New ATPL Pilots
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: West Africa
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New ATPL Pilots
HI
I would like to run this past all flight instructors, and see if anyone out their agrees or has had similar expirence.
I am an instructor at a major airport and as such I have had to check out the occassional ATPL pilot for SE flying. Now I am in no way doubting their ability to operate a 737 but I have discovered that all the new pilots coming out of these so called major flight schools, (oxford, CTC etc) are sadly lacking in what I would call basic flying skills. I get the feeling that these chaps are being taught to press buttons and pass exams, and are lacking in some basic understanding. So much so that one FO was in my opinion not safe to fly, and on asked why he had done such a stupid thing, he answered that he had been told that, that was what had to do as taught at his school. If anyone has an opioion on this please continue.
Just as a side issue my thoughts are that at the moment these chaps are flying on the backs of senior Captains. The question I have is what happens when they are gone, and the cr@p hits the fan in years to come.
Flying Paddy
I would like to run this past all flight instructors, and see if anyone out their agrees or has had similar expirence.
I am an instructor at a major airport and as such I have had to check out the occassional ATPL pilot for SE flying. Now I am in no way doubting their ability to operate a 737 but I have discovered that all the new pilots coming out of these so called major flight schools, (oxford, CTC etc) are sadly lacking in what I would call basic flying skills. I get the feeling that these chaps are being taught to press buttons and pass exams, and are lacking in some basic understanding. So much so that one FO was in my opinion not safe to fly, and on asked why he had done such a stupid thing, he answered that he had been told that, that was what had to do as taught at his school. If anyone has an opioion on this please continue.
Just as a side issue my thoughts are that at the moment these chaps are flying on the backs of senior Captains. The question I have is what happens when they are gone, and the cr@p hits the fan in years to come.
Flying Paddy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a fewthat I have met and worked with who do seem to be a bit lacking in the airmanship department.
I have heard some horror stories from Capt's about newbie F/O's but I've also seen some high time instructors/low time airline pilots do some pretty stupid things aswell.
I still don't think you can beat the experience that can be gained by working as an FI for a bit. People skills are just part of it.
I have to say that not much scares me any more!!
Maybe I'm biased because that's how I started my career.
I have heard some horror stories from Capt's about newbie F/O's but I've also seen some high time instructors/low time airline pilots do some pretty stupid things aswell.
I still don't think you can beat the experience that can be gained by working as an FI for a bit. People skills are just part of it.
I have to say that not much scares me any more!!
Maybe I'm biased because that's how I started my career.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: West Africa
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
The pilot in question had just taken of from a runway 3000 m long, and I did an EFATO drill, his response was to try and land the aircraft on the grass to yhe side, and not back on the 2000 m of runway ahead. On asked why, I was told that at oxford he was told to land on the grass ????????. I dont think this has anything to do with being an instuctor, but more to do with the standard of instructor training him.
flying paddy
The pilot in question had just taken of from a runway 3000 m long, and I did an EFATO drill, his response was to try and land the aircraft on the grass to yhe side, and not back on the 2000 m of runway ahead. On asked why, I was told that at oxford he was told to land on the grass ????????. I dont think this has anything to do with being an instuctor, but more to do with the standard of instructor training him.
flying paddy
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was cynical, I'd say it might be that a for-real emergency which had the potential to close a runway (if it got really messy, that is) would be a bit embarassing for the school in question.
But now that I think of it, maybe not.
I think the main issue here is not so much what the pilot in question was doing, but that he did not understand the reason why he was doing it.
But now that I think of it, maybe not.
I think the main issue here is not so much what the pilot in question was doing, but that he did not understand the reason why he was doing it.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
conor_mc makes a very interesting distinction.
I would also suggest he might have done an integrated course. This is very short on hours but also on responsibility. The pilot never signs for an aircraft, always being signed off by an instructor. They are not flying independently, but IMHO being monitored too closely. This encourages literal interpretation, and lack of thought as to the reasons behind actions.
I have taken over students from an instructor who had completed an integrated course, and they had not been taught as PPL students should be. The limitations of their previous instructor's experience really did show.
I would also suggest he might have done an integrated course. This is very short on hours but also on responsibility. The pilot never signs for an aircraft, always being signed off by an instructor. They are not flying independently, but IMHO being monitored too closely. This encourages literal interpretation, and lack of thought as to the reasons behind actions.
I have taken over students from an instructor who had completed an integrated course, and they had not been taught as PPL students should be. The limitations of their previous instructor's experience really did show.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll second that. Integrated courses are fine for churning out potential first officers, what they aren't good at is teaching people how to be a commander. A very different thing from just being good at the basic mechanics of flying an aircraft.
It won't change until we get some quality, long term instructors. I don't want to sound patronising or insult anyone, but how can someone who has the bare minimum of experience really teach to a high enough standard?
(caveat, yes there are some fantastic instructors out there, but all the best have long and varied careers behind them. The general standard of instruction that I've come across is pretty dire and I've certainly had my eyes opened recently by somethings I've seen.)
One thing that certainly does seem to be missing from the integrated course is any form of hour building, where you just go off and explore the U.K or Europe. You learn a massive amount from doing this, far more than another couple of session in the local training area.
I am speaking as an CAP509'er here aswell.
It won't change until we get some quality, long term instructors. I don't want to sound patronising or insult anyone, but how can someone who has the bare minimum of experience really teach to a high enough standard?
(caveat, yes there are some fantastic instructors out there, but all the best have long and varied careers behind them. The general standard of instruction that I've come across is pretty dire and I've certainly had my eyes opened recently by somethings I've seen.)
One thing that certainly does seem to be missing from the integrated course is any form of hour building, where you just go off and explore the U.K or Europe. You learn a massive amount from doing this, far more than another couple of session in the local training area.
I am speaking as an CAP509'er here aswell.
And just think what it'll be like should the infamous MPL ever come about....
In the military, people are selectedto become QFIs. Whereas anyone with the money can pay for a course in the civil world.
What are the failure rates across the board at FTOs teaching the FIC?
In the military, people are selectedto become QFIs. Whereas anyone with the money can pay for a course in the civil world.
What are the failure rates across the board at FTOs teaching the FIC?
I'll second that. Integrated courses are fine for churning out potential first officers, what they aren't good at is teaching people how to be a commander. A very different thing from just being good at the basic mechanics of flying an aircraft.
It won't change until we get some quality, long term instructors. I don't want to sound patronising or insult anyone, but how can someone who has the bare minimum of experience really teach to a high enough standard?
Perhaps the modular CPL produces better stick and rudder people, they must do nearly 150 hours of hour building after all (but how valuable is this when it is unstructured?). This is certainly better than the Integrated student's 150 hours of Put,P1(s), SPIC and 50 hours simulator which is soley aimed at a pass in the IRT!
But, and this goes for both types of pilot, they are most likely to learn to fly an aeroplane "properly" during their FIC. Following the course they then spend a fair bit of time consolidating this new information as they try to pass it onto their unwitting students. Eventually, given enough time, they will become good instructors but then they have become the
quality, long term instructors
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently had an interview where i was sat in a room with nothing but ex Oxford students. Being modular and therefore having lepracy i eventually struck up conversation with a young well spoken lady who was part of the Oxford clic.
oxford"Where are you from she asked begrudginly"
me"Oh i'm an instructor form ey bye gum north"
oxford"Instructing(smirk on face), instructing...couldn't do THAT"
me"Thats because your probably crap i exclaimed(smirk on my face)
oxford"What....what do you mean"
me"Well it's not all about ticking boxes and turning knobs, you actually have to have an understanding of the subject and it's hard work"(although nobody had spoken to me i was now enroute Coventry on the highest speed train)
oxford"I do know what i'm talking about, i'm going to be an airline pilot"
me"right then airline pilot tell us all what FORCES turns an aeroplane"(potential smirk on face)
oxford" well..well you turn the knob on the dash to alter the flight director something or other"
me "CORRECT well done" just what i thought!
Childish,maybe unfair but totaly satisfying
oxford"Where are you from she asked begrudginly"
me"Oh i'm an instructor form ey bye gum north"
oxford"Instructing(smirk on face), instructing...couldn't do THAT"
me"Thats because your probably crap i exclaimed(smirk on my face)
oxford"What....what do you mean"
me"Well it's not all about ticking boxes and turning knobs, you actually have to have an understanding of the subject and it's hard work"(although nobody had spoken to me i was now enroute Coventry on the highest speed train)
oxford"I do know what i'm talking about, i'm going to be an airline pilot"
me"right then airline pilot tell us all what FORCES turns an aeroplane"(potential smirk on face)
oxford" well..well you turn the knob on the dash to alter the flight director something or other"
me "CORRECT well done" just what i thought!
Childish,maybe unfair but totaly satisfying
Last edited by tonker; 2nd Sep 2005 at 07:33.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New instructors are invariably low houred, but the problem is that as soon as they start to become good at the job, they get employed by an airline and you are back at square one.
The major issue isn't 'stick and rudder skills,' of course they are important, but knowledge and the ability to communicate it is by far the most important skill a good FI requires. This is something you are born with, not a skill that it is easy to learn.
Someone who is teaching people to become PPL's, would ideally have some background as one. The whole point of having a licence as a PPL is to go places and see things. It is not purely about being able to pass the IRT!
The 30 hr instructor course doesn't teach you how to fly the a/c properly, it hopefully gives you the skills to teach, but it is only 30 hrs long. Not exactly a huge amount.
I would have no problem with PPL's teaching as long as they could get paid. I know some very competent PPL's who would make excellent instructors, but they can't spare the time to go off and get their CPL writtens and to be honest, once you've passed those you may as well do the flight test and get a full on CPL and get paid for it.
The major issue isn't 'stick and rudder skills,' of course they are important, but knowledge and the ability to communicate it is by far the most important skill a good FI requires. This is something you are born with, not a skill that it is easy to learn.
Someone who is teaching people to become PPL's, would ideally have some background as one. The whole point of having a licence as a PPL is to go places and see things. It is not purely about being able to pass the IRT!
The 30 hr instructor course doesn't teach you how to fly the a/c properly, it hopefully gives you the skills to teach, but it is only 30 hrs long. Not exactly a huge amount.
I would have no problem with PPL's teaching as long as they could get paid. I know some very competent PPL's who would make excellent instructors, but they can't spare the time to go off and get their CPL writtens and to be honest, once you've passed those you may as well do the flight test and get a full on CPL and get paid for it.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but the trouble is a lot of instructors who come to airlines through the Self Improver- Regional Carrier- Big Airline route etc are pedantics who have no sight of the big picture.
They bring a flying school mentality of operation to the airline.
The RJ fleet at BACX is a prime example, I'm told.
One guy wants regional QNH set on the standby for Gods sake. We don't operate airliners like that.
Stick with what you're good at.
They bring a flying school mentality of operation to the airline.
The RJ fleet at BACX is a prime example, I'm told.
One guy wants regional QNH set on the standby for Gods sake. We don't operate airliners like that.
Stick with what you're good at.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the company have an SOP that deals with what is set on the altimeter and when? Most companies do.
I have to say that I find your comments NN to be utterly daft and insulting. There are good self improvers and awful integrated students and vice versa.
What is a 'flying club' mentality? Why are self improvers pedantic?
How I trained originally makes no difference to how I operate now. That was a long time ago and I've certainly learned a huge amount since then and have learnt a lot from the people I've flown with and guess what, some of them were 'self improvers.'
I have to say that I find your comments NN to be utterly daft and insulting. There are good self improvers and awful integrated students and vice versa.
What is a 'flying club' mentality? Why are self improvers pedantic?
How I trained originally makes no difference to how I operate now. That was a long time ago and I've certainly learned a huge amount since then and have learnt a lot from the people I've flown with and guess what, some of them were 'self improvers.'
I think N_N works for BA and if that is the case there are also the arrogant cadets and direct entry integrated course chappies who are generally revilled by the line captains thanks to their overwhelming sense of superiority, lack of flying skills, lack of situational awareness, inability to communicate politely with any other member of the crew and their doctrinal approach operating the aircraft. Most of them have probably calmed down now that they have realised that being a **** does not make you popular.
From what I've read in other threads some BA cadets were chopped from BACX because they weren't able to pass the turbo-prop course, I wonder if how these pedantic instructors managed it.
WRT to the standby altimeter the copy of the BA 757/767 Flying manual I have states:
I suppose that makes me pedantic 
Perhaps I should have said it shows you how to fly an aircraft properly. I don\\\'t think it gives you the skills to teach, it gives you the very basic tools to demonstrate how to fly an aircraft, you then develop the teaching skills required to do it well with experience and your own ability.
From what I've read in other threads some BA cadets were chopped from BACX because they weren't able to pass the turbo-prop course, I wonder if how these pedantic instructors managed it.
WRT to the standby altimeter the copy of the BA 757/767 Flying manual I have states:
When the aircraft has climbed above MSA and transition altitude/height, 1013/29.92 should be set on the altimeter subscale, except where terrain is a consideration or on short sectors, when an appropriate QNH may be set.
The 30 hr instructor course doesn\\\'t teach you how to fly the a/c properly, it hopefully gives you the skills to teach, but it is only 30 hrs long.
Last edited by StudentInDebt; 2nd Sep 2005 at 10:34.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And having trained quite a few ex flying instructors to fly Boeings, I also find that some of them are know-alls who find it difficult to accept criticism non defensively.
Of course the first two replies on here wouldn't back that up at all would they?
I'm sure many flying instructors are very good at what they do.
One arrogant idiot I know is a fantastic aerobatic pilot. However, he wouldn't last two minutes in a multi crew environment.
Flying is about different skills and applying them in different areas.
Some people are best suited to flying school environments and some to multi crew airline ones.
Neither makes you better than the other, but they don't always cross very well.
I do recall this thread was started by a FI slagging off an approved school cadet. I suggest the FI should not judge so easily until he has sampled the life of a 737 FO.
Oh and a point of order.
No BA cadet has been chopped by BACX
Now if you can't debate sensibly I suggest this is why many FI's fail large airline selection.
Of course the first two replies on here wouldn't back that up at all would they?
I'm sure many flying instructors are very good at what they do.
One arrogant idiot I know is a fantastic aerobatic pilot. However, he wouldn't last two minutes in a multi crew environment.
Flying is about different skills and applying them in different areas.
Some people are best suited to flying school environments and some to multi crew airline ones.
Neither makes you better than the other, but they don't always cross very well.
I do recall this thread was started by a FI slagging off an approved school cadet. I suggest the FI should not judge so easily until he has sampled the life of a 737 FO.
Oh and a point of order.
No BA cadet has been chopped by BACX
Now if you can't debate sensibly I suggest this is why many FI's fail large airline selection.
N_N
There will always be some people who aren't really suited to airline flying whether they be from an instructing, RAF or integrated course background. People from different backgrounds tend to categorise people from other backgrounds and hence the sterotypes begin. Doesn't mean to say that everyone from that background fits the shoe, just that a minority do and they make the best targets. For example BA has a reputation for pilots who think they are next to God in the big scheme of things, the truth is that the vast majority of them are decent people but you only seem to meet the godlike ones.
You assert that "lots of instructors.... are pedantics who have no sight of the big picture", this is fairly broad in the stroke that it paints yet in your subsequent reply you say that only "some are know-alls....". Does this mean you may have been a little bit over-melodramatic initially? Why did you single out ex-instructors for criticism when, as a trainer, presumably you teach all backgrounds and abilities to fly aeroplanes, all of whom will have their own style when they initially come to you.
Yes this thread was started by someone questioning the ability and flying skills of an integrated cadet (who did do something a bit daft) and then going on to ask whether this was typical of the integrated product. There was no slagging off of said person just a question over their ability. When you check someone out on a light aircraft you build up a big picture of what their flying is like throughout the checkout, if they are not safe to go on their own in your opinion you don't sign them off. This is much the same as releasing a new type rated FO to the line, if you don't think they can do it if the skipper keels over you don't let them go.
Your point of order is accepted, it seems your BACX collegues don't agree though.
There will always be some people who aren't really suited to airline flying whether they be from an instructing, RAF or integrated course background. People from different backgrounds tend to categorise people from other backgrounds and hence the sterotypes begin. Doesn't mean to say that everyone from that background fits the shoe, just that a minority do and they make the best targets. For example BA has a reputation for pilots who think they are next to God in the big scheme of things, the truth is that the vast majority of them are decent people but you only seem to meet the godlike ones.
You assert that "lots of instructors.... are pedantics who have no sight of the big picture", this is fairly broad in the stroke that it paints yet in your subsequent reply you say that only "some are know-alls....". Does this mean you may have been a little bit over-melodramatic initially? Why did you single out ex-instructors for criticism when, as a trainer, presumably you teach all backgrounds and abilities to fly aeroplanes, all of whom will have their own style when they initially come to you.
Yes this thread was started by someone questioning the ability and flying skills of an integrated cadet (who did do something a bit daft) and then going on to ask whether this was typical of the integrated product. There was no slagging off of said person just a question over their ability. When you check someone out on a light aircraft you build up a big picture of what their flying is like throughout the checkout, if they are not safe to go on their own in your opinion you don't sign them off. This is much the same as releasing a new type rated FO to the line, if you don't think they can do it if the skipper keels over you don't let them go.
Your point of order is accepted, it seems your BACX collegues don't agree though.
Now if you can't debate sensibly I suggest this is why many FI's fail large airline selection
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Student
Fair points made.
With regard to "a lot" or "some" I have had quite a lot of FI's who have needed to work to adapt to the airline life (amazingly after being with different carriers in some cases). Maybe I have seen a few more than the norm. Maybe in the greater scheme of things it is an insignificant amount. One of the overriding traits though has been the training needed to get these people away from the minutae and round to the big picture and multi crew CRM.
The whole point of my post really is to defend an attack on the approved system by someone who, for whatever reasons, has never been through it.
"Cadets" offer the most consistent standard for the airlines and their training systems. I have found that although standards obviously vary from person to person, the band of ability is not only high but narrow, ie the difference beteen the very best and the worst is not massive.
The same cannot be said for RAF or particularly Self Ims. You still get very good ones but I feel the "band" is wider. Maybe this is to do with the fact cadets are "groomed" for the airline way of life or the selection procedure?
However RAF and SI's bring different skills and experience to the table (not always relevent though, ie a whole career flying single crew fighters or C152's!)
That said, one bad sim from a SI on conversion does not make anyone a muppet, nor does a bad day in a light aircraft make us "ATPL" holders muppets.
I wouldn't feel comfortable in a Warrior (11 years since I've flown one) without decent instruction first.
Similarly, I would expect a FI to be equally unprepared for a realistic ride in a 767 sim, with an engine failure on rotate out of Entebbe, at MTOW, where the margin for success or dire fatal failure is a degree or two in pitch.
As for airmanship, that is not the preserve of light aircraft pilots.
NN
Fair points made.
With regard to "a lot" or "some" I have had quite a lot of FI's who have needed to work to adapt to the airline life (amazingly after being with different carriers in some cases). Maybe I have seen a few more than the norm. Maybe in the greater scheme of things it is an insignificant amount. One of the overriding traits though has been the training needed to get these people away from the minutae and round to the big picture and multi crew CRM.
The whole point of my post really is to defend an attack on the approved system by someone who, for whatever reasons, has never been through it.
"Cadets" offer the most consistent standard for the airlines and their training systems. I have found that although standards obviously vary from person to person, the band of ability is not only high but narrow, ie the difference beteen the very best and the worst is not massive.
The same cannot be said for RAF or particularly Self Ims. You still get very good ones but I feel the "band" is wider. Maybe this is to do with the fact cadets are "groomed" for the airline way of life or the selection procedure?
However RAF and SI's bring different skills and experience to the table (not always relevent though, ie a whole career flying single crew fighters or C152's!)
That said, one bad sim from a SI on conversion does not make anyone a muppet, nor does a bad day in a light aircraft make us "ATPL" holders muppets.
I wouldn't feel comfortable in a Warrior (11 years since I've flown one) without decent instruction first.
Similarly, I would expect a FI to be equally unprepared for a realistic ride in a 767 sim, with an engine failure on rotate out of Entebbe, at MTOW, where the margin for success or dire fatal failure is a degree or two in pitch.
As for airmanship, that is not the preserve of light aircraft pilots.
NN
BEagle - The failure rates across the board at FTOs teaching the FIC are pretty close to zero. Any FIE who had the temerity to fail a candidate would pretty soon find himself out of business.
This is all because the CAA has, as usual, ducked its responsibilities and refuses to allocate examiners - candidates and FTOs are thus free to choose the examiner who will give them the easiest ride. The CPL Skill Test suffers, to a lesser extent, from the same disease.
This is all because the CAA has, as usual, ducked its responsibilities and refuses to allocate examiners - candidates and FTOs are thus free to choose the examiner who will give them the easiest ride. The CPL Skill Test suffers, to a lesser extent, from the same disease.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: seat 0A
Age: 41
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great story Tonker - I nearly fell off my chair when I read it!
A pilot's view of GA seems to depend on how they trained. Those that start out as private pilots make a real effort to master light aircraft before moving on, and tend to appreciate instructors because their knowledge kept them alive during that first few hundred hours post-PPL.
On integrated courses, the light aircraft seem to be regarded as means to an end rather than something to be fully mastered. All disciplines of flying are not one and the same, but maybe students should strive to become a competent commander of a PA28 before chasing that jet command!
On the subject of instructor retention, perhaps the best way forward is encourage pilots to instruct part time whilst working for the airlines. Some of the best instructors I have flown with have done this, and it's something I aspire to do when I finally get that first job!
Al
A pilot's view of GA seems to depend on how they trained. Those that start out as private pilots make a real effort to master light aircraft before moving on, and tend to appreciate instructors because their knowledge kept them alive during that first few hundred hours post-PPL.
On integrated courses, the light aircraft seem to be regarded as means to an end rather than something to be fully mastered. All disciplines of flying are not one and the same, but maybe students should strive to become a competent commander of a PA28 before chasing that jet command!
On the subject of instructor retention, perhaps the best way forward is encourage pilots to instruct part time whilst working for the airlines. Some of the best instructors I have flown with have done this, and it's something I aspire to do when I finally get that first job!
Al