200 hr TT instructors, A waste of space?

[Student-pilot]

Hello all,


Do you think a fresh CPL should be able to do an instructor rating and then teach with basically no experience? I personally think that there should be a minimum hour requirement like the rotary wing which is 400 hrs TT. Really these extremely green instructors are teaching out of a book with no real world experience and from what I see most of them don’t even really understand what they are teaching.

This way it would weed out those people who don’t really want to instruct but are there for the hours which waste both the students time and money and give instructors a bad name. I would like to instruct one day but not until I feel I have something to teach the students.

Thought it would be interesting to see what everyone else thought on this issue.

[Mad Mick]

SP ,
In some ways you have made a very good call. I have around 900 instructor hrs and can remember how green I was. I was never interested in getting my rating but it gave me a foot in the door, to get an extra 200hrs with a bare cpl can be a very hard task.
I think it should be higher but there would be alot of out of work cpl pilots creating a huge strain on the industry.
I found being an instructor a rewarding experience but I have come to the end and I feel I could be a negative influence on my students and wish to move on.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

SP,

one point i feel is quite important is that most of these instructors in addition to not having any real experience to draw on is the fact that most of them don't give a rats arse about their students, they see they as the means to fill the logbook, very sad.

[greybeard]

Gidday,

Instructors are usually born to the task, not created by the issuance of a rating on a new CPL.

Some who take the 200 hr and then go straight to a rating are good at the task, it's the training/monitoring/mentoring which makes the difference to the end product.
There are some long term Instructors who are a lot worse than some of the newer ones.
Attitude to the end result is what makes the difference, especially from the Instructor Training process which sets the tone of the process.

I am about to park my wide bodied Blunderbus after 43 yrs total, 37 in Airlines and go back to my old Grade 3 1967 Rating because I like the view and the Instructing process.
Back to basics will be a learning process, looking foreward to the fun and games, the landing competition is on.

[8 8th's Blue]

It is rather ironic that a large portion of pilots starting out are often getting taught by some of the least experienced people in the industry. I feel the problem lies with the job itself. Bust your b@lls day in day out,weekend,public holidays and struggle to make ends meat. THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO PURSUE INSTRUCTING AS A CAREER!!!!!!! This is NOT and exuse for instructors to offer sub standard service to their students. But perhaps because nobody see's a future in instructing it is entered into with a negative mind set. I'll only do this until I can get a better job.

Is the answer to throw money at the problem? It's a start. Fair days pay for a fair day's work. Loyalty and respect are earnt. Pay the award,offer some sort of financial security to instructors.

Not everyone wants to fly a 747,but none of want to get paid peanuts. I was a 200tt instructor, yes I was green, yes I had heaps to learn. 1000 hrs later I am still learning. If a CFI is keen to help a new insructor to develop. Gives them an environment that is conducive to learning. Sends a senior insructor with his student every now and then to ensure correct teaching techniques are being used, I don't see a problem.I have flown with a few GRADE1 and 2's that are well Hmmm as well.

Maybe chief pilots should wake up to the fact that you only get what you pay for. Everyone deserves ago. Why would you pursue a career as an instructor (8-10 grand) after having to get a break as a scenic/charter etc to gain min Hrs?

Anyway I need to go and have a cold shower now!!!!!!!!!

88B

[triadic]

The subject has been brought up a number of times over the last decade and at the end of the day CASA nor the industry have had the guts to make a decision on it. There is nothing wrong with have instructors with only basic time, PROVIDED that they are supervised and the product they are teaching is monitored and also checked - not as a check on the student, but on the instructor.

The sad part has already been said in the previous posts and the system now has CFI's who started out that way. These people I am sorry to say don't know what they don't know and the end result is a trainee pilot that is nowhere as good as they were in days gone by. A pilot passing a CPL test today would not have passed a PPL in the early '80's. The standard has come down that much...! What is causing that you may well ask? Well commercial pressure is one reason and the number of flying schools is another. Of course CASA has a role in this, but because of the commercial pressure even the results of a instructor review held in the mid '90's was put to one side. Very sad.

I see the products and many have to been taught almost over again. The leaning cake is only so big and with many new subjects some of the old ones just seem to be not there any more. There is very little understanding of power and speed control and the use of rudder in x/w operations. Many pilots are taught there is safety in speed on approach and then they wonder why it takes up so much runway to land ! Airmanship fell off the learning truck in many schools some years back and we wonder why the standards are falling... Certainly the self disipline that was there has gone in many cases.

I could go on, but in answer to the question, I believe that prospetive instructors should have 500- 700 hours minimum, the only exception being those that operate in an environment where there is very high levels of supervision.

Flying training is the worst it has been for many years and it will only get better if the training gets better and at the moment it is just getting worse!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Mad Mick how does a lot of unemployed CPLs create a strain on the industry?

IMHO when we have real standards again which culls many an aspirant who does not have 'it' then we may have a healthy, viable industry...Law of Nature No 1 I'm afraid.

Too many mouths at the trough means not enough food to go around...every level of life form has that worked out except humans...and we suffer because of it.

60% less flying schools providing 40% less CPLs would have this industry fixed in 10 years...tops!!

Chuck.

[snarek]

Why a CPL

I don't see why, to teach a VFR PPL syllabus, you need a CPL at all.

It is my view that anyone with 500 or more hours that can pass an instructors course should be allowed to instruct (PPL VFR). If you then want to instruct beyond that, go get the CPL.

AK

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Snarek:

Are you also suggesting that a PPL instructor also be allowed to earn an income from Instructing?.

[snarek]

RFG

I hadn't thought of that, but why not???

AK

[engine out]

I haven't instructed for about three years due to making the move to a big jet for the extra cash but really wish I hadn't, I much preffered the satisfaction of watching my students progress from nervous first time flying virgin to competent PPL/CPL or higher. Just thought perhaps throw another aspect at the fire, if it is thought that people passing CPL shouldn't instruct at first then perhaps we are not training them to a high enough level in the first place? Somebody who has just past a a CPL should have a very preficient level of flying ability, and capability which from my experience will only deteriorate slowly if not constantly checked, pushed or used. If a 400hr limit was brought in what is to say that people won't stooge around taking friends around the town for easy joyflights then become an instructor, will this have increased there flying ability by only flying on nice days?
A grade three instructor needs to be supervised to ensure what they are doing is correct and remains correct and that they are giving best value to the student by teaching the correct technique first time, and every time. We should all remember that we are always learning.
The motivation issue as why people become an instructor will always be there no matter what hours you put as a minimum as people will always seek what they feel is the best route to the objective and if they think they can hour build that way they always will.
Instructor pay is always a hot topic, I agree to keep people in the industry they need to pay the award, I left due to money. However the key problem is how much a student is willing to pay to learn. hire rates are always increasing with fuel costs getting high, insurance, local councils trying to use airports as cash cows and charging higher and higher landing fees plus maintenance cost (not to mention poor Aus$ v's the greenback) and that the aircraft are getting older and older. Charge more for instructor as well then we price ourself's out of the market, unless operators want to run at less of a profit. If the government would do something about the mess it has left GA in perhaps an instructor could earn an honest wage. However I do reckon that many schools could increase the pitance it pays staff especially those who expect you to be there five days a week and do all the office duties, plane washing etc and still only pay per flying hour so after a full-time wek even though classed as a casual you still end up with more than $50 in your pocket. I even know of a school that is about to hit the 10 year mark since the last pay rise to staff even though hire rates have gone up yearly.
Anyway enough of my preaching, here endeth the surmon.

[Louie the Fly]

Triadic, you say that standards in pilot training have dropped considerably since the 80's.
What would you reccomend a student pilot like me do now, to maintain a high standard of airmanship, if the instructors are not pulling their weight these days?
I'm happy with the level of instruction I'm receiving at the moment, the bloke training me has around 800 hours, but I don't have a yardstick to measure against whatever was happening in the 80's.
As with any education, it's what you put in that counts. Through my uni days, I saw plenty of students pass with no talent for what they were studying, purely because they had good study skills, and were able to pass the minimum requirements. In many cases the skills they learnt had nothing to do with the skills they needed in their chosen industries.
On the other hand, I know other students who had great talent, but barely got by with a pass mark, or failed, because they rested on their talent, without putting much in.
It often comes down to quality of the student. Sure, a good instructor can make or break, but a good student will quite often make the best out of a bad situation, and will have a thirst for learning.
The way the uni's are run these days, they don't give a stuff about the quality of their graduates, as long as they can quote the numbers of graduates that have passed through their doors, instead of making a name for themselves through quality teaching.
In the end, do you want instructors to keep churning them out like biscuits, or do you want to attract quality pilots?
I guess my rambling point is, nothing is ever as good as it was in the old days, standards have been slipping since well before my grandad first said "the good old days were better", and this is the same thing that is happening across all industries, and society in general.
What is the cause? IMHO it's the rationalisation of everything, the quantification of everything that used to be based on quality.
What is the Answer? Who knows. But one thing might be to institute some kind of ISO 9002 style quality assurance framework. This might seem like another bout of over-regulation, but it is possibly an answer to the problems outlined in the other posts.
Would this increase the cost of training? For sure.
Would it ensure a standard quality of pilot? More than likely, although it would entirely depend on the definitions of quality and airmanship, as enforced by the quality assurance criteria, and like I say, quality is not easy to quantify.
Would some students decide to go with a company which did not have a QA structure in place, as a cheaper alternative? No doubt. But an employer would look at that, and hire accordingly. It might sort the wheat from the chaff.
Not knowing the aviation industry as well as most of you, I don't know if what I've had to say is valid, but I figure it's better to offer a possible solution, than to keep going on about how bad things have gotten.
As far as things change, my two cents worth now, was worth twenty cents back in the 80's! And I would have been able buy a pie and a can of drink, and still have change back then!

[Cypher]

I agree along the lines of Student-pilot, when I was looking at doing my instructors rating at 200 hours TT, I had the same thought. What the heck do I have to pass onto a student that thinks the world of you..?

Over here in NZ, every man and his dog has a instructor rating, you won't get very far without one here so I finally did my instructor's rating at about 360 hours TT. This was after a stint doing scenics, charter and survey.

I've never done a straight comparison between my instructing and a 200 hour instructor, but my students have.
I think I'll let them speak for themselves...

I think putting a minimum experience level for new instructors is a great idea, harsh I know for low timers, but when you teach someone else how to fly, you have a big responsibility. I don't think many people can grasp that.

Maybe a idea would be to limit low time instructors in what they could teach, maybe only basic manerovres and basic procedures within a 25nm radius of the airfield, for a limited amount of the student's flight time. i.e only 25 hours per student, allowing a more experienced instructor to finish off the training?
At the moment, a C-Cat instructor in New Zealand, or a Grade 3, can teach everything up to CPL level. Maybe if a C-Cat or Grade 3 who wants to teach upto CPL level, should have to have a minimum amount of flight time before they can do it..

[flyby_kiwi]

All points seem very valid.

A cause for this I believe is that of STUDENT LOANS. Before they came into being on the scale they are here it was more a case of having to go out and work to fund all your flying - Requiring a greater desire to persuing an aviation carrer thus providing an excellent 'filter' for people trying to earn that CPL or C-Cat/Grade 3 licence.

Strongly agree with the supervision thought - Ive seen it work well for new instructors when done right.

Cypher - I heard a year or two back such restrictions were being put on the drawing board (for C-Cats under supervision anyway) - I assume it was either just a rumor or is still is the process.

[Cypher]

Last time I heard it was still in the process of being submitted. I thought they were calling for submissions from everyone.

I was thinking more along the lines of Junior C-Cat and Senior C-Cat... It's a big step to move from C to B Cat, and I'd go nuts training within the same 25 nm radius for 250 hours!

Or maybe they should bring in a basic C-Cat, which was restricted and then you could add a nav rating to it, so you could do navigation flights after a certain amount of experience, or a CPL training rating... The direct supervision thing is probably a good start for the first 100 hours, and I agree, it does work, but does it need to go further?

The only other problem I foresee is that I can see ASL rubbing their little greasy hands over that scheme.. cause you'd probably have to fork out each time you wanted to do a rating, unless you made it a B could remove the endorsement...

The student loan thing is a good point, I might just start a thread on that...

BTW I'm a C-Cat myself, so I'll probably putting myself outta business.. I'll shaddup now..

[inver TED]

Good points all around.

The point has been made that you would get better instructors if the pay was better, to which I agree to a point, but there will always be junior instructors with limited experience.

What is needed is for the senior instructors to take a more hands on approach in mentoring these juniors. It is not good enough to think that mentoring and developing junior instructors is the responsibility of only the CFI’s.

Unfortunately, as with most things in GA, the senior instructors don’t get paid enough to spend any extra time developing their junior colleagues.

I think that if we believe that the general standard of flying training is not good enough, then the only people that can change it is the instructors currently working within the industry. If we all strive to lift our own standards of airmanship, and do our best to pass this on to our students and our junior colleagues, then and only then will the industry improve.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I think it's a bit harsh to call newbie instructors a waste of space. As has already been mentioned there are good low hour instructors, and some woeful high hour instructors. To do the job well you have to want to teach, and when you don't want to any more it's time to move on.


True there is no substitute for experience. But it doesn't have to be flying experience. When I am employing I look on the resume for non-flying teaching/instructing/coaching experience, which more than makes up for low hours eg I have one who was a brand new grade three but had been teaching music for years. His teaching skills were excellent even when he was low hours.

If the flying school is full of very young instructors it will of course seem to a young wannabee that it must be easy, if they can do it I can, so I'll spend X on an instructor rating, in other words it can be a marketing tool.


As for allowing PPLs to instruct, well if they can't be paid, what will that do to the wages of those who need to make a living? Yes, they may be very good instructors, but it will only ever be a hobby to them and would have a terrible effect on the market for those who have taken it a bit more seriously. There are already too many people who think that flying should be done for the love of it, and that anyone who wants to be paid for their skills are somehow greedy. If they want to do it, jump through the hoops and get your CPL, which isn't that hard really especially if the hours you have have been challenging and good skills and experience have been developed.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Snarek:

CPL = paid for flying.

PPL = Private; not aerial work, not Instructing not charter - Private only. Recreational/pleasure & OWN business purposes.

If a 500 hour Private pilot feels it's time to take the small step into earning some income for their skills, it's just a small step to a basic CPL.

For a 500 hour Private Pilot (lets assume there is 100 command in there somewere) it's not that difficult to get the CPL.

Possibly a few flights, a few examinations (a lot easier these days) and the Private Pilot will then have the legal right to receive $$ for their skill & efforts.

After that, the now legal, ex-PPL can get an Instructor Rating, etc. etc.


Failing that, the hypothetical PPL Instructor would not be able get paid - period.

FREE INSTRUCTION: This would stuff the already dim prospects of the legitimate career CPL.

[snarek]

Why???

RFG

Failing that, the hypothetical PPL Instructor would not be able get paid - period.

Why

It is just a rule, and a dumb CASA rule at that. Meat bombing PPLs get paid, so why not just exempt PPL Instructors as well.

I don't support working for free. Sets a nasty precendent.

AK

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Breaking rules, however dumb, (and this one isn't to those who have made the effort to get the qualifications) can cause all kind of insurance headaches if nothing else.