Flight Training Standards East to West

[MichaelP]

It's an observation... I think the flight test standards here on the West coast are higher than any other part of this country...
While working at the other school it was noticeable that students from the East would barely get a PPL here whereas they have a CPL already.

Now I have to question the standards I observe...

Here we have to know the Flight Manual or POH absolutely, and any deviation from the procedures, power settings, and recommendations within those documents have to be for a good reason!

This was a problem for me in China, coming from here and finding the school not operating the aircraft in accord with the flight manual, even using the power settings for another type of aircraft altogether.
On every flight test here it was rammed into me that the AFM was the bible and if I was contrary to it I'd be in trouble... Perhaps I've grown intolerant!
Should we teach 737 pilots using A320 power settings?
While in China I consulted a school in Canada operating the same type of aircraft and they too used 25/25 for best climb contrary to the AFM and they were teaching professional pilots this way!

When are we going to get rid of this stupid 'square rule'?
The cruise power settings in the DA40-180 flight manual are over square and so what!

So how are pilots passing their CPL flight tests in other parts of Canada without knowing their aircraft?

I think that with the state of instruction the way it is, the standards have to be higher, and those who teach to the higher standards are worthy of professional pay as instructors.

[Hedley]

What is this "flight manual" thing that you speak of?

[E-Flyer]

and those who teach to the higher standards are worthy of professional pay as instructors.

That's probably the problem right there.

[MichaelP]

Yes, do a real good job studying for your instructor rating, don't meet the standards, exceed them, and keep building your knowledge.
Fly a few different types of aeroplanes, do some aerobatics etc...

I believe a Chief Flight Instructor should be able to fly any aircraft within the bounds of his/her licence, and if not, at least be able to evaluate their qualities and give the student an accurate appraisel...
If you only know the C172 you should not be a CFI IMHO.

[AUGER9]

I think the flight test standards here on the West coast are higher than any other part of this country...

That's quite a bold statement to make.

[MichaelP]

That's why I write "I think" since that is my experience...
I don't say 'IT IS' I say I 'THINK IT IS'...

It probably varies with individual examiners... I have no experience of Eastern flight tests other than what we see here of people newly minted from there.

[brokenwing]

I think it all depends on the FTU, if its a puppy mill that pays instructors flight pay, how can you expect the student to learn when the instructors are just trying to feed themselves. When i hear what instructors are making in ontario i can see why they are flying as much as possible and neglecting briefings and spending time with students on the ground, not to mention how living paycheck to paycheck can affect you're attitude. Im lucky to work at a place where i can take as much time on the ground as i like and spend as much time with my students as it takes for them to know stuff cold. Basically, If you're in a happy, fun environment, its a lot easier to learn. BTW im in the east.

[MichaelP]

It's the flight test standards I question, how are people getting through their flight tests elsewhere when they would fail here?

The flight test guides clearly state the tolerances, but these tolerances are clearly not being adhered to.

[AUGER9]

I have to agree with brokenwing on this. It will vary school to school, examiner to examiner - right across the country top to bottom, left to right. To say the standards on one side are lower, when they are clearly laid out, is IMO, completely idiotic.

[MichaelP]

To say the standards on one side are lower, when they are clearly laid out, is IMO, completely idiotic.

I've been in this business for over 30 years so I feel I am entitled to be completely idiotic from time to time

It's just an observation...

Today I had someone in my class who'd flown DA40's in California where he was taught the same square 'rule' rubbish... The cruise power he used there is no where in the flight manual What is wrong with using the AFM numbers?

Someone from another place flew downwind in our DA20-C1 with the flaps fully down surprising the instructor with a fraction of this persons hours in this type of aeroplane. That's what they taught at the school he/she was instructing at

Whatever, it's an observation that standards are dropping... And talking to a DFTE the other day, TC is aware of it, and they are concerned about the standards some DFTEs are accepting.

I want to rent the aeroplanes out to people and feel they're in good hands... It's sometimes difficult when I look back on all the funny aeroplanes I rented in my past that schools would not dare to rent these days, and why should that be?

[C-GGGQ]

Whatever, it's an observation that standards are dropping... And talking to a DFTE the other day, TC is aware of it, and they are concerned about the standards some DFTEs are accepting

I think you have it right there. I never did a test with a DFTE only TC inspectors.

[shamrock104]

European Instructors are way better.

[200hr Wonder]

Whatever, it's an observation that standards are dropping... And talking to a DFTE the other day, TC is aware of it, and they are concerned about the standards some DFTEs are accepting

I think you have it right there. I never did a test with a DFTE only TC inspectors.

What I do not understand is the flight test guide is very clear and what you need to do to pass any given exercise. A steep turn is a steep turn, you loose 100' or more you fail, you land beyond the first third in a soft field landing you fail. Really not a lot of room for judgment there.

As for the 25/25 rubbish, I think it is accepted because it is a. easy and b. the DFTE or TC inspectors probably don't even bother to look it up! Most of them I am sure are use to doing exams on C172s and C152s and the like that are fixed pitch. Though how hard is it to remember power settings? You are new and have trouble? Write em down!

[iflyforpie]

Incidentally I was taught the 'square rule' here in the west while I was doing my float rating. Then I go and do my multi rating on a turbocharged twin and all of a sudden there are settings like 35/25 and 27/23. Hopefully my float instructor didn't try to use square power settings when he went on to fly Beavers.

The 'square rule' works nicely for most small normally aspirated non turbocharged engines since the highest manifold pressure roughly coincides with the maximum rpm. I run my 206 an inch under square but it is just fine square or over square according to the AFM.

Going under square is nicer to the engine than going over square, but the AFM should always be consulted to confirm power settings aren't outside the engine limitations and to confirm the aircraft's performance.

[Wacko]

What I do not understand is the flight test guide is very clear and what you need to do to pass any given exercise. A steep turn is a steep turn, you loose 100' or more you fail, you land beyond the first third in a soft field landing you fail. Really not a lot of room for judgment there.

So you feel that even though you're doing the afternoon test when it can be bumpy as hell we should still be held to the same 100' as the guy who flew in the early morning with no disturbances?

The thing about examiners is that they can deviate from the standards as needed based on the weather of that MOMENT. I guess where the problem comes in is that some examiners chose to exercise that right more often than others. It's no secret (at least around here) that every FTU has a favorite examiner... they know what to expect from that person etc.

Michael, what solution do you see to this issue?

IMHO there's also a line that must be drawn in the sand. You can't really expect someone with 50 hours to be flying at 5500 feet without divination ALL the time... That's why you need the 100 hours of PIC for the commercial... so you can go out there and get the feel for the aircraft... I was once told that (mind you this was for the IFR rating) the endorsement was a license to learn... to not go into IMC just because I can. I truly believe that that's the case with all the licenses.

As an aside, I applaud you and 200hr's because I feel (at least on avCan) that you are ALWAYS professional, and to the point. I would have loved to have either one of you as my instructors. Unfortunately, people like you are few.

[E-Flyer]

European Instructors are way better.

That's because they learn much more and don't easily become instructors. The North American system in my opinion is a joke. Not just canada, but this entire region.

[2R]

My dad is bigger than your dad !!!

If you think the FAA CFI ride is easy ,you have never had one

[Hedley]

You guys are missing the point.

It's not the difficulty of the test which matters.

What matters is the quality and depth of the
training the student received in the months
prior to the half-day test.

For the vast majority of students, the test at the
end should merely be a formality - a sampling of
tasks.

I would have loved to have either one of
you (Michael, 200 hr) as my instructors. Unfortunately,
people like you are few

I suspect that if you were willing to pay $100 per
hour to your flight instructor, the quality of your flight
instruction would go up. If someone instructed 600
hrs per year, that's only $60k per yr. When someone
earns $6k/yr or $9k/yr (see thread on flight instructor
yearly income) you can't blame them for moving on as
fast as they can, away from the below-poverty level
wages that are the norm for flight instructors in Canada.

It's tragic (but hilarious) when people can't understand
that when they pay less than poverty-level wages, they
get crappy flight instruction.

Sometimes, you get what you pay for. Not sure why
you would expect a gift.

[Wacko]

At $60-$70+/hour that it costs to "rent" an instructor... I don't understand where all the money is going. Maybe someone can explain this to me? I mean... to make the math simple... lets say it costs $100/hour to rent an aircraft... an FTU, between maintenance, fuel etc... it costs them $75/hour to run that plane... is that realistic or are the profit margins smaller? I guess what I'm asking is... are the instructors literally the financial break-even point of every FTU? Is anyone getting rich in flight training or are they just making a living?

[Hedley]

At $60-$70+/hour that it costs to "rent" an instructor

... and the class 4/3 instructor gets maybe $18 or $20 per hour
of that.

Flight instructors get screwed, and that's the way it is. Transport
goes to great effort to keep it that way, by making it so incredibly
time-consuming, difficult and expensive to get an FTU OC with
an MCM and AMO.

See, in the USA, if a flight instructor is getting screwed, he can
go into the flight instruction business with a C150. Can't do
that in Canada, where every flight school needs the same
paper as an airline.

So, Transport ensures that flight instructors are slaves of
FTU's, who abuse them with below-poverty level wages.

Your tax dollars pay for all of this, btw.

[Cat Driver]

If you offer quality instruction you can ask for and get a fair pay for your time.

Flight instruction is a very difficult business when it comes to how to charge for your time given that for every hour you actually fly you have to spend at least that much time pre briefing, getting the airplane ready to fly, de briefing etc.

When I plan my days flying I try and do two students on each flight and one flight of one hour and fifteen minutes in the morning and repeat that in the afternoon for a total of 2.5 hours flight time a day which gives me about $1000,00 Canadian a day depending on the strength of the Euro.

I only charge for flight time so the rest of my time with the students is at no cost to them.

That keeps the students happy and there is enough money in it for me that I don't mind doing as much ground briefing as they want.

[Big Pistons Forever]

[quote}

When I plan my days flying I try and do two students on each flight and one flight of one hour and fifteen minutes in the morning and repeat that in the afternoon for a total of 2.5 hours flight time a day which gives me about $1000,00 Canadian a day depending on the strength of the Euro.
.[/quote]


I assume the $1000 a day is for specialist type training. What do you charge for training for the float endorsement ?

[MichaelP]

If you offer quality instruction you can ask for and get a fair pay for your time.

I think I'm getting a reasonable deal here and I am doing what I can to see that instructors here get a reasonable pay too.
If we can improve it further we will.

From my observations, instructors here have to be better because the standard is so high in the Lower Mainland.
I had one student quit and go back to the Island... He'd done his CPL flight test there a few years ago and passed but didn't complete all the requirements then.
He could not see how he could pass the flight test here in the complex congested airspace and decided there was an easier way.
But perhaps in the less busy parts of Canada pilots are not being prepared for the real World, flying into congested airports as Commercial Pilots.

I don't know how busy Hedley is, but I see that I may have to resign from this forum for a while... Fatigue is getting to me.
Where's the help?

After all the comparisons, I can tell you our instructors are flying many more hours than the estimates, and there's a lot more to go around if properly qualified instructors want a job.
Those instructors will get to fly state of the art equipment, but I suppose, to quote someone above: "Speed kills" and they'd rather take the easy route in a Cessna...
IMHO the high wing in a Cessna can kill you very easily in this airspace... Do a turn, can you see the traffic?
In a Katana, or the Eclipse, or the DA40-180 Star, you can

I agree with Hedley, it's up to the instructor to do the job... There's so much complaint about the money situation and I understand it all too well... BUT what about pride in what we do, what about craftsmanship???

There are too many people taking the easy way out and not going for perfection or as near as they can get to it.
They don't see the journey only the end and they want to take as little time on this journey as possible.
But as in all travels, educational ones are about the journey and not the arrival!

I remember one easy day... I was wheeling the Tiger Moth, easy, easier than a Cessna 150 this way, but where was the craftmanship?
I thought I was a "Lazy bugger", and so I took to three pointing the aeroplane, doing the job properly and skillfully, taking pride in it...
Did I need that skill?
Not then, but suppose I took that Tiger into a small strip?... Blipping it over the hedge at 45KIAS and three pointing it works for any short strip...

Nobody has ever complained I didn't teach them safety, and to do it properly, but many many people have come back to me years later and were glad of it.
To me the safety of the aeroplanes we fly and the people in them is paramount.
If I teach you to land in a short grass strip uphill one way with a tailwind in a Cherokee, it's because I know that one day you might need that skill.

[3juggs]

To say the standards on the West Coast are higher than the East coast is too general of a statement so I won't take it personal. If that's your experience then call it like you see it. I flown with guys from all over Canada each day and I think they bring different regional experience to the cockpit to get the job done. Besides aviation has a way of weeding out the weak before they reach the big metal or the specialty type flying thats reserved for Professional Pilots. The standards required for a Commercial in Canada are nothing more than that, a minimum baseline to allow new pilots in the industry a opportunity to go out and obtain the experience to become a Professional Pilot someday. We are all the product of our environment, high trained density pilots are great in high density airspace when your led around by ATC by the hand from ILS to ILS which is fine if thats the environment you fly. Does that make him a better Pilot then the guy shooting an NDB approach in the High Arctic down to minimums with a 30kt crosswind with drifting snow and only a few runway lights insight knowing if he misses the nearest airstrip is 2.5 hrs away. I think if you have them switch flights you would see weakness in both but In my eyes they are both Professional Pilots with completely different experience. In Canadian Flight training we all have the same standards but with regional strengths and weaknesses.