Why should a 200 hour wonder be allowed to teach IFR ?

[Wasn't Me]

I know TC has defined the qualifications, but why should a 200 hr wonder be allowed to teach IFR towards an IFR rating just because he has a class 4.

[hz2p]

A better question might be:

Why should a 200 hour be teaching (ab initio) VFR?

Frankly, you don't learn very much during typical IFR training - a hold and two approaches (duh). You can learn that from pretty much anybody, including a class 4 with an instrument rating.

99% of the people who have just finished an instrument rating have never been inside a cloud (not safe, according to the schools) and they haven't a clue about dealing with icing, thunderstorms or dewpoint spread.

[Right Seat Captain]

Actually a class 4 would have at least 230 hrs, but I get your point.

It's a consequence of the North American Aviation Industry and it's way of putting pilots through its system. It has worked like this for some time, although perhaps not in ideal circumstances, since pilots usually get trained by their captains later on.

There are not enough experienced pilots out there willing to teach IFR to meet the demand, probably because of the hassle. The hassle being TC, and not enough money willing to be paid by the customers (since 230 hr wonders are available for cheap, a viscous circle, I know).

[Big Pistons Forever]

You do not have to learn from a 200hr instructor. There are experienced IFR instructors out there if you search a bit. Since it is YOUR money I would suggest you ask some skill testing questions about the school and your potential instructor

[Doc]

Big Pistons...nice idea, BUT if you're looking for IFR instruction, where are you going to get your skill testing questions??
My point has always been....find instructors who WANT to teach. Get older guys who have "been there done that" and pay them to do the job! So, the price of instruction will go up. So? Check out the cost of learning to fly in Europe! It's like the price of smokes.....do you really think raising the price has ANY bearing on how many people smoke??? DUH!! It's been many years since I instructed...and I dont think I did the job as well as I could now.....there are a few things I've picked up in the past 19 thousand hours I didn't know back then. Like the simple fact that a guy with 200, or 250 hours has NO idea what he's talking about??? And to be teaching an IFR rating....PLease...I still haven't figured it out!

[Fokker in Sight]

So, at how many hours should one be able to teach IFR? While I agree that someone with 19,000+ hours knows more along the IFR teachings then a 200 hour pilot does but that's only because they aren't instructing anymore and likely haven't since they got out around the 1000 hour mark. Someone who has 500 hours of pure VFR flying/instructing the circuit isn't any better or worse then someone with a fresh IFR as a class 4. You'll only notice a real difference when the instructor hits the 2,000 mark and has actually flown IFR. However, how can an instructor get actually IFR experience? cause you won't find many instructors renting planes at $100 to get it. Would someone who has recently done the INRAT and Flight Test (class 4 maybe?) be more up to par with the rules and regs then someone who has had to wait two years to build up there VFR flight time to allow them to teach IFR?

[5x5]

A couple of comments for what they're worth. Firstly, I don't think any credible school would have a class IV doing IFR training. Typically the multi and IFR instructors are higher time. For us it's over 1,000 to do IFR. Now this isn't "real" IFR, but it is solid instruction time and builds very sound teaching skills.

As for the "real" IFR - well let's not forget the role of flight schools and operators in the overall business. Schools are here to provide the basic training and skills for the pilot to be capable and safe. They provide the building blocks and help to create the attitude that will allow the new pilot to continue to learn. The school isn't intended to provide the full range of experiences and situations that they will encounter during their career - that's what the career is for. As well, a school's insurance and maintenance costs (which are very high already) would go up tremendously if they tried to provide all the experiences many of you talk about. Remember, a flight school only has new pilots flying their planes.

The operators who hire newbies then take over. These operators have the requirement for flights and missions that will and do encounter all the various situations. They only hire the occasional new pilot. They have senior pilots to nurture and continue to develop the new pilots in a revenue producing situation. All of the high time guys who work with low time guys should take the responsibility of being the "real life" instructor and help these guys along.

Most everyone of you who post here appear to feel that you are very good pilots - and you all went through the same process. It can't be that bad. Also, the accident rate (which is at least partly a result of the training process, good or bad) doesn't indicate any degredation of flight training. In fact accident rates seem to be going down.

There's lots of room for improvement and always will be - but I do get tired of so many people always pissing on flight schools and instructors. Overall I think that most of us do a pretty decent job all thiings considered.

[sakism]

I don't want to get into the question of qualifications, but let's consider this:

Are most of the candidates doing initial IFR rides failing?

If yes - then I agree there is a problem with the existing system.
If no - then who cares who teaches them?

And IMHO, the more real IFR experience one has, the worse they will be at teaching someone to pass the ride. For example:

- How often are you issued holds?
- How often do you do full procedure approaches?
- Do you regularily fail one engine when turning inbound on the full procedure NDB approach?
- How much do you brush up on obscure IFR regulations like 1000 OTT IFR? (which I've never really understood)
- How often do any of you do this with the cruddy equipment found in most flight school planes - in other words no GPS?

[Donald]

- How often are you issued holds?

Almost never.

- How often do you do full procedure approaches?

There are several airports with pub apps and no radar nearby. So when the combination of poor weather and a trip to one of these loacales pops up we get a nice full proc app. I would guess it happens 3-4 times a week in the fall and spring.

- Do you regularily fail one engine when turning inbound on the full procedure NDB approach?

Pretty much anytime the airplane is empty and the temp is above zero, or very close, something will fail. Doesn't matter if it's the cap't or the f/o flying.

- How much do you brush up on obscure IFR regulations like 1000 OTT IFR? (which I've never really understood)

When all the guys are sitting around waiting for the fog to lift. There is usually somebody studying for a ride or something, so it's obscure question time.

- How often do any of you do this with the cruddy equipment found in most flight school planes - in other words no GPS?

Well we don't have certified GPS, so depending on which TC inspector we get you may or may not have GPS available to you. Therefore we do practice alot of NDB app's without GPS. Is that what you meant?

[Big Pistons Forever]

5 X 5,

I am sorry to see you have set your instructional sights so low. The difference in IFR instruction between your low time instructor time only IFR instructor and geing tought by a person with real line flying IFR experience is;

Low time guy = 40 hrs of instruction on all the fed trivia and a pass on the ride.

high time guy/gal = 40 hrs of instruction on all the fed trivia and a pass on the ride... plus... real world tips on how to look like you actual know how to use the system when you show up at your first IFR job. A bit of an appreciation of what matters and what is just fed useless bumbf. A bit of real world insight on weather and IFR flying, the real hard part of IFR, including not freaking out every time they go into a cloud. Tips on engine and airplane handling etc etc
All of this will be salted throughout the course of instruction and will cost you little or nothing.

The is one other aspect to the debate and that has to do with instructional abilities. It does not matter how great a IFR pilot someone is if they cannot impart that skill and knowledge on to you. Therefore I advise anyone who wants my advice, to talk to at least 3 former students of the guy you are about to spend ten grand on. Instructors like everyone else in this business have reputations. Why would you want to spend your money on an instructor with a bad rep ?

[bizjet_mania]

I don't think any low time pilot should instruct period. How can someone who has just started walking "figuratively speaking" and has minimal experience, teach how to fly. Of course no high time guy would want to do it for the shitty pay that comes along with the job.

[hz2p]

Bingo. People want cheap instruction, and sometimes they get what they pay for. What's the problem?

[CYQMer]

An interesting concept, have a look at the article halfway dow the page. Looks like IFR approaches might be taught even before the 1st solo:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#189810

Who should be teaching this?? And in Europe there is talk within the JAA of skipping the Private & Commercial traditional training, going straight into a Sim then onto airliners...

[Right Seat Captain]

Who should be teaching this?? And in Europe there is talk within the JAA of skipping the Private & Commercial traditional training, going straight into a Sim then onto airliners...

According to the head of training at TC, this is also coming to Canada within the next 5 years.

It's called the 'Multi-Crew Licence', where one is trained purely towards functioning in a multi-crew environment, and completely on the SIM. The idea is that they can never be a PIC with this licence, but they can be a First Officer. So if they end up as FO in Air Canada, they could not become Captain until they got their Private, Commercial, ATPL.

[CYQMer]

Who should be teaching this?? And in Europe there is talk within the JAA of skipping the Private & Commercial traditional training, going straight into a Sim then onto airliners...

According to the head of training at TC, this is also coming to Canada within the next 5 years.

It's called the 'Multi-Crew Licence', where one is trained purely towards functioning in a multi-crew environment, and completely on the SIM. The idea is that they can never be a PIC with this licence, but they can be a First Officer. So if they end up as FO in Air Canada, they could not become Captain until they got their Private, Commercial, ATPL.

Makes Sense...But having to do a Private, Commercial & IFR to go from 1st officer to Capt does not!

I wonder how we all will feel when some day down the road people will be training in Sim's then going onto airliners when we spent time & money completing a traditional flight training program....I can just imagine...all the stories of the good 'ol days...

[bizjet_mania]

how does that work when almost every flying job requires hundreds of PIC hours???

[Right Seat Captain]

how does that work when almost every flying job requires hundreds of PIC hours???

The idea is that someone is trained from the start specifically to go into the right seat of a jet. If you think about it, in North America, most people with a Commercial licence, and those who just obtained thier ATPLs, have zero training in flying a 737. Their experience is in flying little cessnas and a light twin. An Airbus is not at all the same whatsoever.

[bizjet_mania]

until the shit hits the fan, then those 200 hr guys sitting in the right seat of an A320 will be chewing their toe nails cause they will have no clue what to do and the captain will be stuck with all the work.

[Cat Driver]

" The idea is that someone is trained from the start specifically to go into the right seat of a jet. If you think about it, in North America, most people with a Commercial licence, and those who just obtained thier ATPLs, have zero training in flying a 737. Their experience is in flying little cessnas and a light twin. An Airbus is not at all the same whatsoever. "

Exactly.

Flying an airline jet and flying small commercial piston engine airplanes are two entirely seperate and vastly different issues.

Even though I have found the head of flight training in Ottawa to be an idiot it would seem that someone has suggested a training method for airlines that is workable and would produce a qualified first officer to fly an airliner as FO and the head of flight training may work on the idea.

It would probably be a good idea if the flight instructors seperated flying training as practiced by flight schools in North America from airline training because they have very little in common.

Cat

[bizjet_mania]

I was speaking about this to a mentor, who flies for air canada. he is in the training department and he told me airlines like AC and most large international carriers, will not hire you if you are not capable of upgrading to captain. The airline hires you to someday promote you to captain, if you are restricted in any way, they won't hire you. Seeing as though Air Canada has a very strong pilot union, I doubt we'll be seeing 200hr wonders in their flight decks any time soon. Although they can try their luck with an asian carrier since they already use this method of training.

[just curious]

Get older guys who have "been there done that" and pay them to do the job!

I think I see the problem in this...

My daily rate without per diem or base = Class IV weekly rate. Looks like a class IV can have that teaching opportunity.

[hz2p]

The problem is that if you try to raise the bar to any reasonable level - say, require 50 hours of ACTUAL in-cloud instrument time after the issuance of an instrument rating, to teach IFR - people will just pencil-whip it, and it won't make much or any difference.

[Johnny]

how does that work when almost every flying job requires hundreds of PIC hours???

The idea is that someone is trained from the start specifically to go into the right seat of a jet. If you think about it, in North America, most people with a Commercial licence, and those who just obtained thier ATPLs, have zero training in flying a 737. Their experience is in flying little cessnas and a light twin. An Airbus is not at all the same whatsoever.

I'm worriedly remembering that documentary where the captain got sucked out of the jet window. The F/O was able to land... what if he didn't even have his private? In this case, the crew didn't have plates or procedures for their emerg landing airport. IFR-only training wouldn't help - it was a vector/visual emergency landing. On that flight, nobody died. Under the proposed circumstances, I wouldn't give them very good odds.

[Benwa]

I think the company would train him so he is able to land an aircraft. Just because you don't go through TC's hoops, and instead receive training from a Qualified instructor (not a 230 hrs wonder) doesn't mean you can't fly.

My girlfriend flies better that a lot of commercial pilots, and yet she doesn't event hold a Student Pilot's license, she just flies with me. The aircraft doesn't know what paper you have in your pocket or how much time you got in your logbook. It just reacts to whatever input you give.

[bizjet_mania]

first off, i doubt any captains will want to fly with a 200hr guy, secondly i doubt any passengers would fly with a crew that has a 200hr guy in the right seat. Thirdly, this is Canada, the media would really make a story out of it. I don't think airlines that require F/Os now to have 4-5000 hours for right seat are going to hire anyone with only 200hrs on a sim. If there is a pool of 150 pilots and 100 have "real" flying experience they will be taken over these guys/gals any day.