Why has flight training gone assbackwards?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armchairflyer
I was born in the 50s and took up flying in the early 80s. Where can you draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now?
Back in the 50s the navigation equipment was non existent compared to nowadays. Pilots did not have the abundance of situational displays and all the other gubbins available today including all the internet weather etc available nowadays, flight planning programmes and all the other pilot aids available on the net !
Now we even have chuted aircraft where the pilot is told to pull the chute for anything and everything which might challenge him including totally stupid stuff like frozen pitot tube, radio failure, simple stall off incorrect use of the autopilot, failure to fly a basic missed approach. I suppose those chute pulls were all down to the superior instructing nowadays?
Give me a break when we have threads started here by pilots scared to stall on their own because they are worried it might go wrong and then they will be in zones they have never experienced with modern instructing?
What a load of bull! Those statistics have NOTHING to do with superior instructing nowadays.
I have lost seven friends since I started flying! When I think back to some of the **** stuff I have flown in, The homemade approached to ridiculously low levels, the Icing, failures, thunderstorm encounters etc etc etc. I wonder how I am still here!
Does that make me a brilliant pilot NO a lucky one maybe! But one thing I am sure of some of the old instructors taught me things which have served me well and got me out of numerous scrapes.
Pace
I was born in the 50s and took up flying in the early 80s. Where can you draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now?
Back in the 50s the navigation equipment was non existent compared to nowadays. Pilots did not have the abundance of situational displays and all the other gubbins available today including all the internet weather etc available nowadays, flight planning programmes and all the other pilot aids available on the net !
Now we even have chuted aircraft where the pilot is told to pull the chute for anything and everything which might challenge him including totally stupid stuff like frozen pitot tube, radio failure, simple stall off incorrect use of the autopilot, failure to fly a basic missed approach. I suppose those chute pulls were all down to the superior instructing nowadays?
Give me a break when we have threads started here by pilots scared to stall on their own because they are worried it might go wrong and then they will be in zones they have never experienced with modern instructing?
What a load of bull! Those statistics have NOTHING to do with superior instructing nowadays.
I have lost seven friends since I started flying! When I think back to some of the **** stuff I have flown in, The homemade approached to ridiculously low levels, the Icing, failures, thunderstorm encounters etc etc etc. I wonder how I am still here!
Does that make me a brilliant pilot NO a lucky one maybe! But one thing I am sure of some of the old instructors taught me things which have served me well and got me out of numerous scrapes.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Mar 2014 at 23:13.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
where did I draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now? I just researched a source that BPF (possibly) referred to to make a point that instructing in the 50s may not have been that superior compared to now. Don't shoot the messenger
where did I draw the conclusion that higher accidents statistics were due to inferior instructing in the 50s compared to now? I just researched a source that BPF (possibly) referred to to make a point that instructing in the 50s may not have been that superior compared to now. Don't shoot the messenger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear God I just can't resist staying in this discussion.
Soooo....
Armchairflyer in the fifties our training to get the CPL included the requirement to demonstrate recoveries from unusual attitudes on limited panel instruments....Airspeed....Altimiter and Turn and Bank only.
The recovery was performed using three stage amber as our vision limiting device....the " Hood " that pilots wear today was not in use......
A " hood " is a very poor vision limiting device compared to two stage amber to practice flying by reference to instruments only..
......so if we could demonstrate that level of proficiency in the fifties how do you think today's CPL students would do using three stage amber on a limited panel for unusual attitude recovery?
Even more important, how many of today's flight instructors teaching new CPL students would be able to teach that exercise using the same equipment?.....the answer to that question may help us to decide if the old school school instructors were inferior to today's instructors.
Soooo....
Armchairflyer in the fifties our training to get the CPL included the requirement to demonstrate recoveries from unusual attitudes on limited panel instruments....Airspeed....Altimiter and Turn and Bank only.
The recovery was performed using three stage amber as our vision limiting device....the " Hood " that pilots wear today was not in use......
A " hood " is a very poor vision limiting device compared to two stage amber to practice flying by reference to instruments only..
......so if we could demonstrate that level of proficiency in the fifties how do you think today's CPL students would do using three stage amber on a limited panel for unusual attitude recovery?
Even more important, how many of today's flight instructors teaching new CPL students would be able to teach that exercise using the same equipment?.....the answer to that question may help us to decide if the old school school instructors were inferior to today's instructors.
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 13th Mar 2014 at 00:11.
I learned to fly in the early 1970's. At that time there were still lots of flight schools with tail draggers and more importantly there were still many active X military instructors most of whom had been Military QFI's. They were the product of a huge Air Force training system and a system that had most pilots only served a short service commission and then went to civvy street.
These guys trained most of the instructors and even though most working instructors started as low time CPL's with instructor ratings they were mentored by men of great experience and ability. There were still lots of tail draggers in commercial use in the bush and in ag flying, so tail wheel time was an advantage to CPL's looking for work
Today that cohort of tax payer paid for exceptional air force training is almost totally absent as air forces have greatly reduced their throughput and pilots stay in for much longer, so getting good instructor rating instruction and getting on the job mentoring from a professional is much more difficult. Tailwheels are almost extinct in commercial aviation jobs and hefty insurance surcharges for tail wheel aircraft make it difficult to use them at flying schools and they are perceived to have little advantage for budding CPL's.
Advocating a return to the "good old days" of trail draggers and experienced instructors is IMO a totally impractical fantasy.
In any case I don't think it is necessary as I see plenty of keen young instructors with a great attitude and pretty good hands and feet. So it would seem to me if one was truly interested in improving flight training today there we should be advocating for things that are actually implementable.
I would also suggest that if you want young instructors to actually listen to you continually crapping on them with blanket statements that imply they are universally incompetent is not an effective strategy.
So to start the discussion here is 4 ideas to make instructing better
1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.
2) Place more emphasis on learning aircraft systems and how an airplane works. Low/no knowledge results in airplanes operated by mindlessly following the checklist without understanding what is happening. Runup checks are a particularly egregious example of this.
3) Checklist are a safety of flight tool and not an instructional tool. Most flight schools are needlessly long and complicated. If misusing a particular control, guage,device will not result in an immediate reduction in flight safety than it should not be on the checklist. Also they are called "checklists" not "do-lists" for a reason. Most checks should be done as a flow and then when appropriate "checked" with the checklist.
4) GPS is a huge safety enabler. Flight schools need to stop pretending it doesn't exist and instead educate pilots on how to use it appropriately.
These guys trained most of the instructors and even though most working instructors started as low time CPL's with instructor ratings they were mentored by men of great experience and ability. There were still lots of tail draggers in commercial use in the bush and in ag flying, so tail wheel time was an advantage to CPL's looking for work
Today that cohort of tax payer paid for exceptional air force training is almost totally absent as air forces have greatly reduced their throughput and pilots stay in for much longer, so getting good instructor rating instruction and getting on the job mentoring from a professional is much more difficult. Tailwheels are almost extinct in commercial aviation jobs and hefty insurance surcharges for tail wheel aircraft make it difficult to use them at flying schools and they are perceived to have little advantage for budding CPL's.
Advocating a return to the "good old days" of trail draggers and experienced instructors is IMO a totally impractical fantasy.
In any case I don't think it is necessary as I see plenty of keen young instructors with a great attitude and pretty good hands and feet. So it would seem to me if one was truly interested in improving flight training today there we should be advocating for things that are actually implementable.
I would also suggest that if you want young instructors to actually listen to you continually crapping on them with blanket statements that imply they are universally incompetent is not an effective strategy.
So to start the discussion here is 4 ideas to make instructing better
1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.
2) Place more emphasis on learning aircraft systems and how an airplane works. Low/no knowledge results in airplanes operated by mindlessly following the checklist without understanding what is happening. Runup checks are a particularly egregious example of this.
3) Checklist are a safety of flight tool and not an instructional tool. Most flight schools are needlessly long and complicated. If misusing a particular control, guage,device will not result in an immediate reduction in flight safety than it should not be on the checklist. Also they are called "checklists" not "do-lists" for a reason. Most checks should be done as a flow and then when appropriate "checked" with the checklist.
4) GPS is a huge safety enabler. Flight schools need to stop pretending it doesn't exist and instead educate pilots on how to use it appropriately.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck/BPF how about the two of you go to a Flight school far far away, and ask for ab-initio instruction. Tell them you have never flown before, and see what you get. Just an idea.
My current PPL student goes for his flight test next Wednesday. I frankly don't care what instruction was like in the past, I prefer to make a difference one student at a time right now.
I have said my piece and don't think I have much more to offer to this thread.
I have said my piece and don't think I have much more to offer to this thread.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash one, I started this thread wondering why a flight school would sell its Super Cub, they already own it and it is insured and part of their training fleet.
Like all discussions this one has gone around and around with lots of different ideas.
I have let my medical expire for the last year because it was the only way I could get out of having to fly for someone else, I am toying with the idea of renewing my medical.
If I do renew my medical and decide to do some part time training doing it in a flight school would not be where I would choose to do it for several reasons.
The biggest reason is I have not done any training in the flight school sector of aviation since 1965 and I have no desire to renew my flight instructors rating for many reasons.....and one of the biggest reasons is I can not see any reason to work for the low pay to be made in a flight school.
However I could go back to offering flight training focused on skills upgrading to licensed pilots and for sure that can pay very well, when I was last in the advanced flight training business my hourly rate was about five to ten times the hourly rate a flight school pays.
So no thanks I'll pass on going to a flight school just to see how they operate.
Like all discussions this one has gone around and around with lots of different ideas.
I have let my medical expire for the last year because it was the only way I could get out of having to fly for someone else, I am toying with the idea of renewing my medical.
If I do renew my medical and decide to do some part time training doing it in a flight school would not be where I would choose to do it for several reasons.
The biggest reason is I have not done any training in the flight school sector of aviation since 1965 and I have no desire to renew my flight instructors rating for many reasons.....and one of the biggest reasons is I can not see any reason to work for the low pay to be made in a flight school.
However I could go back to offering flight training focused on skills upgrading to licensed pilots and for sure that can pay very well, when I was last in the advanced flight training business my hourly rate was about five to ten times the hourly rate a flight school pays.
So no thanks I'll pass on going to a flight school just to see how they operate.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) The POH gives a range of airspeeds to fly on final. Use the lowest speed given for every configuration. There seem to me far to many flight schools that mandate excessively high approach speeds which IMO is largely responsible for the busted nosewheel accidents.
A pilot should be taught the correct use of power and drag and have the confidence to change speeds down the approach! changing speeds does not mean an unstable approach.This is again an example of the move away from a handling pilot to a driver and has those pilots too scared and with little ability to use techniques to slow down to a correct VREF speed for landing.
When a pilot moves into busier airports he may be required to fly high speed on the approach or reduce to minimum speed. We are not talking about experienced pilots but any who fly into larger airports.
That inability to control speeds will probably reflect in landings too where again the pilot needs confidence in handling the aircraft in crosswinds and near the ground as it all frankly comes back to a lack of handling skills.
Many appear to cross their fingers and become passengers to the landing hoping it all turns out ok? rather than flying the aircraft to touchdown and in control to full stop.
Its the lack of handling and landing ability not higher speeds on approach which causes broken nose wheels.
I have flown with some who are not even new pilots who tense on the landing and almost seem surprised and relieved when it touches down ok.
Another I right seated in a twin got into the famous Seneca porpoise and sat there rigid at the controls as the bucking got worse praying for the bucks to stop yet not realising that only his inputs (or rather eventually mine) could rectify that situation!!
Incipient recovery has had a number of threads started where the pilots are not confident in stalling on their own for fear of getting it wrong and ending up in unknown territory (i.e. spins)
Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard.
This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Mar 2014 at 15:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the lack of handling and landing ability not higher speeds on approach which causes broken nose wheels.
I have flown with some who are not even new pilots who tense on the landing and almost seem surprised and relieved when it touches down ok.
Incipient recovery has had a number of threads started where the pilots are not confident in stalling on their own for fear of getting it wrong and ending up in unknown territory (i.e. spins)
Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard.
This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past
Even the FAA are now looking at adding more handling in the syllabus after a spate of accidents and even one Airline crash where handling has not been up to standard.
This is probably the area which has got weaker in modern flight training and was stronger in the past
So gents I am seeing lots of generalities about "bad instructors", how about some specific practical ideas on how to make flying training better.
I sure don't have a monopoly on "good ideas" and over the years have incorporated some of the ideas I have seen on this and other forums into my own practice as an instructor.
I sure don't have a monopoly on "good ideas" and over the years have incorporated some of the ideas I have seen on this and other forums into my own practice as an instructor.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists.
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So gents I am seeing lots of generalities about "bad instructors", how about some specific practical ideas on how to make flying training better.
And the best place for such a thread would be the flight instructors forum.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
" Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists.
" Paint by numbers " teaching process rather than teaching the students to be artists.
That Phrase about sums up what I feel about flying! It is an art! something from the soul and something creative and not a paint by numbers exercise! Well Said
Pace
Nothing could be further from the truth because in my opinion the highest aspiration one can strive for in aviation is to be a top quality flight instructor.
Given the nature of the training industry in aviation one can not rise to that level within the structure that we have in the flight training industry, and even if one could somehow teach in a manner that does not fit the structure of the flight school you would have to be like mother Theresa and devote your life to poverty.
When I finally let my instructors rating lapse I found a way to still teach and was able to be properly compensated for my efforts.
For instance when I was in the water bombing business for ten years I was the training pilot / check pilot for a company that had nine heavy water bombers....when I was not actually in the field fire bombing I could teach and earn a good living at the same time.
Another little thought I would like to put out there.
When I post these thoughts / opinions I have enough self worth to use my real name and I do so to try and give more credibility to what I say.....in other words I am not in the least worried about anyone digging into my background as a pilot to find something to discredit my opinions.
How about that .
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
You don't get the hits in the flight instructors forum Its a bit off-putting when you wait a week for a response 
i am not an instructor! OK yes I have trained pilots up for SICs on Citations but thats it so would be kicked out of that forum
I Learn a lot from many here and that includes Chuck as well as BPF
Pace
You don't get the hits in the flight instructors forum
Its a bit off-putting when you wait a week for a response i am not an instructor! OK yes I have trained pilots up for SICs on Citations but thats it so would be kicked out of that forum
I Learn a lot from many here and that includes Chuck as well as BPF
Pace
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the AAIB report is out on the PA38 crash at Cranfield. Seems the instructor mishandled the aeroplane following a partial engine failure on take off, leading to a stall / spin departure. He did get a radio call in, though!
The student on this flight is the brother of someone I know. He suffered serious and significantly life-changing injuries in the crash.
A couple of years ago someone I knew suffered engine failure on take off in another PA38. He too got on the horn but failed to keep flying the aeroplane. He died.
Whatever happened to:
1) Aviate
2) Navigate
3) Communicate
In that order?
The student on this flight is the brother of someone I know. He suffered serious and significantly life-changing injuries in the crash.
A couple of years ago someone I knew suffered engine failure on take off in another PA38. He too got on the horn but failed to keep flying the aeroplane. He died.
Whatever happened to:
1) Aviate
2) Navigate
3) Communicate
In that order?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Communicate
This comes first because you need permission for everything these days.
2) Navigate
This comes second because it directly links into 1 and probably includes a moving map integrated with the radio.
3) Aviate
This comes last because everybody knows how stable aircraft are designed to be these days and you've probably got an auto-pilot. Also no need to look outside because the transponder is on making you feel nice and safe and guess what? It's probably integrated with the moving map and radio!
I jest of course
This comes first because you need permission for everything these days.
2) Navigate
This comes second because it directly links into 1 and probably includes a moving map integrated with the radio.
3) Aviate
This comes last because everybody knows how stable aircraft are designed to be these days and you've probably got an auto-pilot. Also no need to look outside because the transponder is on making you feel nice and safe and guess what? It's probably integrated with the moving map and radio!
I jest of course
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it's just newbie nitpicking, but having read the last few posts I get the impression that they refer to two different aspects of flying/instructing:
- maybe unglamorous but potentially live-saving skills like partial panel UA recovery (am I the only one not to know what two- and three stage amber means?
), systems knowledge (including GPS), flying the airplane first in case of an emergency, recognizing and correcting spiral dives vs. spins
(the last one wasn't explicitly mentioned here, but got frequently cited by Pace in previous threads IIRC) - the fine art of minimum-speed greasers, three point landings etc., basically just about how smooth and well-controlled the aircraft (which should apparently present a "challenge" in this respect) settles back on the earth.
Last edited by Armchairflyer; 13th Mar 2014 at 19:20. Reason: Language error corrected