Qualities of a Good Training Captain
 

If you were in the market for a Training Captain for your Airline, what qualities would you be looking for at Interview and in the Sim? What qualifications/background would you hope the Candidate would have?

Three most important qualities. Patience, patience and umm....oh yes, patience.

7 is right - the next thing that is of some importance is the ability to teach - i.e put the information over so that the bloke being taught, understands it, and if he takes a bit of time to do so go back to the first quality. Oddly, or not I have found the best instructors are not the ace of the base **** hot guys, but the average Joe pilot. The **** hot ones generally lack the first quality.

The Ideal Training Captain

(1) As SE7EN said - "Patience, patience and umm....oh yes, patience."

(2) As CDRW said - "the ability to teach". Absolutely agree that the best pilots do not necessarily make the best instructors, they often cannot understand why others cannot cope as well as they do themselves. Of course a good pilot who also has the ability to teach well is a bonus+++

(3) A clear appreciation that no two students are the same, and will learn at diffent rates and in different ways. Often times the slower student ends up being the better pilot.

(4) A clear appreciation that a Training exercise is NOT a test of the candidates skills and techniques, that is a Check flight. A Training exercise is the opportunity for the student to steadily apply pre-learning for the new type and put it into practice with the guidance of the instructor.

(5) A clear appreciation that MOST students learn more effectively if not just taught HOW, but WHY. A clear understanding of why a particular technique is practiced quickly leads to his being able to use the technique (the HOW).

(6) A clear appreciation that a large number of errors made by the majority of the students is not their fault. (You know the type - "All you sods are the same"). It is the fault of the system, the instructor, or for a group of pilots from similar backgrounds entering new dissimilar techniques.

(7) A good instructor will take the student through new procedures in a careful and explanatory manner. The student may have prepared himself well, but a good instructor will assist in his complete understanding and ability to perform consistantly.

(8) Within the constraints of safety, a good instructor will allow a more advanced student some lee-way in "running his own show", but ready to step in quickly if safety or learning is compromised. This builds up the trainee's confidence enormously.

(9) The ability to recognise areas where the student is under-confident, and reinforce his confidence by example and talking him through those aspects which the student finds difficult, and finally to go it alone (oddly enough, I've found that in my own students, their initial points of under-confidence often become their strong points if managed carefully).

(10) The ability to recognise when "on-the-spot" mini de-briefs are desirable during the exercise whilst the event is fresh in the student's mind. Major items can wait for the post flight de-brief.

(11) The ability to recognise when the student is assessing his own mistakes correctly, as he can now work positively towards correcting them. Just as importantly, the ability to recognise when the student is NOT assessing his own mistakes correctly or realising them, at which point much more instructor input is needed.

(12) Although the Instructor does not have to be an "ace" pilot, he must be able, at a moment's notice, to take full control of the aircraft without assistance - reverting to single pilot operation.

That's a mini summary, there's a lot more, but it's among the points that I look for when interviewing potential instructors, and conducting their Instructor training and final approval.

Regards,

Old Smokey

Old Smokey: You forgot one; as I know you must teach that most important rule to them?

(13) To Trust Nothing; Trust No One:suspect:


:D:D:D

Also that would be a great lesson for the Flight Instructors and Examiners forum here:)

Old Smokey

Excellent!

A P

I might add....

'Listen (insert trainees first name here), we are both here to do a job, I teach, you listen and hopefully understand, and follow with appropriate action...and, above all, don't argue, and we'll get along just fine.'

Works like a charm....usually:}

Old Smokey has clearly identified the ideal characteristics and qualities desired of an Instructor or Check Pilot, but once those qualities have been recognized and the appointment made, a responsible company will insure that the newly appointed instructor receives adequate training and the tools to carry out his/her duties. Courses in instructional technique, pedagogy and human factors should be part of that training.

]It is also important that the company has an ongoing program to monitor the performance and standards of their instructor and check pilots. :ok:

An true example of a positive training environment if I'd ever seen one. Is that a joke or someone reminiscing the bygone era when the training department consisted of steely eyed mustache sporting jet jockeys who were partial to the odd pipe and refered to the cabin supervisor as a 'damn fine filly'?

"Listen Bloggs, heres the deal, you sit there like a good chap and listen to what I have to say. It may be a complete load of ****, but just do it. Don't open your trap, I'm the Captain; I know everything!"

Slightly altered to read...

Listen Bloggs, heres the deal, you sit there like a good chap and listen to what I have to say. It may sound strange but just do it. Don't open your trap, I'm the Training Captain; I know everything.

This works very well for brand new First Officers on type (the 200 hour wonder crowd), and further, if they argue just one little bit, send 'em packing.:E

:}As usual, ASFKAP it misinformed.
We are in the process of selecting local turbopropeller First Officers for upgrade to a heavy widebody jet.
Now, these guys (and one gal, a quite pretty one too) are in the one to two thousand hour range, so these folks are allowed to ask reasonable questions, and they will receive reasonable answers.

Howsomever...the 200 hour 'wonder' has no previous airline flying background, knows next to nothing about line flying (only having just completed a type conversion course) so....the Training Captain says, the trainee brand new First Officer does as he/she is told...period.
End of story.
This is the way SQ trained their original First Officers onto the line in the B707 airplane, and....when finished with the line training, they could make quite reasonable decisions and...fly the airplane remarkably well, considering their previous very limited experience.

This is called...train hard, operate easy.

A proven concept...something I expect ASFKAP would absolutely know nothing about, because...he ain't an airline pilot.:rolleyes:
Surprise, surprise.

Don't use the corridor method of training.

ie Ok Bloggs I want you to run down that corridor as fast as you can and when you get to the end turn right and keep running.

So Bloggs goes running down the corridor and when he turns right impales himself on a brick wall.

Instructor says "Well, you won't do that again, will you?"

If the trainee asks you a question and you don't know the answer say "I don't know but lets go and find out"

All very interesting, however...a '200 hour wonder' just beginning line training, doesn't know what questions to ask, because, he doesn't know anything about airline flying....yet.
Therefore, he keeps his mouth shut and ears firmly open, so that he can actually attempt to learn the basics.
Then he can ask questions, however, never argue.
Ever.
And yes...I've trained a few of the these '200 hour wonders', in heavy jet airplanes.

411A
"All very interesting, however...a '200 hour wonder' just beginning line training, doesn't know what questions to ask, because, he doesn't know anything about airline flying....yet."------>your personal experience as a novice pilot doesn't make the rule...

"Then he can ask questions, however, never argue.
Ever." -----> waow, arguing is a proof he is actually listening to you but may have a different opinion,which obviously you dont accept..great teaching attitude..
"And yes...I've trained a few of the these '200 hour wonders', in heavy jet airplanes."---->the fewer the better,i hope the training was short and someone else rectified your initial poor attitude,lack of training,and overall appalling personality at work.
:yuk:

In 411A's ideal world:
 

You've got that right, I don't accept.
The trainee is the trainee, not the instructor.
In reality, the trainees opinion simply doesn't count, because...the instructor is actually paid by the airline to instruct, not listen to some nonsense ideas from junior pilots.
Junior pilots are just that....junior.
Not likely to change anytime soon, either.;)

I was full of questions when I started line training (200hrs, 737). And all my training captains made it clear at the start of every day that questions were not only welcome but encouraged. Infact the message was "whatever you do, do not sit there with your mouth shut if there is something you need to ask/know." Made for a positive, relaxed training environment.

But maybe they were all doing it wrong....

Not necessarily...so long as the questions asked, made sense, under the circumstances.
However, every once in awhile the instructor finds a smart a**, who will come up with some wild idea, and then want to argue about it.

Sorry, not allowed.

Well, his (incorrect) opinion is usually based on a misunderstanding. Therefore if you let him state his opinion and the supporting argument you stand a good chance of identifying (and correcting) the underlying misconception.

Its the difference between rote learning and comprehension, and in the long run is far more effective because whatever the guys misunderstanding is will otherwise follow him to the grave.

pb

Twenty four years ago I was the 200 wonder training on the A320. As I got into the sim for the first time the Trainer patted me on the shoulder and said "I love the look on the faces of all you youngsters the first time in here. The self doubt and awe is so obvious." He then proceded to take me and a load of others from being a 200 hour trainee through to being an airline pilot by showing us how to do it, leading us gently on and occasionally yelling "**** Me Boy!! if you keep that up you'll never make it! Now do it again and work harder!"

The line trainers showed us how to operate the aircraft and gave us a lot of tricks of the trade and the rest was willingly passed on by the line captains we flew with.

All these years on I'm pretty convinced that all the good qualities you look for in a trainer are also vital in the line captains too. After all once base and line training are over the learning how to make duty hours work on a day where everything slips is vital, local knowledge about airports makes life easier and and in depth knowledge of company procedures can really only be learned on the job.

According to you....and naturally your opinion doesn't count, because, you don't pay my big bucks salary.
OTOH, the companies that I have worked for, seemed to like my style, which in the end is the only item that matters.
All the latest psycho-babble instructing methods are simply not cost effective in my, nor my companies opinion.:D

Conversely you don't pay anyones salary here, so if we applied your own values your opinion would not matter to any of us either.

So, whether your training style is actually effective does not matter; it is only important what your employer thinks is happening. Kind of sounding like a bit of a 'yes' man there.

You thing that getting to the bottom of a students misunderstandings is a 'latest psychobabble technique'? I think you are confusing 'cheap' with 'cost effective'.

What worries me about the 'teach them by rote and tell them to STFU' is that the student doesn't understand the reasons behind the methods. You may say 'well who cares as long as they do what I say'. The problem comes 10-20 years down the road when you've retired and your ex-students are now calling the shots. They'll say 'old 411A always used to say XYZ but he didn't really have a good reason for it, he was just an opinionated old arse. We know better, we're not going to do that any more'.

IMHO that is what is happening to this industry; in the rush to cut training time and costs the lessons of the past are simply not being passed on to the younger generations.

pb

Two airlines, actually on a rotating basis, as contracts require.

Where is your proof?
Looks to me that ASFKAP is the 'pub bore' unable to separate fact from fiction.
This possibly is to be expected, as...he could never get TriStar aircraft to perform as advertised, whereas others definitely could...and can.

Now, in regard to this...

This can well be true, especially in larger companies where the training budget is constantly under pressure...as indeed the entire airlne may well be.

This is why I consider my training methods correct....as there is simply not enough time availabe to make everyone have all those warm and fuzzy feelings.
During line training, I subscribe to the 'do it my way, or else' agenda...and it works, no doubt about it.
Once a pilot is out on the line, he can accept/reject all the various odd ways of doing things from the Commanders he flies with.
During line training...sorry, no sale.

411A,

I'd bet you learned all that in the marines. Didn't ya? And now you're running a cowboys ranch in Arizona. Aren't ya?

No, sorry, The Range, you would lose that 'bet', never in the Marines, nor any other branch of the military.
However, I was at SQ in the early days, flying (in Command) the B707 airplane, and I watched, first hand, these methods applied, with very good success.
Brand new First Officers taught by quite experienced (no nonsense) training Captains, in exactly the methods I have outlined.
And, what's more, it certainly worked for them, as SQ have had only one fatal accident in the intervening years, to date...in spite of a huge increase in their fleet, flying to far more international destinations than what many 'new guys' here could ever contemplate, never mind attain.
The B707 (advanced cowl, and older designs) were far more difficult to fly accuately) , than new(er) types.
B737 and A320...kiddie cars by comparasion.
When I received a brand new First Officer, on the line, just out of training at SQ, they could fly the airplane very well indeed, normally without my saying a word.
This was due, in large part, to Capt SK (Charlie) Chan's insistance on...training to proficiency, without exception.

All somewhat interesting, ASFKAP, except that several folks actually in charge at three airlines where I worked, did not share your obtuse opinions...such as they are.:hmm::eek:

Alanis Morissette may not get this particular piece of irony but, seriously 411A, not being able to spell accurately accurately is absolutely amazing!

Come on you guys grow up! If any of you guys really are airline pilots, I hope I never find myself sitting behind you! This was an extremely good and useful thread, with some excellent thoughts, until the children came out to play!!
Helen

Helen49 is quite correct, I expect, as many contributors here, unlike myself, have never trained anyone in an air transport airplane....and when confronted with training facts, are left only to speculate...wrongly, in most cases.
Take ASFKAP, as an example...the guy is a mechanic, not a pilot, therefore wouldn't know the first thing about pilot training, especially in a company that he has no association with.
Par for the course.:ugh:

Training a brand new "cadet" with 250 hours is a different task to training a hairy old 55 year old captain. The trainer needs to understand where the trainee has come from and adapt according to the trainees background experience and personality. One size does not fit all.

A good training captain, or indeed, a training FO needs to be adaptable amongst a host of other skills. Each trainee will learn differently. the trainer needs to adapt and understand to the trainees needs. In the olden days, trainers had just one way of teaching. Normally "monkey see, monkey do." If that did not work, then .. clearly the student was not good enough. Now a good trainer tries to understand how the student is learning, and adapts to that. For instance I tend to learn visually. Others need numbers and routines. Others are a mixture. Everyone is different.

So a brand new 20 hour cadet will need instruction. You talk, he listens. As the cadet begins to improve the instruction reduces, and you need to support him, and encourage him in improving his skills. More coaching than instruction. Towards the end of his training course the Cadet, should be able to get on and do is job with little or no input from the trainer.

With a grumpy old Captain on a conversion course it is a different matter. You show him the type specific stuff, how the seat moves, where to keep his glasses and pen. The best place to put the coffee cup. Impart a few words of wisdom about the new type. He does his thing and you mostly are mute in the right hand seat.

Bad trainers: Talk too much. Wave their ego in your face. Are inconsistent. Inflexible. Rigid. Never listen. Can't teach.

Too often trainers are doing the job for the money, and status, and not because they want to teach and impart wisdom and knowledge.

There is nothing more rewarding than watching a check ride in the simulator, watching a mediocre performance begin to unfold, and then with small input, settle the situation and tease out of the crew a good check ride. They learn something, and I always get to learn something. A bad trainer loves to unsettle a crew, and secretly delights in a bad performance. His ego gets fluffed up, and the trainee has his confidence rattled, and goes away learning nothing other than the training captain is an @rse.

All IMHO.

OR...the trainee had better buckle down and actually perform as expected, or be shown the door.
I will grant extra training, if need be, however...when some guys say...'well, it wasn't this way on the (insert type here, example, Boeing), make no mistake, the screws get turned...big time.
Why?
Because...these few folks are waisting my time, and that I will not allow.
Ever.

411A - I have often been a fan of your postings, but your contribution to this debate is positively embarrassing. I am an Airbus Training Captain and in my foolishness believed that the attitudes displayed in your posts towards your fellow professionals were long-since gone. This is nothing to do with changing society for the sake of it and losing respect for elders - it is all to do with safety, safety and safety. When I train a new 200 hour pilot, the last thing I tell him is that regardless of our relative experience levels, I am totally capable of making a major error and if he sees something that alarms him he should shout out. The reason the attitude you display is so unacceptable is that it is dangerous and makes you a crash waiting to happen. It completely leaves the other pilot out the loop and removes one of the key components of a safe flight deck - a First Officer who will question what he does not feel comfortable with. It is the very reason that aviation outside the western world has such safety issues - a paternalistic approach to the guy next to the captain which guarantees he does not speak up when he needs to. You are breeding into your First Officers from Day One an unwise respect for authority that assumes the Captain is always right.

Back here in the western world where ever-increasing safety is a goal of all credible airlines, no stone has been left unturned in investigating why crashes occur and what can be done to avoid them. Much is wrong with the western world, and no one laments it more than me. Nonetheless, when it comes to aviation we have a lot right. One of those things that is right is making First Officers feel they have a voice in the process of flying. Sure, there are risks in that strategy and occasionally some guys misunderstand their place in the system. Overall, however, I am delighted to encourage First Officers to shout out when something wierd or uncomfortable is happening.

I note you quoting the wonders of SQ (Singapore Airlines). Perhaps you have forgotten the case of SQ006 which was a scheduled flight from Singapore Changi Airport to Los Angeles International Airport via Chiang Kai-Shek Airport (now Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport) in Taiwan. On 31 October 2000, at 15:17 UTC, 23:17 Taipei local time, a Boeing 747-400 on the route attempted to take off from the wrong runway in Taipei during a typhoon, destroying the aircraft and killing 83 of the 179 occupants. There were 2 First Officers on board who neither questioned the decision to take-off in a typhoon or to use the wrong runway. No doubt these redoubtable individuals were a product of the faultless SQ training system you espouse. The simple fact is that these FOs were unquestioning, overly-loyal individuals brought up on a diet of 'the Captain is always right' and a sense of their own low place in the hierarchy or eastern society. The result was catastrophe.

You will rightly point to a number of accidents in the western world over the years in similar circumstances. The one that comes to mind is that of Captain Stanley Key - an aggressive and much-disliked British European Airways (now British Airways) Trident Captain who was the commander of BE548 on 18th June 1972 out of Heathrow. The aircraft stalled on take-off and there is significant evidence to suggest that the very inexperienced co-pilot failed to act due to fear of being shouted down. That accident is well-known and within the UK was the beginning of a long and painful journey into what is now called CRM (Crew Resource Management). The airline industry in the west was forced to recognise, through this, and other terrible accidents, that overly-dominant Captains with young, inexperienced First Officers is a recipe for disaster. Since then enormous effort has been made to change the cockpit culture so that the FO can, and indeed should, shout out when something is going wrong. The world you still cling to 411A is yesterday's world that that is rightly being attacked in the interests of flight safety. The change in western flight deck practices has brought enormous safety benefits, but those benefits have yet to work their way to all airlines in the Far East and beyond. There is none so blind as those that will not see, and I do not expect you to embrace my view - such is the nature of denial. Nonetheless, I hope that many reading this will recognise the enormous benefits of encouraging all First Officers from day one to question the Captain if they do not like what they see. That is not an invitation to insubordination - it is an invitation to follow the best practices we know save lives.

No, I have not, and if you were actually paying attention, you would have noticed it in my previous comments, as...

Post number 29, for your reference.:rolleyes:

Now, as for the rest of your comments, I would say the following...
airline budgets today are tight, and this extends to the training department as well, make no mistake.
Therefore, for the trainee to get the most out of these limited budgets and instructor time, it will be necessary for these '200 hour wonders' to listen carefully to their instructor pilots, and follow the plot to the letter, simply because...these referenced junior guys would have had no previous jet transport airline flying experience, therefore...they would, at the start of training, have zero knowledge of line operations, despite what they might read here on PPRuNe, to the contrary.
Once they know the basics, then they can start to 'question'...and not before.

I don't need to 'take notes' as I've been in the training bisiness for quite some time, have trained quite a number of new First Officers over the years, and none have had incidents nor accidents.

There is nothing an individual instructor pilot can do to change a particular culture, no matter how hard they might try...and besides it not their job, in any event.
It is up to the specific airline company and their flight standards/safety department to set the policy, not the individual instructor.
The individual instructor simply follows the relevant company training syllabus, and should not go off on some tangent, trying to change 'culture'.:rolleyes:

Otherwise...the 'CRM' department might well be out of a job.:ooh:

To answer the original question I would reply, as many have done so already, that patience is probably the most important quality for a trainer to have. That and a genuine desire to teach another human being a new skill.

As to the "man and boy "concept where the trainer is a God-like entity who must not be questioned it would be all well and good except it doesn't/didn't work. NSF highlighted the Staines crash as a good example where it is believed that an aggressive over bearing Capt might have made an under confident FO unlikely to speak up when he needed to.

It's quite possible that a brand new FO, even during line training, will spot something wrong and should have the confidence to speak up. A good trainer will use that as an example of why it's a 2(3) crew aircraft and reinforce the message that one should never keep silent if something appears amiss.

I wouldn't jump on the east too much about run way line ups
 

Regarding SQ 006, what about Lexington and the near miss, a farce worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan, that BA recently had in St Kitts?. Both happened in good weather with Western operators with overall good records long after SQ 006 was done and supposedly "learned" by our superior CRM based training?

"Once they know the basics, then they can start to 'question'...and not before."

Sounds like good advice to me. What exactly is wrong with that?

FITW - I'd have no problems flying with SQ or with 411A. Reading what I did, yes I read the entire report, about St Kitts I was stunned at the layers of "laissez faire" attitude at BA. I wasn't just the pilots. Why are BA operating large jets out of an airport(s) with known safety issues and doing nothing about it worries me a lot more than having a make nice trainer.

Edited - changed island

411A deliberately writes to stir the pot, but I have found a lot very good advice in there. Many here seem to never read the posts and just start foaming at the keyboard when they see his tag.

20driver

Unlikely with 411A around:oh:

20driver

I presume your attention to detail on your flight deck is better than your attention to detail in your recollection of the report .... I presume you refer to St Kitts:8

Correct
 

St Kitts not Antigua. Doesn't change the facts about what happened.
Lining up and taking off from the wrong location is not only an "eastern" problem.

20driver

20driver

A question for you. Which of the following crews would be more likely to line up at the wrong intersection. A crew where the Trg Capt has established that despite the FO's inexperience he/she can feel free to question something that worries them or one where the Trainer has made it very clear that HE is in charge and the trainee should "shut up" and only do what they are told.

Of course the first crew could still make the same error but I would suggest it is less likely and that is what most airline professionals strive for.

BBK -you might be right
 

You are suggesting, do you have any data?

What I am saying is lining up incorrectly is not a problem unique to SQ nor is it an "eastern" problem. It seems people here who don't like 411a feel they have to dump on SQ, and by extension "eastern culture" to discredit him as he thought they run, or ran, a good training department.

Anyone from SQ care to comment?

20driver