UK standards for instructing SEP
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That shouldn't be a problem, as you won't fly with two instructors on a regular basis hopefully. Only as an occasional check, but I take your point. However if the FI starts giving you totally different instructions from an other in the club, then have a chat with the CFI. H/She maybe unaware of this and would value your input/concerns. I certainly would.
If it is that much of a problem though, change clubs!
If it is that much of a problem though, change clubs!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of this post is not to set a one way only method of operating.
Its to set a document which sets a range of methods which are acceptable to be used in a SEP. If the individual uses one of these methods. There should be no retraining during or post flight.
To be honest SAS your not the type of person that this type of document is going to affect anyway by the sounds of it.
And the well they could always change schools means that the person has wasted money on the industrys problem of lack of standards. There isn't a reporting system to maintain standards so the person is a couple of hundred quid out of pocket for no gain. Pissed off and disinterested in flying any more.
There also seems to be this miss understanding that people actually change their method of operating just because on a checkride the instructor says "no you should really do it this way"
They nod they smile think " Aye right I passed my PPL doing this method" and as soon as the Instructor has buggered off they continue doing exactly as they did before because they know that the next instructor they have a flight with is going to tell them to do it another way. Once someone has over 100hours I doudt very much if they are going to change. And your not going to do it with 1 hour every 2 years. I am sure you have your local owners who cause mayhem every time they fly. They come in for there 1 hour get talked to for a hour afterwards get thier license signed and next week same as usual. And if you refuse to sign there log book they just drive up the road to Perth or Dundee and do it there and again mayhem the next week. Result for flight safety NIL.
From personal experence getting rid of certain american habits it takes quite a bit of structured training to permantly remove habits ingrained from intial training.
There is a problem in the industry with a them and us attitude with PPL's who the large majority avoid flying with an instructor. Or if they do they stick to the same one so the don't have to suffer being lectured about stuff they already know.
MJ
Its to set a document which sets a range of methods which are acceptable to be used in a SEP. If the individual uses one of these methods. There should be no retraining during or post flight.
To be honest SAS your not the type of person that this type of document is going to affect anyway by the sounds of it.
And the well they could always change schools means that the person has wasted money on the industrys problem of lack of standards. There isn't a reporting system to maintain standards so the person is a couple of hundred quid out of pocket for no gain. Pissed off and disinterested in flying any more.
There also seems to be this miss understanding that people actually change their method of operating just because on a checkride the instructor says "no you should really do it this way"
They nod they smile think " Aye right I passed my PPL doing this method" and as soon as the Instructor has buggered off they continue doing exactly as they did before because they know that the next instructor they have a flight with is going to tell them to do it another way. Once someone has over 100hours I doudt very much if they are going to change. And your not going to do it with 1 hour every 2 years. I am sure you have your local owners who cause mayhem every time they fly. They come in for there 1 hour get talked to for a hour afterwards get thier license signed and next week same as usual. And if you refuse to sign there log book they just drive up the road to Perth or Dundee and do it there and again mayhem the next week. Result for flight safety NIL.
From personal experence getting rid of certain american habits it takes quite a bit of structured training to permantly remove habits ingrained from intial training.
There is a problem in the industry with a them and us attitude with PPL's who the large majority avoid flying with an instructor. Or if they do they stick to the same one so the don't have to suffer being lectured about stuff they already know.
MJ
Weeeellll....
As a CFI, I ask that all FIs teach the same things using the same techniques. Thus we have the Standard Closing Angle technique for visual navigation, the Point-and-Power technique for the final approach and the Constant Sight Line technique for PFLs as our standard methods.
But just occasionally the odd bit of rubbish floats along- such as DRIBL or DABL checks or whatever the bloody things purport to be. These are politely stamped on before they become established. As is the utter nonsense of mistaking 'Select, Hold, Trim' with a misunderstood 'Attitude Power Trim' concept - which all stemmed from some old Oxford ar$e many years ago who didn't really understand what CFS were driving at, hijacked a mnemonic and then misapplied it...
Style is acceptable; standards are essential.
Incidentally, I'd far sooner have an experienced PPL holder teaching at PPL level, or an ex-military FI, or a retired airline pilot than most low-time hours builders. In what other field of life are novices taught by anything other than well-qualified, experienced people? Just why is hours building as a FI considered acceptable?
As a CFI, I ask that all FIs teach the same things using the same techniques. Thus we have the Standard Closing Angle technique for visual navigation, the Point-and-Power technique for the final approach and the Constant Sight Line technique for PFLs as our standard methods.
But just occasionally the odd bit of rubbish floats along- such as DRIBL or DABL checks or whatever the bloody things purport to be. These are politely stamped on before they become established. As is the utter nonsense of mistaking 'Select, Hold, Trim' with a misunderstood 'Attitude Power Trim' concept - which all stemmed from some old Oxford ar$e many years ago who didn't really understand what CFS were driving at, hijacked a mnemonic and then misapplied it...
Style is acceptable; standards are essential.
Incidentally, I'd far sooner have an experienced PPL holder teaching at PPL level, or an ex-military FI, or a retired airline pilot than most low-time hours builders. In what other field of life are novices taught by anything other than well-qualified, experienced people? Just why is hours building as a FI considered acceptable?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In what other field of life are novices taught by anything other than well-qualified, experienced people?
My take on the debate is to teach the club's standard techniques (clubs with in-house trained instructors have such things!) but accept anything that is a standard practice and safe in someone I have not taught. It might not be what I teach, and I might prefer my way, but I know that there is more than one way to skin a cat. A reasonable comparrison would be a CPL test with a CAA examiner. In the navigation section the examiner should pass you if you use any reasonable claculation technique (and you find your destination). You only fail if you use no technique or if your technique is not valid or unsafe.
Last edited by Send Clowns; 28th Dec 2005 at 16:29.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it acceptable? Because with the current system, we have no choice.
Market forces mean that no-one stays as a career FI anymore unless they have an income from elsewhere and we won't allow enthusiastic "amateurs" to do the job.
Daft I know, but until the wages increase to a level that is liveable and GA flying actually becomes something to aspire to, rather than as a stepping stone to big shiny and boring airline flying, then nothing will change and we'll just have to muddle along as we are.
Market forces mean that no-one stays as a career FI anymore unless they have an income from elsewhere and we won't allow enthusiastic "amateurs" to do the job.
Daft I know, but until the wages increase to a level that is liveable and GA flying actually becomes something to aspire to, rather than as a stepping stone to big shiny and boring airline flying, then nothing will change and we'll just have to muddle along as we are.
Some sort of effective standardisation body has been overdue for a long long time IMHO. Standarsiation of sorts rest with the Panel Examiners, but they have very limited resources or ability to ensure standards other than at the training of instructors. After that, instructors are on their own and free to teach whatever they want.
The only civilian school I insructed at had very high standards with a CFI who made sure his instructors were teaching the same thing, stuck to the syllabus and made sure their instructing was of a high standard. However, I was frequently aghast at some of the thing that student from other schools had been taught. Stuff that had never been a part of any syllabus ever and/or were downright dangerous.
Standardisation should not be at the club level. Some standardisation has been introduced with Instructor seminars, but these are too infrequent to be effective. And it doesn't help that anyone can write a book on 'how to fly' with no regulation whatsoever - there have been some right old b0llocks written in the past.
We need an organisation to oversee instruction standards and a form of unified books and manuals. It needn't be large and I don't think it should cost much - and the benefits will be shorter times to complete training and a safer product.
Stell helmet donned, heading for the trench!
PS, the CFI I refered to may or may not be a very prominent ppruner!!
The only civilian school I insructed at had very high standards with a CFI who made sure his instructors were teaching the same thing, stuck to the syllabus and made sure their instructing was of a high standard. However, I was frequently aghast at some of the thing that student from other schools had been taught. Stuff that had never been a part of any syllabus ever and/or were downright dangerous.
Standardisation should not be at the club level. Some standardisation has been introduced with Instructor seminars, but these are too infrequent to be effective. And it doesn't help that anyone can write a book on 'how to fly' with no regulation whatsoever - there have been some right old b0llocks written in the past.
We need an organisation to oversee instruction standards and a form of unified books and manuals. It needn't be large and I don't think it should cost much - and the benefits will be shorter times to complete training and a safer product.
Stell helmet donned, heading for the trench!
PS, the CFI I refered to may or may not be a very prominent ppruner!!
Presumably a 'Stell' helmet is painted orange Dan?
Looking at some of the FI seminar topics on offer, I don't want to be force fed 'how to teach' stuff or to be taught how to use a sticky pen and OHP. But neither do I want to be talked down to by a lecturer full of his own importance stuck on transmit.
Regrettably,too much time is devoted to the rather fatuous 'syndicate exercises' which are a complete waste of time.
We need standardisation discussions, solutions to common student faults, updates on new policy - that sort of thing. For example, how many people know that a re-test following a PPL Skill Test partial pass now only requires assessment of the aerodrome departure procedure plus the failed items - the return and landing is no longer assessed unless it was an earlier fail item.
And how many FIs understand the changes in C of A regulations pre-EASA?
Seminars should tell us all this - not just huggy-fluffy trick cyclist teachy-learny guff.
Looking at some of the FI seminar topics on offer, I don't want to be force fed 'how to teach' stuff or to be taught how to use a sticky pen and OHP. But neither do I want to be talked down to by a lecturer full of his own importance stuck on transmit.
Regrettably,too much time is devoted to the rather fatuous 'syndicate exercises' which are a complete waste of time.
We need standardisation discussions, solutions to common student faults, updates on new policy - that sort of thing. For example, how many people know that a re-test following a PPL Skill Test partial pass now only requires assessment of the aerodrome departure procedure plus the failed items - the return and landing is no longer assessed unless it was an earlier fail item.
And how many FIs understand the changes in C of A regulations pre-EASA?
Seminars should tell us all this - not just huggy-fluffy trick cyclist teachy-learny guff.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to hijack this topic, but just to clarify BEagle's last post regarding a partial pass at the PPL skill test (and referring to NOTEX A2/2005).
"An applicant failing only one section at the first attempt in a Series shall have gained a PARTIAL PASS. The second attempt will always require the applicant to retake the Departure (Section 1) and the Section failed at the first attempt."
"An applicant failing only one section at the first attempt in a Series shall have gained a PARTIAL PASS. The second attempt will always require the applicant to retake the Departure (Section 1) and the Section failed at the first attempt."
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be fair, BEags! The Notex only arrived yesterday! I agree with your last post though, that would be a very valuable use of those seminars. What about it Ontrack at al?
Going back to the post before that though - your insistence on the CFS techniques you mention is all very well, but what happens if someone comes to you half way through their PPL having been taught - for want of a better phrase - 'Campbell' techniques? Do you reteach your way, continue with what they've already learnt or what? And what if someone comes to you for test and uses those same 'Campbell' techniques?
This whole subject is a valid point for discussion however it is in danger of being overstated, I don't think the scourge of the Inflexible Instructor is quite as prevalent as could be inferred from reading this thread.
Going back to the post before that though - your insistence on the CFS techniques you mention is all very well, but what happens if someone comes to you half way through their PPL having been taught - for want of a better phrase - 'Campbell' techniques? Do you reteach your way, continue with what they've already learnt or what? And what if someone comes to you for test and uses those same 'Campbell' techniques?
This whole subject is a valid point for discussion however it is in danger of being overstated, I don't think the scourge of the Inflexible Instructor is quite as prevalent as could be inferred from reading this thread.
OK, yes, it's a very recent Notex. But equally, how many people know what's now required on a SEP revalidation LPC? Or whether the visual navigation section is still required if the applicant revalidates a IMC Rating on the same flight? All Notexes and other changes over the preceding 3 years should certainly be briefed at the seminar. Somewhat more important at revalidation time than 'Human factors in the teaching and learning process', I would wager!
If someone came to us having been taught other techniques, we would assess him/her first before deciding on the course of action. If the final approach and landing technique is OK, we wouldn't re-teach 'point and power'. We would correct any errors, of course, and would certainly teach Standard Closing Angle because this keeps people closer to track than other techniques and is less likely to lead to airspace violations as a consequence.
Some people are truly awful though. A so-called experienced FAA PPL holder was so utterly dreadful that we couldn't send him solo. He let the aeroplane fly him rather than him controlling it; I can only assume his continued existence as a pilot was more by luck than by judgement.
The proof of the 'CFS' techniques is that most students find them easier, solo earlier and are more confident when flying navigation exercises. That's good enough for me!
If someone came to us having been taught other techniques, we would assess him/her first before deciding on the course of action. If the final approach and landing technique is OK, we wouldn't re-teach 'point and power'. We would correct any errors, of course, and would certainly teach Standard Closing Angle because this keeps people closer to track than other techniques and is less likely to lead to airspace violations as a consequence.
Some people are truly awful though. A so-called experienced FAA PPL holder was so utterly dreadful that we couldn't send him solo. He let the aeroplane fly him rather than him controlling it; I can only assume his continued existence as a pilot was more by luck than by judgement.
The proof of the 'CFS' techniques is that most students find them easier, solo earlier and are more confident when flying navigation exercises. That's good enough for me!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A so-called experienced FAA PPL holder was so utterly dreadful that we couldn't send him solo. He let the aeroplane fly him rather than him controlling it; I can only assume his continued existence as a pilot was more by luck than by judgement.
Beagle - Can't you find any UK PPL examples ? Funny how it's always the dreadful FAA PPL who is always so crap. Or is it your perception and prejudices that colour your filter of the outside world.
My perception is that there is not a major problem, most FI's, are hard working, focused individuals doing a good job. But then again I am one myself so my perception might be clouded - But then this is an Instructors Forum.
Beagle - Can't you find any UK PPL examples ? Funny how it's always the dreadful FAA PPL who is always so crap. Or is it your perception and prejudices that colour your filter of the outside world.
My perception is that there is not a major problem, most FI's, are hard working, focused individuals doing a good job. But then again I am one myself so my perception might be clouded - But then this is an Instructors Forum.
"Beagle - Can't you find any UK PPL examples ? Funny how it's always the dreadful FAA PPL who is always so crap."
Well, actually I don't think I can. Sloppy ones, perhaps - but I haven't come across a UK PPL holder who has been truly dangerous.......yet. The FAA PPL person in question wasn't a product of the new generation of instant PPL schools, but had learned a while ago. He even co-owned an aeroplane at one stage. But his flying and airmanship were truly alarming. I really don't know how he got through his last FAA BFR as they are normally quite exacting.
But who on earth taught him to slam the controls up against the stops whilst checking full and free movement on the ground? That was something totally new to me! His landing technique consisted of aiming the aircraft vaguely downwards, then waiting for the runway to appear before slamming the throttle shut and hoping....he just didn't exercise any real control over the aeroplane.
Well, actually I don't think I can. Sloppy ones, perhaps - but I haven't come across a UK PPL holder who has been truly dangerous.......yet. The FAA PPL person in question wasn't a product of the new generation of instant PPL schools, but had learned a while ago. He even co-owned an aeroplane at one stage. But his flying and airmanship were truly alarming. I really don't know how he got through his last FAA BFR as they are normally quite exacting.
But who on earth taught him to slam the controls up against the stops whilst checking full and free movement on the ground? That was something totally new to me! His landing technique consisted of aiming the aircraft vaguely downwards, then waiting for the runway to appear before slamming the throttle shut and hoping....he just didn't exercise any real control over the aeroplane.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, actually I don't think I can
Why does that not surprise me ?
It looks like your "perception filter" is looking for something, finding it and then reinforcing that belief.
How well do you think you would perform in the USA with an instructor who has the same filter as yours but looking to find "UK PPL's who cannot fly properly"
Why does that not surprise me ?
It looks like your "perception filter" is looking for something, finding it and then reinforcing that belief.
How well do you think you would perform in the USA with an instructor who has the same filter as yours but looking to find "UK PPL's who cannot fly properly"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with people from all over the world and I have also noticed that most of the bloody awful ones have been trained in the States. However, some of the very best I've flown with were also trained in the States.
What does his tell me? Not a lot really, but everyone who has learnt abroad has had to have had some "recurrency" training of some description. Whether it's explaining the differences in R/T or airspace.
But the big one is teaching them how to navigate visually, rather than beacon hop. That is one that has come up each and every time, but only with people trained in the US.
What does his tell me? Not a lot really, but everyone who has learnt abroad has had to have had some "recurrency" training of some description. Whether it's explaining the differences in R/T or airspace.
But the big one is teaching them how to navigate visually, rather than beacon hop. That is one that has come up each and every time, but only with people trained in the US.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again slowly
Maybe that's because radio nav is a fundamental part of their basic training and they have a high level of investment in that infrastructure.
"Recurrent" training or "differences" training, there is quite a difference between the two. With recurrency you normally end up with some arrogant twit who say's "you don't do it like that ....you should be doing it like this". With differences training you get an instructor who say's "I know you are used to doing it that way but here in Blighty it might be better for you to do it this way"
The instructor with experience and awareness of both training systems has the advantage over the insular bigot who despises a certain group of pilots based on what passport they hold and where they trained.
Maybe that's because radio nav is a fundamental part of their basic training and they have a high level of investment in that infrastructure.
"Recurrent" training or "differences" training, there is quite a difference between the two. With recurrency you normally end up with some arrogant twit who say's "you don't do it like that ....you should be doing it like this". With differences training you get an instructor who say's "I know you are used to doing it that way but here in Blighty it might be better for you to do it this way"
The instructor with experience and awareness of both training systems has the advantage over the insular bigot who despises a certain group of pilots based on what passport they hold and where they trained.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing how people are trained in a different system is irrelevant in my eyes as a JAR/UK instructor.
I initially trained in Oz, where things were very different, especially from the airspace and navigation point of view.
Was I arrogant enough to think that I didn't need difference training? No. I knew fine well there were some major changes, so I tried to learn as much about these before I started flying in the U.K again.
In the U.K visual Nav is just that, I doubt whether it's any different in the US. They may have more beacons, but I doubt the FAA system doesn't train people in the basics of navigating without the use of aids.
It is just laziness that makes people ignore map reading over following a VOR track. If you had an IR, I could almost understand it, but a basic PPL. I don't think so.
I don't hold with any them or us argument, so I can only speak from experience, exactly what I think BEagle has done here. rather than from any bigoted standpoint.
I initially trained in Oz, where things were very different, especially from the airspace and navigation point of view.
Was I arrogant enough to think that I didn't need difference training? No. I knew fine well there were some major changes, so I tried to learn as much about these before I started flying in the U.K again.
In the U.K visual Nav is just that, I doubt whether it's any different in the US. They may have more beacons, but I doubt the FAA system doesn't train people in the basics of navigating without the use of aids.
It is just laziness that makes people ignore map reading over following a VOR track. If you had an IR, I could almost understand it, but a basic PPL. I don't think so.
I don't hold with any them or us argument, so I can only speak from experience, exactly what I think BEagle has done here. rather than from any bigoted standpoint.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
I am making a general point related to standard setting and certainly not wishing to make persoanl attacks on people who I have never met (apologies if that is how it came across).
My point is that a common standard for UK training is a noble aspiration however you will still have pilots from other countries doing it "their way"
The crap FAA PPL is as much a racial prejudicial stereotype as the English villain portrayed in most Hollywood films.
I am making a general point related to standard setting and certainly not wishing to make persoanl attacks on people who I have never met (apologies if that is how it came across).
My point is that a common standard for UK training is a noble aspiration however you will still have pilots from other countries doing it "their way"
The crap FAA PPL is as much a racial prejudicial stereotype as the English villain portrayed in most Hollywood films.
unfazed, stop talking like a total ar$e with your trick-cyclist gobbldegook about 'perception filters' and racial stereotyping. The fact that this British pilot held a FAA PPL was immaterial - he'd have been equally crap had it been a Martian PPL.
I just don't understand how anyone that bad had recently passed a FAA BFR.
I've flown with pilots who've had Australian, New Zealand, Cypriot, Dutch, FAA, Canadian and Kenyan licences. This pilot was very poor; the fact that his licence was a FAA licence does not mean that all FAA PPL holders are necessarily weaker than holders of other PPLs.
I just don't understand how anyone that bad had recently passed a FAA BFR.
I've flown with pilots who've had Australian, New Zealand, Cypriot, Dutch, FAA, Canadian and Kenyan licences. This pilot was very poor; the fact that his licence was a FAA licence does not mean that all FAA PPL holders are necessarily weaker than holders of other PPLs.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Looks like I hit a bit of a sore point there !
If anyone is proving what an arse they are it is you
My point is that if you have a mindset that is seeking crap and filtering out good then you are bound to find what you are seeking.
Looks like I hit a bit of a sore point there !
If anyone is proving what an arse they are it is you
My point is that if you have a mindset that is seeking crap and filtering out good then you are bound to find what you are seeking.
It sounds as though your perception is indeed as clouded as you suggested yourself.
The wise instructor and examiner is always on his/her guard when flying with an unfamiliar pilot, particularly one who purports to be experienced. As was instilled into me at CFS, it's the good students who are potentially the most dangerous as they tend to lull you into a false sense of security.
Assume the little beggars are out to kill you until they prove to the contrary!
The wise instructor and examiner is always on his/her guard when flying with an unfamiliar pilot, particularly one who purports to be experienced. As was instilled into me at CFS, it's the good students who are potentially the most dangerous as they tend to lull you into a false sense of security.
Assume the little beggars are out to kill you until they prove to the contrary!