I will start with just a couple of suggestions as to what I would change.
This will eventually turn into a mish mash of different ideas and we will be right back where we started anyhow.
Well first I would make it manditory that every flight instructor be qualified on tail wheel airplanes, just to put a little meaning into being an instructor.
As it now stands if flying schools were in the era before the Wright brothers and they were bicycle riding schools most of the riding instructors could only teach on tricycles, the student would have to find another instructor to teach them to ride a two wheel bicycle.
Then I would get rid of the five hours of instrument training that is now manditory.
That would save a lot of hours of training because they would be taught how to fly visual first.
I do not believe that five hours of instrument training is beneficial, any non instrument rated pilot who is stupid enough to fly into clouds is only conforming to natures method of culling the gene pool.
If this does not start an unrecoverable slagging match I have lots more suggestions.....
Cat
If I were in charge
Moderators: Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
If I were in charge
Last edited by Cat Driver on Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
N2 :
We will get to that, believe me I have some suggestions there.....
As now structured flight training does not come anywhere near giving quality instruction for ever increasing cost....
It does of course get more and more bogged down with useless conformity to ever expanding paper work and mindless crap coming out of the regulator...
But first lets just discuss the actual teaching of flying the damn airplane.
Because if we can get into talking about actually flying an airplane that will completly baffel a lot of your inspectors and they will be kept out of the conversation.
Cat
We will get to that, believe me I have some suggestions there.....
As now structured flight training does not come anywhere near giving quality instruction for ever increasing cost....
It does of course get more and more bogged down with useless conformity to ever expanding paper work and mindless crap coming out of the regulator...
But first lets just discuss the actual teaching of flying the damn airplane.
Because if we can get into talking about actually flying an airplane that will completly baffel a lot of your inspectors and they will be kept out of the conversation.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I agree with Cat Driver, that every instructor should be tailwheel qualified. It must be annoying to be Class 1 and say to yourself, that you can't fly half of the airplanes at the airport. Tailwheel will teach you how to fly airplanes as opposed to just one airplane.
everybody should live in the bush
Although I personally like the idea of requiring 5 hours of tailwheel (dual) for every instructor, that may be difficult or impossible to obtain in some places. Very few tailwheel aircraft are used for instruction, anywhere.
I might suggest the "5 hour" requirement could be fulfilled by any combination of 5 hours dual flight in any of the following:
1) tailwheel (land)
2) glider
3) floatplane
4) skiplane
5 hours of dual in any of the above will remarkably improve a pilot's stick and rudder skills.
I also agree that allowing a 250 hour pilot to teach other pilots is pretty bizarre. Requiring say 1000 hours to get an instructor rating would not only improve the quality of instruction, it would vastly decrease the number of time-building, inexperienced instructors, which basic economics tells us will increase the price per hour that instructors would earn. Wouldn't it be nice if instructors could actually earn enough to live above the poverty line?
Really, though, we're just all jerking off here. Why would Transport do anything that makes sense? Why would it change?
I might suggest the "5 hour" requirement could be fulfilled by any combination of 5 hours dual flight in any of the following:
1) tailwheel (land)
2) glider
3) floatplane
4) skiplane
5 hours of dual in any of the above will remarkably improve a pilot's stick and rudder skills.
I also agree that allowing a 250 hour pilot to teach other pilots is pretty bizarre. Requiring say 1000 hours to get an instructor rating would not only improve the quality of instruction, it would vastly decrease the number of time-building, inexperienced instructors, which basic economics tells us will increase the price per hour that instructors would earn. Wouldn't it be nice if instructors could actually earn enough to live above the poverty line?
Really, though, we're just all jerking off here. Why would Transport do anything that makes sense? Why would it change?
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
N2 :
Yup the more we hold them in utter contempt the better our chances of cleaning out the morons and getting some intelligent people running their show..
So keep it up, you can think of yourself as an ambassador of sanity...but don't forget to make sure that I get credit for inciting contempt for their present gang of goons that run the organization, I want em to know that I am to old a cat to be screwed by kittens...
Cat
Yup the more we hold them in utter contempt the better our chances of cleaning out the morons and getting some intelligent people running their show..
So keep it up, you can think of yourself as an ambassador of sanity...but don't forget to make sure that I get credit for inciting contempt for their present gang of goons that run the organization, I want em to know that I am to old a cat to be screwed by kittens...
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Don't worry Cat I give credit where credit is due!
Attitudes and movements..hmmm the way they teach that now is move over to the cash register and never mind the attitude!
Attitudes and movements..hmmm the way they teach that now is move over to the cash register and never mind the attitude!
Last edited by N2 on Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Yes, but there is still room for the class fours they just need to be given progressive sections of the lessons and moved up as their skills are honed.
For instance, I feel that the basics are lacking in that attitudes and movements are not completly understood by the students and they are moved along without completely understanding the subject.
When we received our instructors ratings in the fifties TC had a patter for attitudes and movements that we learned and taught, we did not move on to another lesson until the student could fly the attitucdes and movements with their eyes closed.
Cat
For instance, I feel that the basics are lacking in that attitudes and movements are not completly understood by the students and they are moved along without completely understanding the subject.
When we received our instructors ratings in the fifties TC had a patter for attitudes and movements that we learned and taught, we did not move on to another lesson until the student could fly the attitucdes and movements with their eyes closed.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5956
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I agree that lots of new commercial pilots don't have the idea of attitude.
I see them chasing the airspeed by changing attitude on the approach. It comes to them as a surprise, that you could actually hold a steady attitude and adjust the airspeed with the power. There don't seem to be any exceptions. Interesting.
I see them chasing the airspeed by changing attitude on the approach. It comes to them as a surprise, that you could actually hold a steady attitude and adjust the airspeed with the power. There don't seem to be any exceptions. Interesting.
everybody should live in the bush
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Yes, suvivor it started about fifteen or so years ago.
When you have a regulator stuck in the stone age there must be a corresponding dumming down of the instructor pool.
All it takes are a couple of flying skills ignorant missfits in a position to "regulate" and down goes the quality.
I find it interesting that it takes an internet forum to identify there is a lack of flying skills in todays general pilot pool.
The question is can a higher level of instructional skills be brought back or is the industry doomed to follow the TC Ottawa culture?
Have any of you ever went to their top guy in Ottawa and asked why these concerns exist in the industry?
Have a go at him and let me know what results you receive.
He knows we are discussing these concerns, because I told him to look here.
Cat
When you have a regulator stuck in the stone age there must be a corresponding dumming down of the instructor pool.
All it takes are a couple of flying skills ignorant missfits in a position to "regulate" and down goes the quality.
I find it interesting that it takes an internet forum to identify there is a lack of flying skills in todays general pilot pool.
The question is can a higher level of instructional skills be brought back or is the industry doomed to follow the TC Ottawa culture?
Have any of you ever went to their top guy in Ottawa and asked why these concerns exist in the industry?
Have a go at him and let me know what results you receive.
He knows we are discussing these concerns, because I told him to look here.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Can someone do a poll for me on should we drop the five hour instrument time from the PPL, so pilots learn to fly visual.
I am am not all that good at working a computer.
This way we can all comment by either yes or no.....
Then we can move on to some more suggestions on how to improve flight training.
Remember TC does read these forums and if enough sand is thrown into their gears we can grind them down.
Cat
I am am not all that good at working a computer.
This way we can all comment by either yes or no.....
Then we can move on to some more suggestions on how to improve flight training.
Remember TC does read these forums and if enough sand is thrown into their gears we can grind them down.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
shimmydampner
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
[quote="ndb"]
I also agree that allowing a 250 hour pilot to teach other pilots is pretty bizarre. Requiring say 1000 hours to get an instructor rating would not only improve the quality of instruction, it would vastly decrease the number of time-building, inexperienced instructors, [quote]
Agreed. But (I know this isn't the main thrust of the topic here) then where are low-time commercial pilots supposed to get jobs. They are certainly few and far between, whether it's the bush or instructing. There are too many new pilots out there and nowhere for them to go. So, even though they may not be suited for it, some end up instructing either because they can't get a bush job or just aren't cut out for the associated hard labour. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out a potential contributing factor to the problem--the aviation industry is shite right now if you're just starting out.
I also agree that allowing a 250 hour pilot to teach other pilots is pretty bizarre. Requiring say 1000 hours to get an instructor rating would not only improve the quality of instruction, it would vastly decrease the number of time-building, inexperienced instructors, [quote]
Agreed. But (I know this isn't the main thrust of the topic here) then where are low-time commercial pilots supposed to get jobs. They are certainly few and far between, whether it's the bush or instructing. There are too many new pilots out there and nowhere for them to go. So, even though they may not be suited for it, some end up instructing either because they can't get a bush job or just aren't cut out for the associated hard labour. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out a potential contributing factor to the problem--the aviation industry is shite right now if you're just starting out.
It's easy. If you require 1000 hours to be a flight instructor, schools would soon be paying far more for flight instructors. The price of instruction would go up, and less people would get their licences. Eventually all the time building instructors would be gone and companies would have to lower their minimum requirements and hire guys who are building time to get their instructor rating. So we would be in exactly the same boat, shite wages for the low timers, better as you get more experience, but perhaps with better instruction and less competition.
However this is never going to happen as it would flip the whole bottom part of the industry upside down. Imagine trying to get a 1000 hour guy who makes $24 000 a year flying a King Air to quit and pay big money to get an instructor rating. How much would you have to pay him to get him to quit? Especially since the King Air time is far more useful to getting a good job. We would go from having instructors just there to build time to having instructors just there to build up a bank roll before they go back to the poorly paid charter job. Sounds insane doesn't it?
ahramin
However this is never going to happen as it would flip the whole bottom part of the industry upside down. Imagine trying to get a 1000 hour guy who makes $24 000 a year flying a King Air to quit and pay big money to get an instructor rating. How much would you have to pay him to get him to quit? Especially since the King Air time is far more useful to getting a good job. We would go from having instructors just there to build time to having instructors just there to build up a bank roll before they go back to the poorly paid charter job. Sounds insane doesn't it?
ahramin
-
I'd Rather Be Flying
- Rank 3
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:24 am
- Location: This island earth.
Tail wheel time is great experience (nobody can argue that). Those pilot's who I've trained from zero time in a tail-dragger absolutely have better 'hands on stick and rudder skills' than those who train in nose draggers. I wish schools had more of that. I learned in an Aeronca Champ.
As for the five hours hood time...I think it is valuable to a point for the PPL. What they should change is the requirement to have actual IMC for the instrument rating (or possibly some actual for the CPL). That would expose pilots to the real thing and drive the point home more effectively than cruising around with the hood on.
My 2 cents.
As for the five hours hood time...I think it is valuable to a point for the PPL. What they should change is the requirement to have actual IMC for the instrument rating (or possibly some actual for the CPL). That would expose pilots to the real thing and drive the point home more effectively than cruising around with the hood on.
My 2 cents.
"Come down, your head is in the sky, feet on the ground...come down."
OK so where do we go from here? How does an industry transform itself into what we think it should be? (whatever that is)
Ahramin, I think you're absolutely right. How does a flight school keep a 1000-2500hr pilot as an instructor, paying him $18/hr for peice work? The way I see things now, the "blind leading the blind" theory is simply a case of a Class 4 teaching you the standards to get a CPL, which will make you "eligeable" to work as pilot. If you get a job next, you pick up your learning there, do another groundschool, get some more experience, and that repeats itself for the next 25 years or so.
Is that the right way? I'm certainly not educated enough to say one way or the other. Would this country benefit from a more "European" model of training? Will we have a choice?
TC's "FLIGHT 2005" is apparently an attempt to increase aviation safety, but if they meet thier goal it will be because they reduced aviation. This, combined with insurance and other governmental policies make it seem like there will be two dozen FTU's in this country in 5 years time, the only one's left will be the bigger college schools that could afford to keep taking the hit, because the 'mom & pops' will have packed up by then.
So while this has some unfortunate implications for general aviation, maybe it has some positive ones for flight training? Fewer schools will mean that it will be more competitive to become a pilot, and that flight training will be more expensive than it is now. Maybe it will become easier to maintain instructor training standards if they can only get an instructor rating at 1 of 20 flight schools int he country, rather 150? Perhaps an improved ICPL would become the standard, where you have to do a certain amount of taildragger, float, glider time, etc...
Everyone has an opinion as to what would be better for them, but I really have no idea what would be better for the industry in the long run. I see benefits in training fewer pilots but focus on training them well, even at a higher cost to the student, and that student being able to move into a flying position shortly after their training. Having said that, I know that there are a lot fo people here that are against that idea, due largely to the fact that they got some marginal training, had to figure a lot of this out on their own, and bust their ass oin a dock or a ramp to get where they are now, and so should the next guy.
What's better for the industry in the long run? If you know the answer, you may be a better man than I.[/b]
Ahramin, I think you're absolutely right. How does a flight school keep a 1000-2500hr pilot as an instructor, paying him $18/hr for peice work? The way I see things now, the "blind leading the blind" theory is simply a case of a Class 4 teaching you the standards to get a CPL, which will make you "eligeable" to work as pilot. If you get a job next, you pick up your learning there, do another groundschool, get some more experience, and that repeats itself for the next 25 years or so.
Is that the right way? I'm certainly not educated enough to say one way or the other. Would this country benefit from a more "European" model of training? Will we have a choice?
TC's "FLIGHT 2005" is apparently an attempt to increase aviation safety, but if they meet thier goal it will be because they reduced aviation. This, combined with insurance and other governmental policies make it seem like there will be two dozen FTU's in this country in 5 years time, the only one's left will be the bigger college schools that could afford to keep taking the hit, because the 'mom & pops' will have packed up by then.
So while this has some unfortunate implications for general aviation, maybe it has some positive ones for flight training? Fewer schools will mean that it will be more competitive to become a pilot, and that flight training will be more expensive than it is now. Maybe it will become easier to maintain instructor training standards if they can only get an instructor rating at 1 of 20 flight schools int he country, rather 150? Perhaps an improved ICPL would become the standard, where you have to do a certain amount of taildragger, float, glider time, etc...
Everyone has an opinion as to what would be better for them, but I really have no idea what would be better for the industry in the long run. I see benefits in training fewer pilots but focus on training them well, even at a higher cost to the student, and that student being able to move into a flying position shortly after their training. Having said that, I know that there are a lot fo people here that are against that idea, due largely to the fact that they got some marginal training, had to figure a lot of this out on their own, and bust their ass oin a dock or a ramp to get where they are now, and so should the next guy.
What's better for the industry in the long run? If you know the answer, you may be a better man than I.[/b]
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I knew this would end up going all over hell so I'll ride along.
Wearing a hood is so unnatural that it should be banned from use.
Why not berak their arms or something just as unnatural. When wearing a hood it is a very unnatural view you are getting of the true conditions in instrument flying.
There are two ways to fly instruments in a natural enviorement or close to it.
Fly in cloud or use two stage amber.
There is no way on this earth that I would fly an instrument check ride wearing a hood....it will never happen.
Wearing a hood when flying is worse than making love to a blow up doll.
Cat
Wearing a hood is so unnatural that it should be banned from use.
Why not berak their arms or something just as unnatural. When wearing a hood it is a very unnatural view you are getting of the true conditions in instrument flying.
There are two ways to fly instruments in a natural enviorement or close to it.
Fly in cloud or use two stage amber.
There is no way on this earth that I would fly an instrument check ride wearing a hood....it will never happen.
Wearing a hood when flying is worse than making love to a blow up doll.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
I'd Rather Be Flying
- Rank 3
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:24 am
- Location: This island earth.
CAPGEN brings up some valid points. I'm all for training less pilots. Sure, there would be less instructors, but they would be better instructors. And the students would have more adequate training. Those who wanted to move up the ranks could do so and they too would be better educated. No over-saturated market.
In Scandanavia, that's what they do...only train a certain number of people. Then, when those pilots have jobs, they advertise for people to start training. It's a good idea.
Some thoughts to ponder...
In Scandanavia, that's what they do...only train a certain number of people. Then, when those pilots have jobs, they advertise for people to start training. It's a good idea.
Some thoughts to ponder...
"Come down, your head is in the sky, feet on the ground...come down."
Just for the record though, I'm not attempting to make a case for restricting the number of licenses. My point is simply that the market is limiting itself, in that fewer operators would only be able to train so many pilots per year. While I do have some issues with imcompetent and ignorant pilots above me, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with the guys that I have met expecting to be spoon-fed their training and when they finish say "ok, which King Air is mine?"
But again, I think that maybe on this smaller scale of training, you implement something like the ICPL that they're trying to make work right now, and it would become the standard commercial pilot training in the country. Canada has such a wealth of aviation knowledge and history, there is such potential to becoem a real world leader in this area, a lot like th NATO program in Moose Jaw.
But again, I think that maybe on this smaller scale of training, you implement something like the ICPL that they're trying to make work right now, and it would become the standard commercial pilot training in the country. Canada has such a wealth of aviation knowledge and history, there is such potential to becoem a real world leader in this area, a lot like th NATO program in Moose Jaw.
-
shimmydampner
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Sure does.ahramin wrote:It's easy. If you require 1000 hours to be a flight instructor, schools would soon be paying far more for flight instructors. The price of instruction would go up, and less people would get their licences.
Sounds insane doesn't it?
ahramin
So as the price of instruction goes up more and more people are discouraged from flying. Just because someone has the cash to train doesn't mean they'll be a good pilot. I know that's not what you are saying, but consider the fact that the person who decides not to become a pilot because they can't afford it, may have been the next . Yeager, or better yet, the next Cat Driver. (
)I agree, too many pilots, I said it before. But making flying more expensive isn't good for any of us.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Well look at this we are getting some real genuine discussion going..
Thanks Capgen for your thoughtful input to go along with the rest of the guys here ( guys as in unisex )
The integrated commercial has been a big flop from what I can find out due to excessive paper work involved to satisfy TC....
But hey with any luck J.D. from Ottawa might get involved here and set us straight...
Remember I am only some has been that really does not understand all the ins and outs of the game, so my thoughts on this may be way out to lunch....
For sure J.D. could enlighten me.
Anyhow good on all of you at least there is intrest in improving the industry.
So lets keep at it..............
Cat
Thanks Capgen for your thoughtful input to go along with the rest of the guys here ( guys as in unisex )
The integrated commercial has been a big flop from what I can find out due to excessive paper work involved to satisfy TC....
But hey with any luck J.D. from Ottawa might get involved here and set us straight...
Remember I am only some has been that really does not understand all the ins and outs of the game, so my thoughts on this may be way out to lunch....
For sure J.D. could enlighten me.
Anyhow good on all of you at least there is intrest in improving the industry.
So lets keep at it..............
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I think you've got the right idea going here... For sure the tail wheel time should be mandatory.Cat Driver wrote:...so my thoughts on this may be way out to lunch....
Someone on here also mentioned glider - personally, I think that should be the first rating that you get. That training taught me more about attitude flying than my private instructor knew... and every landing in a glider/sailplane is a great landing.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
There you go gang.
CD is one of the Transport Canada guys and you have no idea how good it makes me feel to have him come here and support our conversation in a helpful and constructive manner.
Thanks CD.
. .
CD is one of the Transport Canada guys and you have no idea how good it makes me feel to have him come here and support our conversation in a helpful and constructive manner.
Thanks CD.
. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
