multiple-instructor system or single instructor system some consideration
 

Hello Gentlemen,

I recently read a very interesting book that I bought on Amazon: "Flying in Africa" written by a great aviator, FI and founder of, probably, the most famous flying school in South Africa: Jim Davis. The book is about his life and his experiences as Aviator. I really recommend it, I found it a really pleasant book. Through its pages I learned a lot, and offered me a better comprehensions of some aspects of flying I just studied at school.
In its pages there is a sentence that made me think about the times of my training : "...with a multiple-instructor system, normally means that none of them will be really interested in your progress - you are not "their" pupe. It's like a bunch or artists all trying to paint a single masterpiece. It will be a mess, and none of them will want to put their name on it." ["Flying in Africa, True Stories (Volume 2)" by Jim Davis, Kindle Edition Pos.2807].
I always had the impression that having a single instructor is better then a multiple-instructor systems because flying errors can be easily detected and corrected during the following missions despite other negative aspects this is a big plus for a single instructor system, The training is more lets say "personal", there is much more involvement in this single instructor as Jim says .
I'm not a FI so this is just my opinion based on my experience when I was a a "pupe" aviator and I would be very happy to hear from you gentlemen, what is your opinion about the best instructing system, opinion based on your own experience when you were "pupe" or after that as FI.

I wish you a great day and looking forward to read your opinions and experiences.

My 5 cents:

>80% training with one instructor
Phase progress checks with another instructor.

Works well.

Having multiple instructors can work fine, IF they are sharing notes, and working to a common learning plan, with regular cross-briefs.

Every attempt I've ever seen where the student was trying to manage this themselves ended up in a complete mess, and where instructors were simply allocated according to availability with little other thought, not much better.

yx's approach seems sound enough to me.

G

I agree with you guys

Single instructor to solo, after that if the school is properly run there can be advantages to flying with a different instructor to get different perspectives

Every student should still have a lead instructor who is responsible for them

Primary instructor and stage/phase checks with chief instructor or asst. chief.
Different instructor for each training phase, Private, Instrument, Commercial, Multi engine.

The reality is it can't always be achieved. Example:

Student asks to fly every Sunday, so he/she is put with a Sunday only instructor. After 5 hours requests to fly on multiple days per week to progress faster, ends up with who is available on each day.

We aim for one instructor for the early exercises. By the time nav has started it can end up as much as three different. Using young restricted instructors, fresh out of the course, can work as one to one because often they will fly whenever asked. Unfortunately they not only need supervision but also lots of coaching on how to actually carry out the tasks!

We only work with very carefully chosen "mature" and extremely experienced folk who know how to work with each other both for the student's benefit and for many other reasons..

Some years ago whilst conducting Flying Scolarships I had to send 10 students on their first solos over a 2 day period. Each student had been trained by a single instructior, but as we had 3 assistant instructors, they could not authorise fitst solos. I planned to fly a single sortie with each student before sending them solo. It became quite apparent how different their instruction had been and individual instructor characteristics showed themselves in the way the students performed. This brought it home to me that a little bit of exposure to another instructor is not a bad thing.

More recently I have had to sort out a number of student who were spending a lot of time in the circuit and not getting near to solo. The cause was the same in all cases, poor coverage of early exercises, into the circuit too soon with instructors who clearly tried to teach everything in the circuit.

Standardisation in flying clubs is difficult to acheive. Recenty a club member stated he had flown with his grandson who was learning to fly, it appeared he arrived at the airfield and was collected from the gate and taken straight to the aircraft, he flew a sortie and was taken back to the gate. No briefing, no debriefing, no use of radio, and no exposure to any planning materal. Maybe the result of Covid, but a clear indication the school were only interested in income from aircraft hire.

Whopity raises an interesting point about the importance of ensuring that the early exercises before the circuits are well taught, as they are the foundation to successful flying.

The critical part of these early exercises is being able to select the appropriate ATTITUDE and TRIM.
Getting this fundamental skill across the new instructors will only be achieved if their FIC courses were well taught.

Standardisation at clubs invariably falls under the remit of the CFI, as a Standards Dept requires the economy of scale found at Commerical ATOs.
Suitable progress checks with students will invariably show up the quality of training imparted by the junior FIs. Easier said than done with all the financial pressures in these non normal times.

‘Senior’ FIs need standardisation just as much as ‘junior’ ones. More so in many cases.

I've seen many "Senior" FIs perform poorly on a FI test when compared to an ab-initio who has just completed the course, another reflection of the training they receieved. You can't practice what you don't know.

Well, we can find all the excuses that we like but in my experience poor instruction is simply down to laziness. "I've done it this way for years, I'm not going to change now" is another excuse for lack of effort. These types of instructor probably haven't done a pre-flight brief for years so will struggle to do so. Anyone whose attended an instructor seminar or two will no doubt be shocked by the inability to brief demonstrated by some so called experienced instructors. I've employed over the years many 1st class young instructors who taught well and were always ready to listen.

On the subject of poor training. I remember well a conversation with the late Ron Campbell whilst standing with some others at a bar. He had recently filled in at a local club as a holiday CFI. He came to fly with a chap for a club currency check. He said the fella he was so appalling that he asked him who had taught him to fly: "you sir" he replied proudly, through the cloud of smoke, "25 years ago". (Ron like many of his generation puffed at their pipes throughout most sorties - quite something in a C150). Ron's point was that it had taught him a salutary lesson about the reality of things.

When doing my IR we had contradictory information from the morning sim instructor to the afternoon instructor. By the end of the week, one had left.

I had 13 different instructors during my PPL course, did me no harm other than i realise now, non of them could teach PFL's.

I remember being taught PFLs aged 17 at Carlisle and this ‘1000ft’ area on base. I found it very hard to just pin point just where it actually was.

It wasn’t until I was taught high glide circuits at 1500’ QFE that the penny dropped. Select idle power abeam the threshold (start of the field) and use sight line method to determine the angle of bank in the turn. The 1000ft point then naturally occurs. Then start from 2000ft at the upwind end followed by 2500’ crosswind.

The only difference between my PPL (CSE Aviation) and FIC course was aim 1/3 of the way into the field and use flap to bring the touchdown point towards you.
My FIC course at Southampton with ex Hamble instructors was aim 1/2 way into the field.
Presumably Cumbrian fields are longer than down south....😎

What was interesting is that the FIC teaching was identical to my PPL course (apart from the PFL aiming point). Probably due to ex A2s from CFS influencing the teaching.

Same was true joining as a junior (self improver CAP54) on the flying staff at BAeFC, PIK.
The Standards work up very much déjà vu.