Exce$$ive ground briefings

[digits_]

I don't expect anything from younger or older students,

Sure you do. You told me explicitly, a few posts ago. You expect older students to take longer.

I said they typically take longer and that there is a general consensus amongst instructors that they take longer.

I don't have expectations (anymore) when I meet/train individual students. When I look at the results however, they generally seem to take longer.

Not sure if this is just an academic discussion or if you believe that, generally, older students get their PPL quicker all else being equal?

[photofly]

I treat people as individuals, and do my best not to pigeonhole.

[digits_]

I treat people as individuals, and do my best not to pigeonhole.

You are avoiding the question: from all the students you've taught, on average, who completes their license/rating the quickest: younger or older students? Full time or part time students?

[rookiepilot]

I treat people as individuals, and do my best not to pigeonhole.

+ 1 to that. For all situations.

[TT1900]

I treat people as individuals, and do my best not to pigeonhole.

Sure. Doesn't mean there aren't trends.

My students are heavily screened and tested before getting to my peers and I, are paid to train, and have generally excellent flying continuity when compared to the average flight student. They are almost all university educated and between the ages of 19-30. Even within such a homogenous group certain general trends become apparent.

[trey kule]

Did you do decades of training towards your PPL? Instructing quality matters less after you’re in the know, and less the more experience you have.

Where did you come to the conclusion that instructing quality counts less if you have more experience? A bad instructor on advanced training can make the difference between a type rating and a failure. And because they are dealing with experienced pilots, the job can be particularily challanging. Experienced pilots can spot BS. And advanced instructors have to deal with experienced BSer students.

As to old vs young there are some studies around that do not seem to agree with much of what has been posted here, and all in all, I would say Photo has the best approach.(NASA has done several as relates to accidents after licensing)
Fast reflexes at a young age can make certain exercises easier to accomplish, but in the end there is little difference. Older ppl students are not typically in a hurry to get to the big show and enjoy the flying experience much more.
But using exceptions as if they are the mean is rationalization.

As to all this ask questions, ask questions! Meet the instructors. Warm and fuzzy feel good mumbo jumbo.

You mentioned ppl. I learned as a cadet. I had absolutely no say in who my instructor was.
I didn’t know if he was good or bad as I had nothing to compare him to, but I did finish my ppl up 1.5 hours short of the minimum and had to go fly around for that 1+30 to get my license...in retrospect he was good.
Met some that I would not go for a drink with, but they were great instructors. If your criteria is that your instructor has to be your buddy, you are not making a good assessment of their abilities.

BS detector....Any instructor who says the average is 80 hours, but our school does it in lesd.., or gives you the old, its up to you. While partially correct, it is also. About the instructor.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My personal opinion is the single greatest determinate in how long your PPL takes is how often you fly. My personal experience has been that the average student has to fly at least twice a week on order to be able to finish a PPL within 50 hours.

[trey kule]

I agree about the regular flying. And I think currency is an issuepost license as well.

But we have strayed a bit from the question of xcessive briefings. Do instructors want to teach to much rather than just the essential points necessary to meet the lesson objectives?
That would account for a difference in perception between instructors and students as to what is excessive.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Trey

What I am personally seeing is usually the opposite of excessive ground briefing. As a general statement you should not be exposed to new information when flying the airplane as the airplane environment is not well suited to learning and understanding new material. That is why TC calls the ground briefing "Preparatory Ground Instruction" (PGI) because that ground briefing is for the What/Why/How to a do particular maneuver or exercise in the airplane plus teaching any related bits of essential knowledge and thus prepare the student for the flight ahead.

What unfortunately IMO too often happens is Instructors want to skip or rush through the PGI and get into the airplane because then they are logging hours.

As a rule of thumb a PGI to teach new knowledge should be around 20 minutes if the student has done their homework.

[rookiepilot]

What unfortunately IMO too often happens is Instructors want to skip or rush through the PGI and get into the airplane because then they are logging hours.

What is truly offensive is fleecing by instructors for this reason of adding hours, or encouraged by the FTU is to try to conduct a ground briefing in the airplane, on the ramp with the engine idling. Don't ever allow that students.

[455tt]

As a general statement you should not be exposed to new information when flying the airplane as the airplane environment is not well suited to learning and understanding new material. That is why TC calls the ground briefing "Preparatory Ground Instruction" (PGI) because that ground briefing is for the What/Why/How to a do particular maneuver or exercise in the airplane plus teaching any related bits of essential knowledge and thus prepare the student for the flight ahead.

What unfortunately IMO too often happens is Instructors want to skip or rush through the PGI and get into the airplane because then they are logging hours.

As a rule of thumb a PGI to teach new knowledge should be around 20 minutes if the student has done their homework.

Respectfully, you are mixing up Preparatory Ground Instruction (PGI) with the Pre Flight Briefing. Let's sort these out. In their Flight Instructor Guide, TC defines "Preparatory Ground Instruction" and the 'Pre Flight Briefing" as separate and distinct:

"Preparatory Ground Instruction

1. Classroom type instruction, normally on a one-to-one basis, but not excluding group instruction, covering the steps necessary to fly an air exercise. While basic theory of flight, where applicable, would previously have been covered in ground school, some theory may be necessary to explain a point related to the conduct of the air exercise. Essentially Preparatory Ground Instruction should cover the "how to do an air exercise".

2. This is a presentation given by the instructor when introducing a new exercise. Ideally it should be given within 24 hours prior to the related training flight."

"Pre-Flight Briefing

1. Discussion on a one-to-one basis just prior to the conduct of an air exercise to ensure that the student understands exactly what will take place. This is essentially a practical briefing on the Air Instruction in Part II of this guide, avoiding theory but including the important aspects:

What are we going to do;
How are we going to do it; and,
Safety Considerations.

2. This is separate from the ground presentations. It should precede all flights, whether or not there is a new exercise to be covered. It is also particularly important when sending a student solo. Points that should be covered include:

Meteorological and aerodrome conditions, and NOTAM;
The aeroplane to be used, its fuel state and other relevant information;
Where the exercises will be conducted;
Take-off time, duration of flight and time when the aeroplane will land back at base;
The sequence of exercises to be covered during the flight; and,
A review of relevant airmanship points and decision-making situations expected during the flight."

So a dual lesson will always be preceded with a pre-flight briefing, but not necessarily with a PGI briefing. I agree with you that 20 minutes is about right for a PGI briefing to a prepared student but if you add another 10 minutes for the typical pre flight briefing, then you are up to 0.5 time in briefings for a flight where a PGI briefing is used. As well, you must also include time for the post-flight briefing (TC definition below) which must be for every flight, dual and solo, which if we assume 10 minutes, now we can easily be say 0.7 in briefings on a 1.0 dual flight.

"Post-Flight Briefing (Debriefing)

1. Review with the student each exercise undertaken during the flight. In the case of a dual flight, the debriefing should include strengths and weaknesses and suggestions to improve performance. An outline of the next training session should be given along with study assignments.

2. This should follow all flights, dual and solo. Points should include:

The student's own assessment of the flight and performance.
Your assessment of the student's performance. This should include both the strong and weak points, and advice on how to correct any errors.
Answering any questions the student may have.
Assigning study subjects where appropriate."

So if an instructor diligently follows TC's system of PGI, pre-flight and post-flight briefings, as the instructor is required to do, there will be a substantial amount of ground time. This could help explain why the ground briefings provided by flight instructors can seem excessive. But it does not mean that flight instructors are attempting to "milk" their students.

[digits_]

As a general statement you should not be exposed to new information when flying the airplane as the airplane environment is not well suited to learning and understanding new material. That is why TC calls the ground briefing "Preparatory Ground Instruction" (PGI) because that ground briefing is for the What/Why/How to a do particular maneuver or exercise in the airplane plus teaching any related bits of essential knowledge and thus prepare the student for the flight ahead.

What unfortunately IMO too often happens is Instructors want to skip or rush through the PGI and get into the airplane because then they are logging hours.

As a rule of thumb a PGI to teach new knowledge should be around 20 minutes if the student has done their homework.

Respectfully, you are mixing up Preparatory Ground Instruction (PGI) with the Pre Flight Briefing. Let's sort these out. In their Flight Instructor Guide, TC defines "Preparatory Ground Instruction" and the 'Pre Flight Briefing" as separate and distinct:

No he isn't. PGI isn't ground school.

PGI explains how you actually do the exercises and what to look out for
Pre flight briefing tells the student which exercises you'll be doing and where

Ground school prepares you for the written test, and hopefully a bit more, and gives you more info on how/why/what happens during those exercises but also a lot of background info that might not immediately be clear why you need to study it (weather, airlaw, ... )

PGI shouldn't take more than 20 min, pre flight briefing about 5. Ground school, zero if student studies himself.

[photofly]

Ground time costs about one third of air time. So if you can advance the student ten minutes or more in the air by adding anything up to half an hour of PGI, it's a good deal. Don't skimp on PGI, and don't value it only by how short it should be. Keep it relevant and make sure the student is following and learning. But if what you're teaching on the ground helps a student make better use of their air time then it's time and money well spent.

[Squaretail]

Where did you come to the conclusion that instructing quality counts less if you have more experience? A bad instructor on advanced training can make the difference between a type rating and a failure. And because they are dealing with experienced pilots, the job can be particularily challanging. Experienced pilots can spot BS. And advanced instructors have to deal with experienced BSer students.

If we extrapolate on how much an instructor can add to a student, there becomes a point where the the instructor is adding very little. For instance at the end of the spectrum, if we took say Bob Hoover (living of course), and set him to a training goal, I doubt very much that a terrible instructor could do much to hold him back, and even the best instructor would have diminishing returns. Everyone else is going to be somewhere on the curve of zero experience to Bob Hoover. I would argue that in the example you give, that the "experienced student" maybe isn't so experienced, at least not enough to transfer their experience to the new learning at hand. I guess we need to be talking about a pilot/student's actual level of experience, knowledge and skill as opposed to how they may seem on paper, or are perceived in the eyes of their peers. FWIW, I will say I've been consistently disappointed whenever I have made any assumptions based upon a pilot's presented, and on paper ability, but in retrospect it gets easier to tell who is full of crap.

As to old vs young there are some studies around that do not seem to agree with much of what has been posted here, and all in all, I would say Photo has the best approach.(NASA has done several as relates to accidents after licensing)
Fast reflexes at a young age can make certain exercises easier to accomplish, but in the end there is little difference. Older ppl students are not typically in a hurry to get to the big show and enjoy the flying experience much more.
But using exceptions as if they are the mean is rationalization.

I would only speak from my own experiences. IF I was a betting man, I'd place money that an older student would take more time than a younger student, and I won't say all things being equal, because they never are. Which is sort of the point.

As to all this ask questions, ask questions! Meet the instructors. Warm and fuzzy feel good mumbo jumbo.

You mentioned ppl. I learned as a cadet. I had absolutely no say in who my instructor was.
I didn’t know if he was good or bad as I had nothing to compare him to, but I did finish my ppl up 1.5 hours short of the minimum and had to go fly around for that 1+30 to get my license...in retrospect he was good.
Met some that I would not go for a drink with, but they were great instructors. If your criteria is that your instructor has to be your buddy, you are not making a good assessment of their abilities.

First you must realize that as a cadet student, you would be in the minority of PPL students these days as opposed to the usual. Arguably I'm assuming that you did choose your instructor, since I'm assuming you weren't forced into the cadet program. Small point: younger students have an advantage on older students since they have the possible choice of getting into a cadet program. AFAIK, there's an age limit on that program, I haven't seen many senior citizens who are also in the cadet license program. If one was efficiency and quality minded, I would fully recommend a cadet program, at the very least, the QC on the training - since the air cadet league oversees it in addition to the usual oversight of flight schools, it would be unlikely for death by briefings, to creep in, and instructors are kept on a tighter leash.

By contrast, I just went to a FTU for my flight training, and I always feel That I've done far more research with it than I see most people do. In the end it was worth every penny, I feel I got what I bargained for. During that process I also was able to make decisions on whom I wanted to instruct me, since there were some that were better than others. Post CPL I have received all sorts of instruction, and I can't say I ever stuck with an instructor who was poor, and there were a few.

TBH I'm not sure why you would poo-poo asking questions as "mumbo jumbo", do you recommend to new students that they should just walk in, plop down money and grin and bear through whatever they receive? As the instructor, I can spot people who are going to do well, when they do ask questions and show direct interest. Especially among the kids. If Dad or Mom are asking all the questions, its usually them who are more interested, and probably the one who should be learning to fly. I mean are you not recommending that new students should shop around for flight training? If you do recommend that they shop wisely, how would YOU say they should do it? Personally I feel its inexcusable to show up completely without any knowledge, but to be honest, that's exactly what many people do. Again, convenience of training it paramount in many cases.

or gives you the old, its up to you. While partially correct, it is also. About the instructor.

As time goes on, I almost have to debate the importance of the instructor in the equation. At least in terms of direct knowledge transfer. I've hypothesized that it is entirely possible to learn to fly with out one. After all, lots of people did it in the past. Most of learning to fly, like many other activities, is all about the effort you put into it, and what you're willing to do to achieve the end goals. The instructor's main goal is to facilitate this process and largely keep you safe during it. The instructor in my mind is by far the smaller factor, since its a variable that's probably easier to change than the student's own barriers they bring to their own training.

[455tt]

Interesting insights Squaretail.

What are your views on the issue of whether ground briefings can be excessive?