TKI maximum instructional hours per week

[Tasmaniac]

JAR FCL Standards Document 35 (para 3.10.1) used to quote maximum of 23 hours delivery in any one week, or maximum average 18 hours per week in a continuous 12 month period.

I can't locate any guidance of this nature in any EASA document.

Any ideas if EASA guidance on this subject exists? Or has it been dropped? Which means the ATO can flog the TKIs to death without fear of retribution from the regulatory authority????

[Alex Whittingham]

No requirements exist that I am aware of. The standards Docs were purely advisory and, in many cases, a legacy of pre-JAA CAA standards that they were trying to apply to later JAA regulations. Eventually the CAA agreed that they could and should only insist on compliance with JAA/EAS regulations and so the advisory docs have slipped even further into the background.

How much teaching a TKI does should depend on a number of factors, including experience and the type of teaching. For continuous teaching 18 hours is about right for a new-ish TKI although many ATOs work them harder. In short bursts instructors can easily cope with more than 24 hours a week, in fact contract instructors would find their income restricted if that rule was applied. We have periods where there is no teaching, and periods where the teaching can be full on for a couple of weeks. Ultimately it should be down to the ATO and its employees/contractors to establish a working environment that is efficient and comfortable otherwise you just won't hang on to good employees. Good TKIs are hard to come by.

[taybird]

Ultimately it should be down to the ATO and its employees/contractors to establish a working environment that is efficient and comfortable otherwise you just won't hang on to good employees. Good TKIs are hard to come by.

Never a truer word said. I'm sure there was historical guidance that also recommended how many subjects a TKI should be expected to teach since developing the curriculum knowledge to the depth required to teach is considerably harder than the level required to pass the exams. I was a TKI for a short while and would return to it if I could not find flying work. However the pressure to learn and teach subjects as a new instructor with no preparation time allowed was something I found particularly challenging. I found that having classroom time of >18 hours meant I was having to work long hours to prep. On average it would take at least 3 hours prep per 1 hour in the class, sometimes longer when I was having to produce most of my material from scratch. Plus there was additional 1-1 time with students who were struggling with some sections.

[nick14]

Hmm I work a lot more than that.

We restrict our TKIs to 40 hrs roster classroom time per week, maximum 6 consecutive days, same rules for the studes.

Our classroom times include lunch break and coffee stops so in all I would imagine around 6 hrs teaching time per day depending on the topic/delivery method.

All approved according to our ATO manual.

[Tasmaniac]

Thanks guys. As I suspected.

From my own experience, 4 x face-to-face classroom teaching hours per day, 5 days a week (=20 hours active classroom tutoring) doesn't leave an excessive amount of time for setting and marking exams; conducting 1-2-1 coaching; updating or improving TKIs personal knowledge of current subjects; upskilling on a new subject; general administration; and all the 100 other things a salaried employee tends to get roped into outside of normal job description duties (refer to the common employee contractual phrase "and any other duties deemed appropriate by the HT/CEO)

For a TKI contractor, presumably on an hourly or daily rate, I can see the financial advantage of being permitted to deliver as many hours per day as you can stay awake - and sleep when the course finishes!

However, for a salaried employee, some guidance, regarding the maximum hours a TKI should be programmed to instruct in any one period of time, in the same way we have guidance / regulations for FIs regarding daily and monthly flying time, would seem like a reasonable idea.

As you say, good TKIs are getting harder and harder to find. Flight Engineers and Navigators are, quite literally, a dying breed, and I see a significant rise in the use of newbie pilots, who can't land a flying job, being used as stop gap TKIs..... until, of course, they get that right hand seat job!

The level of real-life experience of TKIs, is diminishing rapidly. I suspect that within in a few more years, the guys with real-life experience of Navigation, AGK, M&B (mainly ex-military Navs, FEs, loadmasters, etc) will have retired and be very thin on the ground. What then? Delivery of theoretical knowledge only, unsupported by real experience. Or putting it in the vernacular, all mouth and no trousers.

Thanks for your input. Max 80 hours scheduled per month (average 4 hours classroom time per day, 5 days per week), with some proviso for extra in emergencies, in addition to what would normally be considered as other appropriate duties for a salaried TKI, sounds about right to me..... and is pretty much in line with FIs monthly maximum flying hours.

In this way I might be able to retain the (highly experienced and mature-aged) TKIs I have on staff for a few more years........ :)

[B61]

All the niff-naff mentioned in the first paragraph in the above post that you end up getting dumped on your table sums up where the rest of the week goes.

18-20 hours a week is a limit unless you do not want to end up with stale materiel that is not updated based on recent exam feed back.

The attitude that somehow you are guilty of time theft unless you are spending 37.5 hours a week in a classroom seems to stem from clueless types in management who have never had to spend time in front of a whiteboard and explain a subject in great depth. Anyone can spout forth very clever ideas lacking in practical detail and pretend they are a management genius - but how many ever have any form of management training ? An MBA, for example.

1-2-1 for those who request it alone can easily add another 5-8 hours a week to the workload. Plus there is extras you end up doing - semi cadet welfare, scheduling, future planning, updating records, student reports.

18 hours a week gives near enough 900 hours a year and just like pilots, just because they are not flying does not mean they are not working !

I don't think the ex forces back seater is the only suitable source of TKIs. An experience GA Flying Instructor, flight crew grounded for medical reasons, or someone who has in fact taken the JAR/ EASA exams they are actually teaching and is sufficiently enthusiastic is just as suitable, and probably less likely to have the younger generation of trainees suffering from a glazed over expression as some of the more stale war stories are trotted out again !

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having been a university lecturer (aerospace engineering, not recently apart from a few days specialist contract teaching each year), my experience was that 15 hrs/week was considered an absolute maximum for anybody with a proper job (that is with management and research obligations as well), and that would be pretty gruelling. People who did nothing but teach, maybe 20-24, but they could only do that for a few years, before their knowledge base became stale and in many cases out of date.

That's all within a true 40-50 hour working week.

I can't see that TK instruction should be regarded as much different?

G

[dinoorin]

well said B61

The attitude that somehow you are guilty of time theft unless you are spending 37.5 hours a week in a classroom seems to stem from clueless types in management who have never had to spend time in front of a whiteboard and explain a subject in great depth. Anyone can spout forth very clever ideas lacking in practical detail and pretend they are a management genius - but how many ever have any form of management training ? An MBA, for example.

[Tasmaniac]

The attitude that somehow you are guilty of time theft unless you are spending 37.5 hours a week in a classroom seems to stem from clueless types in management who have never had to spend time in front of a whiteboard and explain a subject in great depth.

Sums it up precisely! :rolleyes:

[Stn120]

A buddy of mine has just finished at an ATO in the Midlands. He said the management are pushing for as many hours in the classroom as possible, they have set KPI's which mean 30 hours teaching per week!!! New TKI's are given no leeway and are expected to be up to speed quickly and teach 3/4 subjects competently. They are talking about TKI's teaching more than 4 subjects too. Trying to run 2/3 courses concurrently with only 4 TKI's (including the CTKI). The same place has lost 3 TKI's and also a few FI's and the HoT in the last 6 months and they dont have a ground school / flight school admin, they do the admin themselves.

Smacks of quantity not quality to me.

[frf]

As you say, good TKIs are getting harder and harder to find. Flight Engineers and Navigators are, quite literally, a dying breed, and I see a significant rise in the use of newbie pilots, who can't land a flying job, being used as stop gap TKIs..... until, of course, they get that right hand seat job!

The level of real-life experience of TKIs, is diminishing rapidly. I suspect that within in a few more years, the guys with real-life experience of Navigation, AGK, M&B (mainly ex-military Navs, FEs, loadmasters, etc) will have retired and be very thin on the ground. What then? Delivery of theoretical knowledge only, unsupported by real experience. Or putting it in the vernacular, all mouth and no trousers.

I am a former military navigator (by the way, seeking for a TKI position) and only 36yo. They still are numerous younger than me, I guess the "few more years" you spoke about will persist for a quarter of a century.
The experienced TKIs gap has probably one or even more other causes.