compulsory groundschool for PPL's
Guest
Posts: n/a
compulsory groundschool for PPL's
What's the concensus regarding compulsory ground schooling for PPL's? I personally think that at least 10 hours of paid for ground school should be made compulsory in the JAA sylabus. I think the current system of briefing and de-briefing is open to abuse as the FI ( hourly paid ) is not being paid for this element directly and will scuttle out of it wherever possible. In my personal experience, my instructors really could not have given a crap. A better understanding of the helicopter early on, is beneficial to everyone. If briefings were charged for, then the standard of piloting would also improve as the instructor would not be thinking of the next punter waiting to go. 10 hours of ground instruction would not add that much to the overall cost of a PPL and could have a significant safety advantage. Over to you, FI's.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SE England
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best way to have made your instructors "give a crap" would have been to take a walk with your wallet elsewhere!
My own experience, with London Helicopter Centres at Redhill (they were Thurston Helis at the time and, no, I don't work for them...) couldn't have been more different from yours. I started my PPL(H) with a week off work and booked to fly two hours every day for that week. Each day, I turned up to find the instructor had already been there for about an hour and drawn up a board brief which we then took about an hour running through. And it wasn't just one particular instructor - my own instructor caught the 'flu on day two, so I flew with a few part-time guys over that first week. Each gave a similarly thorough and professional brief and each wrote comprehensive notes for the next guy to read up on my progress.
Making the prospective PPL(H) pay even more for their training is likely to price even more people out of the game, most of whom will scrimp and save in order to get airborne anyway. The best way for PPL(H) trainees, and any other helicopter trainee for that matter, to help raise and maintain standards is to find, by recommendation, companies and instructors who already uphold those high standards, and stick the finger up at those who don't as you hover taxi by...
My two penn'orth.
DBChopper
My own experience, with London Helicopter Centres at Redhill (they were Thurston Helis at the time and, no, I don't work for them...) couldn't have been more different from yours. I started my PPL(H) with a week off work and booked to fly two hours every day for that week. Each day, I turned up to find the instructor had already been there for about an hour and drawn up a board brief which we then took about an hour running through. And it wasn't just one particular instructor - my own instructor caught the 'flu on day two, so I flew with a few part-time guys over that first week. Each gave a similarly thorough and professional brief and each wrote comprehensive notes for the next guy to read up on my progress.
Making the prospective PPL(H) pay even more for their training is likely to price even more people out of the game, most of whom will scrimp and save in order to get airborne anyway. The best way for PPL(H) trainees, and any other helicopter trainee for that matter, to help raise and maintain standards is to find, by recommendation, companies and instructors who already uphold those high standards, and stick the finger up at those who don't as you hover taxi by...
My two penn'orth.
DBChopper
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: EGDN
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Flying Squirrel wrote: I think the current system of briefing and de-briefing is open to abuse as the FI ( hourly paid ) is not being paid for this element directly and will scuttle out of it wherever possible. In my personal experience, my instructors really could not have given a crap.
What a sad indictment of the current state of flying schools in the UK. Perhaps if instructors were paid for groundschool and briefing instead of a paltry sum that they get for only airborne time, then they would be more dilligent and caring. Most FIs accept a shockinly low pay scale, which lots of employers exploit shamelessly. If the School treats them poorly, then it cannot expect a level of loyalty and commitment to be given that is not about to be reciprocated.
Rant over.....
BS
What a sad indictment of the current state of flying schools in the UK. Perhaps if instructors were paid for groundschool and briefing instead of a paltry sum that they get for only airborne time, then they would be more dilligent and caring. Most FIs accept a shockinly low pay scale, which lots of employers exploit shamelessly. If the School treats them poorly, then it cannot expect a level of loyalty and commitment to be given that is not about to be reciprocated.
Rant over.....
BS
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a machanism for providing a 'new and better' Groundschool Plus (to use the Howardism) through the existing ATPL groundschools.
The cost of a GS course is tiny compared to the flying part of a PPL or CPL/ ATPL so why not have a network of external providers do this, in parralel with the flying part (so not like CPL where the exams are done before the flying starts).
This will not remove the need for the FI to brief and explain to students (as today) but it will mean there is a solid, professionally taught and examined background that helps to establish greater understanding and safety earlier on in the flying career.
Say a DL course, a few exams plus two weekends. That should not be too expensive ...
h-r
The cost of a GS course is tiny compared to the flying part of a PPL or CPL/ ATPL so why not have a network of external providers do this, in parralel with the flying part (so not like CPL where the exams are done before the flying starts).
This will not remove the need for the FI to brief and explain to students (as today) but it will mean there is a solid, professionally taught and examined background that helps to establish greater understanding and safety earlier on in the flying career.
Say a DL course, a few exams plus two weekends. That should not be too expensive ...
h-r
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I don't think it should be compulsory.
It seems there are two issues here, namely, poorly paid instructors giving inadequate board briefs and technical knowledge required of a PPL pilot.
The second is surely addressed by the exams. If the student passes, then their knowledge should be sufficient for the JAA/CAA. And let's not go into whether the exams are of a sufficient standard; that's another argument.
Is there any evidence that PPL students NEED compulsory training? It is mandatory though, I believe, if one fails an exams three times. Then, I would suggest, it is needed.
I did my PPL full-time and therefore had to self-study beforehand from books. Frankly, I would have found it patronising if I had to attend special compulsory groundschool classes to qualify. With an average mark of over 90%, I don't think I would have benefitted that much.
Cheers
Whirlygig
It seems there are two issues here, namely, poorly paid instructors giving inadequate board briefs and technical knowledge required of a PPL pilot.
The second is surely addressed by the exams. If the student passes, then their knowledge should be sufficient for the JAA/CAA. And let's not go into whether the exams are of a sufficient standard; that's another argument.
Is there any evidence that PPL students NEED compulsory training? It is mandatory though, I believe, if one fails an exams three times. Then, I would suggest, it is needed.
I did my PPL full-time and therefore had to self-study beforehand from books. Frankly, I would have found it patronising if I had to attend special compulsory groundschool classes to qualify. With an average mark of over 90%, I don't think I would have benefitted that much.
Cheers
Whirlygig
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the issue I really meant to touch on was should briefings be chargeable? I have suffered in the past from lacklustre instructors and a way to keep them at bay would be to charge for briefings and make them a good half hour each side of the lesson. I think the pay-as-you-go instructor system is the problem, especially at peak times. I, luckiliy enough didn't really suffer because I read a lot myself, but remember being dissapointed with ALL of my instructors right across the board ( bar one who is still there and dedicated - full stop ) I think the mention of vote with your feet is a major consideration when not content with flight training.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely TFS - the issue is whether instructors get paid for ALL their time with a student (but not including the pub - I draw the line at THAT!)
I had 3 excellent instructors (all with same school) for my PPL who did full brief and de-brief every time. Not sure how they were paid; I think a couple were salaried.
But, to me, briefings are not the same as groundschool for the PPL syllabus. So compulsory groundschool may not achieve your aim, which is one of fairer pay as a means to getting better quality briefings.
Cheers
Whirlygig
I had 3 excellent instructors (all with same school) for my PPL who did full brief and de-brief every time. Not sure how they were paid; I think a couple were salaried.
But, to me, briefings are not the same as groundschool for the PPL syllabus. So compulsory groundschool may not achieve your aim, which is one of fairer pay as a means to getting better quality briefings.
Cheers
Whirlygig
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lucky - I flew with the same CFI up to CPL and never paid directly for ground schooling - it was there though and like Whirly I did the PPL in a short course and had done all the study to pass the written beforehand. However lessons were discussed before and afterwards.
But I did spend alot time with the CFI and other instructors from the school socially and learnt LOADS over the booze! So I guess I did to an extent pay for the time in the pub with my rounds!
In the US it isn't compulsory as such but you need a sign off or evidence of study before being allowed to sit the written exams... I know it can be fiddled but at the end of the day if you don't know the subject you won't pass the exams....
PW
But I did spend alot time with the CFI and other instructors from the school socially and learnt LOADS over the booze! So I guess I did to an extent pay for the time in the pub with my rounds!
In the US it isn't compulsory as such but you need a sign off or evidence of study before being allowed to sit the written exams... I know it can be fiddled but at the end of the day if you don't know the subject you won't pass the exams....
PW
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you need to be very clear about what you are talking about here, as others have identified. Ground school tuition is NOT in my book connected with what a flying instructor does at all. However, I cannot see how a flying instructor can begin to go flying with a student without a thorough flight exercise brief (and debrief).
A flying instructor should do the briefs and debriefs, but they pre-suppose a certain level of knowledge.
It was envisaged that the ground school/technical knowledge would be done before a student starts his/her flying (That was the way it was done in the military, where all this stuff came from). As an instructor I find myself dealing with students of wide-ranging ability, interest and prior knowledge. Some had no previous knowedge, did no separate study (tutored or therwise) and expected the instructor to take them through all the technical knowledge subjects, even objecting to buying the books for this.
Just as a flying instructor who does not brief/debrief is unreasonable, so is a student who assumes that the flight instructor will take him/her through all the ground school FOC.
Get the GS done first, it will save you as a student quite a lot of flying time to get your licence too.
A flying instructor should do the briefs and debriefs, but they pre-suppose a certain level of knowledge.
It was envisaged that the ground school/technical knowledge would be done before a student starts his/her flying (That was the way it was done in the military, where all this stuff came from). As an instructor I find myself dealing with students of wide-ranging ability, interest and prior knowledge. Some had no previous knowedge, did no separate study (tutored or therwise) and expected the instructor to take them through all the technical knowledge subjects, even objecting to buying the books for this.
Just as a flying instructor who does not brief/debrief is unreasonable, so is a student who assumes that the flight instructor will take him/her through all the ground school FOC.
Get the GS done first, it will save you as a student quite a lot of flying time to get your licence too.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The school I worked with worked this way. You were expected to do a full pre and post flight brief and this was part of the flight pay. On non flying days, students were encouraged to turn up for ground school for which they paid for and the instructor was renumerated. The amount of GS each student received depended on the student, but there seemed to be enough bad weather days to get students through their exams first time.
