Flight Instructor Selection

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab et al

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Geoffers, P&A and Paco - those faults would be worrying from a basic student but from a commercially rated pilot they are horrifying. I think I'll stick to military instruction, at least the quality is reasonably high in most cases and shortcomings are readily and easily addressed.

There is a fundamental truth about the quality of any function and that is that you cannot understand what 'good' is until you have experienced it. For many out there the like of a CFS QHI course would be something so far removed from their personal experience that they have difficulty believing that you are serious when discussing the finer points of being a professional aviator.

I long for the joy of toiling in the ordered and predictable world of the military instructor. To be back in an environment where the instructor's skills are closely matched to the needs of a 'standardised' student (selection, aptitude, medical, pipeline etc.). Instead I struggle with an assortment of (mostly) self selected guys and gals who are where they are for so many different reasons I could write (another?) novel about their adventures and not bore you one iota. The notion that a TR course (for example) is provided with candidates that meet the ATO's entry standards is one of life's cruel jokes. This despite a real effort by the ATO to get that part of the equation right. Somehow it seems that one IR'd, twin rated and current professional can be a million miles away from another with identical credentials. One is a breeze and the other your worst nightmare.

Heaven forbid that his ICAO level 4 was bought for a carton of ciggies and then life gets really interesting. Worse still - yes it can be worse - your candidate may require an interpreter !! There isn't enough time to go through the pain and anguish teaching with an interpreter causes. Most of the difficulties are down to a shortage of teaching time as this remains the same as a normal course. An interpreter unfamiliar with aviation terminology may add to your woes.

All of this points to the need to ensure that the FI's of tomorrow are (a) carefully chosen, & (b) well prepared. As the crucial element in the whole training process the FI/TRI/SFI holds the key to success. The regulators need to understand that this role is not to be used as a convenient lever to ease well meaning folk into the world of work but a critical function in the creation of a capable and professional aviators. It deserves a lot more respect than it currently receives and in my opinion we cannot, should not, continue with the existing progression that focusses on the FI as a mere 'step' from the low time world of the 'newbee' to the sharp end of rotary employment.

G

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Personally I'm a big believer in having plenty of hours. While some low hours people are extremely capable, and some high time people are awful (both as pilots and instructors), in general I feel that hours gives the instructor:

1. Confidence in operating the aircraft in a variety of locations/weather conditions as well as being better placed when the aircraft malfunctions
2. Direct experience of dealing with various personality types/learning styles (ideally this would allow the instructor to create a learning environment which suits each student...not always the case, I accept!)
3. Credibility.

Although there is no set minimum, even the lowest-houred CFS students will have very nearly 1000 hours before they start the QHI course. How practical is this for the civ world? Not at all, I'm sure!

[Geoffersincornwall]

TOTD

[QUOTE=
Although there is no set minimum, even the lowest-houred CFS students will have very nearly 1000 hours before they start the QHI course. How practical is this for the civ world? Not at all, I'm sure![/QUOTE]

Why not? 1000 hours of working in many markets would equate to two or three years of experience. If I was looking for a surgeon to train other surgeons I would hope he would have more than that for sure. Let's get away from the notion that what is good for the would-be FI is good for the training system. Surely it should be the other way around? What delivers good quality instructors should be good for the would-be member of that community.

There is an old saying in aviation that you 'cannot teach 'experience' ' - but surely, in order to teach you need experience.

G.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Why not?

Only for the reasons already mentioned about the cost to an individual of getting all those hours, and the also valid point that the people with lots of hours expect higher wages than many flying schools seem to offer.

surely, in order to teach you need experience

Couldn't agree more.

[pilot and apprentice]

:
Why not?

Only for the reasons already mentioned about the cost to an individual of getting all those hours, and the also valid point that the people with lots of hours expect higher wages than many flying schools seem to offer.

Actually, that is the why. Buying the time is no longer an option so hours need to be worked. The system (industry) will find a way if it must.

And yes, wages go up to attract the experience needed.
===========
My personal take on the question of "is experience needed" is this:

A newly licenced FI can certainly repeat the lessons he was taught, the manoeuvres as written and what is in the textbook, which will suffice to pass an exam. He will not have the intangibles that TourqueOfTheDevil spoke about. Those intangibles make a difference. They are what will keep the newly licenced student from having an accident in those first hours of work.

Also, I know that as I entered the instructional role I gained great insight from talking to the older/more experienced A1/A2's (military) and working part-time instructors (civil). Their advice and mentorship allowed me to do my job more effectively and efficiently (so better value for the customer/student's money) by helping me learn the tricks of the trade. It is a trade in itself.

Again, back to the OP. The progression in the large ME-IFR operation should start with Line Training Captain before progression to TRI, etc. Learn to walk before running....

[Geoffersincornwall]

TOTD

But surely that's my point. Someone has done a good job on a soft-hearted regulator and convinced them that it's in the industry's interests to have access to pilots who have achieved the (min for serious players) magic 500 hours courtesy of allowing them to teach newbies. Of course nobody thought to say "but that means we have the blind leading the blind". They got that bit all wrong.

I know you will come back and say "but how do we grow youngsters from 150 hours to that magic figure?" Well I have to say that the helicopter industry has to be one of the most innovative industries in the world and if we cannot find a solution then we have no hope. Of course no operator will volunteer to pay the bill for the necessary training required to create an affordable co-pilot when someone else can be persuaded to pick up the bill. (as I have said earlier nobody I explain the current system to - where newly qualified pilots are allowed to qualify as instructors and then teach the next generation - can believe we can be that crazy).

If I was a cartoonist I would draw a picture of the operator as a tailor fitting the regulator with a new suit that is two sizes too big. They are standing in front of the mirror with the operator saying "there you are sir, a perfect fit", while holding a fistful of material in the small of his 'customer's' back. When the regulator looks in the mirror it looks like a good deal. A view from the front show a lapel badge with the word 'SUCKER' on it.

G