Wind and Weather

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have recomended someone for flight test at the minimum times, and he got the highest mark out of any of my recomends. I have also recomended a guy for PPL flight test at 130 hours (he went solo at 60 hours) simply because that is how long it took. So i really dont think student success or competance has anything to do with me or my school.

Sigh..........

[RenegadeAV8R]

... So i really dont think student success or competance has anything to do with me or my school.

Who is teaching the student?

[Hedley]

Who is teaching the student?

I think he is claiming that no one is teaching his. Rather, they are teaching themselves to fly, and how fast they progress is a function of their intuitive abilities.

As ridiculous as it sounds, I think the kid has a point. We all have been in situations where we were forced to learn, despite some pretty horrible instruction. Or, none at all.

However, one has to wonder if this is an optimal teaching strategy.

[Hedley]

Certainly when we were soloing people in six hours we were picking them from the best and brightest the country had to offer, we were also content to wash a fair amount of them out in one fashion or another

Yup. In the civilian world, anyone who walks through the door and has the $$$ can get his licence. Doesn't matter how old he is, how poor his aptitude it, or how little effort he puts into the course. Someone like that, it's a miracle if he gets his PPL in 70 hrs.

That's a wee bit different than the BCATP. Here's an interesting experiment.

Some instructor here that doesn't think age or aptitude or distractions matters, randomly choose 10 students, all over the age of 50, and train them to PPL, inbetween their ongoing family and work life during evenings and weekends. That's the first group. Average out their time to PPL. Betcha it's not less than 70 hours.

Next, randomly select 100 people under the age of 18 from the population, who have an interest in flying. I do a famil flight with each of them, and I personally select 10 candidates based on aptitude and attitude. I train those 10 students to PPL, and it's their full time job. Room and board and clothing transportation is provided for them, and is the ground and flight training.

I will personally guarantee that all 10 of my hand-picked students will do their flight tests at 45 hours, and they will ace the written and flight tests. They will all be able to land in a crosswind on the centerline only on the upwind main, drive down the runway with the other two tires in the air, then add power and overshoot with only one tire having ever touched the ground.

Now, does anyone here see any difference between the two training methodologies?

[Shiny Side Up]

Actually Hedley if I separate things strictly age wise I've had the opposite turn around. Here's the stats for the last thirty students who've finished their PPL at the school. The average time until completion is 56.6 hours. The mean number though is 52.0 hours. The mode of course is 45.0 (six out of the thirty students). What does this all mean? it means that more students are completing under the average than students completing over the average. The average is significantly higher though due to a few large outliers. The five highest completions were 79.8, 84.0, 88.1, 93.7 and 97.7. Each one of these I should note were people who completed their licenses over an extremely lengthy period of time. Oddly enough the person who took the longest time (27 years) was the lowest of these five (79.8 ) the least time taken of this group was 6 years (and again oddly enough the 97.7) The rest taking somewhere between 27 years and 6 years to complete. Each of these I should note were in the 45+ category.

(as an aside one might also ask does the person who completed after 27 years count against another instructor's teaching methods of the seveties or mine in the two thousands?)

IF we remove those outliers though we get some interesting data: The times until completion out of the remaining 25 now peak at 74.5 hours. If I plot out ages verses these results suprisingly enough the times below the mean are all students in the 35 or more years range, while the higher completion times fall into the 25 or less range. People of in between age fall into the middle.

I should note that most of the students train on the same schedule, usually three to five lessons a week, most students finishing their PPL in anywhere between six months to a year, it being very common to of course have breaks in there in their training schedules. Notably the most recent completion I signed off was at 58.3 hours, despite his hinderance of being only able to fly on Saturdays, also having gotten married and spawned a child in the inbetween from start to finish, taking a total of three years. Very suprising he did as well one might think considering I have no problem renting him the airplane every Saturday these days even with a reasonable crosswind.Incidentally he was 30 years old.

So why are older people doing better? Very simple, its desire and commitment. Even if they can't be training all the time I find the more mature crowd make more of the time they do spend training. They're here because they want to be here.

[trey kule]

first of all, with regard to Hedley's example. the young group pretty much descibes the air cadet program..and you will see, I believe the numbers are a lot lower. In fact, I believe those numbers actually skew the whole time to license thing.
As to your remark that you could do a fam flight and choose, that might be better than what the system has morphed into. In the old days cadets were chosen based on a love of flying, the potential for a military career, and yes nepotism for fathers that were ex-military.
It seems nowadays, that there are some rather different criteria such as gender quotas (official or not), and essay writing contests etc...Anyway, I digress. In any event, cadets are extremely well prepared, usually have a glider license, and are immersed in the program..

My original motivation for this thread was that commercial pilots are complaining that they are being pressured to fly in conditions they are not "comfortable" with. My thoughts were that the training programs were letting us down by not training to the standard that allows a new CPL/multi IFR pilot to fly to the limits their llicense allows. Seems many people seemed to try and run with extra cost, different regulations or standards. No one seemed interested , as a FTU in the possibility of maybe doing things a bit differently.

The colleges out there, many of whom are subsidized and thus , at least in my opinion, competing unfairly with the private schools seem to be trying to produce a different product.
By that I mean a future heavy iron pilot. Yes some offer float courses but , for the most part, I think those were add ons as the reality of getting a job sank into some of these colleges.

Now private pilot training is a different kettle of fish. some people treat their training as sort of an alternative to a golf club membership.. the training is an end in itself..recreation. And I think that is fair enough but at the end they still have to meet a certain standard to be safe, and probably more so than the future commercial student, as they are able to simply drop out of the system while operating in it.

Safety has become such a priority that it has taken over competency. When we dont except any risk then it is almost impossible to meet any type of higher standards.. learning to fly involves some risk, and learning to fly well, some additional risk. As someone mentioned, some colleges are teaching their students to land in a max 5kt x-wind. If you happen to attend that college I hope you will understand when an operator tells you they want experience before hiring you.
and complain that you have to get it to have it...not that they should have gotten it at the flight school

[Shiny Side Up]

No one seemed interested , as a FTU in the possibility of maybe doing things a bit differently.

The colleges out there, many of whom are subsidized and thus , at least in my opinion, competing unfairly with the private schools seem to be trying to produce a different product.

A good part of the issue is the fact that while to the operators FTUs exist to provide them with new pilots, for a FTU to exist it must appeal to students. Remember that its a business which prime goal is to make money. If a FTU makes money by teaching to a bare minimum standard, they're going to do it. Case closed. In the flight training world here's what sells:

1) Cost.
2) Speed until completion.
3) Image
4) Potential of employment after training.
5) Safety.

No where on this list is pilot skill - this is wrong. I should say that 5) doesn't necessarily detract from students becomming skilled, but certainly hurts getting new customers should a school have an image as "not safe". You can bet this is on Seneca's list right now on how the recent misfortune will affect next season's enrollment.

Now while the bit about PPL training might have been a bit of a sidetrack, the big point about how it relates is how flight training in this country is customer driven, not industry driven. While one could compare us to Europe and the States where the industry has taken a bigger hand in how the flight training world runs to make sure there's a crop of pilots to feed the need, Canada's need for pilots is fundamentally different given the types of operators and the nature of its airline service. Then again, flight training in this country hasn't really changed large scale from the old days to really keep up with the demands the industry places upon it. We've been relying on a throw the young to the wolves means of pilots gaining experience for a long time.

[trey kule]

Good post. It gave me something to think about , the industry involvement part.
It would be interesting to hear some thoughts o how that could be accomplished.

I dont know anything about a challange faced by Seneca but I assume they had an incident or accident and are worried about the effect. Good grief, have we come to the point where we expect all flying to be 100% safe all the time. A bit unrealalistic in my opinion, but I understand what you are sayig and am not disagreeig with it.

[Shiny Side Up]

It would be interesting to hear some thoughts o how that could be accomplished.

Well naturally there is a problem. The main part is that there is no push to change flight training - for the most part many are content with the status quo. FTUs have no impetus to change. If they're successful, they're making money, students are happy getting pieces of paper. Then there's the big leap - somehow new pilot-workers have to find some hours. They do it under the wing of smaller operators. I'll assume this is where you sit since you are unhappy with a fresh new sheep. The "wolves" so to speak. New pilots have all sorts of obstacles to get those hours. They might become instructors, they might do some jumper-dumping, work a ramp, if they're lucky - drive some clapped out twin. We all know that how good the new pilot-worker is here is often irrelevant to his success.

Certainly an issue crops up here, one both industry and training should find a means to rectify, and that is making potetntial student-customers more aware of how this process works. Few neophytes are really aware of the variety of possibilities that they may end up doing as a working pilot, the common perception being that there are three types of pilots: General aviators flying recreationally in Cessnas and such, Airline pilots and military pilots. Most student-customers of course want to be airline pilots, to which of course FTUs market towards. Some students might have a vague notion that they may have to do some "bush" flying - hence why a few FTUs have taken advantage of offering a "bush" course. A step in the right direction, but not nearly as far as we need.

Compounding the problem is these two bottom tiers of pilots-students and pilot-workers are in the least visible sector publicly, a very small voice in aviation. The larger share of pilots employed in Canada are in larger companies and the major carriers. These sectors are drawing on a pilot population that has been culled by the FTU world and the smaller operators, hopefully the cream of he crop. These sectors of aviation are of course very happy with the current set up as the dog-eat-dog bottom end of the pilot world provides them with what they need.

So how do we enact change? I have no doubts that pilot training in its current incarnation isn't satisfactory, but I'm also convinced it needs revolutionary change rather than some small band-aid fixes.

Good grief, have we come to the point where we expect all flying to be 100% safe all the time.

But ultimately this is really the goal that we're pursuing by enacting this change, and not one that we can sacrifice for something else. The safety aspect of flying can't go back from whence it came. The passenger market - to ultimately what this whole process serves - won't accept a decline in aviation safety.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Good grief, have we come to the point where we expect all flying to be 100% safe all the time.

The Problem is the common tendency to equate the "elimination of risk" with "safe". A good example of this is Seneca Colleges' maximum 5 kt crosswind limitation for its students. This certainly eliminates risk for Seneca College but Seneca has the option of just stopping flying when there is a crosswind as they can catch up later. When their students graduate and go to a 703 operation I think it is highly unlikely they will be able to say "cancel the revenue trip you assigned to me because the crosswind at the destination is 6 knots". Seneca isn't making "safe" pilots they are just transfering the risk of bending airplanes by getting students to fly on windy days to the operator who employs their student when he/she graduates. This attitude is unfortunately quite common in the flight training industry. There is no upside to challenge the student and after he she gets their piece of paper there is no real comeback on the school if their student is incompetant. I have never heard of an operator refusing to hire someone solely because they deemed the school he/she trained at wasn't good enough. This would change in a hurry if operators started auditing what schools were doing and schools that didn't produce competant pilots had their graduates go to the bottom of the resume pile, and the ones that went the extra mile to produce good pilots stayed at the top.....But that would require industry to actually give a shit about the state of Canadian flight training ..... and like I said it is a lot easier to just throw rocks at flight instructors.....

[Big Pistons Forever]

No one seemed interested , as a FTU in the possibility of maybe doing things a bit differently.

The colleges out there, many of whom are subsidized and thus , at least in my opinion, competing unfairly with the private schools seem to be trying to produce a different product.

A good part of the issue is the fact that while to the operators FTUs exist to provide them with new pilots, for a FTU to exist it must appeal to students. Remember that its a business which prime goal is to make money. If a FTU makes money by teaching to a bare minimum standard, they're going to do it. Case closed. In the flight training world here's what sells:

1) Cost.
2) Speed until completion.
3) Image
4) Potential of employment after training.
5) Safety.

No where on this list is pilot skill - this is wrong. I should say that 5) doesn't necessarily detract from students becomming skilled, but certainly hurts getting new customers should a school have an image as "not safe". You can bet this is on Seneca's list right now on how the recent misfortune will affect next season's enrollment.

Now while the bit about PPL training might have been a bit of a sidetrack, the big point about how it relates is how flight training in this country is customer driven, not industry driven. While one could compare us to Europe and the States where the industry has taken a bigger hand in how the flight training world runs to make sure there's a crop of pilots to feed the need, Canada's need for pilots is fundamentally different given the types of operators and the nature of its airline service. Then again, flight training in this country hasn't really changed large scale from the old days to really keep up with the demands the industry places upon it. We've been relying on a throw the young to the wolves means of pilots gaining experience for a long time.

Great post shiny.....you have exactly described the real world of our industry

[Big Pistons Forever]

I was just rereading this thread and I think on balance it is excessively negative. There is a lot of good training going on in FTU's and a lot of instructors doing good by their students.

I am doing a flight instructor rating right now. My student is keen, hard working and wants to do it right. He has quite good hands and feet courtesy of a (low time) CPL instructor that rode him hard to fly the aircraft accurately and well. Yes there are many ways the industry could be improved but it is not all bad news.

Every class 4 I know reads this forum and all have said they find the tips, techniques and general discussion a valuable help. There is a tremendous amount of experience that posts here and so I like to think that we collectively are actually in a small way, making the flight training industry better.

[trey kule]

You are probably right about the negativity. Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to take a hard look at things as they are, and that sometimes means potentially finding some things that could be imporved upon...which unfortunately, in our feel good, everyone is a winner society, is looked upon as negativity. Being branded negative or not a team player, or any other marganilizing moniker is why people dont speak up about stupid ideas, which ultimately get implemented.

Which is my way of justifying what I posted.

Now, back to topic.
SSup...our company hires Canadian pilots. And yes, there is one flight school out there that we will not accept their graduates from . Only two incidents, but the last one cost us a bunch of money and had the president/CFI/DFE's personal recommendation on the resume,which he later admitted, was not accurate.

As to schools doing a good job. Of course they are. And of course there are good instructors out there. I have never believed that you need a really high time pilot to teach ab initio training...The Mulit IFR, and the commercial, much more so, and experience outside the FTU.
In any event, my original comments were directed toward the whole aviaiton training industry, including the regulator, DFTE's etc.

I agree pretty much with your risk/safe post..Transferring risk however, will eventually come back to haunt you...as some of the big US training schools have found out.

[Shiny Side Up]

I was just rereading this thread and I think on balance it is excessively negative. There is a lot of good training going on in FTU's and a lot of instructors doing good by their students.

I wouldn't say its negative, its just the reality of the current set up. Its not saying that there aren't good pilots being produced by the system, just that the system isn't idealized to produce good pilots. Its idealized to produce lots of standardized pilots. There's no reason you can't be a great 200 hour pilot, and I've seen some of them. It does require the magic combination of finding both a FTU that goes above and beyond and a student wanting to go above and beyond what the system requires of them. It is very fortunate that there are indeed a good many working in flight training who do more than the standard.

SSup...our company hires Canadian pilots. And yes, there is one flight school out there that we will not accept their graduates from . Only two incidents, but the last one cost us a bunch of money and had the president/CFI/DFE's personal recommendation on the resume,which he later admitted, was not accurate.

IMHO if industry isn't happy with the product they're getting then they need to make the effort to go farther than just turning away applications - this sends no message down the chain. It also needs to determine fairly though whether what they're unhappy with is a result of what the school has been teaching. There is always the possibility that someone might be an excellent pilot, but a crappy employee.

[trey kule]

Let me clarify my post. the final straw came when a pilot was hired based, upon other things the letter of recommendation from a DFTE/Owner/CFI of an FTU stating that this pilot had exceptional IFR skills. The pilot failed out of company training. Nice guy. Couldnt fly a plane straight and level on instruments. Pay for two weeks, plus two week severance, training, travel, accomodation, and of course repeating the whole hiring process...the person writing the recommendation was called before the cease training as we could not believe that this person even had an IF rating. He admitted that the pilot had failed the first check ride within minutes !!! but that he had personally given him some instruction and he passed the second ride. I wont go into all the details except that when questioned about the letter of recommendation it was one of those...trying to help a young guy on his career. sorry , Wont happen again...and it wont with our company. I have since found out from other companies that our experience with this FTU was not unique. Pretty much pay your money and we will give you the rating and a glowing letter of recommendation.
Anyway, that is the end of the story with this FTU. I was really just responding to the comment that companies do not fail to hire a canidate based on what school they graduated from.

I wish there were some way to sponsor students, but it is a difficult ,if not impossible task to convince shareholders of the risk of sponsorship...just too many companies that have been burned by pilots.

[Shiny Side Up]

I wish there were some way to sponsor students, but it is a difficult ,if not impossible task to convince shareholders of the risk of sponsorship...just too many companies that have been burned by pilots.

To be honest to make improvements there has to be a more active role by industry. Sponsoring students I don't thinkis the path, you correctly deduce its way too risky, at least not without some extensive means of weeding out potentials.

A cue here could be taken from many pro sports where operators essentially "scout" new talent while it is training. Weeding out poor performers is too late if we're doing it after they've been trained. I don't think the costs of this would be really that great, just some time expended where an industry scout occasionally makes the rounds at potential FTUs, keeping a list of good students, good trustworthy instructors and sometimes maybe making a list of things they'd like to see added to any programs. I think FTUs would jump at this - probably footing any travel costs of said scouts - be a big draw for customer-students (just like it is at hockey camps across this country) knowing that said "scouts" are interested in recruits from some schools. Remember 4) from the list above.

Industry also needs to be vocal and press TC if they feel sectors of the training business aren't up to par. This kind of pressure after all can't come from another FTU. It does requrie concerted effort though - just like I've said before we've all got to work together on improving this.

[Beefitarian]

That's brutal Kule. I would think a FTU would have enough foresight to use letters like that to actually recomend hireable guys. Oh I don't know train them well and make sure they're ready to go? I think that soon word would get around. Employers might even call them and ask if they have anyone ready to go.


I'm crazy to keep thinking people should do things in a trust worthy fashion. I guess there's not as much money in that when you could just rip people off.

Sad that the next batch won't even know their license and those letters from that place have basically become a "Do not hire." flag.

[Beefitarian]

I've been out for a while but the Aviation community in Canada seems small enough that a FTU should be able to make a name for themselves, good or bad. As usual, I'm probably wrong.

[Shiny Side Up]

That's brutal Kule. I would think a FTU would have enough foresight to use letters like that to actually recomend hireable guys. Oh I don't know train them well and make sure they're ready to go? I think that soon word would get around. Employers might even call them and ask if they have anyone ready to go.


I'm crazy to keep thinking people should do things in a trust worthy fashion. I guess there's not as much money in that when you could just rip people off.

Sad that the next batch won't even know their license and those letters from that place have basically become a "Do not hire." flag.

The bad thing is though, the guy running the FTU probably thought that the candidate was acceptable. He did after all manage to meet the standard in some fashion. IF one is thinking that the DFTE isn't doing his job and the candidate somehow got through the system without meeting the standard - then someone has to speak up. One should note that there currently is no limitations on how many times a student can fail flight tests or written tests and still get a license, something that should change according to every other class one or two instructor I know. The thing is, if collectively we feel the standard that pilots are being trained to isn't acceptable, it makes no sense - and doesn't accomplish the ultimate goal - to press one school to be better, we have to raise the standard. The only way to do this is to petition TC.

I've been out for a while but the Aviation community in Canada seems small enough that a FTU should be able to make a name for themselves, good or bad. As usual, I'm probably wrong.

FTUs do make a name for themselves but it has more to do with that customer-driven vs industry-driven aspect we talked about before. If the industry wants to have an effect then, it needs to get its message to the customers of the flight schools before they start training rather than after.

This is especially apparent to me as someone who is engaged in training others. I'm very acutely aware of what our reputation is with the student-customers and potentials. I really have not much idea on what anyone in industry thinks of our product. Of about 30 or so CPL students I know who have trained here, I know where about a third of them are working. The other two thirds I have no idea, they finished training and were off and running, like most pilots, out of the training world and washed themselves of it. Of the ones I do know only 1 have I actually heard from their boss - and that only by accident when I run into him in the unlikeliest of places (at a ZZTop Concert) and happened to have a seat next to mine and we got chatting when he mentioned how he flew into town. Incidentally he had nothing but good things to say, but aside from a chance encounter I would have never known. I mean maybe all the pilot's I've trained are crap and the ones I know still working have managed to overcome this obstacle. So far no one's came knocking on my door to tell me so I don't know. I'll assume for now that since there have been no complaints and most are able to stay hired and aren't smashing up airplanes that they were an acceptable product to the industry.

One thing I find continually problematic with this whole equation is how ignorant many are of the current flight training system - Especially higher level pilots who are a product of said system! I recently spoke with an ATPL rated pilot who's child was interested in following their father's footsteps, neither of them had any idea what the actual requirements were for getting a CPL. The father only kept spouting about how it was important for the child to "get his hours in". Student-customers are often shockingly misinformed about what's entailed in the product they're interested in purchacing. One of the biggest favors that everyone in this industry could do to improve it is become intimately familiar with what's required to get into your profession. I'll bet there's not a person who reads this forum, who hasn't been asked by a potential student-pilot what they need to do to become a pilot. At least if you don't know, stop feeding them the line about getting hours, and refer them to someone who does know.

[Hedley]

what they need to do to become a pilot

Not sure anyone will agree, but I tell people they first need to develop their skill and knowledge.

If you know what you are doing, getting qualified is more or less a formality. And, experience will come with time. It's the journey.

Don't get the cart before the horse. I know "paper pilots" and "paper mechanics", and I don't hold either one in very high regard. Their lack of technical competence can be frightening and downright dangerous.

[Shiny Side Up]

Not sure anyone will agree, but I tell people they first need to develop their skill and knowledge.

I'm sure everyone will agree, here at least. The thing is that "getting hours" is often the first thing that comes out of people's mouths when decribing what we do to a layman. Its an incorrect perception which is at the root of pilot training. A majority of new students get this into their head sometime well before they plant their butt in an airplane. Its something that's going to take a concerted effort to dispell.