Leading by example.

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:46 am

Cat Driver wrote:I can turn out a high level of skills and knowlege canditate for the PPL in 30 hours of flight training...but I would have to use my own methods and not be required to conform to the TC requirements.

So here is the question:

Why does it take about 60 to 80 hours to get a PPL the TC way?

Doc wrote:Yes, if you gave me a 22 year old "standard" student, with an IQ at least in double digits, with no plans for a couple of weeks, I could do him in 30 hours. One on one always works best.
My thoughts, at least....there is way more to this than poor instructing. The whole infrastructure is working against the student.

Cat - I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think Doc hit it on the head here. I believe the overall 'infrastructure' (if that's the right term), plays a huge role.

Look at the Air Cadets (power scholarship) as an example: They do a PPL pretty well at the minimum hours requirement. They do it in the span of (I believe its still 7) weeks. Every student gets 'x' number of hours / flights, with very little leeway for any additional flight time for those who may be struggling. And yet they have a very high success rate.

This program utilizes normal, every day flying-club type instructors, teaching the TC syllabus ... the big difference is doing it in a far more structured & dedicated manner; as compared with your on-again / off-again, once a week student.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:00 am

Look at the Air Cadets (power scholarship) as an example: They do a PPL pretty well at the minimum hours requirement. They do it in the span of (I believe its still 7) weeks. Every student gets 'x' number of hours / flights, with very little leeway for any additional flight time for those who may be struggling. And yet they have a very high success rate.

The other thing to note is to win the power scholarship the entry exam demands a groundschool knowledge past the ppl standard. The entry exam is written by CF pilots. The end result is the student has a very good understanding of the task well before the lesson. How much time is wasted in the average training lesson because the student does not understand the concept before they get into the a/c

During the Air Cadet program if you fail the pre-solo check you get 1 re-ride. fail again you get a bus ticket home. Same for the actual flight test 1 retry. As for the TC written fail 1 or 2 section (out of 5 I think) and you can retry once. Fail 3 and you get that bus ticket home - the next day.

everyone was soloed in 10-15 hrs and max flight time was 55 hrs for the ppl.

(it should be noted that many cadets had glider licenses before powered training and the glider program is structured the same way)

More emphasis need to be put on the ground school.

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:30 am

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that they are much better prepared (as far as groundschool / theoretical knowledge). I think the answer to Cat's question "Why does it take about 60 to 80 hours to get a PPL the TC way?", is that it doesn't .... well, not necessarily.

When it comes to actual in-air lessons, the cadet program is largly based on the TC syllabus, and the instructors are normal TC qualified instructors. The difference is in the overall structure of the program, as far as groundschool & briefings. The air cadet scholarship student is far better prepared for each individual flight, and so whats taught in the air is of greater value to them (they get 'more bang for the buck', if you will).

In addition to the groundschool / entrance exam ... I strongly believe that the addition of the DND/CF "Plan -> Brief -> Execute (or Fly) -> DeBrief" method and the use of Prog cards adds a huge amount of value to the training. Much of the learning happens in the detailed pre & post flight briefs.

I know from the gliding world; that the difference between the training at a cadet RGS vs. SAC clubs are like night and day. This is due to how the training program is executed - rather than the how/what is taught in the cockpit. From an instructing point of view, the teaching points & methods used in the air are more or less the same.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:33 am

In the private sector, 30 to 40 hours is sadly considered normal for time-to-solo, and 80 to 120 hours is normal for time-to-ppl.

Pretty dreadful, but you have to realize that flight schools (and civilian instructors) have absolutely no motiviation whatsoever to lower those numbers - in fact, the opposite is true.

Civilian instructors typically like to spend excessive time with students for 3 reasons:

1) revenue
2) bulk up the instructor's logbook, and
3) to ensure that their student cannot possibly fail the flight test because of the draconian fallout for the instructor (rating revocation by Transport).

Transport couldn't care less about time to solo, or time to licence ... as long as they don't get blamed when something bad happens, they're happy.

If you're a really good civilian instructor, and you spend less time with your students, you are punished for it because you don't get the same $$$ and hours as a lousy instructor. That, combined with the crappy instructor pay rate, is why no one sticks around instructing for a moment longer than they are forced to.

I think flat-rating is a wonderful idea, though most people run screaming when you mention X dollars for a ppl, Y dollars for a night rating, etc.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:58 am

" 3) to ensure that their student cannot possibly fail the flight test because of the draconian fallout for the instructor (rating revocation by Transport). "

Oh how true, when I owned my flight school the fear of TC that my instructors displayed was incredible.

One day three of their finest ( TC Flight Training ) showed up from Ottawa on a swing around the schools, the fear my instructors displayed could be smelled in the air and they cowed meekly to every question asked by these goons.

I finally had enough of their arrogant attitude when one of them started on me, it did not take long and I kicked their asses of my property, the weather had gone to hell and they couldn't fly, so I made them move the helicopter off my property as they were tresspassing.

The instructors were beyond fear by that time and I thought I would have to pay for councelling for them to get them out of the state of catonic shock they were in.

Funny thing I never ever heard from the goons from Ottawa again.

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:37 am

Cat,

Is that a WagAero cub you are building?

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:56 am

Can I just ask a question here? Am I hearing an INSTRUCTOR say that he is INTRODUCING students to instrument flight with instrument failures and spirals? Do I have this correct? On top of the engine-handling stuff I just read (pictures of crankshaft counterweights dancing in my head), I have to say my day is ruined. Have at 'em, Cat, you can sign my name with yours too.

I'm going to have my coffee and a lie-down now.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:44 pm

"
Cat,

Is that a WagAero cub you are building? "

Kilo kilo, no I started with a Super Cub fuselage that needed about 30% of the tubing replaced, then built the tail feathers from Wag Aero plans.

Right now I am building the wings, which I bought in kit form from Wag Aero.....

Not sure yet what engine I will use, maybe the Jabiru 6 cyl. 120 HP.

I also hope I can sell the Aerobat so I can buy the stuff I still need.

It would be nice to have it finished for the coming summer.

It would be nice if TC paid me the money they owe me, but that is dreaming.

Cat

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:55 pm

Guys, the point of this thread was to try and get the forum back on track and offer some advice to novice flight instructors. In that spirit:
With respect to the use of engine power to demonstrate yaw: provide you apply the 5 second rule, (make sure that any large throttle movement takes at least 5 seconds), and keep the RPM above 1700, there will be enough heat in the engine to prevent shock cooling. I ran this by the AME at my first FTU and he said that this would be harmless to a typical single engine trainer. He had a great deal of grey in his hair so I am inclined to believe him.

On a different subject and in furtherance of the original thread, here is another thing that a novice instructor should consider.

The lessons on range, slow flight and landing are often taught in isolation. There is a common thread running through them, and it really helps students if they are made aware of it. All three of these lessons are linked by the drag curves. Range introduces the idea that there is a certain speed at which drag is minimum, slow flight extends this idea and shows that the induced drag increases very sharply as speed falls below that for best range. The lesson on landing should build on these ideas. It is a good idea to start by pointing out that the usual approach speed for a light single engine is just above the speed for best range. It should further be pointed out that as the a/c enters the flare and the speed falls, the a/c slides back on the drag curve and the total drag increases sharply, thus helping to slow the a/c. This helps the student to understand the importance of staying in the approach speed envelope. This importance can be further emphasised by discussing what would happen if the a/c were to approach at too high of an airspeed. As the a/c comes into the flare and the speed drops, the drag actually decreases. This leads to the familiar float-bounce-balloon troubles. On the other hand, if the a/c is too slow, it is so far back on the power curve that as it enters the flare, drag increases so sharply that it cannot arrest the rate of descent. This leads to the ‘carrier style’ landings.
Giving students a good understanding of this subject will help them understand why things are done the way they are done. This in-turn gives them a better respect for the importance of speed control, and leads to a better ‘How’ to do a landing.

Anyone else have a teaching tip, or question that they want to bat around? This would be a good place to do it.

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:56 pm

Cat Driver wrote:
Kilo kilo, no I started with a Super Cub fuselage that needed about 30% of the tubing replaced, then built the tail feathers from Wag Aero plans.

Cat

Is the tubing mild steel, or 4130? I'm curious because I've been looking at building a WagAero or Starduster after I get my shop built and was wondering about some of the welding details from another builder like yourself. As a machinist, I know 4130 should be normalized in a furnace after welding, but there is no mention of that on the PDF literature I downloaded from Starduster.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:20 pm

Many people just TIG the 4130 clusters and call it a day, but it's not a bad idea to take an oxy-acet torch and heat the completed cluster up - still in the jig, of course!

That works well for getting rid of exhaust cracks, too.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:38 pm

it's 4130.

I made a steel frame to bolt the forard section to and all the welding is with a Henrob torch oxy / asc.

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:44 pm

Thanks guys. I was thinking of tacking all the joints with a Mig and then getting a pro (friend of mine) to Tig it all. I know that totally migging the job without normalizing could prove disastrous.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:00 pm

" Thanks guys. I was thinking of tacking all the joints with a Mig and then getting a pro (friend of mine) to Tig it all. I know that totally migging the job without normalizing could prove disastrous. "

Excellent decision, I get all my critical parts welded by a friend who is a welder, I'm a gynocologist.

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:05 pm

Do you have a favorite homebuilder website/forum you would be willing to share?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:20 pm

Here you go, anything you ever wanted to know about Cubs can be found here.

http://www.supercub.org/

They also have a home builders forum if you scroll down.

Cat

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:36 pm

Tack the fuselage yourself, then get a pro to weld the clusters. Hard to go wrong with that.

After a while you will be welding your own clusters - oxy/acet, mig or tig, it really doesn't matter, they're so incredibly strong, if you pull +25G, everything else on the airplane will probably break before the fuselage will.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:20 pm

mcrit wrote:
The lessons on range, slow flight and landing are often taught in isolation. There is a common thread running through them, and it really helps students if they are made aware of it.

There's no reason for lessons to be taught in isolation unless the student is having problems; usually they're just plain too nervous, lacking in self confidence. Back when I used to do ab-initio, range and endurance was followed by slow flight; all in the same lesson. Stalls and spins fit together quite nicely; and steep turns and spirals do as well. It saves the student money and the progression from one to the other is easy for them to follow.

chipmunk · Post by **chipmunk** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:55 pm

I don't think any lesson should be taught in isolation. Each lesson relates to another lesson, and each lesson can (and should) be related to "real life."

I think it's very easy for instructors to be lazy and just aim to get the general lesson itself completed, with little or no thought or care on how it relates to other lessons/reality and how they can continually keep the student doing something that involves learning. It's so easy to sit back and fly out to the practice area in silence, when it's valuable time and money saved for the student if you put it to use for teaching a little airmanship, nav, weather, traffic scanning, VOR stuff... tons of stuff. (The FIG actually has a list of suggestions of what you can do during this "ferry" time...) Pull out a book or two... brush up on some little bits of knowledge you've forgotten as the months have gone by... go flying with an old timer and get some pointers and a different perspective... go flying or talk with another (perhaps more experienced) instructor... don't get stuck in a RUT!

It's hard when your paycheque is less than desirable, but seriously, put your heart into it and give a sh&t.

I always tell people to treat instructing as an interview for your next job - it likely will come from a former co-worker's recommendation, which you will not get if you don't try your best at your current job.

...My more than 2 cents, and sorry for the bit of off-topic-ness towards the end.

Oh and another tip, since we're talking about tips - cover up the airspeed indicator at LEAST once during a student's flight training and make the student fly attitudes. I find this particularly useful in the circuit (lots of numbers to be chased there) and after the student has started to work on Instrument flying.

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:59 pm

Doc wrote:Smaller schools. Higher time instructors. Higher cost to students. More pay to instructors. This is the only way to stop the "puppy mills"!

But that might mean fewer pilots.....what would we do when the dreaded pilot shortage hits!?!?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:41 pm

" Oh and another tip, since we're talking about tips - cover up the airspeed indicator at LEAST once during a student's flight training and make the student fly attitudes. "

Even better tape a map or something over the whole instrument panel so the student can not see anything on the panel.

Airspeed chasing is one of the most frustrating bad habits that I find in many pilots.

It is amazing that these basic fundamental teaching methods are even discussed here on a flight training forum.

Just amazing.

What do they teach these people during the flight instructors course, life threatening things like where to find the intercept orders?

AntiNakedMan · Post by **AntiNakedMan** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:50 pm

Edo wrote:The other thing to note is to win the power scholarship the entry exam demands a groundschool knowledge past the ppl standard. The entry exam is written by CF pilots.

I have to disagree with you on that one, the entry exam is there to prove that an individual has dedicated the time to learn foreign material; if the exam was that tough why do the cadets spend the first 3 weeks in ground school for their PPL?

The entry exam, like the selection board process, is an arbitrary standard used to select the most promising candidates for the course. When I'm going to be asking the questions in the selection board I'm not necessarily marking the persons answer so much as their attitude and visible response.

Anti

Stan_Cooper · Post by **Stan_Cooper** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:49 pm

xsbank wrote:Can I just ask a question here? Am I hearing an INSTRUCTOR say that he is INTRODUCING students to instrument flight with instrument failures and spirals? Do I have this correct? On top of the engine-handling stuff I just read (pictures of crankshaft counterweights dancing in my head), I have to say my day is ruined. Have at 'em, Cat, you can sign my name with yours too.

I'm going to have my coffee and a lie-down now.

xsbank:

No, you did not hear me say that. Usually reserved it for a bad weather day with a student who already has a good handle on full and partial panel instrument flying (or needle ball airspeed I think Cat called it.)

When I said it was during the 'basic instrument flying' stage, I just meant that we're not actually doing IFR yet.

Top marks for diplomacy though. Enjoy your nap.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:42 pm

I have a Q:

You cruise USA FTU web pages and find there are alot of older instructors...Im talking 40+ atleast. I know there are way more FTU's in the states...but for the most part, clicking on a page it seems theres atleast 2-3 instructors per company that appear to have seen it all...either military or airline flying experience downwards.

In Canada, obviosly not the same...almost totally opposite right?

My question is, what is so different that we can't follow this same path of the USA? Or what made us take the opposite approach? And hearing TC is phucked or the pay thing doesnt cut it. A FTU on either side of the border incures costs, and yet theyre so different no? Does it tie into Supply/Demand?

This isnt a troll post...someone must have some explanation...I personally am interested in reading (hense the Q I guess). If I am wrong though, and the majority of FI's in the states are young, correct me too.

Because Im sure everyone here, if they had to re-start training would rather learn from some old fart whose been around the block. I love to fly, I know if I ever made it to the airlines, was forced to retire...I would personally teach afterwards in my spare time. Im also surprised you dont see alot like this. Interested in reading some responses.

Cheers

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:17 am

" And hearing TC is phucked or the pay thing doesnt cut it. A FTU on either side of the border incures costs, and yet theyre so different no? Does it tie into Supply/Demand? "

Lets see if we can connect some dots for you Pete.

Flight training is regulated by TC in Canada.

Flight training is regulated by the FAA in the USA.

Flight schools in Canada have to comply with the mountains of paper work and other B.S. that is demanded by TC, and you must have approval under their dictates to operate a training business.

So do some research and see if there is a difference between the two.

In Canada there is a subliminal mindset within TC flight training that encourages those with no exerience to be instructors, makes it easier for the talent that TC hires to bully them into their way of doing things.

If you do not like my answer go start your own FTU spend a few years dealing with the system and get back to me.

The pay is low due to the low experience level of the instructor pool, if you can't grasp that I can't help you.