Standardisation ?
 

How do you tackle the PPL holder who is adding further qualifications to his licence (eg night/imc rating) who has flown with several different organisations (including the UAS!) and seems to have every counter arguement imaginable when you make a comment on his operation.

Example:-

1. Starts to do the pre start chex from memory and when I ask him why he does not use the checklist tells me that a previous instructor/school had told him its safer to use memory. We than start with the fuel selector off and the engine stops as we start to taxi (I decided to let this scenario develop!). I then suggested it might have been better to use the checklist!

2.Taxing out to night fly at GA airfielfd with minimal apron/taxi lighting so he, quite rightly, uses the landing light but then leaves it on for the power check (I asked him to switch it off) and then wants to leave it on when at the holding point with an aircraft landing with potential to affect night vision of landing pilot. When I commented on his he told me that previous instructors had told him to leave the landing light on AT ALL TIMES.

Its not so much the specific issue of the landing light etc. but how you deal with issues such as this without appearing to be "nitpicking". Any ideas? How do you get pilots who seem very entrenched in one way of doing everything to use some original thought?

When I fly with someone else's student, I often find myself suggesting different ways of doing things. I always try to point out (at the time if appropriate, or else in the debrief) that my way isn't necessarilly better than the other way, it's just a different way..... the student, being an intelligent human being, can listen to my reasons, listen to other instructors' reasons, and make up his own mind which method suits him best.

Not sure how well this would work with your student, who sounds (from your description) to be obstinate, and who also appears to be plain wrong in both your examples. But it might seem less confrontational than simply telling him that he's plain wrong?

If that doesn't work, you could try the other extreme, and be more confrontational. When he is captain, he can run the flight the way he likes, but since you are captain for this flight, the flight will be done your way, and that includes using checklists and turning the landing light off whenever stationary.

Please let us know how this turns out - I'm interested!

FFF
-------------

Ah but if students didn't argue with you how would you ever find out what your fellow instructors teach?

Standardisation = finding out how different you all are

Seriously though I find that when I come up with something that a student or PPL I'm flying with hasn't heard before, they're usually interested and appreciative.

How can it be wrong to have the landing light on at the hold.
In 300odd hours of night flying i have always had the landing light on at the hold, it is all to easy not to notice the aircraft creeping forward because the brake has not been applied sufficiently by student. Next thing prop smacks a taxi light.

Even when on final i always found the airfield apron flood lights more of a distraction especially when chucking down with rain than the aircraft holding.

To get a point over demonstrate what happens if a particular procedure is not followed.

Have had many a Pa28 pilot, let alone student have simulated engine failure due to the elec. pump not being switched on!

BEB
Depends on where you are mate!
Have you ever landed at night at a small strip such as Andrewsfield or Elmset? places like that do not have apron lights,
unlike say Southend or Norwich which you can see 40 miles away.
At the small strip you have the basic runway lights, Red /Green end/ threshold lights, VASI(maybe) and the airfield beacon only. (and that’s on a good day when its all servicable)
Its a hard job even to see the runway from downwind.
A landing or taxi light pointing up the approach can be very distracting and the other night caused me to goaround from the round out as I was blinded by a taxiing C152.
I try and teach a 'common sense' approach and awareness to what is going on around you. At small strips the taxiway can be very close to the active runway, so any A/c taxiing to the hold will need his lights on as we do not have lit taxiways. However then its good manners to stop and switch the main lights off when a landing aircraft is on short finals or to turn away from the approach line. The approaching A/C can see your nav lights/beacon and you have 2 way radio contact so there is no risk.

FFB, I think your specific problem lies with the fact that there is not only is a lack of standardisation in training organisations, there is also a lack of standardisation amongst the students! Sounds like you are trying to teach a smart@rse.

They pop up occaisionally, even in heavily standardised organisations like the RAF. Letting him make mistakes after he's told you what others have tought him is the best policy IMHO. After a while, his slow progress will hurt his wallet and he may decide to follow your advice.

There is of course the danger that he may give up. Some may throw up their hands in horror at this notion, but in my experience this level of 'smart@rsedness' goes hand in hand with overconfidence. I had experience of once chap like this. We persevered with him and got him through his training, and eventually he joined out aircraft syndicate - despite my protestations. He subsequently proved me correct by crashing our aeroplane!

Use of checklists in simple a/c ... yes/no? now there's another one that could be argued ;)

SS

Standards
 

FireflyBob

I'm sure that you have raised this issue and now shortstripper has raised the use of checklists but on another thread the use of flaps in turns is argued - sum up to be not right or wrongs but part of the need for 'teaching' and not simply 'instructing'.

What are we teaching in all of this - I would hope an awareness of safety.

A standard is not always the best way in every situation but will always work and keep you out of trouble. As with the 'Standard Stall Recovery', not always the correct method for a 'type' but will work on just about all. The recovery technique for a particular type may mean disaster if applied to another different aeroplane.

Similarly the use of lights at night comes under 'good airmanship' and fireflybob is correct in my opinion and the best reasons have been amplified by orionsbelt. All professions have their standards which save a lot of wasted time and allow everyone to get on with the job without circular arguements - such as; "this what I do". "another Instructor told me something else", however in my experience very rarely true when you bottom it, it can often be what they prefer to remember was said - usually requiring the least amount of effort. So, don't fall for it!

For everyone else who disagrees - re-invent the wheel at your peril!

I said, of FFB's student:Well, if nothing else, I've learnt never to make such sweeping statements, because now others have come to the defence of the student in both scenarios - BigEndBob agrees with him re use of the landing light, and ShortStripper agrees re use of the checklist! :rolleyes:

Well, I will do exactly what I'd like my students to do - take on board all opinions, and then decide which works best for me. I still maintain that lights should be off when not moving (especially if heads are inside the aircraft, e.g. for power checks, when you are not looking outside to see who you are blinding), and that checklists should be used when on the ground because the benefits (less chance of missing something) far outweight the downsides (practically none, except maybe a few extra seconds and an extra piece of paper to carry with you), but you guys are quite entitled to your opinions too! :ok:

FFF
--------------

FFF,

I'm not against checklists as such ... just sweeping statements :)

However, on checklists .... I always seem to miss things when using a checklist that I don't when I ... well, don't! I have two hands, one holds the checklist, and the other donates a finger to mark progress down the list. The problem is that when said finger is removed to switch a switch or something, it invariable looses its place when it comes back to the list? Probably just me ... but it shows a checklist is not beyond the realms of missed items. In a simple aircraft, you can work around the cockpit, use mnemonics or just remember. I personally think checklists are best suited to two pilot operations where one reads and one checks. Mind you, I've not flown more complex types and I can see a checklist might be useful until familiar.

SS

Standards
 

There you go!

A Check List is just that. not a jobs list.

One massive advantage of checks by memory is that you do not know what you haven't checked and therefore a euphoric sense of a job well done remains.

You should complete a section then refer to the CHECK list for that section to ensure all is done.

A sloppy approach to the use of a standard does not undermine the value of it.

At my club we advocate the use of mnemonics for checks as there is little room in a typical GA trainer for a checklist, and we believe that it is better for the student to know his checks rather than to try and follow a checklist. Even in a bigger aircraft there is minimal room, and such aircraft are usually always 2-crew. How would the single pilot fare? In the RAF single crew always had to learn the checks. Comments?

Thanks for that Homeguard :hmm:

Nice to know it's just that I'm sloppy. Better remember that there is only ONE way to do things right and that's to follow what's written on a bit of paper. The great thing about following a checklist is the euphoric sense of a job well done when you've completed it but missed something obvious that wasn't actually listed.

At least I'm happy to accept that one thing works for some and another for others ... but perhaps that is just undermining the value of individual intelligence ... Oh well, time for bed.

Night all :\

SS

I learned many years ago that the time you knock off your landing/taxy lights is when you are on a well lit apron and may run the risk of dazzling a marshaller if you don't. When training, it is just as important for students to learn what it is like to taxy without the aid of land/taxy lights as it is to land the a/c without them for the same reasons.

With regard to checklists the attitude these days seems to be that you use these highly detailed lists as "do lists". I believe this stems from the requirements to use such lists in commercial licence flying tests - to get students used to the use of big check lists like some big aircraft have. I have always advocated learning a checklist off by heart in a little A/C - for reasons stated above. Then if you really want to do the job correctly, you get the check list out and thumb through it quickly to ensure that you didn't forget anything. The list is then being used as a 'check' list, not a 'do' list. Forgetting an item is then much less likely.

Only one man's opinion of course. May the debate continue!

P.P.

Have any of you looked at this from the student's point of view?

For those who don't know, I'm a rotary FI(R), and have also held a PPL(A) for some years. This means I fly with f/w instructors now and then, for check rides etc. What happens? Having been doing certain things quite safely for years, I get told: "DON'T pull the carb heat there", or "You turn downwind there, not where you just did".

Now, I don't in the least mind if it's a safety issue, or even some different way of doing something that I don't know about; I'm happy to learn. But more often than not - sorry, but it's true - the instructor is on an ego trip and wants things done HIS WAY. I ask for a reason; I get told, "Because that's how it's done". Which doesn't help anybody! And I get annoyed, and disinclined to listen. And I suspect that I'm fairly normal and average in that way.

So try treating students with respect. It's not what you say, but how you say it, and even more importantly, the attitude behind it, that makes all the difference. If you say, or imply, that you're a complete know-all and God's gift to aviation and your every word should be taken as gospel, of course the student will react badly. If you just give advice, or even say, "To keep it simple, do it my way for this lesson, but I fully accept that mine may not be the only way", you might find you get a better response.

I'd now better go out and practice what I preach with the next know-all helicopter student who comes along. :)

What is needed in the organisation is a system for students to record instructor differences.

Get the students to record what the difference is and who told them to do it that way. Exaplain that it is no relection on them but it ensures that instructors can get together and decide a common approach to the issue. If it really is a case of the student making it up then they will avoid naming the instructor or the instructor will clarify their misunderstanding.

Reasons for turning off the landing light at the hold on a light aircraft;

Avoid glare for other pilots on approah or lining up from the other side;

Increase bulb life and avoid overheating (reduced cooling airflow);

Reduced drain on the battery at low RPM where the alternator having just started the aircraft after some serious cranking is doing it's best to power nav lights, radios, internal lights etc while also being required to try and charge the battery.

At night on a grass airfield the landing light will not show creep forward until a speed has been acheived........better idea not to point at anything (point between the taxi lights) in the first place.

Checklists as others have said are not procedure lists or do lists. Learn the procedure but use the checklist after to check that the essential requirements have been carried out.

Finally what does this say about the two organisations (assuming that Flying For Fun is not a sole operator/CFI in his own organisation):

Flying For Fun: Well, I will do exactly what I'd like my students to do - take on board all opinions, and then decide which works best for me.....

or

The Baron: At my club we advocate.......


Regards,

DFC

DFC,I don't know - please tell me what this says about my organisation? (No, I am not the sole operator/CFI.) The only thing I can see that it says about my organisation is that not every student who comes my way flies exactly the way I fly, or I teach my students to fly. Is there any instructor out there, at any organisation, who can say that every single student they've ever come across flies the same way??? :confused: :confused: :confused: FFB's original question indicates that this is not the case.

FFF
--------------

DFC - I agree that flying is for fun otherwise I would'nt fly. However, I believe that you should always add 'safe' first. Any comments?

The Baron,

Absolutely one should enjoy the experience. That is why we do what we do - be it work or pleasure. However, in no situation should enjoyment be at the expense of safety.

People who enjoy flying the most are often those that prepare and operate to the highest standards - not those that for example cant be bothered spending hours reading the AIP or NOTAMS Cause they are too difficult - only for their enjoyment to be spoilt cause they didn't check that there was temporary restricted airspace.

----

FFF,

Don't take it personally - it was simnply something that jumped off the page as I read your comments - something that I would make not of say in an interview!

Read my quotes again carefully...........there is no I in Team!

It may not be the case but your statement smacked of a pilot that does it his way not the organisations way!

Standardisation requires instructors to work as a team. If every instructor does it their way (even if it does suit their student) then problems are continually going to arrise.

As I said at the start - if students record differences and instructors agree a common approach then there will in time be minmal differences - or atleast no serious ones!

Regards,

DFC

Just been talking to a student who's almost finished his NPPL, at a school where he's tended to fly with three different instructors. He said he's found it useful that they did things different ways, as it gave him an insight into the different ways of doing things, and an idea of which things HAD to be done one way, and which had varying opinions etc. Another way of looking at this, perhaps? And useful for his future flying career, perhaps? Or is he non-typical student, who is exceptionally good at taking things positively?

Learning to fly is a completely new skill, and it’s easy for students to become fixated in copying their instructor’s techniques exactly. Whirlybirds comments remind me of the PPL holders I meet who tended to have been instructed predominantly by one instructor. They tend to be less open to variations of operation. More blinkered maybe. This I feel is a negative.

I am all for standardisation but am divided as to where the standardisation line should be drawn. If we take it that the basics of flying the aircraft should be as standard as possible, we are really only discussing whether non-essentially standard procedures should be so standardised. I actively make a point to all my students that they will hear different advise from different instructors. I offer my opinions and qualify them with reasoning, but stress that not everyone will teach, practice or even agree with them. I hope this results in the student realising that flying is like most other activities, i.e. there’s more than one way to skin a cat, (Non-standard cat skinning?? – scandalous) and end up like the PPL Whirly was talking about.

I also actively suggest that a student has some lessons with another instructor(s). I feel a possessive attitude over a student can reduce their ability to take advise on board from others later.

We must also remember that students can use our non-standardisation against us!! How many times have you hear ‘Fred didn’t show me to do it that way’ or ‘I have never been shown that’ – while any of the course is non-standard that will always be the case.

So, as for total standardisation, I guess I’m not for it. As for students making notes about instructors differences? Perhaps that would be no bad thing as it could highlight issues that do need correcting.

I agree that standardisation is important, but as others have said, there will always be small things which each instructor, indeed each pilot, does slightly differently.

Going back again to FFB's original post, however, his student on the occassion he was asking about was an existing PPL. He may or may not have been one of FFB's school's students - he may have been a new member who had just joined FFB's organisation for his further training. We don't know the details, FFB didn't tell us, but I'm sure we all encounter this kind of scenario fairly regularly.

So, aside from issues around standardisation within our own organisation, is it not important that we have ways of tackling pilots who come from other environments and have ways of doing things which are different to our own? Would we all agree that the appropriate technique must first of all involve deciding whether our student's techniques are safe and appropriate, and if they are, letting him get on with them (but possibly with a suggestion that he might like to consider an alternative)? And that if they are not safe or appropriate, we need a sensitive approach to changing the student's habits to something more safe and appropriate?

Seems to me like we are all agreed on this, but we have become so sidetracked by arguing something which we are all agreed on that we've forgotten to debate the original question, which is how we go about this! Let's not have this forum turn into another Rumours+News style forum, please? ;)

FFF
-----------

PS - DFC, no hard feelings, I appreciate that your comments weren't personal. Standardisation is important, I'm only emphasising lack of standardisation in this thread because that's what the thread is all about.

Standards
 

Standards


One standard that is critical; never demand something that you cannot explain. "I require it be done this way because I think it best" is not good enough.

Sometimes standards can be 'stick in the mud' and maybe 'out of date'. Things can and do change - they must. However, certain agreed standards met by everyone throughout the industry can ease the problems that started this thread.

The old Panel of Examiners to a large extent did provide a central place of arguement. Dorothy Pooleys idea of a 'Central School of Instructing' maybe has some validity in this area. It could perhaps be a college of instructors providing a central think tank without being a school in itself, providing a facility for debate to bring us all back together. I'm amazed at the disprit standards taught at the current FIC schools. Each apparently doing their own thing.

Haven't been to one yet, but surely the instructor seminars are a good place for standardisation to take place.

But dare say those providing each have there own opinions of what is standard.

I remember doing my IR test with CAA examiner. Asked him why the CAA could not produce a document from head office for candidates to standardise what is supposed to be known for passing test, eg timing in old, rumours varied from being "on track inbound for 30 sec to 15 sec" depending on which IR instructor you spoke to. His reply was "they should know (the IR instructors) what is required for their candidates to pass the test" Right!

As far as night flying i am quite happy for the student to switch off landing light when turned to look up final, at least they aren't preoccupied looking for the checklist which has fallen onto the floor in the dark! even so, a correctly aligned landing / taxi light should not be pointing up into the air.

For irregular flyers i think the checklist is essential. Once qualified the 'student' pilot may fly infrequently, this i explain to them is the reason why they have to use a checklist and i often don,t.

I was onced asked by a student "do i have to always do these checks" i said "no", "become a flying instructor and get your student to do them!":O

I think the central issue is your average PPL student should not get a say in how the aircraft is operated. You are the qualified instructor and PIC, he/she are there to learn. I politely but firmly tell all my students that at all times the aircraft will be operated my way. I always try to explain what I am doing and work hard at staying consistant. I refuse to put up with students who argue and question everything said to them. my personal tactic is to ride them hard pointing out everything they do wrong. They either get better or get lost. acquiring a reputation as a demanding instructor is not necessarily a bad thing as it tends to attract the hard working motivated students and discourage the tossers. Of course as a part time instructor who instructs for fun I have more options than a full time club instructor. The final caveat is the instructor should be able to explain everything he is doing. Unfortunately there are hours builders instructors who learn the minimum and do not make the effort to do the job right. Being a good instructor is not a function of hours in the log book it is entirely the choice of the instructor. Sorry end of rant:O

I completed my skills test last November and having looked over my log book I note I managed to make my way through 5 different instructors during my training, I dont think its a reflection on my flying !!! At least two of them went off to fly for airlines.

I really found flying with different instructors a refreshing change, there was very very little (if any) difference in what they were teaching however the key thing here is the way in which they were teaching the same subject.


I have always been told that do the checks on the ground from the check list, do the one's in the air from memory, as a newbie PPL(A) im paranoid about leaving the flaps down when I walk off to the club or taxing around with strobes lights, carb heat etc etc all on after arrival !!

OA

BigEndBob:I think that's what the CAA believe they should be for, but my experience (I've been to one only) is that they do the opposite.

The one I went to was an AOPA-run event in London. The lecturers were all fully paid-up members of the RAF-trained AOPA old boys club and spent a large part of the time arguing with other Large Egos in the audience about their pet instructing techniques. It was really frustrating to have to sit through it. I also found that they had little or no knowledge of upcoming regulatory changes affecting instructors, yet this is supposed to be another of the seminar's functions.

NS

standards
 

No doubt that the three companies; AOPA, On-Track and The Flight Training Agency put a lot of work into the seminars and do provide a reasonable package for the money. The group briefing sadly being not much more than a pantomime but a JAA requirement none the less; a lot of jolly folk working late into the night cutting out lots of complicated cardboard shapes. A good wease is to do a PowerPoint prezz and get the job of laptop operator - don't have to say a thing and make a fool of ones self that way.

It is always revealing at these events just how disprit the UK standards are applied but no less so amongst the presenters themselves. As northsouth implies, no one leaves after the two days with a singular idea of a prefered standard in anything much at all.

At one seminar a staff instructor did not mention the rudder once in his lecture 'Recovery From a Spin - defending this, "most ab-initios are so incompetent at using it" he prefered that they didn't and so, simply tells them "leave the bloody thing alone". At another seminar, a lecture on 'Achieving straight and level Flight by Sole Reference to Instruments', the rudder was not mentioned; "this briefing is to do with achieving and maintaining S&L flight by SOLE reference to the aircraft instruments". As if that made a difference and somehow the aircraft dosn't yaw in cloud.

Oh well! Lets all carry on turning up but doing our own thing until something better comes along.

I always thought a better system would be for the CAA/AOPA to produce a series of videos which could be hired from them, the instructor signing off that he had seen and taken on board whatever advice/techniques were offered. Or a number of standard lectures you had to attend.

Or internet based interactive virtual lecture.

Costs £££ i suppose....but eh the seminars cost ££££

I went to an On-Track seminar while I was doing my FIC. (I did the FIC with On-Track, and since all my instructors were at the seminar and I couldn't fly that weekend, they invited me to join them at the seminar for free.)

My opinion was that just about everyone who was there was there because they hadn't met the experience requirement for renewing the FI rating. Therefore, these are the instructors who don't come into contact with students that often. Anything which is taught or encouraged at these seminars, therefore, will never reach the vast majority of students, even if the delegates at the seminar took all the points on board.

Any thoughts???

FFF
-----------------

Being a humble student at the bottom of the aviation food chain, I hesitate to voice an opinion, but here goes anyway.

I felt sorry for the FI who posted the topic. I have flown with 6 different instructors due to weather, holidays, available slots etc. Personally, I have found there are differencies in the way some things are taught. My attitude as a student is to fly the way my intsructor tells me to during a particular lesson and then after I'm back on the ground question my instructor about differencies I had noticed and ask him why he does it this way instead of that way. Then I go home and evaluate the different techniques and decide which one I prefer for myself and (more importantly) why.

We are always told as students not to be backward about coming forward and questioning decisions made by more experienced PIC's be they FI's or PPL's. That doesn't mean we need to pick an argument with them or make an issue out of an instruction during a lesson. I think instructors have a difficult enough job at times trying to get us students our wings, so why make it any harder by being awkward.

Presumably nothing you are being taught is dangerous, just different, so conduct the flight in the way that your instructor on the day instructs you to, then evaluate what you've been told and make decisions for yourself afterwards.

Well, I think the old grey cell has had enough. Off to try and make some sense of my confuser (might be a good idea considering I'm supposed to be sitting my Nav exam this week - oops!).

Well said Paul.

I think that should satisfactorily close this thread on a sensible note......... :O