U.S. Trained Flight Insructors
 

I cannot seem to find the pleasant messages that talked about U.S. trained Private Pilots, and the subsequent tirade about training here. My only question is, if training here is so poor, why is the accident/incident rate not any higher than that of Europe?

------------------

Hundreds of reasons including but not exclusively, useage patterns, weather, airspace characteristics etc etc.

WWW

"US Trained" - perhaps this is an oxymoron?? Like "Female Intuition" or "Fun Run"??

There is more to flying an aeroplane than avoiding a crash and, therefore, becoming a statistic. Perhaps it is pertinent that FAA instructors ,on the whole, do not understand the importance of learning to understand how their aeroplane flies.

I have just taught, for the first time, the concept of 'attitude' to a FAA instructor who has over 1000 hrs 'dual given'. God help his previous students when the going gets tough cos it's a sure bet their previous instruction won't!

Rolling C. - we may have disagreed in the past, but I'm absolutely 100% per cent in agreement with you on this!! The poor ex-USA PPLs I've checked had never heard of flight by reference to attitude. 'Lookout, Attitude, Instruments' was a total new dawn to them!! Did you find similar difficulties with an inability to teach Descending 2?? Particularly the difference between descending and descending to a fixed touchdown reference point??

Ahhh - BEagle, now you're talking sense! Descending 2, of course, has little to do with the approach to land. However, if Bloggs cannot grasp the importance of PWR=ROD and CC=IAS there is no hope left in the world and we'll all end up off the end of the runway. G'day Bruce!!

Thanks. But I recall getting an enormous chewing out by A Certain Standardisation Unit From Sunny Scampton for NOT intro'ing the rather tetchy Bloggs-pretender in the other seat to 'point and power' after we got back to the aerodrome at the end of Desc2!! What I wanted to say was that, as well as never having been taught to fly by reference to visual attitudes, my 'US-trained' PPLs hadn't apparently been taught any technique at all for the maintenance of the final approach and selection of the touchdown point!! I guess they just did things by rote!! Not wanting to broach the subject of navigation with you again, but I've now heard of a 'US-trained' PPL whose navigation training consisted of being flown from one aerodrome to another and then being told "Just do it like that tomorrow on your solo!!".
How did they EVER get to the moon??

Ahhh love is in the air. So The PPL's were not very intelligent. I understand from speaking to European pilots that things are very difficult there. Is it really the same for U.S. trained (sorry!) Commercial pilots and A.T.P.'s? Maybe it is just our accent...

No the PPLs were not unintelligent. And no, it's not your accent (except for the rambling verbosity interspersed with errs and sirs on the RT), it's your general instructional standards, it seems.

I don't want to turn this thread into a CFS standardisation seminar but....

The skill that is taught in Desc 2 is that of co-ordinating left and right hands to establish a constant descent path. That descent path may not be the correct one for the approach to a runway and, therefore, the 'approach' is not pertinent at this stage. However, having taught the essential skill, it is perfectly acceptable, nay important, to teach the next step - achieving a specific descent path (that appropriate to a runway approach)- on return to the airfield.

It is the failure of instructors to teach that very important final step which results in so many poorly controlled approaches and, consequently, poorly executed landings.

The other clear difference between our understandings is that, in my day (voice goes wavery and walking stick is waved), pilots of both Chipmunks and Bulldogs did not use point & power on the approach. The relative merits of the two approach techniques is, however, another matter and definitely not one for this thread.

That explains things!! We most definitely were expected to teach 'point and power' in the Bulldog and Chipmunk. Others disagreed about the wisdom of this, but we did as we were told....and it worked fine!! Still does in the PA28!! But do they teach ANY technique in the USA??

Gently boys, I thought we were all in this together. Which still goes harks back to the original question I had, why is it that the accident rate is no higher, or even less than it is in Europe? Needless to say, we have all had incidents with incompetent pilots. Still it behooves us as professionals to be vigilant (yes, here too). It appears that most of the complaints so far are simply about a lack of experience in the operating environment that you are all talking about.

Ahhhhh, Bulldogs. Now there's a lovely aeroplane.

WWW

Anybody heard a rumour that the RAF Bulldogs will be sold off for around 40k a piece next year? Sounds cheap, I'd love to be in a syndicate...

WWW

The Bulldog is an excellent military trainer - but would have severe economic limitations as a privately owned aircraft. Expensive CSU and VP propeller, relatively high fuel consumption and only 2-seats, small-ish fuel tanks.......and if someone damaged that lovely clear canopy, where would you ever get another? But if you've got loadsamoney, it would be fun to have your own. Unless 'Arfur Daley' from the MoD flogged you one with no fatigue left and big holes in the panel where the UHF, VOR/DME and Transponder once were - and only the MoD would install an ILS with no Marker receiver and a DME that was always slaved to the VOR/ILS receiver no matter what. But despite all that, it's still a vastly better aerobatic machine than the wretched T67 - which has a roll rate only marginally better than an Airbus!! Best bet if you've got a spare £40K might be to look for a nice Europa.......or a Pitts??

I know I'm restoring a relic thread, but having just joined you all I feel that this is one subject that I must comment on!

US trained pilots are (generally) s**t!

navigation training appears to be:
1/turn on GPS
2/hit goto
3/match the numbers

Radio work seems to be:
1/bloke in the tower is your best buddy
2/talk to him as if he is
3/speak really really fast
4/he knows where you are.....you don't need to tell him!

landings?????

more like arrivals!!!

and brakepads must be cheap in the US....every yank pilot i have flown with wears them out taxiing!!

anyway....have a nice day....and make sure you stop before the runway does!

You are just jealous that our accident rate is lower and we have Elvis.

Actually I was surprised to learn that you received training at all!

I always thought that a US pilot received his/her licence after eating at DENNYS for 5 nights straight!

Denny's has unlimited refills of coffee. I find in all my discussions with pilots from Europe it always comes down to fact that you all insist we have lower standards. I say they are just different. The volume of traffic and the size of this country dictate it. At the same time, we are remarkably safe. Despite your misgivings, the results speak for themself. Denny's also is open 24/7.

[This message has been edited by dicko (edited 07 December 1999).]

It has been my experience and observation that British pilots are !!!!! aviatiors.
And 'class-e', you must be a frustrated, low-hour ****** to believe what you put in your thread.
Over and out

anyone thought to tell JFK's family this?

It's my experience that the US licence is not worth the piece of paper its written on.

I did more licence conversions for International pilots than I care to admit and I found the quality of US pilot to be despicable. Like class-e
- I often questioned if licences were issued based on peoples ability to recite the ingredients of a Big Mac.

Dicko, you said:

What a stupid thing to say. Your standards are different - and they are lower. This is an undeniable fact! The only way to appreciate how pathetic your standards are is to go and evaluate the way things are done in countries such as Australia and the UK.


The Australian and European ATPL can take up to three months of study. The FAA ATP can be done in 2 days! The PPL licence theory can be done in the States in 2 days when it takes the rest of the world 2 or 3 weeks. US instructors can get their (virtually unlimited) Instructor ticket in 5 hours when it takes 55 in Australia. In the US you can teach Multi Engine IFR on your first day on the job but in Australia you have to have a minimum of 750 Instructing hours, pass a series of Instructor Upgrades and then do a thorough course in Multi Engine instructing before you are allowed to teach more advanced sequences. Need I continue?

The (presumably experienced) Conversion candidates that I have helped overcome their inherent inadequacies have had the knowledge of a low time VFR pilot and the skills to match.

I don't blame the very capable individuals for the sloppy way in which they fly. I blame the system in the states which has lost all regulatory control over the way in which things are done...and this is due in part to the huge number of people that fly there. We have such (relatively) small numbers here that fly it's easier to maintain a high standard and ensure conformity and control.



[This message has been edited by Swamp (edited 09 December 1999).]

Thank you for quoting my stupid remark and then concluding with exactly what I have said. Why do so many people come here to fly? Almost nobody can afford your great training. Even our GA accident rate is lower. As for Mr. Kennedy, like Lady Di, beautiful people die horrible deaths.

Do you really think the only thing that creates a highly skilled and safety conscious pilot is by making the ATPL ridiculously difficult, not to mention expensive, to obtain?

British pilots are just pissed off because in America an eager pilot can gain their licences and a large ammount of flying experience in the time it takes you to pass your bl**dy navs and techs.

I have flown in the states for the last two years, accumulating 2000 hours instructing and flying charter in twin pistons. I am in the UK now wrapping up my ATPL and it disgusts to think that I am in the same boat as 250 hour pilots who would **** themselves if they ended up on the inside of a cloud with an empty right seat.

Agree with some of your sentiments - but the unfortunate fact of life is that there is an all-pervading sense of 'I had it tough, so shall ye' about the dogged insistence on utter trivia so beloved of the CAA's exams. PLUS - you'll never know what you got wrong in the exam (except at PPL level!!). But that means that they could never safely prosecute you for anything as you could claim that you asked for a debrief on your exams and were refused one. As the passmark is 70%, the other 30% could be totally unknown to you!! But it'll be worse under JARs as the exams have little to do with practicalities and more with obscure theory.
One of the many acknowledged reasons for people going to the USA is that the fuel costs make things much cheaper. In the UK we're charged VAT and excise duty on fuel, so it's very expensive!! The solution is to cut fuel costs, encourage BASIC training to an industry standard in the UK and to accept FAA-level 'knowledge' to reduce costs - but not to criticise too harshly those who have been trained already from hours building in the USofA.
Now, just what was the system of lights required to be displayed at the mooring position of a tethered balloon? And how wide are the stripes on the streamers below a tethered kite? Or the required candela for a serviceable navigation light? And when must I demonstrate lifejackets to passengers in a flying boat?? The CAA think it's oh, so important to know things like this..............!!

DICKO, you can't put a price on safety sunshine! Anyhow, with Aussie's low dollar value the price of flying here is comparable with the US.

By the way, our accident rate is far lower than yours.

You know....JFK is a fine example of what the US school can churn out.You should all be more like him......especially now!

JFK Jr. went to Flight Safety Intl.(FSI) the largest flight training operation in the world, they even train our military pilots.
class-e sounds like a very cross pilot, needs a vaction in Florida! Shall we meet at Denny's? As for me, I am looking into the Minogue Sisters flying school in Australia.

All this slagging off of other countries' training systems is a bit sad, the yanks do things their way and there's a lot of good things in their system too. And the Brits often have their head up the proverbial (one myself). But one thing is for certain, there seems to be schools out there who train and examine foreign students to a poorer standard than their own if they think they're not going to exercise their licences locally.

No disrespect but Aussie trained orientals are the worst I've seen. Time and time again. We all know Australian standards are good but it seems there are some shonky operators down there.

Let's leave Australian trained Orientals out of the argument. They are our secret shame.

Ever tried giving a foreign taxi driver directions in a strange place in a noisy taxi in 35 degree heat? Now try teaching an unfamiliar and illiterate Asian how to fly.

RubberDog!!!!, there are shonky operators everywhere and always will be. At least our shonky operators have standards.

Rubberdog!!!!.....you are right....ozzie trined orientals are pretty bad.....as bad as US trained orientals....uk trained orientals and oriental trained orientals.(try saying that one in a hurry)(sorry..hully)!

Does this mean we can start on the asians now?


[This message has been edited by class-e (edited 10 December 1999).]

KEEP SMILING :) :) :)

[This message has been edited by class-e (edited 10 December 1999).]

Interesting...

JJ

dicko, I used to work for FSI at Vero- I didn't instruct JFK Jr, but I was there when he was learning there. They are an excellent organisation, but they aren't perfect; I've posted before about what I think are some of their blind spots.
In general, I'm not a fan of PPL students at a big commercial school- there is a risk that they will miss something because the instructors are used to cpl studes, and are expecting to be able to put it in at a later stage.
I am NOT saying that is what happened to JFK, just that it is a possibility in general.

There is a reason FAA certified pilots hate "Nigel's". For some odd reason, the CAA thinks you learn to fly by reading a book. If that was the case, my landings would always be great, but they are not. I understand, the CAA still requires knowledge of Omega/VLF, despite the fact the system is dead. Who cares about doppler radar, ever seen one?

Aviation is a aquired skill, much like carpentry, one learns by doing.

So, there is a difference is philosophies between the EU and the US way, but the end result is really the same, some people make good pilots some do not, regardless of citizenship, gender or which country they learned in.

I am so tired of hearing the same old story from the same people.

[This message has been edited by Diesel8 (edited 12 December 1999).]

Interesting Diesel8, not everyone in the UK, or even Europe is anywhere near being a 'Nigel', I would be careful who you accuse of being one! Last time I looked the CAA did not say you become a pilot by reading a book, there is as much practical flying in our syllabus as in yours. We just believe a solid background knowledge ensures a better understanding of flight. (Although maybe it goes a wee bit too far in some regards.)

Omega/VLF has now been dropped from the material tested at ATPL level in the UK. Doppler? Plenty of examples I can think of in every day use.

Dear Turbo Prop,

I think perhaps I was being overly fastidious. It was late, (early), and just got back from a trip. My apologies, however, the gist of the comment still stands. The US and EU has two different philosophies, is training superior in one place or another? I do not think so, the CAA pushes academics and the FAA practical experience. Both include and exclude certain skills or task.

On a professional level, is there such a big difference between the two. I really do not think so. I do not think EU ATPL's are superior to FAA ATP's, nor the other way around, the accident statistics certainly does not support such a finding.

This may sound silly, but in the end we are all pursuing the same dreams and aspirations, so am somewhat tired of this argument, concerned "the better pilot".

Just out of pure curiosity, honestly, tell me how you use Doppler radar everyday. I have flown my fair share of old airplanes and have never seen one, much less used one, so just inquisitive!!

At FSI, the FAA instructors hated us (the Limeys) because we each earned as much as any 3 of them (or maybe 4, I was never sure)!

One thing is clear that having a EU ATPL groundschools done you are most certainly better prepared for airline flying that your counterpart in US with a single written, which I took without ever opening a book ( Got 98% ).
Most of the pilots I have worked with have never even seen a ICAO flightplan form let alone now how to fill one.
While in EU advanced meteorology, navigation and airlaw is included in the frozen ATPL courses. Here it is customary for the airline to provide you with that training when you need it, say before you move to fly international trips.
Regardless, I find qualified pilots on both sides of the pond as well as persons that should have absolutely no business in the cockpit.

JJ

Captain Homesick the first thing that I thought of during the JFK incident was how his FSI instructor must have felt and how they would have to remove all their promotional catalogues/flyers with JFK Jr. on it.

We have Limey Instructors here too, almost all of whom want to fly here. Is the UK/EU job market bad? Maybe they are concerned that the standards home are too stringent. Or maybe they just like our girls.