Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Instructor standards falling?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Instructor standards falling?

Old 9th Sep 2008, 12:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,130
Instructor standards falling?

Oh dear! What is happening to the quality of our instructors. The Chirp Feedback leaflet with this months Pilot Magazine highlights some examples of pretty poor airmanship and understanding of air law.
What chance do the students have?
DO.
dont overfil is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 14:34
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 31
What do you expect with so many hours builders with naff all experience?
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 14:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 560
Some of the best instructors I've seen have minimal hours. It all depends on the training they have received and their aptitude for flying and teaching.
Crosswind Limits is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 15:16
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 31
Some of the best instructors I've seen have minimal hours. It all depends on the training they have received and their aptitude for flying and teaching.
That may be so, but my experience has shown that the majority of them are barely fit to fly solo let alone teach.

I look forward to the return of the EXPERIENCED PPL Instructor and more people going into teaching because they have the desire, experience and aptitude and not just because it is a route to 'free hours' for a 'better' job.
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 15:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 1,197
Seems to me Bosey that the problem is seasoned experienced instructors would expect to be paid reasonable salaries (quite rightly).

You'd then get threads on here saying X flying school was "ripping off" (I hate that term) students cos it was £5/hour more expensive than another.

PS Cheeky request: Are you free for a 1 hr dual BFR jolly in my a/c this Saturday perchance?
Mariner9 is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 15:39
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 31
Yep, I know, it's a catch 22 situation. But I think the poor standards will do far more to harm GA in the long run than the higher prices.

I genuinely believe that career Instructors are professionals and should receive remuneration in line with that professionalism. As long as we have hours builders demeaning the market this will never happen.

Ho hum....
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 15:56
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 58
Posts: 351
Tell you what Bose if I was hardly fit to go solo when I started instructing it beggars the question what use is a freshly minted PPL.

I do agree that the current system is not perfect, but blaming low hours instructors isn't the way forward. I wasn't perfect as an instructor when I first started out but would like to think once I had some time under my belt that my students got value for money.

You hit the nail on the head when you say that career professional instructors need a decent salary, I would consider instructing again at some point but who on earth is going to pay 50K a year and thats just to match a SFO salary!

The only instructing that might come near the salary required would be CPL/IR and thats not bringing the experienced guy to the PPL student.
Flying Farmer is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 16:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a thriving maritime community
Posts: 160
On the other hand I had young instructors who were fantastic, motivating and very well prepared both in the air and in the theory (even if just passing thru, waiting for an airline job), and older retired airline Captains or ex-RAF types who were indeed very experienced but not very good at instructing and rather unfriendly.

Got to remember that military and line training instructors teach people that have already been thru a selection process. It's much harder teaching a man off the street, with no particular talent or aptitude.
So a 12000 hours fast jet instructor does not necessarily make a good PPL instructor.

Ivor
Ivor_Novello is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 16:13
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 31
I do agree that the current system is not perfect, but blaming low hours instructors isn't the way forward. I wasn't perfect as an instructor when I first started out but would like to think once I had some time under my belt that my students got value for money.
And who paid the price of you getting time under your belt.......


Why oh why do we think that those waiting for the airlines or finishing with the airlines are the best candidates for PPL teaching? How about EXPERIENCED PPL's teaching what they know..........
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 16:25
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 58
Posts: 351
Agree Bose, as I said the systems not perfect but is all we have at the moment.

You honestly think your experienced PPLs will not have a period of time adjusting to the demands of instructing as well? I'm fully in favour of them btw, if they can pass the FI flight test they should be as good as instructors who follow the current route.

I'm also interested how you would classify an experienced PPL?
Flying Farmer is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 16:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 31
I know the systems not perfect, I just struggle to defend it!!

I would describe an experienced PPL in this scenario as one who has between 500 and 800 hrs, a proven experience of touring and multiple types, not just the same 500hrs repeated. One who understands the wider issues relating to PPL flying, such as getting notams, weather licensing requirements etc. Someone who has the social skills to go with the experience and who genuinely wants to teach not just log hours and dream of flying a jet.

Passing the FI course without the requirement for CPL exams etc would meet the teaching requirements, it is the real world experience that I want to concentrate on.

Perhaps holding something like AOPA Gold Wings would demonstrate the sort of experience level I am trying to get across.
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 16:51
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 49
Posts: 774
After letting my AFI rating lapse some 15 years ago and being currently in the process of revalidating it – effectively I am having to do the whole FI course.
Personally I feel that the standard of teaching on my “second” flying instructor course to be a lot better. I also feel that I am expected to teach to a much higher standard to pass my renewal/revalidation test.
I would therefore assume that the standard of the finished instructor to be higher today than 15 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that I will be a better instructor this time round.
Mickey Kaye is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 17:12
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 58
Posts: 351
Thanks for the clarification Bose. Given that level of experience I could foresee PPLs with those hours making a very useful contribution.

I do see a few potential problems. Firstly as we know the vast majority of private flyers drop out of the scene fairly quickly, finding these experienced PPLs who ALSO wish to teach might be difficult. I can't imagine there are going to be enough to fill 10% of the positions available.

Secondly the background knowledge needed to adequately teach the long and short briefings. This may be achieved by increasing the ground school hours form the existing 125? To a figure that ensures sufficient knowledge. I'm not suggesting for a minute the full 650 hours needed for the ATPLs!
Flying Farmer is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 17:23
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 315
I have to put in a word for instructors, all mine have been very good in my vast 33 hours to date. Given the tone of some posts, I especially want to defend my current instructor, 19 years old and hour building. He's at least as good as the age 40+ instructors I have flown with. He's clear, helpful, precise and all the other things one needs when learning.

The disgrace about instructing is the pay and hours. The hourly rate at my club (and as far as I understand it they pay the market rate and make more reasonable demands than some) is less than another 19 year old I know gets paid to teach kids to play cricket. It can't be right. Given the hourly rate for flying, the proportionate increase to pay instructors a decent rate would hardly be a show-stopper.
JOE-FBS is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 17:39
  #15 (permalink)  

Hovering AND talking
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 55
Posts: 5,711
Just going back to the original post, I think the CHIRP reports to which the OP refers both involve a "Senior Instructor". They are therefore unlikely to be young hour building instructors so a few of the srguments above may not be applicable to thiese cases.

Sounds like extreme arrogance in one case and preciousness in the other; character traits that aren't confined to any one type of aviator!!

Cheers

Whirls
Whirlygig is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 18:01
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 31
Bose I did respect you at one point, but the way you keep harping on about hour builders makes me think you're a real c&%t. I know you personally and am getting more and more offended by what your write on here.
Oops, hit a raw nerve.....

And you of all people have always known my view on this subject.

While the industry is devalued by those using it as a ride onto 'greater' things we are going to have poor pay and conditions for those who want to make a career of teaching. As long as the industry sees the FI as not being a proper job but just a stepping stone, the career FI's will continue to receive wages that barely feed them and the students will continue to receive sub standard training.

I don't think every hour builder is the devil, just those who don't do the role justice. Oh and I never mentioned 'young' at any stage.

Now if that view makes me a ****, so be it. But until the industry improves the core of PPL Instruction we are going to continue to have a massive drop out rate and poor standards.
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 18:25
  #17 (permalink)  

Hovering AND talking
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 55
Posts: 5,711
Originally Posted by Bosey
the career FI's will continue to receive wages that barely feed them and the students will continue to receive sub standard training.
The first does not imply the second and your corollary is false! Neither do I believe that the PPL training environment is the reason for post-PPL drop-out rates! You have some valid conclusions but the consequences are not necessarily those portrayed!

Cheers

Whirls
Whirlygig is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 18:27
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Poor pay and substandard teaching go hand in hand.

Canada also suffers from substandard instructors, it has been like this for decades.

What I believe would make the standards of flight instruction better is kick out all the drones in the regulator that collect indirect welfare from the taxpayers and replace them with people that truly care about the industry.

We could start with two classes of instructor.

Professional high time instructors who want to teach, to attract them the pay must be on a par with an airline captain.

Apprentice instructors, mentored and overseen by the professional so as to build up their teaching skills in a structured manner. These apprentices would of course receive a wage that would allow them to stay in the industry.

Paying high wages to top notch teachers would not really be all that more expensive to the students because not only would they be better trained they would do it in far less flying time.

As a plus maybe one could go to an airport some day and not have to watch these schools land little trainers on their nose wheels.
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 18:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 46
Posts: 419
What you learn as a PPL student is not particularly sophisticated stuff. A low hours instructor, if he or she is good at what they do, is quite sufficient for basic training IMHO.

There are other aspects that are way more important than mere experience, such as being able to follow a syllabus, being able to teach the students just what they need to know, neither more nor less, and teaching according to current best practices as opposed to how it was done back in the 60's.

The idea that one is necessarily a poor instructor just because one has less than 500 hours, or because one aspires to do something else after what one is currently doing, is as offensive as it is erroneous.
bjornhall is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2008, 18:30
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Isle 6, Dairy produce
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by bose-x
I don't think every hour builder is the devil, just those who don't do the role justice. Oh and I never mentioned 'young' at any stage.


Originally Posted by bose-x
As for the nervous Instructor, do I start my tirade against young hours builders again or just keep quiet to save a ban................

Kanu is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.