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.

What do you expect with so many hours builders with naff all experience?

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.

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:mad:) 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?

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....

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.

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

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..........

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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. :E

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.

:rolleyes:

Whirls,

The consequences are just a scenario. But I do think that poor standards do contribute to post PPL drop out.

PPL's who are badly training, do not get essential information on even simple things like flight planning etc do not have the confidence to go beyond basic rental and as a result get bored and give up flying. An Instructor who encourages them to spread their wings AND shows them how to do it could go a long way towards improving things.

I would just like to see FI's treated as proper professionals, it might encourage more of them to take it up as a career and actually improve the sorry state of GA.

Bloody hell I have hit a nerve...... :p

I do seem to recall having withdrawn the 'young' comment around the time of that post and my point was I had not made any young reference in this discussion.
:ok:

:confused:

I'm sorry Chuck, allow me to clarify. You are saying that if the most experienced / talented instructors got paid airline salaries, there would not be a much greater cost picked up by the student? Where exactly would all the extra money come from to cover their wages then?

As always the mud starts to get thrown, back on topic please ladies and gents!

I'm in agreement with Bose, with some reservations! Those been that even high hours PPL instructors WILL take some time to settle into the job , just the same as the CPL/IR FIC guys do. To be a top class instructor will always take time and experience, it just so happens that PPL instruction is the bottom of the pile so the less experienced instructors will be found in these jobs, always has been always will be.

Now if you want to encourage highly experienced aviators away from the TRI positions, meaning those with a wealth of experience in aviation terms, someone is going to have to foot the bill, experience dosen't come cheap.

I'm sorry Chuck, allow me to clarify. You are saying that if the most experienced / talented instructors got paid airline salaries, there would not be a much greater cost picked up by the student? Where exactly would all the extra money come from to cover their wages then?

If a student got their license in say 50 hours instead of 75 to 100 hours you do not need to have more than grade five to do the math on the cost factor.

For what ever it is worth when I got my PPL it was completed in the minimum required at that point in time 30 hours, why does it take up to 100 hours now?

It sure can't be the airplanes used in today's training schools because we were taught on tail wheel airplanes.

Hell in today's world if you wanted to be taught on a tail wheel airplane you would be hard pressed to find a flight instructor who could get one airborne before they lost control of it.

Both schools I've worked for have actively tried to break the relationship I've had with my students in order to make them fly with the Restricted instructors.

Any benefit I bring from having 500 odd instructing hours, half a dozen sucessful skills tests and no desire to go to an airline, is negated by my higher costs to the schools and my willingness to call out short cuts and operational irregularities.

Despite every PPL I meet bemoaning the number of different instructors they have, the schools are indifferent. I would rather be in a position to supervise and help the Restricted Hour Builders, but to the school I am an expensive irrelevance........

The instructor in the twin mentioned in the Chirp report was probably earning reasonable money with his extra instructor ratings. The worry is that he is probably fairly senior in his training organisation and his arrogance will rub off on his students and other instructors.
Bose-X; I think you are correct because this will be the best way to get instructors with the right attitude. It should not however be an excuse to pay poverty wages.
Some hours builders are excellent instructors, but there should be a warning in the human performance and limitations paper to explain the effects of enormous debt on the attitude of instructors.
DO.

Regardless of instructor quality, there is a limit to what can be taught, in 45 hours, to the average PPL intake, aged around 45 and often a business/professional but not the young cream of the cream of the Royal Air Force, selected by kicking out some 90%+ of already carefully selected candidates.

The UK average is around 60 hours, depending on who you ask. I took 66 hours, which included walking out of one school at 20hrs that was operating really obviously crap maintenance practices (an AOC holder too).

It would be easy enough to turn out pilots capable of getting out their laptop and straight off planning a trip right across the UK, or UK to Greece or Spain or whatever. And then jumping into a plane and doing it. This is what a PPL holder should be able to do - it is 100.000% within his privileges.

Why can't he do it?

Well he could but the PPL course would be 100hrs. It would involve a lot of cross country, no great need to bang tons of circuits because you would be landing in different places, no great need to go solo at all actually because by the time you got the PPL you would be able to fly with your eyes shut, would be enormous fun, and would cost £20,000.

One would also need slightly better quality planes in which to do these trips, than the UK school average. Result: a £25,000 PPL.

Any takers?

:)

I know there are many poor instructors but I think this debate is a bit like the fashionable one about "worsening" adult literacy. The evidence, such as there is, is that a higher % of young adults can read and write than say 50 years ago. What has changed is that while a lot of those who could not read were doing jobs where it didn't matter, a lot of those jobs are gone and these people are now ending up in positions where they get exposed to stuff like email, and their incompetence shows them up to ridicule.

Same with PPL training. All those years ago, there was little or no CAS, no notams, nobody cared what you did. You could fly into clouds. Many got killed but that was OK - hey, this is a risky hobby.

What is the latest on those American experiments where they took an ab initio student to a PPL/IR in about 50-60hrs TT, using purely scenario-based training, with no solo time at all? It doesn't suprise me this works because so much of what a pilot needs to know is detailed operational stuff. To learn to just fly isn't hard, especially if you do it in a low pressure learning environment (few if any circuits, plenty of enroute time).

IO540, that's where one will be anyway after some 100 hours, if one sets ones mind to it ... The thing is tho', one does not need the instructor to oversee that latter training.

The fundamental flaw in this type of discussion is to more or less openly assume that the student will never know anything their instructor did not teach them before they obtained PPL. :)

As an example, my first paid instructing job paid £10 per flying hour. Given a 2 hour slot, to cover pre and post flight briefings it works out at yep you got it £5 an hour!

Now work that forward and say you do 500 hours a year, well work it out yourselves! it hardly covered the running costs of the car to and from the airfield.

Is it any wonder its seen as an hour building exercise until a proper job comes along. The schools offering these levels of pay really ought to be ashamed of themselves.

My first instructor was campishly gay - I didn't mind - it was a bit of a laugh. Next two lessons were with another instructor who was grumpy and impatient. I left that school partly because of that and partly because the school's booking system was chaotic, and moved to another school and another instructor who seemed God-sent! I stayed with her right until I passed my skill test - never too much trouble to give advice even though she was only paid for actual flying time - focused on where I was psychologically as well as on my (sometimes sadly lacking) skills. Always good humoured - an absolute pleasure, :ok:

In spite of this the school concerned charges more than just about all the other clubs for aircraft hire, and the instructor rates are lowest. They really don't deserve the excellent staff they have.

My belief is that insufficient slot times for students are a far greater contributory factor towards poor instruction than professionally qualified pilots attempting to progress their career via the world of PPL instruction but hey, we'll allow Bose-X to bang on about his pet hate then hopefully he'll disappear. Those who know him know exactly why he carries such a heavy hex so let's try to move away from pandering to his fixation, born from wealth and advancing years, because it's getting us all nowhere.

VFE.

Wow, I have hit a raw nerve. The mudslinging begins. :p

Hey and less of the advancing years, still got some mileage in me yet...... :p
;)

It's not my only pet hate, but it does rank high. Of course as usual my comments are misinterpreted by those with the guilty conscience.

What I want to see in flight training is consistency and Instructors paid and treat as professionals. While flight training is used as a vehicle for those wanting to move onto 'better' things the profession will continue to be seen as a transient one and Instructors treat as minimum wage 2nd class citizens.

Bose
It's hardly a "raw nerve". What you've said is that a significant part of the established, qualified PPL Instructor body are utterly incapable of teaching and barely fit to fly solo. You didn't only put it in some moderate way like "I think standards would be higher and GA would benefit if more instructors were XYZ". You should expect and deserve a reaction as blunt and vigorous as the tone you use in putting your own views across. This doesn't mean "raw nerve" or "guilty conscience" or you have been "misunderstood". It means you have said something pretty controversial or extreme and people disagree with you. I do.

Personally, I've trained since the early 80s with every kind of instructor - young hours builder, airline retiree, career commercial instructor, career PPL instructor. I didn't observe any pattern of the low hours builders being substandard. If anthing, their energy and motivation was sometimes the highest and compared favourably with the cynicism and grumpiness one sometimes saw in career PPL instructors (not the pro retirees). Personally, my respect today for a young person who's funded the whole fATPL thing and done all the training through to the FI Rating would be even higher than in times past, and I'd be happy if I were starting from scratch to get all the PPL training from such a person. Post-PPL, as IO540 points out, there is a lot to learn about practical use of the qualificaiton - that's a job for the AOPA Mentor scheme perhaps. The basic PPL course just doesn't leave scope to add more stuff.

I don't recall that there ever was a mythical golden age of experienced PPL Instructors dominating the instructing scene. Now, I do agree that the CPL requirement currently is too onerous and probably prohibits people who would have a lot to contribute to instructing from doing so, so the new EASA rule will be a good thing.

rgds
421C

Agreed, but the vast majority of PPLs don't ever make it to 100hrs.

Another statistic I read somewhere, purporting to come from the CAA, was that some 90% give up before reaching 100hrs TT. That is only ~ 40hrs post-PPL.

This has been debated here many times but IMHO the inadequate amount of instruction is the main factor responsible for most PPLs chucking it in. Admittedly a large % were never going to stay anyway (the xmas PPL gift students, those doing it as a personal challenge, those who need to save for a month for each lesson, etc) but that still leaves maybe half who might have done, had they not felt like they are standing at the edge of an abyss when holding their new piece of paper.

To keep flying post-PPL, one needs a bit of a kick. Pre-PPL, the kick is the fact that you are not finished yet. Once you have the piece of paper, the old incentive is gone and may be replaced with some new one, which could be going places, or changing over to an aerobatic course. Going places is why I learnt to fly, but it does require a bit of a budget, a bit of time, and access to something reasonable.

I had my fair share of crap instructors but in retrospect that never held me back - knowing the constraints of the training system and the WW1 syllabus.

My 1st ever instructor told me he had only 150hrs, but he was very good. Some dreadful ones had thousands. Perhaps the best were the retired ATPs.

421C

Actually what I was saying was that the majority of the of the minimal hours instructors were barely fit to fly solo.

I was not referring to a significant part of the established PPL instructor body.

The only contraversial thing I have said is that in part the hours builders being prepared to work for nothing and the minimal hours guys offering nothing in the way of experience damages the flight training industry and prevents career instructors from being treat as the professionals that they are, keeps career wages on the bread line and devalues the profession, deters those who would consider coming into the industry part time or full time with no airline aspirations but likely to have considerable experience of flying applicable to the PPL sector.

You and I teach because we enjoy it and can afford it. What about the guys who have vastly more experience than either of us but who need to be paid a proper wage and can't afford to come into teaching? The industry is missing out on a wealth of experience and the potential to improve standards because the market is devalued. Now if my words are harsh then so be it.

Round 2.

I have a fairly basic question.

Where will a "proper wage" (whatever it may be) come from?

It can come only from customers. Where/how will a school get the customers?

If instructors were severely underpaid, but the customers are there, that would imply that anybody owning a school is making loads of money. I don't see anybody who owns a school making loads of money.

Now let's say you fill a school with excellent instructors. Is this going to generate much more money for the school? I don't think so - the only way that would happen is much later down the road, when a lot of pilot graduates find that the excellent tuition they got (which went way beyond the PPL syllabus ;) ) has enabled them to get much more out of their piece of paper, so they hang around the airfield, the whole scene becomes busier and more attractive for others to hang around in, etc. Nobody is going to look that far ahead.

At the last school I trained (2002, IMCR) the instructors got a £10/day retainer and about £20 per flying hour. Obviously they were ATPL hour builders. Nobody made money at that school; in fact at the very end the owner lost 6 figures through fraud.

Often you don't know you've had a poor quality instructor until you are trained by a better one. I'm not talking about any personal issues here as I've met some really great (fun) instructors who were not very good at teaching. I have been both a adult education teacher and motorcycle instructor (teaching other instructors to teach) and I was instructed during my PPL by a number of instructor 'types' - hour builders, new FI's, Older QFI's and CFI's.

Clearly the number of flying hours an instructor has really has no place in the quality of teaching argument. Minimum hours instructors who have been taught well, have a real passion for both flying and teaching, who are actually able to teach are the sort of people who are needed.

Pay has a part to play and I agree the 30-50k level might bring every instructor in the country to your interviews but that level of funding for PPL / NPPL is simply not available, within a reasonable price to the student in a competitive market. However I know for a fact more money is available to pay instructors a better hourly rate but whilst there is plentifull supply of fresh young hour builder's out there who will work for £5 an hour or less - then who cares?

Some schools are clearly taking advantage of this situation with little thought for the paying customer. From a commercial point of view it is much better to pay the instructor as little as possible as it is when a student takes 80 hours to attain their PPL/NPPL rather than 45. By the time the student finds out it is usually far too late, the money has already been spent.

The solution to the problem IMHO is in 3 parts:

• have the CAA produce league tables for the average number of hours to pass the PPL/NPPL for each school
• include on the table the number of attempts prior to a pass
• require schools to publish/display these tables in house
• Widen the scope of available people who want to instruct by removing the CPL and class 1 medical requirements, giving schools a greater number of potential instructors to choose from
• Create a formal PPL/NPPL training trade body which requires its members to pay all instructors an hourly rate for both hours of a two hour slot at the national minimum wage, beacuse working is working in the air or on the ground - flying rate would be negotiable and private / optional.
• Make membership of the trade body worthwhile by ensuring any membership funds paid are used to promote the body to potential students in all parts of the UK
• Have an Instructor Membership of the organisation - with some form of basic tests for entry - class room, flying and written with a grade/star system and certification.
• Obtain the backing from relevant national bodies, interested parties and other aviation related organisations

Many other trades have gone this route to improve the standards in their business sectors. There is no practical reason why aviation training at the PPL/NPPL level could not do the same.

In a nutshell changing the flying school/club business model. Diversify to offer more associated aviation related products and services to the wider market.

There's a lot of people out there interested in flying/aviation but will never have the resources or opportunity to realise an ambition to fly.

There's so much more to "flying" than an hour or two every now and then - it's an interest for life.

Can you be more specific?

As I see it, learning to fly is well up the list of "things I must do before I die" of a very large proportion of 50+ year old men, and it appears this market is still largely untapped.