Flight Instructor Selection
 

I had a discussion with colleagues recently about the way we in the rotary wing world select and train flight instructors.

If we try to pin down 'Aviation Industry Best Practice' we can run into a conundrum. In the airline world (yes I know what you are going to say but I did say the 'aviation industry' without specifying the helicopter world) they do it like this:

1. Selection - you need to be recommended by the current training community.
2. Psychological Assessment - Visit to the 'trick-cyclist' to decide if you have the core qualities required for this demanding task.
3. At least one, maybe two 4-hour sim checks.
4. Technical exam - do you know your stuff?

If you pass that lot then you can qualify to instruct only after a comprehensive training course, months of mentoring and the regular checks to keep you up to scratch.

The question is "what do we do in the rotary world? Does any operator come even close to that degree of attention to detail when creating a new TRI?" I don't think so.

Your thoughts and contributions would be appreciated as i am trying to justify the assertion that we should also be adopting that approach because I have a feeling that the current systems employed are not producing what we need for trainers working on these complex new types. What exactly is the helicopter industry 'best practice'?

G.

I had to do the 'trick cyclist' thing for a job interview once. He passed me, I've never trusted them since!! :)

TeeS

In the civil world, it is like this:
1. Selection - you need to have a pocketful of money.
2. Psychological Assessment - is this guy crazy enough to part with big bucks without having a job lined up afterwards?.
3. Put him through the course.
4. Try to squeeze a few more hours out of his bank account

If you pass that lot then you can qualify to instruct only after signing up for a Return of Service contract. Then work his @ss off because he is cheaper than the other Gr 1 or 2 instructors around.

After 39 years in the helicopter industry (flying), my opinion of what would be an industry "best practice", is not take low time, newly licenced pilots and think they should become qualified flight instructors.

A qualified instructor in my opinion should be able to draw upon years and flight hours, of valuable work experience to teach more than just a basic air exercise.
Mentoring of inexperienced pilots (or maintenence personell) seems to be becoming a lost practice these days.

Using instructing for time building to me, is a poor approach for a good start in this industry.

"Using instructing for time building to me, is a poor approach for a good start in this industry"


Hmmm then how does one get onto the merry go round of ' must have hours to get a job. Cant get hours unless you have a job - to get a job you must have hours ...etc.. ?


Suggestions on how to get the required time without instructing please. :rolleyes:

I've seen a certain Canadian company train a TRE in less than a week, and a TRI in less than that. From scratch!!!! Go figure.

Dear Helilog 56,
 

What multycpl said......

A high time commercial pilot does not necessarily make a good instructor.

The most successful flight instructors are those that simply love to teach. Enthusiasm is directly proportional to quality training.

I knew this would illicit some critical response. In Canada, commercial operators hire low time pilots very frequently....the next couple of years requires mentoring, teaching, and nurturing by other experienced company pilots and personell.....more and more responsibility is delegated to the newbie as he/she developes. During a lot of that time they have worked in the hangar also learning maintenance practices, and worked as ground crew support....works very well for us here.

Agreed, a high time pilot is no guarantee of a good instructor, Sir Korsky said it best that enthusiasm and a love for the industry makes for good instructors....I couldn't agree more...I take a break often and go back and help at a friends flight school here in BC and love to work with the ab initio and lessor experienced pilots.

I think we did the math a while back on the instructors at Chinook Helicopters, and the experience level sat at around 134 years and over 115,00 flight hours combined.....we see students arrive from every corner of the world to train here, one could ask any of them, and one would pretty much always hear they had a good instruction and value.
Canadian operators place a lot of credibility in a good product being turned out of the schools....they have been taught more than the basics. We are geographically blessed with unpredictable weather and mountains that are right out our back door....want to compare our 100 hour low timer to say a Florida sunny day candidate taught by a 160 instructor.....:rolleyes:

This is also what's wrong with the helicopter industry. Companies should train rookie pilots instead of relying on somebody else doing this job for them (i.e. military or self-funded training). To drive my point home: if multi-engine experience is always a prerequisite for a multi-engine pilot job, then nobody would qualify .. it's a catch-22.

Now I'm not saying companies should pay for pedestrian-to-cpl training, but there are plenty of jobs which a 500hr pilot can do. And likewise, job requirements asking for 1000+hrs turbine time don't make sense to me. You might learn something for the first 50hrs of turbine flying, but the remaining 950hrs are no more "valuable" than flying an R44 for example.

It's the insurance companies that dictate the experience levels. If it costs the charter company $20,000 a year to have cover for all their 1000-hr-plus pilots but it costs $50,000 a year to have newbies, which way do you think they will go?

But in Oz we let newbies fly the simple stuff, and don't let them near an instructor rating until they have 400 hours. Or at least it used to be that, but the new Grade 3 starts them sooner, can't say yet if that is a good idea or not.

No, because if you accept low hours and experience as an acceptable standard for basic training, why would you insist on higher levels for TRI? If you are suitable for basic instruction then, in theory, you are suitable for advanced instruction according to accepted industry practice.

Personally I had 1500 hours before training as a QHI and, in the mil at least, this was regarded as a minimum because you had so little credibility without meaningful experience.

With 200 hours you know less than bugger all about helicopter flying and even less about teaching other people. Go and do a job to get experience before instructing - all this hours building guff is an excuse for paying less to teach the punters, rather than employing a suitably experienced pilot who won't work for bugger-all money.

Crab, this is clearly not ideal, but it is how it works in GA since... forever.

Without this path, there would likely be no GA. The military would be the sole source of helicopter training.

How could it ever work any other way?

KryptonJohn
 

No matter how much I wish to sympathise with your feelings about the pathways into the industry we are not doing ourselves any favours by using young bloods and flight instructors.

In the last eight years I have trained 350 pilots from 49 different countries and what I saw was on the whole pretty depressing. Whilst many could do their daily job well enough most were hopeless in the IFR environment despite having a current IR and similarly most struggled as soon as things started to go wrong.

If there is a general malaise out there then I suspect it is down to the paucity of good training both basic and advanced and to make a difference we need top class TRI's and SFI's who really know the art of 'teaching' rather than just 'course delivery'.

By allowing an affordable pathway to self-selected wannabes we are, in my opinion creating a downward spiral of standards and the current system of prof checks is doing nothing to help given it's repetitious and unambitious nature.

If we chose only the best to be the instructors of tomorrow in the same way as the major airlines then maybe we can turn this baby around - it isn't going to be quick and it isn't going to be easy. I'm for snuffing out 200 hour CFI's and forcing the industry to recruit into tailor made training programmes that deliver what the industry needs, competent aviators.

G.

GiC ... agreed!

But where is the money going to come from?

It is true that a high time pilot does not necessarily make a good instructor, but neither does a low time pilot necessarily make a bad one. We've hired them here - they started off as students but we hired them because their qualities were obvious. One got sponsored as an instructor by the Guild and is now on the N Sea as a Captain in a very short time. I have flown with 1 000 hour ilots whith whom I would trust anything and 10 000 hour pilots with whom I wouldn't trust a pram.

The problem is that the basic training needs a little more. There is a lot you can include in the training that will form good habits for later life, but you can't get that experience without having done the job. That, to me, is more where the problem lies.

I have always though that there is room for a pilot finishing school, because you can't get a job with a basic licence anyway. It could be staffed by experienced pilots who wouldn't need to be FIs necessarily as the student could be the captain. Maybe that will be my next progression.... :)

Phil

Instructors pay
 

- More experienced instructors require higher pay. That's unlikely to happen. Besides, you don't need an ATP to teach basic flying skills.

- I think that it's great that low time instructors teach zero time students for a number of reasons.

1) The lessons are fresh in the instructor's mind and since both have low time, the instructor and student can relate better.

2) There's no pressure to take a flight in marginal weather as is often the case in real-world flying. The instructor and student can stay at the home base and practice pattern work or hover work or ground school.

3) It's a great and safe way to build time.

4) It's income for the school.

5) To a new student, it's a reason to get that CFI or CFII certificate.

6) It gives all involved a chance to network and make contacts for that next job.

7) It keeps the cost of learning to fly within reach of what might otherwise be an impossible dream.

FLY 911
 

Since when did aviation become a charity? From where I sit it isn't working. It feels like we are in a downward spiral where low time low experienced people are turning out too many substandard helicopter pilots.

If the industry is to survive the leap into modern technology machinery then we need to get real.

Giving people a hand up ? All for it, but what we have now is the wrong kind of hand up. We need to realise that we need structured courses for people selected on the basis of skill and aptitude.

Self-selection on the basis of whoever can get the money simply isn't a sensible way forward. It's illogical, dangerous and will not deliver a safe and effective helicopter industry.

G. :ok:

Most points are valid in this discussion, a student will only be as good as their instruction. The qualities of a good instructor are alot to do with the individuals' characteristics and their ability to relay the subject matter dependent on the students learning styles and aptitude. But without the experience, it can be hard to convey the impact and justification of that teaching aspect.

Many newly qualified pilots would jump at the chance to mentored and supervised to better their skills and abilities, I am one of them, but sadly there are not many such opportunities, and scrimping to achieve FI to gain some employment in the industry is the rung that most can get to first.

Additiojnal courses following qualification would also be great, but a self sponsored individual would rather spend the money on an FI or IR to progress employment, if a CPL pass plus becomes compulsory, are we pricing out people joining the aviation fraternity?

OTGLU
 

There have been many tears shed on the way to a CPL by many who have shed beads of sweat to get the cash necessary but can't you see the irony? They would all be 'self-selected' and which operator would overlook someone with a CFI or CFII?

That leads to a population of instructors NOT necessarily equipped with what it takes to be a good effective and fair 'teacher'. Setting out to get the best job with the most money does not fit the profile of someone who has to see teaching as a vocation, requiring patience, skill, knowledge and that vital ingredient - experience.

Some of the tales of woe I have been told recently about 'the worst instructor I have ever come across' make my hair stand on end. He or she is the one person in our system that can bring about change. We deserve a system that delivers instructors able to do the job to the very highest standard. We currently seem to depend on well meaning but inadequate aviators who may have the potential to be much better but we have accepted that poor is just good enough.

Heaven help us. :sad:

Just because you have enough money to pay for a helicopter licence, it doesn't mean that you are entitled to a job. There are only a limited number of vacancies, and an excess of applicants is great for the employer but not so great for the newbie.

LFZ
 

Short termism will be the death of us ! If you added up the cost of the dings we are accumulating then maybe we could put a price - sorry I mean a 'value' on 'Best Practice'.

G. :{

GIC
 

I agree with your comments, it is a sad fact that because it has now become a common perception that 'you need an FI to get the hours to get a real job', it creates the mannerisms, which are noticed by the paying student, that there is no interest in the role. It is a stepping stone almost. That compounded with the limited experience of the new instructor increases the risk of dilution of the quality that could be produced. That student could then be one day, the individual who is conducting the pleasure flight, trial lesson your son/ daughter is on, or even your new co-pilot.

As Ascend Charlie states, a licence doesn't entitle you to a job, there is a massive responsibility on the training organisation to select at intervew the right candidates, and then provide that platform to give the level of service that is needed in producing quality aviation practioners?

Although we have discontinued training for many individuals, when it comes right down to it, provided that the student meets a minimum standard, a training organisation is not about to say goodbye to income, even though they know that student either won't get a job in the first place or won't keep it if they get one.

In my humble opinion, 4 attempts at a theoretical exam are too many, but those are the current rules.

Phil

PACO
 

The worst of that system is that once the CFI or CFII is on your licence you never actually have to have a training job to keep it. One guy I met was a Chief Pilot of a twin turbine outfit with an IFR capability with a CFI and a CFII rating but despite his advancing years had never ..... never.... seen the inside of a cloud.

I also met a company FSO who was in despair because the Ops Director's first port of call when looking for TRI candidates was those with a CFI rating. It was proof that you can earn more if you invest in a CFI course but the notion that you have to be able to do the job as 'teacher' was lost on the way. Shameful.

G. :{:ugh:

PS . Yes I know it's different under EASA but those who work under FAA or similar will know what I mean.

pilot finishing school
 

Hi Phil,
coming back on your statement about the pilot finishing school .. do you still fly in the UK ? I basically want to do some time building for a couple of days in the UK. And instead of senslessly flying around, it might be better to learn some tricks of the trade from you ..

Yeah, I'm still around :) I'm planning to do some stuff in Scotland, mountain flying, slinging that kind of stuff. It's early days yet, but I have a syllabus framed out and am waiting for some graphics for the notes to be finished but I'm sure there is something that can be done. Certainly hour building.

We can certainly start a PM conversation.

Phil

Newbie 5 cents
 

This is very interesting reading. Especially for me as a newbie.

I have managed to get far enough to get my CPL. I am at the stage trying to earn and save money to get my FI. Even though I feel it is wrong to teach without a real job experience, I want to do it. I think I have some good results teaching what I do for living. So I like to think it could work. But that's not why I write here. I feel like I didn't choose the best schools sofar. So choosing the right place to get me up to the FI might be the last chance for me to have a great influence on the final result of my career. Last thing I want, as someone here said, is to become a customer again. I want to find some place where they would raise me, during the time-building and the FI course, as one of them.

So please, could anyone advice, where in The United Kingdom should I spent my last possible money?

Thanks
Frank

it has got to be all about flying standards and knowledge standards. not just taught how to pass an exam.

I think you will find that engineers examinations are designed to test the applicants deep and retained knowledge. not just a memory test of a last minute cram. for this i am truly grateful, we have to trust them.

that is the difference.

pilots are not worth a cracker if they cannot hold a precise hover (somewhere near the fuel bowser thanks Einstein the hose is only fifty metres long)

land if the engine quits,

carry out enough pre checks to be able to navigate off a map of bugger all features when i have hung a set of fencing pliers over the compass,

find a spot to go to and demonstrate discipline in executing an instant plan to get there if the engine quits, oh, and be able to tell someone about it to

maintaining the RRPM if the engine quits (without me warning you thanks Einstein)

fly precisely, be ahead of the aircraft, don't fly where the faster F/W cannot see you, (because you know what, F/W drivers are different Einstein) etc.

and yes I totally agree with afore posters. in my trade I have seen heaps of people, of both sex, who have been sticking a horse between their legs for many years, which seems to give them a license to look down on others as peons, but in reality those who look down the most, (especially females) have never progressed past being a useless blasted jackeroo.

Top End
 

You mean we need Competence Based Training ? Would that it be so!

God help us, I have been doing essentially the same prof checks for more than forty years and the training I deliver is often just a rehearsal of the Prof Check. That means that we only ever practice the same old, same old, same old, stale and well worn manoeuvres that say NOTHING about how well a pilot performs in the real world of work.

Please tell me that there is someone out there in EASA who realises we are heading for a brick wall and need to change the way we do things. It's not like this in the airline world so why is it so hard??????

G.

Thing is Geoff I'm not sure by what metric supports the view that we are currently churning out a sub standard PPL (H)'s or that these come from low time FI's. From this:-

"It feels like we are in a downward spiral where low time low experienced people are turning out too many substandard helicopter pilots. "


Over the last 15 years the accident rate for PPL (H) has been going down and actually do nothing more than look at all helicopter accidents reported by the AAIB since the beginning of 2012. The average P1 time for these accidents is over 5200hrs and of the 38 reported incidents only 13 were flying on a PPL and there were just 4 student or training accidents.

So is it really as bad as its being suggested?

Pitts
 

My teaching of ab initio PPL's was a long time ago and I guess I am not really focussing on that sector. What I see is the result of the development of the PPL into a 'working' pilot who has been heavily influenced by his foundational years and his transition into the world of operational flying. Don't forget that my perspective is a global one not just confined to the European or even the North American and antipodean worlds.

All the lack of PPL accidents means is that we are getting better at doing simple stuff and staying away from the killers like loss of control, CFIT and inadvertent IMC. As I said the average CPL is good at doing his job which is almost always one carried out in VMC but also may carry the need for an IFR capability that is rarely used. Often the only IFR in IMC logged (I mean genuine cloud flying or night flying without NVG's) is the prof check and annual recurrent training. This leaves the poorly trained open to the vagaries of bad weather and technical failures that test him (her) beyond their abilities.

When you have a system that sets 'minimums' of every metric then they have a habit of becoming the target standard. If you use the minimum as your standard then the normal every day fluctuations in human performance will deliver days when you fall below that standard. That's why customers that care (the bigger oil companies for example) will demand more than the regulatory minimum.

We care a lot about the failures of human factors in our flying world but fail to recognise the failures of the regulatory humans who have failed to give us a structure that is truly fit for purpose.

G.

More on human factors for regulators
 

I was asked to explain my final paragraph about the regulators and their relationship with human factors. What I am saying is that if you design a system to be used by intelligent human beings and then ignore their propensity to abuse the system where ever possible then you are succumbing to the tendency to laziness and a willingness to accept that the vagaries of human performance will mean that there will be occasional and maybe frequent failure to deliver consistent performance at the minimum level.

The regulators in my opinion, should be saying "if this is the minimum acceptable standard then the regulations must be set higher to ensure that the population does not routinely descend below that minimum level.

To issue a life-long certificate of competence as an instructor despite never having had an instructional job for a minimum amount of time is the worst kind of regulation that places 'hope' above 'expectation'. To allow multiple on line re-takes of licence examinations is the same. We know that if we have the ability to abuse the system then it will happen. In my time I have had to work with two instructors who were dismissed from previous employers for fraudulently gaining licence qualifications - the worst is they are both still working as instructors despite this transgression. Please, someone, tell me we are heading in the right direction.

G.

Sadly Geoffers, I don't think we are:ugh:

As you well know, military instructors are checked every year (at least) and any period away from instructing would require a full assessment by their new unit. There is also a professional progression (B2 to A1) which allows employers (OCs) to assess the suitability of a candidate for a particular position.

Perhaps when such a structure is mandated in the 'real' world then standards will rise but, unless a new FI is lucky enough to be taken under the wing of a good mentor, they are pretty much left to rely on good luck.

CRAB
 

Perhaps the most important aspect of military aviation is that they do not, as a rule, pay for an expensive and extensive training course so you can wear it on your CV as a 'trophy'. You do the course because you are destined to spend the next one or two (or more) years working as a Flight Instructor. Teaching day in day out for that period gives you the skills to be able to properly understand the teaching and learning process whereas a dicky little 'box-ticking' number will at best only equip you to repeat your PPL experience to those wannabes with enough money to throw at the task.

I cannot see for the life of me why this transparent problem is so difficult for the authorities to understand. If the industry wants pilots there should be no structural subsidy in the form of weak and ineffective regulations but instead the industry must put their hands in their pockets and run proper 'cadet' schemes that have proved successful in the past. Only when operating companies have to pay are they then concerned about the value they get for their money.

If I have to say this one more time I'll go off pop but from where I sit more than 50% of the pilots I train are below the required standard. Yes we can get most of that 50% through a TR course because a TR course is another example of 'box-ticking' at it's 'best'. I am not alone, I mentioned this to a colleague yesterday and he said that he wouldn't want to fly with many of the people we see if they were passengers let alone occupying a front seat. Hyperbole is a poor form of communication but sometimes it helps to get the message across.

What ever happened to Competence Based Training?

G.

TRI
 

should there be a pre course evaluation test?
I don't know, but I will be a TRI by the months end with only a 30 year old expired FAA CFI certificate...
I do have however 12,000 hours of pitfall experience to fall back on/pass on to my students... Is this enough?
I feel I have a lot to give back to aviation, but am still unsure that I am suitably qualified, especially after a tick the box AW course.

GRIFF -
 

That's pretty much up to you Griff but the depth and breadth of your experience gives you a mile or two start on those that have arrived with a lot less. You have almost certainly been on the receiving end of both good and bad instructors so chances are you know what works and what doesn't and combined with the fact that your length of time in the industry will give you a basic understanding of the human psyche you will face the challenge in good shape.

Best of luck, enjoy.

Geoffers

From a student point of view
 

I've spent over 2 years talking to schools, pilots, technicians, Engineers before deciding on the best place to give myself the best chance of a step up into the industry and found this:

Many schools have under 500 hour instructions which were all C cat (FI I think?) which to me were still students themselves. I was told a CPL H is just a licence to learn, how can a pilot with little hours tech experience they don't have?

Schools had no "work experience" to tech you, just a syllabus that was inline with CAA. I feel there's a lot more than just learning to fly and getting a plastic card with your name on it. From a background of engineering, SOP, risk management systems and a like, I feel the learning how a aviation business runs, it's safety practices and procedures is key to being a pilot.

I've been lucky to find a commercial helicopter business that runs up to 4 students with 2 very high hour (3000 to 8000) B Cat (CFI ??) instructors who encourage us to be part of the business and help out were we can, meet other pilots / engineers that fly in from other companies and generally take in as much exposure to the industry as we can.

In an answer to the thread I feel there should be a higher minimum hour limit to gain a C cat, better and ongoing training to keep that C cat and extra training in real world aviation like the engineering side were your with an experienced person for a good number of hours to understand and practice safe flying.

Should CFI training be like an apprenticeship that's reviewed and tested in a constant time bracket?

Like others have said, you will never improve the industry unless you start with good basic training at the start, for that training to be pasted to the next generation of pilots when it's there time to pass on there skills.

GOLD SEAL CFI
 

If you are planning to go on to advanced ratings in the U.S. (or not), it may be in your best interest to seek out a Gold Seal Flight Instructor.