Human Trash

[Shiny Side Up]

So are to understand that you've never had any good instruction?

The quality of training in this country is the paramount concern here. Quibbling over formulae is really missing the spirit of was it is to learn to fly in my opinion. Maybe a pet topic of a few, but at the end of it the wings push air down, the prop pushes air back, it doesn't need to be more complicated. Students don't need to be overwhelmed with detail, they need hands on the stick, feet on the pedals.

Essentially this ain't about "bad instructors", its nothing less critical than the future of people learning to fly in this country. If it tanks, then all the discussion about cahrts and graphs becomes irrelevant. If the topic has been read and it gets through to even 1% of readers and perhaps changes what they're looking for in their flight training, or helps them ask those all important why questions, then all the furious typing was worth it.

[photofly]

I've had lots of good instructors. And I've never had an instructor who wasn't invested in his or her students' success; even with the ones I learned least from, the problems were more about personality fit than ability or care-factor.

The obvious answer is that it's not the quality of instruction in this country that's too low; it's that flight test standards are too low. Make the tests harder and the quality of instruction will simply have to improve if candidates are to pass.

Instructors who can't get students to the new higher passing grades will have to give up or improve their instruction. Problem solved.

[Shiny Side Up]

The obvious answer is that it's not the quality of instruction in this country that's too low;

On that I strongly disagree, and though I agree that the standards are low, the bigger problem is that they are not being upheld. Poor instruction is enabled, and in some circles encouraged.

Respectfully, I've probably sampled a larger pool of instructors out there. I see their handiwork through PTRs, through rental customers, I even go through the elaborate trouble of flying with a few and sitting through their briefings. I've went out of my way to get a substantial ammount of dual from a wide variety of sources, including a few Americans for good measure. Improving flight training is something that matters. Here's some of the problems I see.

1) Assembly line class 4 production
2) General lack of supervision
3) High turnover of instructors
4) Lack of training, recurrency checking
5) Contract pressures
6) Poor attitude of instructors

There are good instructors out there, but one rarely sees a whole school of good instructors. Many are labouring in amongst the above, some really need to be liberated. Some are having the life crushed out of them - this is a frequent occuence when one of them signs on to a place that frequently has the promise of good pay, better budget, and often the big draw - nicer machines (and one with two engines). Often its those HT the Colonel refers to that are putting such pressure on them. Beancounters and minor in school politics.

Freelancers are about 50/50 and tend to be at the extremes of the spectrum. A few are like the wise man on the mountain top to aquire their services - highly desireable to get, but tough to find. Not available to the general public, so don't really factor into the pool. The other end of that spectrum is one of the worst hives of scum and villainy you'll ever find. They're also depressingly predatory it seems.

[photofly]

I guess if I don't want to read yet more posts about how horrible flight instructors are I should should stop posting and encouraging replies. But's it's like one of those ulcers on your tongue that you just can't help rubbing over the edge of your tooth to see how much it hurts.

[PositiveRate27]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=92661


This is the first posting for an instructor position that actually looks like a real job I've seen in a long time. In fact, I don't know if I've ever seen a posting for an instructor that looked so much like a real job.

This was the biggest problem I faced as an instructor. It wasn't a real job.

I loved instructing. I was dedicated to improving my skills as an instructor, and I had a conscience when I was recommending for flight tests. In fact, I squared off with the owner of the flight school on several different occasions, refusing to recommend students for flight tests. It actually got fairly heated a few times, however, it was far easier and economical for the owner to let me train the student more to get them up to standard rather than fire me, and train a replacement. In the end, not only did I not get fired, I was offered an open ended position if I ever felt like returning to flight instruction. I don't ever see myself back in the training sector, at least not until semi-retirement, simply because the way the sector is structured, they aren't real jobs.

You want dedicated professionals? Create a structure like it seems Mount Royal is trying to establish. Give instructors live-able salaries, give them paid holidays and benefits. Give them a reason to want to stay in the training sector. Give them a reason to compete for good jobs, innovate and think outside the box.

It's very difficult to muster the motivation to pole vault yourself over a bar, when everyone around you is trying to limbo under it. It's the reason why I left the sector prematurely. I got tired of working unpaid over time, being flat broke, going the extra mile and giving 110% when the people around me were getting paid the same amount for 75%. To this day flight instruction was hands down the hardest job I've ever done and had by far the worst compensation.

[pdw]

I'd say 90% of instructors that contribute to the early education of new pilots are themselves being educated for a career beyond the instructing. As an instructor then, you're learning AND being paid with the student's (often hard earned) money ... being in it together as you both are gaining an education. I saw all eight of my instructors send off to a career and only long afterwards began to realize just how much I'd contributed to their success, ...the good student who showed up on time, improved, and managed to pay my account regularly (without an account to 'debit' in those days would never have flown).

Any one of these learning instructors could have dissuaded the CFI (who eventually did my flight test) if I wasn't proficient at any point along the way, and so of course the pressure was on. There have had to be lots of people who, like me, began to realize that an extended career as a pilot was not going to be possible, but who contributed with their time and money to the success of instructors like the ones I learned with.

I know a good number of people who soloed but did not finish their pilots license, and I tell them they probably don't even realize how much they contributed to aviation (to other's success) with the money they spent; and usually as with these friends ... Brian, Victor, Martin, Gerhardt, Rudy, Robert, Ken, kenneth .. to name a few (sorry, no gals in that category ... 'caus all the one's I know got their PPL) ... I'd say even they have in part succeeded in life from the exposure they had to the learning process of becoming a pilot.

[AirFrame]

I know. That's exactly the message the amateur formation pilots here keep pushing at me, too:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.1288345

You keep saying that, but that's not what we're telling you. You just don't want to hear what we're saying.

You also keep pointing out one-off events as being indicative of the entire population. I've refrained from cut-and-pasting all of the accidents featuring 10000 hour airshow pilots performing at airshows where they take their surface level waivers a little below ground. But they would be great examples of how you, personally, suck at aviation. At least, according to the logic you seem to be following with your posts.

We both know that you're a much better pilot, and instructor, than that. Give some of the lower time pilots here some credit and don't assume we've *all* got our heads up our collective backsides.

[Colonel Sanders]

Elitism and genitalia. You hit both of your usual points.

Sorry if I'm not egalitarian enough for you. Night IFR,
formation and surface level aerobatics are terribly
unforgiving of mistakes, and demand proficiency
above and beyond an amateur level.

But it doesn't matter what I think. This isn't a soccer
game where no one keeps score. This is between you
and the laws of physics, which are far less forgiving than I.

[captcrunch2013]

Wow,
Nice to see so many constructive comments on this thread.
I can't help but agree with the principle that we have an
obligation to "over train" in order to meet a standard that we
know is necessary regardless of the Flight Test Standards.

When I never had an instrument rating, I got a ride with a private pilot
in a Beech A36 going from beyond the black stump to woopwoop that
had an instrument approach. After about an hour into it between layers
and around Cbs he went into could for the first time and in 20 seconds
started a spiral. I ended up flying to destination and doing the approach for him too.
Thanks to the instructors I had and a pile of at the time experimental simulator time.

Years later, flying airfreight in the maritimes in winter both heaters failed,
the alternate went down and later, upon arrival, the the destination went down
and with absolutely no where else to go.

As we descended, (equipped for icing) we had no option but to pick
up quite a load of ice that the windshield electric heat by itself could not
do a thing. We both knew it was a one way approach. There was to be
no go around, no missed approach so it was a very serious approach
briefing.

We ended up well below minimums with an windshield full of ice
that limited vision to peripheral vision only, and the cloud was just a blaze of
white lights that needed rapid adjustment. The tower seemed quite used to
a pilot calling out numbers to get the blazing lights to the right brightness.
Amazing work by the tower too.

There was so much snow on the runway that it felt like we had a
a tail hook down and got the first wire on a carrier landing....
No reverse thrust needed that night.
It took
over an hour for a snow plow to get to us and clear a way to the hanger
where it took around six hours for the ice to melt and we took advantage
of the sleeping bags in the loft to get some sleep.

That was an awakening experience to the reality that pilots especially in Canada,
need to be trained to well below minimums because one day, despite the best planing and forecasts,
it is possible for wx to close in and force you to pick the best, often the only place
to do an approach and, it might well be the one and only approach you can make
at that time.

I think its important to tell IFR students, at any level, that Instrument Flying is
a really serious subject and if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves, it will
kill the pilot and everyone else.

That same night, over Vermont, centre asked to listen to 121.5 and call an aircraft.
There was no answer. It had loaded up with ice and ended up in a lake.
Another chilling experience.

Now, to get back to my INRAT...

[AirFrame]

Elitism and genitalia. You hit both of your usual points.

Ah, you mean like this?

Elitism:

I have painfully learned the lesson that I will not fly formation with someone who does not hold an SAC card endorsed for formation.

Genitalia:

Wow - still bitter about getting spanked, eh?

We could do no better than to follow your lead, Colonel.

[photofly]

I can't help but agree with the principle that we have an
obligation to "over train" in order to meet a standard that we
know is necessary regardless of the Flight Test Standards.

I totally disagree. Change the standards.

[Colonel Sanders]

Elitism and genitalia. You hit both of your usual points.

Sorry if I'm not egalitarian enough for you. Night IFR,
formation and surface level aerobatics are terribly
unforgiving of mistakes, and demand proficiency
above and beyond an amateur level.

But it doesn't matter what I think. This isn't a soccer
game where no one keeps score. This is between you
and the laws of physics, which are far less forgiving than I.

I know this bothers you terribly:

I have painfully learned the lesson that I will not fly formation with someone who does not hold an SAC card endorsed for formation

I am puzzled as to why you think I am not entitled to
make that decision for myself. Not egalitarian enough
for you? But here it what looks like when you fly with
an SAC holder with a formation endorsement:



See the difference?

Amateurs can fly formation, too. A long, long way away
from me.

[PositiveRate27]

I used to think he was just difficult, but now I'm starting to think the Colonel has tourette's and the words he blurts out about six thousand times before even he gets tired of them change month by month. This month its "egalitarian" and "Human Trash" sprinkled with "Elitist" and "Genitalia." However there are a few constants like "My son can... yadda yadda" as well as random pictures of acrobatic aircraft that seem to stand the test of time...

[Colonel Sanders]

Your feelings get hurt again? Because that's the most important thing
in aviation - that no one's feelings get hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ


I feel terrible that your feelings might be hurt.



Here's an egalitarian aviation picture for you:



Though personally I am more fond of:

[PositiveRate27]

I rest my case.

[pdw]

Still on topic with our " Human " JUNK FOOD, outbound for delivery as a priority payload.

Wonder what the nutritional science department is saying about that these days ...

[triplese7en]

it's that flight test standards are too low

Bingo, photofly!

If the standards are raised, and testing is expanded, and the people in charge of enforcing the standards (DFTEs) do their job, we will start turning out better pilots... or no pilots. This is where the real problem lies. Work backwards from this point and you'll come up with a good training syllabus that will get pilots to be able to pass the new flight tests.

You can't just "improve" training without first enforcing a higher standard. People aren't fond of using excess money for, as they see it, no benefit to them—unless you mandate the superior training either by minimum training requirements or by increasing the skill required to pass a flight test, you won't be able to force people to be better pilots.

[FenderManDan]

How about this instructor checking up on his student during the x/c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaD_tIMW0cs

[Beefitarian]

How about this instructor checking up on his student during the x/c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaD_tIMW0cs

Well he is an "ace" so game on!

[photofly]

If the standards are raised, and testing is expanded, and the people in charge of enforcing the standards (DFTEs) do their job, we will start turning out better pilots...

It occurs to me there's a problem with the DFTE system - there's too much pressure on individual examiners not to get a reputation as a "difficult" or "strict", otherwise candidates are going to go elsewhere. Note there's no nefarious intent imputed here, merely normal everyday commercial pressures.

[triplese7en]

photofly, I agree. That's why the testing standards need to be expanded and raised—an individual DFTE can't raise the standards him/herself or you will run into the problem you described.

[photofly]

Here's the answer then. the problem arises because we're not properly applying the principles of capitalism to the issue (which offends me), in that all DFTEs are selling the same product. Flight examination has become commoditized. The solution is to allow branding and diversification.

We must allow DFTEs to design their own flight tests (subject to minimum standards, as now) and to brand their (passed) students. anyone who can say they have a CPL from Colonel Sanders, or a CPL from His Eminence The Rt. Hon. Lt. Col. Keith Davis RCAF (rtd.) clearly has a better qualification than a CPL passed and certified by Bob in Hangar 4. (We can debate the value of a CPL from Seneca in another thread.)

That way examiners all have their own reputations and brands to protect and a personal interest in maintaining the very highest standards. Or not, if they want the bottom of the market in bare pass students. let the market determine. They can all have different logos, too.

I'd like to claim a lot of credit for this idea, but I can't: it's exactly how ISO9000 certification is done. ISO is beloved of paper-pushers and bureaucrats so TC should lap this up in an instant.

Send my Nobel Prize in economics to the usual address.

[Shiny Side Up]

Here's the answer then. the problem arises because we're not properly applying the principles of capitalism to the issue (which offends me), in that all DFTEs are selling the same product.

Actually the PEs (DFTE is the old term) aren't selling the same product. That's the problem. Many DFTEs are operating under what one would call a conflict of interest, which no longer makes them an impartial party to enforce standards. One might say that in this case, capitalism is the problem. Its directly at odds with when one needs to enforce a regulatory standard.

[photofly]

No, they are selling the same product - a test pass. A test pass from every examiner has exactly the same value to the pilot, to TC, and to future employers. At the moment it's a communist economic model, just like saying everyone has to wear the same style of shoes. The answer is to allow each PE to style their own product as they wish. That's capitalism, and that would work.

[triplese7en]

photofly, I don't agree with your proposal.

If the PEs are all operating under what they think the standard should be, how are you to prevent a PE from passing a candidate when the candidate cannot fly an airplane safely? These PEs will make a lot of money as they will be known for passing pilots who aren't that good. Word will spread like wild fire and it'll make things worse. There has to be a common standard, there's no way around it. I looked briefly into ISO9000 and I don't see what you mean—it appears to be exactly similar to how flight tests are conducted. Wikipedia shows a fish market in Japan with a banner showing their ISO9001 certification. That's what people want to know. They don't care which inspector signed off the ISO9001 for them, as long as they have ISO9001, that's all that matters. Which is exactly the same here—as long as you have a piece of paper that says you passed your flight test, it doesn't matter who did it.

What you've described is called the "severity error" in the PE manual: "In this case, all or most candidates are graded at the low end of the marking scale. Examiners may feel that the published standards are too low and score the test against their own set of standards. This type of examiner feels that few people can fly as well as they can."

There needs to be one standard. Or if anything, a minimum standard—which in the case of flight tests in Canada, it needs to be raised. In the case of a minimum standard you can have schools or examiners that exceed the standard but to do that you'd have to market it and prove to the customers that the extra training and money you spend to get to a standard higher than the minimum will be worth it. It's very hard to do that as most airlines only care that you have the piece of paper that everyone gets after passing the minimum standard. If big airlines started saying you need to have graduated from a certain school or have passed from a certain examiner then that's a different story—I don't see that happening.