Unsung hero's, the real flight instructors.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

My experience with instructors has been this...They've spent the last 500-100hrs being required to "know" the answers to all the "important" questions, as Cat says, that we all asked back in the day. That's their job. Then some go and get their first "IFR" job and come across as inexpereinced know it all weiners because they've spent their entire "career" knowing it all, but dont really know much outside of what they've seen and done. Nobody's at fault really, it's bred by the position they held, and bred into the rating and I think. 703-704 operations are especially notorious for requiring you to "think outside the box". Something that is not really built into the lesson plans of the TC instructor rating or the job itself. Some of you will argue that all students are different; And this may be true, however they're doing the same exercises in the same practice areas, and doing the same "cross contries" to the same airports.

Scoring 85% on the IATRA isn't really going to make you a good 703-704 pilot. It may help, especially on rides, but being able to learn from the guys next to you and from their experiences, giving them constructive help, and most of all helping keep them out of trouble,will make you a good 703-704 pilot. The guy who brags about how well he scored on any of his exams, none of which are really of consequence in day to day ops, (besides the obvious, ie: alternate mins, etc...) is not likely not the guy who makes a "good 703-704" pilot.

Somone hit it on the head when they said it was all about attitude...

Just have some humility.

[iflyforpie]

Comparing a 300 hour wonder instructor doing ab-initio training to a 10,000 hour pilot doing line indocs and PPCs is comparing apples to tire irons.

Single engine, low performance aircraft don't have a lot of mystery to them. To be at a good level to teach a PPL takes maybe 500 hours for the motivated instructor who takes pride in his work.

A 10,000 hour line pilot who has tons of real-world experience certainly would be able to do a better job, but it is not a linear relationship. There is only so much a student can absorb and 'fancy flying' is only going to detract from the basics the student needs to master. Even Class 3 instructors get bored teaching Attitudes and Movements, but this is the basis of all further maneuvers.

Yes, you could teach a PPL in 35 hours 50 years ago. My grandfather's logbook said just over 35 in 1967, and he started late in life with a large family and a business to run. But his instructors weren't more qualified back then in terms of basic hours and experience in the industry.

Ab-initio flight instruction has never been know to keep loyal pilots either. It has always been a stepping-stone to better things except for the few who truly enjoy teaching or want to make a business out of it.

So is it today's instructor's, or the high required standards that make a PPL a 60 or more hour venture? I am curious to see what times the more 'experienced' instructors are getting for their PPL candidates using today's standards.

As for instructors going into 704/705 etc, canoehead had it. Attitude and humility. The captain needs an extra set of arms and eyes, not someone to tell him to control airspeed with attitude-etc. The SOPs tell you when it's okay to speak up.

[Cat Driver]

Yes, you could teach a PPL in 35 hours 50 years ago. My grandfather's logbook said just over 35 in 1967, and he started late in life with a large family and a business to run. But his instructors weren't more qualified back then in terms of basic hours and experience in the industry.

In the fifties the minimum was 30 hours for the PPL.

What has changed so it now takes over twice the hours?

For sure the general quality of PPL's has not improved.

[beast]

Well, I think the PPL of fourty years ago was more like the rec pilot permit today - much less focus on instruments, long range navigation, ATC, or flying into different airports

I've spoken with a number of guys who did their licenses back then, this seems to be the consensus

Also, the amount of ATC work, especially at the big training centres (ZBB, YAV, etc) is much more of an issue with the greatly increased amounts of traffic

- I know that many of my students that needed a little more time than usual, just needed to get more comfortable dealing with a busy tower environment

[Cat Driver]

Well, I think the PPL of fourty years ago was more like the rec pilot permit today -

Well you may think that to be true but you are wrong.

much less focus on instruments,

True, and it shows up when watching them try and fly half looking outside and half inside, especially in the climb.....some fly like like a roller coaster chasing the airspeed needle.

long range navigation,

The cross country navigation was the same as today.

ATC, or flying into different airports

We had more airports and ATC in the Toronto area than most training areas in Canada.

- I know that many of my students that needed a little more time than usual, just needed to get more comfortable dealing with a busy tower environment

I learned to fly at the Toronto Island Airport and later instructed there up until around 1960, there was a tower and the traffic was as busy as most airports today so that takes care of that argument.

[Hedley]

In the "Flight Training" Forum, there's a thread
started by a student pilot. Apparently at his FTU,
the norm is that you go solo at 50 hours, and don't
yet have your PPL by 100 hours.

Canadians pilots are often quite smug about the
quality of flight training in Canada compared to
other countries. I'm not so sure.

[beast]

And what do you think the Toronto area is like now, if you thought it was busy in 1960?

Also, the "average" ppl time has been heavily influenced by the recent influx of ESL students - at one of the schools I used to teach at, the average ppl time for an Indian ESL student was over 100 hours, while for a student fluent in English, the average was around 40-50 - the language issue is definitely a factor
- Anyone who flies around the yvr/zbb area knows

And no, I think if you look at the rec permit standards, I think you'll find they're very similar to what the ppl was - If nothing was added to that curriculum, did TC just arbitrarily increase the minimum to 45? No, they definitely added material, and I'll do some research with the old man and try and discover what used to be the case

[Hedley]

When the rec permit first appeared with the CARs
in 1996, I had a took a student from zero hours to
flight test in 25.3 hours at an uncontrolled airport
in a 172.

He had no previous (bootleg) flight experience, and
he did not fly very often. He was not what you would
call a natural pilot, but he was willing to do a little
reading between lessons, and I guess that made
the difference.

It's a tragedy that Transport focuses so exclusively
on flight test scores. There is absolutely no motivation
for a flight instructor to be efficient, and to provide
any kind of good value to his customer. Quite the
opposite, in fact.

If I were running things, I would factor the flight
test scores by the flight time of the student. Of
course a student with 1000 hours (no typo - a grand)
can fly a precise steep turn. I would be very surprised
if he did not.

That is, I would divide the score (for each item) by
the flight time. Let's say a perfect score was 10.
The division factor would be 1 at 50 hours flight
time. So, a perfect steep turn would be scored
as a 10 for a 50 hour student, but only a 5 for
a 100 hour student.

100 hours to PPL is atrocious, and is something
to be greatly ashamed of, as an instructor.

[Cat Driver]

And what do you think the Toronto area is like now, if you thought it was busy in 1960?

I did not suggest that the Toronto area does not have more traffic now than in 1960. I was only pointing out that there was a tower and a lot of traffic at the Island Airport then, I just do not think the time to get a PPL would more than double just because of traffic....however I guess some airports are very congested so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

And no, I think if you look at the rec permit standards, I think you'll find they're very similar to what the ppl was -

Maybe I am getting senile and can not remember the standards from that era, I have read the standards for the rec permit and the standards for the PPL were far higher than the rec permit in that era.

If nothing was added to that curriculum, did TC just arbitrarily increase the minimum to 45? No, they definitely added material, and I'll do some research with the old man and try and discover what used to be the case

Sure you do that because I am senile and don't know SFA about the subject.....get back to me when " the old man " gives you the real facts.

Hey...before I quit maybe the reason we took less than half the time to learn how to fly was because we only had those easy tail wheel airplanes to fly and didn't have to learn on real difficult machines like a 150/ 172.

It was even easier for us instructors teaching on tail wheel airplanes without brakes on our side.

[Just another canuck]

I soloed in under 10 hours... I'm awesome ... or my instructor was retarded....LOL.

[ihavecontrol]

I think one must take into consideration the motivation of a student and time (in regards to days, months, and even years), when one looks at the flight time it requires to go solo. As a former instructor I had many students who were lucky if they went for a flight every second week and often it was months between flights. No matter how much you emphasized the importance of hitting the books, many (it would be fair to say most) would show up for a lesson without once looking at the Flight Training Manual or in the POH. For many it's just a hobby, something that shouldn't require too much "work" or effort. I think even the most gifted and motivated instructor would have difficulty sending a middle-aged adult solo who refuses to hit the books and spreads his training out over months if not years in under 15 hours on a consistent basis.

[Cat Driver]

I think even the most gifted and motivated instructor would have difficulty sending a middle-aged adult solo who refuses to hit the books and spreads his training out over months if not years in under 15 hours on a consistent basis.

Why only a middle-age student?

Whether they are young, middle-age or old age if they spread their flying out over a long time frame they should not be sent solo with low hours.....hitting the books is not as important for solo as knowing how to physically fly the airplane.

[iflyforpie]

Yes, you could teach a PPL in 35 hours 50 years ago. My grandfather's logbook said just over 35 in 1967, and he started late in life with a large family and a business to run. But his instructors weren't more qualified back then in terms of basic hours and experience in the industry.

In the fifties the minimum was 30 hours for the PPL.

What has changed so it now takes over twice the hours?

For sure the general quality of PPL's has not improved.

I would like to find out because even though the minimum is only 45, the average is much higher. I did mine in 60 while I was working full-time. But I also started my CPL training at 100 and did a multi-IFR before 200. Anybody have a copy of an old syllabus and flight test standards?

As for the quality of PPLs; I don't know. I've salvaged a lot of bent tin from 'older' private pilots. The guy I checked out on our humble 172 today used to fly CF-101s and is a sim instructor on the Harvard II in Moose Jaw. He proceeded to do a demonstration on how robust the nose gear is several times.

[7kcabfun]

Sorry to be unclear as to the IATRA comment. It's not a hard exam or am I bragging on an eighty-five. It was more about making the point as to what area's instructing has advantages. To bend the rules, as someone said earlier, you have to know the rules. That's a plus for instructors cause you always get that one guy asking ,hard, complex grey area rule BS all the time.

During instructing you learn skill sets that IMHO would take longer to learn from the right seat, right out of flight school. You have to always remain calm, be confident in your self, and express yourself in an appropriate manner. If you and the student are not on the same page about something the student doesn't learn, then you re-teach later. Primacy anyone??? Example of a good instructor: During a Pre-flight test the candidate is ask to do a stall from an overshoot while turning to the left to avoid terrain (simulated of course) The student expecting the left wing to stall first and drop, preemptively adds right rudder, when the right wing (the correct wing to stall first given the scenario) drops the student enters a spin to the right. As a good instructor you wait and allow the student to recognize what happened and to promptly recover for themselves without prompting. If they do not you have to know when to assist them , and by how much, or to correct it for them. These skills play over when you have to know when to speak and when to listen.

As someone else commented earlier any instructor becoming an F/O that tells another pilot about any lesson from the FIG, should be FLOGGED... Severely.


Back to the most basic and the original topic. It's not about how the log book is filled. It is all about the individuals skills, attitude and, abilities. So why knock someone for instructing ab-initio there are some valuable experiences there. Be it FTU or 700's theses skills transfer. Ask the guys doing line checks as CCPs, I'll bet you find alot of old instructors with lapsed ratings. All the CCP's I have ever dealt with were class 1's at some time or another and had at least a couple thousand hours getting knocked around in the circuit.

Didn't help them at all though... right Ray

[shimmydampner]

To Quote the Late Colonel Sanders:

"I'm too Drunk to taste this Chicken"

The way I look at it I am better off without the rating renewed as I can still teach a lot of different kinds of flying and I do it using the " stuff " I learned back in the days when we taught people to fly in airplanes that were harder to fly and we did it in thirty hours for a PPL. Not to mention the teaching skills I have developed over the past forty or so years as a check pilot working in the industry.

There are people everywhere who assume the skills acquired in their last job are directly transferable to their new job. It isn't always so.

JC

OHHHHHHHH!!!
Get at it boys! Shenanigans!

[ihavecontrol]

In regards to the age Cat, you're right it doesn't really matter, I just found the younger students have less distractions (work, family etc.) and seem to also pick up the hands and feet part of flying quicker than older students (this is just a generalization). Unfortunately, even to go solo nowadays a test is required (PSTAR) and you wouldn't believe what a big deal some people make about what should ordinarily be a straight-forward mutiple choice test. I also believe that even to just go solo, a student does require some basic flying theory (how a wing works, flaps etc.), and many start their flight training before ever attending a gound school. It's difficult to teach some of the practical aspects of flying if the student has no theoretical foundation, and needless to say, a lot more time consuming.

[Shiny Side Up]

I ain't going to defend instructors, lord knows there are plenty of bad ones out there. There are plenty of good ones too, just like any other group of people or pilots. I would say though that any pilot should take a long hard look at the pilots around them before they peg any specific group as being "bad".