AAIB January 2017
My sort of roundabout point is that when fully immersed in the day job, it is easy to lose sight of the fundamentals, and that is why this thread has been good - apart from the Crab bashing which is always fun, it may have given some other instructors pause for thought to consider whether they are following best practice. If so, it was worth the collateral damage to poor Crab and H500's egos!
My sort of roundabout point is that when fully immersed in the day job, it is easy to lose sight of the fundamentals
If your student is a PPLH then you will keep to the syllabus and ensure thorough briefing and constructive debriefing - if your student is a professional pilot (civ or mil) you expect more from him/her and can present more challenging scenarios, kept pertinent to their experience and ambitions.
If your student is a front-line mil pilot then you have to ensure they are up to the mark since the enemy (whether that be weather or incoming rounds) won't give them a second go with a sympathetic debrief.
Basic instruction is basic instruction but often that spoon-fed, cuddly stuff needs to be altered for more advanced levels. You still need to put the student first but you do them no favours by wrapping them in cotton wool - and most experienced pilots won't respect you if you try to treat them like a basic student.
When HC declares that he might actually have been wrong to jump on H500 (my skin is very thick so I don't need apologies) then we can consider the group hug.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRAB - have been on the drama pills?
You can't' mix up tactical military flying with instructing malfunctions and emergencies for a CPL candidate!
You would not take your military guy on tactical training until all the basic and advanced handling skills are in place. Also in the military there is far more scope for GH and practice than in civvy street or have not yet noticed if you tumbled straight into a full time instructional position.
We are talking about BRIEFING for training sorties. Not tactical Training. NOT LOFT training. Just basic skill building for malfunctions and emergencies.
Were you in "Nam" or something?
You can't' mix up tactical military flying with instructing malfunctions and emergencies for a CPL candidate!
You would not take your military guy on tactical training until all the basic and advanced handling skills are in place. Also in the military there is far more scope for GH and practice than in civvy street or have not yet noticed if you tumbled straight into a full time instructional position.
We are talking about BRIEFING for training sorties. Not tactical Training. NOT LOFT training. Just basic skill building for malfunctions and emergencies.
Were you in "Nam" or something?
Well it means that military trained pilots generally have one less means of killing themselves and their passengers, in that they have demonstrated flying aptitude. It doesn't mean there are no stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous military pilots out there, of course there are. It just means that while they are being stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous they are probably fully in control of the aircraft with the requisite situational awareness. The same rule applies of course to the civilian trained pilots who also have the requisite level of flying aptitude, they have just never been formally tested for it.
I've flown with plenty of excellent military pilots and a handful of utterly useless ones. Exactly the same as civilians funnily enough. It's almost like we're all just human and passing military selection does not grant someone the divine gift of SA or aircraft handling ability at all times.
EC80 - you are exactly right, there is no divine gift of brilliance - it's just some aptitude, hard work and good, progressive instruction. But still some will f**k up on both sides of the coin.
DB, I think you are being deliberately obtuse - you and HC criticised my style of instruction and I was just trying to highlight that my style of instruction changes depending on who I am instructing - its that flexibility thing I mentioned earlier. If you have as varied an instructional background as you claim, you would know this already.
Out of interest, are the TREs/TRIs you check and instruct FIs (ie QHIs)?
If you apply EXACTLY the same instructional style and format to all students, whether they have 10 hours or 10,000, you will not be getting the best out of them no matter how 'correctly and by the book' you are doing it.
Perhaps the pair of you have realised you have made a bit of a mess of this thread with your insults and condemnations and are trying to mask it with some 'crab-bashing' or 'crab-baiting' - good luck with that but there is a saying about stopping digging when you are in a hole.
DB, I think you are being deliberately obtuse - you and HC criticised my style of instruction and I was just trying to highlight that my style of instruction changes depending on who I am instructing - its that flexibility thing I mentioned earlier. If you have as varied an instructional background as you claim, you would know this already.
Out of interest, are the TREs/TRIs you check and instruct FIs (ie QHIs)?
If you apply EXACTLY the same instructional style and format to all students, whether they have 10 hours or 10,000, you will not be getting the best out of them no matter how 'correctly and by the book' you are doing it.
Perhaps the pair of you have realised you have made a bit of a mess of this thread with your insults and condemnations and are trying to mask it with some 'crab-bashing' or 'crab-baiting' - good luck with that but there is a saying about stopping digging when you are in a hole.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Perhaps the pair of you have realised you have made a bit of a mess of this thread with your insults and condemnations and are trying to mask it with some 'crab-bashing' or 'crab-baiting' - good luck with that but there is a saying about stopping digging when you are in a hole.
Condemnations? Mostly have come out of your own mouth. Perhaps you are indeed a better instructor than it appears from this thread but unfortunately I only have what you say on here to go on. As it is you have done much to remind me and reinforce why I sometimes seem anti-mil. Note to self: I must remember that they come in all shapes, sizes and competencies!
Insults? No, not unless you consider being told you are going about things the wrong way is a de facto insult.
Perhaps this is how you advocate instructing and debriefing in your world - your students must have absolutely loved you for that.
I can't see how trying to explain how instruction can be done in demanding roles is condemnation - perhaps your prejudices against mil pilots just go too deep - no skin off my nose, I still have a day job where my instructional skills are highly valued (I'm sure against all your beliefs to the contrary).
Perhaps you just haven't got a wide enough experience of instructional roles to appreciate my points.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
No, it is the way you have done it that makes the difference - pontificating from your ivory tower how others should and shouldn't do their job (in your opinion) as if you have absolute say is what is insulting.
Perhaps this is how you advocate instructing and debriefing in your world - your students must have absolutely loved you for that.
I can't see how trying to explain how instruction can be done in demanding roles is condemnation - perhaps your prejudices against mil pilots just go too deep - no skin off my nose, I still have a day job where my instructional skills are highly valued (I'm sure against all your beliefs to the contrary).
Perhaps you just haven't got a wide enough experience of instructional roles to appreciate my points.
Perhaps this is how you advocate instructing and debriefing in your world - your students must have absolutely loved you for that.
I can't see how trying to explain how instruction can be done in demanding roles is condemnation - perhaps your prejudices against mil pilots just go too deep - no skin off my nose, I still have a day job where my instructional skills are highly valued (I'm sure against all your beliefs to the contrary).
Perhaps you just haven't got a wide enough experience of instructional roles to appreciate my points.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRAB I have not pontificated or tried to force my opinion. I have just pointed out the legal and guidance material that determines how we are mandated to conduct our business.
To answer your direct question I an not an FI nor was I a QHI, only TRI and TRE so I concede ab-ignitio training is not in my field of experience. That's ok. It means that I am probably more inclined to rely on the rules and guidance than maybe your wider experience compels you to do. However, I have written more FTO manuals and syllabi than I really care to recall. Funny enough every syllabus had to have a complete and comprehensive brief FOR EVERY EXERCISE. So you can carry on about flexibility blah blah but there is nothing in the course syllabi that permits you to fly sorties without briefing. Period.
If you like I can start quoting EASA-FCL exactly in this respect.
Now vent at the head all you like at me but please note I did not write the regulations but I did write many courses, delivered some, based on those regulations AND I am very happy and lucky to believe in the regs and the system AND it has always worked for m.
Having said all that, reading your posts, I think you confuse INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE AND TECHNIQUE with the CONDUCT OF TRAINING. I know that you know these are separate things.
Furthermore you seem to imply that because your style and technique is so brilliant you can stick two fingers up to everyone else's opinion.
Above all a few "victims" of your implied "style" have posted here already making it clear your approach, as you describe it is.....well.....suboptimal!
To answer your direct question I an not an FI nor was I a QHI, only TRI and TRE so I concede ab-ignitio training is not in my field of experience. That's ok. It means that I am probably more inclined to rely on the rules and guidance than maybe your wider experience compels you to do. However, I have written more FTO manuals and syllabi than I really care to recall. Funny enough every syllabus had to have a complete and comprehensive brief FOR EVERY EXERCISE. So you can carry on about flexibility blah blah but there is nothing in the course syllabi that permits you to fly sorties without briefing. Period.
If you like I can start quoting EASA-FCL exactly in this respect.
Now vent at the head all you like at me but please note I did not write the regulations but I did write many courses, delivered some, based on those regulations AND I am very happy and lucky to believe in the regs and the system AND it has always worked for m.
Having said all that, reading your posts, I think you confuse INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE AND TECHNIQUE with the CONDUCT OF TRAINING. I know that you know these are separate things.
Furthermore you seem to imply that because your style and technique is so brilliant you can stick two fingers up to everyone else's opinion.
Above all a few "victims" of your implied "style" have posted here already making it clear your approach, as you describe it is.....well.....suboptimal!
Well, I thought that HC's last post was a suitable place to leave this thread but you don't seem to be able to drop it.
So, we have established you are not a qualified flying instructor but feel you can lecture me about how to instruct and also assume that a couple of people who have had bad experiences with poor instructors somehow taint me by association.
I too have written plenty of instructional manuals and seen how 'educators' insist that every exercise has training objectives, enabling objectives and a massive list of stuff you are supposed to cover - that is lovely but all they have done is put into print what experienced instructors have done for years in the air.
It serves a legal purpose an in theory provides an audit trail so I get that completely - what it is NOT, is a replacement for a good instructor who can relate to, relax and inform his student - we call it creating a learning environment but you won't find how to do that in EASA rules and regs.
I always worry about those who are happy to quote rules and regs ad infinitum and to only do things strictly in accordance with 'the book' - it implies a lack of imagination, individuality, flexibility and character.
It's not sticking two fingers up to be creative in how you develop your student's abilities as long as you remember the basic guidelines. Handrails - not handcuffs - is how I have had it described before and it is a good analogy.
I hope that anyone who can be bothered to read this far in the thread can see that my emphasis is always on the benefit of the student, not rules, regs or rigid formulaic instructional methods. You don't put your student at risk, you don't frighten him/her but you do need to stretch their comfort zone sometimes to make them understand what a helicopter can do and what people can do with the helicopter.
It's all about the students and every good instructor should understand that and have it as a guiding principle.
The symbol of CFS is a Pelican, pecking its own breast to feed its children - that is the relationship of the instructor to the student - you give everything you have to make them better.
It's not a job, it's a vocation.
So, we have established you are not a qualified flying instructor but feel you can lecture me about how to instruct and also assume that a couple of people who have had bad experiences with poor instructors somehow taint me by association.
I too have written plenty of instructional manuals and seen how 'educators' insist that every exercise has training objectives, enabling objectives and a massive list of stuff you are supposed to cover - that is lovely but all they have done is put into print what experienced instructors have done for years in the air.
It serves a legal purpose an in theory provides an audit trail so I get that completely - what it is NOT, is a replacement for a good instructor who can relate to, relax and inform his student - we call it creating a learning environment but you won't find how to do that in EASA rules and regs.
I always worry about those who are happy to quote rules and regs ad infinitum and to only do things strictly in accordance with 'the book' - it implies a lack of imagination, individuality, flexibility and character.
It's not sticking two fingers up to be creative in how you develop your student's abilities as long as you remember the basic guidelines. Handrails - not handcuffs - is how I have had it described before and it is a good analogy.
I hope that anyone who can be bothered to read this far in the thread can see that my emphasis is always on the benefit of the student, not rules, regs or rigid formulaic instructional methods. You don't put your student at risk, you don't frighten him/her but you do need to stretch their comfort zone sometimes to make them understand what a helicopter can do and what people can do with the helicopter.
It's all about the students and every good instructor should understand that and have it as a guiding principle.
The symbol of CFS is a Pelican, pecking its own breast to feed its children - that is the relationship of the instructor to the student - you give everything you have to make them better.
It's not a job, it's a vocation.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRAB you asked me a Question. I answered it. That's why I posted.
I am not really sure you realise what the "I" in "TRI" stands for. It means "Instructor". I am also SFI, SFE and TRE. The CAA tells me I am "Qualified" to hold these ratings and authorisations.
Now I know there is a difference between FI and TRI in their privileges. However the core elements, especially Part-01, teaching and learning, are the same. Instructing MPIFR on a heavy helicopter I would suspect is every bit as challenging as Instruction a student on an R22. However having not done both I will give the FI the benifit of the doubt!
So I am not sure what your idea of a "proper" Instructor is but as always CRAB you only play to your own strengths. SAR, FI, MILITARY blah blah blah.
In so far as your intimation that I am somehow a less capable Instructor because I follow the rules and try to remain within the guidelines laid down by the Authority who issues my Licence and TRE/TRE authorisations this simply does not make any sense at all.
I believe again you are confusing "Training Style and Techniques" with the "Conduct of Training".
As for the "Pelican" logo I really like that analogy. However if the Instructor is giving everything he has to progress the student.....and you believe that.....why do you argue against the principle of Flight Briefings prior to flying critical exercises in the actual Helicopter.
why do you believe that those of us who ALSO follow your Pelican analogy don't qualify in your eyes. Is it a CFS Hero thing or simply because you were a CRAB, which of course in my eyes, being a Pongo, automatically means you are pompous and use a lot of brill-cream.
I agree with all you say about instructing techniques, not frightening the student but stretching his consort zone. I get all that. However, this discussion started as follows:
An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.
YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.
Can you please explain WHY you believe the actions of the Instructor were OK.?
I would really appreciate an answer that sticks to the facts not some rambling post telling us how great you are, which, by the way, I am sure is true!
DB
I am not really sure you realise what the "I" in "TRI" stands for. It means "Instructor". I am also SFI, SFE and TRE. The CAA tells me I am "Qualified" to hold these ratings and authorisations.
Now I know there is a difference between FI and TRI in their privileges. However the core elements, especially Part-01, teaching and learning, are the same. Instructing MPIFR on a heavy helicopter I would suspect is every bit as challenging as Instruction a student on an R22. However having not done both I will give the FI the benifit of the doubt!
So I am not sure what your idea of a "proper" Instructor is but as always CRAB you only play to your own strengths. SAR, FI, MILITARY blah blah blah.
In so far as your intimation that I am somehow a less capable Instructor because I follow the rules and try to remain within the guidelines laid down by the Authority who issues my Licence and TRE/TRE authorisations this simply does not make any sense at all.
I believe again you are confusing "Training Style and Techniques" with the "Conduct of Training".
As for the "Pelican" logo I really like that analogy. However if the Instructor is giving everything he has to progress the student.....and you believe that.....why do you argue against the principle of Flight Briefings prior to flying critical exercises in the actual Helicopter.
why do you believe that those of us who ALSO follow your Pelican analogy don't qualify in your eyes. Is it a CFS Hero thing or simply because you were a CRAB, which of course in my eyes, being a Pongo, automatically means you are pompous and use a lot of brill-cream.
I agree with all you say about instructing techniques, not frightening the student but stretching his consort zone. I get all that. However, this discussion started as follows:
An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.
YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.
Can you please explain WHY you believe the actions of the Instructor were OK.?
I would really appreciate an answer that sticks to the facts not some rambling post telling us how great you are, which, by the way, I am sure is true!
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 25th Jan 2017 at 08:15.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lost and Legless somewhere in LaLaLand
Age: 77
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC, crab, and DB have collectively hijacked this thread. I suggest one of them starts a new one called something like 'Battle of the Massive Egos', because that's all it is now.
No, it was hijacked when folk, who knew nothing about the people involved, decided that the crashery was all down to young and inexperienced instructors.
HC
Not sure anything was hijacked , it is just how forums go and move on, having said that this one has got a bit out of control, but good fun though! Interesting differences of approach to things, but we all live and learn from these things which is why this is such a valuable forum as long as we don't get too personal !
Not sure anything was hijacked , it is just how forums go and move on, having said that this one has got a bit out of control, but good fun though! Interesting differences of approach to things, but we all live and learn from these things which is why this is such a valuable forum as long as we don't get too personal !
H500 I think (hope) that your comment triggering the "debate" was just a throw away line that came back to bite you, so you back pedalled a bit to give a more thorough account of what happened. Which is fine of course. Our problem is that when we see something "bad" posted, even as a throw-away line probably without much thought behind it, we can either choose to ignore it hence tacitly approve it, or we can point out the problem and give the better alternatives. Sorry but I don't regret doing the latter! Anyway as I said earlier, it is good to air these things because all of us (except the perfect Crab) can drift into bad practice over a period of time, if no-one tells us not to.
HC
the problem with a forum is putting down everything from a briefing without boring everyone with 10 sides of A4 (not me back-pedalling). Having said that there is obviously 2 distinct opinions of how to look at emergencies/ malfunctions call them what you will.
One side of the argument appears that if you are testing then yes brief as to who has control/throttle etc etc, the other being what the emergency will be (or have I misread you) and where you are going to do it. Yes I rolled a revision exercise into a general handling / emergency session as I was asked to do (to try and help keep the pilots cost down). Quite frankly it is wrong to tell the pilot before hand that I am going to do an engine failure or gearbox warning light or whatever, he should be capable of doing these (yes even a ppl) off pat/automatic reaction. If you are flying twin pilot machine with a big checklist then fair enough, but not a light single. I would have it that the basic emergencies / malfunctions should be off pat these to include engine failure/tr issues/smoke in the cockpit/vortex ring/gearbox warning lights/electrical failure.
My life was probably made a lot less unpleasant by an instructor who used to throttle chop the machine every so often. It made me very aware of flying defensively and not taking things for granted. So when a 300 engine stopped on me at 100 ft 30 kts coming back into land the reaction was automatic, landed with only a bent cross beam. Not sure practice engine failure 3 ,2 ,1 go would have helped, as I can assure you it is nothing close to reality
Looks like we are going to differ on these but lets not bother wasting any more time on this thread as we have done it to death (and no I do not have a big ego, ask people I have flown with). Have I learnt things from this, yes !
the problem with a forum is putting down everything from a briefing without boring everyone with 10 sides of A4 (not me back-pedalling). Having said that there is obviously 2 distinct opinions of how to look at emergencies/ malfunctions call them what you will.
One side of the argument appears that if you are testing then yes brief as to who has control/throttle etc etc, the other being what the emergency will be (or have I misread you) and where you are going to do it. Yes I rolled a revision exercise into a general handling / emergency session as I was asked to do (to try and help keep the pilots cost down). Quite frankly it is wrong to tell the pilot before hand that I am going to do an engine failure or gearbox warning light or whatever, he should be capable of doing these (yes even a ppl) off pat/automatic reaction. If you are flying twin pilot machine with a big checklist then fair enough, but not a light single. I would have it that the basic emergencies / malfunctions should be off pat these to include engine failure/tr issues/smoke in the cockpit/vortex ring/gearbox warning lights/electrical failure.
My life was probably made a lot less unpleasant by an instructor who used to throttle chop the machine every so often. It made me very aware of flying defensively and not taking things for granted. So when a 300 engine stopped on me at 100 ft 30 kts coming back into land the reaction was automatic, landed with only a bent cross beam. Not sure practice engine failure 3 ,2 ,1 go would have helped, as I can assure you it is nothing close to reality
Looks like we are going to differ on these but lets not bother wasting any more time on this thread as we have done it to death (and no I do not have a big ego, ask people I have flown with). Have I learnt things from this, yes !
HC
the problem with a forum is putting down everything from a briefing without boring everyone with 10 sides of A4( not me back-pedalling ). Having said that there is obviously 2 distinct opinions of how to look at emergencies/ malfunctions call them what you will.
One side of the argument appears that if you are testing then yes brief as to who has control / throttle etc etc, the other being what the emergency will be ( or have I misread you) and where you are going to do it. Yes I rolled a revision exercise into a general handling / emergency session as I was asked to do( to try and help keep the pilots cost down ) Quite frankly it is wrong to tell the pilot before hand that I am going to do an engine failure or gearbox warning light or whatever, he should be capable of doing these ( yes even a ppl)off pat/ automatic reaction. If you are flying twin pilot machine with a big checklist then fair enough, but not a light single. I would have it that the basic emergencies / malfunctions should be off pat these to include engine failure/tr issues/smoke in the cockpit/vortex ring/gearbox warning lights/electrical failure.
My life was probably made a lot less unpleasant by an instructor who used to throttle chop the machine every so often. It made me very aware of flying defensively and not taking things for granted. So when a 300 engine stopped on me at 100 ft 30 kts coming back into land the reaction was automatic, landed with only a bent cross beam. Not sure practice engine failure 3 ,2 ,1 go would have helped, as I can assure you it is nothing close to reality
Looks like we are going to differ on these but lets not bother wasting any more time on this thread as we have done it to death ( and no I do not have a big ego , ask people I have flown with) . Have I learnt things from this, yes !
the problem with a forum is putting down everything from a briefing without boring everyone with 10 sides of A4( not me back-pedalling ). Having said that there is obviously 2 distinct opinions of how to look at emergencies/ malfunctions call them what you will.
One side of the argument appears that if you are testing then yes brief as to who has control / throttle etc etc, the other being what the emergency will be ( or have I misread you) and where you are going to do it. Yes I rolled a revision exercise into a general handling / emergency session as I was asked to do( to try and help keep the pilots cost down ) Quite frankly it is wrong to tell the pilot before hand that I am going to do an engine failure or gearbox warning light or whatever, he should be capable of doing these ( yes even a ppl)off pat/ automatic reaction. If you are flying twin pilot machine with a big checklist then fair enough, but not a light single. I would have it that the basic emergencies / malfunctions should be off pat these to include engine failure/tr issues/smoke in the cockpit/vortex ring/gearbox warning lights/electrical failure.
My life was probably made a lot less unpleasant by an instructor who used to throttle chop the machine every so often. It made me very aware of flying defensively and not taking things for granted. So when a 300 engine stopped on me at 100 ft 30 kts coming back into land the reaction was automatic, landed with only a bent cross beam. Not sure practice engine failure 3 ,2 ,1 go would have helped, as I can assure you it is nothing close to reality
Looks like we are going to differ on these but lets not bother wasting any more time on this thread as we have done it to death ( and no I do not have a big ego , ask people I have flown with) . Have I learnt things from this, yes !
Anyway I think there is a fundamental difference between training for an engine failure in a single, and something like stuck pedals. With the former, it is a matter of quick reactions and so once the principle of what to do is covered, repeating the excercise at unexpected times does of course have merit. But with something like stuck pedals where there is not such a sense of urgency, on a training flight it is better done having reviewed the excercise in the classroom first.
My piano teacher used to tell me that "practising" was only accomplished when the piece was played correctly. If it was incorrectly played it didn't count. And thus it is with flying - flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand.