I recently finished training with Triple A, at the end of May actually, with a first time IR pass:D I found the training given was very thorough, a big shock compared to how my initial training was out in Canada. However, when i went for the Instrument ride i found it went extremely smoothly and according to plan, which i am sure is due to me having been forced to work like i have never done before on each and every training flight.
As for respect, i was always spoken to just like anywhere else i've been, infact wouldn't have thought about untill i read this thread.
So all in all i found Triple A to be great, in so far as i acheived what i set out to do with them and learnt a lot too.

Well Said Dan
 

AAA the place for good honest training, for those who are willing to work hard.

Mr Clubley !

Please keep lines like that comin! - their killin' me!!!

Oh, and in reply to yours (or MB's) - check your PM's!

NO!!! Not on the internet. Are you mad!!!

Proove it. What record??? Where??? Your talk of CAA records. They're a regulatory authority, not there to boost AAA's appearance. The CAA will not comment for or against a schools reputation. That's not what they're there for.

Now you're just sounding too much like MB.

But a good workman has good tools, therefore, yes I was a bad workman because I chose a bad tool. Oops, my mistake. Now I have a good tool. No thanks to AAA.

Keep those lines coming chubley. They're great :hmm:

Sean Dillon says it all...

The CAA don't care about the customer satisfaction of flying schools.

You'd have more luck with the Consumer Protection Council or Watchdog than with the CAA. To be fair to the people of the CAA they have a massive complex industry to regulate and only so many resources. They have bigger fish to fry at the end of the day than disgruntled FTO customers.

I suspect their view is that word will spread and this will result in effect self regulation. As many in the CAA read these pages perhaps I hear the sounds of sage nodding..

Cheers

WWW

www- I second that.

It would be very difficult to prove to CPC etc.
The FTO would just say that the student had poor flying skills and that The FTO had helped them overcome the problem after a few thousand pounds had been exchanged.

You could also argue that level 7-10 turbulence on the sim really isn't a way of helping the student!!:eek:


Cheers for now :)

Absolutely.

The CAA aren't interested in this area of operation of the flying schools. They are purely a regulatory authority.

Hopefully this forum is serving as a way of providing better services for all those people about to part with their precious money.

And for those who are prepared to listen to what their CFI is telling them

Very narrow view fingerbang.

That's making two assumptions. The CFI gives credit and respect to the student and he/she knows what they are talking about. Wild claims and constant critisicm of themselves and other pilots around certainly don't help the student listen. Technically human nature per se captain.

Since day 1 I listened to my CFI's, but when information started conflicing I went with my majority view, which is holding me strong today. For me, AAA was not the majority view.

with nearly 4900 people viewing this thread, i was wondering, where to look, to see how many more people would have to look at it, to make it a pprune record:O

It is quite interesting
how this thread has built up so many funs.

Is this is the only way we can make thing change in this business.

Triple AAA it is now time you start giving a proper service and demonstrate if at the end you can offer a good standard of training.

At this point i wondered and ask:

IS TRIPLE A A ONE OFF or FTOs are seriously taking advantage of their customers?

To my personal experience i do believe the standards are quite low and average of first CPL pass but, mainly IR are very low.

I would sincerly interested on your point of view.

Kind regards
PF

Here Here, well said pink flamingo

Training by Assessment
 

At The end of the day a lot of this Flying Instuction
Malarky seems to be about

'training by assessment'

What do I mean by that - well its a process that consists
of some bloke sitting next to you or behind you in the
sim assessing you not teaching you.....

There's very little in tha way of training materials of any sort
for the IR - why not have a Video of the chief Examiner at the
CAA flying a test route and showing us how it shoul be done

The reason it isnt done is because a lot of it is contentious and
they prefer the easy option of sitting there saying

'you didnt do this you forgot to do that .... ' etc

By the time a student has reached the twin IR phase it is all about 'coaching' and not 'basic flying instruction'. Or so it should be. However, under pressure, and perhaps a sketchy background at PPL or even CPL Skill Test stage the basics may not so good and the frustration of an IR Instructor is when he has to teach how to level off properly. (either from the climb or the descent) This is wasted time for the student and very expensive for the twin and gets in the way of 'Top of Climb checks', handling the r/t and keeping the Log. (and any number of other things).
Most students at this stage hate it if the Instructor takes control and 'demonstrates' as if this is wasted money. (It isn't because one good demonstration is worth a thousand words).
With all these 'pulling' against teaching it is no wonder that the 'assessment' method is used. It is even possible to carry a list of items on a IR profile that should be completed satisfactorily and tick off those done and cross those badly done or omitted.Using these 'tick/cross sheets it becomes apparent from repetitive crosses if the student has a retention problem or more likely an aptitude problem. However, this is a cold blooded approach and a good de-brief is more to most students liking.
Just to get back to basics 'why do we have the 'airwork section' in the IR? It wastes the student's money, puts a strain on the tired old aircraft and has been assessed at the CPL Skill Test.

Absolutely, GH is a waste of time and money, and I agree with what you said 40 yearflyer, this is a cold blooded approach, but there is a big big difference between cold blooded and ruthless. There is also a big difference between coaching and plainly destroying a student.

Also, instructors often blame students for lack of retention, but this is unfair in many cases. It often isn't lack of retention, but more a case of too many words.

But 100 words can be more valuable. Instructors that waffle on and on and on, using analogies about spinning plates and race horses, while charging through the nose for their time after the students been crammed full of this rubbish for the last 12 hours, it's 9 pm and the students hungry... GIVE IT UP. Thats not what instruction is about.

Also instructors that "psyche" you up as your attempting to intercept an ILS, or on vectors for the NDB. SHUT UP!!! Teach. Provide short simple tips/instructions, but don't waffle on and on. You know that an experienced pilot is already at 75-90% capacity, let alone a student, who on the ground would require at least 60% capacity to understand the complicated explanation you're giving them.

Instruction is difficult I'm sure, and not a job I envy and from the posts on PPRuNE, becoming more evident to me that there are very few good instructors around. I wish I understood that when I first started down the tight-rope of piloting. I certainly wouldn't have gone the Triple 'A' way. Oh well, live and learn.

Its not easy being an instructor you know.

They are managing a lot of different things in that flight. The pupil, the aircraft, the next 5 minutes, the next lesson, the last, the weather conditions. Trust me, good slick IR training is very demanding to deliver. Very. Many pilots can fly well IFR - not that many can teach it well.

Nevertheless the standards generally in the UK are high.

Cheers

WWW

IRT
 

WWW

I agree that teaching is the main aim and a lot of instructors do it very well, i believe that like many things it is a minority that ruin the industry. However i started my IR training at one school and it was obvious before long that they were not very good (at the instruction).

After 27 hours and unable to do holds or fly straight and level accuratly with them i made the plunge and swapped training providers and within 1.5 hours the guy had me sorted, because of instruction and nothing else, it is an amazing difference between a good teacher and bad. I am prepared to name them too if anyone wants them please pm if you want that info.

But the owner of this paticular school seems to employ people that are similar in personallity to him, or lack of i should say, has had several people walk out, explain to him but still does nothing about it.

Even 1 of the instructors there told me to take my business elsewhere, and there are not many people who have had a pass there and funnily enough always over budget. Also during December 2003 they put a student forward for test and they even said he was'nt ready but signed his 170a, to me they should be shot for that. But as people have already pointed out its there word against the student.

Good patient IR instructors are like gold dust, but im certainly happy with the one i had:ok:

Junior Instructors Talk too much
 

As an instructor one has, as Delta Echo Bravo says, to try and keep explanations short and concise.

This is very difficult and junior instructors are often guilty of trying to show how clever they are - by just talking too much. This can tire the student out especially after a long day.

It is very difficult however to distill down instructional points
to a minimum. The CFS guys I have found are very good at this - minimal bull - of course they are very talented people and not all instructors benefit from their background

In short a lot of verbage is not good when one is at near capacity

Instructional styles vary but my experience of instructing is
that there is too much 'training by assessment' The guy on the right is fearful of taking over because the student is paying.
Actually the student is paying to be taught not assessed though! Teaching can be delivered in many ways but demonstration is critical especially with advanced flying training.

There is I feel too little demonstration, and minimal use of computing technology and videos to cater for varying learning styles at many flying schools. Of course a lot of this has to do with how instructors are paid. They are not paid to get you through quickly. They are paid only when the sim or the aircraft is running. As soon as the brakes are off they are lining their pockets. I am instructor as well - so don't shoot me - its just that unlike a teacher in other fields an instructor is generally not paid for long briefings or making videos or anything other than flying...
This 'payment whilst in the air philosophy' reduces quality and efficiency of the whole flying training industry.

What would be good is a video of FCL or an FI or the student doing a circuit etc. themselves so that one can watch and learn or is that too much to ask?