COPA had an article about this, with the somewhat misleading headline of "Is Canadian Flight Training Passing Muster Abroad?". Seems certain countries are finding that their pilots trained in Canada may or may not be all that competent - although they scrapped by with a passing mark on flight test(s).

Accordingly, TCCA has put out an advisory circular that changes the pass/fail criteria on a flight test by placing limits on the number of "2s" that a candidate can be assessed.

For a PPL: A maximum of 5.

CPL: A maximum of 4.

Feel free to pursue the circular and add your thoughts.

It is regrettable that the justification for such a change is only that "foreign authorities are now contemplating alternative countries for the training of their airline cadets."

I'd be interested in seeing the stats (assuming any are actually available) that gives the number of flight tests over the last say 4 years, breaking it down by licence/rating attempted as well as local/international candidate.

Obviously the charts in the circular are plotting incidences of 2s on tests, but is there any correlation between the increase of international training and the increased incidences of barely passing flight tests? Seems to me, based solely on anecdotal observation that the majority of students these days are international rather than locals.

This doesn't surprise me at all, but the fact that their report says it's been going on for decades is bothersome. I taught Chinese students for a while and regularly felt pressured to recommend students that either didn't have the skill or decision making or did not care in the slightest about aviation and only studied JUST enough to pass and make their parents happy. One of my poor students wanted to be a dancer and sing in theatre, but his parents forced him to be a pilot. I had to regularly talk with him and try my best to help him be motivated to pass so at least he could go home. It was really frustrating. When I reflect on my own training I am pretty confident that when I had finally been recommended for PPL, I could have passed one of the CPL exams my students had been put through. The students were never given enough time to build a proper foundation and really digest concepts like trim, rudder use and how to land in a crosswind.

Unfortunately, I don't believe changing the number of "2's" you are limited to will actually help. You'll just see more 2's change to 3's with a stern de-brief after the test by the IN-HOUSE examiner. Companies like the one I taught at were more interested in quantity and were more concerned with making deadlines than finishing passable students... but of course they would never admit to that. It just came out in subtle but regular pressure put on the instructors. We gave them crappy equipment to fly with, too, which they don't deserve considering how much they get charged per hour.

I'm not proud of the place I used to work at. I enjoy teaching and had a lot of fun working with many of the students, but the company drove me bonkers with its puppy-mill mentality. They deserve to lose contracts, but general aviation in Canada deserves better. We shouldn't be relying on foreign aviation to keep our own general aviation going, but that's the sad reality it seems. I often wonder what will become of the students I taught. I absolutely tried my best within my power to equip them, but sometimes they just didn't care enough to improve on their own... yet we would still push them through.

Concur with youhavecontrol:

There's nothing wrong with the marking system.

The problem lies with examiners who are not marking honestly. Probably economic considerations.

I doubt that examiners will start giving "1s" on the previously marked "2" exercises; they'll probably give "3" and continue to pass questionable candidates...

youhavecontrol wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:16 pm ...stern de-brief after the test by the IN-HOUSE examiner.

Gosh, that sounds vaguely like a conflict of interest. Thank goodness we don't have those in aviation.

I recall hearing about a Class 1 out this side of the Rocks who was playing a bit fast and loose with the English Proficiency rubber stamp - apparently "they" actually ended up getting their tackle slapped by Transport, when they eventually figured it out. Of course, the school who suggested passing students with questionable language proficiency, well why on earth would there be an issue with them?

Quite frankly, TC inspectors need to get off their collective asses, and start slapping FTUs who perpetually trod along in the "grey areas".

Where I used to instruct, all the in-house examiners were very aware of what the national and local pass/fail rates were and simply ensured that their pass rate remained at close enough to 80% or 90% or whatever it was that TC was expecting that year so as to not be bothered by anyone from TC.

One told me that when he first started doing flight tests on "international" students his pass rate dropped to around 50%. It was TC that started probing and asking questions before the school did.

I have a feeling TC will start seeing a lot more PPL flight tests with exactly five 2's...

GoinVertical wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:09 pm Where I used to instruct, all the in-house examiners were very aware of what the national and local pass/fail rates were and simply ensured that their pass rate remained at close enough to 80% or 90% or whatever it was that TC was expecting that year so as to not be bothered by anyone from TC.

One told me that when he first started doing flight tests on "international" students his pass rate dropped to around 50%. It was TC that started probing and asking questions before the school did.

I have a feeling TC will start seeing a lot more PPL flight tests with exactly five 2's...

That's such a good point that I totally forgot about. I remember some of our examiners complaining about that. Its like the system as a whole is just so outdated it was never designed for the sheer volume and non-personal nature of training international students.

As usual, this is a band-aid solution to a larger problem. I have no doubts that this isn't going to slow down the production of pilots in this country, and as of yet, the idea that they are "going somewhere else" is laughable, since this remains the cheapest place to do things. The only place that they will go, which fits with the larger plan in my mind, is to start flight training in their own countries once they build up the infrastructure and have a large enough pool of instructor pilots. Perhaps this is what is already being referred to and the end is in sight for large scale foreign training in Canada.

Foreign training has already done its damage to Canadian GA. On the bright side, I hear its a good time to be a freelancer as there is substantial demand for non-FTU training given how foreign training seems to have eaten the majority of training resources in this country.

Ultimately the problem I see, is that Canada has ceased to export Canadian training, but rather foreign interests have brought their style of training here. TC has no real will or ability to really tackle this problem, and ultimately its not theirs, that buck is just passed to whomever the end employer is of these pilots. Not addressed in this issue is how many pilots have entered the international pilot pool with counterfeit Canadian licenses.

From a flying perspective, things are getting scary out there. Its readily apparent how many pilots can't speak English (and I doubt any French either), you give them a wide berth when you encounter them, you can't communicate with them, they don't give way, and they never see you. Run into five kids building time in a King air trundling around the province. When I watched them take off, it never lifted the gear as long as it was in sight. I have to wonder if it ever did on that leg.

I think in terms of second-order effects this is going to create a very poor climate for FIs. In truth, this is an inditement/reflection of Class 3/4 flight instructors(or class 1/2s who are recommending regularly) whether intentional or not. With most FTUs struggling to maintain a pool(or Any) of qualified Class I/II instructors who are able to adequately supervise class 4's or mentor new class 3s, who will bear the burden of this change? The answer, not the students, foreign or otherwise, who, besides a bruised ego and a lighter pocketbook, bear no real consequence for a flight exam failure. Contrast this to the class 4/3 instructor whos recommendation(and licenses) are held responsible for flight test failure. I am not suggesting that us flight instructors are let off the hook for exam failures but given the current "employment situation within the industry" the number of supervisory instructors is not sufficient to meet the aim of Transport Canada's changes. I think that Transport Canada needs to rethink this policy and/or revise the current flight instructor qualification system in order to prevent a rapid decline(of an already low number) of future qualified supervisory instructors who, for multiple reasons, no longer choose to continue in ever increasingly difficult work environment. My 2cents anyway

I think that Transport Canada needs to rethink this policy and/or revise the current flight instructor qualification system in order to prevent a rapid decline(of an already low number) of future qualified supervisory instructors

I’d love to hear suggestions how to do this.