory "rules" that are the cause of such confusion.

The now long time FAA emphasis on the most basic of piloting skills shows in the record.

Tootle pip!!

[trimotor]

To answer the original question, No!

However, I don't believe you can be a bad pilot and a good instructor.

That said, ther's alwys the old chestnut: "Those who can, do: those that can't teach"!

Remeber the 4 tenets of instructions? Fear, sarcasm, ridicule and physical violence...

[PA39]

What is the definition of a good pilot? i know plenty of pilots with thousands of hours experience who would make lousy instructors. Its all about TRAINING. A well trained and well disciplined pilot with COMMON SENSE makes a good pilot. Ability,training, attitude and experience make for a good instructor. Command decision making skills and aircraft management and control skills are a necessary for both, plus throw in people handling skills evenmore so for the instructor.

[Bunyan Wingnut]

This is a great thread, thought provoking, with some interesting observations and opinions. :ok:

I can certainly vouch for the benefits of the Gliding Federation of Australia's emphasis on adult learning and communication, motivation and processing issues. I hope that emphasis is not lost in future - GFA is revising and updating its training and coaching system with a view to strengthening post solo development aspects. As a GFA L3 instructor, training the trainers, I find myself personally emphasising these communication, motivation, adaptive methods issues quite a bit. So I appreciate those supportive comments.

In gliding, in GA and RA I have alse experienced some very good and not so good instructors. I think one of the positive discrimination issues is that of the really good instructors constantly reinforcing high airmanship standards, good judgment and excellent lookout, and assisting in developing good situational awareness. Think about those instructors who can quietly and consistently help develop better workload management, leading to safer habits, better focus and discipline, assisted by sharp lookout and reinforcing better situational awareness, which in turn builds better judgment and higher airmanship standards. Note that the really good ones can understand the cascade, the interdependence, and use multiple instructing techniques to build that core in their students - all the while motivating them - and in turn they absorb the theory and practice much better.

So - I would argue that the very good instructors would normally be very good pilots, sometimes quite critical of their own flying - and good instructors, with the potential of being very good, would know their own shortcomings as pilots and work darned hard at improving themsleves.

There are some adept, knowledgeable, skilled pilots out there, but with poor airmanship and judgement, poor lookout, poor situational awareness, poor adaptability, poor self-awareness, or unsound risk appetite, who should not be considered "good" pilots, and who should therefore never instruct (regardless of their ego and aspirations). Others may have great airmanship, judgment, situational awareness etc, but lousy motivation and communication skills. Ditto.

Are all "good" pilots good instructors? No. But it's worth thinking about the really good ones and the discrimination factors, their standards, what they do beyond teaching, and the breadth and depth of their tool kits.

On on! ;)

[grip-pipe]

Well let us rephrase the question, do good apples make good oranges. No answer, yep that's right an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. Do not confuse driving with teaching, different arts, that is all.

Now an then you find a good apple who also does a very good orange impersonation, now and then a good orange who does a good apple impersonation.

Trouble is the good oranges are doing apple and orange work with the big chain fruit shops and a lot of good oranges and good apples go unsold in the general grocery store, generally because they are not properly cared for and are kept in clapped out boxes in the sun and it is hard to convince the average consumer they are a good orange or apple and even harder to get on the shelf of the big grocery store.

[LeadSled]

grip-pipe,
To every complex question, there is a simple, straightforward and wrong answer.
Tootle pip!!

[Pin37]

Well said that man