Is pilot training mostly "the blind leading the blind"?

[Manwell]

After retiring, with lots of spare time available, this is one of the questions I've been pondering, and wondered if others have arrived at a definitive conclusion - without "fear or favour" as the saying goes.

[Pilot DAR]

Does that matter? If the graduate is evaluated and standardized by an airline maybe not. If the graduate buys their own aircraft to fly the family maybe it does.

Truer words were never spoken!

I have heard it said, and agree with the statement, that there is a "heritage of inexperience" in flying instruction in this generation. I had no idea how fortunate I was in the mid '70's to be trained by instructors, who, themselves, had lots of [other than instructing] pilot experience. I did not know any better, I thought that all pilots flew with that skill and judgement. I revered "flying instructors". Then, I began to provide advanced type training on complex GA types, and would encounter less than ideally prepared (though PPL) candidates. I wondered how their (apparently to me) lack luster piloting skills had earned them a PPL. Then, I started flying a little with some of the net generation of flying instructors - those who were now teaching, where they had just learned. It was evident that they had learned what they had been taught - but it was a minimum. They had very little personal experience nor tribal knowledge to pass along, 'cause they had never "been there". Flight in regimes at the periphery of "normal" was a stretch for them. 'Problem is that their student does not know that they are receiving instruction which meets the minimums, rather than being comprehensive.

Worse, for the student, seems to be that long gone are the days when the student hangs around the airport the who day, just to watch, listen, and maybe get an afternoon flight with a sky god. I would spend all day at the airport, getting involved any way I could, and learning along the way. For cleaning a greasy airplane belly, I might get a ride in something unusual - and learn lots! Now, I stop by the airport, and the restaurant has some of the old timers, but few newbies, who might just be hanging around to learn. I guess they've gone back home after their lesson to read on PPRuNe - okay, Ill type a bit of my wisdom in here instead.

In the mean time, on those occasions when I do have to take an instructor with me on a test flight, I'll try to make it a collaborative event. Sure, I would like an independent review of my piloting skills - that never hurts, and maybe I can allow the instructor to see a few things which are within the airplane's operating limitations, though not so common. Usually it works out fine, we both get something out of it.


In the mean time, from my archives, a story, for those who have the time (it wanders a little, but it's on the theme)....

I got a phone call on day from the Director of Maintenance at the Flying Club ('never met him). He introduced himself, and said the he had a problem, and had been told I could help. Apparently one of the club 172’s had been run off the runway some time ago and badly damaged. In the interim, the former Director of Maintenance (whom I did know) had built up a set of wing jigs, and rebuilt the wings. During this time, he requested an inspection from Transport Canada, but TC declined, saying that it was not necessary. The wings were removed, and the jigs disassembled.

Fast forward a number of months, and the new DoM askes the new TC Inspector for flight authority for the now complete aircraft. The inspector inquires about the geometry of the repaired wings, and the DoM says “you had your chance when they were in the jig, now its too late.” Not good enough…So a Mexican standoff begins and there is no solution. Apparently, the inspector sought the insight of TC Engineering, who, directed everyone to me. So this was the DOM, advised by TC Engineering, asking me what I could do to bring resolution to the whole problem.

I had an idea, and I told the DoM, that I could take care of it. I discussed my plan with the TC Engineer, who agreed, and said that he would recommend it to the TC Inspector. So we all met at the airport the next week. I brought along my theodolite, suitable measuring equipment, and an Excel spreadsheet which I’d drafted, which summarized the Cessna maintenance manual wing geometry dimensions. I set the whole thing up with the plane in the hangar, and prepared to take all of the required measurements. But, of course, lunchtime came along, so we adjourned to the restaurant.

After a pleasant lunch, we all walked back across the main apron. We all watched with amusement as the club’s Piper Archer cut right across the airport at 200 feet, cutting off a plane on final, and generally disrupting everyone in the air. I asked two TC staff if they were inclined to comment to the pilot about his demonstration of flying judgment. They said that though inclined to, they were not supposed to - it was outside their job description. I said that I could, unless they did not want me to… they both smiled and said “go ahead”.

So we began our measuring, while I watched for the Archer to finish circuits. Eventually the Archer pulled on to the main apron, and I was there to greet the pilot. As the door opened, and the right seat occupant exited, I asked who was in charge. The instructor kicked into guy smilely mode, and asked if I was his next student… “No” I said “just another pilot”. I went on to explain that I had seen the odd maneuver, and that “it did not look very good from the ground” The instructor became very defensive, and started justifying his flying. I explained that I was not too interested in the details, I just wanted him to know that I had seen it, and it had not looked good. He went on again, and I repeated that it had not looked good to me, nor the two Transport Canada inspectors standing over there watching me talk to him. Well, that changed his tune, he got quiet then!. I told him that I was not there to make a fuss, just to let him know what I had seen. With that, I returned to my measuring.

Measuring completed, and spreadsheet complete, I pronounced the wing geometry as conforming to Cessna’s dimensions. I would have thought that this would be enough, but the TC Inspector still was not satisfied. I was surprised and disappointed. The DoM was less than impressed, and the stress of the whole situation was becoming evident in his demeanor. I felt the need to propose a final solution.

I interrupted, and said to the TC Inspector “how about if I test fly it. If it flies okay, the DoM gets the final flight authority for the aircraft”. The inspector turned to the TC Engineer, and asked of that would be okay with him. He said yes without a moment’s delay. He thought for a minute, but seemed to realize that he would have trouble justifying not letting me asses the plane, when everyone else was agreeable. So he agreed. A flight permit would be issued to let me test fly it, and my word would be final. The only wrinkle, I’d need a checkout to fly the plane, I knew the flying club rules. The TC Inspector agreed that an instructor could check me out in the plane while I test flew it. So the plan was set for the following week.

I arrived at the appointed time, and the plane was ready. So was the instructor – you guessed it, the same guy who’d cut across the field in the Archer the previous week! Well you should have seen the look on his face when he recognized me as the pilot who was to assess the 172! He’d been told what was going on, and to expect me, the appointed test pilot, but he had not put together two and two from the previous week. Did he ever get into suck up mode... Hello Mr. DAR this, and yes Mr. DAR that. It was easier just to let it happen, than to try to undo it.

I checked the plane over, assured myself that everything was in order, and briefed the instructor and DoM (who was none the wiser as to my previous encounter with the esteemed instructor). In particular, I informed them both that my first run would be a high speed taxi and short hop only, so not to be alarmed to think that I aborted the takeoff.

As explained, this was what I did. A run up runway 33, with 40 degrees of flap. The instructor was more than a little surprised to see me pull the plane gently into the air, with a few peeps of the stall horn, and fly along a few feet off the ground. This afforded me the opportunity to feel the roll behavior before I was committed to the flight. As I expected, the plane was fine. As planned, I landed again, and taxied off the runway. The instructor commented that he’d never seen that done before. ('fair enough, that's not an approved procedure for the 172).

I knew that rest of the flying would now be a fun hop, as the only real question about the flying qualities of the plane had now been answered. It was a nice day for a flight, and the importance of the process demanded the full affect of the test flight. Thus, I flew…

After a half hour of good airwork, I pronounced the aircraft entirely acceptable. I explained to the instructor that I was finished, and that I would be very pleased if he would ask me to demonstrate any other maneuver which he would expect to see on a check ride. His response was that I flew the plane better than any of the instructors. I thanked him for the complement, but explained that I was hoping he would write me a check ride letter. He said that he would. He then paused a moment, and asked me if I would demonstrate a roll to him. I said that I was unwilling to do this, thinking to myself that this was some kind of trick to get me to break a club rule in the aircraft - let lone flying an unapproved maneuver. He asked if the plane was capable, and I told him that it was, but I was unwilling (I never did say unable, and I think that he was picking up on this). I did offer some aggressive chandelles, and wingovers. He did seem to appreciate those.

I returned the plane to the DoM, and informed him that it was fit. My entry in the journey log to that effect was all that he needed – “Test flight satisfactory”. With that, I bid my farewells, stopping to remind the instructor that I would be grateful for a letter attesting to my having demonstrated adequate flying skill. He promised that it would come, and it did a few days later.

In a final twist of irony, the instructor’s signature on behalf of the flying club, also bore the title “safety officer”. The club safety officer had buzzed the apron with a student the previous week, and asked a pilot with whom he’d never before flown, to perform a roll in a Cessna 172 with him on board. So much for safety minded safety officers!

[Pilot DAR]

Does that matter? If the graduate is evaluated and standardized by an airline maybe not. If the graduate buys their own aircraft to fly the family maybe it does.

Truer words were never spoken!

I have heard it said, and agree with the statement, that there is a "heritage of inexperience" in flying instruction in this generation. I had no idea how fortunate I was in the mid '70's to be trained by instructors, who, themselves, had lots of [other than instructing] pilot experience. I did not know any better, I thought that all pilots flew with that skill and judgement. I revered "flying instructors". Then, I began to provide advanced type training on complex GA types, and would encounter less than ideally prepared (though PPL) candidates. I wondered how their (apparently to me) lack luster piloting skills had earned them a PPL. Then, I started flying a little with some of the net generation of flying instructors - those who were now teaching, where they had just learned. It was evident that they had learned what they had been taught - but it was a minimum. They had very little personal experience nor tribal knowledge to pass along, 'cause they had never "been there". Flight in regimes at the periphery of "normal" was a stretch for them. 'Problem is that their student does not know that they are receiving instruction which meets the minimums, rather than being comprehensive.

Worse, for the student, seems to be that long gone are the days when the student hangs around the airport the who day, just to watch, listen, and maybe get an afternoon flight with a sky god. I would spend all day at the airport, getting involved any way I could, and learning along the way. For cleaning a greasy airplane belly, I might get a ride in something unusual - and learn lots! Now, I stop by the airport, and the restaurant has some of the old timers, but few newbies, who might just be hanging around to learn. I guess they've gone back home after their lesson to read on PPRuNe - okay, Ill type a bit of my wisdom in here instead.

In the mean time, on those occasions when I do have to take an instructor with me on a test flight, I'll try to make it a collaborative event. Sure, I would like an independent review of my piloting skills - that never hurts, and maybe I can allow the instructor to see a few things which are within the airplane's operating limitations, though not so common. Usually it works out fine, we both get something out of it.


In the mean time, from my archives, a story, for those who have the time (it wanders a little, but it's on the theme)....

I got a phone call on day from the Director of Maintenance at the Flying Club ('never met him). He introduced himself, and said the he had a problem, and had been told I could help. Apparently one of the club 172’s had been run off the runway some time ago and badly damaged. In the interim, the former Director of Maintenance (whom I did know) had built up a set of wing jigs, and rebuilt the wings. During this time, he requested an inspection from Transport Canada, but TC declined, saying that it was not necessary. The wings were removed, and the jigs disassembled.

Fast forward a number of months, and the new DoM askes the new TC Inspector for flight authority for the now complete aircraft. The inspector inquires about the geometry of the repaired wings, and the DoM says “you had your chance when they were in the jig, now its too late.” Not good enough…So a Mexican standoff begins and there is no solution. Apparently, the inspector sought the insight of TC Engineering, who, directed everyone to me. So this was the DOM, advised by TC Engineering, asking me what I could do to bring resolution to the whole problem.

I had an idea, and I told the DoM, that I could take care of it. I discussed my plan with the TC Engineer, who agreed, and said that he would recommend it to the TC Inspector. So we all met at the airport the next week. I brought along my theodolite, suitable measuring equipment, and an Excel spreadsheet which I’d drafted, which summarized the Cessna maintenance manual wing geometry dimensions. I set the whole thing up with the plane in the hangar, and prepared to take all of the required measurements. But, of course, lunchtime came along, so we adjourned to the restaurant.

After a pleasant lunch, we all walked back across the main apron. We all watched with amusement as the club’s Piper Archer cut right across the airport at 200 feet, cutting off a plane on final, and generally disrupting everyone in the air. I asked two TC staff if they were inclined to comment to the pilot about his demonstration of flying judgment. They said that though inclined to, they were not supposed to - it was outside their job description. I said that I could, unless they did not want me to… they both smiled and said “go ahead”.

So we began our measuring, while I watched for the Archer to finish circuits. Eventually the Archer pulled on to the main apron, and I was there to greet the pilot. As the door opened, and the right seat occupant exited, I asked who was in charge. The instructor kicked into guy smilely mode, and asked if I was his next student… “No” I said “just another pilot”. I went on to explain that I had seen the odd maneuver, and that “it did not look very good from the ground” The instructor became very defensive, and started justifying his flying. I explained that I was not too interested in the details, I just wanted him to know that I had seen it, and it had not looked good. He went on again, and I repeated that it had not looked good to me, nor the two Transport Canada inspectors standing over there watching me talk to him. Well, that changed his tune, he got quiet then!. I told him that I was not there to make a fuss, just to let him know what I had seen. With that, I returned to my measuring.

Measuring completed, and spreadsheet complete, I pronounced the wing geometry as conforming to Cessna’s dimensions. I would have thought that this would be enough, but the TC Inspector still was not satisfied. I was surprised and disappointed. The DoM was less than impressed, and the stress of the whole situation was becoming evident in his demeanor. I felt the need to propose a final solution.

I interrupted, and said to the TC Inspector “how about if I test fly it. If it flies okay, the DoM gets the final flight authority for the aircraft”. The inspector turned to the TC Engineer, and asked of that would be okay with him. He said yes without a moment’s delay. He thought for a minute, but seemed to realize that he would have trouble justifying not letting me asses the plane, when everyone else was agreeable. So he agreed. A flight permit would be issued to let me test fly it, and my word would be final. The only wrinkle, I’d need a checkout to fly the plane, I knew the flying club rules. The TC Inspector agreed that an instructor could check me out in the plane while I test flew it. So the plan was set for the following week.

I arrived at the appointed time, and the plane was ready. So was the instructor – you guessed it, the same guy who’d cut across the field in the Archer the previous week! Well you should have seen the look on his face when he recognized me as the pilot who was to assess the 172! He’d been told what was going on, and to expect me, the appointed test pilot, but he had not put together two and two from the previous week. Did he ever get into suck up mode... Hello Mr. DAR this, and yes Mr. DAR that. It was easier just to let it happen, than to try to undo it.

I checked the plane over, assured myself that everything was in order, and briefed the instructor and DoM (who was none the wiser as to my previous encounter with the esteemed instructor). In particular, I informed them both that my first run would be a high speed taxi and short hop only, so not to be alarmed to think that I aborted the takeoff.

As explained, this was what I did. A run up runway 33, with 40 degrees of flap. The instructor was more than a little surprised to see me pull the plane gently into the air, with a few peeps of the stall horn, and fly along a few feet off the ground. This afforded me the opportunity to feel the roll behavior before I was committed to the flight. As I expected, the plane was fine. As planned, I landed again, and taxied off the runway. The instructor commented that he’d never seen that done before. ('fair enough, that's not an approved procedure for the 172).

I knew that rest of the flying would now be a fun hop, as the only real question about the flying qualities of the plane had now been answered. It was a nice day for a flight, and the importance of the process demanded the full affect of the test flight. Thus, I flew…

After a half hour of good airwork, I pronounced the aircraft entirely acceptable. I explained to the instructor that I was finished, and that I would be very pleased if he would ask me to demonstrate any other maneuver which he would expect to see on a check ride. His response was that I flew the plane better than any of the instructors. I thanked him for the complement, but explained that I was hoping he would write me a check ride letter. He said that he would. He then paused a moment, and asked me if I would demonstrate a roll to him. I said that I was unwilling to do this, thinking to myself that this was some kind of trick to get me to break a club rule in the aircraft - let lone flying an unapproved maneuver. He asked if the plane was capable, and I told him that it was, but I was unwilling (I never did say unable, and I think that he was picking up on this). I did offer some aggressive chandelles, and wingovers. He did seem to appreciate those.

I returned the plane to the DoM, and informed him that it was fit. My entry in the journey log to that effect was all that he needed – “Test flight satisfactory”. With that, I bid my farewells, stopping to remind the instructor that I would be grateful for a letter attesting to my having demonstrated adequate flying skill. He promised that it would come, and it did a few days later.

In a final twist of irony, the instructor’s signature on behalf of the flying club, also bore the title “safety officer”. The club safety officer had buzzed the apron with a student the previous week, and asked a pilot with whom he’d never before flown, to perform a roll in a Cessna 172 with him on board. So much for safety minded safety officers!

[Whopity]

Presumably you are not a retired airline pilot! Depending on what you know about aeroplanes and flying them you may be in for a lengthy period of enlightenment. There are subjects to study, exams to pass, skills to learn and that final assessment of can you fly an aeroplane safely and are you safe to carry passengers. Before you start see if you can pass the medical. You might find your instructor is 1/3 of you age too.

[Centaurus]

Originally Posted by Manwell

After retiring, with lots of spare time available, this is one of the questions I've been pondering, and wondered if others have arrived at a definitive conclusion - without "fear or favour" as the saying goes.

It has always been thus. Newly graduated 250 hour grade 3 instructors teaching new zero hour students. Senior Grade one instructors take the more experienced students such as instrument rating trainees. I was thankful that back in the early 1950's all my instructors were experienced former WW2 pilots who were employed by the flying schools after being de-mobbed from the military. No such thing as checklists - it was all in the head

[EXDAC]

As long as flight schools use graduates as flight instructors there will be limited experience to pass on. Those instructors may be very good at getting the next batch of students through to graduation but they may have no experience at all outside that training environment.

Does that matter? If the graduate is evaluated and standardized by an airline maybe not. If the graduate buys their own aircraft to fly the family maybe it does.

[Pilot DAR]

Does that matter? If the graduate is evaluated and standardized by an airline maybe not. If the graduate buys their own aircraft to fly the family maybe it does.

Truer words were never spoken!

I have heard it said, and agree with the statement, that there is a "heritage of inexperience" in flying instruction in this generation. I had no idea how fortunate I was in the mid '70's to be trained by instructors, who, themselves, had lots of [other than instructing] pilot experience. I did not know any better, I thought that all pilots flew with that skill and judgement. I revered "flying instructors". Then, I began to provide advanced type training on complex GA types, and would encounter less than ideally prepared (though PPL) candidates. I wondered how their (apparently to me) lack luster piloting skills had earned them a PPL. Then, I started flying a little with some of the net generation of flying instructors - those who were now teaching, where they had just learned. It was evident that they had learned what they had been taught - but it was a minimum. They had very little personal experience nor tribal knowledge to pass along, 'cause they had never "been there". Flight in regimes at the periphery of "normal" was a stretch for them. 'Problem is that their student does not know that they are receiving instruction which meets the minimums, rather than being comprehensive.

Worse, for the student, seems to be that long gone are the days when the student hangs around the airport the who day, just to watch, listen, and maybe get an afternoon flight with a sky god. I would spend all day at the airport, getting involved any way I could, and learning along the way. For cleaning a greasy airplane belly, I might get a ride in something unusual - and learn lots! Now, I stop by the airport, and the restaurant has some of the old timers, but few newbies, who might just be hanging around to learn. I guess they've gone back home after their lesson to read on PPRuNe - okay, Ill type a bit of my wisdom in here instead.

In the mean time, on those occasions when I do have to take an instructor with me on a test flight, I'll try to make it a collaborative event. Sure, I would like an independent review of my piloting skills - that never hurts, and maybe I can allow the instructor to see a few things which are within the airplane's operating limitations, though not so common. Usually it works out fine, we both get something out of it.


In the mean time, from my archives, a story, for those who have the time (it wanders a little, but it's on the theme)....

I got a phone call on day from the Director of Maintenance at the Flying Club ('never met him). He introduced himself, and said the he had a problem, and had been told I could help. Apparently one of the club 172’s had been run off the runway some time ago and badly damaged. In the interim, the former Director of Maintenance (whom I did know) had built up a set of wing jigs, and rebuilt the wings. During this time, he requested an inspection from Transport Canada, but TC declined, saying that it was not necessary. The wings were removed, and the jigs disassembled.

Fast forward a number of months, and the new DoM askes the new TC Inspector for flight authority for the now complete aircraft. The inspector inquires about the geometry of the repaired wings, and the DoM says “you had your chance when they were in the jig, now its too late.” Not good enough…So a Mexican standoff begins and there is no solution. Apparently, the inspector sought the insight of TC Engineering, who, directed everyone to me. So this was the DOM, advised by TC Engineering, asking me what I could do to bring resolution to the whole problem.

I had an idea, and I told the DoM, that I could take care of it. I discussed my plan with the TC Engineer, who agreed, and said that he would recommend it to the TC Inspector. So we all met at the airport the next week. I brought along my theodolite, suitable measuring equipment, and an Excel spreadsheet which I’d drafted, which summarized the Cessna maintenance manual wing geometry dimensions. I set the whole thing up with the plane in the hangar, and prepared to take all of the required measurements. But, of course, lunchtime came along, so we adjourned to the restaurant.

After a pleasant lunch, we all walked back across the main apron. We all watched with amusement as the club’s Piper Archer cut right across the airport at 200 feet, cutting off a plane on final, and generally disrupting everyone in the air. I asked two TC staff if they were inclined to comment to the pilot about his demonstration of flying judgment. They said that though inclined to, they were not supposed to - it was outside their job description. I said that I could, unless they did not want me to… they both smiled and said “go ahead”.

So we began our measuring, while I watched for the Archer to finish circuits. Eventually the Archer pulled on to the main apron, and I was there to greet the pilot. As the door opened, and the right seat occupant exited, I asked who was in charge. The instructor kicked into guy smilely mode, and asked if I was his next student… “No” I said “just another pilot”. I went on to explain that I had seen the odd maneuver, and that “it did not look very good from the ground” The instructor became very defensive, and started justifying his flying. I explained that I was not too interested in the details, I just wanted him to know that I had seen it, and it had not looked good. He went on again, and I repeated that it had not looked good to me, nor the two Transport Canada inspectors standing over there watching me talk to him. Well, that changed his tune, he got quiet then!. I told him that I was not there to make a fuss, just to let him know what I had seen. With that, I returned to my measuring.

Measuring completed, and spreadsheet complete, I pronounced the wing geometry as conforming to Cessna’s dimensions. I would have thought that this would be enough, but the TC Inspector still was not satisfied. I was surprised and disappointed. The DoM was less than impressed, and the stress of the whole situation was becoming evident in his demeanor. I felt the need to propose a final solution.

I interrupted, and said to the TC Inspector “how about if I test fly it. If it flies okay, the DoM gets the final flight authority for the aircraft”. The inspector turned to the TC Engineer, and asked of that would be okay with him. He said yes without a moment’s delay. He thought for a minute, but seemed to realize that he would have trouble justifying not letting me asses the plane, when everyone else was agreeable. So he agreed. A flight permit would be issued to let me test fly it, and my word would be final. The only wrinkle, I’d need a checkout to fly the plane, I knew the flying club rules. The TC Inspector agreed that an instructor could check me out in the plane while I test flew it. So the plan was set for the following week.

I arrived at the appointed time, and the plane was ready. So was the instructor – you guessed it, the same guy who’d cut across the field in the Archer the previous week! Well you should have seen the look on his face when he recognized me as the pilot who was to assess the 172! He’d been told what was going on, and to expect me, the appointed test pilot, but he had not put together two and two from the previous week. Did he ever get into suck up mode... Hello Mr. DAR this, and yes Mr. DAR that. It was easier just to let it happen, than to try to undo it.

I checked the plane over, assured myself that everything was in order, and briefed the instructor and DoM (who was none the wiser as to my previous encounter with the esteemed instructor). In particular, I informed them both that my first run would be a high speed taxi and short hop only, so not to be alarmed to think that I aborted the takeoff.

As explained, this was what I did. A run up runway 33, with 40 degrees of flap. The instructor was more than a little surprised to see me pull the plane gently into the air, with a few peeps of the stall horn, and fly along a few feet off the ground. This afforded me the opportunity to feel the roll behavior before I was committed to the flight. As I expected, the plane was fine. As planned, I landed again, and taxied off the runway. The instructor commented that he’d never seen that done before. ('fair enough, that's not an approved procedure for the 172).

I knew that rest of the flying would now be a fun hop, as the only real question about the flying qualities of the plane had now been answered. It was a nice day for a flight, and the importance of the process demanded the full affect of the test flight. Thus, I flew…

After a half hour of good airwork, I pronounced the aircraft entirely acceptable. I explained to the instructor that I was finished, and that I would be very pleased if he would ask me to demonstrate any other maneuver which he would expect to see on a check ride. His response was that I flew the plane better than any of the instructors. I thanked him for the complement, but explained that I was hoping he would write me a check ride letter. He said that he would. He then paused a moment, and asked me if I would demonstrate a roll to him. I said that I was unwilling to do this, thinking to myself that this was some kind of trick to get me to break a club rule in the aircraft - let lone flying an unapproved maneuver. He asked if the plane was capable, and I told him that it was, but I was unwilling (I never did say unable, and I think that he was picking up on this). I did offer some aggressive chandelles, and wingovers. He did seem to appreciate those.

I returned the plane to the DoM, and informed him that it was fit. My entry in the journey log to that effect was all that he needed – “Test flight satisfactory”. With that, I bid my farewells, stopping to remind the instructor that I would be grateful for a letter attesting to my having demonstrated adequate flying skill. He promised that it would come, and it did a few days later.

In a final twist of irony, the instructor’s signature on behalf of the flying club, also bore the title “safety officer”. The club safety officer had buzzed the apron with a student the previous week, and asked a pilot with whom he’d never before flown, to perform a roll in a Cessna 172 with him on board. So much for safety minded safety officers!

[Jhieminga]

A quick story that goes back to the initial statement in this thread.

Several years ago I was instructing for a mid-sized training organisation that carried out ab-initio training to frozen ATPL standard. We used Cessna's, in many variations, but mainly 172s and 150/152s. There were two new instructors, both ex-students of the training program that had been streamed into a FI course straight after finishing the main course. As they had done the FI course on 172s, after completing this and with a still-wet FI annotation on their shiny new licences, they needed a 150/152 checkout and I was asked to do this.

It was deemed to be a bit of a formality as they had both trained on the two-seaters, but it had been a while and they had flown several other types since. One brand-new FI sorted out, I got into the aeroplane with the second one. We left the circuit for some airwork and then returned to the circuit as I wanted to see several landings in different configurations. This second FI then proceeded to surprise me, as he was unable to produce a decent cross-wind landing! He kept putting the mainwheels on the tarmac in a crabbed state, burning lots of rubber every time. I kept insisting on a wing-down touchdown, may even have demonstrated bits of it during the approach, but no joy.

After the flight I took this up with our chief FI and we ended up letting this FI loose with a 'max 5kt x-wind' limitation. This was very much an internal limitation, said FI had all the paperwork to say that he was qualified to operate SEP types up to the stated limits. And as it was a bit of an internal issue anyway, I am not sure if said limitation was ever applied.

In the end (and as I had expected) experience and confidence grew and this became a useful instructor who later went on to fly larger types. I don't think the internal limitation was ever followed up on. It was not written down anywhere (I guess) so it probably just disappeared by itself.

This FI, and many others (including myself I guess), learned their trade at the expense of their students in a way. It is true that you don't really learn about flying until you start teaching it, but I certainly think that the overall standards are changing. We should of course also argue whether we still need to apply the same standards these days... but that may be a different discussion.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by Jhieminga

After the flight I took this up with our chief FI and we ended up letting this FI loose with a 'max 5kt x-wind' limitation. This was very much an internal limitation, said FI had all the paperwork to say that he was qualified to operate SEP types up to the stated limits. And as it was a bit of an internal issue anyway, I am not sure if said limitation was ever applied.

Can you give an example of an SEP that has stated cross wind limits. All the SEP I have flown have had a maximum demonstrated cross wind and that is not a limit.

As to FI standards and PPL performance - I was recently asked to give a new PPL his first flight review. It was obvious he had no idea what the rudder was for and the yawing on approach was very uncomfortable. It turned out that his instructors, he had several, had never told him about adverse yaw or the need to use rudder with aileron.

When I gave someone initial flight instruction the first lesson was primary and secondary effects of controls. When did that go out of favor?

[Centaurus]

The RAF and RAAF had an exchange crews policy back in the 1950's. We (RAAF) would send a Lincoln crew (pilot, Navigator and Signaller) to UK where they were posted to fly RAF maritime Avro Shackletons. In turn, the RAF would send a Shackleton crew to Australia for a two year stint on maritime Lincolns. We in the RAAF learned much from the RAF on anti-submarine tactics. As the squadron QFI on Lincolns I was tasked to convert the RAF Shackleton captain on to the Lincoln.

The RAAF traditionally used the kick straight technique for crosswind landings. That is, just before touch down rudder was used to straighten up during the flare and ideally the aircraft would touch down with any drift removed. All fine in theory of course but in practice the aircraft would often touch down with some drift remaining causing much squealing from tortured main wheels. Cross wind landings at night were a real problem with our Mk 31 Long Nose Lincolns.because of the poor forward visibility over the long nose.

On my first dual flight with the RAF Shackleton pilot I demonstrated a crosswind landing. It wasn't the best of landings and I apologised for the stuff-up. The RAF pilot then did his crosswind landing, touching down smoothly on one wheel then lowering the other wheel to the ground. He said the RAF preferred the 'wing down' crosswind landing technique as more reliable than the kick straight technique used by the RAAF. He was absolutely right of course and I never used the kick straight technique again. Of course with jet transports and their podded engines one needs to be careful to avoid a pod scrape.

[Jhieminga]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

Can you give an example of an SEP that has stated cross wind limits. All the SEP I have flown have had a maximum demonstrated cross wind and that is not a limit.

I cannot. But the situation here was that the max demonstrated cross wind from the POH was translated into a limit by the school's OPS manual. So for all intents and purposes, within the confines of that school, they needed to be treated as such.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is an odd question to begin with, but we all know the reality of instructing, is that the majority of people doing it, are only there to mark time and gain some experience themselves before moving to bigger and better paying things.

Thing is though, this is a double edged sword for students. Do you fly with the relatively low hour FI who will work for a pittance, or will you accept paying significantly more for people who can actually earn a living out of it?

Then we come to those like myself who started off instructing, but then moved into the airlines and did it as a side hustle for fun. GA flying and airline flying are very different, so just because someone is a high time jet jockey, doesn't necessarily mean they will be ace of the base when it comes to little aircraft being used for little aircraft things.

If all you are doing is producing people who want to go onto fly airliners, then fine, but when people are training to fly themselves about and go into grass strips and do even crazier things like fly tail draggers etc then people who do that day in and day out are useful on that front too.

It is horses for courses and as per usual, someone's attitude matters more than their background. As long as they turn up, act professionally and care about what they are doing, then it should all be good no matter what.

[Bergerie1]

Centaurus, Like you, I was lucky enough to do nearly all my early training with experienced ex-wartime instructors. They knew what they were doing, no doubt about it, including many hours under the hood on Chipmunks recovering from unusual attitudes on limited panel using only the turn and slip, altimeter, ASI and VSI. The instructor would do some very unusual manoeuvres, including sometimes some aerobatics, and then hand over control asking you to return to stable straight and level flight. Some of the crafty ones would fly it in such a way that you would think you were upside down when actualy the right way up (and vice versa).

I think I owe my life to that basic training. How many pilots do that sort of thing today?

[MrAverage]

Pretty much everything that's been said above is why I only use mature, very experienced instructors who love what they do and not for the money or the hours. They do tend however to go on holiday a lot..........

[Hot 'n' High]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

As long as flight schools use graduates as flight instructors there will be limited experience to pass on. Those instructors may be very good at getting the next batch of students through to graduation but they may have no experience at all outside that training environment. Does that matter? If the graduate is evaluated and standardized by an airline maybe not. If the graduate buys their own aircraft to fly the family maybe it does.

This is the reality of it re Instructors and, often, as a Student, location determines where you learn to fly so you are somewhat hostage to fortune. The other element in this "lottery" is whether situations arise during your training. I had 2 really great Instructors at PPL level but, having passed, I reminded myself of that old adage "Well, H 'n' H, you've passed ........ now it's time to learn!". Often fairly low-hour people end up experiencing things they never encountered while training when they are on their own and so it's important how they approach those situations. An eg............

Maybe 20 - 30 hours post-PPL, and now flying elsewhere as I'd moved, I arrived back solo after a land-away to find the x-wind far stronger than had been forecast. I had been taught "crab approach" and then to transition to "wing-down" in the flare - and, boy, was I going to need that! After 4 attempts I got down. The first time it was a genuine "I can't land off that!!!!!!" but the second and 3rd attempts were "I can land off this ...... but I know I can do even better!". Each flare was wayyyyyy better than the last and the final approach and landing was almost as if there was no x-wind at all. I then had a bit of a battle with the CFI of the Club to convince him that my criteria for landing was "Perfection!" rather than just "I can get away with it!" as he'd had ATC moaning to him. In this case, I had the theory from training - but I'd never had to apply it in such extreme conditions before so I treated the event as sort of "On-job Training". Several years later, during my IR training, I had a similarly "sporty" landing which was easy. On roll-out, my IRI remarked "Wow! Who taught you to land like that? I really couldn't have done it much better myself!". I think he was a tad confused when I said "Actually, I taught myself!". I did explain later.

So how does the above tale feature in this Thread? Again, several years after the "4 attempts" moment I found myself as an Instructor and, at one place I worked, we actively encouraged our newly qualified PPLs to pair up and go flying together. Of course, Ops thought this was a great way of keeping people flying and paying into the Club coffers. It was also much more fun than them just droning about on their own - and they could afford to venture much further afield too by sharing the flying - such as France. But, most importantly, we Instructors felt it was a brilliant way for the new PPLs to double their chances of experiencing these "out of the ordinary" events - and to benefit from that experience. Even if it wasn't their leg ...... they'd be part of it and take away things from it.

So the moral is, yes, you are often hostage to fortune with your Instructor; but it's how you approach your flying afterwards which is also so important.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by Bergerie1

Centaurus, Like you, I was lucky enough to do nearly all my early training with experienced ex-wartime instructors. They knew what they were doing, no doubt about it, including many hours under the hood on Chipmunks recovering from unusual attitudes on limited panel using only the turn and slip, altimeter, ASI and VSI. The instructor would do some very unusual manoeuvres, including sometimes some aerobatics, and then hand over control asking you to return to stable straight and level flight. Some of the crafty ones would fly it in such a way that you would think you were upside down when actualy the right way up (and vice versa).

I think I owe my life to that basic training. How many pilots do that sort of thing today?

I had a rather elderly RAF Jet Provost QFI do that to me, except that after flying a sequence of aerobatics whilst I was under the hood and looking down, iaw his brief for the IRT, he gave me back control halfway around a barrel roll, ie perfectly inverted. The turn and slip was perfectly centred and we were at 1G. As the altimeter showed a decrease I gently “raised” the nose, which made it rapidly worse. I pulled harder to stop the altimeter unwinding then realised that we were approaching almost vertically nose down. Without an AI I decided the best recovery at that stage was pull as close to the aircraft G limit that I could, 6.75 iirc (well, as he said, recover with minimum height loss…).

The QFI’s head then suddenly dropped forwards and he went to sleep! He was completely blacked out. As I looked across the cockpit I saw his chin was on his chest. My immediate thought was that he was messing about, but he wasn’t. My next thought was that I’d just failed my IRT! I quickly recovered back to a positive climb and after a few seconds he came round, twitching a little. He then became fully compos mentis, looked at the aircraft instruments, saw we were climbing nicely and I was surprised and relieved when he said “Fine, now let’s recover back to base for an ILS!”

All the way back I was still sure I must have failed, but everything else went well and he never mentioned the episode in the debrief so neither did I! I passed.

[blind pew]

I had my flying selection at the same college as Bergerie but 4 years after he graduated. The instructor was very good but the syllabus was without taxying and I was unsure of which way the rudder pedals operated having read Kermodes flight without formula..I did well as I was the only one to be shown and to try aerobatics but come day three I lifted the tail rather abruptly which I was unable to control with rudder so I reversed it nearly taking out a 4x8ft marker board the cherokee landing adjacent to us. I did have a trouble landing as there was a dip followed by a hump which I continually flew into but after a rollocking he twigged I wasn't looking at the horizon..something that I was to replicate on jets.
My next lot of flying was with a flying club founded by a scrap metal merchant with mainly assistant instructors..one got into airline flying but destroyed a couple of darts and spun an aircraft in; the other was a Walt who ended up in the CAA and was responsible for the prosecution of Glen Stewart which led to his suicide. I got into a PIO on my first solo as I hadn't been taught what to do in a bounced landing and was told do not do more than one circuit. Basically a useless pair which led me to becoming an instructor after I joined BEA.
My hamble experience was marred by two instructors who couldn't teach forced landings, another who was
petrified of aerobatics including spinning plus a mentality of hiding incidents which continued into the airline. What happened before I joined was an air traffic controller resigning because of the dangerous procedures which led to the death of two cadets plus two of more coursemates had a mid air which they survived..the investgator was in the same squadron as the guilty instructor so he wasnt blamed..nowt changes.
In the airline I got a loan and did a rating under Joan Hughes...what a pilot and instructor..my test was with an ex RAF current BOAC captain whose briefed you won't get a Cherokee into a spin..after a couple orf turns each way we went back to Blackbushe and he said give my regards to Joan.
I got checked out on a tiger moth by two airline mates..one was brilliant the other nervous.
After I lost my medical I eventually got into gliding and like light aviation there are good and bad..one of the stupid things is the CAS require a trail lesson and not a baptism in the air as the frogs call it with the syllabus requiring a stall demonstration..and if you didnt do it you could be prosecuted! BUT even worse was the winch instruction ...having had a fight in my english club regarding the dangers of what they were teaching I quit but was already instructing in ireland where I turned down becoming the CFI (I was flying in the alps a lot of felt I should be there most of the year). We had a couple of tug accidents which you could put down to the tugmaster,
I dropped a glider off at Gransden a couple of years later and read that there had been another two winch fatalities so I wrote a letter to the gliding mag titled "accident. Xxxxx or culpable homicide" with a detailed analysis of what was wrong and how it should be changed..Ignored so I sent similar to the big boss who also ignored me but I met him the following week at Biscester and said that if you didn't change the teaching and I appeared at an inquest the association would cease to exist..a few months later it was changed and the ten year stats show an accident reduction of 50% whilst a french cfi recently said how the brits are the best at winching.
Back onto the subject I failed my final check on the VC10 and was given one for an hour to play with at Stansted with an early Hamble graduate training captain..I learnt the square root of eff all and on my second or third roation with a check into Beirut I the skipper said let go of the stick..the aircraft pitched and he said you aren't effing trimming it. He enquired of the base instructor with another expletive and he tecommended another check..the VC 10 trimmed to a centre neutral rather than conventionally to the position you held the stick. (I had been off sick for more than a month).
Has it changed..doubt it as paragliding instruction varied a huge amount - there is so much to learn and a couple of years barely scrathes the surface.
Best one was an ex luftwaffe starfighter pilot along with Bergerie's school mate who went onto Concorde, competition aerobatics then paragliding.

[Centaurus]

I had a rather elderly RAF Jet Provost QFI do that to me, except that after flying a sequence of aerobatics whilst I was under the hood and looking down, iaw his brief for the IRT, he gave me back control halfway around a barrel roll, ie perfectly inverted. The turn and slip was perfectly centred and we were at 1G. As the altimeter showed a decrease I gently “raised” the nose, which made it rapidly worse. I pulled harder to stop the altimeter unwinding then realised that we were approaching almost vertically nose down. Without an AI I decided the best recovery at that stage was pull as close to the aircraft G limit that I could, 6.75 iirc (well, as he said, recover with minimum height loss…).
Good story Shy Torque. I had an almost identical experience except this was a dual Vampire. It was an instrument rating test. I was told to close my eyes. The instructor quite gently rolled inverted while pointing the aircraft towards an area of low visibility. I tried to peek outside during the manoeuvre then got disorientated. I pulled through while trying to recover on instruments and we went into a screaming dive. The instructor took over and recovered to level flight after we had lost several thousand feet.

He handed control back to me saying "Have another go, and this time don't try to look outside." This time the recovery was successful. I will be forever grateful for his actions - thanks for everything Flight Lieutenant Jim Rhind - RAF exchange pilot with RAAF Central Flying School.

[Manwell]

Considering the general agreement displayed in your comments, is there a forum that allows experienced pilots to pass on their hard won experience to casualties of this system?

[BoeingDriver99]

In a reasonably similar vein; I started with a large airline and then moved on. I’ve now worked for over five airlines all over the world. I still have many friends in the original airline who are now experienced line pilots, TRIs, TRES and senior managers.

None of them have ever worked for another airline, on another type of aircraft, in another region, under another regulatory authority, with another set of SOPs. What is interesting to observe in conversation is how much they “drink the Kool-Aid” - they don’t know what they don’t know and 100% faithfully believe that their operation is the best and only way to operate an airline/aircraft. Whenever I touch on how other operators operate they are quite often dumbfounded - not curious but more gobsmacked.

‘Tis very amusing to see how consistent it is.

BD

edit to add: the original operation is excellent but one can always learn from others - how to do as much as how not to do things…

[Pilot DAR]

is there a forum that allows experienced pilots to pass on their hard won experience to casualties of this system?

Yes! You're here!

There is an incredible wealth of wisdom and experience here. We have such a great cross section of pilots here, with so much to offer. It's just a matter of asking. You'll find a pretty fair balance of responses - the wise members here want to share their knowledge.

The key is that the askers need to consider the value of the information that they receive as an answer, as much as the source. I have known many [mere] PPL's, who with their lifetime of serious recreational flying, particularly on odd types were a wealth of wisdom. And, if in doubt, PM a poster. I have never been disappointed with a PM discussion, when I wanted to keep things out of the forefront.

I have learned (sometimes the embarrassing way), that a license, or letters after your name, are not the end of your education!

[Manwell]

You're probably right, Pilot DAR. I just haven't found much discussion here that goes against accepted wisdom, as dictated by formal pilot education.

For instance, I asked an old ex airline Chief Flight Instructor how he scans instruments, and he said he just looks at them! At that stage, accepted wisdom was to scan radially from the AI to other instruments related to the maneuver being performed, but he basically broadened his focus to see them all at once without focusing on any specifically. After that revelation, I taught students basic IF by getting them to do wingovers on instruments, so they had to broaden their focus, and fly using power and attitude, rather than performance flying, and it worked.

Another example was to improve landings by getting the student to fly circuits without landing. Instead, flying along the runway low and slow before going around. Eventually, they learned better control at landing speed, and smoother landings were achieved under control when the stated objective was to prevent the aircraft from touching down, rather than landing.