An interesting quote regarding training/hiring

[Changes in Latitudes]

A training symposium last month at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University addressed the pilot shortage. One element of the conference was a presentation of a longitudinal study by ERAU professor Antonio Cortes exploring the cost of hiring pilots from accredited universities, military, professional flight schools (such as FlightSafety International) and fixed base operators. "One conclusion from the workshop," said Cortes, "is that in times such as the present, when employers urgently need to fill their rosters, they will hire as necessary and absorb the higher cost and failure rate from all sources."

In this modern age of aviation, with all of our technology, all of our knowledge and understanding of flight, when it is difficult to come up with a new way to put an airplane into the ground...we've resorted to this? Airlines have to hire idiots and absorb the costs of stupidity in the form of failure rates. That's all fine and good, but our hiring system stinks too, so we won't catch 100% of the failures, terrific. Poor training plus poor hiring can make for an awkward ride.

., please fire on this one.

[Lurch]

Lets say you really want to become a doctor, what do you do? You get good grades in school so that you are accepted into medical school. You have to pass exams in a number of subjects, maintain a high grade average, and at any point if your skill isn't up to standards you are kicked out.

Now if you really want to become a pilot what do you have to do? Spend as much money as needed to pass the exams.

So whats the difference? Any idiot with enough money can become a pilot, doesn't mean they should be.

Lurch

[sissyphus]

I've always believed in "you get what you pay for". For years airlines have been cutting pilots wages as a way to stay competitive. Its the largest operating cost other than fuel. With fuel prices on the up and up, with no end in sight, what is to happen to pilot's wages? The public has spoken about its love for the $100 ticket, so how is it that any airline will stay afloat? (aloft?) You reduce the training, increase the automation and hope to hell that the probability of failure multiplied by the cost of liability is less than having well trained "honcho" pilots.

The pessimist in me thinks that its going to take quite a few accidents attributed to pilot error, or lack of knowledge/experience before the public demands competent pilots. For now they're all too happy to risk their lives for 300 hundred bucks a ticket. As long as nobody has more than 3oz. of liquid or gels, what could go wrong?

[Wacko]

So... we should write 14 tests about theoretical concepts? This will get our competence level up?

?

[E-Flyer]

and to continue wacko's post - write 14 exams and not know how to land a plane lol, yet have a jet job

[sissyphus]

In fact, quite the opposite.

As it stands now, we're losing the knowledge gained from the pioneers of this industry. If it continues along this path we're doomed to the fate carpentry. There are some who still practice the old techniques. But its all too easy to make some p.o.s out of mdf, slap some wood veneer on it and call it high end furniture.

I was walking through a FBO, and passed a classroom full of private wannabee's. As I passed the door, I overheard the young instructor say "the most important aspect of meteorology is memorizing the abbreviations for precipitation" then go around the room asking students to recall different types.

My brain had a s#*t. Of all the wonders that arise from the enormous power of the atmosphere, the most important part is knowing that RA means rain. Holy F@#K. It is not that his information is wrong, RA does infact mean rain, but its more important knowing where and how that information sits in a larger system. It is this type of knowledge/experience gap that will eat our children.

It is the advancement of technology that will hang us. GFA's are great, but having to do cross sections of a front from the previous FA's, forces you to understand what is going on. GFA's have made that ability obsolete. No longer do you have to interpret the weather, just look at the pretty colours.

We're getting to the point where computers are touching every aspect of flying. The problem lies that computers use logic and linear equations to solve problems. Nature isn't logical, it isn't linear. We can make more and more parameters, faster and faster processors, but we're never going to be ahead of the game.

Having ab-initio flight training as a retirement gig, IMHO, is the answer. Home every night, siestas on slow days or solo training, and most importantly an honest wage. Having 235 hour kids teaching is disasterous. I pity my first few students.

The achilles heel of my idea, is that you must have pilots who are capable of making an assessment of a situation,sound thought process and leading with experience. Gain knowledge from experience and pass it along to the next guy.

Sounds easy, however.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Sounds easy, however.....

....it will not happen because the morons who decide who can teach are never ever going to approve anyone who has any real experience because they would not be able to intimidate them.

Therefore you have what you see today in Canada in flight training.

A dysfunctional system swiftly going down hill and the only hope you can have is it never gets as low as the mentality of those in charge at TC.

There are probably a lot of retired pilots such as myself who would love to teach flying, however there is no way we could regurgitate the crap that TC demands you learn to get approved.

So every time you see a TC flight training inspector walking around the airport remember you are looking at the reason the industry is fu.ked.

., please fire on this one.

There you go Changes in Latitudes, how was that?

[Wacko]

There are two sides to every story. I talked to a couple guys (granted maybe I was just lucky) who fly the big iron... for one reason or another they were in a 172 and were quite lost.

I do agree that the way people are taught should change. I don't necessarily think that having 3000+ hour guys is the solution either. I would like to see a requirement for a Class 1 to have higher minimum requirements including turbo/jet time. I can personally name a class 1 who would not fly when the weather was "iffy" and all of the 1500 hours or so were instructor hours (CAVOK).

Regarding weather... I think this is INCREDIBLY under-taught. I think this should be a separate collage/university course requirement.

[sissyphus]

., I seem to spot a recurring theme in your posts. Stick to your guns. However, I really didn't see all that much T.C interaction from an instructing standpoint. You have to fill in the boxes in the PTR to ensure the minimums were covered, but after that....I was free to do as I pleased (occasional audit here and there). No matter what happens in the industry the government will always be there to protect the minimum requirement.

Perhaps an answer to all of this is making the requirement to teach either a instructor rating, or an ATPL. If you have both, great! If you have no time, then you must complete the minimum requirement. If you've survived long enough in the flying world, and want to teach someone to do the same, then so be it. End of the day, the student must pass a proficiency check with T.C. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as the goal is a safety conscious, proficient pilot.

The second issue would be a student who wants to learn properly rather than cheaply. The trouble with having an experienced instructor, would be letting students know they have a choice. Taking up flying is a very passionate move, not prone to asking questions and forethought. Word of mouth be the only way to change.

[Alex YCV]

Just in my experiences clumping around just looking at different schools in the Montreal area i can tell you that the differences between the schools just on the surface (before any training, just walking in the door and saying "hi") is pretty dramatic. I think myself lucky to live in a place where there are a number of choices and options within reasonable distances. I can imagine some people living in smaller centers are stuck learning at the only flight school around, good or bad.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

., I seem to spot a recurring theme in your posts. Stick to your guns. However, I really didn't see all that much T.C interaction from an instructing standpoint. You have to fill in the boxes in the PTR to ensure the minimums were covered, but after that....I was free to do as I pleased (occasional audit here and there).

The message that I am trying to get across is TC has zero interest in ensuring a high quality of flight instruction.

Their only agenda is protecting their own turf, to do this they need their clients ( instructors ) to be subservient to what ever they want from said client.

They operate on the thug mentality and should you ever question or refuse to be treated like crap they will deny you the right to instruct.

Some years ago when applying for a FTU one of their thugs tried to intimidate me.

When I tried to get his superiors to intervene and reign in this thug I was suddenly put on their list to be gotten rid of.

I eventually won my legal case against these pricks, but was never compensated for the losses I suffered due to their unlawful actions when they bankrupted my company.

Their position is not defendable on any level....I have been teaching flying since I first received my instructors rating in 1957.

I am still in the teaching business and teach under the authority of several other countries....South Africa....Australia....and under JAA in Europe.

It is interesting that I am one of the highest paid flight instructors in aviation, yet can not fly in my own country because of a few thugs that work for TCCA.

And I am not the only one these pricks have denied the right to work in Canada.

I am going to be flying here in Canada again very soon.

It has been many years since I have flown here and am looking forward to meeting a couple of the pricks who did me in, I know for a fact that one of them is a regular at Boundry Bay and I am looking forward to meeting that prick again.

Hopefully I'll be seeing soon you Jim........

[trey kule]

Class 1 to have higher minimum requirements including turbo/jet time. I can personally name a class 1 who would not fly when the weather was "iffy" and all of the 1500 hours or so were instructor hours

Please satisfy my curiosity here. Unless a class one is teaching turbine time, what relevance would their having that kind of time be?
The sense I get is that many students, and instructors, forget what it is they are to learn/teach

I guess this is a sore point with me because I can still remember instructors playing "wannabee'' with their students instead of focussing on the basics of flying.

Take the advice of someone who has a few logbooks full of experience. Learn the basics. There will be time enough to learn the rest. And if you are an instructor, teach what you are suppossed to.

[Hedley]

I would like to see a requirement for a Class 1 to have higher minimum requirements including turbo/jet time

What on earth for? A class 1 instructor is by definition someone
who knows how to teach new instructors. That's it.

I can personally name a class 1 who would not fly when the weather was "iffy" and all of the 1500 hours or so were instructor hours (CAVOK).

I don't think you understand what a class 1 instructor does. He
does not need to even hold an instrument rating, or teach towards
the issuance of an instrument rating. He teaches new instructors,
which is done in VMC.

I hold a class 1 instructor rating, and I wish people had said that
(would not fly when weather was iffy) about me! I spent four
years in court battling an array of charges on that, starting at
the Tribunal, Tribunal Appeal, Federal Court, and Federal Court
of Appeals.

[Wacko]

ok... so there were a 4+ page post about improving instructors and teaching techniques... wouldn't that start with the ones teaching the teachers? Maybe I misunderstood... is the general consensus that we should learn more theory?

Before I put my foot in my mouth again... I associate a Class 1 with CFI. I know... it's not necessarily a requirement but generally speaking, if there's only 1 Class 1... s/he is usually the CFI? No? (Perhaps that's something to look into... maybe to be a CFI you need more skills than a Class 1 then?)

But I digress...

If that' the case... than the Class 1 is the champion of that school... the attitude/work ethic/knowledge trickles down to his subordinates? (especially class 4's)?

So... if that's true, wouldn't someone with generally more experience be able to mold the new instructors and therefore new pilots in the "right way"?

Ok... here's the statement I'm really worried about: The general consensus on this forum is that Cat has a wealth of information AND knowledge etc. Why would you want to go to his school? I can only assume he would want to take the initiative to teach new instructors how to teach... would those people be better instructors than those who are taught by just any Class 1?

Anyway... before anyone starts flaming me on yet another thread.... these are just my own personal views/observations... I'm curious as to the logic out there. I obviously don't have anywhere near the experience some of the people on this forum do and when I make a statement or observation it is based on my limited experience in aviation... I'm not here to offend anyone... (most of the time)... I just want answers.

[trey kule]

So... if that's true, wouldn't someone with generally more experience be able to mold the new instructors and therefore new pilots in the "right way"?

Well, in my opinion, not necessarily. I think there are several attributes that make an effective instructor.
1. They must be able to fly to a standard higher than the commercial, or the particular rating they may be teaching
2. THEY MUST BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY PASS ON THAT INFORMATION
3. They must understand the "big picture" of their program and how to integrate the lessons into a consecutive
4. They must have the personal integrity, and proper supervision to insure that they are spending the training time (the student is paying for) effectively...

With reference to no. 1, certain things like float ratings and tailwheel checkouts are far better done by pilots that have non-instructional experience. Tailwheel ratings, for example, are viewed by many pilots (and some instructors) to be some right of passage that makes you a better pilot. True, if you were not a good pilot to start with, but for anyone who can fly fairly well, and understands how planes work, a tailwheel checkout, and flying them is just no biggie. Same type of instructor/student attitude for aerobatics, floats etc.

And take this all with a grain of salt. I have had no experience in FTU's in the last twenty years except to see the product they are turning out.

[360montana]

Lets say you really want to become a doctor, what do you do? You get good grades in school so that you are accepted into medical school. You have to pass exams in a number of subjects, maintain a high grade average, and at any point if your skill isn't up to standards you are kicked out.

Now if you really want to become a pilot what do you have to do? Spend as much money as needed to pass the exams.

So whats the difference? Any idiot with enough money can become a pilot, doesn't mean they should be.

Lurch

Fair enough, but once you are a certified MD that's it, there are no further tests or re-certs you must do to maintain that licence... regardless of the years that have passed since you finished school. I do agree that the standards to pass aviation exams are quite low, but think of this. Once you are a carreer pilot you have manditory annual training that you must undergo aswell as standards of compitancy and physical health which must be maintained... for some companies (or if your over 40) this is every 6 months. This implies that the training for a carreer pilot never ends. You must stay current on changes to the industry and your abilities as a pilot... your job depends on it.

[E-Flyer]

In fact, quite the opposite.

As it stands now, we're losing the knowledge gained from the pioneers of this industry. If it continues along this path we're doomed to the fate carpentry. There are some who still practice the old techniques. But its all too easy to make some p.o.s out of mdf, slap some wood veneer on it and call it high end furniture.

I was walking through a FBO, and passed a classroom full of private wannabee's. As I passed the door, I overheard the young instructor say "the most important aspect of meteorology is memorizing the abbreviations for precipitation" then go around the room asking students to recall different types.

My brain had a s#*t. Of all the wonders that arise from the enormous power of the atmosphere, the most important part is knowing that RA means rain. Holy F@#K. It is not that his information is wrong, RA does infact mean rain, but its more important knowing where and how that information sits in a larger system. It is this type of knowledge/experience gap that will eat our children.
It is the advancement of technology that will hang us. GFA's are great, but having to do cross sections of a front from the previous FA's, forces you to understand what is going on. GFA's have made that ability obsolete. No longer do you have to interpret the weather, just look at the pretty colours.

We're getting to the point where computers are touching every aspect of flying. The problem lies that computers use logic and linear equations to solve problems. Nature isn't logical, it isn't linear. We can make more and more parameters, faster and faster processors, but we're never going to be ahead of the game.

Having ab-initio flight training as a retirement gig, IMHO, is the answer. Home every night, siestas on slow days or solo training, and most importantly an honest wage. Having 235 hour kids teaching is disasterous. I pity my first few students.

The achilles heel of my idea, is that you must have pilots who are capable of making an assessment of a situation,sound thought process and leading with experience. Gain knowledge from experience and pass it along to the next guy.

Sounds easy, however.....

MET is the worst taught subject ever. You need to understand MET to teach it, in fact, you need to understand aviation to teach it. If you don't, your information will be as good as the students reading through FGU by them selves.

[Cat Driver]

in my meeting with an underwriter last week they are starting to have a good hard look at whats going on, lets hope they start calling the shots!

You can bank on it Clunk, underwriters live or die by assessing risk.