Real Pilots?????

[TonyR]

No, I wnat instructors to be instructors not en-route to another job.

My original thoughts were that we are not producing the quality of pilots we should be.

I would like to see more pilots comming along and I for one take as many "new" people flying as I can. I do not want it to be an elite sport but it will cost money however we do it. I just want pilots to be safe, and to keep safe they need proper training.

TR

[360BakTrak]

Tony,

Thats a fair point. I have had variuous instructors, some career instructors and some 'hour-building' towards an airline job, and all have been excellent at their job.
I realise that some instructors may not be as good as others but surely that is the same in any profession?
I don't think it is as simple as saying that all instructors should have 1000 hours+ before becoming an instructor. Hours are just a number.
Its what you do with your flying that makes a difference.

[Sensible]

No, I want instructors to be instructors not en-route to another job.

But this only promotes elitism because how then would the financially strapped people get the flying experience that the airlines require? The present system may not be perfect, but, it gives students an opportunity to learn to fly (instructors work for very little) and in turn it gives the hour builder the chance to build hours for free and even get paid for the privilege!

How would it be possible to prevent instructors from moving off to the right hand seat of an airline? Bonding?

[TonyR]

If we look at other fields of employment or sport. Most instructors and trainers or coaches have done the job for a while before becomming and instructor or coach.

We have it arse about face, we seem to think in flying we must accept that people instruct first and work later.

I think that a 2 - 300 hour instructor does not have enough experience in the air to instruct others. I don't have all the anwsers but something must be done to improve airmanship generally.

TR

[S-Works]

I agree with Tony R here. I think that Instructors whould have significant experiance as pilots before being allowed to teach. Why should the student pay for the instructor to go through his own learning curve?

To quote sensible:

"it gives students an opportunity to learn to fly (instructors work for very little) and in turn it gives the hour builder the chance to build hours for free and even get paid for the privilege!"

Why should the student pay for the hour builder who in 99% of the times I have encountered them try to make you feel honoured to be sitting next to them as they are enroute to the airlines.

Let face it driving an airbus/737 etc etc etc is hardly the elite or well paid job it was a few years. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against people wanting to pursue this is a career, in fact I have a good many friends who are airline captains. What I don't want is some 200hr wannabee pushing it down my throat that he is superior because he is only sat there on his way to the airlines!!!

I also dont' generally trust the judgement of someone who is prepared to get themselves £60k in debt to enter an industry that is stuffed full of wannabees when there is no work now or even on the horizon. If they can't make good personal judgements what are there teaching judgements going to be like?

Give me a career instructor or an ex Mil or ex Airline pilot looking for fun teaching to be something back in anyday.

In every other area that has instructors, the instructors have to have done the time in the field before they can teach. Teaching is the passing on of experiance and how has a low hours instructor gaiend this experiance?

[mazzy1026]

I can see this going further than it already is.

Personally as I have mentioned in another thread, I would love to become an instructor and have no wish to reach the airlines, so maybe in years to come I might become what you say "real". The thing is - do I have to put up with all the prejudice whilst I still am in the low hour band? You gotta start somewhere.

What about if pre PPL students tell their instructor there intentions, career wise, before they take the PPL and then after it, the instructor tell the student what career they would best suite, i.e. regular flyer, instructor, airline pilot, ground school teacher etc etc.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Why should the student pay for the hour builder who in 99% of the times I have encountered them try to make you feel honoured to be sitting next to them as they are enroute to the airlines.

I've never encountered that attitude ... but so many people do report encountering it that I guess I've just been lucky.

Give me a career instructor or an ex Mil or ex Airline pilot looking for fun teaching to be something back in anyday.

Oh yes. Or, test pilots who normally spend almost all their time on paperwork, so their employers let them do some instructing so that they get to fly more than once a month.

However:

In every other area that has instructors, the instructors have to have done the time in the field before they can teach. Teaching is the passing on of experiance and how has a low hours instructor gaiend this experiance?

A major exception is schoolteachers. Whilst there are programmes to get experienced people back into schools, and programmes to encourage career switching from something else to low paid low status school teaching (which are being surprisingly effective), it is still surely the case that the vast majority of teachers go from school to college and then straight back to school with no experience of real life at all first. This is the teaching model that is most familiar to all of us, as we've all been to school - hours building instructors are just following this model.

[mazzy1026]

GTW I agree that an instructor should be experienced but..... you can't pass on experience, you can only use your experience to pass on the knowledge required by JAR (or whatever) to pass the PPL. Its like a new school teacher - doesnt matter how long they have been doing it, if you know your stuff then thats what counts, and passing it down to the pupils.

[jbqc]

Yes but teachers must do the college course over a few years and are not putting someones life at risk when teaching, at least not everytime they teach.

I am in the legal business and for a long time I sat in court handing over bits of paper to others who were "real QCs" I thought I would never get a case of my own. I used to think some of the "old fellas" were stupid and I could do much better. I am glad now I kept my mouth shut until I knew better, and that took YEARS and HOURS.

I have as of yesterday 5,785 hours (3220 multi engine) and 33 years flying for business and fun, I have both CAA and FAA IR. I had one landing accident at 280 hours 29 years ago, when I knew everything.

I had to fly with a young instructor a few months ago, he reminded me of that 280 hour person I used to be.

I also flew with an "older" FAA instructor last summer in the US and I can say he taught me quite a lot in just a few hours. I went for a bi-annual and to hire an a/c but I decided to ask this instructor to come for a couple of trips with me. It was a real pleasure to receive advice from a "real pilot" and I was humbled by the experience. I came home realizing I knew so very little about my sport.

JB

[Boing_737]

Maybe the issue isn't that the average instructor is using the position to build time, but that they haven't been formerly taught to teach? School teachers have to go on courses to learn how to teach. I don't know how far the FI course goes on this, but it is fairly obvious that they haven't been taught how to impart knowledge to others in my opinion. You are relying on experience, and personality to win through I think.

The instructors I have had have been great, and I think that maybe that is because they are of the same (younger ) generation as me and so the sense of humour, and banter are very similar, and as long as you can give as good as you get (and break through that attitude of "how privileged you must be sitting next to me") then you can get on very well.

The other thing is that if you don't get on with your instructor, don't think they are giving you the best tuition, being a bit of a prat, not very good at teaching, then you can always get a new one (or a new school). They'll soon get the message.

[jbqc]

mazzy1026
I think if you want to become an instructor you should go ahead, I hope to retire in a couple of years time and I was thinking about it myself (depending on how many exam hoops the CAA make me jump through).

I take the view that instructors should have a "mentor" and should be monitored better by the CFI, this business of lifting the restriction after a few solos is totally wrong.

I know at my local airfield a young instructor is usually on his own at the club school. On more than one occasion he has ask me about the ability of a couple of members wanting to hire the aircraft. The members brow beat the instructor to get the aircraft and he cant get in touch with the CFI. This should not happen at any club or school and if the system permits it then the system is wrong

JB

[360BakTrak]

TonyR.....if it is 'ar$e about face' then how do you overcome the problem?! FORCE people you deem to be experienced enough to become instructors?
In terms of a job, you generally start at the bottom and work your way up, not the other way round!

[Genghis the Engineer]

it is still surely the case that the vast majority of teachers go from school to college and then straight back to school with no experience of real life

It certainly was, but not any longer I think. My brother after he graduated (in physics, where teachers have always been in short supply) applied to do teacher training but was turned down by every college to which he applied. The reason given in each case was a lack of life experience.

Now he's been through several jobs, married, started a family - and just qualified as a teacher.



Whilst I don't think I've ever met the arrogance some people claim from hours-building instructors, in my experience they don't have the experience of "real" aviation that the "old and bold" have. Given a choice, if I've got to do some GA instruction (as it happens I have to next week) I always try and ask for somebody that I know to have a lot of real-world flying experience; I always find that I learn more and faster (and argue less with) compared to the hours-builder.

That said, there will always be self-improvers, and since no normal person can afford to clock up 1500 hrs from their own wallet, we've got to accept that instructors of this nature exist - but hope that "old and bold" club CFIs don't just treat them as slave labour, and actually help and encourage their newly qualified AFIs to gain more real flying experience. I think if they do that, absolutely everybody should win - but I've certainly seen schools where the "slave labour" approach is definitely favoured.

G

[boomerangben]

As a once low houred instructor, I feel I have to stand up and defend. In this world there is good and bad - it is human nature. If you end with an instructor that you dont like, go get another one. But if you go to a school that takes an active interest in the standards that their instructors keep, then IMHO it doesn't matter how old or how many hours an instructor has. If you dont want to be taught by a 22 yo with 300hrs, go some place else. But there are 22 yo with 300 hours I would rather learn with than some of the older "more experienced" instructors I have come across.

Some of the posts here seem to be by people who wouldn't lower themselves to learn from someone who is younger with fewer hours. May be I should add to the list of things that make a real pilot: the ability to learn from ANY other pilot.

[Keef]

I've had a motley band of instructors over the years. Two particularly bad ones stand out, and they were both hour-collecting towards their right seat jobs. The time spent with them (not much of it!) was totally wasted.

I've flown with young instructors with fewer hours than me, and found it a very fruitful experience - I think sometimes we taught each other a few things.

I had an outstanding young instructor at NAC a couple of years ago, for the FAA IR. I think I had more hours than he did, but he was in a different league: he knew it, and he could teach it. A real joy to fly with!

I probably learned most, early on, from two or three relaxed blokes who'd finished their flying careers, and were instructing for the love of it.

[FNG]

I am not sure that the analogy with teachers in schools is entirely apt when discussing instruction in skills. Most instructors of skills, particularly of the skills used in risk sports, have to master the sport before teaching it: consider horse riding, sailing and mountaineering as examples. Scuba enthusiasts can advise whether diving is another example.

Having said this, it is difficult to see how a significant body of experienced instructors dedicated to instruction as an end in itself could ever develop, so long as instructors are used as cheap labour. Whenever I have retained the services of an instructor in, say, riding or climbing, I have expected to pay and have paid heavily for the privilege, and have always been amazed at how little flying instructors are able to charge for their skills.

By the way, for discussion which may be of interest to pilots real, fake, old, bold etc, see David Southwood's lecture notes on page 2 of Flying Lawyer's "Old Aeroplanes in C21" thread in the Aviation History forum.

[TonyR]

I don't know why instructors are not paid well in the UK but those of us who fly in the US and are charged for the instructor's time, even for the pre flight and the logbook signiture, understand that they don't work for nothing.

Looking at a school here, £139.00 student rate per hour and the instructor gets £12.00. They could almost earn that frying chips in McDonalds.

I would pay good money for a good instructor and so would most people.

TR

[Aerobatic Flyer]

May be I should add to the list of things that make a real pilot: the ability to learn from ANY other pilot.

Good point. Last summer, I watched the chief test pilot of a well-known French manufacturer being checked out on a Piper Cub by an instructor who was 25 years younger, and had just a fraction of his experience. However, the instructor knew how to fly Cubs, and both parties seemed to learn a lot from flying together.

As with most things in flying, attitude is what matters.

(Needless to say, the test pilot chappie did his Cub check out with a lot bounces than me... )

[IO540]

TonyR

I don't know why instructors are not paid well in the UK

I can think of two reasons:

1. Low utilisation, due to lack of students and poor weather. Otherwise, it's easy to make a good wage.

2. Ready availability of young but skint ATPL hour builders willing to work for almost nothing, building 1000 hours over say 3-4 years

[Genghis the Engineer]

Perhaps there's an issue here in how schools (and in particular CFIs) treat their younger FIs. Do they, for example...

- Pay them to do other work (and thus remain part of the business full time) whilst the weather isn't flyable, since any business will have work that needs doing?

- Try and make opportunities for their less experienced instructors to gain more real flying experience that can be passed onto the students?

- Treat their staff with the respect that they need them to treat their students (customers!) with?


I think, to be fair, that almost all CFIs do the latter, but I'm less convinced about the first two. And notice I'm not particularly blaming the "hours builders", they are people taking the best route available to them into their chosen career, but almost certainly don't have the money to go expanding their experience outside that relatively narrow objectives.

G


N.B. Aerobatic Flyer, having more than a nodding acquaintance with Test Pilots, I think you'll find that they are rarely averse from learning from anybody or anything - that's their job after all. But also, they have been specifically trained how to get into a new type and become proficient in it VERY quickly. That's not a skill routinely taught anywhere else - maybe it should be.