Ground School Quality
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground School Quality
I just wonder what most people think. Would you expect that a ground school instructor has some operational experience as a pilot on the licence level he is teaching for? Should he at least have passed the exams himself or don't you care?
On one side I have seen schools who only use theory instructors who used to or still hold an ATPL and who are teacher trained by a TAFE college. On the other hand I have seen a ground school where junior flight instructors give power point presentations of ATPL material. The instructor has not passed the exams himself at all.
What would you expect if you were to enrol in a ground school?
On one side I have seen schools who only use theory instructors who used to or still hold an ATPL and who are teacher trained by a TAFE college. On the other hand I have seen a ground school where junior flight instructors give power point presentations of ATPL material. The instructor has not passed the exams himself at all.
What would you expect if you were to enrol in a ground school?
As long as they can TEACH the material, it probably doesn't matter what their background is. It would be nice to know that the instructor/teacher has some experience in the subject matter, but once again not necessary as long as they know how to impart the required knowledge to the student.
The instructor may have a zillion hours, but if they have the personality of a door mat then they probably aren't going to make a very good teacher.
The instructor may have a zillion hours, but if they have the personality of a door mat then they probably aren't going to make a very good teacher.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a trained facilitator you really need a degree of subject matter expertise. With such knowledge you display a high degree of competency, currency & credibility with your students/participants. A trained monkey can stand out the front and read slabs of text from a book or presentation, but when it comes to the 'what if' questions and real life case study, you really learn so much more. You can't beat 'the theory states blah blah blah but what it means practically is this....' student pilots comprehend the learning so much better.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only prerequisite in my mind is that the teacher has passed the exams they are lecturing on in the recent past.
I don't want some pre-Human Factors dinosaur trying to teach me multi crew or some other guy trying to teach GNSS even though he lost IR privleges 10 years ago.
When it comes to 'what ifs' and 'case studies' ground instructors should simply mention that it is 'outside the scope of the course'. That sort of thing should be left to flight instruction.
The reason for this is that the role of a theory instructor it to teach them the principals and pass the exam. The nuances of the aviation industry will follow with flight instruction and industry experience.
I don't want some pre-Human Factors dinosaur trying to teach me multi crew or some other guy trying to teach GNSS even though he lost IR privleges 10 years ago.
When it comes to 'what ifs' and 'case studies' ground instructors should simply mention that it is 'outside the scope of the course'. That sort of thing should be left to flight instruction.
The reason for this is that the role of a theory instructor it to teach them the principals and pass the exam. The nuances of the aviation industry will follow with flight instruction and industry experience.
I suggest it depends on your age.
The Modern trend seems to be anyone can teach anything, all based on price!
The modern student seems to want the "ticket" knowledge is secondary.
I personally will go for relevant experience every time.
The Modern trend seems to be anyone can teach anything, all based on price!
The modern student seems to want the "ticket" knowledge is secondary.
I personally will go for relevant experience every time.
Moderator
I'm a bit out of the ground school side of things these days but, in a previous life, was involved with pilot theory training over a lengthy period and with considerable interest in the task. My comments may be dated (if not out-dated) but probably still have some relevance ..
First criterion is that an instructor needs to have a bit of flair for, and interest in, instruction so that the information transfer exercise is addressed in a reasonable fashion.
a ground school instructor has some operational experience as a pilot on the licence level he is teaching for?
Varies from probably not essential at all through to absolutely essential, depending on the subject(s) being taught .. but may/will add to the instructor's confidence and ability to cite relevant anecdotes, etc.
So, for instance, an instructor in subjects such as aircraft performance, weight and balance, meteorology etc., needs subject-specific technical competence (typically/ideally, probably a suitable engineer or meteorologist) and it doesn't matter all that much if there is any experience driving aeroplanes around the patch.
On the other hand, someone purporting to teach a directly practical subject, eg I/F procedures, would soon be caught out after reading the death by powerpoint presentation notes ...
Should he at least have passed the exams himself or don't you care?
The answer would follow from the previous discussion. However, it does lend some credibility to the newchums if the instructor has done the hard yards at a level higher than the course being taught .. it really doesn't impress if the instructor is teaching at his/her own level of attainment only
As long as they can TEACH the material, it probably doesn't matter what their background is.
Being able to facilitate a learning process is very necessary.
Over and about that underlying consideration, the need is for technical competence and an understanding of the material (at a much deeper level than that required by the student) rather than being able to parrot a set of notes.
Keep in mind that a good instructor will be able to recast the subject matter in numerous ways to end up with the best presentation for the particular student. It's very much a case of one size NOT fitting all when it comes to technical instruction. The parrot briefing approach is fine for larger groups and for organisations which can tolerate or, sometimes, encourage, higher than necessary wastage rates.
For the typical pilot coming up through the GA ranks and wearing the bum out of his/her pants to pay for it ... he/she deserves a bit better sort of deal. I recall, with great fondness, several such students who busted a gut and sweated through until they got the exam .. full marks from me to all such folk.
Whether we like it or not, a very intelligent student doesn't fuss too much about an instructor as the material can be addressed on a self study basis.
However, for the majority of us folk, we all tend to have some things which we find harder than others to pick up and to have an instructor who can present things in a way that the INDIVIDUAL student best understands .. is invaluable.
It would be nice to know that the instructor/teacher has some experience in the subject matter
Fine for discussions over the bar on Saturday night .. but, if I'm paying out real dollars, I WANT to KNOW that the instructor knows an awful lot more than I do about the material under discussion. Otherwise, why would I want to pay him/her a penny ?
if they have the personality of a door mat then they probably aren't going to make a very good teacher.
That's probably a fair observation ..
As a trained facilitator
The student doesn't want or need a facilitator .. he/she needs a teacher of things and understanding of what's what in respect of those things.
Training just to pass the exam only goes so far ...
A trained monkey can stand out the front and read slabs of text from a book or presentation
Precisely and, very likely, to a higher standard of repeatability. Waste of time for all concerned unless the requirement is to provide a factual briefing.
The only prerequisite in my mind is that the teacher has passed the exams they are lecturing on in the recent past.
I wouldn't agree with that in toto. However, having the ticket does provide a little credibility IF the ticket is at a materially higher level.
So, for instance, the mere holding of a PPL wouldn't impress me in respect of instructing to PPL level. However, I would anticipate that an ATPL holder, with an appropriate level of understanding of current PPL work, probably might be a better instructor, other things being equal. Better, again, is for the instructor to have non-flying specialist qualifications and experience relevant to the material.
When it comes to 'what ifs' and 'case studies' ground instructors should simply mention that it is 'outside the scope of the course'. That sort of thing should be left to flight instruction.
This is fine for discrete briefing sessions such as what I get if I do a two-day short course on a given subject.
For pilot training .. run a mile from this sort of nonsense.
It might well be appropriate not to digress during the class presentation from time to time .. but, if that is the case, I want to see the instructor follow up out of class to make sure the student is getting the value he/she has paid for.
The reason for this is that the role of a theory instructor it to teach them the principals and pass the exam.
Totally disagree, regardless of whether we talking principles or principals.
The role of the instructor is to teach to an appropriate level of understanding of the subject.
The role of the student is to learn, first, and then, secondly, to pass the exam. To that end, in the reality of the flying world, techniques such as review and practice of past papers is a valuable strategy.
Training to "pass the exam", largely, is a waste of time. The student, sooner or later, is overtaken by his/her knowledge gaps often on an occasion when there just may not be time to rectify the deficiency and the consequences may be significant .. try getting scrubbed off an endorsement course for career benefits, or failing your command upgrade ... for starters.
I personally will go for relevant experience every time.
The most relevant and pertinent comment in the posts to date ...
First criterion is that an instructor needs to have a bit of flair for, and interest in, instruction so that the information transfer exercise is addressed in a reasonable fashion.
a ground school instructor has some operational experience as a pilot on the licence level he is teaching for?
Varies from probably not essential at all through to absolutely essential, depending on the subject(s) being taught .. but may/will add to the instructor's confidence and ability to cite relevant anecdotes, etc.
So, for instance, an instructor in subjects such as aircraft performance, weight and balance, meteorology etc., needs subject-specific technical competence (typically/ideally, probably a suitable engineer or meteorologist) and it doesn't matter all that much if there is any experience driving aeroplanes around the patch.
On the other hand, someone purporting to teach a directly practical subject, eg I/F procedures, would soon be caught out after reading the death by powerpoint presentation notes ...
Should he at least have passed the exams himself or don't you care?
The answer would follow from the previous discussion. However, it does lend some credibility to the newchums if the instructor has done the hard yards at a level higher than the course being taught .. it really doesn't impress if the instructor is teaching at his/her own level of attainment only
As long as they can TEACH the material, it probably doesn't matter what their background is.
Being able to facilitate a learning process is very necessary.
Over and about that underlying consideration, the need is for technical competence and an understanding of the material (at a much deeper level than that required by the student) rather than being able to parrot a set of notes.
Keep in mind that a good instructor will be able to recast the subject matter in numerous ways to end up with the best presentation for the particular student. It's very much a case of one size NOT fitting all when it comes to technical instruction. The parrot briefing approach is fine for larger groups and for organisations which can tolerate or, sometimes, encourage, higher than necessary wastage rates.
For the typical pilot coming up through the GA ranks and wearing the bum out of his/her pants to pay for it ... he/she deserves a bit better sort of deal. I recall, with great fondness, several such students who busted a gut and sweated through until they got the exam .. full marks from me to all such folk.
Whether we like it or not, a very intelligent student doesn't fuss too much about an instructor as the material can be addressed on a self study basis.
However, for the majority of us folk, we all tend to have some things which we find harder than others to pick up and to have an instructor who can present things in a way that the INDIVIDUAL student best understands .. is invaluable.
It would be nice to know that the instructor/teacher has some experience in the subject matter
Fine for discussions over the bar on Saturday night .. but, if I'm paying out real dollars, I WANT to KNOW that the instructor knows an awful lot more than I do about the material under discussion. Otherwise, why would I want to pay him/her a penny ?
if they have the personality of a door mat then they probably aren't going to make a very good teacher.
That's probably a fair observation ..
As a trained facilitator
The student doesn't want or need a facilitator .. he/she needs a teacher of things and understanding of what's what in respect of those things.
Training just to pass the exam only goes so far ...
A trained monkey can stand out the front and read slabs of text from a book or presentation
Precisely and, very likely, to a higher standard of repeatability. Waste of time for all concerned unless the requirement is to provide a factual briefing.
The only prerequisite in my mind is that the teacher has passed the exams they are lecturing on in the recent past.
I wouldn't agree with that in toto. However, having the ticket does provide a little credibility IF the ticket is at a materially higher level.
So, for instance, the mere holding of a PPL wouldn't impress me in respect of instructing to PPL level. However, I would anticipate that an ATPL holder, with an appropriate level of understanding of current PPL work, probably might be a better instructor, other things being equal. Better, again, is for the instructor to have non-flying specialist qualifications and experience relevant to the material.
When it comes to 'what ifs' and 'case studies' ground instructors should simply mention that it is 'outside the scope of the course'. That sort of thing should be left to flight instruction.
This is fine for discrete briefing sessions such as what I get if I do a two-day short course on a given subject.
For pilot training .. run a mile from this sort of nonsense.
It might well be appropriate not to digress during the class presentation from time to time .. but, if that is the case, I want to see the instructor follow up out of class to make sure the student is getting the value he/she has paid for.
The reason for this is that the role of a theory instructor it to teach them the principals and pass the exam.
Totally disagree, regardless of whether we talking principles or principals.
The role of the instructor is to teach to an appropriate level of understanding of the subject.
The role of the student is to learn, first, and then, secondly, to pass the exam. To that end, in the reality of the flying world, techniques such as review and practice of past papers is a valuable strategy.
Training to "pass the exam", largely, is a waste of time. The student, sooner or later, is overtaken by his/her knowledge gaps often on an occasion when there just may not be time to rectify the deficiency and the consequences may be significant .. try getting scrubbed off an endorsement course for career benefits, or failing your command upgrade ... for starters.
I personally will go for relevant experience every time.
The most relevant and pertinent comment in the posts to date ...
I did my ATPL subjects (called SCPL back then) 32 years ago with Tony Roberts at Moorabin. As I recall he only held a PPL, however his knowledge and understanding of the subjects was unsurpassed, and his success rate was very high.
Although I never met him, I understand Noel Lamont was similarly gifted.
As John T said, it is essential the teacher can impart a full understanding of the subject, but passing the exam is the student's responsibility. I have sat through lectures from academics who held doctorates, but had no idea how to pass on knowledge. Have likewise flown with training captains who were the same.
Although I never met him, I understand Noel Lamont was similarly gifted.
As John T said, it is essential the teacher can impart a full understanding of the subject, but passing the exam is the student's responsibility. I have sat through lectures from academics who held doctorates, but had no idea how to pass on knowledge. Have likewise flown with training captains who were the same.
Moderator
Tony Roberts and Noel Lamont
Now that brings back some memories ... both chaps had their moments, strengths, and weaknesses. Indeed, I came to philosophical blows with both back in those days of yore ... but that's a bunch of other stories ..
On the subject of the previous posts, Noel, in particular, went down the path of running with a number of specialist folk to underpin his own operational background ... many (of the older folk) would recall, for instance, the good Nimbus Coaching met folk (Mal Glover and Ian Murphy) neither of whom knew the difference between a control yoke and an egg white .. but did they get the met knowledge across the table to their students ... they were both meteorologist folk teaching meteorology ... how appropriate, one might opine ?
Now that brings back some memories ... both chaps had their moments, strengths, and weaknesses. Indeed, I came to philosophical blows with both back in those days of yore ... but that's a bunch of other stories ..
On the subject of the previous posts, Noel, in particular, went down the path of running with a number of specialist folk to underpin his own operational background ... many (of the older folk) would recall, for instance, the good Nimbus Coaching met folk (Mal Glover and Ian Murphy) neither of whom knew the difference between a control yoke and an egg white .. but did they get the met knowledge across the table to their students ... they were both meteorologist folk teaching meteorology ... how appropriate, one might opine ?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the sky, mostly
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion it's really case by case. I have been 'instructed' by a highly experienced pilot who was incapable of imparting that knowledge. I have also been instructed by a younger less experienced pilot who was great. Ideally, you want an experienced pilot who is also a great teacher. Unfortunately they are rare.
I certainly value experience, but it doesn't count for everything as a trainer if said person is a poor teacher, lacks the motivation to teach or isn't highly knowledgeable on subject matter themselves.
I personally will go for relevant experience every time
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney/Brisbane
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground Instructor
An interesting thread and since I have been in the ground school game for some time now a question I have often considered. At the risk of sounding like a fence sitter I believe that although it is a case by case situation, in addition to having a sound instructional ability and not withstanding the subject matter specialist such as the meteorologist and performance/systems engineer etc a ground instructor should hold (or have held) the same licence/rating (or higher) that he or she is delivering.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, guys, great answers. It seems that most want both a good facilitator plus someone who knows what he is talking about. Can I basically say that a ground instructor should at least have passed the subject exam he is teaching and should have attended a TAFE teacher training course?
Moderator
obviously one can take whatever view one chooses ..
at least have passed the subject exam he is teaching
leads to a case of the blind leading the blind in many cases if that is the principal/sole criterion. I stand by my earlier comments that the instructor needs to have a knowledge and competence base significantly superior to the student if it is to work at all ... the specific exam is a poor measure of that criterion.
should have attended a TAFE teacher training course
the typical TAFE course addresses a more formalised structure. Well worth doing as a stand alone exercise but, in my view, more related to empire building than addressing a patent need.
For instance, I put two of my guys through the relevant TAFE training courses to meet a customer requirement. They both were fine teachers beforehand and afterwards .. but that had precious little to do with the particular course.
For someone with nil/limited prior instructing, the TAFE courses are a spoon feeding way to catch up on sensible instructional processes and techniques.
at least have passed the subject exam he is teaching
leads to a case of the blind leading the blind in many cases if that is the principal/sole criterion. I stand by my earlier comments that the instructor needs to have a knowledge and competence base significantly superior to the student if it is to work at all ... the specific exam is a poor measure of that criterion.
should have attended a TAFE teacher training course
the typical TAFE course addresses a more formalised structure. Well worth doing as a stand alone exercise but, in my view, more related to empire building than addressing a patent need.
For instance, I put two of my guys through the relevant TAFE training courses to meet a customer requirement. They both were fine teachers beforehand and afterwards .. but that had precious little to do with the particular course.
For someone with nil/limited prior instructing, the TAFE courses are a spoon feeding way to catch up on sensible instructional processes and techniques.
it really doesn't impress if the instructor is teaching at his/her own level of attainment only
