okotoks flight school

[Squaretail]

I'm also sure its not lost on some the irony of demanding a more accurate accounting of time in a flight that inherently uses an inaccurate system.

You're confusing accuracy and precision. Recording flights to the nearest 0.1 isn't very precise, but it is accurate, because (if it's done properly) the errors are evenly biased to either side, you will round up as often as you round down, and on average, the errors cancel out over a run of flights.

The mean error is in fact zero, and the standard deviation goes down as 1 / sqrt(n), n being the number of flights.

First, I bow to your superior use of terminology. Second, try explaining that to your POI (or other experts) whom assumes that you would always use such a system to round in one's favour, in some dastardly plan to somehow become rich flying little airplanes.

The point still stands though, that at the end of he day, the little details of time keeping just ain't that important.

[praveen4143]

I seriously don't understand why we're arguing over something as trivial as how time is logged instead of looking at the fact that ab initio training is increasingly being conducted in very complex airspace. You wouldn't have a kindergarten student learning in the middle of a mall where there are a ton of distractions, would you?
Being able to learn in a small aerodrome without much complicated airspace and too much traffic would be ideal but not always feasible. That's a start.

Then of course there's the question of rookie instructors teaching concepts they are barely familiar with themselves. I know because I've been there and done that and I've also been on the other side having supervised a few rookie instructors. In one of the cases, it was a smaller setup and I was able to do a decent enough job of it. But, at large schools, I've noticed there isn't enough time or effort put into making sure that rookie instructors get enough guidance or supervision put into them. So they go out and do nonsensical things that will help them get the hours faster and out of the small iron into the bigger one faster without caring as much for the quality of the product they deliver. In an ideal world, instructors would only be retired pilots who are highly experienced but that's not the case, so the onus should be on ensuring proper guidance and supervision happens from class 1/2 instructors to the rookies.

[C.W.E.]

In an ideal world, instructors would only be retired pilots who are highly experienced but that's not the case,

In a logical world that would be the way it is done.

How come it is not done?

[Squaretail]

In a logical world that would be the way it is done.

How come it is not done?

You're a retired pilot, why aren't you doing it?

[C.W.E.]

You're a retired pilot, why aren't you doing it?

Because of the fact that in Canada you can not teach new pilots without having to hold a FTUOC.

Under that system the pay is so low one can not even consider it.

If we had the same rules as the FAA then any licensed instructor can teach anyone and the pay is based on quality of instruction.

[Squaretail]

So if the pay was right, then you would be totally back into teaching ab initio? So far I haven't heard that instructing is hugely lucrative south of the border, and there is a demand there more so than here for flight instructors. Why aren't they being paid more down there?

[5x5]

In an ideal world, instructors would only be retired pilots who are highly experienced but that's not the case,

I don't agree with this opinion. First of all, teaching abinitio students is a lot of repetitive work that requires significant effort and the commitment to a lot of student's individual schedules. Most of the retired airline pilots I know have no desire to be tied up in that manner nor do they want to put up with the stress and time commitment that's involved. Look up the definition of retirement - it's essentially the antithesis of flight instructing.

Additionally, I'm not sure that 10,000+ hours of, as one senior airline pilot described it to me years ago, "monitoring the aircraft with your feet up on the desk" adds much value that can be imparted to a pre-solo PPL student.

I think way too many people on this forum are much too quick to malign flight instructors without giving credit for the job they do in a very demanding setting. Can it be better? Of course, but pick any job, there's no human endeavour that can't be improved. But as with any established system, there's very rarely one single thing that can be changed to produce dramatically better results.

Looking globally, with Canada's and North America's overall safety record, it seems that pretty good pilot's are somehow being produced.

[Squaretail]

I don't agree with this opinion. First of all, teaching abinitio students is a lot of repetitive work that requires significant effort and the commitment to a lot of student's individual schedules. Most of the retired airline pilots I know have no desire to be tied up in that manner nor do they want to put up with the stress and time commitment that's involved. Look up the definition of retirement - it's essentially the antithesis of flight instructing.

Exactly. If the main fix for flight training in this country hinges on dragging a lot of guys out of retirement, then its doomed. Unfortunately, it already uses up everyone who does want to do this. I would speculate that you would need EVERY retired pilot to start chipping in to make a difference. One should note that this plan also assumes that every pilot of retirement age, has also had a breadth of experience to pass on that would be useful at the initial stage of flight training.

I will admit severe annoyance on this subject that the most experienced voices, which carry some weight in the pilot world often have these less than productive key points of what can be improved, and what should indeed be the focus of improvement. Things that aren't useful or practical, yet often get carried down into the training world to the uninitiated to take away from any productive efforts.

[photofly]

I don't think retired accountants necessarily make very good teachers of arithmetic, and I don't see why a retired airline pilot should ex-officio be good at teaching ab-initio flying skills. They might be, or they might not.

I should think a decent tennis coach or high school teacher with basic facility at flying a single engine piston aircraft would likely make a decent flight instructor. The ability to observe the behaviour of the trainee, analyze it objectively, and determine how, when and whether to intervene to improve the trainee's performance is paramount. To the extent that an airline pilot learns those skills, so too do people in many professions.

[C.W.E.]

So if the pay was right, then you would be totally back into teaching ab initio? So far I haven't heard that instructing is hugely lucrative south of the border, and there is a demand there more so than here for flight instructors. Why aren't they being paid more down there?

The pay in a FTU is abysmal because the instructors are mostly new commercial pilots using instruction as a means of getting flying hours.

Even more reason for me not to want to instruct for a Canadian flight school is the fact that you must instruct the way T.C. demands you do.

If we had the same regulations the FAA has where any licensed flight instructor can teach PPL's without having to go through the agony and money it costs to get a FTU-OC that T.C. demands and having to put up with the mindset of a lot of T.
C. flight school inspectors then yes I would go back to flight instruction because I enjoy teaching.

Money would not be the motivating factor for me as I am quite satisfied with my present monetary situation.

[Squaretail]

The pay in a FTU is abysmal because the instructors are mostly new commercial pilots using instruction as a means of getting flying hours.

I think you are mistaking a symptom with a cause. Instructing pay at a FTU is low because it’s an entry level position. It’s an entry level position because it’s not a desirable job in the aviation market. For the most part job wise instructing has the appeal of location and depending on the operation, a decent schedule. Those weigh against a lot of negatives, which tend to get worse the higher up in the instructing world. The rise in pay is usually not proportional to the rise in responsibility.

Right now what we’re seeing in the lower end of the flying job market, is if guys are given a choice between right seat in a turbine or right seat in a trainer a majority of them choose the former.

Even more reason for me not to want to instruct for a Canadian flight school is the fact that you must instruct the way T.C. demands you do.

What specifically do they require in terms of instructional technique do you object to? Is there a section of the FIG that is particularly disagreeable?

If we had the same regulations the FAA has where any licensed flight instructor can teach PPL's without having to go through the agony and money it costs to get a FTU-OC

I can’t disagree with that, but I doubt if that were the case it would help a lot of people get training, or people start flight schools. There just isn’t a large enough market in Canada. After all, we’re talking about the folks who want a PPL, who aren’t wealthy enough to afford their own airplane, yet not desiring of going to the local established FTU, and have enough money to make it worth your while to serve. In most cases the larger FTUs would fall under part 135 operations, and this change wouldn’t apply to them or change their costs. Regulatory wise, it’s equally onerous.

So in the big scheme of things, while I would applaud such a change, in terms of it improving overall flight training in Canada, it’s impact would be small enough as to not be noticeable.

I would go back to flight instruction because I enjoy teaching.

Would you want to do it as a full time job?

Money would not be the motivating factor for me as I am quite satisfied with my present monetary situation.

That’s nice. So that means you would instruct for cheap?

[Squaretail]

I don't think retired accountants necessarily make very good teachers of arithmetic, and I don't see why a retired airline pilot should ex-officio be good at teaching ab-initio flying skills. They might be, or they might not.

I should think a decent tennis coach or high school teacher with basic facility at flying a single engine piston aircraft would likely make a decent flight instructor. The ability to observe the behaviour of the trainee, analyze it objectively, and determine how, when and whether to intervene to improve the trainee's performance is paramount. To the extent that an airline pilot learns those skills, so too do people in many professions.

Completely agree. Personally, I have always thought that efforts need to be made to attract the right people up into instructing rather than dragging them back down into it. The best instructors are unfortunately an expendable resource, so it should be taken advantage of if they have the motivation and enthusiasm.

[C.W.E.]

Would you want to do it as a full time job?

No.

I retired after flying for a living for fifty one years, I made enough money to live very comfortably therefore I have no desire to work full time.

That’s nice. So that means you would instruct for cheap?

Flying for me was a profession and I ended up making very good money doing it so to work for cheap would be making a mockery of the profession.

My last client paid me 45,000 Euro for fifteen days flying which is as much as some Canadian pilots make in a year. ( It was not instructing. )

Here is a question for you.

When I retired my minimum charge for flying was 250 Euro per hour, naturally I could not charge that much for ab-initio flight training so what you charge if you were in my position?

[Squaretail]

I ain't you, and I ain't in your position so I don't know how much love you have for this endeavor. For me, I don't know if I could go back to doing full time ab initio training, or at least I ain't imaginative enough to figure out a large enough number I know I would be happy with. I wouldn't even want to do it on a scheduled part time basis either. I still instruct on an ad hoc basis, but never ab initio. How much I charge depends on how inconvenienced I am by the process, to which if that's too much then I just don't do it. At the moment I usually run at $100 per hour, to which I'm keenly aware is somewhat higher than FTU rates, though if they catch up, I'll make it more.

Now that said, I wouldn't be able to make a living doing that, charging that rate. There's not enough demand for that kind of stuff out there. There's a reason that there are no full time free lancers out there.

But my main point in all of this is if even you who loves instructing won't do it full time, why would anyone else want to do it? So why do we keep dreaming that there's going to be this big wave of pilots who want to "give back" who are going to come out of the woodwork and fix the wrongs with flight training? Someone brings it up in every friggin' thread about flight training. Everyone dreams that someone else is going to do it, so until I see all the experienced posters on the forums talking about how they are putting in the hours at their local airfield, righting FTU wrongs, it isn't a viable solution to anything.

And you still didn't answer my question about what you would change in the Flight Instructor Guide. Surely given your commentary there's got to be a point of contention there we can debate.

[C.W.E.]

And you still didn't answer my question about what you would change in the Flight Instructor Guide. Surely given your commentary there's got to be a point of contention there we can debate.

First I must point out that I received my Canadian flight instructors rating in 1957 as close as I can recall and my last contact with flight instruction in Canada was when I owned a flight school in the late eighties that was both fixed wing and rotary wing, with four single engine trainers, one IFR equipped twin and a R 22 helicopter.

Therefore I do have some experience with working with or rather under T.C.

I have a Canadian flight instructor guide in my book case that I have not looked at in decades, on the inside of the first page it has the date of 1978 so I don't know how many newer ones have been printed since that one.

I have not had any need to look at it for decades but the first thing I noticed was section 1, " The Principal of Learning and Techniques of Instruction. "

So starting with that I clearly remember my wife who had a Masters in teaching from Simon Fraser and almost finished her Doctorate in Education asking me who wrote that.

Basically she said it was written by someone with no idea of the subject.

So starting there do you know who wrote that section?

I would be pleased to discuss this subject with you and keep it on a professional basis.

[photofly]

Is the "you must do five hours of alternating dual/solo flights doing nothing but circuits until you have five hours solo time" a common thing? Did it used to be? Because that eats up 7-10 hours of flight time.

[trey kule]

It was not years ago.
Went something like this....IIRC

1. First solo...1 circuit.
2. Next flight dual for three circuits or as needed. Approx 1 hr solo circuits
3. Next flight. Dual for three circuits, intro / dual to short field. Solo for one hr.
4. Next flight. Solo to finish up three hours of solo
..then back to upper air work, short/soft field incorporated.
Less than 4 hours, but that was before traffic congestion on the ground, and the new age flight time recording.

One of the biggest issues I have seen is teaching each manoeuvre as an individual lesson, something that is not well thought out in the FIG, and gets lost on new instructors. No real flow in the training.
The biggest failure in training is, in my opinion, the way most FTUs in Canada teach ground school.
But maybe its all changed now.

[photofly]

I agree that “one exercise, one flight” is not helpful. The FIG shoots itself in the foot in the way it presents air exercises vs. “Lesson Plans”.

Also the regulation forbidding the teaching of a new exercise until PGI has been taught, is unhelpful in this respect.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Also the regulation forbidding the teaching of a new exercise until PGI has been taught, is unhelpful in this respect.

I don’t agree with this statement. New material should never be taught in the airplane. The PGI , properly done, will provide the student with essential knowledge to understand the skill they are learning and should be presented before any new air exercise

There is nothing in the regulations or in the FIG that says you have to do everything in the air exercises contained in part 2 of the FIG in one flight. The best way to think of the air exercises in the FIG is as a checklist. By the end of PPL training everything in every air exercise needs to be covered. Climbs and Descents is a good example where the basics are introduced in the early lessons and then built on in more advanced lessons so by the end of training every part of this exercise will have been mastered

Personally I think the FIG is a pretty good document. The part that in my opinion seems to be most misunderstood is the idea that short and soft field landings have to be taught in the initial circuit training immediately following the first solo. A central concept in the
FIG is that the instructor does not move on until the student is competent at flying the previous exercise.

If the student can’t consistently fly a normal landing with a stable approach with only minor airspeed excursions and judge the flare so as the touchdown occurs near the preselected point then there is no point in teaching them short field or soft field landings. They have to master a normal landing first.

My personal experience is many students while safe are still working on accuracy and precision during the initial circuit training post first solo. Therefore I leave the short and soft field landings to the post circuit training where we have gone back to the practice area for the advanced PPL exercises. At this point every dual flight will start and end with a performance takeoff and landing

[trey kule]

BPP.
I agree, I like the FIG.
And I understand what the “G” means....”.guide”. From the stories I hear, I am not sure all instructor examiners do.

Now I take exception with your comment about short field in the circuit, but perhaps it is the internet.

After initial solo, the next I liked to do three minimum circuits with the student, if I am comfortable that they are safe, then let them do normal circuits. Normal meaning normal TOs and landings.
This is if they are safe.....

On the next flight, unless there is a reason to be concerned ,it is a good time to demo and dual the short field. The student only does one....count them one dual circuit then reverts back to normal TO and landings. Please reread my post. I was pretty specific that this would not occur on the first flight after initial solo flight.

Now the way I read your post is the student typically might have a problem with normal TO and landings. Maybe..in which case dont do it! Or is that bit of common sense escaping you?
I know it does with too many . Assessing a student’s progress is part of good instructing.

When I hear examiners counting the number of Questions a hopeful instructor asks, or making certain the word yaw is used in every lesson I think common sense is slipping away. All students are not the same.when class 1s comment...do this....or you will not pass, and the “do this” makes zero sense (to anyone), it boggles the mind.
The problem with one lesson one exercise is that iswhat future class 4s tend to be taught.

I agreewith your checklist concept., but that really was not the point I was trying to make.

[Squaretail]

and the new age flight time recording.

I hate to break this to you, but it (like many other things people like to blame on the youngest generation) ain't new. For example, this is out of an article in the latest Flying magazine.

At the going rate of $5 an hour for dual given—measured only when the Hobbs was running—instruction didn’t include much in the way of preflight briefings or post-flight discussions. You hustled the student into the airplane and held off on conversation until you got the engine running.

That's Martha Lunken describing flight training in the 60's. And I'll save you from checking, the FARs define flight time the same way the CARs do.

I agree that “one exercise, one flight” is not helpful. The FIG shoots itself in the foot in the way it presents air exercises vs. “Lesson Plans”.

I also agree that the confusion between the exercises and lesson plans could be made more clear. That said, the lesson plans certainly lead one to believe that you can do more than one exercise in one flight which ideally should be a mixture of review, new material, and at the end a peek at what's to come.

No real flow in the training.

I don't know about that. Its not hard to follow a logical progression in a flight training syllabus, and modify it as necessary depending on the student's aptitude. What gaining experience in instructing does is to help the instructor know how far they can go with that to tailor to a more difficult student's needs. The FIG and its lesson plans as written assume a cadet type student with the benefits of regular lessons and the high level of immersion. Of course most recreationally minded students are going to vary from this.

So starting with that I clearly remember my wife who had a Masters in teaching from Simon Fraser and almost finished her Doctorate in Education asking me who wrote that.

Basically she said it was written by someone with no idea of the subject.

So starting there do you know who wrote that section?

No I do not know who wrote it. However, I have never had any real problems with the material presented within that section. I'm assuming you're referring to the whole section about learning factors. What about the principles of Primacy, Exercise, Relationship, Readiness, Intensity, Effect, and Recency do you disagree with? What parts did she disagree with? I mean its not pulitzer quality work, but nothing in it seems to me to be objectionable or flat out wrong.

[photofly]

Also the regulation forbidding the teaching of a new exercise until PGI has been taught, is unhelpful in this respect.

I don’t agree with this statement. New material should never be taught in the airplane.

As a general rule, it's fine. But presenting it as rigid law, under threat of a $1000 fine for the instructor, I find unhelpful. There are plenty of times when it's useful to look at something new in the aircraft, and follow up with discussing it on the ground later. Well beyond the "here, watch this" concept of the exercise "familiarization".

The PGI , properly done, will provide the student with essential knowledge to understand the skill they are learning and should be presented before any new air exercise

Remember, according to the rules, there are four air exercises preceeding straight and level. Nobody interested in learning to fly should put up with a Class IV-instructor-rating sized PGI on "Aircraft Familiarization and Preparation for Flight", "Ancillary Controls" and "Taxiing" before their first lesson. In as much as the FIG allows one to believe they should, I think it could be better. How else would one interpret "This section has been written with the aim of providing the experienced or trainee flight instructor with direction for the orderly presentation of flight training to the student". Closely followed by exercises 1, 2, 3 and 4? If you want to kill flight training in Canada stone dead, make sure each student is fully competent at handling the difficult and dangerous carburettor heat control before they go up in the air.

There is nothing in the regulations or in the FIG that says you have to do everything in the air exercises contained in part 2 of the FIG in one flight. The best way to think of the air exercises in the FIG is as a checklist. By the end of PPL training everything in every air exercise needs to be covered. Climbs and Descents is a good example where the basics are introduced in the early lessons and then built on in more advanced lessons so by the end of training every part of this exercise will have been mastered

Agreed. But climbs and descents and turns, and takeoffs and landings, are undoubtedly encountered on flights before PGI is taught on them. Do we ask the student to close their eyes? Permit them only to watch? Or can we let the student hold the controls and instruct them what to do, while they're paying $250 per hour plus tax? Where do you draw the line between making good use of the student's time and money, and a contravention of 405.31?

A good instructor can make something of the takeoffs and landings, and climbs, and descents, and turns, and map reading, all those things, well before PGI is taught on them.

I agree that "let's just jump in the airplane and see how it goes" is a bad structure to a lesson. But nothing is black and white.

Personally I think the FIG is a pretty good document. The part that in my opinion seems to be most misunderstood is the idea that short and soft field landings have to be taught in the initial circuit training immediately following the first solo. A central concept in the
FIG is that the instructor does not move on until the student is competent at flying the previous exercise.

Forgive me but I believe the lesson from the lessons plans in the FIG is in fact the opposite. A student does not have to be fully competent in one exercise before introducing the next. As far as short and soft-field landings go, I agree with you. But there's no general rule: for example a student doesn't need to be "competent" at slow flight before introducing them to stalls. A student doesn't need to make competent takeoffs before being introduced to landings. Clearly these things can go together.

[Big Pistons Forever]

On the next flight, unless there is a reason to be concerned ,it is a good time to demo and dual the short field. The student only does one....count them one dual circuit then reverts back to normal TO and landings. Please reread my post. I was pretty specific that this would not occur on the first flight after initial solo flight.

Trey

My experience has been different from yours. I have not had very many students who “on the next flight” which I read to mean the 2nd flight after first solo, were ready to see short/soft field landings. By definition these landings require more precision than a normal landing and that precision tends to come with practice and in my experience doesn’t happen in the post first solo circuit exercises.

In any case my PGI for short/soft field takeoff and landings is about 80% pilot decision making around the “so what’s” if I want to operate out of real short/soft field. The remaining 20% is the hands and feet part. The just in the circuit student will not IMHO have enough experience to really hoist in the message.

[C.W.E.]

No I do not know who wrote it. However, I have never had any real problems with the material presented within that section. I'm assuming you're referring to the whole section about learning factors. What about the principles of Primacy, Exercise, Relationship, Readiness, Intensity, Effect, and Recency do you disagree with? What parts did she disagree with? I mean its not pulitzer quality work, but nothing in it seems to me to be objectionable or flat out wrong.

As I recall her opinion on the FIG was in reference to the " Laws of Learning "

She said she never heard of these laws.

It has been a long time since I opened one of T.C.'s training guides and I noticed a book mark in the flight training manual at page 111 describing wheel landings and the way it is described there does not describe the way I perform wheel landings.

What are your thoughts on how that manual describes how to perform a wheel landing?

By the way I do wheel landings almost exclusively in tail wheel airplanes except for one or two airplanes due to the visibility problem they have looking forward.
--

[trey kule]

Tail Wheel airplanes? I googled it. They are a real thing...who knew?

Apparently the collective wisdom of the people that wrote the manual does not compare to the knowledge of the illuminati.

The history of tail wheel landings goes back to the age of dinosaurs when it was observed that the dinosaurs ( known then as dina-soarers) would slide down a glacier and fly into the air and then make a perfect landing. This technique was not lost on the wise ones. In fact, they formed an organization to preserve this ancient knowledge. It was called the True Righteous Order of Lucky Landings, or as we know them today, “Trolls”
These wise ones can be identified by the fact they were present to witness the dinosaurs
You can tell they are wise as they post, without anyone asking, how much they got paid.
It secures their credentials.

Now for any who have not searched these forums and read the 637 times this special technique has been already shared by a troll, I am certain that if you simply suggest that what page 111 states is correct and then bow to the super wisdom of one who really knows you will learn so much. I would offer to do it, but I really have no idea what is on page 111. The people that wrote those flight training manuals are all idiots. Only the Trolls know the one straight path down the centerline.