Quality Flight Instruction, where and how?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality Flight Instruction, where and how?
G'day all.
I have been reading pprune for a couple of years now and have found some very informative and at time "entertaining" posts.
I have finally decided to add my own bit of "entertainment" due to that fact that I have been rather uncomfortable in the way I see the aviation industry slowly deteriorate from RPT right through to Flight Training. I am not an instructor myself but currently fly charter and have been involved with a few different companies etc. I trained at what I now recognise to be a sausage factory with fresh cpl instructors teaching me.
Years have passed since my initial commercial training but I have done a few endo/ratings in the last few years and to my disapointment things have not improved with our flight training institutions here in Australia. Some of my most regrettable memories are of things like stuffing up a radio call on a ppl nav and being told by my 20 yro instructor that I will need to do another 2.5 hr dual nav to consolidate my radio work. $750 thankyou sir. Other memories include being assigned a diffent instructor everyday with no consistency between them. Or only flying once a week because the school have decided that its appropriate for 40 odd students to share 5 planes.
Of course these are very common gripes and not new to many here, however I am still seeing many fresh charter pilots coming out of schools very unprepared and a bit too wet behind the ears and $80000 out of pocket. So this leads me to a few questions which I would love to hear your thoughts on.
1.Is QUALITY flying training a viable commercial business? Or is this the reason a lot of schools take your hard earned money and deliver Sub standard training?
2. I am opposed to fresh Cpls doing the instructor rating with out any real world experience. No more hour builders who have no real interest in teaching others to fly. Is this a realistic thing to expect or pie in the sky?
3. Is the current CPL syllabus really a "real world" syllabus or has it become a pure box ticking excercise?
4. Who is responsible for monitoring the standard of Flying training in Australia and are they doing their job?
Thanks in advance to all who care to reply.
I have been reading pprune for a couple of years now and have found some very informative and at time "entertaining" posts.
I have finally decided to add my own bit of "entertainment" due to that fact that I have been rather uncomfortable in the way I see the aviation industry slowly deteriorate from RPT right through to Flight Training. I am not an instructor myself but currently fly charter and have been involved with a few different companies etc. I trained at what I now recognise to be a sausage factory with fresh cpl instructors teaching me.
Years have passed since my initial commercial training but I have done a few endo/ratings in the last few years and to my disapointment things have not improved with our flight training institutions here in Australia. Some of my most regrettable memories are of things like stuffing up a radio call on a ppl nav and being told by my 20 yro instructor that I will need to do another 2.5 hr dual nav to consolidate my radio work. $750 thankyou sir. Other memories include being assigned a diffent instructor everyday with no consistency between them. Or only flying once a week because the school have decided that its appropriate for 40 odd students to share 5 planes.
Of course these are very common gripes and not new to many here, however I am still seeing many fresh charter pilots coming out of schools very unprepared and a bit too wet behind the ears and $80000 out of pocket. So this leads me to a few questions which I would love to hear your thoughts on.
1.Is QUALITY flying training a viable commercial business? Or is this the reason a lot of schools take your hard earned money and deliver Sub standard training?
2. I am opposed to fresh Cpls doing the instructor rating with out any real world experience. No more hour builders who have no real interest in teaching others to fly. Is this a realistic thing to expect or pie in the sky?
3. Is the current CPL syllabus really a "real world" syllabus or has it become a pure box ticking excercise?
4. Who is responsible for monitoring the standard of Flying training in Australia and are they doing their job?
Thanks in advance to all who care to reply.
1. Yes it is possible with proper direction and guidance.
2. Yes should be brought into line with the rotary wing instructor rating requirements.
3. No - Pure box ticking.
4. CASA and ASQA state bodies (For RTO's) If you think CASA are capable of performing any task to a suitable standard themselves you would have to be kidding.
2. Yes should be brought into line with the rotary wing instructor rating requirements.
3. No - Pure box ticking.
4. CASA and ASQA state bodies (For RTO's) If you think CASA are capable of performing any task to a suitable standard themselves you would have to be kidding.
I had the pleasure of sitting next a person not so long ago. This is what I observed. He was a CPL holder with about 220 hours. (no NVFR or IFR)
Didn't know how to use a GPS other than "direct to"
Had the most ridiculous generic checklist I have ever seen that took the guy what seemed like hours to get through.
Radio calls were terrible.
Couldn't land in even a little bit of cross wind without help.
Told me he wasn't allowed to do a straight in approach. (His school said GA aircraft aren't allowed)
He also told me the area for nav training that the students were allowed to go to at his school was "rather small" and almost impossible to get lost in. The CPL test route was the same for every student and students would fly the test route on nav training for "practice".
So to the OP. The syllabus may be real world still but the delivery of it seems not to be.
Didn't know how to use a GPS other than "direct to"
Had the most ridiculous generic checklist I have ever seen that took the guy what seemed like hours to get through.
Radio calls were terrible.
Couldn't land in even a little bit of cross wind without help.
Told me he wasn't allowed to do a straight in approach. (His school said GA aircraft aren't allowed)
He also told me the area for nav training that the students were allowed to go to at his school was "rather small" and almost impossible to get lost in. The CPL test route was the same for every student and students would fly the test route on nav training for "practice".
So to the OP. The syllabus may be real world still but the delivery of it seems not to be.
This is the result of a "one size fits all" approach where absolutely anyone can walk in and sign up to an "integrated" course without having shown any aptitude whatsoever and be limited only by their funds available...(or taxpayers funds for the ones who think they are getting "free" flying training); then the same applies to instructor courses, meaning that the only weeding out is done at the flight test - and there are unlimited attempts at that - or finally by a Chief Pilot wading through piles of resumes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying training is a much more volatile business than big charter / big RPT. So how can we expect people to move from a more-stable, higher-earning position, to a flying school position?
(I very nearly used the word "Back" there: back to a flying school position. Illustrates how we tend to think of flying schools - a place at the bottom, a place to go back to. Not a place to aspire to.)
Secondly, training and air transport operations are two very different industries. It's hard to move from one to the other, except in the common way involving the hour building process.
Bit too much negativity by me perhaps. I support change, any way it can happen.
(I very nearly used the word "Back" there: back to a flying school position. Illustrates how we tend to think of flying schools - a place at the bottom, a place to go back to. Not a place to aspire to.)
Secondly, training and air transport operations are two very different industries. It's hard to move from one to the other, except in the common way involving the hour building process.
Bit too much negativity by me perhaps. I support change, any way it can happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triathlon I completely agree but even a good CFI can only use the staff that they have. It seems to me that good honest instructors who actually want to teach are a bit thin on the ground. If a flying school can be run as a profitable business then maybe its time to invest in decent instructors. Im sure there would be quite a few learner pilots out there who would be willing to pay 10-20% more if they knew they were getting more bang for their buck during their flying training.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic is really close to my heart. I use to work at a "sausage factory" but didnt enjoy the experience at all - actually felt sorry for students.
I now run my own small school (staff of 1 - me!)
But students wanting to learn think it is better to learn:
1. Where they can get it on VET fee help
2. Where they get a diploma/degree
3. Where they fly in a fancy new aircraft
These are all things that are impossible for someone like me to offer - the whole system is loaded against the small operator even if he is turning out a far better product at far less cost.
It does amaze me that so many CPL holders cant land in a cross wind, use equipment fitted to the aircraft, inflate a tyre or wash a windscreen without the use of sandpaper - yet some of these people have a diploma in aviation management paid for by the tax payer!
End rant...
I now run my own small school (staff of 1 - me!)
But students wanting to learn think it is better to learn:
1. Where they can get it on VET fee help
2. Where they get a diploma/degree
3. Where they fly in a fancy new aircraft
These are all things that are impossible for someone like me to offer - the whole system is loaded against the small operator even if he is turning out a far better product at far less cost.
It does amaze me that so many CPL holders cant land in a cross wind, use equipment fitted to the aircraft, inflate a tyre or wash a windscreen without the use of sandpaper - yet some of these people have a diploma in aviation management paid for by the tax payer!
End rant...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
I learnt to fly in 1961, my CFI was ex RAF, looong time instructor, full of patience, advice and common sense.
How many CFIs and senior instructors have been at their task for more than 10 years in these days?
We don't seem to teach common Dog fook at all these days even in the larger and "better" schools including very large Airline cadet systems.
I believe it has become a "process", not really orientated to the end product except to extract a bottom line profit for many of the organisations.
Some of the above comments scare the begeebers out of me as they will be the so called pilots of the future that the system is producing, an automation dependent, low flying awareness, crosswind avoiding lowest common denominator so called pilot.
I had so much fun all my 20,000 hours, was taught my 'trade" early in the process which enabled me to continue learning to the last "shut down check".
So many of the current "crop" stop learning because they know it all on the "Magenta Line".
I had the best years maybe, BUT I hope they can be better again.
How many CFIs and senior instructors have been at their task for more than 10 years in these days?
We don't seem to teach common Dog fook at all these days even in the larger and "better" schools including very large Airline cadet systems.
I believe it has become a "process", not really orientated to the end product except to extract a bottom line profit for many of the organisations.
Some of the above comments scare the begeebers out of me as they will be the so called pilots of the future that the system is producing, an automation dependent, low flying awareness, crosswind avoiding lowest common denominator so called pilot.
I had so much fun all my 20,000 hours, was taught my 'trade" early in the process which enabled me to continue learning to the last "shut down check".
So many of the current "crop" stop learning because they know it all on the "Magenta Line".
I had the best years maybe, BUT I hope they can be better again.
Part of the problem is those who wan't to instruct later in their careers who didn't do instructor ratings when they had <200 hours can't justify the huge costs involved. I am simply not able to put $15k+ dollars of my own money into another rating to carry out some part time instructing on the side for the purpose of self satisfaction . I couldn't leave my current employment to become a grade 3 instructor on minimum wage as it simply wouldn't pay the bills.
I would like to see quality training organisations who want quality instructors offer assistance and benefits for guys like myself but it is not going to happen. There is money to be made in these ratings and for the pimply kid off the street on their first lesson the polished up 4 barred grade 3 'professional' with aviators is going to excite them more than the crusty old bloke with a worn out epaulettes from one too many wet seasons, sim sessions and an ability to find their way back from the training area with a D>TO button.
I would like to see quality training organisations who want quality instructors offer assistance and benefits for guys like myself but it is not going to happen. There is money to be made in these ratings and for the pimply kid off the street on their first lesson the polished up 4 barred grade 3 'professional' with aviators is going to excite them more than the crusty old bloke with a worn out epaulettes from one too many wet seasons, sim sessions and an ability to find their way back from the training area with a D>TO button.
