Are all "good" pilots good instructors?
Folks,
It will come as no surprise to many, but a CASA Instructor Rating course has very little effective training in "teaching".
Interestingly, the Gliding Federation of Australia instructor course has about half the course hours devoted to the subject of "adult education", which is not the same as teaching school kids. Teaching instructors to teach, not to fly, that "should" be a given. An Instructor course should not be (but all to often is) a remedial flying training exercise.
In short, the GFA course contains a lot of the material one would find in a Diploma of Education course, there is nothing special about "flying instruction" that makes normal educational theory inapplicable.
One of the best GA instructors I have come across was a TAFE teacher (including Dip.Ed.) for may years, before he became a flying instructor.
Some of the best airline SCCs I have come across started life as teachers. Without exception, all the "good" flying instructors I have ever had anything to do with were all technically very good pilots, better than the "company average", because any instructor has got to be able to demonstrate a sequence to the standard required, plus a margin of performance to fit in the instructional bit --- but it doesn't always happen, I have come across some shockers.
Having said all that, the cockpit of an airborne aeroplane is the world's worst classroom. Really smart flying schools (there are a few) are integrating simulators into PPL/CPL courses to a degree the traditionalists abhor.
All I can say about that is, that from experience checking the product, it works --- (and I am not talking about MPL) it is about time flying training move on past 1932.
Tootle pip!!
It will come as no surprise to many, but a CASA Instructor Rating course has very little effective training in "teaching".
Interestingly, the Gliding Federation of Australia instructor course has about half the course hours devoted to the subject of "adult education", which is not the same as teaching school kids. Teaching instructors to teach, not to fly, that "should" be a given. An Instructor course should not be (but all to often is) a remedial flying training exercise.
In short, the GFA course contains a lot of the material one would find in a Diploma of Education course, there is nothing special about "flying instruction" that makes normal educational theory inapplicable.
One of the best GA instructors I have come across was a TAFE teacher (including Dip.Ed.) for may years, before he became a flying instructor.
Some of the best airline SCCs I have come across started life as teachers. Without exception, all the "good" flying instructors I have ever had anything to do with were all technically very good pilots, better than the "company average", because any instructor has got to be able to demonstrate a sequence to the standard required, plus a margin of performance to fit in the instructional bit --- but it doesn't always happen, I have come across some shockers.
Having said all that, the cockpit of an airborne aeroplane is the world's worst classroom. Really smart flying schools (there are a few) are integrating simulators into PPL/CPL courses to a degree the traditionalists abhor.
All I can say about that is, that from experience checking the product, it works --- (and I am not talking about MPL) it is about time flying training move on past 1932.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled's analysis confirms something I have noticed for some time - the path to a G3 under CASA's system.
After training for (minimum) 150 CPL hrs and 50 G3 hrs (all under VFR rules, SE), the freshly minted G3 goes out and teaches the ab initio, which is one of the traditional paths in Oz of building hours at flight schools.
In comparison, CASA only allows helicopter pilots to apply for a G2 (they only have 2 grades) when they have a minimum of 400 hrs. What's more, the minimum experience that industry operators require for instructional roles is between 1000 to 1500 hrs. This seems to place emphasis on being a good (i.e. at least experienced) pilot before even considering whether you'll make a good instructor.
Another comparison - let's look a typical FW training program in the USA (actual hrs may vary between different FTOs) and assuming most Ozzie FTOs are very close to the targets set down by CASA:
PPL 65 hrs min (more typically 80 hrs) + 10 sim
IR (pre-CPL) 75 hrs + 20 sim (20 + 20 in Oz, usually done post-CPL)
ME (pre-CPL) 38 hrs + 10 sim (whereas in Oz only 5 hours, again post-CPL)
CPL requirement = 178 hrs (totalling the 3 items above) + 40 sim (compares with min 150 hrs (integrated) CASA CPL, which does not have any IR or ME)
CFI SE is 14 hrs (but in Oz is another 50 hrs for G3)
CFI ME is 24 hrs (but in Oz another 50 hrs for META)
CFII = CFI with an IR (no further requirement under FAA) whereas CASA reserves this for G1s only
FAA seems to place a bit more emphasis on CPL training, especially the IR and ME sequences, while Oz tends to leave more hours to ratings and instructor training later. The FAA approach is another example of placing emphasis on training all-round, knowledgeable pilots before taking the step towards instructor training which concentrates more on knowledge-imparting techniques. I have certainly found that G3 training here in Oz is very much like brushing up on the stuff I missed or skipped at CPL.
Just my 2 cents' observation - not really trying to stir up a war between 2 sides of the bigger pond - they're just different systems.
After training for (minimum) 150 CPL hrs and 50 G3 hrs (all under VFR rules, SE), the freshly minted G3 goes out and teaches the ab initio, which is one of the traditional paths in Oz of building hours at flight schools.
In comparison, CASA only allows helicopter pilots to apply for a G2 (they only have 2 grades) when they have a minimum of 400 hrs. What's more, the minimum experience that industry operators require for instructional roles is between 1000 to 1500 hrs. This seems to place emphasis on being a good (i.e. at least experienced) pilot before even considering whether you'll make a good instructor.
Another comparison - let's look a typical FW training program in the USA (actual hrs may vary between different FTOs) and assuming most Ozzie FTOs are very close to the targets set down by CASA:
PPL 65 hrs min (more typically 80 hrs) + 10 sim
IR (pre-CPL) 75 hrs + 20 sim (20 + 20 in Oz, usually done post-CPL)
ME (pre-CPL) 38 hrs + 10 sim (whereas in Oz only 5 hours, again post-CPL)
CPL requirement = 178 hrs (totalling the 3 items above) + 40 sim (compares with min 150 hrs (integrated) CASA CPL, which does not have any IR or ME)
CFI SE is 14 hrs (but in Oz is another 50 hrs for G3)
CFI ME is 24 hrs (but in Oz another 50 hrs for META)
CFII = CFI with an IR (no further requirement under FAA) whereas CASA reserves this for G1s only
FAA seems to place a bit more emphasis on CPL training, especially the IR and ME sequences, while Oz tends to leave more hours to ratings and instructor training later. The FAA approach is another example of placing emphasis on training all-round, knowledgeable pilots before taking the step towards instructor training which concentrates more on knowledge-imparting techniques. I have certainly found that G3 training here in Oz is very much like brushing up on the stuff I missed or skipped at CPL.
Just my 2 cents' observation - not really trying to stir up a war between 2 sides of the bigger pond - they're just different systems.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes...but the biggest difference is American pilots have no idea how to fly VFR. In this country with minimal traffic, huge empty areas and usually very good weather VFR is a realistic option.
Many, many pilots both comfortable AND proficient in VFR flying.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, the Gliding Federation of Australia instructor course has about half the course hours devoted to the subject of "adult education", which is not the same as teaching school kids. Teaching instructors to teach, not to fly, that "should" be a given. An Instructor course should not be (but all to often is) a remedial flying training exercise.
Much of my training was in fact centred about the method and rate of information transfer in the cockpit environment .
It always puzzled me that there was no comparable information in the powered instructor syllabus.
Even more interestingly, several of my friends who had graduated from Teachers College were bowled over by the "phsychology of learning" sections in the GFA Instructors Handbook.
They claimed that their life would have been much easier had they not had to learn all that from experience.
Mr. Hat,
I concur, for every rule, there is an exception --- indeed you remind my of a wonderful example, former teacher, ex-agi., Chief Pilot with "7000" hours. Believe me, he had 1 hour, 7000 times. Another 12,000h or so to retirement didn't make a whole lot of difference.
Cynical,
I agree with ZeeBee, and would also say that I have always been impressed with the standard of stick and rudder skill with US pilot I fly with.
Probably something to do with the fact that FAA very much concentrate on handling skills, particularly low speed flight, a lack of which might kill you.
I know of no case where a minor error in "radio work" ( as we seem to increasingly call communications here) has cause an aircraft to stall, spin and burn.
We have long since lost sight of the important of the basics, in favour of turning out fully qualified aviation bush lawyers --- just look at the NVFR recency thread --- and the complex, convoluted and contradictory "rules" that are the cause of such confusion.
The now long time FAA emphasis on the most basic of piloting skills shows in the record.
Tootle pip!!
I concur, for every rule, there is an exception --- indeed you remind my of a wonderful example, former teacher, ex-agi., Chief Pilot with "7000" hours. Believe me, he had 1 hour, 7000 times. Another 12,000h or so to retirement didn't make a whole lot of difference.
Cynical,
I agree with ZeeBee, and would also say that I have always been impressed with the standard of stick and rudder skill with US pilot I fly with.
Probably something to do with the fact that FAA very much concentrate on handling skills, particularly low speed flight, a lack of which might kill you.
I know of no case where a minor error in "radio work" ( as we seem to increasingly call communications here) has cause an aircraft to stall, spin and burn.
We have long since lost sight of the important of the basics, in favour of turning out fully qualified aviation bush lawyers --- just look at the NVFR recency thread --- and the complex, convoluted and contradictory "rules" that are the cause of such confusion.
The now long time FAA emphasis on the most basic of piloting skills shows in the record.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the original question, No!
However, I don't believe you can be a bad pilot and a good instructor.
That said, ther's alwys the old chestnut: "Those who can, do: those that can't teach"!
Remeber the 4 tenets of instructions? Fear, sarcasm, ridicule and physical violence...
However, I don't believe you can be a bad pilot and a good instructor.
That said, ther's alwys the old chestnut: "Those who can, do: those that can't teach"!
Remeber the 4 tenets of instructions? Fear, sarcasm, ridicule and physical violence...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the definition of a good pilot? i know plenty of pilots with thousands of hours experience who would make lousy instructors. Its all about TRAINING. A well trained and well disciplined pilot with COMMON SENSE makes a good pilot. Ability,training, attitude and experience make for a good instructor. Command decision making skills and aircraft management and control skills are a necessary for both, plus throw in people handling skills evenmore so for the instructor.
Are all "good" pilots good instructors?
This is a great thread, thought provoking, with some interesting observations and opinions. 
I can certainly vouch for the benefits of the Gliding Federation of Australia's emphasis on adult learning and communication, motivation and processing issues. I hope that emphasis is not lost in future - GFA is revising and updating its training and coaching system with a view to strengthening post solo development aspects. As a GFA L3 instructor, training the trainers, I find myself personally emphasising these communication, motivation, adaptive methods issues quite a bit. So I appreciate those supportive comments.
In gliding, in GA and RA I have alse experienced some very good and not so good instructors. I think one of the positive discrimination issues is that of the really good instructors constantly reinforcing high airmanship standards, good judgment and excellent lookout, and assisting in developing good situational awareness. Think about those instructors who can quietly and consistently help develop better workload management, leading to safer habits, better focus and discipline, assisted by sharp lookout and reinforcing better situational awareness, which in turn builds better judgment and higher airmanship standards. Note that the really good ones can understand the cascade, the interdependence, and use multiple instructing techniques to build that core in their students - all the while motivating them - and in turn they absorb the theory and practice much better.
So - I would argue that the very good instructors would normally be very good pilots, sometimes quite critical of their own flying - and good instructors, with the potential of being very good, would know their own shortcomings as pilots and work darned hard at improving themsleves.
There are some adept, knowledgeable, skilled pilots out there, but with poor airmanship and judgement, poor lookout, poor situational awareness, poor adaptability, poor self-awareness, or unsound risk appetite, who should not be considered "good" pilots, and who should therefore never instruct (regardless of their ego and aspirations). Others may have great airmanship, judgment, situational awareness etc, but lousy motivation and communication skills. Ditto.
Are all "good" pilots good instructors? No. But it's worth thinking about the really good ones and the discrimination factors, their standards, what they do beyond teaching, and the breadth and depth of their tool kits.
On on!
I can certainly vouch for the benefits of the Gliding Federation of Australia's emphasis on adult learning and communication, motivation and processing issues. I hope that emphasis is not lost in future - GFA is revising and updating its training and coaching system with a view to strengthening post solo development aspects. As a GFA L3 instructor, training the trainers, I find myself personally emphasising these communication, motivation, adaptive methods issues quite a bit. So I appreciate those supportive comments.
In gliding, in GA and RA I have alse experienced some very good and not so good instructors. I think one of the positive discrimination issues is that of the really good instructors constantly reinforcing high airmanship standards, good judgment and excellent lookout, and assisting in developing good situational awareness. Think about those instructors who can quietly and consistently help develop better workload management, leading to safer habits, better focus and discipline, assisted by sharp lookout and reinforcing better situational awareness, which in turn builds better judgment and higher airmanship standards. Note that the really good ones can understand the cascade, the interdependence, and use multiple instructing techniques to build that core in their students - all the while motivating them - and in turn they absorb the theory and practice much better.
So - I would argue that the very good instructors would normally be very good pilots, sometimes quite critical of their own flying - and good instructors, with the potential of being very good, would know their own shortcomings as pilots and work darned hard at improving themsleves.
There are some adept, knowledgeable, skilled pilots out there, but with poor airmanship and judgement, poor lookout, poor situational awareness, poor adaptability, poor self-awareness, or unsound risk appetite, who should not be considered "good" pilots, and who should therefore never instruct (regardless of their ego and aspirations). Others may have great airmanship, judgment, situational awareness etc, but lousy motivation and communication skills. Ditto.
Are all "good" pilots good instructors? No. But it's worth thinking about the really good ones and the discrimination factors, their standards, what they do beyond teaching, and the breadth and depth of their tool kits.
On on!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well let us rephrase the question, do good apples make good oranges. No answer, yep that's right an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. Do not confuse driving with teaching, different arts, that is all.
Now an then you find a good apple who also does a very good orange impersonation, now and then a good orange who does a good apple impersonation.
Trouble is the good oranges are doing apple and orange work with the big chain fruit shops and a lot of good oranges and good apples go unsold in the general grocery store, generally because they are not properly cared for and are kept in clapped out boxes in the sun and it is hard to convince the average consumer they are a good orange or apple and even harder to get on the shelf of the big grocery store.
Now an then you find a good apple who also does a very good orange impersonation, now and then a good orange who does a good apple impersonation.
Trouble is the good oranges are doing apple and orange work with the big chain fruit shops and a lot of good oranges and good apples go unsold in the general grocery store, generally because they are not properly cared for and are kept in clapped out boxes in the sun and it is hard to convince the average consumer they are a good orange or apple and even harder to get on the shelf of the big grocery store.
