"Self Study" Groundschool

[Conflicting Traffic]

I have a question for anyone who has issued a written exam recommend for a student who completed a guided "self study" groundschool program. I know it's done, but I'm trying to see how it meets regulatory requirements. For example, CAR 421.26 includes the phrasing

...completed a minimum of 40 hours private pilot aeroplane ground school instruction...

The word "instruction" is not defined anywhere in the CAR's that I can find, but I think a reasonable interpretation requires some sort of interaction with an instructor.

CAR 426.24 stipulates:

The requirements in respect of the position of ground instructor are:
A person may be appointed or act as ground instructor for a flight training unit if that person:
(a) demonstrates to the chief flight instructor, or designated assistant chief flight instructor or check instructor, that they have sufficient aviation experience to have technical competence in the subjects they are to teach; and
(b) is briefed by the chief flight instructor, or designated assistant chief flight instructor or check instructor, on his or her duties and responsibilities and the applicable instructional techniques set out in the Flight Instructor Guide, Part I.

This suggests (to me at least) that instruction is to be provided by a person, and that person is to meet specified qualifications. Granted, this is for FTU's and so doesn't apply to freelancing, but I've seen the "self study" approach used at FTU's as well.

Anyone have any insight here?

[photofly]

How would you ascertain that 40 hours of self study had been completed, that was done with accurate and relevant training materials, and that it covered the entirety of the required sylllabus?

[smashmonkey]

I guess what kind of interaction do you mean? A full 40 hours with an instructor? Only a letter of recommend?

Since TC has vetted Harvs Air ground school and many students have done the self-study method I assume the status quo is fine even if it's open to interpretation in the rules. If TC wants it changed they would.

At my former school one of the ground instructors liked a captive audience so he could tell his stories. No one would be able to pass the test without at least some self study.

I find pretty much everybody will exceed the minimum amount of 40 hours (official ground school or not) to gain enough knowledge to challenge the exam.

I never cared if people lied about doing the work. I would make them do a practice test and ask them questions and I could tell fairly quickly if they were ready.

[Conflicting Traffic]

How would you ascertain that 40 hours of self study had been completed, that was done with accurate and relevant training materials, and that it covered the entirety of the required sylllabus?

Exactly. This is one of my many questions. Although, in fairness, the issue of "proof" could be at least partly addressed with practice exams.

[Conflicting Traffic]

I guess what kind of interaction do you mean? A full 40 hours with an instructor? Only a letter of recommend?

I think it's pretty difficult to argue that producing a letter of recommend takes 40 hours. There's also room to dispute the position that doing paperwork constitutes "instruction".

Since TC has vetted Harvs Air ground school and many students have done the self-study method I assume the status quo is fine even if it's open to interpretation in the rules. If TC wants it changed they would.

The Harv's course provides instruction in the form of videos. So I think that's defensible -- it's not in person, but it's still "instruction". I also think it's distinct from standalone self-study. Although, you could possibly argue that without two-way student-instructor interaction, it doesn't qualify as "instruction". Clearly, TC doesn't take that position (which is kind of odd, considering the regulation quoted above referencing the FIG).

At my former school one of the ground instructors liked a captive audience so he could tell his stories. No one would be able to pass the test without at least some self study.

I would suggest that this instructor wasn't doing his/her job. Stories are great if they support the lesson. But if the whole "lesson" is just a bunch of "so there I was ...", then it's not much of a lesson, and I would suggest it shouldn't count toward any groundschool requirement.

As for the requirement of additional self-study, yes of course, even top quality instruction would be inadequate without supplementary study. But my question is how does the study alone meet regulatory requirements.

I find pretty much everybody will exceed the minimum amount of 40 hours (official ground school or not) to gain enough knowledge to challenge the exam.

I never cared if people lied about doing the work. I would make them do a practice test and ask them questions and I could tell fairly quickly if they were ready.

As a practical matter, yes, practice exams go a long way toward confirming the required learning. But I'm still struggling to see how this would meet the regulatory requirements -- notwithstanding any learning that might take place.

[smashmonkey]

@ Conflicting Traffic

You still haven't said what you think counts as instruction. It seems that you want 40 hours with a qualified instructor? What about self-study textbooks?
It's been my experience that transport doesn't think you need an official groundschool honestly I don't either. Heck I know students who did their commercial ground school through a college aviation program and not pass their commercial exam.

I think that 40 hours is kind of a random number. I don't know the history of how they decided that. Why not 35 or 70? Why is 40 magical?
You do have several checks and balances before someone gets their license. They have to get a recommend for the written, then pass the written, do a preflight then pass the test. If someone can manage to do all these things on the first try it's safe to assume they have enough knowledge for a private license. Which, as cheesy as it is, is a "license to learn".

[Conflicting Traffic]

You still haven't said what you think counts as instruction.

True, I haven't, and that's deliberate. I'm not the minister or one of his delegates. So what I think is irrelevant -- unless I can support my point of view with quotes from the CAR's.

It seems that you want 40 hours with a qualified instructor? What about self-study textbooks?

Again, it doesn't matter what I want. I'm totally on-board with the fact that guided self-study is feasible for cognitive/academic learning. I'm trying to reconcile the regulatory requirements with what actually happens sometimes.

It's been my experience that transport doesn't think you need an official groundschool

And this is where my question comes from. This has also been my observation. But I can't see how the self-study practice is allowed within the regulations.

Understand that I'm not concerned (at least for the purposes of this thread) about whether or not self-study works, or is practical, or meets the requirements of protecting public safety, or any of several other relevant considerations. I'm just trying to figure out how this fits within the current regulatory structure. TC allowing it notwithstanding, I don't see how it's legal. Is it actually legal (and if so, how?), or are they just turning a blind eye?

Heck I know students who did their commercial ground school through a college aviation program and not pass their commercial exam.

Yes, I know. And I think that's disgraceful (for the college, not necessarily for the student). But this brings us into actual considerations of learning and away from regulatory requirements.

I think that 40 hours is kind of a random number. I don't know the history of how they decided that. Why not 35 or 70? Why is 40 magical?

I don't know where 40 came from originally, but it's worth noting that the CPL requirement was 40 hours when I started out, and it was later changed to the current 80 hours. Also, I used to teach the entire PPL and CPL groundschools at one of the schools I worked at in the '90's. I couldn't properly cover the PPL content in a group setting in under 60 hours, but I could easily do it in under 30 hours one-on-one. Further to that, the 40 hours (or 80 hours for CPL) is a minimum, not a target. So based on my experience, it seems pretty reasonable to me.

You do have several checks and balances before someone gets their license. They have to get a recommend for the written, then pass the written, do a preflight then pass the test. If someone can manage to do all these things on the first try it's safe to assume they have enough knowledge for a private license. Which, as cheesy as it is, is a "license to learn".

This is all fair comment, but it still doesn't fit "self-study" within the existing regulatory structure. In other words, you're talking about what's effective, but I'm asking about what legal. In a perfect world, they'd both be the same thing. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.

[photofly]

You do realize CAR101.01 has a definition of ground school, don’t you?

ground school instruction means classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study that adheres to an approved training program; (instruction théorique au sol)

[Big Pistons Forever]

Transport Canada does not approve Ground Schools. The Flight Instructor recommending the student is responsible for determining whether or not the student is ready for the written examination. Flight Instructors that keep on having their students fail exams will be flagged by TC.

Personally I think this is the right approach, especially given the many ways in which ground instruction can be effectively given. Putting the responsibility on the recommending instructor is IMO, the right approach to ensure students are adequately prepared for the exam.

[CpnCrunch]

You do realize CAR101.01 has a definition of ground school, don’t you?

ground school instruction means classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study that adheres to an approved training program; (instruction théorique au sol)

But what is their definition of "classroom". Does it include online classroom?

I think perhaps this is a case where the regulations don't quite tie up with the reality of how TC actually does things. I came across another example a few weeks ago, with regards to instrument flight tests. The flight test guide says one thing, but TC has told examiners to do it differently. I don't really care...I just do it the way the examiner expects me to do it.

[photofly]

I don't think there's anything ambiguous about "classroom-type". It's the type of instruction that is mandated, not the venue in which it occurs.

In any event, the definition includes:

• classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures,
• homework
• or self-paced study

that adheres to an approved training program.

If you disagree with the way I conjugate it, prove me wrong.

Regardless, the important point is that it adheres to an approved training program, which means someone has to approve the training program. In my opinion that person would be the CFI or instructor responsible, and the one who signs the recommendation for the written exam.

[Conflicting Traffic]

You do realize CAR101.01 has a definition of ground school, don’t you?

ground school instruction means classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study that adheres to an approved training program; (instruction théorique au sol)

Despite your attempt to be condescending, that is very helpful, thanks!

It's been over 10 years since I've done any civilian instruction, and I appear to have gotten rusty on some of the finer points. I was once aware of this definition, but I confess the "... or self-paced study ..." portion eluded me. In any case, this time around I only thought to look for "instruction" and variations without appending "groundschool" during my search. Silly me. This definition is exactly what I was looking for.

[Loon-A-Tic]

The "virtual" classroom is rapidly becoming the norm, lets move forward and not stuck in a outdate paradigm.

[CpnCrunch]

I don't think there's anything ambiguous about "classroom-type". It's the type of instruction that is mandated, not the venue in which it occurs.

In any event, the definition includes:

• classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures,
• homework
• or self-paced study

that adheres to an approved training program.

If you disagree with the way I conjugate it, prove me wrong.

The confusion is that "classroom-type" instruction does not include self-paced study. It is the opposite of self-paced study. It's not your conjugation that's the problem. Anyway, TC seems to think that classroom-type instruction includes self-paced study, so we just go with their incorrect definition.

[Tuza]

You do realize CAR101.01 has a definition of ground school, don’t you?

ground school instruction means classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study that adheres to an approved training program; (instruction théorique au sol)

Despite your attempt to be condescending, that is very helpful, thanks!

It's been over 10 years since I've done any civilian instruction, and I appear to have gotten rusty on some of the finer points. I was once aware of this definition, but I confess the "... or self-paced study ..." portion eluded me. In any case, this time around I only thought to look for "instruction" and variations without appending "groundschool" during my search. Silly me. This definition is exactly what I was looking for.

I just want to clarify - both online through Harv's and in-class settings require the Instructor to keep track of 40 hrs. With Harv's there is an Instructor who will answer any and all of your questions usually within 24hrs of posting. They track your progress by your work, quizzes, and exams you do (each independently). In class FTU's also are required by law to keep track of your hours and log them in the students PTR. Which is then signed off by the CFI (I'm sure you already know this) and then the FTU is audited periodically by TC.
There is a requirement by the student to show their 40 hr signed off gs in their log book when they take their exam at TC's office.

Self-paced is ambiguous but the best thing would be to call TC and ask them. Also, there is the 2 yr self-paced study guide you can do to keep current if you haven't flown in 2 yrs.

Best to call TC and get it from the horse's mouth really.

Good luck! Let us aspiring Instructors know!!

[Tuza]

You do realize CAR101.01 has a definition of ground school, don’t you?

Despite your attempt to be condescending, that is very helpful, thanks!

It's been over 10 years since I've done any civilian instruction, and I appear to have gotten rusty on some of the finer points. I was once aware of this definition, but I confess the "... or self-paced study ..." portion eluded me. In any case, this time around I only thought to look for "instruction" and variations without appending "groundschool" during my search. Silly me. This definition is exactly what I was looking for.

I just want to clarify - both online through Harv's and in-class settings require the Instructor to keep track of 40 hrs. With Harv's there is an Instructor who will answer any and all of your questions usually within 24hrs of posting. They track your progress by your work, quizzes, and exams you do (each independently). In class FTU's also are required by law to keep track of your hours and log them in the students PTR. Which is then signed off by the CFI (I'm sure you already know this) and then the FTU is audited periodically by TC.
There is a requirement by the student to show their 40 hr signed off gs in their log book when they take their exam at TC's office.

Self-paced is ambiguous but the best thing would be to call TC and ask them. Also, there is the 2 yr self-paced study guide you can do to keep current if you haven't flown in 2 yrs.

Best to call TC and get it from the horse's mouth really.

Good luck! Let us aspiring Instructors know!!

I think the key I just realized is, the "approved training program" whether self-paced or not. TC would def have the answer. Helps me too!

[AirFrame]

ground school instruction means classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study that adheres to an approved training program;

Note the lack of the Oxford comma before the "or". This is a separate clause, that allows self-paced study that follows a training program.

I challenged the classroom-component requirement. My instructor quizzed me and then gave me a letter of recommendation. I passed.

The entire reason for instituting recommendations is to get the schools to pre-clear people so that TC didn't have to have a 50% pass rate. They want the schools to pre-test so TC's involvement is confirming that students have the knowledge to pass. Whether you need a classroom with an instructor to learn the material, or if you can learn it on your own, is immaterial. Do. You. Know. The. Material. should be the overriding consideration. Your instructor could probably ascertain that with half a dozen questions.

[Tuza]

ground school instruction means classroom-type instruction generally given to one or more persons and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study that adheres to an approved training program;

Note the lack of the Oxford comma before the "or". This is a separate clause, that allows self-paced study that follows a training program.

I challenged the classroom-component requirement. My instructor quizzed me and then gave me a letter of recommendation. I passed.

The entire reason for instituting recommendations is to get the schools to pre-clear people so that TC didn't have to have a 50% pass rate. They want the schools to pre-test so TC's involvement is confirming that students have the knowledge to pass. Whether you need a classroom with an instructor to learn the material, or if you can learn it on your own, is immaterial. Do. You. Know. The. Material. should be the overriding consideration. Your instructor could probably ascertain that with half a dozen questions.

But for CPL/PPL you have to show your gs hours when doing the exam and the FTU's get audited. How did you bypass that?

[AirFrame]

But for CPL/PPL you have to show your gs hours when doing the exam and the FTU's get audited. How did you bypass that?

I logged the time spent studying, and showed the log to the instructor. He was okay with it. Keep in mind this was in 1998.

[Tuza]

But for CPL/PPL you have to show your gs hours when doing the exam and the FTU's get audited. How did you bypass that?

I logged the time spent studying, and showed the log to the instructor. He was okay with it. Keep in mind this was in 1998.

Okay. Yeah not sure. I'd have to call TC to find out if that's even possible anymore. Crazy if it is.