Genghis the Engineer
4th May 2012, 15:46
I'd be interested in the views of the older and bolder on this.
A while ago, and before I had any kind of instructors ticket, a friend of mine bought and did a reasonable job of restoring an oldish aeroplane. I test flew it for him (and the LAA) and he got a PtF on it. He then needed to upgrade from an NPPL(M) to an NPPL(SSEA) to be able to fly it and was very keen to do this in his own aeroplane. This was perfectly legal.
My advice to him was to either give up on that idea and use a school aeroplane because it would be easier, or a take his aeroplane to a friendly school, park it there for a little while and do it with them. Either way, to get his course done entirely in one learning environment and with so far as possible with a single instructor.
He ignored me, and kept using every available and suitably qualified instructor from all over the place. Well he got there, but in probably double the hours (and months) that in all likelihood he really needed. In my opinion, because of the complete lack of consistency in his training.
(To be fair, I've flown with him a few times since, and his flying was adequately safe and competent, and in 50ish hours in the aeroplane since then, he and it are still in one piece.)
Wind on, I am now a CRI doing a little freelancing. I've been asked by a syndicate whose aeroplane I know well enough, to "sort out" a new syndicate member. He's (very recently) overseas trained, doesn't know the aeroplane, the airfield, the UK airspace environment, or UK RT, and they want him satisfactory before he's let loose unsupervised [I gather that they rather suspect he can't fly very well]. The syndicate want him to use me, which is fair enough and I'm happy to do that - and he seems happy to pay for my time.
Now my issue. He's also decided to try and do the same thing in a school aeroplane from the same airfield, with a local instructor. Not instead, but as well. The instructor doesn't want to fly in the syndicate aeroplane (he just dislikes the type it seems, which is somewhat higher performance than his school aeroplane) and in any case seems to have poor availability.
So the "student", proposes to do part of his local / RT / flying standards training in one type with one instructor in the lower performance type, and the other part plus type familiarisation with me in the higher performance aeroplane he has bought a share in.
I'm likely to fly with him for the first time next week sometime, which I'm happy about. What worries me however is how I can deliver somebody any real training consistency if he's off flying another type with another instructor in between times. He needs to fly with me as I'm the instructor (a) trusted by the syndicate, and (b) happy to teach on the type. Arguably he doesn't *need* to fly with the other chap, but clearly believes it'll get him where he needs to be faster.
A lot of this is slightly personal to me, and I'm less worried about that bit - but it gave me a story to hang the question on. My opinion is that instructing consistency is really quite important, and that regularly chopping around either the aircraft type, or the instructor, is not helping anybody at-all. Chopping both, just seems a bit daft, especially for an inexperienced new or trainee PPL.
What does anybody else think?
G
A while ago, and before I had any kind of instructors ticket, a friend of mine bought and did a reasonable job of restoring an oldish aeroplane. I test flew it for him (and the LAA) and he got a PtF on it. He then needed to upgrade from an NPPL(M) to an NPPL(SSEA) to be able to fly it and was very keen to do this in his own aeroplane. This was perfectly legal.
My advice to him was to either give up on that idea and use a school aeroplane because it would be easier, or a take his aeroplane to a friendly school, park it there for a little while and do it with them. Either way, to get his course done entirely in one learning environment and with so far as possible with a single instructor.
He ignored me, and kept using every available and suitably qualified instructor from all over the place. Well he got there, but in probably double the hours (and months) that in all likelihood he really needed. In my opinion, because of the complete lack of consistency in his training.
(To be fair, I've flown with him a few times since, and his flying was adequately safe and competent, and in 50ish hours in the aeroplane since then, he and it are still in one piece.)
Wind on, I am now a CRI doing a little freelancing. I've been asked by a syndicate whose aeroplane I know well enough, to "sort out" a new syndicate member. He's (very recently) overseas trained, doesn't know the aeroplane, the airfield, the UK airspace environment, or UK RT, and they want him satisfactory before he's let loose unsupervised [I gather that they rather suspect he can't fly very well]. The syndicate want him to use me, which is fair enough and I'm happy to do that - and he seems happy to pay for my time.
Now my issue. He's also decided to try and do the same thing in a school aeroplane from the same airfield, with a local instructor. Not instead, but as well. The instructor doesn't want to fly in the syndicate aeroplane (he just dislikes the type it seems, which is somewhat higher performance than his school aeroplane) and in any case seems to have poor availability.
So the "student", proposes to do part of his local / RT / flying standards training in one type with one instructor in the lower performance type, and the other part plus type familiarisation with me in the higher performance aeroplane he has bought a share in.
I'm likely to fly with him for the first time next week sometime, which I'm happy about. What worries me however is how I can deliver somebody any real training consistency if he's off flying another type with another instructor in between times. He needs to fly with me as I'm the instructor (a) trusted by the syndicate, and (b) happy to teach on the type. Arguably he doesn't *need* to fly with the other chap, but clearly believes it'll get him where he needs to be faster.
A lot of this is slightly personal to me, and I'm less worried about that bit - but it gave me a story to hang the question on. My opinion is that instructing consistency is really quite important, and that regularly chopping around either the aircraft type, or the instructor, is not helping anybody at-all. Chopping both, just seems a bit daft, especially for an inexperienced new or trainee PPL.
What does anybody else think?
G