UK standards for instructing SEP
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK standards for instructing SEP
Following from multiple threads on the different methods of skinning a cat with teaching methods and the apparent lack of anyone to wanting to document how the prefered method of doing things is in the UK.
There are threads abundant on ATC forum on zone infringements crap RT.
From previous threads people think it's acceptable to teach outside the POH of the aircraft.
Its a bloody nightmare for ppl's having to bugger about relearning how to do their instructor's perversions every flight with one its no wonder they avoid instructor flights.
If all this crap could get documented and standards applied across the country we wouldn't have the problems with retention and reluctance of ppl's to have the occasional instructor flight.
I could just imagine going for an "instructor" flight now with 1000hours instructing under my belt. It would be a bloody nightmare if the person in question didn't like flaps in the turn on base, steeper than 3 deg approach angle, steep turns operated as an emergency procedure to 60 degrees and all the other multituded of differences individuals like teaching. It would proberly be "aye whatever" and continue doing what I have always done. And i wouldn't tell them I was an instructor in a previous life.
And if people wern't so pissed off getting bollocked all the time and retrained every flight they might just think it a good idea ever 6 months to go for a nav ex with an instructor and stop all these bloody zone infringments.
Is it not time someone bit the bullet and actually said this is what they actually want. It would actually improve safety.
Come on BEagle I disagree with some of your differences of operating (but disagree is a strong word) but if they were applied across the board it would lead to a happier PPL population who would at least know what was required and safer. Can you not get together with Mr Hays and some other of the elder statesmen that know what they are doing and get this lot sorted over a crate of whisky.
MJ
PS i was in a quandry about using BEagles name but he talks alot of sense all of the time and everything he says is safe. Its an opinon thing and not meant to force him into a reply.
Anyway out to the pub now, happy xmas
There are threads abundant on ATC forum on zone infringements crap RT.
From previous threads people think it's acceptable to teach outside the POH of the aircraft.
Its a bloody nightmare for ppl's having to bugger about relearning how to do their instructor's perversions every flight with one its no wonder they avoid instructor flights.
If all this crap could get documented and standards applied across the country we wouldn't have the problems with retention and reluctance of ppl's to have the occasional instructor flight.
I could just imagine going for an "instructor" flight now with 1000hours instructing under my belt. It would be a bloody nightmare if the person in question didn't like flaps in the turn on base, steeper than 3 deg approach angle, steep turns operated as an emergency procedure to 60 degrees and all the other multituded of differences individuals like teaching. It would proberly be "aye whatever" and continue doing what I have always done. And i wouldn't tell them I was an instructor in a previous life.
And if people wern't so pissed off getting bollocked all the time and retrained every flight they might just think it a good idea ever 6 months to go for a nav ex with an instructor and stop all these bloody zone infringments.
Is it not time someone bit the bullet and actually said this is what they actually want. It would actually improve safety.
Come on BEagle I disagree with some of your differences of operating (but disagree is a strong word) but if they were applied across the board it would lead to a happier PPL population who would at least know what was required and safer. Can you not get together with Mr Hays and some other of the elder statesmen that know what they are doing and get this lot sorted over a crate of whisky.
MJ
PS i was in a quandry about using BEagles name but he talks alot of sense all of the time and everything he says is safe. Its an opinon thing and not meant to force him into a reply.
Anyway out to the pub now, happy xmas
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AGREE TOTALLY
My wife, who is still learning to fly, was doing circuits with an instructor who was very pedantic about her bearings and turning points on a particular circuit. She was taken out by the CFI and he criticised her for making the circuit too big and looking at the DI instesd of the runway. Previously she had had the same critisism about putting carb heat on downwind when another instructor told her you always put it on at final. Then taking carb heat out, some have told her over the threshold some after landing...the story goes on and on.
I'm not saying which technique is correct and which is not - it doesn't matter half the time - but the fact remains that within a club different instructors not only give different procedures but are capable of chastising a pupil for not being 'right'. This can make life very confusing for the student.
We've seen here the arguments about carb heat but in the end it would be better to teach one option consistantly. Time when nearing the end of PPL training to explain to students the various options and arguments for these variations.
Perhaps instructors should sometimes listen to their pupils. When was the last time you asked a pupil about what part of training in your school had made life difficult/easier?
My wife, who is still learning to fly, was doing circuits with an instructor who was very pedantic about her bearings and turning points on a particular circuit. She was taken out by the CFI and he criticised her for making the circuit too big and looking at the DI instesd of the runway. Previously she had had the same critisism about putting carb heat on downwind when another instructor told her you always put it on at final. Then taking carb heat out, some have told her over the threshold some after landing...the story goes on and on.
I'm not saying which technique is correct and which is not - it doesn't matter half the time - but the fact remains that within a club different instructors not only give different procedures but are capable of chastising a pupil for not being 'right'. This can make life very confusing for the student.
We've seen here the arguments about carb heat but in the end it would be better to teach one option consistantly. Time when nearing the end of PPL training to explain to students the various options and arguments for these variations.
Perhaps instructors should sometimes listen to their pupils. When was the last time you asked a pupil about what part of training in your school had made life difficult/easier?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA/UK
Age: 52
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more, I have over 1400 instructional hours to my name, and make a real effort to teach 'basic fundamentals' rather than 'Iain's pet peeves'. Its quite funny though, I do have to pinch myself sometimes when I'm about to open my mouth.
It doesn't just affect the basic PPL'er though, I recently strolled up to an aircraft renter who inisted in a checkout (I imagine for insurance). The CFI who checked me out was a typical 'my way or the highway' instructor, I smiled sweetly, did it his way, and had a little chuckle to myself!
Fellow instructors, please think before you open yer gob!
It doesn't just affect the basic PPL'er though, I recently strolled up to an aircraft renter who inisted in a checkout (I imagine for insurance). The CFI who checked me out was a typical 'my way or the highway' instructor, I smiled sweetly, did it his way, and had a little chuckle to myself!
Fellow instructors, please think before you open yer gob!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old crusty bastard CFI's are the worst culprits for enforcing daft standards and out dated practises. And usually they are the bloody examiners as well so the whole thing is never ending.
Someone needs to get a grip or the whole thing is going to get worse and worse.
MJ
Someone needs to get a grip or the whole thing is going to get worse and worse.
MJ
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you all, but it's not so easy in practice...
Yes, but who is to decide that option?
If it's going to be "the powers that be" who teach the FI courses, we need something that will apply across all aircraft and all airfields - and that won't really work for circuit procedures for a start; I'm not even sure it'll work for use of carb heat.
OK, so maybe it should be each CFI. Well, I don't know if my experiences are typical, but I've so far instructed part time, both at small "one-man" type of flying schools. In neither have I had much feedback on precisely how to teach each exercise. The first CFI was an unsatisfactory individual anyway, so we'll leave him out of this. The second tends to trust me, and leave me to get on with it - I'm an instructor, after all, is his attitude. If I ask him how to teach anything in particular, he'll tell me. But I don't ask exactly where he turns base in the circuit, or even precisely how he teaches take-offs. For the latter, I didn't even know there was more than one way of doing it; I taught the way I'd learned. I only realised when one student complained about being taught things two different ways!
Now, this CFI is a good guy and an excellent instructor, and when I pointed out the problem we decided we'd need to do something about it. But short of going over the whole syllabus, how?
So yes, I agree with all you said, MJ, but how are we going to change things in practice?
We've seen here the arguments about carb heat but in the end it would be better to teach one option consistantly.
If it's going to be "the powers that be" who teach the FI courses, we need something that will apply across all aircraft and all airfields - and that won't really work for circuit procedures for a start; I'm not even sure it'll work for use of carb heat.
OK, so maybe it should be each CFI. Well, I don't know if my experiences are typical, but I've so far instructed part time, both at small "one-man" type of flying schools. In neither have I had much feedback on precisely how to teach each exercise. The first CFI was an unsatisfactory individual anyway, so we'll leave him out of this. The second tends to trust me, and leave me to get on with it - I'm an instructor, after all, is his attitude. If I ask him how to teach anything in particular, he'll tell me. But I don't ask exactly where he turns base in the circuit, or even precisely how he teaches take-offs. For the latter, I didn't even know there was more than one way of doing it; I taught the way I'd learned. I only realised when one student complained about being taught things two different ways!
Now, this CFI is a good guy and an excellent instructor, and when I pointed out the problem we decided we'd need to do something about it. But short of going over the whole syllabus, how?
So yes, I agree with all you said, MJ, but how are we going to change things in practice?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines operate SOPs. Flying schools need to operate SOPs and do in the form of a flying orders book - it may just need more info.
I think it would be asking too much to create the same standards across the whole of the UK flight training fraternity because you will always have nuances based on fleet makeup, local requirements and so on. The same cannot be said for a purely local SOP, even including collaboration between training organizatons who operate out of the same field.
It does need people to go through the syllabus with a critical eye and highlight areas where there is the potential for variance. Decide on the best one, document it. Document acceptable alternatives (if any) and conditions for their use.
When that is done, you have a standards document which is good until it needs to be revised. Instructors should know it. Students can have access to it and it becomes the songsheet off which everybodu sings
I think it would be asking too much to create the same standards across the whole of the UK flight training fraternity because you will always have nuances based on fleet makeup, local requirements and so on. The same cannot be said for a purely local SOP, even including collaboration between training organizatons who operate out of the same field.
It does need people to go through the syllabus with a critical eye and highlight areas where there is the potential for variance. Decide on the best one, document it. Document acceptable alternatives (if any) and conditions for their use.
When that is done, you have a standards document which is good until it needs to be revised. Instructors should know it. Students can have access to it and it becomes the songsheet off which everybodu sings
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The basis for any "way" of flying, is the POH. Where to put carb heat on or off is an obvious example.
"Crusty" CFI's are not always to blame, but we must remember that there is often more than one way of doing something.
When I fly with someone who has a licence, unless they are doing something dangerous or contrary to the POH, then I won't try and change how they are operating to try and fit how I would do something.
We are there to ensure that they are safe and competent and advise as and where needed. That is the skill, not simply forcing your opinion on someone.
In a school, all the FI's should try and teach the same methods, but not all PPL's respond well to this technique. I personally prefer to see a finished "product"who isn't going to kill themselves and has worked out what is best for them, rather than "Monkey see, Monkey do" without any real thought behind their actions.
A wise and exceedingly crusty CFI once told me " The worst worst sort of students are the one's who do EXACTLY what I tell them. The good ones are those that can translate the crap coming out of my mouth into what I WANT them to do, not what I am telling them."
We need different techniques and different styles of teaching, god forbid we end up with a load of identi-kit PPL's without the wherewithall and experiences to try different things when something out of the ordinary happens.
"Crusty" CFI's are not always to blame, but we must remember that there is often more than one way of doing something.
When I fly with someone who has a licence, unless they are doing something dangerous or contrary to the POH, then I won't try and change how they are operating to try and fit how I would do something.
We are there to ensure that they are safe and competent and advise as and where needed. That is the skill, not simply forcing your opinion on someone.
In a school, all the FI's should try and teach the same methods, but not all PPL's respond well to this technique. I personally prefer to see a finished "product"who isn't going to kill themselves and has worked out what is best for them, rather than "Monkey see, Monkey do" without any real thought behind their actions.
A wise and exceedingly crusty CFI once told me " The worst worst sort of students are the one's who do EXACTLY what I tell them. The good ones are those that can translate the crap coming out of my mouth into what I WANT them to do, not what I am telling them."
We need different techniques and different styles of teaching, god forbid we end up with a load of identi-kit PPL's without the wherewithall and experiences to try different things when something out of the ordinary happens.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valid point, MJ, however I would hazard a guess that the problem is more prevalent in those instructors with low hours/limited experience who won't necessarily know there is more than one way to teach a given manoeuvre. One of the prerequisites for becoming an examiner is a reasonable amout of experience so I would hope that, by the time people do get that far, they will know that the end result is generally more important than how it is achieved. Unless you are in a tightly controlled instructional environment (e.g. military or Oxford/Jerez etc.) where the method becomes more significant, then how something is done is not important as long as it is safe.
Perhaps FIC instructors are the best placed bods to impart the knowledge that there are different methods for teaching e.g. PFLs, final approach techniques (unless thay already do)?
Perhaps FIC instructors are the best placed bods to impart the knowledge that there are different methods for teaching e.g. PFLs, final approach techniques (unless thay already do)?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes every one has made good constructive points.
Low houred instructors have a lot to learn, to be fair to them. If they haven't been taught the various methods and a pilot comes out with them they think they are doing there job by reteaching. They don't have the experence to operate outside what they know, so to get themselves back into the comfort zone they insist its done thier way. Thus pissing said pilot off who has proberly been taught that way and passed thier test and has been fying quite happy for the last 18 months.
And the experenced instructors are sometimes the worst with 1000's of hours experence to weigh down thier moral right for the pilot to do it thier way.
The different ways to teach someone is quite rightly a dynamic thing with the instructor using thier proffessional skill to determine the best method of teaching.
The examiner experence these days doesn't really need to be that high if you look at Lasors.
Incubs has hit the nail on the head with the point i was making. The standards are for methods which are acceptable. And if the PPL does one of the documented methods to a satisfactory standard the PPL should be left alone.
I am not wanting a script on how every flight in the UK should be carried out.
JUst a document that EVERYONE can use, it shouldn't be restricted to a Instructors book or an examiners guide. Its to be refered to, and use as guidance when it comes to check rides, learning, teaching etc.
A flight with an instructor is considered akin to going to the dentist by most PPL's becuase of the inconsistancy of acceptable methods by the Instructors.
The problem with FIC instructors is they are as bad as everyone else with their own way of doing things
If you can think of a better way of breaking down this idea and getting PPL's to see the instructors as more of a reasource to be used than a pain in the arse that they have to put up with. Please stick your ideas in the pot.
For example one that used to wind me up as a PPL.
Checklists
Do we use the check list or not in the air?
Go on one check ride and you will get the instructor saying they should be done from memory and its best to have your head out the window not reading a check list.
Now in the very same school you can get.
Use the check list they wouldn't have written them down if you wern't meant to read them. Bollocks if your flying a 737 they use the checklist everytime.
I resorted to asking the instructors first. And 50% of the time got told "I am checking your flying and need to see what you do" Then sods law is I choose the oppersite method to the one they wanted. Lecture then starts which i know already into the reason why their method is the correct one.
As an ex-instructor personally I couldn't give a toss either way as long as they were done. In a SEP I was current and know I wouldn't read them but in a different type which i wasn't that familar with I would.
The standard document i would like would have on the subject.
Use of checklist while in the Air:
Methods
1) Checklist run form Memory.
2) Checklist read from checklist.
Prefered method is read from checklist but run from memory is acceptable if the check list completed as per the POH.
MJ
Low houred instructors have a lot to learn, to be fair to them. If they haven't been taught the various methods and a pilot comes out with them they think they are doing there job by reteaching. They don't have the experence to operate outside what they know, so to get themselves back into the comfort zone they insist its done thier way. Thus pissing said pilot off who has proberly been taught that way and passed thier test and has been fying quite happy for the last 18 months.
And the experenced instructors are sometimes the worst with 1000's of hours experence to weigh down thier moral right for the pilot to do it thier way.
The different ways to teach someone is quite rightly a dynamic thing with the instructor using thier proffessional skill to determine the best method of teaching.
The examiner experence these days doesn't really need to be that high if you look at Lasors.
Incubs has hit the nail on the head with the point i was making. The standards are for methods which are acceptable. And if the PPL does one of the documented methods to a satisfactory standard the PPL should be left alone.
I am not wanting a script on how every flight in the UK should be carried out.
JUst a document that EVERYONE can use, it shouldn't be restricted to a Instructors book or an examiners guide. Its to be refered to, and use as guidance when it comes to check rides, learning, teaching etc.
A flight with an instructor is considered akin to going to the dentist by most PPL's becuase of the inconsistancy of acceptable methods by the Instructors.
The problem with FIC instructors is they are as bad as everyone else with their own way of doing things
If you can think of a better way of breaking down this idea and getting PPL's to see the instructors as more of a reasource to be used than a pain in the arse that they have to put up with. Please stick your ideas in the pot.
For example one that used to wind me up as a PPL.
Checklists
Do we use the check list or not in the air?
Go on one check ride and you will get the instructor saying they should be done from memory and its best to have your head out the window not reading a check list.
Now in the very same school you can get.
Use the check list they wouldn't have written them down if you wern't meant to read them. Bollocks if your flying a 737 they use the checklist everytime.
I resorted to asking the instructors first. And 50% of the time got told "I am checking your flying and need to see what you do" Then sods law is I choose the oppersite method to the one they wanted. Lecture then starts which i know already into the reason why their method is the correct one.
As an ex-instructor personally I couldn't give a toss either way as long as they were done. In a SEP I was current and know I wouldn't read them but in a different type which i wasn't that familar with I would.
The standard document i would like would have on the subject.
Use of checklist while in the Air:
Methods
1) Checklist run form Memory.
2) Checklist read from checklist.
Prefered method is read from checklist but run from memory is acceptable if the check list completed as per the POH.
MJ
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Dec 2005 at 11:44.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the 737 a check list is just that. A list to check and make sure you have already done everything. You do not read it and follow it like most "checklists" in GA.
With a single crew operation all checks that are done when the a/c is in motion, should be from memory. When stopped on the ground. Read it if you like. However I prefer people to know where everything should be without reference to a list.
This is an area of inconsistancy and is very much the sort of thing that should be standardised. CFI's should hold standardisation meetings with all their FI's to sort this sort of thing out. I'm going to have one in the new year as I've noticed a few differences cropping up recently.
Whirly came up with a comment about her use of carb heat in the 150 to an instructor and in my opinion it was exactly the right thing to do. If you are comfortable with how you fly and are safe, then it is not up to the FI to "re-train" you in the hours flight. If you are a danger and doing stupid things, then I will be telling you what to do, but otherwise tell them to keep schtum or explain that you do it in a certain way for a reason.
How can we stop "over eager" FI's? Not sure, but we CFI's have to take the lead in establishing what is acceptable and what isn't. This needs to be disseminated to the FI's, who can then pass it on to the PPL's they fly with.
With a single crew operation all checks that are done when the a/c is in motion, should be from memory. When stopped on the ground. Read it if you like. However I prefer people to know where everything should be without reference to a list.
This is an area of inconsistancy and is very much the sort of thing that should be standardised. CFI's should hold standardisation meetings with all their FI's to sort this sort of thing out. I'm going to have one in the new year as I've noticed a few differences cropping up recently.
Whirly came up with a comment about her use of carb heat in the 150 to an instructor and in my opinion it was exactly the right thing to do. If you are comfortable with how you fly and are safe, then it is not up to the FI to "re-train" you in the hours flight. If you are a danger and doing stupid things, then I will be telling you what to do, but otherwise tell them to keep schtum or explain that you do it in a certain way for a reason.
How can we stop "over eager" FI's? Not sure, but we CFI's have to take the lead in establishing what is acceptable and what isn't. This needs to be disseminated to the FI's, who can then pass it on to the PPL's they fly with.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 26th Dec 2005 at 12:27.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Don't teach what is not on the sylabus i.e. don't treach 60 deg bank turns when only 45 deg is on the sylabus. Get them back after the PPL for more "advanced" stuff if they want.
2. Have a system in place for students to report "differences" i.e. where instructors ask for things to be done differently. These differences are then discussed and an agreed method is used.
3. If one does not ask for feedback one will not get it. Break the PPL or whatever course into stages and ensure that the student provides feedback at the end of each part.
There is 3 for starters.
Regards,
DFC
2. Have a system in place for students to report "differences" i.e. where instructors ask for things to be done differently. These differences are then discussed and an agreed method is used.
3. If one does not ask for feedback one will not get it. Break the PPL or whatever course into stages and ensure that the student provides feedback at the end of each part.
There is 3 for starters.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have just both made an example of the problems students face.
1) some instructors are teaching to 45deg some are teaching to 60 degs and won't accept anything less. Both have in there heart they are doing the right thing. I think the book says somewhere in between.
2) it was an example SAS which you fell into the standard instructor thing of justifying your method which you think is right. Who's right I don't know or care. Someone just tell me which one is the one that the powers that be want taught to students.
The problem with CFI setting the standards which they are meant to do already is that it just means that the school teaches the same. The students still have problems where they go some where else in the UK, or even the school across the road.
Who is going to set the standards for the CFI? An are the students going to know what the national standards are.
Otherwise how is the student going to know that what they are taught is "Industry Standard" which is going to be excepted by all instructors.
The feedback thing is a very good point. Someone external from the school needs to be able to take feedback on questions give a answer follow up and have the power to say to the CFI this isn't acceptable get it sorted. Why are your check rides geting **** for doing what the book says.
Most of the time now if someone has a problem with a school its blanked by the CAA. Not interested they say the school passes the checks etc etc. Please supply evidence to prove your point.
That person which we all know but can't mention. After I finished there were over 6 letters to the CAA complaining about the training standards from different individuals . The method he conducted the test, the method he conducted his RT tests.
Result bloody nothing "you need to proved positive proof of lack of standards" err there is 10 of us willing to go to court.
Yep but your PPL's and he is an examiner we are not touching him.
MJ
1) some instructors are teaching to 45deg some are teaching to 60 degs and won't accept anything less. Both have in there heart they are doing the right thing. I think the book says somewhere in between.
2) it was an example SAS which you fell into the standard instructor thing of justifying your method which you think is right. Who's right I don't know or care. Someone just tell me which one is the one that the powers that be want taught to students.
The problem with CFI setting the standards which they are meant to do already is that it just means that the school teaches the same. The students still have problems where they go some where else in the UK, or even the school across the road.
Who is going to set the standards for the CFI? An are the students going to know what the national standards are.
Otherwise how is the student going to know that what they are taught is "Industry Standard" which is going to be excepted by all instructors.
The feedback thing is a very good point. Someone external from the school needs to be able to take feedback on questions give a answer follow up and have the power to say to the CFI this isn't acceptable get it sorted. Why are your check rides geting **** for doing what the book says.
Most of the time now if someone has a problem with a school its blanked by the CAA. Not interested they say the school passes the checks etc etc. Please supply evidence to prove your point.
That person which we all know but can't mention. After I finished there were over 6 letters to the CAA complaining about the training standards from different individuals . The method he conducted the test, the method he conducted his RT tests.
Result bloody nothing "you need to proved positive proof of lack of standards" err there is 10 of us willing to go to court.
Yep but your PPL's and he is an examiner we are not touching him.
MJ
Last edited by mad_jock; 26th Dec 2005 at 23:13.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or has anyone else thought about the AOPA sylabus for PPL training?? When I did my FIC, thats how I was taught, that was the bible!
Now the AOPA sylabus is available to all students and indeed Instructors/ CFI's. So here we have a common, documented, industry wide method of how to teach/ fly.
Taking, the Carb. Heat as an example, I teach to select to HOT whenever RPM below 2000. That avoids the issue of taking Carb. heat on final, base or wherever else you maybe. Its a catch all method. Others maybe different.
The fact is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and flying is the same. There are safe ways and unsafe ways.
Some more grist for the mill chaps.
Now the AOPA sylabus is available to all students and indeed Instructors/ CFI's. So here we have a common, documented, industry wide method of how to teach/ fly.
Taking, the Carb. Heat as an example, I teach to select to HOT whenever RPM below 2000. That avoids the issue of taking Carb. heat on final, base or wherever else you maybe. Its a catch all method. Others maybe different.
The fact is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and flying is the same. There are safe ways and unsafe ways.
Some more grist for the mill chaps.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standardised training syllabus is a nice aspiration but could easily lead to "flying by committee"
I will take my chances with self motivated, individual, professional diversity anyday.
I can just imagine the committee debating "when to put carb heat on" this would most likely be an annual event with no clear outcome, oh and the committee would need to stay in nice hotels in scenic holiday spots.
Cynical I know but in the real world natural selection leads to the adoption of sensible practices (well most of the time). If you try to get rid of human individuality, uniqueness and opinion (where discretion is valid) then we will all fly like clones with no enthusiasm or self expression and the world of aviation would be very dull indeed.
I will take my chances with self motivated, individual, professional diversity anyday.
I can just imagine the committee debating "when to put carb heat on" this would most likely be an annual event with no clear outcome, oh and the committee would need to stay in nice hotels in scenic holiday spots.
Cynical I know but in the real world natural selection leads to the adoption of sensible practices (well most of the time). If you try to get rid of human individuality, uniqueness and opinion (where discretion is valid) then we will all fly like clones with no enthusiasm or self expression and the world of aviation would be very dull indeed.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a couple of standards documents which go a long way to answering many of these questions available on the CAA website. Any time I know somebody is coming up for test I try and ask them in advance to read Standards Document 19 - Guidance for Applicants for PPL Skill Test. It has chapter and verse and is not always widely known about. PPL instructors can also learn a lot from that and other documents (e.g. 14). There was one for examiners for the skill test too which told you what examiners should be looking for (and therefore, one could imply, instructors should be teaching) but I can't find that one just now. Well worth a read anyway.
The link is here
The link is here
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you try to get rid of human individuality, uniqueness and opinion (where discretion is valid) then we will all fly like clones with no enthusiasm or self expression and the world of aviation would be very dull indeed.
The problems start, for students, when an instructor wants it done his or her way, for no particular reason. The attitude of: "I always turn downwind THERE, and I teach my students to do that, and that's how I want it done, and the reason is because that's what we do and because I say so.
It's that attitude which has no place in instructing. And that's what annoys PPLs, and why they'd sooner go to the dentist than fly with an instructor. And that's what we need to get rid of.
There are also the instructors who criticise destructively, to the point that a PPL can end up feeling he/she doesn't know how to fly at all. There are other ways of getting something across, like the nice chap on my f/w biannual check, who said to me, "You're fine; you're a bit rusty, and you need to practise, but you know that already". I had no problem with that. But if he'd said, "Your steep turns are crap, your PFL wasn't much better and if we'd had a real engine failure you'd have crashed"....would that really have helped me to improve?
Some instructors just need to know how to teach - not to teach flying, but to teach PEOPLE! It's the FI courses that should be teaching this. Or revalidation seminars - I'm going on my first one fairly soon; do they teach this kind of stuff; if not, well they should. AOPA and other organisations who run these courses, if you're reading this thread, TAKE NOTE! ! !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think M_J you are missing the point somewhat.
I am not teaching someone to fly in a particular manner, I am teaching them to work out how to get an a/c safely from A to B using their own nous and deal with any problems that may come up.
I couldn't care less where someone puts on the carb heat or turns onto downwind as long as it is appropriate for the a/c they are flying, the conditions at the time or how a particular aerodrome operates.
That is what we should all be teaching, not any catch all, one size fits all garbage about you must do it one way and one way only.
I will always mention different techniques to people if I see them doing something unusual or different, but I would never be offended if they told me that they preferred "their" method.
At the end of it, we should be teaching people to be pilots, not just a/c drivers who give little thought to their actions or the consequences of them. They need to be able to tell FI's when to shut up if their advice isn't needed, but they need to be able to listen without getting huffy if they are deemed to need further training or that they aren't good enough.
I am not teaching someone to fly in a particular manner, I am teaching them to work out how to get an a/c safely from A to B using their own nous and deal with any problems that may come up.
I couldn't care less where someone puts on the carb heat or turns onto downwind as long as it is appropriate for the a/c they are flying, the conditions at the time or how a particular aerodrome operates.
That is what we should all be teaching, not any catch all, one size fits all garbage about you must do it one way and one way only.
I will always mention different techniques to people if I see them doing something unusual or different, but I would never be offended if they told me that they preferred "their" method.
At the end of it, we should be teaching people to be pilots, not just a/c drivers who give little thought to their actions or the consequences of them. They need to be able to tell FI's when to shut up if their advice isn't needed, but they need to be able to listen without getting huffy if they are deemed to need further training or that they aren't good enough.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
Everything you say is absolutely spot-on. What I, and MJ, and others are complaining about are the instructors - quite a number - who don't teach in that way. Who are basically on a massive ego trip, who want things done their way. What do we do about these instructors?
Everything you say is absolutely spot-on.
What I, and MJ, and others are complaining about are the instructors - quite a number - who don't teach in that way. Who are basically on a massive ego trip, who want things done their way. What do we do about these instructors?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, there is only one way, find someone you get on with in your club/school or by word of mouth. If you start requesting to fly with a particular person over another, then the message soon gets through.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you start requesting to fly with a particular person over another, then the message soon gets through.