Flight Training around the GTA

[JungianJugular]

Hi,

I have a couple of questions about flight instructing.

1. How are instructors evaluated over time? Do they have to go through tests to keep up their certification, such as on going assessment and evaluation from a governing body (Transport Canada)?

2. When potential instructors are trained to instruct, are they taught how to teach? For example, are they given training on effective classroom instruction and various learning styles? If so, what does this look like training wise?

3. Do individual instructors design "lesson plans" for course curriculum, or is there a standard curriculum that each flight school develops and provides for instructors to administer?

4. Can one make a living flight instructing full time?

[Shiny Side Up]

You can ask, but it is highly likely the FTU will chortle
in response. They charge you the same for a class 4
and a class 1, and pay the class 4 a fraction of what
they pay the class 1.

Which one do you think the FTU wants you to fly with?

Its not usually the flight schools that decide this but rather the individual instructors. There's got to be some perks to instructing for so long and not doing fam flights is one of them. I still do them on occasion, mostly to remind myself why I don't want to take on new students anymore, sort of like how for some reason I have to eat at KFC once a year to remind myself why I don't do that more frequently either.

Hi,

Just out of curiosity, how are instructors evaluated over time? Do they have to go through tests to keep up their certification, such as on going assessment and evaluation from a governing body (Transport Canada)?

When potential instructors are trained to instruct, are they taught how to teach? For example, are they given training on effective classroom instruction and various learning styles? If so, what does this look like training wise?

While TC has their own system for evaluating instructors, which isn't very effective, as a CFI I spend a lot of my time reading PTRs and going through flight test reports, and written results to keep a running database of how students are doing. Every school probably has different means and tactics depending on the size and scope of the operation. I also intervene to randomly fly with the students to make my own assessments, and directly fly with the instructors themselves. Occasionally remedial training is necessary, but fortunately has been rare.

One of the worst things I find that is missing from new instructors is the ability to do classroom teaching well. Its often skipped from their class 4 training as well, since it isn't mandated. Many schools often keep this task restricted to their core of instructors so new class 4s working on larger contracts aren't involved in it. What this means is that often new instructors have no idea how to work in this enviornment and can do little more than parrot off of the powerpoint. Its boring and ineffective. That said, it is a dreaded task anyhow because so many student approach ground school in the same manner they approached high school where these days they're largely only expected to show up.

3) depends on the school. Some are stricter with how their syllabus works, other have more flexibility. While each instructor has the capacity to make their own lesson plans, ultimately its under the direction of the CFI. There is some latitude on this, often more than some instructors think, but less in other areas.

4) Depends on who you talk to. I instruct full time and own my own house and have a relatively new vehicle. That's if you move up that ladder though, which could be said for the rest of the flying world. I've made just as poor wages flying charter as I have instructing, and the bottom end of the flying world is at best subsistence wage or worse.

[JungianJugular]

*

[Ivan42]

You can ask, but it is highly likely the FTU will chortle
in response. They charge you the same for a class 4
and a class 1, and pay the class 4 a fraction of what
they pay the class 1.

Which one do you think the FTU wants you to fly with?

Its not usually the flight schools that decide this but rather the individual instructors. There's got to be some perks to instructing for so long and not doing fam flights is one of them. I still do them on occasion, mostly to remind myself why I don't want to take on new students anymore, sort of like how for some reason I have to eat at KFC once a year to remind myself why I don't do that more frequently either.

Bummer, but totally understandable

I like the suggestion of asking for 3 references and I'll do that.

[Colonel Sanders]

I instruct full time and own my own house and have a relatively new vehicle

Ah, but in addition to instructing, you have your own FTU, correct?

For anyone that is considering flight instructing for more than just
building some time and moving into the right seat of a twin, I strongly
recommend that in the long term you aim to be self-employed and
running your own business. You want to be C.F.I. of your own FTU,
with your own airplanes, doing your own maintenance, etc.

[Shiny Side Up]

I instruct full time and own my own house and have a relatively new vehicle

Ah, but in addition to instructing, you have your own FTU, correct?

I do not own it, no, and neither have I been in the position of even managing one the whole time I've been instructing which I've largely done full time for the last 13 years. You're right in that its where an instructor should shoot for if its their real interest. I'm pretty excited in that I'm able to shop for an airplane right now, as frustrating as that is, to put to work for my own ends. So someday.

On the subject of fam flights, just because you did a fam flight with an instructor, doesn't mean you're stuck with him/her, so do be afraid to try out the rest of the instructors at the school if its possible. Ask the CFI about this and explain that you want to just find who's best for you and it can be arranged. Here, fam flights get booked with whichever instructor is available to fill the slot, so if you want to be more choosy you do have to on occasion be more flexible with your booking times. If you're one of those students who can only do flights on a very limited schedule, one of the usual disadvantages will be getting booked with whomever is available, rather than who you want. As alien as this sounds to a lot of people, the best instructors will often be the hardest to book, they will often have the most students. Get used to the idea that you don't have an exclusive instructor, unless you start paying the big bucks for the services of the Colonel or similar talent.

[Ivan42]

I seem to have a choice of a C152 or a DA20 for my next intro flight...any recommendations as to which one to go for? I'm a big fan of the DA's 20 and 40's design but haven't actually seen the aircraft in person or sat in them.

Does it make a difference? I'm not entirely sure if I'll be training in them long-term...

[slam525i]

What's the cost difference? The DA20s look nice, and they're quick little airplanes... I wouldn't recommending learning with a glass cockpit though (I think it's an option with the DA20), as you might have trouble transitioning back to "steam gauges"

[Ivan42]

The DA20 is $3 cheaper than the C152 per hour, so not that big of a difference.

One further question..is this worth the money? Just out of curiosity...my quick glance tells me that it isn't and I'm better off buying the items separately. But if not, let me know and maybe I'll do that instead of ordering the books myself:

http://www.wwfc.ca/media/GROUND%20SCHOO ... CKLIST.pdf

[slam525i]

You'll find the 152 are available almost everywhere, and the 172 flies pretty much the same, so that may be easier if you go somewhere else later. The DA20 is a quick airplane though, so that's an advantage. I never knew WWFC had such a great fleet of airplanes (I wish I could rent a 172RG, or a 177 in Oshawa/Buttonville!)

As for the stuff on the list, I think I never bought the "Private Pilot Answer Guide" nor "Flight Training Manual". The other stuff I bought but really haven't touched since I got my PPL. I think you'll have to do the work yourself to determine if its worth buying from them. If you are going with them for Ground School, I would recommend buying whatever kit is recommended.

[MIQ]

I just checked for you and quickly created a cart with all that products on unikpilotshop.com and it came to $263.50. I didn't put a flight bag in there though. I don't know if you really need a flight bag... Also I don't know what kind of Pilot Logbook you get in that kit but usually those are the small crappy ones. If I was you, I would probably buy it separately. You will also need a Toronto VTA map which isn't listed in their ground school kit.

[Ivan42]

Thanks guys!

Yeah - I was surprised as well...I figured that they'd have the same late 1970/1980 Cessna 172 and 152's as everywhere else but their listing is surprising. I certainly didn't expect the DA's. I'm guessing that they got them recently as part of their joint aviation program with the University of Waterloo.

I'm still debating ground school...

[Colonel Sanders]

FWIW 150/152/172 are the worst trainers in the world.

They are so docile and forgiving ... without a vigilant flight
instructor, truly horrible pilots can result.

The 172 for example, can be successfully approached
at any speed from 50 to 150 mph. The rudder pedals
are merely a place to rest your feet. A triumph of decades
of engineering development to create an unbelievably bland,
forgiving aircraft with absolutely no bad (or even interesting)
characteristics whatsoever. The oatmeal of aviation.
Egalitarian porridge.

[Ivan42]

FWIW 150/152/172 are the worst trainers in the world.

They are so docile and forgiving ... without a vigilant flight
instructor, truly horrible pilots can result.

The 172 for example, can be successfully approached
at any speed from 50 to 150 mph. The rudder pedals
are merely a place to rest your feet. A triumph of decades
of engineering development to create an unbelievably bland,
forgiving aircraft with absolutely no bad (or even interesting)
characteristics whatsoever. The oatmeal of aviation.
Egalitarian porridge.

"The Oatmeal of aviation. Egalitarian porridge"

I love that as a description, brilliant

I'll make a note of some of the features you mentioned and ask whichever instructor I get how they'll counter those to teach me better technique

I meant to ask - where do you teach? and what are your preferred aircraft for training?

[slam525i]

FWIW 150/152/172 are the worst trainers in the world.

They are so docile and forgiving ... without a vigilant flight
instructor, truly horrible pilots can result.

<snip>

Egalitarian porridge.

True, they are docile and forgiving, but it's also relatively hard to kill yourself or bend one when in initial flight training, and that's sort of the point.

As much respect as I have for your experience and knowledge, you have to understand that not everyone flies fast jets or formation aerobatics; calling Cessna's trainers "Egalitarian porridge" is down right arrogant.

I like porridge. I like the fact that most of the world's pilots learned on something cheap, affordable, and safe. If it weren't for the 152/172, we may have fewer pilots in the world, and every additional pilot helps when it comes to keeping flying fun and affordable. Every avgas burning pilot is valuable in my books.

-A lowly, egalitarian, C172 flying, rent once every other weekend pilot

[Colonel Sanders]

"Egalitarian porridge" is down right arrogant

Thank you - I'm sure that's the nicest thing anyone will say
about me all day.

A brief history lesson is in order. After WWII, various aircraft
manufacturers wanted to sell buckets of aircraft. They did
this by marketing them as cars with wings. They had control
columns like a steering wheel (the stick was gone), upholstery
like a Buick, etc. The marketing angle was that if you could
drive a car, you could fly an airplane.

This is horribly not the case, of course. Look at all the donkeys
who kill themselves in Cirrus aircraft every year, these days.

Part of this "anyone can fly an aircraft" campaign was aided
and abetted by an engineer called Fred Weick who foisted
the rudderless and unstallable Ercoupe, and then the Piper
Cherokee on aviation. They had nosewheels, and were
designed to not allow a pilot to do anything bad.

Feel free to crap on me from a great height, but I strongly
disagree with the post-WWII egalitarian nonsense that
anyone can fly an airplane.

what are your preferred aircraft for training?

Anything that doesn't have a nosewheel. It doesn't have
to be expensive - any kind of tube & fabric tailwheel champ
or t-craft (or homebuilt) is a far superior ab initio trainer
to a nosewheel aircraft which teaches pilots to not have
any stick & rudder skill.

Nosewheel pilots have trouble with crosswinds, because
they lack fundamental stick & rudder skills, because the
nosewheel aircraft tolerate horrible pilot technique, which
sooner or later results in wrecking the aircraft, generally
during landing, often during not very challenging conditions.

I do as little ab initio training as I possibly can. I prefer to
teach new instructors. There's leverage there - I sure don't
need any more time in the right seat of a trainer, but the
new instructor gets value from it.

When I do ab initio, I only do tailwheel. Doing a couple right
now, try to avoid it as best I can but nobody else will do it,
so I do. I am the goalie of flight training.

When I taught my son to fly, I soloed him at age 14 in our
Maule, which has a bit of a reputation of being a little nasty
on dry pavement. At age 15, he checked himself out in
a Citabria. At age 16, he flew the Pitts solo, and last weekend
at age 19 flew low-altitude formation aerobatics AS WING at
his first airshow. I told him he wasn't allowed to fly nosewheel
but he could fly any tailwheel aircraft at the airport he could
get his hands on, which he did. A while ago, I saw the kid taxi
out in a bright yellow RV-8. Solo. He'd never flown one before,
but the owner told him to jump in it and go. Up he went, did
some aerobatics, and landed uneventfully.

I don't do walmart training. Go find someone else if you
want to buy fatty hamburger.



Stick & rudder skill is like having a clean airplane. It doesn't
cost any more. Lots of people have dirty airplanes because they
are simply too lazy to bother cleaning them.

Similarly, most private pilots choose to have horrible stick and
rudder skills, because they are too lazy to bother developing
them. The tailwheel assemblies on aircraft are really not that
expensive. In fact, they are probably cheaper than a huge nose
oleo casting and strut.

[Shiny Side Up]

Feel free to crap on me from a great height, but I strongly
disagree with the post-WWII egalitarian nonsense that
anyone can fly an airplane.

Whether you disagree with it or not though, you must admit that its this notion which allows all of us who wish to partake within the priviledge of general aviation as much as we do.

I like porridge. I like the fact that most of the world's pilots learned on something cheap, affordable, and safe. If it weren't for the 152/172, we may have fewer pilots in the world, and every additional pilot helps when it comes to keeping flying fun and affordable. Every avgas burning pilot is valuable in my books.

Very true. The fact that there will always be those who do it poorly, randomly and sometimes fatally is the price we pay for the awesome ammount of freedom we do enjoy and the capacity for it to continue. I don't like how everyone goes about flying, but everyone has the right to try and earn the priviledge. If there weren't these legions of amateurs, dreamers and wannabes out there, there wouldn't be wouldn't be a lot of the stuff we enjoy today. The prime reason Cherokees and the cessna trainers are so sucessful isn't their ease of flying, but their affordability of operation and usefulness to the average owner. Yeah they're cars of the sky. God bless them. If it wasn't for them there wouldn't be so many little airport, no fly ins and ceratinly no Oshkosh.

You might not like 'em Colonel, but you depend on them being there. So do I, so does every every other partaker of the miracle of GA.

[AOW]

Given the choices, as long as you're less than 6'3", go for the DA20... its just more fun than the Cessnas, and if you want to transition to a Cessna in the future, it should be easy! (and if you're more than about 220lbs, I would steer clear of both, at least as long as you have to share the cockpit with someone else!)

CS: I wish I could have done my PPL in an 8KCAB, but at least I managed to get some good variety in types flown once I had a little more experience.

[Ivan42]

Given the choices, as long as you're less than 6'3", go for the DA20... its just more fun than the Cessnas, and if you want to transition to a Cessna in the future, it should be easy! (and if you're more than about 220lbs, I would steer clear of both, at least as long as you have to share the cockpit with someone else!)

CS: I wish I could have done my PPL in an 8KCAB, but at least I managed to get some good variety in types flown once I had a little more experience.

Thanks! Yeah - I've told them that it's my #1 choice. I'm 120lbs and 5'5 so I should be ok in either craft

[Colonel Sanders]

this notion which allows all of us who wish to partake

I suppose you could say the same thing about riding a motorcycle,
but the same argument applies - a motorized vehicle which is
painfully intolerant of operator incompetence.

It's a bit cold-blooded to accept entirely preventable serious
and fatal accidents as a fundamental building block of egalitarianism,
but perhaps I am just not ruthless enough.

I wish I could have done my PPL in an 8KCAB

Citabria and Decathlon are superb ab initio trainers. I don't
see how people could label them as "elitist", because they are
made of tube and fabric and have a tailwheel.

Nosewheel training aircraft are like herpes and genital warts.
Just because there's an awful lot of it out there, doesn't mean
that's a good thing, or that I want anything to do with it.

[Shiny Side Up]

I suppose you could say the same thing about riding a motorcycle,
but the same argument applies - a motorized vehicle which is
painfully intolerant of operator incompetence.

Yes, yes you could. Its a good example that you bring up, and you being an Ontarian (Ontarioite? Ontarionuck?) you could appreciate it. From what I've seen, Ontario is the worst province to own a motorcycle in, largely from a lot of legislation designed to protect the public from themselves (and more importantly the insurance companies from the public). It does however have the lowest rate of motorcycle accident though too. The praries are probably the most liberal in their legislation, but correspondingly have one of the worst rates (the worst rate if I remember is Quebec, interestingly enough somewhere between when it comes to the legislation). So I guess it depends on what you view is more important. Aviation is the same way. One could point to the European system and say that they have an incredibly safe GA enviornment, but I don't think we'd want that here, and many countries in the world just simply don't have that freedom available. I'm sure its great consolation to their citizenry that there are few GA accidents.

It's a bit cold-blooded to accept serious and fatal accidents
as a fundamental building block of egalitarianism, but perhaps
I am just not jaded enough.

It is one unfortunately of egalitarianism, but not one of building pilot skill. Both are important in different measure and for different reasons. Its really about the economics of general aviation though which doesn't care about pilot skill or egalitarianism. Its all about money comming into it to make it worth while. Think about this - there would be no Pitts out there if there wasn't a large enough market to have designed it in the first place. That there are Pitts out there available depends a lot on people wanting them and building them and dumping money into them (the most important bit) many of whom maybe aren't that great at flying them. There will be those who will crash them, there will be those who get killed in them. If it was mandatory to make sure there was a zero tolerance death rate or accident rate the only way to do so would be to outlaw them, or make them prohibitively inaccessable to anyone in which case the result would be the same. So which would you rather accept? No Pitts or the possibility (and probability) that some might die in them?

The same can be said of motorcycles and airplanes. Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of upholding it.

[Colonel Sanders]

a zero tolerance death rate

Good Lord, no. I'm talking about entirely preventable
accidents due to pilot incompetence.

Not sure how things are out in Alberta, but here in Ontario
flight schools teach on docile nosewheel trainers and forbid
ops when the crosswind exceeds 5 knots.

While this might look good on the flight school, it produces
a frighteningly incompetent product. Licenced private pilots,
in a vocational program, building time for the CPL, cannot safely
land even a nosewheel trainer with any kind of crosswind.

They approach too fast, land flat - or worse, on the nosewheel
first - then lock up the brakes and flat-spot the tires in an
attempt to scrub off their excessive speed.

You will have to forgive my lack of enthusiasm for this
particular product of egalitarianism, which looks an awful
lot like incompetence to me.

I am perfectly comfortable with my student pilots flying
when the windsock is straight out, across the single runway,
but I admit I am an anachronism from another era when
stick and rudder skills were considered valuable.

A good stick with an inquisitive interest in aircraft systems
can fly anything. If that is elitist, so be it.

[Shiny Side Up]

Not sure how things are out in Alberta, but here in Ontario
flight schools teach on docile nosewheel trainers and forbid
ops when the crosswind exceeds 5 knots.

Well then things must be different here. If I had that restriction I'd never fly.

You will have to forgive my lack of enthusiasm for this
particular product of egalitarianism

I will, though don't mistake that I am enthused by it rather than I feel it is an unfortunate necessity of the survival of general aviation. It unfortunately has to be available to a large market for it to be feasible. Economics of aviation. While its sad to think that so many will be content with that form of it, it makes it so I can keep my corner of it going and that's what's important.

but I admit I am an anachronism from another era when
stick and rudder skills were considered valuable.

You and me both, but I realise that since we are anachronisms and in the minority, that we have to make do with how the majority wants to operate. We should all try to change that, but again we've already come to that conclusion about one's little corners to improve rather than the whole mess. I'll just be content for them to keep up the demand for avgas, making sure there's still production of little airplanes and their help in keeping little airports open.

[xysn]

Thanks! Yeah - I've told them that it's my #1 choice. I'm 120lbs and 5'5 so I should be ok in either craft

The view is much nicer in a DV20.

However there are way more places that have Cessnas to rent, so when you do have your PPL you'll have way more places to rent from wherever you may be. So if you plan to rent planes from various places once you have your PPL you might be better off training in a Cessna. If you just plan on renting from a place with DV20s, then no big deal.

It's true that one can adapt to different types but that adaptation takes time, and time is money. Since you are aiming for PPL only with a limited budget only I say train on what you realistically plan to fly once licenced. Obviously this advice doesn't apply to aspiring CPL multi-IFR pilots.

Not sure how things are out in Alberta, but here in Ontario flight schools teach on docile nosewheel trainers and forbid ops when the crosswind exceeds 5 knots.

My Ontario FTU says 10 kts crosswind component for solo student pilots and instructor discretion up to POH demonstrated for dual. Not quite the sock straight out, I know. All tricycle of course.

Ontario is the worst province to own a motorcycle in, largely from a lot of legislation designed to protect the public from themselves

I thought the M1 / M2 / M system is quite thoughtful. The M1 exit course I took taught me a lot since I didn't have the benefit of a motorcycling friend or tons of open roads to learn on.

I will, though don't mistake that I am enthused by it rather than I feel it is an unfortunate necessity of the survival of general aviation. It unfortunately has to be available to a large market for it to be feasible. Economics of aviation.

+1. If a crowd of leaden-footed Ercoupe pilots suddenly came around to contribute to the cost of keeping the runways maintained and doing group buys on oil, I'm not sure I would complain. Not that I'm exactly a stick and rudder ace myself.

I do wonder why the Ercoupe didn't triumph over the Cessna though.

[Colonel Sanders]

I do wonder why the Ercoupe didn't triumph

Because there is a God.

Not sure if you've ever flown one or not, but with no rudders
and a steering wheel, you drive it around on the ground just
like a car. And without rudders you can't sideslip during a
crosswind landing - you just land in a crab, and with a tortured
scream from the tires you straighten out.

With no rudders you're not supposed to be able to spin it,
and with deliberately limited elevator control you're not
supposed to be able to even stall it.

One can only thank Christ that it didn't become the
"future of aviation" after WWII.