Standardisation ?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Learning to fly is a completely new skill, and it’s easy for students to become fixated in copying their instructor’s techniques exactly. Whirlybirds comments remind me of the PPL holders I meet who tended to have been instructed predominantly by one instructor. They tend to be less open to variations of operation. More blinkered maybe. This I feel is a negative.
I am all for standardisation but am divided as to where the standardisation line should be drawn. If we take it that the basics of flying the aircraft should be as standard as possible, we are really only discussing whether non-essentially standard procedures should be so standardised. I actively make a point to all my students that they will hear different advise from different instructors. I offer my opinions and qualify them with reasoning, but stress that not everyone will teach, practice or even agree with them. I hope this results in the student realising that flying is like most other activities, i.e. there’s more than one way to skin a cat, (Non-standard cat skinning?? – scandalous) and end up like the PPL Whirly was talking about.
I also actively suggest that a student has some lessons with another instructor(s). I feel a possessive attitude over a student can reduce their ability to take advise on board from others later.
We must also remember that students can use our non-standardisation against us!! How many times have you hear ‘Fred didn’t show me to do it that way’ or ‘I have never been shown that’ – while any of the course is non-standard that will always be the case.
So, as for total standardisation, I guess I’m not for it. As for students making notes about instructors differences? Perhaps that would be no bad thing as it could highlight issues that do need correcting.
I am all for standardisation but am divided as to where the standardisation line should be drawn. If we take it that the basics of flying the aircraft should be as standard as possible, we are really only discussing whether non-essentially standard procedures should be so standardised. I actively make a point to all my students that they will hear different advise from different instructors. I offer my opinions and qualify them with reasoning, but stress that not everyone will teach, practice or even agree with them. I hope this results in the student realising that flying is like most other activities, i.e. there’s more than one way to skin a cat, (Non-standard cat skinning?? – scandalous) and end up like the PPL Whirly was talking about.
I also actively suggest that a student has some lessons with another instructor(s). I feel a possessive attitude over a student can reduce their ability to take advise on board from others later.
We must also remember that students can use our non-standardisation against us!! How many times have you hear ‘Fred didn’t show me to do it that way’ or ‘I have never been shown that’ – while any of the course is non-standard that will always be the case.
So, as for total standardisation, I guess I’m not for it. As for students making notes about instructors differences? Perhaps that would be no bad thing as it could highlight issues that do need correcting.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that standardisation is important, but as others have said, there will always be small things which each instructor, indeed each pilot, does slightly differently.
Going back again to FFB's original post, however, his student on the occassion he was asking about was an existing PPL. He may or may not have been one of FFB's school's students - he may have been a new member who had just joined FFB's organisation for his further training. We don't know the details, FFB didn't tell us, but I'm sure we all encounter this kind of scenario fairly regularly.
So, aside from issues around standardisation within our own organisation, is it not important that we have ways of tackling pilots who come from other environments and have ways of doing things which are different to our own? Would we all agree that the appropriate technique must first of all involve deciding whether our student's techniques are safe and appropriate, and if they are, letting him get on with them (but possibly with a suggestion that he might like to consider an alternative)? And that if they are not safe or appropriate, we need a sensitive approach to changing the student's habits to something more safe and appropriate?
Seems to me like we are all agreed on this, but we have become so sidetracked by arguing something which we are all agreed on that we've forgotten to debate the original question, which is how we go about this! Let's not have this forum turn into another Rumours+News style forum, please?
FFF
-----------
PS - DFC, no hard feelings, I appreciate that your comments weren't personal. Standardisation is important, I'm only emphasising lack of standardisation in this thread because that's what the thread is all about.
Going back again to FFB's original post, however, his student on the occassion he was asking about was an existing PPL. He may or may not have been one of FFB's school's students - he may have been a new member who had just joined FFB's organisation for his further training. We don't know the details, FFB didn't tell us, but I'm sure we all encounter this kind of scenario fairly regularly.
So, aside from issues around standardisation within our own organisation, is it not important that we have ways of tackling pilots who come from other environments and have ways of doing things which are different to our own? Would we all agree that the appropriate technique must first of all involve deciding whether our student's techniques are safe and appropriate, and if they are, letting him get on with them (but possibly with a suggestion that he might like to consider an alternative)? And that if they are not safe or appropriate, we need a sensitive approach to changing the student's habits to something more safe and appropriate?
Seems to me like we are all agreed on this, but we have become so sidetracked by arguing something which we are all agreed on that we've forgotten to debate the original question, which is how we go about this! Let's not have this forum turn into another Rumours+News style forum, please?
FFF
-----------
PS - DFC, no hard feelings, I appreciate that your comments weren't personal. Standardisation is important, I'm only emphasising lack of standardisation in this thread because that's what the thread is all about.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standards
Standards
One standard that is critical; never demand something that you cannot explain. "I require it be done this way because I think it best" is not good enough.
Sometimes standards can be 'stick in the mud' and maybe 'out of date'. Things can and do change - they must. However, certain agreed standards met by everyone throughout the industry can ease the problems that started this thread.
The old Panel of Examiners to a large extent did provide a central place of arguement. Dorothy Pooleys idea of a 'Central School of Instructing' maybe has some validity in this area. It could perhaps be a college of instructors providing a central think tank without being a school in itself, providing a facility for debate to bring us all back together. I'm amazed at the disprit standards taught at the current FIC schools. Each apparently doing their own thing.
One standard that is critical; never demand something that you cannot explain. "I require it be done this way because I think it best" is not good enough.
Sometimes standards can be 'stick in the mud' and maybe 'out of date'. Things can and do change - they must. However, certain agreed standards met by everyone throughout the industry can ease the problems that started this thread.
The old Panel of Examiners to a large extent did provide a central place of arguement. Dorothy Pooleys idea of a 'Central School of Instructing' maybe has some validity in this area. It could perhaps be a college of instructors providing a central think tank without being a school in itself, providing a facility for debate to bring us all back together. I'm amazed at the disprit standards taught at the current FIC schools. Each apparently doing their own thing.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't been to one yet, but surely the instructor seminars are a good place for standardisation to take place.
But dare say those providing each have there own opinions of what is standard.
I remember doing my IR test with CAA examiner. Asked him why the CAA could not produce a document from head office for candidates to standardise what is supposed to be known for passing test, eg timing in old, rumours varied from being "on track inbound for 30 sec to 15 sec" depending on which IR instructor you spoke to. His reply was "they should know (the IR instructors) what is required for their candidates to pass the test" Right!
As far as night flying i am quite happy for the student to switch off landing light when turned to look up final, at least they aren't preoccupied looking for the checklist which has fallen onto the floor in the dark! even so, a correctly aligned landing / taxi light should not be pointing up into the air.
For irregular flyers i think the checklist is essential. Once qualified the 'student' pilot may fly infrequently, this i explain to them is the reason why they have to use a checklist and i often don,t.
I was onced asked by a student "do i have to always do these checks" i said "no", "become a flying instructor and get your student to do them!"
But dare say those providing each have there own opinions of what is standard.
I remember doing my IR test with CAA examiner. Asked him why the CAA could not produce a document from head office for candidates to standardise what is supposed to be known for passing test, eg timing in old, rumours varied from being "on track inbound for 30 sec to 15 sec" depending on which IR instructor you spoke to. His reply was "they should know (the IR instructors) what is required for their candidates to pass the test" Right!
As far as night flying i am quite happy for the student to switch off landing light when turned to look up final, at least they aren't preoccupied looking for the checklist which has fallen onto the floor in the dark! even so, a correctly aligned landing / taxi light should not be pointing up into the air.
For irregular flyers i think the checklist is essential. Once qualified the 'student' pilot may fly infrequently, this i explain to them is the reason why they have to use a checklist and i often don,t.
I was onced asked by a student "do i have to always do these checks" i said "no", "become a flying instructor and get your student to do them!"
I think the central issue is your average PPL student should not get a say in how the aircraft is operated. You are the qualified instructor and PIC, he/she are there to learn. I politely but firmly tell all my students that at all times the aircraft will be operated my way. I always try to explain what I am doing and work hard at staying consistant. I refuse to put up with students who argue and question everything said to them. my personal tactic is to ride them hard pointing out everything they do wrong. They either get better or get lost. acquiring a reputation as a demanding instructor is not necessarily a bad thing as it tends to attract the hard working motivated students and discourage the tossers. Of course as a part time instructor who instructs for fun I have more options than a full time club instructor. The final caveat is the instructor should be able to explain everything he is doing. Unfortunately there are hours builders instructors who learn the minimum and do not make the effort to do the job right. Being a good instructor is not a function of hours in the log book it is entirely the choice of the instructor. Sorry end of rant
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completed my skills test last November and having looked over my log book I note I managed to make my way through 5 different instructors during my training, I dont think its a reflection on my flying !!! At least two of them went off to fly for airlines.
I really found flying with different instructors a refreshing change, there was very very little (if any) difference in what they were teaching however the key thing here is the way in which they were teaching the same subject.
I have always been told that do the checks on the ground from the check list, do the one's in the air from memory, as a newbie PPL(A) im paranoid about leaving the flaps down when I walk off to the club or taxing around with strobes lights, carb heat etc etc all on after arrival !!
OA
I really found flying with different instructors a refreshing change, there was very very little (if any) difference in what they were teaching however the key thing here is the way in which they were teaching the same subject.
I have always been told that do the checks on the ground from the check list, do the one's in the air from memory, as a newbie PPL(A) im paranoid about leaving the flaps down when I walk off to the club or taxing around with strobes lights, carb heat etc etc all on after arrival !!
OA
Last edited by oliversarmy; 17th Feb 2005 at 10:53.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
BigEndBob:
I think that's what the CAA believe they should be for, but my experience (I've been to one only) is that they do the opposite.
The one I went to was an AOPA-run event in London. The lecturers were all fully paid-up members of the RAF-trained AOPA old boys club and spent a large part of the time arguing with other Large Egos in the audience about their pet instructing techniques. It was really frustrating to have to sit through it. I also found that they had little or no knowledge of upcoming regulatory changes affecting instructors, yet this is supposed to be another of the seminar's functions.
NS
surely the instructor seminars are a good place for standardisation to take place
The one I went to was an AOPA-run event in London. The lecturers were all fully paid-up members of the RAF-trained AOPA old boys club and spent a large part of the time arguing with other Large Egos in the audience about their pet instructing techniques. It was really frustrating to have to sit through it. I also found that they had little or no knowledge of upcoming regulatory changes affecting instructors, yet this is supposed to be another of the seminar's functions.
NS
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
standards
No doubt that the three companies; AOPA, On-Track and The Flight Training Agency put a lot of work into the seminars and do provide a reasonable package for the money. The group briefing sadly being not much more than a pantomime but a JAA requirement none the less; a lot of jolly folk working late into the night cutting out lots of complicated cardboard shapes. A good wease is to do a PowerPoint prezz and get the job of laptop operator - don't have to say a thing and make a fool of ones self that way.
It is always revealing at these events just how disprit the UK standards are applied but no less so amongst the presenters themselves. As northsouth implies, no one leaves after the two days with a singular idea of a prefered standard in anything much at all.
At one seminar a staff instructor did not mention the rudder once in his lecture 'Recovery From a Spin - defending this, "most ab-initios are so incompetent at using it" he prefered that they didn't and so, simply tells them "leave the bloody thing alone". At another seminar, a lecture on 'Achieving straight and level Flight by Sole Reference to Instruments', the rudder was not mentioned; "this briefing is to do with achieving and maintaining S&L flight by SOLE reference to the aircraft instruments". As if that made a difference and somehow the aircraft dosn't yaw in cloud.
Oh well! Lets all carry on turning up but doing our own thing until something better comes along.
It is always revealing at these events just how disprit the UK standards are applied but no less so amongst the presenters themselves. As northsouth implies, no one leaves after the two days with a singular idea of a prefered standard in anything much at all.
At one seminar a staff instructor did not mention the rudder once in his lecture 'Recovery From a Spin - defending this, "most ab-initios are so incompetent at using it" he prefered that they didn't and so, simply tells them "leave the bloody thing alone". At another seminar, a lecture on 'Achieving straight and level Flight by Sole Reference to Instruments', the rudder was not mentioned; "this briefing is to do with achieving and maintaining S&L flight by SOLE reference to the aircraft instruments". As if that made a difference and somehow the aircraft dosn't yaw in cloud.
Oh well! Lets all carry on turning up but doing our own thing until something better comes along.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought a better system would be for the CAA/AOPA to produce a series of videos which could be hired from them, the instructor signing off that he had seen and taken on board whatever advice/techniques were offered. Or a number of standard lectures you had to attend.
Or internet based interactive virtual lecture.
Costs £££ i suppose....but eh the seminars cost ££££
Or internet based interactive virtual lecture.
Costs £££ i suppose....but eh the seminars cost ££££
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to an On-Track seminar while I was doing my FIC. (I did the FIC with On-Track, and since all my instructors were at the seminar and I couldn't fly that weekend, they invited me to join them at the seminar for free.)
My opinion was that just about everyone who was there was there because they hadn't met the experience requirement for renewing the FI rating. Therefore, these are the instructors who don't come into contact with students that often. Anything which is taught or encouraged at these seminars, therefore, will never reach the vast majority of students, even if the delegates at the seminar took all the points on board.
Any thoughts???
FFF
-----------------
My opinion was that just about everyone who was there was there because they hadn't met the experience requirement for renewing the FI rating. Therefore, these are the instructors who don't come into contact with students that often. Anything which is taught or encouraged at these seminars, therefore, will never reach the vast majority of students, even if the delegates at the seminar took all the points on board.
Any thoughts???
FFF
-----------------
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kelty
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a humble student at the bottom of the aviation food chain, I hesitate to voice an opinion, but here goes anyway.
I felt sorry for the FI who posted the topic. I have flown with 6 different instructors due to weather, holidays, available slots etc. Personally, I have found there are differencies in the way some things are taught. My attitude as a student is to fly the way my intsructor tells me to during a particular lesson and then after I'm back on the ground question my instructor about differencies I had noticed and ask him why he does it this way instead of that way. Then I go home and evaluate the different techniques and decide which one I prefer for myself and (more importantly) why.
We are always told as students not to be backward about coming forward and questioning decisions made by more experienced PIC's be they FI's or PPL's. That doesn't mean we need to pick an argument with them or make an issue out of an instruction during a lesson. I think instructors have a difficult enough job at times trying to get us students our wings, so why make it any harder by being awkward.
Presumably nothing you are being taught is dangerous, just different, so conduct the flight in the way that your instructor on the day instructs you to, then evaluate what you've been told and make decisions for yourself afterwards.
Well, I think the old grey cell has had enough. Off to try and make some sense of my confuser (might be a good idea considering I'm supposed to be sitting my Nav exam this week - oops!).
I felt sorry for the FI who posted the topic. I have flown with 6 different instructors due to weather, holidays, available slots etc. Personally, I have found there are differencies in the way some things are taught. My attitude as a student is to fly the way my intsructor tells me to during a particular lesson and then after I'm back on the ground question my instructor about differencies I had noticed and ask him why he does it this way instead of that way. Then I go home and evaluate the different techniques and decide which one I prefer for myself and (more importantly) why.
We are always told as students not to be backward about coming forward and questioning decisions made by more experienced PIC's be they FI's or PPL's. That doesn't mean we need to pick an argument with them or make an issue out of an instruction during a lesson. I think instructors have a difficult enough job at times trying to get us students our wings, so why make it any harder by being awkward.
Presumably nothing you are being taught is dangerous, just different, so conduct the flight in the way that your instructor on the day instructs you to, then evaluate what you've been told and make decisions for yourself afterwards.
Well, I think the old grey cell has had enough. Off to try and make some sense of my confuser (might be a good idea considering I'm supposed to be sitting my Nav exam this week - oops!).
