OK, this just might stir some shit, but it's not meant to.

I was thinking of the difference between high-time instructors and low-time instructors.

What is it SPECIFICALLY that makes the high-time instructors that much better?

Is it the real-life stories? Is it being able to better identify student weak spots? Better attitude?

Let's say you have a hot shit high timer that yells at the student, or a low timer that knows everything about the plane systems and can relate that to the student in a way that he or she can understand. Is one better than the other?

I'm sure there are certain things that make an instructor good and an instructor bad. What are they?

I've learned things from low-timers and high-timers.

And is it even possible to be a good instructor at 250 hours?

All comments would be appreciated. What is YOUR opinion?

-istp

Let's say you have a hot shit high timer that yells at the student,

Yelling at a student is a sign of the worst type of instructor you can find.

im curious, in your opinion what is a high time instructor?

what ive realized going from SE to ME, and then going back to SE is just how much more emphasis ive put on situational awareness and planning ahead. maybe its simply because youre going slower in a SE, but i find myself trying to instill the big picture to students, and even other SE instructors.

what ive also realized is that at 250hrs i was a sh!t instructor. ill be honest, i did it to build time. i remained professional, but teaching was secondary. now ive changed my outlook. based on my experience to instruct, from the PPL level up, you should almost have MORE than less time.

just my thoughts

OK, I knew the "what is high time" thing would come up.

For the sake of argument, I will define "high time" as 5000+ hours PIC. That is my definition within the parameters of my thread. If this gets hijacked onto a "what is high time?" I will ask this thread be deleted.

Continue please.

I wanna know what an experienced instructor SPECIFICALLY knows more than a low timer, and how that can help instruction.

Thanks for the replies so far!

-istp

I fit your definition of "high time".
my 02 cents

There are basically four kinds of instruction
1) Going from no skills and knowledge to basic skills and knowledge ( ie the PPL)
2) Going from basic skills and knowledge to a more comprehensive level of the basic skills and knowledge (ie the CPL)
3) Further developing some of the comprehensive skills more fully in a particualar area (ie the float, ME and MEIFR)
4) Applying allready existing skills in a different way (ie type conversion/type ratings)

High time does not automatically guarantee good instruction and low time does not mean necessarily mean poor instruction. I think low time is actually an advantage for teaching the PPL. PPL instruction can be a bit of drudgery ( eg droning around the circuit, or telling the student to correct the yaw for the hundredth time). Low timers IMO will have more patience and can better relate to the trials of the student, since they were there not long ago. Yes they will have less practical experience but teaching the PPL is not rocket science and there is no reason low timers cannot properly teach the basic skills, The key for success for low timers in an FTU is to have a proactive supervisor and CFI. Low timers should be consulting their supervisor on a daily basis and consttantly pumping them for practical advice. However once you get past the PPL real world experience is vital. Even a relatively small amount of actual 702/703 flying outside the make believe world of the FTU is a huge advantage for preparing students for the real world of commercial flying. This is even more important for advanced instruction like float and ME/MEIFR. An experienced instructor can offer a much richer course of instruction because he she will be able to pass on the kinds of tips and tricks that are only learned by going out and doing it day in and day out in the real world. It still mystifies me why students fork out the big bucks to take the MEIFR course from an instructor who passed his/her intial ride last week when they can go to a school with experienced staff. The one caveat I have is the fact that no training in instructional technique is required for float/MEIFR instructors. Yes the high timer will have lots of experience, but it will not mean anything if/he she cannot get it across to the student. For example if I was looking for the float rating as a low time pilot and there was a choice of float instructors, one with a 1000hrs which was a mixture of charter flying and float instruction, and the other had 5000 hrs but had never taught a float rating, I would recomend the 1000 hr guy/gal.

When it comes to the type rating level of training you should have enough experience that it won't matter how good an instructor you have, athough it will certaiinly be more pleasant with a good instructor.

In an ideal system, retired air force and airline captains are the instructors, and the 20 year old cadets become the first officers on airlines.

I think that having an experienced instructor is beneficial in the sense that he/she has experienced so much that he/she will have a far wider comfort level in allowing you making mistakes and learning from them. There's a saying in the FIG; we learn by doing. In experienced instructors have the tendency to want to perfect everything right from the get go. Also, an in experienced instructor will most likely cancel your commercial dual flight because it's 5 sm outside. An experienced instructor will not; he/she will take you out on the adventure for you to explore so called "real flying."

An experienced instructor knows how to manipulate the scenario in bringing the most out of your decision making; an in experienced instructor has to learn that with you, and 100's of other students.

I think you get the idea.

So then why in hell is it that our 250 hour pilot's have to end up instructing or working ramp? Well that's a discussion on its own. But I blame the capitalist system where money is priority.

One word: EXPERIENCE.

Airtids wrote:One word: EXPERIENCE.

That's what I mean. People say "experience" but I'm looking for specifics here. I'd like to hear more from ya, Airtids. You're really experienced. I'm sure you could tell me and others what the best things high-timers bring to the table when it comes to instruction.

Thanks to the other posters too. I'm starting to clue in...

And feel free to keep posting in this thread. I won't post the bi-cyclist again.

-istp

An inexperienced instructor can explain a certain task in a simple way. Take cross wind landings for instance. Ask for a lesson on crosswind landings and you'll get a procedure of about 1 steps. An experienced instructor can boil it down and the student picks it up much quicker.

istp wrote:People say "experience" but I'm looking for specifics here.

Sorry, ISTP: I was referencing loopa's post above mine- they've basically nailed the reason why experience trumps. I would only throw in that experience instructing is one thing. Operational experience, life experience, etc. all play a role too. If you can find someone with the whole package, grab on tight, and don't let go!! They should be worth their weight in gold. Sadly...

Cat Driver wrote:

Let's say you have a hot shit high timer that yells at the student,

Yelling at a student is a sign of the worst type of instructor you can find.

I had one Instructor, that cut the power and slamed on the brakes in the midle of the Runway and yelled at the top of her lungs "YOU WILL NEVER, NEVER , EVER, SOLO UNLESS YOU KEEP THE PLANE STRAIGHT IN THE RUNWAY"
I soloed the day after....
On another occasion we almost crashed 60 feet above runaway 16 because she decided to take control without the key words " I have control " we were hanging by a thread at around 50KIAS

I have to admit that a lot of times, I shouldnt be taking the lesson, as just the tought of seeing the Instructor stressed me out, or life had got in the way, that flying should not be considered.
My wife said to me once, if you dont change Instructors im moving out... I said honey, in that case I'm signing with her, for the full ATPL course, Just kidding ...it would have been costlly!
I could write a book!!

Having the ability of understanding why the student is having problems and be able to comunicate efectivelly is something that is tremendouslly lacking in Aviation trainning, a lot of young men that aspire to take control of a Citation some day, with very litle life experience and very poor people skills have stressed a lot of students out, some of these are managed by CFI's with "Prima Donna" attitude (Thats Italian for my crap dosnt smell) that aside from having a useless ATPL, have never achieved anything in life.
Happy landings

+1 to experience being being king (be it life experience, past flying history what ever) but, if they are burnt out, they are no good to anyone.

Get some old instructor who has been ridden hard and put away wet... oh wait wrong analogy...

Get some instructor who has had years of BS from the industry and is simply working in the only field they know they can be pretty detrimental to a young guy just starting off. Just saying, as I had two high time instructors exactly like that, completely dead inside, not interested in teaching, but content to just warm the right seat and get a bit of retirement supplemental income.

Thanks guys.

I never thought about the "comfort zone" aspect. I could see that being a big one. Kinda like when you learn when to flare by watching when the inexperience instructors' hands start creeping towards the yoke.

Interesting stuff!

-istp

I don't think that it's a case of experienced vs inexperienced as much as a case of good instructor vs poor instructor. Just like with any flying job, I'm certain everyone here knows of good and bad pilots at each experience level. And it's seldom the case that you can say "Boy, that guy really sucked when he started, but over the years he's become a star."

It's all about an individual's attitude. Their commitment, dedication and the effort they put in. Look at any good, experienced instructor and examine their background and you'll find a good, inexperienced instructor.

So what I'd recommend to anyone looking to take flight lessons (and that's the time when an instructor's ability is important) is not to focus on experience as much as an instructor's attitude. I'd much rather fly with a good, inexperienced instructor than a poor, experienced one.

Airtids wrote:

istp wrote:People say "experience" but I'm looking for specifics here.

Sorry, ISTP: I was referencing loopa's post above mine- they've basically nailed the reason why experience trumps. I would only throw in that experience instructing is one thing. Operational experience, life experience, etc. all play a role too. If you can find someone with the whole package, grab on tight, and don't let go!! They should be worth their weight in gold. Sadly...

Experience is nice, but experince is nothing without motivation, I've seen a lot of crappy "high time" instructors out there who lacked the motivation to do a good job especially when it came to the basics. Experience with motivation is king, I would take a motivated bright eyed class 3 or 4 who clearly is trying to better themselves and work hard etc. over a beaten down been-there done-that 1 or 2. If you can find a 1 or 2 motivated to do a good job and take the time with each student, then that's the whole package.

Radio,

What you are referring to has to do with good and bad instruction

So I think if we want to summarize it, it's not that a more experienced instructor is better than a inexperienced instructor; it's just that the experienced instructor together with the attitude and instructional techniques of a good instructor leads to far better training than the same qualities of an inexperienced instructor.

Experience means more than aircraft piloting expereince it also means instructional expereince. So for example an experienced instructor will be able to explain/demonstrate things in multiple ways so if the student is not getting it he/she can try another approach. Personally I am a big fan of the F.I.S.R. method of instruction
(Fear, Intimidation, Sarcasm, and Ridicule)

Before everyone starts flaming me, I am just kidding !

New instructors will by neccessity only be able to demonstrate the method they were taught on their FI course and so students who are struggling may not be best served by a low time instructor. In these cases it is important that the FI get the CFI involved early so the student doesn't get stalled.

One aspect that has not been mentioned is how short the FI course actually is , especially the ground portion. IMO there is no way you can fully prepare anyone to competantly teach every lesson in only 25 hrs.

Big Pistons Forever wrote:For example if I was looking for the float rating as a low time pilot and there was a choice of float instructors, one with a 1000hrs which was a mixture of charter flying and float instruction, and the other had 5000 hrs but had never taught a float rating, I would recomend the 1000 hr guy/gal. .

Thank you. Hoping to get my first float time in June or September this year.
Officially a 150 hour wonder now,

LF

In fifty years of teaching people flying skills the very best aid I have used is the camcorder.

The visual and aural record of what was just done teaches not only the student but I can learn where I can improve my techniques and delivery.

One of the most important issues that improves your ability to transfer information to the student smoothly and clearly is tone of voice.

The camcorder record will help you fine tune your delivery.

What is it SPECIFICALLY that makes the high-time instructors that much better?

Who said high time instructors are better?

What makes a high time instructor better is proper feeding, enough sleep, and a feeling of satisfaction with his/her job, and very importantly a born with skill in instruction.
IMHO there are natural teachers and there are people taught to teach.
If you have no natural ability to teach this subject you can still get the Instructor Rating to allow you to build hours while not being very effective at all.
If you have natural ability and a willingness to learn yourself then you can be a very effective teacher regardless of your experience.

Being a high time instructor myself I can say that there are many who like me, and a few who hate me, and our Russian student even complained about me on this forum
But I can tell you that this life is not an easy one. You live almost the life of a monk, there's little money to spend especially if like me you like to travel. You can feel like a tool, brought out in the morning utilised all day and then put away at night... Give, give, give... To do this job properly you give, and you feel a failure sometimes because you do what you do and there's no bright future for you regardless of how senior you become. Same money, poor money, poor state of life.
So experienced instructors can be sad instructors, and so it is easy to be less than ideal.

I quit this life in 2005, went to park cars and do security on film sets for five times the money. It puts your profession into perspective when you see what uneducated people can earn while doing something inane.
I went back to it with BPIAA and the pollution in China could have killed me!

Now I have a better situation, not bad pay but still far from a 'living' wage for my time of life.
I have enthusiastic and popular instructors working under me and I can use my experience to increase their effectiveness.
So it's not a bad thing to have less experienced instructors because with my help they can be more effective than I am myself at times!

Experience enables you to quote from personal experience, "it happened to me", or "I saw it happen". This experience is important to the decision making process which is essential to every pilot.

What I try to instil in the instructor is the ability to give a lively briefing above and beyond the written word... Most students can read, but all students get a better understanding through visual means. I want instructors to be illustrators as well as talkers and to not have hugely complicated board plans.

For 'range and endurance' we have a Mitsubishi Zero model here.... This aircraft launches across the Pacific and flies at best range to get to it's target, has enough fuel to fight a bit, then when the fuel gauge shows a certain amount it's time to go back to the carrier.
Problem is that a Catalina spotted the Japanese carriers and the Americans went out and sunk two of them.
Now our Zero needs to wait it's turn to land on one of the remaining carriers and so flies at best endurance to save petrol.
Meanwhile the Catalina has had a few holes shot in it's fuel tanks and is flying home low level to use surface effect (ground effect) to go as far as possible with minimum fuel use.

In the above example a whole picture is created that illustrates the points of the lesson and a real understanding is developed. It's not textbook stuff, but I don't think instructors should simply be textbook reciters!

The range and endurance lesson is preceded by homework using the aircraft's POH/AFM... Too many students fail to see why there are so many different cruise figures until they find that 75% power might save petrol as well as time in a headwind. Almost every student uses something like 2,300RPM in a Cessna 152 for their PPL flight test planning... I'm sure they would impress the examiners if they used a power setting appropriate for the wind and so underline the understanding of the range and endurance lesson.
Afterwards, especially for the private owner and the future CPL, they learn that saving two gallons of gas while spending another $25 per hour for maintenance, and $20 an hour for engine overhaul is not necessarily good economics!

So experience is bringing the student to a full understanding while preparing that student for the real world in a way a textbook can't.
An experienced Chief Flying Instructor's responsibility is to help the instructors to pass on the benefit of his/her experience and those keen less experienced instructors can thereby do a very effective job.

[quote="star57"][quote="Cat Driver"][quote]

I had one Instructor, that cut the power and slamed on the brakes in the midle of the Runway and yelled at the top of her lungs "YOU WILL NEVER, NEVER , EVER, SOLO UNLESS YOU KEEP THE PLANE STRAIGHT IN THE RUNWAY"
I soloed the day after....
On another occasion we almost crashed 60 feet above runaway 16 because she decided to take control without the key words " I have control " we were hanging by a thread at around 50KIAS

Made me chuckle Star, I see old 'D' is still leaving the long-lasting memories!

Why are you quoting me for that post?

Time is irrelevant when it comes to quality of instruction. I can think of several very high time instructors that I wouldn't let teach my dog to sit let alone trust them to teach aviation to anyone that matters to me. One of those individuals has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads so I'll leave it at that. I have also seen some very talented instructors where the ink was barely dry on their licenses. The only advantage a high timer has on a newbie is as someone has already said, "experience"; but if they can't effectively impart that experience to their student they may as well not even be there.

The only advantage a high timer has on a newbie is as someone has already said, "experience"; but if they can't effectively impart that experience to their student they may as well not even be there.

And that should end this subject because it is the bottom line.

I'll give it a bit more, Cat.

If I sense anything weird, I'll request the thread to be locked, but we might get get a bit more nuggets of info. I'm always up for new info.

Oh, and thanks for the specifics MichaelP. The Zero and Catalina scenario is a neat way of presenting information!

-istp