Crab - the import point you seem oblivious to is that flight in question wasn't a testing flight it was a training flight. Makes me wonder if you fully grasp the difference?

A well conducted training flight with a fairly broad agenda would, as we've already mentioned, start the briefing room. One would get the student to talk through the various excercises that might be contemplated and it would rapidly become obvious when a weak spot was reached, either because he was unable to describe, e.g., how to deal with jammed pedals, or because he said "yes, I've alway found that really difficult". Of course this requires the instructor to be in receive mode, something some struggle with as they are stuck in transmit mode - often transmitting to ensure the student is quite clear just how much more they know / how clever they are.

A refresher brief then ensues and you then go out to practice it in flight. A productive training session!

If you just pick an emergency at random in flight, there are only two possible outcomes, one is that it all goes according to plan, in which case it was a waste of flight time, or it doesn't go to plan in which case the PPL merely learns that he can't do something. Also a complete waste of time.

Testing is of course a different matter but it is not what was being talked about. I really do think some instructors struggle with the fundamental but vitally important difference.

I am quite cognisant of the difference but often testing flights can become training flights - a struggling student who can't make the grade in some area or is using completely the wrong technique can be quickly rebriefed - whether or not you decide he passes that trip is a broad area for discretion, examination of his previous records, perhaps a chat with his primary/previous instructor.

Equally a training flight can become an assessment of ability/potential which may include the introduction of unbriefed elements.

Maybe the difference between the two HAS to be so rigidly defined in civil training and certainly at ab initio level I would agree entirely. But when you are dealing with experienced pilots then the rigidly enforced system can be relaxed.

If all I had done was test/train to the minimum requirement on SAR, few of those pilots woould have reached their full potential (safely) or increased their professional skill levels.

First and foremost you are creating a relationship between yourself and the student and the instructor has to be flexible in his approach and manner to get the best from the student and let the student gain the most from the sortie.

Don,t pick on the boy
"student i was flying with has over 400 hours has done his CPL course in this country, failed his CPL skills test ( 3 times )". Change Student to Pilot
H500 got me to where I feel I have a chance of not killing myself or others.
Was 60 before I started to learn so not the best age & I never will be the best or most confident pilot, but I feel he gave me a good grounding as to what & how to cope in an situation that was not normal.
The engine tail rotor etc does not usually notify you in advance (S92) before it goes TU.
I feel that recurrent training can only be good & as long as I am put in no danger the training emergency is a good way for me to understand how I will cope.
Some one brought up the thought regarding private flyers\ work & where their head is, this I can agree with there were days when I would not fly due to my mind being on other things, may be age related

No, if it goes to plan then you have confirmed the student knows the emergency and how to handle it - that is a big plus as far as I am concerned and you can praise him for it. If he messes it up (providing it is one he has been shown/practised before) then you make a learning point from it, highlight the indications/actions/remedy and then he has learned something - he has learned/relearned that one which he might not have fully understood before.

In each case the student learns - that is surely the point of the job of an instructor.

The only negative way of handling it is if you berate him for messing up the emergency and then make a big show of how clever you are at demonstrating the right way of doing it - that is negative teaching but it amazes me how many instructors don't seem to be able to tell the difference between instructing and destructing.

Yes if it goes to plan then of course you and he know he can do it. But that info seems pretty useless if, as was the case here, it is a bit of a one-off training flight. I would imagine that H500 was never going to be the PPL's CPL examiner and in fact probably, never fly with him again. So as I said, if he had done it correctly then the time was wasted. However since it seems H500 had a pretty good idea of the guy's likely competence beforehand, to not brief properly on what was to be done in flight was "setting him up to fail". Perhaps H500's agenda was to make the chap realise he should give up the aim of becoming a commercial pilot?

To randomly pick on something during a training flight with a pilot you're not familiar with, and then when you find the pilot can't cope, to attempt to rebrief in flight, is a really bad way to instruct. I hope you know this really and are just arguing with me for the sake of it. If not, you need refresher training on how to be a competent instructor.

No it's not - he gave the student a simulated emergency to see what he would do - the fact the student didn't have a clue was unfortunate but he might have been the same with any 'unbriefed emergency'. If you feel you can only initiate pre-briefed emergencies with a student, whether you know him or not, then you should look at your own instructional competence.

It may be the way it is done for OPC/LPC in the N Sea to tick boxes but for the real world where emergencies and problems don't come ready briefed it is a pretty poor show.

And I am arguing with you because you had the gall to pounce on Hughes500 and criticise his professional competence without knowing the context or any real details of the sortie. And I get criticised for being arrogant................

And now I am going to criticise your professional competence too. You are clearly a bad instructor. You still fail to grasp the difference between running a training flight and a testing flight, which is as astonishing as it is depressing.

This thread has at least been useful since it has exposed why so many PPLs are crashing - there are a lot of bad instructors out there who have forgotten the basics of instructional technique. The sooner the old guard who have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing are put down, and new young instructors who can still remember what they were taught during instructor training come on stream, the better.

Crab. Nobody I know ticks boxes on the North Sea. In fact advocating a proper brief is completely different from the tick box rubbish that inexperienced civil pilots ( which is what you are) bleat on about.

I cannot really be bothered to waste anymore time trying to get you to drop that ridiculous gung-ho egotistical approach you have that seems to allow you to pretend you just throw what you like at your student, when you like, bugger the brief he should be man enough to cope cos he's got 500 hours.

It's a flipping joke and you know it. No instructor worth his pay:

1. Flys a practise critical failure in a real aircraft without briefing, both for training and testing.
2. Introduces a malfunction in a real aircraft without Clearly stating "For exercise, practice xx" to clearly distinguish between a practise and a real emergency. That by regulation MUST be briefed and in UK YOU WILL FAIL an Instructor and Examiner Assessment of Competence if you fail to give this brief both on the ground AND in the air.

In this context the utter rubbish you spout about how you ignore these basic rules and principles just makes me laugh knowing that YOU never behave like this during your own Instructor assessments.

I guess you do not have any civil Instructor Training or Examining ratings because if you did you would know that these things we spout on about are basic and fundamental. If you do you cannot behave the way you advocate on your own AoC because you would be failed by your Examiner especially for wilful disregard of the essential safety brief.

Too many accidents have occurred in training caused by exactly what you are advocating. Poor or inadequate brief, changing the scope of the flight once in the air, getting an unexpected response from a student to an unbriefed critical manoeuvre.

At my age and experience, which is reasonably extensive and diverse, I do not even introduce the auto exercise in flight without immediately beforehand asking the student to recall the brief he received and verbalise the essential actions-on and recovery altitudes. This mostly to prevent an expensive Nr exceedance which is more and more possible in modern rotor helicopters.

No doubt we will be treated to some more of your of the cuff training portfolio.

Crab - to answer your last post specifically:

NO - you cannot ever introduce an unbriefed Emergency procedure in a real aircraft.

You must clearly distinguish in flight the DIFFERENCE between REAL and PRACTISE/ SIMULATED emergencies in flight. This is normally done by convention by announcing "For Exercise....) even in the Army the QHIs followed this doctrine.

There is a difference between an EMERGENCY procedure and a MALFUNCTION.

In this case, TR jamming is, in my view, an Emergency procedure, as at the very end, it could lead to a crash if poorly handled.

Introducing critical failures with no warning provokes a "Startle effect" I get sick and tired of Instructors who believe provoking startle effect somehow leads to greater immunity from it. It does not. The only thing that does is knowledge (briefing...again) combined with logical progressive exposure to the symptoms. Building confidence in the core routines, followed by practise in slow time followed by introduction in various phases of flight. Exposure in controlled conditions Leading to high confidence and familiarity is the key to hardening us to startle effect. The FFS is great for this kind of training. It's definitely not box ticking.

Startling the student with an unbriefed, unannounced procedure just produces Startle effect. Doing this to a student who is already struggling, as in this case, is just a waste of fuel an totally unproductive.

Throwing in a half pence from the student perspective:

I've had instructors that instruct the way Crab describes, and the way HC describes. I greatly prefer the way HC describes.

And I really despise instructors who spend time in the air explaining theory. I've got the theory, or should have, on the ground. In the air we need to make theory come out of fingers and toes. IMHO there are better, more direct, more physical ways to do that. Many times it's simply a matter of more rep's until those fingers and toes get calibrated.

That said, with respect to the "unannounced" factor, what I don't mind, in fact what I appreciate, are instructors who take basic maneuvers and start to add small challenges. For instance, they tell you to enter a straight in auto on runway X and, when you are established in your glide, tell you to put it on the other runway, etc. Little frills that up the ante, are based in real world possibilities, but that are not so far removed from current skill levels or the instructional plan for that flight as to completely surprise either student or instructor.

I'll never forget one in my early FW training. Downwind checks and I'm just making a pretense of checking the fuel selector is on. Eagle eyed FI spots it and switches it off just before the next one. Next thing engine is spluttering out. I quickly rechecked the selector, switched it back on and the windmilling old girl fired straight back up. Lesson learned and never forgotten.

Aa77888 thanks for your post. A voice of reason. I think your feelings are exactly right. Build skill on skill, developing confidence along the way.

For what it's worth I thing H500 had an OFF moment and as he subsequently explained, spent the rest of the sortie fixing the problem. Like you say in your post, I am sure the student, and H500 were wishing they had a white board in the helicopter during that process ( meaning they wish they had briefed)

As for Crab - he will argue the anti just for the hell if it. Come to think of it, so will I. The difference though is I am always right!

DB

What is laughable is that you have drawn a load of conclusions about how I instruct and how bad I am at it based on a couple of lines in a post and a whole lot of imagination. Just as you drew inaccurate conclusions to beat H500 round the head with.

Yes OF COURSE you tell the student it is a practice emergency - who do you think taught some of those Army QHIs to be QHIs in the first place? I wasn't a CFS tutor for no reason. - with the stuck pedals I would (and I'm sure H500 did) wait for the student to notice and then declare - this is a practice.

Did your diverse experience ever include instructing and examining other instructors, doing upgrades and checks on other instructors, doing examiner checks in other countries on their instructors????????

Much as you may wish to malign it - the CFS tick is a gold standard to many governments and Armed Forces around the world and a military A2 is a widely recognised standard of quality - whether you like it or not.

If you want to teach someone to suck eggs - go talk to your grandmother.

Where did the recent head of CAA heli exam train - oh yes the brit mil and it didn't seem to stop him did it?

This thread has been completely hijacked because you and HeliC wanted to show how great you are by demeaning the actions of H500- frankly you should be ashamed.

Yeabut what is REALLY laughable is that your post is such a "Don't you know who I am?!" sort of post! Chuckleworthy!

Anyway my experience of CFS is via the UAS in which I did my first 100hrs or so. Some of the instructors were really good, a few were grumpy old gits who when (as a really keen engineering student with an enquiring mind) I asked "why?" when told what was done, received the grumpy answer "just do it". One chap stood out as the best instructor, really patient, clear, friendly and got the best out of you by keeping you relaxed. But it was he who I had to accompany in a Bulldog up to CFS HQ for his chop ride as he had for some reason fallen out of favour with them. Fortunately they passed his chop ride but at that young point in my aviation career I realised CFS was not quite as clever as they told everyone they were.

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "For Exercise".

Good shot!!

More Pythonesque by the post .... An unbeliever ..... kill the heretic!

CEAB the answer to your question is.......YES!

as opposed to yours which say'I'm great, you know nothing and you are a crap instructor'.

Not chuckleworthy but rather embarrassing to slag off those you don't know (but somehow imagine you completely understand) and make yourself look pompous and self-righteous peering down from an ivory tower to cast aspersions on the unworthy (in your blinkered view anyway).

Please note that all the slagging of professional competency has gone one way only - in order to do that you must consider yourself top of the pile - (then you call me arrogant).

DB, yes to what? Or are you being deliberately vague?

Think I have started something I shown't have done here. For those who want to beat me that is fine. I will stand by the way I carried out the flight. I am not going to go over old ground other than to say the student / pilot/ whatever you want to call him I do know and have helped him a lot ( over 8 years ) and his words after the sortie and at the end of a 30 minute debrief were " i really enjoyed that and learnt an awful lot thank you "
I rest my case and lets close this before people get too personal

H500 you have a very good reputation and I am sure you fixed the guy in the end. Sorry if I was a bit harsh.

CRAB Yes I do Instruct and check TRIs and TREs. I am glad to see you have almost capitulated and almost accepted that the essential safety briefs should be there which of course would include critical failures especially those in the Helicopter involving flight control degradation.

It may come across to you as us being pompous, but actually we are just compliant with the requirements of our authorisations and I know HC very well and he is or was, as he is resting pretending to be retired, 100% committed to giving good training.

You are a bit of a wind up merchant and it may seem I take the bait every time. However, given your background and reputation I feel you would do better on this forum to peddle a more conservative compliant view. Your are influential and that carries responsibility. Even on this forum.

It is for this reason I feel compelled to pull you back from gung ho city back to compliant land, even if it takes a while.

DB - I have pointed out that I meet compliance rules and regs that are every bit as demanding in the mil as they are outside. My emphasis is that a good instructor must be flexible in his approach to each student and that rigid adherence to a prescribed format doesn't always get the best out of every student.

I used to emphasise that the QHI course was a method of instruction, not a legislative process that couldn't be adapted to differing situations/students/instructors.

You impose your personality on the method of instruction basic techniques and adapt those basics to suit the subject/discipline/level of student that you are teaching.

It isn't rocket science but neither is it easy or formulaic - it requires, empathy, intelligence, flexibility and selflessness.