Training the Trainers (TtT) in the Commercial Twin Turbine World
Geoffers,
One must remember that upon being hired...the new employee undergoes FSI's Instructor Training Program. They in fact are very much into "training the trainer" as you suggest is the right way to go.
As a victim of the British TRE/IRE system in the past...which is more incestous than any West Virginian hill billy menage-a-trois...I would suggest FSI's programs beats that by miles...lots of them!
You folks there in blighty so absolutely hung up on the Old Boy network, bureaucratical horse ****, and CAA enforced jobworth thinking....that you fail to see reality when it smacks you in the face.
Sim instructors are just that....Sim instructors. The teach theory, procedures, techiques all of which must be approved by the aircraft manufacturer, Flight Safety, and then....afterwards...the CAA/FAA/EASA.
I fully agree....the more real world experience the Sim Instructor has the better....assuming it is quality and not mere quantity. I did the FSI thing as both a customer and as an FSI instructor. I saw firsthand the abject failure of British TRE/IRE's in the Simulator...had the video tapes to prove it...and the ones that failed the worst were the ones that turned their big noses up at FSI, Americans in general, and anything that wasn't a product of the British system.
The ones that went to FSI looking to "learn" did well and oft times added to the training by offering their inputs as well. Those that went there with the attitude they were the absolute Bees Knees showed themselves to be proper pricks and when Man enough to admit their could learn...did so. Some just never did learn and invariably wrote horrible evaluations of their training experience....which when compared to the video's....fell on deaf ears.
Three names spring directly to mind...but out of consideration for everyone but them....I shall not tell you who they were.
All three were fair haired boys....one from a British Army background....and two others from a Company Cadet program. One particular disastrous performance was witnessed by a Company Senior Training Manager. Yet...the fellow continued on in his duties as a TRE/IRE despite his showing of gross incompetence.
What I am trying to say to you Geoffers....is the UK system and mindset does not in any way form a stellar reference point for excellence. FSI takes a different approach and as any large operation...has its own strengths and weaknesses....but at least they do train the trainer to be trainers....and one has to meet their in-house standards before being tested by the CAA/FAA. Recall the FAA for sure sends their people to FSI for training both on the aircraft, Sim, and other training.
One must remember that upon being hired...the new employee undergoes FSI's Instructor Training Program. They in fact are very much into "training the trainer" as you suggest is the right way to go.
As a victim of the British TRE/IRE system in the past...which is more incestous than any West Virginian hill billy menage-a-trois...I would suggest FSI's programs beats that by miles...lots of them!
You folks there in blighty so absolutely hung up on the Old Boy network, bureaucratical horse ****, and CAA enforced jobworth thinking....that you fail to see reality when it smacks you in the face.
Sim instructors are just that....Sim instructors. The teach theory, procedures, techiques all of which must be approved by the aircraft manufacturer, Flight Safety, and then....afterwards...the CAA/FAA/EASA.
I fully agree....the more real world experience the Sim Instructor has the better....assuming it is quality and not mere quantity. I did the FSI thing as both a customer and as an FSI instructor. I saw firsthand the abject failure of British TRE/IRE's in the Simulator...had the video tapes to prove it...and the ones that failed the worst were the ones that turned their big noses up at FSI, Americans in general, and anything that wasn't a product of the British system.
The ones that went to FSI looking to "learn" did well and oft times added to the training by offering their inputs as well. Those that went there with the attitude they were the absolute Bees Knees showed themselves to be proper pricks and when Man enough to admit their could learn...did so. Some just never did learn and invariably wrote horrible evaluations of their training experience....which when compared to the video's....fell on deaf ears.
Three names spring directly to mind...but out of consideration for everyone but them....I shall not tell you who they were.
All three were fair haired boys....one from a British Army background....and two others from a Company Cadet program. One particular disastrous performance was witnessed by a Company Senior Training Manager. Yet...the fellow continued on in his duties as a TRE/IRE despite his showing of gross incompetence.
What I am trying to say to you Geoffers....is the UK system and mindset does not in any way form a stellar reference point for excellence. FSI takes a different approach and as any large operation...has its own strengths and weaknesses....but at least they do train the trainer to be trainers....and one has to meet their in-house standards before being tested by the CAA/FAA. Recall the FAA for sure sends their people to FSI for training both on the aircraft, Sim, and other training.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
Sometimes SAS I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I swear that if I started a thread about the poor training of Carmalite Nuns by the Catholic church the very first post would be from you and it would be two paragraphs about how this was all the fault of those pesky British TREs.
Let me point out a few things:
1. I do not work in UK and I am not a TRE .
2. FSI are a fine outfit and I am sure do a good job training their SFIs as does any school that I know about insofar as they do what the authorities specify as the minimum training required.
3. My beef is that they and others are going for the cheap option. In my opinion they should take people who have an FI background not just a CFI ticket and a background heavy or medium twins is a must not an option. EC 135 to S92 doesn't cut it in my book.
Please don't go on anymore about the UK system and British TRE's. I beginning to thing that a TRE did unspeakable things to your kid-sister and one way or another honour will be restored via the pages of PPrune.
This is NOT about one country's system being better than another's. It is about the shift that is taking place globally as our industry moves from an era where FIs and QHIs were the dominant influence to an era where SFIs will be the dominant influence. It just so happens that as far as the regulations are concerned the qualifications to be an SFI are the least within the instructor spectrum so there is at least the possibility that commercial pressures will lead to a reduction in the quality of training received by the global helicopter population as they will be fed through regional sim centres that will tend to base their model on the North American/European centres.
Operational sim training will require NO SFI qualifications at all as is the case currently for recurrent training and for the training of military, para-military and para-public organisations.
We are heading in a direction that does not give me a warm feeling.
G.
Let me point out a few things:
1. I do not work in UK and I am not a TRE .
2. FSI are a fine outfit and I am sure do a good job training their SFIs as does any school that I know about insofar as they do what the authorities specify as the minimum training required.
3. My beef is that they and others are going for the cheap option. In my opinion they should take people who have an FI background not just a CFI ticket and a background heavy or medium twins is a must not an option. EC 135 to S92 doesn't cut it in my book.
Please don't go on anymore about the UK system and British TRE's. I beginning to thing that a TRE did unspeakable things to your kid-sister and one way or another honour will be restored via the pages of PPrune.
This is NOT about one country's system being better than another's. It is about the shift that is taking place globally as our industry moves from an era where FIs and QHIs were the dominant influence to an era where SFIs will be the dominant influence. It just so happens that as far as the regulations are concerned the qualifications to be an SFI are the least within the instructor spectrum so there is at least the possibility that commercial pressures will lead to a reduction in the quality of training received by the global helicopter population as they will be fed through regional sim centres that will tend to base their model on the North American/European centres.
Operational sim training will require NO SFI qualifications at all as is the case currently for recurrent training and for the training of military, para-military and para-public organisations.
We are heading in a direction that does not give me a warm feeling.
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 13th Nov 2011 at 20:41.
Geoffers,
One more time....QFI,CFI,AFI, SFI,CFII, QSI, ETC, PDQ....all fabricated titles, all which do not mean a damn thing in reality....nothing.
It is about the ability of the "instructor", "teacher", "facilitator" to pass on knowledge, information, procedures, and evaluate performance based upon predetermined standards, protocols, and procedures, using standardized values, objectives, and goals.
One being old and leathery....yellow fingered....and swollen livered does not necessarily make one suitable for the task. In the old days....a select few, having been granted access to some sort of secret handshake, elected themselves to positions of self supposed excellence.
The industry is beyond that now.
Experience counts....and it should...but grasping the theory also figures in there too. University Dons start as Students don't they? As they specialzie in their field of expertise they gain tenure. Should it not be the same in aviation? Far better the "instructor" be an expert in "instruction" rather than being able to handfly a perfect Rig Radar approach at night in crappy weather as he simply is never going to have to do that. Mind you...I'll gladly ride with that fellow who can do the Rig Approach with such finesse and never have a bead of sweat on his brow....than risk it with the Sim Instructor who only knows the "theory" side of operations.
We each have our place in this world.....and the system must change as the old format does not fit anymore.
Wellington is gone Geoffers.
I will gladly learn from a good teacher....even if they are not the best Pilot....so long as they get the product from their shelf into my flight bag of tricks.
The one thing I fully agree with you on.....Training has always been at the lowest of priorities and gets the least funding of any part of the industry. That shall always remain the same no matter what we suggest as better ways of doing things. Operators. except in very rare cases, always opt for the cheap.
One more time....QFI,CFI,AFI, SFI,CFII, QSI, ETC, PDQ....all fabricated titles, all which do not mean a damn thing in reality....nothing.
It is about the ability of the "instructor", "teacher", "facilitator" to pass on knowledge, information, procedures, and evaluate performance based upon predetermined standards, protocols, and procedures, using standardized values, objectives, and goals.
One being old and leathery....yellow fingered....and swollen livered does not necessarily make one suitable for the task. In the old days....a select few, having been granted access to some sort of secret handshake, elected themselves to positions of self supposed excellence.
The industry is beyond that now.
Experience counts....and it should...but grasping the theory also figures in there too. University Dons start as Students don't they? As they specialzie in their field of expertise they gain tenure. Should it not be the same in aviation? Far better the "instructor" be an expert in "instruction" rather than being able to handfly a perfect Rig Radar approach at night in crappy weather as he simply is never going to have to do that. Mind you...I'll gladly ride with that fellow who can do the Rig Approach with such finesse and never have a bead of sweat on his brow....than risk it with the Sim Instructor who only knows the "theory" side of operations.
We each have our place in this world.....and the system must change as the old format does not fit anymore.
Wellington is gone Geoffers.
I will gladly learn from a good teacher....even if they are not the best Pilot....so long as they get the product from their shelf into my flight bag of tricks.
The one thing I fully agree with you on.....Training has always been at the lowest of priorities and gets the least funding of any part of the industry. That shall always remain the same no matter what we suggest as better ways of doing things. Operators. except in very rare cases, always opt for the cheap.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
I think you are getting the message. It IS all about being able to teach. Now, do you want to send your guys (in your role as CP or DO) to a sim centre so that the guys there can get some practice on live students?
You may say it's regrettable but those acronyms you list are vital documents that open doors. We can argue about the validity of that system but that's the reality.
Can I say it one more time. Your world and mine was created by an industry that used people with those qualifications and on the whole they were not dished out with the Corn Flakes. I know I had to work damned hard for three months to get mine and I'm sure that was the same in your military. The other FIs in the world also had to jump through hoops and satisfy examiners. The big problem lying in wait for the helicopter industry is that we will soon be relying on a wholly different animal - the SFI - and he comes with tuppence worth of training, or maybe none at all, depending on what job he does. If we don't wake up to this fact we will miss the opportunity to bring new SFIs on to the scene with the right level of selection and preparation and above all the focus must be on their ability to TEACH.
G.
You may say it's regrettable but those acronyms you list are vital documents that open doors. We can argue about the validity of that system but that's the reality.
Can I say it one more time. Your world and mine was created by an industry that used people with those qualifications and on the whole they were not dished out with the Corn Flakes. I know I had to work damned hard for three months to get mine and I'm sure that was the same in your military. The other FIs in the world also had to jump through hoops and satisfy examiners. The big problem lying in wait for the helicopter industry is that we will soon be relying on a wholly different animal - the SFI - and he comes with tuppence worth of training, or maybe none at all, depending on what job he does. If we don't wake up to this fact we will miss the opportunity to bring new SFIs on to the scene with the right level of selection and preparation and above all the focus must be on their ability to TEACH.
G.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a part time instructor with FSI.
It was on planks but the game doesn't change.
We were told from day one !
You're there to teach the candidate/trainee to fly the sim to the required level of proficiency as appropriate to their relevant authority.
‘You’re there to maintain our standard, not create your own!
Do not introduce the ‘I think' element into the sessions. You're not paid to 'think' you're paid to teach what you know! Don't editorialize!
We will publish safety bulletins and amendments as and when fleet incidents occur.
Don’t create a new standard or procedure based on what you’ve heard.Wait until the safety bulletin and amended procedure comes out
...
So I don't see how greater experience helps much in sim training?
How can you apply it in a practical way? and still follow the approved procedures...
The types you're referring to are mostly employed on offshore and SAR work, where more standardization is the sought after ideal. Not one sim guy telling you one thing based on his extensive background and another telling you something else from his extensive background. The guys you're training are not rookies (PIC's) and when you start to give advise based on your experience, it often becomes a passive-aggressive pissing contest between you and the PIC you're trying to teach/check on a specific airframe, that's all. You're teaching systems and procedures. Hopefully in a LOFT scenario.
You as a trainer, along with other trainers in whatever organization you're with, should all be on the same page. And that page should be approved. Not based on what happened years ago in a different airframe.
So this, combined with the ever developing technology, makes me personally prefer to learn a complex type at the hands of a ‘Youngster’ who grew up with high technology. And frankly I don't care if he came from a twinstar.
If he's been well trained and can explain the technology to me, then he/she meets the mission requirement.
He's not there to talk you through a real radar approach in bad wx. He's there to make sure you can do it in the sim, with simulated emergencies and to confirm that your general flying is up to the required standard.
That you handle all the emergencies outlined for that go round of sim training. That's it.
It's only a part of the whole training package. An important part for sure but it will remain the domain of the guy trying to stay home to save a marriage (
), The retiree and those with medical issues. Also a few guys who are hoping it'll lead to something better!
I agree fully that more training should be given, but anyone with the ability and perhaps a natural teacher would be a better candidate than a more experienced pilot who might not be sim instructor material..
My 2 cents…
It was on planks but the game doesn't change.
We were told from day one !
You're there to teach the candidate/trainee to fly the sim to the required level of proficiency as appropriate to their relevant authority.
‘You’re there to maintain our standard, not create your own!
Do not introduce the ‘I think' element into the sessions. You're not paid to 'think' you're paid to teach what you know! Don't editorialize!
We will publish safety bulletins and amendments as and when fleet incidents occur.
Don’t create a new standard or procedure based on what you’ve heard.Wait until the safety bulletin and amended procedure comes out
...
So I don't see how greater experience helps much in sim training?
How can you apply it in a practical way? and still follow the approved procedures...
The types you're referring to are mostly employed on offshore and SAR work, where more standardization is the sought after ideal. Not one sim guy telling you one thing based on his extensive background and another telling you something else from his extensive background. The guys you're training are not rookies (PIC's) and when you start to give advise based on your experience, it often becomes a passive-aggressive pissing contest between you and the PIC you're trying to teach/check on a specific airframe, that's all. You're teaching systems and procedures. Hopefully in a LOFT scenario.
You as a trainer, along with other trainers in whatever organization you're with, should all be on the same page. And that page should be approved. Not based on what happened years ago in a different airframe.
So this, combined with the ever developing technology, makes me personally prefer to learn a complex type at the hands of a ‘Youngster’ who grew up with high technology. And frankly I don't care if he came from a twinstar.
If he's been well trained and can explain the technology to me, then he/she meets the mission requirement.
He's not there to talk you through a real radar approach in bad wx. He's there to make sure you can do it in the sim, with simulated emergencies and to confirm that your general flying is up to the required standard.
That you handle all the emergencies outlined for that go round of sim training. That's it.
It's only a part of the whole training package. An important part for sure but it will remain the domain of the guy trying to stay home to save a marriage (
), The retiree and those with medical issues. Also a few guys who are hoping it'll lead to something better!I agree fully that more training should be given, but anyone with the ability and perhaps a natural teacher would be a better candidate than a more experienced pilot who might not be sim instructor material..
My 2 cents…
I for one learned far more in a Sim while sitting at the Instructor's console than I ever did in one of the two front seats. Mind you when I slid my seat up with all that clackety-clacking racket....I usually had something germane to say. How it was received was directly proportionate to the desire of the folks up front to learn.
The most effective learning tool was a video replay....over coffee and only the "crew" present. Most times....with anyone with the IQ of a dull third grader, nothing much was needed to be said. The next Sim session was much more productive as some barriers to learning had been removed.
The most effective learning tool was a video replay....over coffee and only the "crew" present. Most times....with anyone with the IQ of a dull third grader, nothing much was needed to be said. The next Sim session was much more productive as some barriers to learning had been removed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of being a teacher.......
‘A teacher who is attempting to teach without inspiring the pupil with a desire to learn is hammering on cold iron’.*
~Horace Mann
Educational reformer
~Horace Mann
Educational reformer
‘The dream begins with a teacher who believes in you, who tugs and pushes and leads you to the next plateau, sometimes poking you with a sharp stick called "truth.”’*
~Dan Rather
~Dan Rather
‘Good teachers are costly, but bad teachers cost more’.
*
~ Bob Talbert,
Journalist
*
~ Bob Talbert,
Journalist
170' - It may not be helpful to import fixed wing thinking into the rotary world. When teaching LOFT and operational sorties previous role experience is essential. Remember that fixed wing flying is all about working to and from a runway. In our world there are myriad of different scenarios for taking off and landing and for many the task is NOT going from A to B but involves challenging tasks in challenging environments. I don't know if the fixed wing guys are using sims to teach fire-fighing yet but if they are then I hope to goodness that the trainer has plenty of fire-fighting experience.
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 15th Nov 2011 at 09:20.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from 170's statement that he was a plank instructor I can see none of his points being applicable to fixed-wing only operations - he makes some very valid points, the main one being that Standardisation is paramount and can be taught equally by an old-timer or an relative new-comer.
I've been in the teaching/checking game for nearly thirty years, some military but mostly commercial and I've met some really good and really bad old-timers and some really good and really bad newbies but given the highly technical aircraft we have today I think there is a place for both. The technical simulator instructor can be well supplemented by the old-and-bold Line Trainer, just so long as the old-and-bold uses his/her experience along with sound Standardisation...
Stay safe
Wiz
I've been in the teaching/checking game for nearly thirty years, some military but mostly commercial and I've met some really good and really bad old-timers and some really good and really bad newbies but given the highly technical aircraft we have today I think there is a place for both. The technical simulator instructor can be well supplemented by the old-and-bold Line Trainer, just so long as the old-and-bold uses his/her experience along with sound Standardisation...
Stay safe
Wiz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizz et al
I have allowed myself to be drawn away from my primary line of argument which is:
That it does not matter if the SFI is young or old, an experienced or not so experienced pilot so long as he is properly prepared for the task. The current JAR FCL regs, if mirrored elsewhere are grossly inadequate with those training military and recurrent courses requiring zero formal sim training qualifications.
We are moving into an era where the SFI will dominate this sector of the training spectrum and we can all guess which way it will go if sim centres are totally free to choose the cheapest option.
Personally I would prefer to be taught by someone who is fully competent rather than be someone's 'on-the-job' training.
G.
That it does not matter if the SFI is young or old, an experienced or not so experienced pilot so long as he is properly prepared for the task. The current JAR FCL regs, if mirrored elsewhere are grossly inadequate with those training military and recurrent courses requiring zero formal sim training qualifications.
We are moving into an era where the SFI will dominate this sector of the training spectrum and we can all guess which way it will go if sim centres are totally free to choose the cheapest option.
Personally I would prefer to be taught by someone who is fully competent rather than be someone's 'on-the-job' training.
G.
170's comments were mirrored at the Bell FSI Center and remain valid for either fixed wing or helicopter training operations. I do not speak for FSI but my recollection is I remember being told almost word for word what 170 reports his experience tells him.
FSI is in the Aviation Simulator Training business and they are good at what they do.
FSI is in the Aviation Simulator Training business and they are good at what they do.
