Quality of newbies
 

As a proud hirer of newbies, I am very concerned of a trend that seems to have been happening in GA over the past 10 years. The quality of newbies abilities in my opinion, generally with basic stick and rudder skills and flight planning has been in slow decline.

Why? Is it due to sausage factories turning out pilots to get the fees, without a sense of responsibility, or inexperienced instructors with no commercial time teaching without any real world experience just to get hours up?
We shake our head at the confidence of some of these ex instructors, yet the real lack of skills these guys and girls actually have, when they come to us with their 500 hours of 1 hour experiences, bad habits and attitude so intrenched, that we now don't take on any ex instructors that haven't got commercial GA time it's just not worth it.

It's very frustrating for us, as we have had to increase our ICUS time, as lately in no way, are so many new pilots ready for command in outback or isolated work within 10 hours. I can see why some operators are looking at going to 50 hours ICUS plus when employing newbies.

I have always thought, we as operators in GA have a responsibility to the industry to keep a stream of new pilots coming in at ground level. We take on the baton to fine tune pilots and give them a set of skills that will put them in good stead for the next step up the ladder. In the mean time, that sort of pilot will eventually make us and their future employers money, that's why we do it if we are all honest. It's not up to us to complete basic training in short field or crosswind landings.

It's not just us, a lot of operators I have talked with are experiencing the same.
Some even feel, that even though they have raised the minimum hours for a start, that they still, are not getting good pilots. Some even suggest that fudging of logbooks are happening to get hours up, to get jobs. Pilots presenting with some of the hours in the logs don't equate to cockpit skills. However without going and ringing every aircraft owner or previous employer it's impossible to prove.

What to do is open for discussion, but my thoughts are, make it mandatory that to start instructing you must have at least 500 hours of GA commercial experience. Remove GPS's from training aircraft and get back to marks on a map or reinforce the importance of dead reckoning.
The reason I say this is, it develops situational awareness, gets their heads out the cockpit. It's a habit best developed in training. I am not against EFB or GPS but you would be amazed at the problems we have now, due to compete reliance newbies have on electronic cockpits. Same goes for flight planning. For Christ sakes they are flying 206's and 210's VFR at 2 to 6000 feet not A380's at 40,0000 ft. It's not that hard. It will make better pilots that think ahead of the aircraft.

This all maybe just sign of the times, and I maybe a dinosaur or an old grumpy, but this is at the route of all future GA operations.

Good operators make good pilots make good operators.



MS

I was privileged to meet a CPL who could not name the instruments required as a minimum for a VFR SE charter flight.

He was due to sit his instructors final exam just 3 days later....:ugh:

Couldn't agree more.:ok:

Personally, my advice to those considering instructing is if you aren't going to dedicate a lot of time and effort into producing the best pilot you can, don't even start. If it wasn't for the demand for fixed wing trainers, I would love to see the rotary equivalent with no Grade 3's and 400hrs command minimum, however this isn't realistic. Everyone needs to start somewhere, but schools need to be monitoring their products better.

Until then, we will continue to see pilots who think every aircraft has to run up into the wind (at least until the first engineer makes them sweep out the hanger they just dusted), strobes and transponders on from startup, radio calls that sound cool, circuits five miles wide, crap crosswind circuits and if they're able to fly without a GNSS, eyes glued to the map watching those ten mile markers go by just to name a few.

I am seeing more and more students who just want to look like pilots. Even heard of one who took their student epaulettes off and put on four bars at the servo before getting out of the car to fill up. :rolleyes:

I too am involved in training young aviation professionals. This probably wont go down very well, but in my honest opinion half the issue is best described as "Gen Y"..

It's true. I see it every day. Most under 30's in 2014 aren't interested in doing 'hard yards'. It's all about 'just give me the answer, I have no interest in exploring HOW you go about deriving it'. I don't think it's necessarily 'laziness', I just honestly think in most cases they just don't know how to push themselves. They've never had to.

If something requires hard work, its too much like hard work.

I know this is a generalisation, and that there are always exceptions to every rule. But my experience says it IS the majority.

yep. message is to short apparently...

How can you ever expect newbies to be GA job ready, when the only thing the instructor knows is the quickest route to the training area?!

I hate to tarnish all new G3 instructors with the same brush, but unfortunately they are doing the same to all fresh CPLs chasing charter work.

aussieflyboy


It's not all about the ability to do a 1:60 under pressure or the GPS failing. It's about situational awareness. Looking at a map, noticing what's on the map, reading the ground. Reading the wind. Seeing that town, seeing that airstrip, seeing that road, or salt lake, or homestead. Knowing how tall the trees are, how sparse the vegetation is. It might all be subconscious, but when you need it in a hurry one dark stormy day, it will be there. It's getting a feel for the terrain.

You don't get that feel on a GPS direct to.

Its the same for satnav driving around streets. I hate using them in an unfamiliar city as it does nothing for my situational awareness and my "feel" of the town. I will always study a map first.

So would you be suggesting that because you have GNSS units in such proliferation, (albeit half being non certified,) you don't need to be able to navigate by time, map, ground?

You seem to be making a strong case for the overreliance on GNSS argument.
Very similar vein to the whacker a while back on here (not you, afb) trying to get a GNSS enroute certification so that he could use it for his CPL test.:rolleyes:

I think we need to remember that a freshly minted CPL is a license to learn. Does not being able to quote minimum instrument requirements mean he/she can't do the job properly?

So I guess you don 't have too much time to bother looking outside with all those fancy devices to keep an eye on. No space in the cockpit for paper charts either I suspect.

Unfortunately most of the new pilots coming from training are a product of the times not just aviation. My daughter, 24, and an accountant is going great guns with her career.

The reason, she listens, does her work, not afraid to ask when she doesn't know and has a strong work ethic.

I see a lot of instructors around Bankstown, most think they are gods gift to aviation.

I agree with other posters, new comers need to be able to be situation aware, and have the ability to navigate and aviate with the barest minimum.

I can only speak from personal experience and maybe a few fellow fresh CPL holders who I have spoken to.

I agree I need some 'real' experience of flying A -B rather than flying big circles and dealing with some of the commercial pressures before I would make a good pilot.

I as most have worked hard to get to where I am but the next step is someone taking a chance on me

Aussieflyboy

Been there, done that. Actually, the first time did was as an instructor - without a GPS - in a 172. Did around the Tanami many times after before I had my first GPS.

Well he didn't do his homework before flight, or look out the window, or mark it on his map. I've still got my first Arnhem Land WAC with circles all over it - every time I saw a community strip (there was no public list of runways then) I drew them in. These days, why hadn't he got his shiny new WAC and circled all the runways shown OzRunways? Poor preparation if it was a check ride IMHO.

Agreed (although I think if you need to teach a pilot how to do this, he should be back in his PPL training). If there is a tool, use it, but know how to get by without it.

People managed to fly around the top end for 70 years without GPS. It's not rocket science, and not that hard a skill to have, and by practising it, you gain the habits of very good situational awareness and get to read the ground.


But back to the crux of instructing. I loved my time GA instructing, and wouldn't mind doing ab-initio again one day, but its hardly a career path from a $$ point of view. And from the outside of GA these days, flying schools seem to be teaching people to be airline pilots at the expense of any other flying variant.

Compressor

Did you ever land at norlangie safari camp ?

Or take clients there ?

(Btw, it is covered in saplings now)

I'm a former instructor, current FO.

The reality is, that instructing and air transport require very different skill sets.

Instructing does not require getting it right first time every time - even on a flight test the examiner is looking as much for the ability to correct errors, than not making them in the first place. It does require knowing how to impart knowledge in context. I have known good instructors who could not make the grade as air transport pilots. I did, but it required the full quotient of line training offered.

On the other hand, air transport does not require an understanding of the building blocks of flight, the "how" of making a machine act the way you want. It requires the hard yards of learning facts relevant to the job, and learning them so well you get it right every time. I know pilots who would not make the grade as GA instructors, but who are very good at operating from A to B every day in all weather.

As to standards dropping - yes. The world is highly focused on user pays and each individual being responsible for their own training at their own cost. This unfortunately means a race to the bottom in cutting training costs and therefore cutting training standards.

You get what you pay for, but you don't see the consequences of cheap training until you've personally seen what expensive training produces!

Eclan,when was the last time you did a 70 mile diversion picking your way home between thunderheads in the wet whilst doing constant fuel calculations and keeping the forever shifting alternate landing areas in your head and keep VFR. Not PNG, really! Tell me you don't need ICUS training when this can happen. Even seasoned guys get a sweat up.

It would be irresponsible for me as an operator to let anyone go out in this sort of stuff if we didn't think you could handle it and come home safe. Sometimes Mother Nature can throw stuff at you you need to be prepared for. Miles with someone experienced as a backup telling stories of what to look for and places to look out for gets your head out the cockpit. Trust me I have been doing this for over 30 years.

Situational awareness is as compressor stall said is what makes a good pilot. Being ahead of an aircraft takes planning and the ability to think on the go, not sit back fat dumb and happy looking at a GPS screen.

We have only had a 10 hour ICUS policy in the past but are looking to extend that as recent newbies haven't got to a standard that our CP feels happy that they can do a run, safely,on time and economically. CP is frustrated that they have to spend time just getting short field and crosswinds sorted before they can progress onto commercial considerations.
This is basic stuff that they are not proficient in. 500 hour instructors we have employed haven't lasted long as whilst good in a circuit have problems with running to times, fuel use, and navigation. One in particular caused trouble amongst other pilots because thought they knew it all and couldn't handle ICUS time. We had to let him go before he was lynched, Was that you?

MS

I have to disagree on the basis that anyone can become good at anything with dedication, preperation and self criticism.

Why can't a good operator flying A-B in all weather instruct in how to be a good operator flying from A-B in good weather and vice versa with a good instructor going to charters/transport. They might not get it right the first time but with hard yards will get better.

Back to thread, many good points but lack of attitude comes to mind with lots of people who just "fell" into the industry. In the past you really had to be dedicated and have an passion in flying to make it. Now you just need to be able to pay. Merit doesn't count anymore.

It's all very simple really because you can only thin down the quality of instructors so far.
Bit like today's volume built houses, they are crap quality being built by tradies who pump them out for peanuts, quality doesn't figure in housing these days nor does pilot training.

Starting from a well taught student by someone from many years ago with enthusiasm when flying was a stable career whom then moves on to instructing himself with a little less enthusiasm to the next guy with even less enthusiasm to the next to the next to the next, next thing you know you have bare basic pilots whom have been taught by instructors that are only passing thru the system to get to that big shinny jet. Why put in excess effort when there is no need to would be a lot of what's the problem out there as a lot expect an easy path to that jet where as many years ago only the top shelf guys got the gig.

Today's Formula: Take one instructor who is or was just barely taught to get thru the syllabus then + dozens of students along the way with the same basic teachings (just learn enough to get thru the syllabus due cost) = today's pilots.
Welcome to the future.

Wmk2

Aviation is only reaping what it has sown. The days of people who are giving up careers in other industries to become pilots are over. GA companies used to get highly self motivated people who would probably make more money in another industry but would subject themselves to the whole GA BS. Many people have worked for free just to get a shot at flying piston single.

Unfortunately the tide has turned, and this is what is left. GA has to change or die. If that means changing the way you hire then so be it. If that means you do more training then that's what has to happen.

Aviation is just becoming like every other industry where you compete for talent now whereas before talent come knocking on your door.

With the cost of training so so high now and the ease and better paid jobs elsewhere the industry is going to struggle in the future finding people with the right mindset skills and health to be pro pilots.

Reality is the risk involved in being a pilot now is so high that I doubt people are willing to risk it. The growth of the airlines is over and so the chance of getting a good paying job is reducing.

Absolutely agree. The old school operators who may have helped you learn things the hard way through hanger appreciation, less than award wages and lots of psychological 'conditioning' have larger fallen by the way-side thankfully.

Quality of newbies
 

The problem is not limited to GA, training pilots in some airlines display very similar characteristics. Go figure!

I am about 55 hours into an integrated CPL course at a non-'sausage factory' school. My instructor is a career instructor with 8,000 hours or so. He has the least experience of any of the crew there!

I chose this school after checking quite a few out because they are more than a little bit 'old school' in how they train their pilots - less about worrying how shiny and new the plane is, more about flying. No glass cockpits, no GPS, no 30 metre wide runway...no stupid student pilot uniforms required, check your attitude at the door.

Anyways, I would like to think that I am trying to be the opposite of the newbie you are describing OP. I am working my arse off in my (full-time) non-aviation job to pay for my training. I do study hard, I do ask questions, I read lots of magazines, articles, investigation reports, and so on. It is also worth noting that when I hopefully get a job in GA (I'm probably going to go bush) I will be taking a massive pay cut from what I do now; I'm not doing this for money or status, I'm doing it because I love flying.

So please, don't lump every newbie in the same boat! We aren't all poorly trained with bad attitudes and huge egos.

Eclan, that's just my point. Things have changed, quality of most pilots skills have deteriorated.
I said we insist in 10 hours ICUS, others are looking at going to 50 hours. I have been told 50 hours is typical now in South Africa with similar flying.

As per wet season flying, it's always best to plan for the worse and train for it. If you are flying daily it will happen that you will get caught occasionally.That's part of situational awareness training. In the old days it was easier to set a newbie off with very limited ICUS or no ICUS time at all, such as yourself as you came with a higher base set of skills. As you said you have been out of it for 20 years and a lot has changed in that time. Just have a chat to any CP.

Guess I am annoyed because the cost to the newbie to get a CPL has risen and the standard has dropped. They aren't getting value for money. We at the end have go back and spend time and money(ICUS is dead money) getting a pilot to line that 20 years ago wouldn't have got past a check ride.

There are still some good training orgs out there, and the students stand out as the CFI's take pride in their fledglings. So don't think it is all Gen Y. Most of these are small training orgs or flying clubs. So it's all not doom and gloom. But the alarm bells are ringing.

MS

I only said it was half the issue.

The other is the catch 22/circular argument that is GA instruction. Unlike most other professions, no one ever commences flying with the career goal of being an instructor, and unfortunately the art of 'teaching' lies solely with those with the aptitude AND the work ethic for it. Those people a few and far between.

The schools can't change it. Ground schools are as guilty as flying schools. Money is always tight, to the point where the 'path of least resistance' is not only the most expedient way, it's also often the only affordable way.

You have to pay monkeys when you only own peanuts.

Hi Eclan

I fly charter in the Top End and would have to agree with Mick. I also would not disagree with your experiences as I have seen a few bright newbies come on board and be checked to line with very little icus and be great charter pilots. The standard has dropped with flying training. I did my NVFR after I had about 1200 hrs of charter experience. The instructor who did my rating had thousands of hours of instructional experience and knew a hell of a lot about flight training but was clueless as to the realities of remote charter flying.

I guess my point is that basic flying training and Commercial charter, Rpt etc are two different games. I expect that flying schools should put out a training programme based on "real world" flying as this is what the majority of students are aiming for.

The company I work for wont hire fresh Cpls. In reality it would take 30 plus icus hours to get the average low time pilot up to speed. Most of the low timers we have had come through cant even do a manual flight plan!

Regards

sigh
 

Mick,

Totally agree, I started my PPL training some 16 years ago but had to stop due to work & family. At 40 I decided to get back into it as I had the chance. Even as a newbie I was shocked at the standard compared to 16 years ago. Simple things like not being able to hold an altitude or read a map, and this was departing Wellington International in NZ!! It just seems that these little things no longer matter because everyone sees themselves in a shiny jet and lets the autopilot do it all.

Attitude plays a huge part and preparing to go through some hard yards, something that is very much missing these days. I was fortunate to have 2 months recently in a king air on air ambo missions. Did I learn lots, hell yes! Being thrown around at night in 60kts winds, trying to plan my descent, reading star charts and no auto pilot soon made me realise that stuff can go wrong very quickly. 180kts taught me to always be 10mins ahead. All of this happening while I had a prem baby in the back. Then came the landing. Only then did I realise the value of flying the 152 on 1 wheel down the centreline of the runway to come to terms with a crosswind landing. My instructor made me do this every time there was a strong crosswind.

He also told me that "the plane doesn't know how big it is, how wet it is, how dark it is or even how many engines it has...it is just an airframe. As a pilot we get the plane to do what we want it to. If it doesn't do what we want it to then we are doing something wrong, so fix it."

Maybe I view this stuff a bit differently because I have a bit of life experience (Spent 7 years in the Police and have had my fair share of undie sucking moments) To me there just seems to be a lack of common sense.

I know in the last year I have put in a huge effort to get into the position I am in now.

Back in my day, a bag of lollies cost 5 cents, fuel was 63cents a litre and all fresh CPLs knew how to fly...

Question to the older blokes, do you think your superiors thought you were just as good as them? Doubt it.

Not saying there isn't a decline, however there might be a bit of poetic license going on here.

Pineapple, what sort of king air does 180kts?

j3

J3,

A king air descending.

Apple

Another train of thought.

Perhaps these newbies, like myself, were told that they were doing an exceptional job by their very inexperienced instructors, who were only parroting the crap from their twit of a chief pilot.

"Get them in, rebook them, give them a different instructor every day, it doesn't matter as long as they keep paying."

It's not their fault, each person is only equipped with the knowledge they have been taught, and paid to be taught I might add. Unfortunately there are still some schools that care only about the bottom line, and not the product they are churning out.

"Offer them instructing work, use them for as long as they will put up with not being paid, and then replace them."

This is not the formulae for training quality, competent pilots. One may have 1000 hours, but it is 1000 hours of regurgitating the same crap you were taught by said twit. It's not your fault either, you are being told you're doing the right thing, and you've never flown anywhere else so what would you know?

I can't offer a solution. I got my CPL and then went elsewhere to learn how to really fly properly. It's a bloody expensive lesson to learn. But who out there has never been ripped off or not gotten what they have paid for?

Probably none of us. As the saying goes, that's aviation.

Eclan - I disagree with your comment.


Yes, going 70nm out of the way to dodge thunderstorms, especially during the build-up or The Wet, does happen (often).
Yes, FZL can be below LSALT in Australia. Within the past month, I canned an IFR flight heading West from Orange, FZL at 5700, LSALT at 6100. (Couldn't go VFR, viz was 250m, cloud base 300 feet). I'm told also happens in Tassie / Vic (particularly in winter) but I have little experience there.


Mick - are you sure this isn't "Back When I Was a Boy, everything was rosy...?"

Mick touched on it before, but I can tell you for certain that Botswana has 50hrs ICUS.
That terrain there is perfectly flat with weather conditions very similar to northern aussie.

You are being taught a totally different style of flying than what you are used to from flight school. In fact, it involves throwing some of the stuff you learnt there out the window.
By the end of those 50hrs you are very proficient at what you are doing and are expected to be able to navigate around by terrain features with a failed GPS, landing with tailwinds, thunderstorm navigation, traffic and bird awareness (There is roughly 70 aircraft operating to an area within 80nm of the main airport) and general bush flying techniques.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with 50hrs ICUS. Can be done easily in 3 weeks.

A King Air descending does a little more than 180kts. More like about 280-300kts.

morno

Outnabout, you could be right, but when I was a boy my instructor wouldn't let me get away with diddly squat and said the standards are set in black and white always aim to make these standards your minim you will accept.

As a professional it is up to all of us in this industry to strive for the safest we can be. It's called pride. It's starts at the bottom and goes all the way to highest level of management. I don't want to sound like CASA but I do think standards are slipping, and by the way they can take a bit of the blame here.

I started this link to open a discussion that unless we start looking at fixing a decline in quality of training, that bad habits will get worse and safety will decline. The amount of agreement in just the few short posts here shows that it isn't just me or a dozen other operators that I talk to. It is real and is a big worry.

Discussions with CASA over the past couple of years on this point, they acknowledge to me that they are concerned. But in typical CASA form increased the funding to the safety advisers and produced a DVD on hints in flying outback. No talk of increasing audits, or inspections on training orgs or those that sign these newbies off, well not to my knowledge.

Don't get me wrong when I was a boy, I did make my fair share mistakes, and had a fair few butt pucker moments. Under that all it was thanks to my instructor for giving me basic good stick and rudder and navigation skills that got me home safe and sound and no one ever knew there was a problem.
30 odd years later when ever I fly his voice is still in my head running through stuff. I am sure any pilot of an older vintage knows what I am talking about. I am not sure this is happening now as generally they all seem to sitting there fat , dumb and happy. As when we put some simulated pressure on newbies in ICUS generally the first thing that fails is aviate.

I urge all newbies to question the quality of their training, talk to other higher timed pilots, ask advice. You are spending your money with these people ask them, what they have to offer you, don't just accept they know it all. As with any purchase make sure you are getting what you pay for. Ask how much experience the instructor has and ask to see his/her logbook.

On a personal improvement note, be familiar with the minim standards you must meet to become a CPL, and make them your personal minimums. Push your comfort zone occasionally switch off the GPS,IPAD Oz runways and navigate like your flight test, it's not that hard VFR. It only becomes hard if you let those skills erode. Remember always keep a plan B ticking over, just in case.

MS

Kingair descending at 180kts? Please do go on, my bullsh1t meter is getting a reading...

The best intructors that I had in GA was a crusty old pr!ck named Col Griffin and my first boss, Bob Courtenay.

The first was an exWW2 Mosquito pilot who went to ANA and retired from the airline with 23,000 hrs of which 32 hrs were in single engined aircraft. He then did a Gr 3 IR and finished his career as a SE instructor. Col instructed me for some of my UPPL and also my CPL. He could be a rather blunt chap at times, he certainly didn't mince words but if you got over yourself and listened to what he was saying then you learned. The most valuable thing that I learned from him was that you needed a certain attitude towards your flying. Years later, I ran into him and told him with some pride that I was working as a B747 FO. He said to me, "Anthill, I knew you could do it because you are a survivor". He would know. It is the most flattering thing anyone has ever said to me.

Bob Courtenay was my first Boss. From Day 1 of his employ, he furthered the concept of having an 'attitude' towards your work and in a commercial sense. On my first day, I showed at the appointed time of 0800. He said that this made me neither late nor on-time- he expected that I would not ever be late for work and that the only way not to be late was to be early! He also used to knock back charter work if he couldn't do the job to 100% of the clients expectations. For example, if the charter needed to depart at 1400 and was to use an aircraft that was on another job arriving back at, say, 1200. He would say "can't do it". This ensured an optimum level of reliability to clients. It was notable that he had the only pure charter and air work business at MB; all of the other companies that did charter were also flying schools or RPT operators.

The key word here is "attitude". An instructor can try to impart the nuts and bolt of technique. A true mentor will go beyond that and show you the way to approach something. A mentor will cause you to change your outlook and perception in a constructive and everlasting way.

J3,

Care to elaborate on your comment..I clearly remember seeing 180 on the ASI.
I clearly remember receiving an instruction to slow to 170kts on that trip..why is this so difficult to understand?

The point of the comment was 180kts is a :mad: lot faster than 60-70kts of a typical training aircraft.

Like I was saying..attitude.

Pineapple,

It is difficult to understand because you would be flying a Kingair ridiculously slowly if descending at 180kts. Most turboprops are descended at Vmo minus 10-15 depending upon your operation at a 3:1 profile. So the only reason to descend that slowly would be forescast/actual turbulence. Thats why I was very curious.

I know you have a previous career, but remember you seem to be just starting off in this one, don't be too quick to judge people, you don't know if they are above or below you on the ladder.

j3

There we go...using our words..makes everything a whole lot clearer.

Ok Daz,

Thanks again mate, you stay classy. Now we were talking about attitude weren't we?

j3

Thanks for that post Anthill, I got something valuable out of it.