Degradation of will to learn how to fly

[The Ancient Geek]

Its 40mumble years since I flew a glider but it really is simple.
You fly with a map on your lap and keep constant tabs on your location, not difficult at the slow speeds involved.
When you start going in circles it gets easier - the same landmarks keep coming around.

VFR in a powered aircraft is no harder. you should have the ground always in sight and an OS map or drivers atlas is often better for maintaining situational awareness than aviation charts. You are never far fron roads, railways and other significant clues, these are the things you should have planned to use before departure and kept a constant eye on.
Charts keep you clear of hazards, maps tell you where you are.

[jjoe]

As an instructor you have to part company with a student who you know is not cut out for flying. And you have to be very blunt with them about why you are doing so. Don't be nice and try to cover up what you see as the problem (but of course keep it polite and professional).

Name one school/business that will congratulate an instructor for telling a paying student (maybe useless, maybe effed about by previous school/instructor/etc but keen and still wanting to pay) to take up fishing instead...... get my drift?

You may say 'change school' and all that- how many times can you do that and get 'they're s**t , we're better, you're great really...... you just need to spend some more money with us....! Oh we'll have to do all that again!

How many shows in town or near town?

(This can't have passed all these seasoned forumites by?)

There is a huge gulf between a 'body' -military, or otherwise, whose aim is to teach/train to a required level in a cost-effective way and 'the also-rans' ie 'The Rest'

I've done both;Poor experience of the latter?- you betcha.
I know I'm not unique.

But surely a school has a reputation etc!- Unfortunately the numbers of people (students etc) involved are so few that that mechanism is redundant.

Having said all that, it still gets done somehow! Go figure.

No names, no pack-drill. The rest is delusion.

Hard-hat on.

Hope to post more positive stuff when that's out my system.

[9 lives]

I have in the past done type training to pilots who were well off "type A" personalities - including their confidence in being able to fly their new aircraft.

In doing this I have started by requiring that anything not essential to the training be turned off (to prevent distraction - if that's what you have to say). I muffed this once though, placing his Ipad in the seat pocket, unaware that leaning back on the seat resulted in the Ipad being broken - I had to make up for that one. Since then, I instruct them to stow it!

Next, I would demonstrate the flying maneuver which was within the scope of the training - but do it with all the precision I could manage, and state that was the standard to be accomplished.

That would often either put the new pilot in their place, with appropriate subtlety, or simply distract them from their own way of thinking long enough to pique their interest in learning. If not, I would resort to some maneuvering in slow flight, during which I could generally un nerve them into surrendering their false sense of superiority.

I am quite sympathetic to Chicken House' frustrating situation.

[flybymike]

VFR in a powered aircraft is no harder. You should have the ground always in sight

VFR. Above a solid cloud layer is now perfectly legal. Makes map following a bit tricky though.

[ChickenHouse]

I'm with OhNoCB here.....even allowing for a post that might have been written in haste at the end of the day, there are things that simply don't compute.

Easy to explain.

45 hours into PPL training was handed over to me by a fellow FI.

Just like that? Not a word, not a warning comment?

Yes, it is policy for the trainer of the school to pass over students without statements prone to the generation of pre-occupational thoughts. Certain parts of the syllabus tend to be very personal chemistry between trainer and student. If it is potentially dangerous, get the student out, if not, discuss earliest after first flight.

As for allowing ab initio circuit training with an iPad on the student's lap; it just beggars belief.

I have seen this now several times at several schools and occasions. This is what we have to face in modern times.

It took me quite some discussion to let him leave the iPad on the ground

Come again? You actually discussed it? Why? He just needed to be told that it's totally inappropriate and that's the end of it.

The times of civil military behavior is over in commercials. We elder knew that we have to work hard, think hard, use our brain to gain improvements. We elder knew that sometimes we have to learn hard to overcome the mountains barrier, to climb on ice walls just to really understand facts deep inside - even if this insight has been gained before by thousands of people, because we have to KNOW. Biggest quantum leaps in personal development are always located behind the terror and pain of hard labor. The current youngest are not willing to strain themselves, they google instead of think.

Just a suggestion, try to advice one of the younger to really work hard on an issue to understand it really in depth. Then let them go and look how they get the result. Probability is maybe 99+% use search engines, smartphone, some even look at Youtube videos only, very rarely they take a book or even start thinking. And they will always argue with you that this is the "most efficient and modern" way to do that, because "people have done that before, why should I?". In the end, they have gathered enough monkey answers to fool everybody into belief they understood. But, Artificial Intelligence has entered biological reality and if you dig into deeper discussion, you all of a sudden find out they can only pretend to understand, but on an extreme and impressive high level. Same I have seen throughout many, many management circles in recent years.

My belief, they will be subject to social, mental and economic degradation because of this. Former young generations did transformations and developed society, which is often brought as an excuse, but this time it is different, because no additional value is generated upon transition. But that is another story. Observation simply is: they do not understand and they do not obey, even if there is an urgent need to do so. I know this has been told of each and every young generation, but I fear this time **** definitely hits the fan. The only faith left to me is the belief someone from the younger will catch the falling.

After this ride I stopped working for the day

Well, OK, I can see that it must have been a bad experience. But instructors are supposed to be in charge and able to take control when necessary, and unless he refused to let go of the controls you were not in any danger. Why stop work just because of that, if that's what really happened?

Very easy, I do this for pleasure and because I have fun teaching. I don't do that for living. Over many years and up to this experience, I always got my students on a track I was comfortable to let them with. This time I was defeated and had to re-think whether I am still the right one to do training. Self reflection is my second nature.

Usually I do not look at the records of a student

From the context, you are saying this about a student you have just taken over from another FI. I would have thought it should be SOP to study the notes carefully in that situation, for all sorts of good reasons; that's what they are for, isn't it? There's nothing admirable about refusing to look at them.

Again, this is policy at this school and I carry that policy. There are two important things in it.

First is quality assurance, we only pass the number of hours and the status in syllabus to the overtaking FI. If there is a deviation in acquired skills from the status they should be at, we have a weekly review board meeting to improve following the written syllabus and review our capabilities to asses students skills. FIs also are on rotating schedule through the phases of training, to keep knowledge on all stages.

Second is avoiding pre-occupation traps. We are all people, student and FI, and we make personal judgements. Flying at PPL stage stays a very personal topic and everybody does have her or his own style. We are a bit old fashioned, but stay to it. We do not want to train the usual push button monkey, carrying tourist cattle optimized from A to B, we train pilots and sometimes we have the pleasure to find an airmen. As this is very personal and has to do with a foundation of non-trainable aptitude, we try to get the student in contact with several different ways of flying - from FIs from the bush-pilot gene pool to airline captains enjoying a different world. We do this to find a mental match between student and FI. This is why we change FI at least three times in training.

What do you think of such stubborn people

Well they're usually a PITA, but they are very easy to deal with. They need to be told in words on one syllable, that they either follow their FI's advice and instruction, or they can pack up and leave. The most important issue raised by your post is that ab initio instruction at your school/club seems, from what you say which is probably unfair, to need some urgent management changes, to put it mildly.

No, they are no longer easy to deal with, because they are the brave new world, like it or not. Yes, in former times most of them would have been sent back to grandpa to get their back plated, but again, these days are gone to paleontology. We had long discussions at that specific school how to deal with it and am struggling every day with the task, but so far we had success for all but this one.

Ok, for those who made it to the end, I apologize for the long text, but I felt to must write this down. I owe you a pint upon reading to the end ;-).

[rnzoli]

Originally Posted by ChickenHouse

What do you think of such stubborn people trying to become an airplane transporter, instead of a pilot or even airmen?

I think you, and in general, the whole aviation community (examiners, fellow CFIs) should be even more stubborn that he won't ever fly solo with that personal attitude.

Real life story: wealthy person wants to impress his peers, buys an aircraft and takes on pilot training, but without respecing rules of safety or even the laws of physics. Several instructors give up on him, but he keeps on seeking new ones, offering higher training fees. Eventually someone convinces him that at least for the exams, he must behave himself. He does, he passes the skill test. A few months later, he takes 3 of his passengers on a sight-seeing flight in his own airplane, and when returning to the home (grass) airfield, he buzzes the field, then makes a steep climbing turn, in which he stalls, spins and crashes the airplane from low altitude. This irresponsible pilot dies and kills 3 unsuspecting passangers as well. This irresponsible pilot also spois the respect of general public towards aviators for years.

So you got to be tough on this one and even more stubborn than him, otherwise it's sure as hell, that someday he will kill himself and also killing innocent people flying with him or on the ground. I can't imagine any greater failure for a CFI than the fatal accident of his/her former student due to pilot error.

[Heston]

Name one school/business that will congratulate an instructor for telling a paying student (maybe useless, maybe effed about by previous school/instructor/etc but keen and still wanting to pay) to take up fishing instead...... get my drift?

Mine. For the reasons I said and as rnzoli has just reiterated - the risk is just too big.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

flybymike - I agree - your post is worrying. Pilots who can't navigate VFR in VMC in sight of the ground worry me. They are not really pilots and should stay on the ground.

[Capot]

Chickenhouse, thank you for the full reply to my points. It was certainly worth reading and food for thought.

However; I rather thought you might castigate my remarks as a "military" approach and therefore out of date. But, sooner or later, there comes a time when you have to be blunt and simply not take any more nonsense. This protects you, the school and above all the student from future harm. I am aware of the financial considerations for a school of showing a paying student the door, but there is a moment when the costs of not doing that outweigh the costs of doing it.

You refer to your students in several places as future commercial pilots; I'm wondering about that. I have always believed that in general, ab initio students who intend to become commercial pilots need to learn discipline and conformity at an early stage, while recognising that there must be a pathway for getting a PPL for amateur flying and then going commercial.

Again, with respect to your methods, you, perhaps your school, seem to me to be more pre-occupied with relational abstracts than you need to be or should be; this is illustrated in your use of the phrase "statements prone to the generation of pre-occupational thoughts". There's actually nothing wrong with "pre-occupational thoughts" if they give you a clue about the character and abilities of a student you have been tasked with taking on. After all, you and he wasted a couple of circuits while you found out what the notes would have told you. I simply don't buy the belief that reading them is harmful.

Similarly; "This is what we have to face in modern times." Who is holding the gun to your head? If you, or your school, think it's wrong, don't allow it. It really is as simple as that. Explain the reasons, if necessary.

I recognise that you are obviously sincere and experienced, and take your instructing and student welfare very seriously, and I admire you for that. There is of course no single "right" way to do everything, and perhaps we should move on with that thought.

[jjoe]

Quote:

Name one school/business that will congratulate an instructor for telling a paying student (maybe useless, maybe effed about by previous school/instructor/etc but keen and still wanting to pay) to take up fishing instead...... get my drift?

Heston wrote:

Mine. For the reasons I said and as rnzoli has just reiterated - the risk is just too big.

Well, if you are oversubscribed you may have the luxury but;

Who said you HAVE to give them a licence- just keep going, IPAD or no IPAD, and don't put them anywhere near a 'test' or keep failing them if they insist- where's the risk in that?

My point was the opposite- student able (proved), willing, following all the rules etc but school deliberately not covering the syllabus to 'extend' training-so at any point if you changed school, your records would not show 'completion' of any 'module' if that's the correct term!

As far as GPS is concerned- even 'rogue' schools assume that you will use one once qualified and the 'pilotage' NAV element is as long or as short as they can get away with in my experience.
For the small (relative) cost of the kit, you really would have to be a stubborn so and so to refuse one for religious reasons; why would you deliberately risk getting lost or unsure or whatever else NAV. can induce?(note that this does NOT mean you should not have a clue where you are without it !)

SSD wrote;

flybymike - I agree - your post is worrying. Pilots who can't navigate VFR in VMC in sight of the ground worry me. They are not really pilots and should stay on the ground.

They are really pilots 'cos they have a licence to prove it and that's the test -otherwise there's little point in wasting time/money to gain it.

All pilots can navigate VFR IN VMC but not everywhere all the time eg unfamiliar surroundings so they use a GPS or RadNav or ask for directions or do something else like look at a map- they don't crash or infringe everytime they fly;(some may frighten themselves, some may be blissfully unaware)
There are of course people who are better at traditional map/compass NAV than others and we like them too.

[Pace]

I am slightly puzzled with this thread. There are students of all personality types who maybe should not be flying not just type A personalities.
I will post two examples
One was a Female student who was very compliant, very eager to learn but there were many alarm bells about her. This was when I was a student myself and the instructors did everything tho get her to solo.
finally she went and it was a disaster. once in the circuit there was a panic stricken distress call. She had completely frozen. Another aircraft with the CFI flew alongside her and after a lot of talking to she was coaxed down to a landing of sorts. She never flew again.

The other was the most meticulous pilot I knew and great VFR but had an IMCR. He asked me to fly IFR with him in bad weather to Ireland. The cloud base was maybe 700 feet and we climbed into the blue at FL080. He kept complaining that he could not breath properly and wanted to descend into IMC at 4000 feet. i could not understand why he would want to do that? it made no sense.
over the IOM the solid cloud tops broke to give good views of the sea below and he was again happy.
Coming back he flew but the weather had past and we flew at 2000 feet VFR he was back to his usual immaculate precision and confidence. Someone had given him an IMCR when he was a complete danger to himself in such conditions

There are pilots who can be cockey and who know it all. That can be a good trait if they survive that phase because they can become very confident, decisive pilots who make sound decisions.

There is always the rule of flying within your own limits and the aircraft limits and knowing those limits. Often earlier on those personalities do not know their own limits or respect the aircraft limits but if they survive that can become very good pilots.

I will also add personality compatibility as sometimes two personalities do not get the most from each other and it becomes a battle of wills
Yes there maybe a complete nutcase who is a danger to himself and others but I don't believe that is confined to a certain personality type

Pace

[Gertrude the Wombat]

You are never far fron roads, railways and other significant clues

Suffolk at 1,500' with 5k vis - "lots of twisty little villages, all alike".

[jjoe]

I am slightly puzzled with this thread. There are students of all personality types who maybe should not be flying not just type A personalities.

I presume you mean 'should not be flying PIC, alone or with passengers'?

The OP seemed exasperated at the poor quality of this chap's flying and his attitude after 45 hours- Well, SOMEBODY allowed it for 45 hours which proves my point that you must blame the school for not putting their foot down if they were really that bothered!

[Pace]

JJOE

If he had been placed with a number of instructors and they all agree that the guy has some sort of personality disorder then of course he should be asked to leave.
My sole point that picking out a type A personality who maybe a bit cocky or arrogant is not always a bad trait and can be a good thing if channelled in the right way.

Obviously wealthy and successful businessmen don't always become good pilots yet have the money to buy high performance, sophisticated aircraft where some may rely on that sophistication to cover up lack of their abilities.

i quote the Cirrus where very few chute pulls appear to have been needed chute pulls had the pilots been competent at flying in the conditions they flew in and actually had the ability to fly the aircraft.

Maybe they would have been better sticking to 172s and building solid experience first. VFR or IFR
You will always get rogue students but I too am amazed that some of these pilots have built up 45 hours plus without anyone telling them they were wasting their money and time and in those cases the schools must be at fault too.
Those rogue students or pilots can be any personality type

Pace

[Heston]

I have no problem with students who are slow learners and who are happy to put in the time and money, as long as I know they can make safe pilots in the end. It does nobody any favours to keep someone going who is never going to make it or, worse, might just get it together on the day enough to fool an examiner into passing him or her but who is going to be a danger to themselves and others. We all have a duty here - you can't just say that the exam pass is all that's required because that's the standard.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Originally Posted by jjoe

All pilots can navigate VFR IN VMC but not everywhere all the time eg unfamiliar surroundings so they use a GPS or RadNav or ask for directions or do something else like look at a map- they don't crash or infringe everytime they fly;(some may frighten themselves, some may be blissfully unaware)There are of course people who are better at traditional map/compass NAV than others and we like them too.

jjoe, my definition of VFR nav does allow use of maps! All pilots SHOULD be able to navigate VFR in VMC everywhere all the time the ground is in view. How do you think we did it before GPS in aeroplanes with no navaids? We didn't blunder into controlled airspace or land in a field to ask the way!

Once you can visually navigate, by all means make life easier by using GPS. But you MUST have the manual backup, the basic skill, in your 'toolbag'.

In the world of roads it's expected some will slavishly follow a GPS for 200 miles in the wrong direction on a journey that should take half an hour, or follow the GPS instructions to turn right, but to make the right turn onto a railway line (both these are not that uncommon). In the air we expect better, and the ability to apply gross error checks by ensuring the GPS info agrees with our visual nav deductions is essential.

[jjoe]

but I too am amazed that some of these pilots have built up 45 hours plus without anyone telling them they were wasting their money and time and in those cases the schools must be at fault too.

'Personality' aside for the minute.

Pace, I AM NOT AMAZED in the slightest! In fact the opposite- this is happening all the time and why do you call him a rogue student?

'Rogue' school maybe? No, normal school.

He made his case of how he viewed his flying and the school let him do it for 45 hours- who knows why they passed him on to CH,(he seems to be a good guy instructing for the right reasons), the stude doesn't think he's wasting his money- he thinks he's doing alright 'cos the school let him think that or he didn't take criticism on board! (This may all just have been mumbled/disguised comments meant to keep the status quo and not really risk upsetting and losing him;which happens-it's a business after all).

But again why should the school care- at that rate he'll need at least 45 more hours to undo it and more to re-learn........Kerching!!
He'll never get a licence, it would seem, unless the school give him one and he can buy glass cockpits, autopilots, chute-pull thingies or never fly again or whatever.....

The magic number, 45 hours- stude thinks he must be ready now;quite possible but not probable not because of aptitude/weather/continuity alone but school income dictats- they will not cover the syllabus in that time let alone prepare for test/put you forward -if you do exams first they get upset. They don't say take medical first just in case you are disqualified that way etc etc why would they?

I simply don't buy that a school will tell someone they are wasting their money unless they are permanently under-resourced and under pressure for results which most aren't.

Cynical? Moi?

As far as personalities go , very good suggestions have been made wrt dealing with specific types IF THE SCHOOL WANTS TO!

jjoe, my definition of VFR nav does allow use of maps! All pilots SHOULD be able to navigate VFR in VMC everywhere all the time the ground is in view. How do you think we did it before GPS in aeroplanes with no navaids? We didn't blunder into controlled airspace or land in a field to ask the way!

Once you can visually navigate, by all means make life easier by using GPS. But you MUST have the manual backup, the basic skill, in your 'toolbag'.

In the world of roads it's expected some will slavishly follow a GPS for 200 miles in the wrong direction on a journey that should take half an hour, or follow the GPS instructions to turn right, but to make the right turn onto a railway line (both these are not that uncommon). In the air we expect better, and the ability to apply gross error checks by ensuring the GPS info agrees with our visual nav deductions is essential.

Ah well! when you start using words like SHOULD.....!!!

SSD, good basic points but my post is still completely correct and you're agreeing with it.
I mentioned pilotage/maps/asking for 'steers' on the radio (although it has been known for lost pilots to land in a field etc. -and to blunder into CAS with or without GPS!) even in the good old days.

Even lost pilots are really pilots; just unsure of their position!

I made no mention of GPS being infallible or using it incorrectly!

Heston wrote;

you can't just say that the exam pass is all that's required because that's the standard.

Until EASA or whoever decide 'continuous assessment' a la CSE style is acceptable THAT IS PRECISELY ALL YOU CAN SAY!

might just get it together on the day enough to fool an examiner into passing him or her

Somebody has to put them forward with completion certificates etc.
Are examiners able to be fooled- who examines them? More fools?

[funfly]

I think that the posters on here are in danger of using one very bad (and frustrating) example to question all students.

[Pace]

I think that the posters on here are in danger of using one very bad (and frustrating) example to question all students.

There are some really brilliant students and PPls and some really bad ones you would never even send your worst enemy up with never mind loved ones.
Between those extremes are a vast variety most who respect their own limitations and fly within those limitations and then there are those who don't

the problem is that being issued a PPL we are qualified and to the outside world we are pilots to a standard which must mean we are good to our unknowing PAX.

The reality is what my CFI told me when I got my PPL 30 years ago!

"This is a bit of paper which licenses you to start to learn to fly on your own and that learning never stops"

Even now I look back and wonder how I survived some of the mistakes I made
Maybe an initial PPL should mean you carry an L plate for your PAX to see or we should have a restricted PPL ?

Even now I meet some pilots who are so good so professional in what they do that I feel humbled by them and look back to when I struggled to afford 12 hours a year and shudder at the word qualified pilot and how many people i flew who trusted those words " qualified Pilot"

Hence why its so important to fly within your limits, the aircraft limits and to know what those limits are as Mother luck isn't with all of us all the time

Pace

[Heston]

Heston wrote;
Quote:
you can't just say that the exam pass is all that's required because that's the standard.
Until EASA or whoever decide 'continuous assessment' a la CSE style is acceptable THAT IS PRECISELY ALL YOU CAN SAY!

Quote:
might just get it together on the day enough to fool an examiner into passing him or her
Somebody has to put them forward with completion certificates etc.

That's right. The exam pass is simply a snap shot of performance on the day. I've known it happen - student is over confident and brow beats the instructor into letting him take the test. Instructor says yes, thinking its OK because student will fail. But student flukes a pass. Instructor "Jeez I should never have let him take it".

The examiner is entitled to expect that a student turning up for test has indeed completed the course and is at a sufficient standard to pass in the opinion of the instructor who puts the student forward for test.