Becoming an Instructor & related FI questions
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coyote,
I'am a privateer with about 1.000 hrs in 4 years, and my IR had 17.000+ (he was not allowed to write more) and I'am really glad he had this.
I would feel that 1.000 is indeed really a minimum. There is a german saying (will save you the german..) that goes: ' there is no replacement for experience...'
Unless teaching kind of means learning to fly circuits and let them figure out all the rest and hope they survive it...
If I would pay more : well this question was not put this way in my case, I just choose the experienced guys (did not check the others), and even well after getting my PPL I would pay them to fly with me to do the more advanced stuff once I was getting ready for it, and had a need to know it.
Experience of course is not everything : the person should be able of bringing some of it over to the student, in that sense I sympathise with the youthfull enthousiasme line of thinking, but give me an experienced enthousiatic guy...
d3
I'am a privateer with about 1.000 hrs in 4 years, and my IR had 17.000+ (he was not allowed to write more) and I'am really glad he had this.
I would feel that 1.000 is indeed really a minimum. There is a german saying (will save you the german..) that goes: ' there is no replacement for experience...'
Unless teaching kind of means learning to fly circuits and let them figure out all the rest and hope they survive it...
If I would pay more : well this question was not put this way in my case, I just choose the experienced guys (did not check the others), and even well after getting my PPL I would pay them to fly with me to do the more advanced stuff once I was getting ready for it, and had a need to know it.
Experience of course is not everything : the person should be able of bringing some of it over to the student, in that sense I sympathise with the youthfull enthousiasme line of thinking, but give me an experienced enthousiatic guy...
d3
Last edited by delta3; 12th Sep 2004 at 17:31.
In the military, a pilot usually has to complete a full flying tour before getting an instructor's course. One tour is around 3 years and 1000 hours - and a bag of experience that somebody straight out of a licence test doesn't have.
The RAAF tried once, sending a newly-winged pilot straight to instructor's course, but it wasn't worth doing a second time - don't know the official reason, but the unofficial one was that he had no credibility amongst the other instructors.
I know that when I went through training, all my instructors were Vietnam vets who could pass on a lot of knowledge. (It didn't sink into me, of course.....)
The RAAF tried once, sending a newly-winged pilot straight to instructor's course, but it wasn't worth doing a second time - don't know the official reason, but the unofficial one was that he had no credibility amongst the other instructors.
I know that when I went through training, all my instructors were Vietnam vets who could pass on a lot of knowledge. (It didn't sink into me, of course.....)
I don't know of any military service that flies 1000 hours per pilot in 3 years!!
The averages I have heard lies more around 150 -200 hours pr year, which equals 450 -600 pr year...
The averages I have heard lies more around 150 -200 hours pr year, which equals 450 -600 pr year...
There we go again.
Instructor qualification is measured by flight hours.
That the system worked for years with all the low time instructors all over the world does not count. Get real. Everybody wants a instructor with 100'000 hours and the talent to be a good teacher. But it does not work like this. Most of the experienced pilots do not want to teach and it is far more difficult to show an older guy effectiv teaching methods.
I had the pleasure once to see a very good flight instructor in action with two different students. One was the 100 hour wonder and the other one a bit timid an not sure about his flying. This instructor had the ability to find exactly the right way to teach both of them. Stop the overconfident student becoming a macho pilot and help the timid student to get self confidenc. That is what a good instructor must know, too. But that is something a pilot does not learn in 10'000 h military or commercial flying.
Would be nice if a flight instructor would be judged for his teaching.
Instructor qualification is measured by flight hours.
That the system worked for years with all the low time instructors all over the world does not count. Get real. Everybody wants a instructor with 100'000 hours and the talent to be a good teacher. But it does not work like this. Most of the experienced pilots do not want to teach and it is far more difficult to show an older guy effectiv teaching methods.
I had the pleasure once to see a very good flight instructor in action with two different students. One was the 100 hour wonder and the other one a bit timid an not sure about his flying. This instructor had the ability to find exactly the right way to teach both of them. Stop the overconfident student becoming a macho pilot and help the timid student to get self confidenc. That is what a good instructor must know, too. But that is something a pilot does not learn in 10'000 h military or commercial flying.
Would be nice if a flight instructor would be judged for his teaching.
The ability to instruct effectively is more determined by personality than anything else - the best pilot in the world may make a lousy instructor because he cannot empathise with his student.
However, the excuse for using low time pilots to teach others is a poor one and hides behind the economic reality that it is a cheap way to hours build. Some student will get reasonable instruction but many will get an inexperienced pilot who is also an inexperienced instructor - this is not a good mix and may explain some of the many training crashes and incidents.
I know that someone is going to come back and say that all instructors pass an approved course but, speaking as one who has taught the British military instructors course (reckoned to be the best in the world), a brand new instructor neds constant supervision and post graduate training if he is to become a good instructor.
In the Military fixed wing world, good pilots are often 'creamed off' from training and sent on instructor courses before being put back into the training system - some are good but some have very poor attitudes because they find flying easy and can't understand why the student doesn't.
This is not done in the RW world and potential instructors must have completed (as mentioned in a previous post) at least one operational tour - they will have circa 1000 hours total (don't forget to add their hours from training to their operational flying) which I consider to be a minimum requirement.
However, the excuse for using low time pilots to teach others is a poor one and hides behind the economic reality that it is a cheap way to hours build. Some student will get reasonable instruction but many will get an inexperienced pilot who is also an inexperienced instructor - this is not a good mix and may explain some of the many training crashes and incidents.
I know that someone is going to come back and say that all instructors pass an approved course but, speaking as one who has taught the British military instructors course (reckoned to be the best in the world), a brand new instructor neds constant supervision and post graduate training if he is to become a good instructor.
In the Military fixed wing world, good pilots are often 'creamed off' from training and sent on instructor courses before being put back into the training system - some are good but some have very poor attitudes because they find flying easy and can't understand why the student doesn't.
This is not done in the RW world and potential instructors must have completed (as mentioned in a previous post) at least one operational tour - they will have circa 1000 hours total (don't forget to add their hours from training to their operational flying) which I consider to be a minimum requirement.
speaking as one who has taught the British military instructors course (reckoned to be the best in the world)
Why is this course the best in the world? I know a few contries where they say that they have the best course. The best pilots anyway.
How could we use this experience in the civil world?
And by enforcing an minimum of 1000 hours, how can a low time pilot get those 1000 hours?
Has anybody ever looked at the statistics for training accidents and the hours the instructors had?
PS: If my memory is right, statistics show the that the accident rate goes up for rw pilots with about 1000 hours.
I can't remember the quote or even the source, but the gist of it went like this:
"There are three phases in a pilot's development.
The first is at about 100 hours, when a pilot thinks that he has got the game sewn up and is almost ready for a licence.
The second is around 300 hours, when the pilot reckons he knows all there is to know. He is truly dangerous.
If he survives the first two phases, he progresses to a stage where, at about 1000 hours, an amazing transformation takes place. When the pilot wants something to happen, it just does. No conscious effort is involved. Man becomes part of the machine, and if a surgeon picks up a scalpel and attempts to separate the pilot from the helicopter, he does not know where to start the cut."
or sumfing like that.
The fact that low-timers teach zero-timers is sad. It is an economical requirement in the civil world, but luckily in Oz the wannabe-instructor at least has to have SOME real-world experience before trying to pass on his limited knowledge.
"There are three phases in a pilot's development.
The first is at about 100 hours, when a pilot thinks that he has got the game sewn up and is almost ready for a licence.
The second is around 300 hours, when the pilot reckons he knows all there is to know. He is truly dangerous.
If he survives the first two phases, he progresses to a stage where, at about 1000 hours, an amazing transformation takes place. When the pilot wants something to happen, it just does. No conscious effort is involved. Man becomes part of the machine, and if a surgeon picks up a scalpel and attempts to separate the pilot from the helicopter, he does not know where to start the cut."
or sumfing like that.
The fact that low-timers teach zero-timers is sad. It is an economical requirement in the civil world, but luckily in Oz the wannabe-instructor at least has to have SOME real-world experience before trying to pass on his limited knowledge.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorbee
You build hours by working as a Hangar Rat, ie a slave for a few years...This is the normal way in Australia, and quickly filters out the wannabe freshly qualified pilot that thinks the world owes him/her a job... It normally takes about 2 to 3 years of hard dedication, living in remote locations, doing all type of work (non flying) to survive until you are given a chance to fly for a living. Most of the Aussie R/W pilots did it, doing ferry flights initially, followed by tourist charters, progressing onto Airwork and so. Most instructors in Aussie are then able to impart good experience onto their students, the stuff you don't find in textbooks, but will save your bacon one day.
You build hours by working as a Hangar Rat, ie a slave for a few years...This is the normal way in Australia, and quickly filters out the wannabe freshly qualified pilot that thinks the world owes him/her a job... It normally takes about 2 to 3 years of hard dedication, living in remote locations, doing all type of work (non flying) to survive until you are given a chance to fly for a living. Most of the Aussie R/W pilots did it, doing ferry flights initially, followed by tourist charters, progressing onto Airwork and so. Most instructors in Aussie are then able to impart good experience onto their students, the stuff you don't find in textbooks, but will save your bacon one day.
Ok, now we have heard the aussie way.
Jobs as hangar rats are rare in other parts of the world. Ferry flying in some parts is nonexistent or not practical, because of insurance, type ratings and other requirements. Tour flying the same. Part 135 work requires a minimum of 500h.
Maybe sombody from europe has an idea, how a low time pilot can build hours?
Jobs as hangar rats are rare in other parts of the world. Ferry flying in some parts is nonexistent or not practical, because of insurance, type ratings and other requirements. Tour flying the same. Part 135 work requires a minimum of 500h.
Maybe sombody from europe has an idea, how a low time pilot can build hours?
Rotorbee - I am just repeating what others have said about the Central Flying School generally and the Helicopter element in particular.
Is there a civilian organisation that has 10 to 15 very experienced (between 2000 and 6000 hrs) in one place, has an almost unlimited supply of Squirrel helicopters, a 4-week groundschool, a syllabus that covers everything from effects of controls to mountain flying and has rich arab nations queueing up to fill places? CFSH exam wing are invited all over the world to assess and examine military RW operations, there must be a reason for it.
The civilian world constantly benefits from the experience of ex-military instructors taking up posts in the real world.
I don't claim that military pilots are better, there are many outstanding pilots who have never put on a uniform.
I think the 1000 hours statistic is out of date and stems from the days when a mil pilot on his first tour could notch up 1000 hrs in 2 years and maturity (or lack of it) was more the cause of accidents rather than the number of hours.
The biggest advantage the military has is in its ability to standardise pilots and instructors - the number and frequency of check-rides means that it is far less likely for an ill-informed instructor to get away with teaching poor techniques to students.
The civilian GA pilot suffers further because there is no requirement for post graduate (PPLH) training and so no-one bothers - therefore pilots often compound poor practices and errors and never improve, despite getting more hours.
Is there a civilian organisation that has 10 to 15 very experienced (between 2000 and 6000 hrs) in one place, has an almost unlimited supply of Squirrel helicopters, a 4-week groundschool, a syllabus that covers everything from effects of controls to mountain flying and has rich arab nations queueing up to fill places? CFSH exam wing are invited all over the world to assess and examine military RW operations, there must be a reason for it.
The civilian world constantly benefits from the experience of ex-military instructors taking up posts in the real world.
I don't claim that military pilots are better, there are many outstanding pilots who have never put on a uniform.
I think the 1000 hours statistic is out of date and stems from the days when a mil pilot on his first tour could notch up 1000 hrs in 2 years and maturity (or lack of it) was more the cause of accidents rather than the number of hours.
The biggest advantage the military has is in its ability to standardise pilots and instructors - the number and frequency of check-rides means that it is far less likely for an ill-informed instructor to get away with teaching poor techniques to students.
The civilian GA pilot suffers further because there is no requirement for post graduate (PPLH) training and so no-one bothers - therefore pilots often compound poor practices and errors and never improve, despite getting more hours.
What did we get until now.
The aussie way as a hangar rat or the uk way as a military pilot. What I am still missing are ideas to get the civilian world to a higher safety level without taking away opportunities from low time pilots. I think that a complete review of the civilian training system should and could be donne.
The JAR idea to have an ATP as a target isn't such a bad idea. But flight schools shoud consider to run their operation rather like an airline where every training flight has a fligth plan, an objective and so on. By doing this, you would have a much better learning effect and tighter control about the students decision making process. This would mean more work for the instructor, therefore we could think about giving credit for ground school as flight hours to the instructor. Which would motivate them to teach ground school and do effective post- and preflight brefings.
Flight instructors that grow up in a system like this, could be earlier capable to teach effectively. But if a system like this is be successfull, insurance companies should consider to give a low time pilot a chance to do some real work.
Sugestions please, how we could make the training for civilian pilots better, without taking oppotunities away from low time pilots.
The aussie way as a hangar rat or the uk way as a military pilot. What I am still missing are ideas to get the civilian world to a higher safety level without taking away opportunities from low time pilots. I think that a complete review of the civilian training system should and could be donne.
The JAR idea to have an ATP as a target isn't such a bad idea. But flight schools shoud consider to run their operation rather like an airline where every training flight has a fligth plan, an objective and so on. By doing this, you would have a much better learning effect and tighter control about the students decision making process. This would mean more work for the instructor, therefore we could think about giving credit for ground school as flight hours to the instructor. Which would motivate them to teach ground school and do effective post- and preflight brefings.
Flight instructors that grow up in a system like this, could be earlier capable to teach effectively. But if a system like this is be successfull, insurance companies should consider to give a low time pilot a chance to do some real work.
Sugestions please, how we could make the training for civilian pilots better, without taking oppotunities away from low time pilots.
Standardisation is a big issue.
In the Bad Old Days, the Department of Civil Aviation (pre-DoTA, CAA, CASA) had Examiners of Airmen, and they were the only ones allowed to issue licences and instructor ratings, instrument ratings etc. They worked for the Gummint, and supposedly all sang from the same sheet of music.
Then as things changed, the testing role was devolved in part to the industry and Approved Testing Officers were created to lighten CASA's load. That was where the divergence of standards really accelerated. It is now possible for an ATO to be working in a school which he owns, and in which he was taught himself, and outside of which he has never worked.
It is in his interests to have as many of his own students graduate to help his statistics along. He teaches his students, who become instructors and pass on the skinny knowledge which becomes skinnier and skinnier with each generation. No outside cross-fertilisation occurs. Not good.
In the Bad Old Days, the Department of Civil Aviation (pre-DoTA, CAA, CASA) had Examiners of Airmen, and they were the only ones allowed to issue licences and instructor ratings, instrument ratings etc. They worked for the Gummint, and supposedly all sang from the same sheet of music.
Then as things changed, the testing role was devolved in part to the industry and Approved Testing Officers were created to lighten CASA's load. That was where the divergence of standards really accelerated. It is now possible for an ATO to be working in a school which he owns, and in which he was taught himself, and outside of which he has never worked.
It is in his interests to have as many of his own students graduate to help his statistics along. He teaches his students, who become instructors and pass on the skinny knowledge which becomes skinnier and skinnier with each generation. No outside cross-fertilisation occurs. Not good.
Ascend Charlie:
Aren't these ATO's under some control from the casa?
Mountain Flying? In Great Britain? With the highest mountain having 1334 m? Ehem... 
(just kidding)
Flight Safety? But they fly everything else, not Squirrels - sorry.
HAI? Don't know. CHC? UND?
Aren't these ATO's under some control from the casa?
covers everything from effects of controls to mountain flying
(just kidding)
Is there a civilian organisation that has 10 to 15 very experienced (between 2000 and 6000 hrs) in one place
HAI? Don't know. CHC? UND?
Last edited by Rotorbee; 16th Sep 2004 at 06:40.
The thing I don't understand is that it is obvious that low houred instructors don't know how to fly properly and can't pass onto the student what their experiences have taught them. Using instructing as hour building is fine for the low houred instructor but what about the student?. $320+ per hour or whatever it is now is a lot to spend on aiding the hour building of an inexperienced instructor while not gaining the full advantage of industry experience and knowlegable airmanship. If this is how hour building is going to be achieved I think the industry needs to take a double dose of "Viagra Eyedrops"& have a long hard look at itself. Pack your gear and file your ornamental instructors ticket away and go out and build the hours the right way, not at some poor bugger who is spending a lot of money so hopefuly he can do the same things expense. The keen one's always get a start. It's natures way of culling.
I wonder how many of you who replied here had to build their hours as instructors. (I didn't ) And I wonder how many of you had the taxpayer pay for your hours building. (Not mine) I think it is a bit unfair to pick on those who spend a lot of money to fullfill their dream and need that job to find a better job that they can survive on.
In good schools low time instructors are under constant supervision and you do not let them loose on complete newbies.
Until now I have not seen a lot of ideas how to make the system better. Instructing is for the moment the only way to build hours for most of the low time pilots on this planet. Not everyone can join the army. I have friend who is on her way to become a CHPL. And you know what? She will probably not get a job because she is a woman. This industry is often full of prejudices. Not a lot of hours? Bad pilot. That is sad. Instead trying to help low time pilots they have to feel guilty.
I have not seen any statistics about training accidents and the hours of the instructors. Therefore it is difficult to decide if the system is really as bad as some of you think.
Until now, most rulemaking agencies seem to think, that a low time pilot can be a good instructor. Otherwise they would have changed this years ago.
Most of the low time instructors I met tried to make the best job possible. Which I can not say about most of the high time instructors I met.
But now I give up.
In good schools low time instructors are under constant supervision and you do not let them loose on complete newbies.
Until now I have not seen a lot of ideas how to make the system better. Instructing is for the moment the only way to build hours for most of the low time pilots on this planet. Not everyone can join the army. I have friend who is on her way to become a CHPL. And you know what? She will probably not get a job because she is a woman. This industry is often full of prejudices. Not a lot of hours? Bad pilot. That is sad. Instead trying to help low time pilots they have to feel guilty.
I have not seen any statistics about training accidents and the hours of the instructors. Therefore it is difficult to decide if the system is really as bad as some of you think.
Until now, most rulemaking agencies seem to think, that a low time pilot can be a good instructor. Otherwise they would have changed this years ago.
Most of the low time instructors I met tried to make the best job possible. Which I can not say about most of the high time instructors I met.
But now I give up.
A couple of things I find interesting.
Firstly, it sounds to me like there's a very good chance in the military that you WON'T have a 10,000+ or even a 5,000+ hour instructor teaching you, for better or for worse. More like 1,000 hours, maybe 2 or 3? Any pilot with 3, 5, 10 or 20,000 hours knows how LITTLE they knew at 1,000 hours, regardless of what kind of flying they have done. I just think that's an interesting statistic. If you seek EXPERIENCE from an instructor, ie time in the saddle, there is a good chance you will get more from a civvie instructor then?
Secondly, maybe this hour building by instructing is big in the US or UK, but I don't think its such a big thing in Australia, from what I've seen. You can't finish your CPL in Oz and walk into a rotary instructor rating, you've got to have 400 hours minimum. Most pilots that get to 400 hours are already in jobs and so are getting hours anyway.
I know that when I did my instructor rating my motivation had nothing to do with building hours. It was simply this: I wanted to feel that if ever I was flogging along in a single and the engine stopped or I had a TR failure or some other emergency, that I'd feel rehearsed and confident in being able to put it down in one piece.
I have no doubt that instructing was good for that, you do hundreds if not thousands of autos and emergencies over and over again. In a year of instructing you'd probably do 10 years worth of emergencies that the average line pilot does on check rides.
Firstly, it sounds to me like there's a very good chance in the military that you WON'T have a 10,000+ or even a 5,000+ hour instructor teaching you, for better or for worse. More like 1,000 hours, maybe 2 or 3? Any pilot with 3, 5, 10 or 20,000 hours knows how LITTLE they knew at 1,000 hours, regardless of what kind of flying they have done. I just think that's an interesting statistic. If you seek EXPERIENCE from an instructor, ie time in the saddle, there is a good chance you will get more from a civvie instructor then?
Secondly, maybe this hour building by instructing is big in the US or UK, but I don't think its such a big thing in Australia, from what I've seen. You can't finish your CPL in Oz and walk into a rotary instructor rating, you've got to have 400 hours minimum. Most pilots that get to 400 hours are already in jobs and so are getting hours anyway.
I know that when I did my instructor rating my motivation had nothing to do with building hours. It was simply this: I wanted to feel that if ever I was flogging along in a single and the engine stopped or I had a TR failure or some other emergency, that I'd feel rehearsed and confident in being able to put it down in one piece.
I have no doubt that instructing was good for that, you do hundreds if not thousands of autos and emergencies over and over again. In a year of instructing you'd probably do 10 years worth of emergencies that the average line pilot does on check rides.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Bellfest, back to your original Question, a friend of mine who started instructing after he had 1500 hours rotary, said that that should be around about the minimum, as he knew he knew nothing about flying at 150-200hours....although he also understands that ecenomics dictate and wishes there was a solution. Not only does he teach people to fly and pass a test, but he now passes on valuble knowledge from experience that may save the students life one day, something he wouldn't have at 200 hours..
He now has 3000 hours,(1500 teaching) but also states some of the instructors he knows with more hours are good pilots but not very good instructors, so hours are not everything.
I wish there was a solution.
Fatigue.
He now has 3000 hours,(1500 teaching) but also states some of the instructors he knows with more hours are good pilots but not very good instructors, so hours are not everything.
I wish there was a solution.
Fatigue.
Hands_on123, what is that makes you think that you should be able to teach someone how to fly with 200 hours?. The rules say you can I know but in the real world mate that is ridiculous. You don't know how to fly yourself. No offence intended but if you are a competent enough pilot to teach others with 200 hours you're the only one in the history of the world. Do the hard yards mate and get a job and do your hours and get some experience first before trying to pass on knowledge you don't have. Instrument flying in helicopters in particular takes a lot of practice and experience before you can even get close to the stage of passing on any knowledge. The workload in IMC triples mate and there are a lot of things that IF experience needs to teach you before being competent enough to get yourself around let alone trying to teach someone else. However, it obviously does happen, I don't know how it's allowed but if that's the way you want to do it mate, go for it and good luck.
Yup, go for it. The more training you get, the better. Nobody will give you a helicopter to fly IFR with 200 hours anyway. But some operators require an IFR rating for their 135 operation. As soon as you hit 500 h, you will have better job oportunities. After a 1000 h anyway. Do the CFII too. More training, better understanding. If you do not get a "normal" flying job, look for a good flightschool with a good chief flight instructor to help you to grow on the task of beeing an instructor. Take it serious and don't do it if you think that you just want build hours. Life depends on you. What you do as an instructor has an influence on the students for the rest of their carreer as pilots. And if you move on, don't let your students down. Finish the job.
Beeing an instructor is very rewarding and can be a lot of fun.
I wish you all the best and fly save.
Beeing an instructor is very rewarding and can be a lot of fun.
I wish you all the best and fly save.
Last edited by Rotorbee; 17th Sep 2004 at 09:49.
Fatigue, you're probably right mate and there may not be a solution. I just think the money outlayed warrants both good instruction and experience. It's been a while (not too long) since I did my training but I still attribute a lot of my home baked flying approach and airmanship to a good instructor with loads of industry experience. Where are you imabell, what do you wreckon?. Someone like NC would be about the level you'd want before an IR hey?