Quality of instructors; on the way down!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality of instructors; on the way down!!!
The quality of instructors and people who want to become instructors seems to be decaying rapidly IMHO. There seems to be loads of young men around my local airfield (in the south) who are either in the process of becoming instructors or are actually instructors themselves. They seem little bothered about teaching people to fly and seem to know very little themselves.. perhaps not anymore than those they are teaching.
All that these men have done is obtainined the right qualifications, and then due to not having any luck in the airline employment sector gone and got themselves instructor ratings- "as thats the next box to tick!"
It would transpire that most havent even thought what instructing entails. Seems very poor to me.
All that these men have done is obtainined the right qualifications, and then due to not having any luck in the airline employment sector gone and got themselves instructor ratings- "as thats the next box to tick!"
It would transpire that most havent even thought what instructing entails. Seems very poor to me.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i can agree, i have seen (and employed) people that only want hours to get the "all important airline job". 
But not all FI's are like this....certainly not in my school, or they don't last too long. i have just taken on a new FI(r) and he is very good.
But not all FI's are like this....certainly not in my school, or they don't last too long. i have just taken on a new FI(r) and he is very good.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the old self improver route went caput following the introduction of JAR, perhaps you guys could suggest other ways these young guys could get into the world of commercial aviation.
I doubt very much whether the majority view instruction with the cavalier attitude you suspect anyway. It doesn't take an awful lot of intelligence from an aspiring instructor to realise just how important a good instructor is to a student and as with old school teachers, you always remember the good ones. The pilot ego alone should ensure they all do their utmost to provide instruction to the best of their ability and even the old dog instructors had to start somewhere, it's just that this route is now officially closed.
Don't blame the young pilots themselves - it is the resultant effect of the 'new' regulatory system.
VFE.
I doubt very much whether the majority view instruction with the cavalier attitude you suspect anyway. It doesn't take an awful lot of intelligence from an aspiring instructor to realise just how important a good instructor is to a student and as with old school teachers, you always remember the good ones. The pilot ego alone should ensure they all do their utmost to provide instruction to the best of their ability and even the old dog instructors had to start somewhere, it's just that this route is now officially closed.
Don't blame the young pilots themselves - it is the resultant effect of the 'new' regulatory system.
VFE.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen complaining about the falling quality of instructors, may I respectfully ask you whether you want to be taught to fly, or do you want to learn? A keen student who reads up on his/her lessons, asks pertinent questions and is keen to get on tends to get a better deal out of the instructors that you describe.
Just a thought.
P.P.
Just a thought.
P.P.
Está servira para distraerle.
There was a time when flying instruction was just as much a profession within aviation as crop spraying or airline flying. That dedication has largely disappeared. Flight instruction should not be a means to build hours but hour building should be one of the rewards of instruction.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the pay for instructing warrants the grandiose title of 'profession' then things might improve for the rosy-eyed nostalgics out there but it's the chicken and the egg scenario. Fewer PPL'ers seem interested in shelling out extra cash just to instruct at weekends alongside their daily job. Most of the old school self improver instructors were instructing with a view to flying airliners whether you saw it that way at the time or not I'm afraid.
Show me a school who'll pay at least £25'000 a year and you'll see many more CPL's happily instruct for them for the rest of thier lives, and forget all about airliners and hosties.
VFE.
Show me a school who'll pay at least £25'000 a year and you'll see many more CPL's happily instruct for them for the rest of thier lives, and forget all about airliners and hosties.
VFE.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the standard of FI's on the way down?
Personally, I don't think so. There have always been muppets about and there always will be, even if FI's earnt £10k a week.
Instructing has always been an hour building route for prospective jet jockeys, there is no difference now than at any other time in this respect.
What we are losing however, is people who have any experience of the private flying world. Most people from an integrated course with an FI rating know about as much about PPL's as I do about basket weaving. (I'm sure I could understand the principles involved but the actual knowledge escapes me.)
If FI's could be paid properly, then we may see more "career" FI's, but they will still be in the minority as very few people spend the thick end of £50K to end up earning 25K a year, no matter what the job. So most will still end up disappearing when an airline job comes up.
With the current system there is no way to avoid it and I very much doubt any of the licencing bodies have the b*lls to fix this problem properly for the long term future.
Personally, I don't think so. There have always been muppets about and there always will be, even if FI's earnt £10k a week.
Instructing has always been an hour building route for prospective jet jockeys, there is no difference now than at any other time in this respect.
What we are losing however, is people who have any experience of the private flying world. Most people from an integrated course with an FI rating know about as much about PPL's as I do about basket weaving. (I'm sure I could understand the principles involved but the actual knowledge escapes me.)
If FI's could be paid properly, then we may see more "career" FI's, but they will still be in the minority as very few people spend the thick end of £50K to end up earning 25K a year, no matter what the job. So most will still end up disappearing when an airline job comes up.
With the current system there is no way to avoid it and I very much doubt any of the licencing bodies have the b*lls to fix this problem properly for the long term future.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS, So are you saying then that you think the solution is the return to the good old days of remunerated PPL /FI instructors, together with abandonment all of that essential (yes I am joking) ATPL theory knowledge? ?
1. The right to give remunerated flight instruction should be a Rating, not a Licence privilege.
2. Instructors should only instruct to the level of the Licence and Rating they hold themselves.
3. Theoretical knowledge should be 'adequate for the level of instruction given' rather than 'commercial level'.
4. There must be NO reduction of current instructional skill standards.
This would facilitate part-time PPL instruction given by experienced PPL holders who have neither the time nor inclination to become airline pilots. But it would offer an alternative to the current system rather than replace it. The instructional population would then consist of a mix of part-timers with second careers, plus youngsters on the traditional system.
However, there would be nothing to stop an aspirant airline pilot obtaining a PPL/FI Rating before embarking upon 'hours building', he/she would be faced with much lower initial capital outlay than under the current system and might also be able to save towards the cost of CPL/IR training as under the 'self-improver' scheme. A few years' PPL instruction might also improve the pilot's own flying standards and theoretical knowledge before CPL/IR training.
2. Instructors should only instruct to the level of the Licence and Rating they hold themselves.
3. Theoretical knowledge should be 'adequate for the level of instruction given' rather than 'commercial level'.
4. There must be NO reduction of current instructional skill standards.
This would facilitate part-time PPL instruction given by experienced PPL holders who have neither the time nor inclination to become airline pilots. But it would offer an alternative to the current system rather than replace it. The instructional population would then consist of a mix of part-timers with second careers, plus youngsters on the traditional system.
However, there would be nothing to stop an aspirant airline pilot obtaining a PPL/FI Rating before embarking upon 'hours building', he/she would be faced with much lower initial capital outlay than under the current system and might also be able to save towards the cost of CPL/IR training as under the 'self-improver' scheme. A few years' PPL instruction might also improve the pilot's own flying standards and theoretical knowledge before CPL/IR training.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with BEagle on this. I think the FI rating should be a stand alone device that allows the holder to be paid no matter what licence they have. It needs to be more difficult and longer course overall to ensure standards are kept up or even improved.
Whilst occasionally having ATPL theory knowledge may seem useful, it really isn't if you are teaching purely to PPL standard.
(Though I don't differentiate what I teach compared to whom I'm teaching. They all get told the same old nonsense!..)
Whilst occasionally having ATPL theory knowledge may seem useful, it really isn't if you are teaching purely to PPL standard.
(Though I don't differentiate what I teach compared to whom I'm teaching. They all get told the same old nonsense!..)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Death of standalone CPL
The standalone CPL would die as the PPL-FI route was re-introduced
(NO POINT IN IT)
This thread ties up to the point of all the exams for JAR CPL - as a standalone its worthless outside of instructing
(NO POINT IN IT)
This thread ties up to the point of all the exams for JAR CPL - as a standalone its worthless outside of instructing
Awesome but Affordable
IMHO (and not very humble at that) the quality of our average instructor has deteriorated over the last few decades and especially since theintroduction of the BCPL and now JAR-FCL.
I fully agree that the rating has been and always will be a stepping stone towards a career in CAT for all but a dedicated few. This few (this unhappy few, I am tempted to add) cover the gamut of hopeless to magnificent in terms of ability and I do speak from over 50 years as an instructor including 27 as an FIE.
What really concerns me is the reduction in basic handling skills and in particular a common reluctance to get near the edge of the envelope in terms of stalling and spinning. Many seem afraid and underconfident and this surely communicates over to the student. What a pity.
I feel the reintroduction of the renumerated PPL instructor in a club environment is long overdue. This along with a major reassessment of what technical knowledge is really necessary to train to NPPL or PPL level.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
I fully agree that the rating has been and always will be a stepping stone towards a career in CAT for all but a dedicated few. This few (this unhappy few, I am tempted to add) cover the gamut of hopeless to magnificent in terms of ability and I do speak from over 50 years as an instructor including 27 as an FIE.
What really concerns me is the reduction in basic handling skills and in particular a common reluctance to get near the edge of the envelope in terms of stalling and spinning. Many seem afraid and underconfident and this surely communicates over to the student. What a pity.
I feel the reintroduction of the renumerated PPL instructor in a club environment is long overdue. This along with a major reassessment of what technical knowledge is really necessary to train to NPPL or PPL level.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my PPL/IMC 23 years ago with PPL IMC rated instructors whom at the time to my way of thinking seemed to know what they were talking about, had plenty of the right sort of experience and wisdom, and not all of whom by any means wanted to join the airlines . Maybe its my age and perception of the youth these days, but it seems to me that the same Motivation just isnt there for instruction from the airline wannabees. Those with many years private flying experience must surely make better instructors in the pure PPL environment, than the temporary modular route aspiring ATPLs. I have always had a bit of a hankering to instruct myself over the years but by the time I found myself where I am now with the time, money and experience to do it, I suddenly found I would have to jump through all sorts of seemingly unnecessary hoops to get there so have never bothered. Totally , utterly and completely agree with all said by SAS Beagle and Gkest!
The remunerated PPL/FI would also re-open the door to chaps with vast instructional experience but who now, thanks purely to anno domini, are limited to holding NPPLs.
Why should they not be permitted to be at least CRI(SPA)s or, in cases such as yours Trapper69, CREs?
Regarding stalling/spinning, you have only to read the utter twaddle posted by some on other threads to see how poorly that is taught these days. But most PPL holders never get close to the stall on their own - indeed it is hard enought to get them to fly at VAPP rather than VAPP + 20 on the final approach..... Where they do seem to get themselves into trouble is with airspace violations. Which brings me to the conclusion that too many FIs have not been teaching navigation correctly - or accepting that they should be capable of giving some elementary GPS instruction to PPL holders.
Why should they not be permitted to be at least CRI(SPA)s or, in cases such as yours Trapper69, CREs?
Regarding stalling/spinning, you have only to read the utter twaddle posted by some on other threads to see how poorly that is taught these days. But most PPL holders never get close to the stall on their own - indeed it is hard enought to get them to fly at VAPP rather than VAPP + 20 on the final approach..... Where they do seem to get themselves into trouble is with airspace violations. Which brings me to the conclusion that too many FIs have not been teaching navigation correctly - or accepting that they should be capable of giving some elementary GPS instruction to PPL holders.
As in the majority of their posts, BEagle and G-KEST turn up trumps again with very sound observations of the present situation.
Also as a current X, I am in constant dismay at the degree of flying acumen shown close to the edges of the envelope in many situations.
These are necessary skills and unfortunately are often not taught properly by a number of instructors to the extent that candidates are sometimes genuinely in fear of demonstrating basic exercises.
Stalling, steep turns, spiral dive recoveries are examples where dubious control technique, poor speed/pitch appreciation and inadequate use of rudder are often barely acceptable.
My own thoughts are that a number of inexperienced (?) instructors tend to rush Exercises 4 to 11 in order to get swiftly onto circuit training and the magic first solo. This results in a lack of appreciation of basic control technique necessary to understand what is happening in later, more advanced handling.
I also teach IMC and aerobatics. Sound revision of all such basics are more often than not a prerequisite to any advancement in the teaching of either of these capabilities.
The reintroduction once again of remunerated PPL Instructors, without the need for professional backgrounds, would indeed fulfil very well the requirement for mature, sound instruction. This would offer the added ability to relate to the level of competence to be achieved (along the lines of a "creamie") without the personal desire, impatience and ambition of a pending "promotion" at the earliest opportunity.
Rgds, Sleeve.
Also as a current X, I am in constant dismay at the degree of flying acumen shown close to the edges of the envelope in many situations.
These are necessary skills and unfortunately are often not taught properly by a number of instructors to the extent that candidates are sometimes genuinely in fear of demonstrating basic exercises.
Stalling, steep turns, spiral dive recoveries are examples where dubious control technique, poor speed/pitch appreciation and inadequate use of rudder are often barely acceptable.
My own thoughts are that a number of inexperienced (?) instructors tend to rush Exercises 4 to 11 in order to get swiftly onto circuit training and the magic first solo. This results in a lack of appreciation of basic control technique necessary to understand what is happening in later, more advanced handling.
I also teach IMC and aerobatics. Sound revision of all such basics are more often than not a prerequisite to any advancement in the teaching of either of these capabilities.
The reintroduction once again of remunerated PPL Instructors, without the need for professional backgrounds, would indeed fulfil very well the requirement for mature, sound instruction. This would offer the added ability to relate to the level of competence to be achieved (along the lines of a "creamie") without the personal desire, impatience and ambition of a pending "promotion" at the earliest opportunity.
Rgds, Sleeve.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counter Argument
This thread seems to suggest that by chopping theoretical and practical requirements i.e. Binning CPL theory and CPL practical then we will get a better FI product.
Some school owners real motivation is to reduce costs of FIs by replacing those intent on paying back fATPL loans with retired guys with reduced medical standards as single crew........
Waits to be flamed....
Some school owners real motivation is to reduce costs of FIs by replacing those intent on paying back fATPL loans with retired guys with reduced medical standards as single crew........
Waits to be flamed....
Last edited by RVR800; 25th Apr 2006 at 09:15.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone here is advocating reducing standards in anyway. Infact I think these proposals will make life easier for all FI's long-term. Hopefully we could turn being an FI into a career again rather than just being a stepping stone.
It won't stop fATPL's becoming instructors and it may mean that they finally get paid properly as well.
It won't stop fATPL's becoming instructors and it may mean that they finally get paid properly as well.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the vast majority or instructors do a good job. If i think back to my PPL training i think it was pretty awful and have similiar comments from others who also trained in the late seventies early eighties.
I can remember hardly ever having any ground briefs, the qualify XC dual route was flown by my instructor whilst i read the map, hadn't got a clue what to do if i got lost, other than i was pretty good at map reading which ultimately is what you need to navigate. Diversion? Whats that!
If there are hazy areas, its either lack of experience or confidence in certain maneouvres, stalls/spins. Let a more experienced instructor cover these lessons. A 200 hour instructor is not going to have the same confidence as a 2000 hour instructor. Its up to CFI to take the less experienced under their wing and help them, not knock them by saying they are crap.
I can remember hardly ever having any ground briefs, the qualify XC dual route was flown by my instructor whilst i read the map, hadn't got a clue what to do if i got lost, other than i was pretty good at map reading which ultimately is what you need to navigate. Diversion? Whats that!
If there are hazy areas, its either lack of experience or confidence in certain maneouvres, stalls/spins. Let a more experienced instructor cover these lessons. A 200 hour instructor is not going to have the same confidence as a 2000 hour instructor. Its up to CFI to take the less experienced under their wing and help them, not knock them by saying they are crap.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: se asia
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the trend!!! If you let the MPL reduces to 60 hours the total number of hours and the remaining part of the training done in Simulators by guys from the BIG BUSINESS, because nearly none a school can offer a FFS, forget about the job of professional FI!