TOO GOOD FOR GA?
SWH - DDM is NOT ever done in a sim. Direct and monitor, yes. But never have I seen a sim instructor get in the seat of a sim and do demonstrations of the sequences to come. On saying that, I have demonstrated engine failures after take off a few times to weak students. But what Rex Havoc is saying is true - there really is no Demonstrations done in sim training like in an aircraft. I think if your career has seen instructors getting in the seat to demonstrate sequences to you, then you are the definite exception and it is you who must therefore be clueless.
I think what is showing is more a lack of knowing what proper instruction is. DDM being a key part of ab-inito training, which falls off as the candidate becomes more proficient and is able to join the dots in later sequences, which is the whole idea of proper instruction. This is where airline trainers and checkers really are not 'instructors' in the sense but easement pilots, who help the transition of a pilot to their companies SOP and procedures. They are not teaching a pilot how to fly, and the candidate should have all the basics to be able to join the dots and carry out the sequence, that is, the candidate pretty much has everything at their fingertips and in the skills bag to complete the operation, they just need some coaching.
QFI/FIR, trained, qualified, endorsed, recognized instructors.
The major difference between being civilian and military is that the civilian has all the rules/procedures and such readily available before starting. Military you can not access most of the training as its secret business and you have to be trained in it, you can not prepare yourself for those aspects, therefore it is reasonable that a civie pilot can not cross over to military flying without training. That being said most good civie pilots would be able to fly most military planes with very little coaching, just not effectively in a combat scenario, but that is not what the thrust of the argument is.
In essence I don't really see what additional a military instructor pilot could learn by doing 200 hours or so ab-initio in a cessna 152, that they could not learn in the first 10 hours, from books, and online resources. The 'supervision' lauded by many here from FIR G1s is really next to none existent in most flying organisations, involving a signature to go out, or independent solo checks. In theory a FIR G3 could progress with never having a student put up for solo check. Then as a FIR G2 there's no supervision so to say, and you could have all the hours for FIR G1 by the time you get to the next proficiency check. Fly for one of the big sausage factories and you might progress through to G1 having only taught several sequences over and over, to only that companies training requirements.
I will add though, that one thing that military pilots can struggle with in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidates, that can not be just scrubbed if they fail. If they are too tough with students they will struggle to keep them and they will move to other flying schools. Although maybe GA needs a high standard flying school that attracts the top candidates to get through with a better training outcome, who knows. I know Civil Flying School was started on the premise of being the 'CFS' of the civilian scene back in the 60s, it survived quite some time, being very popular, before its eventual demise under very much under different leadership.
QFI/FIR, trained, qualified, endorsed, recognized instructors.
The major difference between being civilian and military is that the civilian has all the rules/procedures and such readily available before starting. Military you can not access most of the training as its secret business and you have to be trained in it, you can not prepare yourself for those aspects, therefore it is reasonable that a civie pilot can not cross over to military flying without training. That being said most good civie pilots would be able to fly most military planes with very little coaching, just not effectively in a combat scenario, but that is not what the thrust of the argument is.
In essence I don't really see what additional a military instructor pilot could learn by doing 200 hours or so ab-initio in a cessna 152, that they could not learn in the first 10 hours, from books, and online resources. The 'supervision' lauded by many here from FIR G1s is really next to none existent in most flying organisations, involving a signature to go out, or independent solo checks. In theory a FIR G3 could progress with never having a student put up for solo check. Then as a FIR G2 there's no supervision so to say, and you could have all the hours for FIR G1 by the time you get to the next proficiency check. Fly for one of the big sausage factories and you might progress through to G1 having only taught several sequences over and over, to only that companies training requirements.
I will add though, that one thing that military pilots can struggle with in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidates, that can not be just scrubbed if they fail. If they are too tough with students they will struggle to keep them and they will move to other flying schools. Although maybe GA needs a high standard flying school that attracts the top candidates to get through with a better training outcome, who knows. I know Civil Flying School was started on the premise of being the 'CFS' of the civilian scene back in the 60s, it survived quite some time, being very popular, before its eventual demise under very much under different leadership.
Last edited by 43Inches; 25th Aug 2023 at 01:32.
SWH - DDM is NOT ever done in a sim. Direct and monitor, yes. But never have I seen a sim instructor get in the seat of a sim and do demonstrations of the sequences to come. On saying that, I have demonstrated engine failures after take off a few times to weak students. But what Rex Havoc is saying is true - there really is no Demonstrations done in sim training like in an aircraft. I think if your career has seen instructors getting in the seat to demonstrate sequences to you, then you are the definite exception and it is you who must therefore be clueless.
The following 3 users liked this post by swh:
You can add formation and aeros to your civi licence with the 61-ADF form - no one in recent times has had any issues being signed off for either of those that I know of.
It's been a number of decades since I achieved my grade 1 with about 3000 hours ab-initio under my belt now. Even been part of the airline training system and converted many military pilots to civilian qualifications, both GA and coached them in airline flying. Ex military pilots are a dream candidate, always prepared and know more than enough, and willing to learn, I will extend that to RAF/USAF and RAAF ex mil, I don't know how ex Bolivian airforce candidates go yet. The hardest are downgrading airline pilots (not all of them) as they often try to tell you how they did it somewhere else and how you do it wrong...
DDM is done all the time in the sim and other fixed based trainers, if it isn’t at your mob, that is a reflection of your mob. For example, it is common for for us to do initial circuits with a trainee in the RHS and instructor in the LHS. When running through system abnormals, it is common to demonstrate first how to run checklists/EICAS/ECAM both practically as well as the associated mouth music. That is how we build our foundation.
But we aren’t going to waste valuable sim time demonstrating basic stuff like climbing and descending turns, so I suppose that sets us apart from a G 3 teaching a pre solo student.
The Demonstrate part of DDM continues at the line training stage, where typically the trainee observes a few sectors from the jump seat before sitting in the operating seat, and sometimes the instructor pilot will elect to fly the first sector when something new is being explored, such as perhaps nil slope guidance or narrow runway operations.
That is true of a good operator. I know some sim instructors who do avoid the Demonstration bit for fear of embarrassing themselves, but generally we hop in the hot seat to demonstrate when deemed necessary. Some exercises in particular, such as wind shear recoveries, usually need to be demonstrated - certainly in my experience anyway, if only to prove that the exercise is flyable.
But we aren’t going to waste valuable sim time demonstrating basic stuff like climbing and descending turns, so I suppose that sets us apart from a G 3 teaching a pre solo student.
DDM continues at the line training stage, where typically the instructor pilot will fly the first sector when something new is being explored, such as perhaps nil slope guidance or narrow runway operations.
But we aren’t going to waste valuable sim time demonstrating basic stuff like climbing and descending turns, so I suppose that sets us apart from a G 3 teaching a pre solo student.
DDM continues at the line training stage, where typically the instructor pilot will fly the first sector when something new is being explored, such as perhaps nil slope guidance or narrow runway operations.
That is one weird thing about this industry. How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teach.
Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.
Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.
OTOH retirees with prior airline or military instruction time can usually afford to, and may want to, teach in GA, but some of us are unwilling to jump through all the CASA hoops for the privilege.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 25th Aug 2023 at 05:06.
I think you are missing the point. Said applicant wants a FIR-G1 and other more senior instructor ratings. Does applicant even have 200 hours of ab-initio instruction?
Hmm except that line-training in airlines is not instruction, its supervisory. CASA would have a very dim view of an operator that required candidates to be 'instructed' on how to fly while carrying passengers. Whilst some candidates are a bit weaker than others the whole idea of line training is baby sitting a new 'company' pilot until they get the hang of SOP and the differences between you and other operators. If a candidate can't land, or perform an approach without guidance then it's back to the simulator. This is why 'line trainers' don't need instructor qualifications. When the trainer is flying they should always be demonstrating SOP compliance and the trainee practicing SOP as the PM. If you are actively teaching somebody how to fly during line training you are crossing a line that the candidate is not competent to be in the seat, that gets very grey in the rules. Teaching finesse is another matter, how to be smoother or do things more efficiently. But even during line training if you have to take over from a candidate when they are flying for safety reasons it's technically a re portable occurrence.
The Kiwis do it better, in that they have a specific instructor rating for airline training.
Back to the sim for a botched approach or landing requiring intervention? A reportable occurrence? I guess I was negligent in the performance of my duties all those years, because unless it was really bad, I would not even document it on the pilot’s training record, other than mark the ‘below average’ box, or whatever the form required to indicate that the candidate had not yet met company standard.
Anyone who has flown with 250 hour cadet pilots in the RHS will have instructed during line operations (DDM) and sometimes taken over the controls - either for survival’s sake or for the good of the airframe. And even 5000 hour pilots transitioning to a new type occasionally get it wrong.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 25th Aug 2023 at 03:33.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,266
Likes: 0
Received 104 Likes
on
47 Posts
in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidates, that can not be just scrubbed if they fail. If they are too tough with students they will struggle to keep them and they will move to other flying schools.
On the first flight, I saw that he could barely hover, so the "ready for solo" comment was a bit off the mark.
We got into his training, with 2 weeks intensive theory and preflight briefings, and then daily flights to consolidate that learning. After 2 weeks, I said to him that it was unlikely that he would pass the theory (his recall of the previous day's theory was atrocious) or be up to the standard for a commercial pilot. I suggested that he save his money, hire the chopper with pilot whenever he felt like flying, and stay in the money business (where he was making wads of cash.) I returned his unspent money, which hurt, as I could have just burned up the rest of it in training, but in all honesty I couldn't do that to him. He thanked me and left.
A month later he landed in our heliport in a B206 from That Other School, told me he got 86% in all his exams and finished his CPL and 206 endorsement. He loaded the machine with 4 big men, their golf clubs and overnight bags. I suggested that he was a little overweight, particularly as he was headed for a landing at 3000'amsl, but he told me that the W&B calculation was done by The Other School and they told him he was in limits. He started up, hovered in his usual up-to-shit manner, and used a lot of the airfield to get airborne. Dunno if he stayed in the industry or is still alive.
So, as suggested above, I scrubbed him, The Other School took his money, did his exams for him, and gave him a licence.
The following users liked this post:
one thing that military pilots can struggle with in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidates
How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teach
Last edited by megan; 25th Aug 2023 at 04:15.
That may be true in CASA’s perfect world, but they live in la-la land. Calling it ‘supervisory’ is their way of avoiding a formal instructor rating category for airlines. The airlines wouldn’t want it either, and who can blame them for that!
The Kiwis do it better, in that they have a specific instructor rating for airline training.
Back to the sim for a botched approach or landing requiring intervention? A reportable occurrence? I guess I was negligent in the performance of my duties all those years, because unless it was really bad, I would not even document it on the pilot’s training record, other than mark the ‘below average’ box, or whatever the form required to indicate that the candidate had not yet met company standard.
Anyone who has flown with 250 hour cadet pilots in the RHS will have instructed during line operations (DDM) and sometimes taken over the controls - either for survival’s sake or for the good of the airframe. And even 5000 hour pilots transitioning to a new type occasionally get it wrong.
The Kiwis do it better, in that they have a specific instructor rating for airline training.
Back to the sim for a botched approach or landing requiring intervention? A reportable occurrence? I guess I was negligent in the performance of my duties all those years, because unless it was really bad, I would not even document it on the pilot’s training record, other than mark the ‘below average’ box, or whatever the form required to indicate that the candidate had not yet met company standard.
Anyone who has flown with 250 hour cadet pilots in the RHS will have instructed during line operations (DDM) and sometimes taken over the controls - either for survival’s sake or for the good of the airframe. And even 5000 hour pilots transitioning to a new type occasionally get it wrong.
That is one weird thing about this industry. How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teach.
Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.
Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.
55 years ago I was that 250hour TT brand new "C" grade instructor as it was then known.
With a bare CPL I undertook 50 dual hours of CA45 instructor rating training, additionally probably 100s of hours of ground briefing and de-briefing every sequence in the laid down syllabus. I undertook a test with a DCA examiner and apparently met the standard required. The syllabus was not made up by a couple of guys in the pub, enormous research went into it many years before.
My job was to demonstrate first and then critique the students attempts at each sequence until he or she reached an acceptable standard, then move on as laid down There was no need to be the ace of the base but it was more important to put myself in the shoes of the student, a place I had just come from not so long ago. It was not unusual to disguise my own inadequacies by having the student look outside for traffic while I recovered from my 100 plus feet loss of altitude in my steep turn demo.
Many of my early students went onto have successful careers in various airlines and other aviation roles, so I did them no harm.
It's worth mentioning that very early in my own training, at about 5 hours, a senior instructor ( ex military) from my flying school took me out in a Chipmunk, not as a lesson but just for a ride along and scared the living bejesus out of me as he demonstrated his bravado. It took me awhile before considering continuing with the whole thing.
Thankyou for confirming that you don’t know what literacy is, and don’t know a great deal about teaching versus knowledge.
The fact that you stated you would not annotate a take over event in the candidates training file really shows your airline and your training standards as very poor. And that shows you are covering up possibly serious legal issues for the sake of pushing a pilot through. Line trainers are not instructors, the candidate is not training for a licence, rating or endorsement. They already hold a command endorsement and ratings for the flight. If they are unable to land then they should have failed their endorsement training, or you are given them sectors outside of their skill set ability.
But at the risk of thread drift, here is a true story of what can happen when new pilots with a command endorsement think that they are truly competent to command standard…because it says so on their licence, right?
A new FO was being ‘supervised’ (because in his view he was not training) by a very experienced Training Captain. On approach to RWY 33 at Cairns, he got very high and refused to heed the Captain’s advice. At the point where a go around was nearly inevitable the Captain announced “my control “. Trainee refused to hand over, and a brief struggle ensued which fortunately the Captain, being bigger, stronger and by then pumping adrenaline, won.
I sacked the pilot on the spot and he had to ride home by bus.
On that occasion, of course we DID report the incident to CASA. When the sacked pilot tried it on for wrongful dismissal and racial discrimination (because he was not an Anglo), we got the AFP involved, trotting out the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and a few other laws - authority of PIC etc. His lawyers went quiet and his licence was revoked.
I won’t rise to that bait.
But at the risk of thread drift, here is a true story of what can happen when new pilots with a command endorsement think that they are truly competent to command standard…because it says so on their licence, right?
A new FO was being ‘supervised’ (because in his view he was not training) by a very experienced Training Captain. On approach to RWY 33 at Cairns, he got very high and refused to heed the Captain’s advice. At the point where a go around was nearly inevitable the Captain announced “my control “. Trainee refused to hand over, and a brief struggle ensued which fortunately the Captain, being bigger, stronger and by then pumping adrenaline, won.
I sacked the pilot on the spot and he had to ride home by bus.
On that occasion, of course we DID report the incident to CASA. When the sacked pilot tried it on for wrongful dismissal and racial discrimination (because he was not an Anglo), we got the AFP involved, trotting out the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and a few other laws - authority of PIC etc. His lawyers went quiet and his licence was revoked.
But at the risk of thread drift, here is a true story of what can happen when new pilots with a command endorsement think that they are truly competent to command standard…because it says so on their licence, right?
A new FO was being ‘supervised’ (because in his view he was not training) by a very experienced Training Captain. On approach to RWY 33 at Cairns, he got very high and refused to heed the Captain’s advice. At the point where a go around was nearly inevitable the Captain announced “my control “. Trainee refused to hand over, and a brief struggle ensued which fortunately the Captain, being bigger, stronger and by then pumping adrenaline, won.
I sacked the pilot on the spot and he had to ride home by bus.
On that occasion, of course we DID report the incident to CASA. When the sacked pilot tried it on for wrongful dismissal and racial discrimination (because he was not an Anglo), we got the AFP involved, trotting out the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and a few other laws - authority of PIC etc. His lawyers went quiet and his licence was revoked.
DDM is certainly done in simulators, most larger airlines these days do all their training in the simulator, when they get into the aircraft, they have paying pax in the back for the first flight. Frankly by the number of posts you have made about how training is done in airlines, you sound pretty clueless on what goes on. And your claim that most work in airlines is checking, and not training, that depends on what cycle the industry is at the time. The majority of airlines are doing more training than checking at the moment, training capacity is the bottleneck worldwide.
And as I’ve said from the beginning wouldn’t it be more prudent to undertake the FIR course, analyse it’s strengths and weaknesses and then submit a review to CASA to simplify the system? Rather than try an appeal to an unqualified judge with zero aviation knowledge to change aviation safety regulations for a course you haven’t even bothered to attempt?
The following users liked this post:
