Incompetent instructor?

[costermonger]

The industry standard seems to be around 75 hours on average.

When I got my PPL the requirements were 30 hours, which most of us finished in.

A question, Cat. How long, roughly, did it take people to get those 30 hours when you did your PPL? It seems to me that for every person today who gets a PPL in under 60 hours over the course of a month or two, there's four or five people who fly once every week or two for a year and a half (or more) and end up with far more hours than are required. What I'm wondering is if that's always been the case, or if training is more drawn out than it used to be.

I did my training the "slow" way for a while, accumulated 20 hours and not a lot of progress. I got frustrated (I was in highschool - spending all my income on flying two or three times a month if I was lucky), and walked away from it for a while. When I had the resources to actually focus on my training a few years later, I got my PPL in another 35 hours spread over a little less than two months. Pace of training was a very real factor for me, I have to assume it is for others. I probably would've needed 75, 80 hours, maybe more, to obtain a PPL if I'd kept training the way I started.

If the only way you could get a PPL was to take a two month long, full time course that took you from zero hours to licensed, I bet there'd be a huge shift in the average hours needed.

[Lurch]

Why everybody is trying to argue with a 90 hour wonder is beyond me.

Now I have delt with stubborn students before and they will always say "You showed/told me to do it this way" when I clearly didn't. From how he was explaining it it sounds like he has the T & G procedures confused with an overshoot where you apply full power and then retract flaps in stages. Listen to your instructor sure he may only have 250 hrs but that is still 160 more then you have.

now Cat as for learning hours I have to agree with the others, students showing up for 1-2 flights a week not studying and then taking a month off here and there isn't helping. I have turned students over in less then 45 and had to hour build for them to met their requirements but they studied hard and flew daily.

As for experiance, The best instructors I have seen are the old ex-military pilots unfortunitly it doesn't pay and chances of finding them are slim to none. When pay is less then minimum wage you are going to get minimum experianced instructors and as soon as we are able we leave for better paying jobs.

Lurch

[Aviatard]

I have POH's for the 172S, 172R and 172N, and all of them specify no more than 10 degrees of flap for takeoff. Use of 20 degrees or more is not approved. The overshoot procedure specifies getting flaps up to 20 degrees immediately and then raising flaps in stages when speed and altitude safely permit it, but a touch and go is not an overshoot. You're on the runway at this point, so there isn't the concern with sinking after flap retraction. Since the POH prohibits it, I don't see any reasonable argument for leaving 20 degrees of flap for takeoff on a touch and go.

I haven't flown a Warrior, but I do have some hours in Arrows and Seminoles, and both specify 25 degrees flaps (2 notches) for short field takeoffs.

One thing I haven't seen anyone here mention is that for a short field takeoff, you're accelerating from 0 and lifting off at a speed lower than what you'd use for a normal takeoff. However on a touch and go, your speed is quite high when adding power, and you'll be at normal takeoff speed quickly. I'd be concerned about holding the aircraft on the runway with the extra flap. You might get into a wheelbarrowing situation. That "would be bad." Unless, of course, you're ripping it off the runway at a lower speed. You didn't mention that, so I assume you're using the normal takeoff rotation speed.

Since the Warrior has mechanical flaps, there is no issue with waiting for the flaps to retract. They're up when the handle is down. For the 172, I'll count to 5 after selecting the flaps up, and before applying full power, to give the flaps a chance to retract. Sure I could take a look and make sure they're up, but I don't really want to have my head down (or swiveled backwards) at that point in the takeoff roll.

I'll echo the advice that other people have given you. Listen to the instructor. He probably knows more than you do.

[Justwannafly]

I have around 1000 hours total so I am still very inexperienced as a "well rounded pilot" I do think that I am starting to become a pretty experienced instructor and I have a lot to offer my students. I still put some students out in around 50 hours and I have some that are around 40-50 hours that are not even close to flight test standard because they fly once every 2 weeks and when they do show up they are exhausted from a full day of work and are far from prepared. I expect that some of those students will well exceed 75 hours of flight training before they are ready for flight test. They know this too, as I will not keep this from them. I think and strongly believe that it is much the student’s dedication and discipline that will get them done sooner than later.

Wow your basicaly me
The only students I get done around the 45 hour time are the full timers...the ones that fly twice a month take twice as long it's as simple as that....I've never dad a student come once or twice a month & get their PPL at 45 hours (had one once that did it in lil over 55 hours though....)
I also once work'd at a school that had a student who had spent 4 years working on his PPL...his parents were paying & he didn't care...aparently when he show'd he wouldn't pay attention & would play around. He was never my student...& I'm glad of that

[Mornazinomoretuzzi]

Cat wrote: "The problem that students have is knowing who actually knows the subject being taught.

Flight training would be better served by changing the antiquitated use of the inexperienced pilots teaching the beginners.

This would improve not only the quality of instruction it would improve the pay scale for instructors".

Now this guy knows what he is talking about.

A very good point

[Panic]

And if you feel that you must rush...

DON'T DO A TOUCH AND GO

Now you are really being crazy - full stop and taxi back? What could be done in that taxi back....discussing what just went on? Nah. Who would want to do that for the first few to get things straight and then go into touch and goes? What kind of learning could possibly go on with that?

[Oleo 4]

Instructors are their for a reason and if you are unwilling to listen to what he says then I hope that you have nobody on board when your stubborn thick head gets someone hurt.. Regardless of what each POH says, why in the hell do you want to have more drag out and a lower lift that gives you a reduced climb rate... I hope you have a JATO kit on you little planes bud because with the summer heat, those aircraft are pigs to climb anyways..

What I've always taught for T & G's is:

upon landing Carb heat cold (unfiltered air BAD, Filtered air GOOD)
Flaps selected up
confirm movement of guages or shoulder check flaps
Power applied when less than 20 degrees down
Select desired flap position - 10 or 0,
Full power at this point (it wont take much power to get you back into the air on a touch and go)
Rotate
Clear of obstacles in a 172 - flaps up target speed 78 in cool weather 85 in hot summer weather.

[Fish]

While this thread has shifted gears slightly, I do want to comment on the new topic at hand (similar to the Instructor Salary thread).

It would be great to see some instructors with more experience teaching. But the simple fact is that until/unless the pay goes up, its not going to happen. Why would a flight school pay someone a decent wage when there's NO shortage of class IVs whoring themselves out for $13 an hour (see previously mentioned thread ). And why would an experienced pilot subject themselves to stinky students, people who don't prepare for their lessons or getting barfed on during fam. flights for little more than minimum wage?

I work with a couple of low(ish) time instructors who, upon completion of their CPL took the ol' road trip to the North, looking for work. None of them found it. A few spent time working on the ground in remote areas and not one of them came back with a single hour of flying time. So... they come home, get an instructor rating and walk right into a teaching job and watching their logbook pages fill up before their eyes.

Everyone loses. The instructors are doing a job they don't particularly care about and the students are being taught by people with little interest in teaching. The idea of inexperienced people teaching in any discipline has always bothered me, but it happens all the time.

Even though I don't particularly like it, the explaination of low time instructors seems pretty simple.

[Hedley]

The primary purpose of flight instruction is NOT to put time in a flight instructor's logbook.

I get crapped on for suggesting this, but I think the prerequisite experience for a flight instructor rating should be a commercial pilot's licence and 1000 hours, so that the instructor has a clue.

It will never happen, of course, but until then, we will have the blind leading the blind.

[birdlegs]

I'd hate to see what you'd be doing in this plane without an instructor.

Okay, so you were getting checked out in a Piper Warrior. The instructor is basically making sure you can operate the aircraft safely so that they can then sign on paper that you are safe to fly this aircraft. I really hope that you have another flight coming to you.

I am not by any means an instructor loaded with hours but after about 1000 hours worth of flying and "watching" I have NEVER been told or shown that power should be applied before reducing flap in a touch and go. I haven't flown every type of aircraft out there, but all the ones that I do fly have a tried and true - flaps up, establish directional control, full power, carb heat cold- normal T&G procedure.

Before your instructor was able to start traing people in the Warrior, they probably had to prepare a ground briefing that covered all aspects of the aircraft which would have required a thorough reading and understanding of items in the POH. This would then have been reviewed by the CFI and if satisfactory would lead to a type check flight. Believe me when I say that these are much more thorough than what you probably had to demonstrate. An instructor doesn't get to teach a new airplane unless the CFI says they are competent. Had this instructor decided that it would be okay for power to be added first in a T&G, you wouldn't have been sitting next to them, hell, they shouldn't have even gotten as far as a private licence with that kind of misinformation.

Warrior normal t/o - flaps 0
soft/short - flaps 25

C172 normal t/o - flaps 0
short(w/no obs)/soft - flaps 10

Own a POH on every a/c you fly. Read it cover to cover and not just the first time. Questions? Ask someone with experience on type.

[3juggs]

[quote="Justwork"]Cat Driver Wrote:
[quote]The industry standard seems to be around 75 hours on average. [/quote]


A couple of reasons it takes longer to get a licence is most schools now have hobbs meters which when you are at a busy airport it isn't uncommon to for taxi times to be 0.4 hrs or more as compared to the traditional 0.2 hrs added to air time.I don't know if instructors back in the day had to maintain a 70% pass rate or not but it do play a big factor now if an Instructor will reccomend a weak student that is inconsistent.Last but not least some students don't have the drive or the work ethic to get their licence like in the past because there mommy and daddy are paying their way and money isn't an issue.

[mellow_pilot]

Switching gears here for a min. There is something that has been repeated on this thread several times that is really pissing me off, considering that everyone is supposed to be super smart.

why in the hell do you want to have more drag out and a lower lift that gives you a reduced climb rate...

Flaps INCREASE lift! Not DECREASE. It's true that many flay setups increase drag disproportionately to the increase in lift, but never the less, if they didn't increase lift, how could the stalling speed be lower with flap down?

For all the folks bitching about students being taught bullshit, what the hell is this???

[Hedley]

I know. This thread is almost as bad as the "four forces" thread, where people said that gravity was caused by the earth spinning ...

Just as the "four forces" thread concluded that pilots didn't need to understand gravity, I guess we can conclude that pilots don't need to understand lift (or drag)

Thank god for POH's. Do what they say.

[mcrit]

And yet another rehash of the same sh*t, but seemings how I've nothing better to do...
Yes, there is a problem with the quality of instruction at some flight schools and this can be traced to the skills of some of the instructors. Requiring 1000 hours as a prequiste for and instructor rating will not fix this. It is absolutely possible for a person to attain the required knowledge and skills in the 200 hrs of flying required for the CPL. I say this because it was done on a large scale in the past (ref: BCATP) and I've seen it done with individuals during my career.
The problem lies in standards, or lack thereof. For starters the CPL flight test standards are pretty lax, one need not display a huge amount of skill to pass the flight test. But the larger part of the problem is due to the structure of the commercial curriculum. Student's are required to log ~100 hrs PIC for "the improvement of flying skills". What most students end up doing is flying a shitload of x-country and not working on upper air work. The end result is a pilot that is crackerjack when it comes to setting up and reading a GPS but can't do slow flight to save their lives. What needs to change is the supervision of the solo portion of the CPL curriculum. Students need to be made to practice and polish all their skills during this time, and TC must demand a higher standard for the flight test.
The other major weakness is theoretical knowledge. I've encountered many instructor candidates that have no clue why an a/c behaves the way it does. Even the candidates with good theoretical knowledge seldom make see the big picture, (ie they don't see how knowledge of slow flight can be applied to approach and landing). This is more difficult to fix because the only practical way to ensure quality control is via a multiple choice exam; and multiple choice exams simply are that effective. The best solution for this is to lengthen the required GS for the instructor rating so that it includes a deep review.
When it comes to instructor training one must always remeber that knowing how to do something and being able to teach it are two different things. This means that just having more time (1000hrs 10000hrs 1.0 x 10^10 hrs...) won't in and of itself make a better instructor. The only way to learn how to teach is to teach. Nobody will ever leave any instructor course (I'm talking about teaching in general here, not just aviation) completely ready. Good instruction requires judgement and intuition that only comes from experience. That is why TC designed the instructor apprenticeship program (they call it instructor under supervision but it amounts to an apprenticeship). The whole idea behind this is that a class 4 will be able to gain the experience they need under the mentorship of an experienced instructor. This system has worked in many other situations, (including teacher education programs). It doesn't work in aviation becuase the people responsible for it are, for the most part, slugs. It starts from the top: TC. TC needs to keep a closer eye on supervision at FTUs. This for the most part is not done. The next level under TC are the CFIs. Of the 4 flight schools I've worked at only one did any sort of supervision. The rest of the CFIs were slugs; their faults ranged from ignorance to reckless disregard <- this one had 3 crashes at his school in 2 years and still could not be bothered to show up most days. The last line of defence is the supervising instructor; again most supervising instructors are ignorant of what their role should be. They seem to think that they need only sign off of solos and flight tests. They have no idea that they are meant to be passing on (by force if required ) their knowledge and experience.
The up shot? The system we have on paper is quite good, it doesn't work because the higher up you go, the more ignorance is found. If we truely want the system fixed TC must be made to get on the case of FTUs.

[Hedley]

I think most everyone will agree that most newly minted class 4 instructors:

1) have very disappointing stick and rudder skills, and

2) have very poor theoretical knowledge.

I know I'm probably just a grumpy old guy, but how many newly minted class 4 instructors can:

1) wheel land a tailwheel aircraft only on the upwind main in a crosswind, and

2) draw the lift equation on a blackboard, and explain how to apply it.

No one gives a sh1t about either of the above. They just want to wear white shirts with 4 bars on their shoulders

It's interesting to note that in the USA, they don't have this silly and ineffectual class 4/3/2/1 instructor hierarchy. You get your ticket and off you go. The end result, as we see from above, is the same place (instructors teach themselves how to instruct in the real world) with a whole boatload extra overhead in Canada, which is the "Canadian Way" - there is no problem Transport can't attempt to solve with more ineffective paperwork.

[Cat Driver]

" If we truely want the system fixed TC must be made to get on the case of FTUs. "

How about the slugs who leave private enterprise and go to work for TC flight training?

Maybe we should clean out that room before starting on the rest of the house?

[Hedley]

How about the slugs who leave private enterprise and go to work for TC

One must wonder why they turn down all the more lucrative job offers that they must get from the private sector.

[mellow_pilot]

I agree with mcit about learning to teach. The only way to get better is to do more of it. I can pretty much take a non-skier and have them doing the bunny hill on their own (posing little threat to others or themselves) in about an hour. The only reason I can do this is because I've taught over litterally thousands of people to ski.

We truly need to have dedicated instructors who aren't looking to move up. This is one of the benefits of going to a flight college (one of the good ones). There is a vast wealth of experience on staff, permanently.

(wow! look at me, supporting college... yuck)

[petey]

G board, give your head a shake. Your reasoning, and arguments are ridiculous. So is the fact that you bring your concerns onto an internet forum, prior to discussing the issue with the CFI. You asked "should I talk to the CFI?" If you are questioning it, you probably should have before talking to AvCanada. 5 instructors told you to take off in a 172 with 20 degrees. haha, BULLSHIT. Keep trying to make yourself sound correct, you are not. I'm glad I'm not an instructor because of guys like yourself. Thanks for reminding me.

[groupboard]

G board, give your head a shake. Your reasoning, and arguments are ridiculous. So is the fact that you bring your concerns onto an internet forum, prior to discussing the issue with the CFI. You asked "should I talk to the CFI?" If you are questioning it, you probably should have before talking to AvCanada. 5 instructors told you to take off in a 172 with 20 degrees. haha, BULLSHIT. Keep trying to make yourself sound correct, you are not. I'm glad I'm not an instructor because of guys like yourself. Thanks for reminding me.

I don't see how my arguments are ridiculous. It seems pretty clear to me that a takeoff from standstill is very different from a touch-and-go takeoff. And I did in fact contact 3 of my CFIs to ask about touch-and-go procedure. 2 out of 3 replied, both saying that they teach their students to fully retract the flaps before leaving the runway. That's good enough for me, so that's how I'll fly. I clearly must have got confused with an overshoot. However I do see reasons why you would use throttle first, and only retract one stage of flap in certain situations, as that will get you off the ground in the shortest distance. While a normal touch-and-go in a training situation "isn't a race", in real-life you may have to do a hasty touch-and-go if there is a runway obstruction. In that situation you are better getting the plane off the ground as quickly as possible rather than worrying about correct procedure. This is why it is important that you understand how flaps work (and more generally, how the aeroplane flies and why procedures are recommended in different situations), especially if you are an instructor.

[mellow_pilot]

The situation you describe (runway obstruction) is not a touch-and-go. T&G is pre-planned. Overshoot (at any point in the landing phase, including rollout, is not.

In the case of an obstruction, you would likely be able to stay in ground effect till a safe flap setting, not a normal procedure by any stretch. The point that most here are trying to make is that, in any normal situation where and established procedure is in force, it should be followed. If there is an emergency and you can justify your actions, fantastic, as long as it's safe.

[groupboard]

The situation you describe (runway obstruction) is not a touch-and-go. T&G is pre-planned. Overshoot (at any point in the landing phase, including rollout, is not.

In the case of an obstruction, you would likely be able to stay in ground effect till a safe flap setting, not a normal procedure by any stretch. The point that most here are trying to make is that, in any normal situation where and established procedure is in force, it should be followed. If there is an emergency and you can justify your actions, fantastic, as long as it's safe.

I was talking about a situation where you only notice the obstruction when you are on the ground, e.g. a deer running onto the runway and not moving, or a large hole/ditch that you didn't see before landing that can't be avoided, where you want to get off the ground as soon as possible. But I agree with you that in normal situations you should follow the recommended procedures.

[Cat Driver]

"A question, Cat. How long, roughly, did it take people to get those 30 hours when you did your PPL? It seems to me that for every person today who gets a PPL in under 60 hours over the course of a month or two, there's four or five people who fly once every week or two for a year and a half (or more) and end up with far more hours than are required. What I'm wondering is if that's always been the case, or if training is more drawn out than it used to be. "

Coastermonger as I recall it took me about six months to fininsh mine.

There are many reasons why it takes so long today, when I owned a flight school part of the reason the instructors kept flying with students was paranoia about getting to many failures and their fear of TC.

Cat

[Ramp Monkey YYJ]

Groupboard,

In the situation you just mentioned, in which an unplanned, sudden hazard appears, in the C-172, would it not be a better idea to simply try to stop short of it?

Those procedures are there for a reason; fail to follow them, chances are you will find yourself in a dangerous situation.
I can't remember who it was that said this earlier, but whoever it was, they hit the nail on the head;
It's NOT a race to get airborne!!!
In an aircraft that is as small, manoeuvrable, and stable as the C-172, IMHO most of the time it would be a better idea to try to stop short of an obstacle than to attempt to force yourself into the air before the plane has been properly configured. Worst case scenario (realistically), while rolling along at a low speed (since you are braking hard), you hit a deer/pothole/whatever, and the plane suffers some damage. Try to fly over it before the plane is ready, who knows how bad the consequences could be.

[mcrit]

Cat and Hedley:
I'm in a different region of the country from you two, so I've never dealt with the same TC guys that you have. Understand that my comments are based on the dealings I've had with TC in the GTA.
TC is far from perfect, but the they don't have a higher percentage of morons than any other organization I've dealt with. When ever I've gone for a ride I've found the inspectors had their shit together. They had 'their way' of doing things but were professional and not overbearing. I'm not too proud to admit that I learned a thing or two from some of them.
I have seen them get on someone's ass. But the only time they did that the guy had really earned it. He was a CFI/owner of a school that had had 3 major accidents in 2 years. All of them due to students being turned lose for solo by instructors. All of the problems could be traced to supervision or lack thereof. The CFI was lucky that the accidents didn't spill blood. This particular inspector got reeled in by his bosses because the CFI in question was very competent at networking and called in a few favours from on high (Cat: here's one place where we seem to have the same experience; the higher one goes in TC the less trustworthy they are).
As for the American instructor system, there's even less quality control. Our system is good, we just need people to do their jobs.

Oh Yeah... as for a new class 4 that can land a conventional landing gear a/c on the upwind wheel in an x-wind... the last one I sent for flight test could. It only took me about 4 hours to get him safe on a taildragger and 9 to get him good.