Questions about renewing my rating, been a very long time!!

[AA150730]

I am thinking about renewing my instructor rating after at least 25 years or more and am wondering just where I should start!! I am currently a RJ captain with Jazz and am hoping to remain in the industry after I retire in a couple of years.
My questions are, what is the best route I should take, do I have to do a complete course or can I take a reduced or weekend type refresher course? I know I have to write the exam again but do I need to be recommended?
Any info anyone can give would be greatly appreiciated.
Thanks.

[Colonel Sanders]

You need to hook up with a class 1 instructor,
who will give you refresher training. I might
suggest you read this:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85153

You will need to read the FIG, the FTM, the
CARs relating to flight training (405/425, 406/426)
and the flight test guides, and the grading scale.

You will need to learn how to do PGI (see link above).
Ground work is HUGE with TC.

If you have not been flying little airplanes at all
in a long time, you will need to get current on them -
probably won't take you very long.

You will need to review the flight lessons in the air.
That hasn't changed much recently. Again, how much
review you need will be determined by how much you
remember, and how long ago you did it.

[Shiny Side Up]

Oddly enough I've been asked this question a lot I the last while. I lay out the same stuff the Colonel just laid out above, which uniformly results in dismay, disgust and anger. Next time I'll just point them here, maybe they'll believe him.

[Colonel Sanders]

which uniformly results in dismay, disgust and anger

Huh? You should have them explain how Vx and Vy
are altered by relativistic effects. Hint: see the
Duffin–Kemmer–Petiau equation. Cauchy-Stokes
and Runge-Kutta may "prove" helpful as well.

[Shiny Side Up]

I said it upset them, not put them to sleep.

[trey kule]

Good idea CS.. Ask any new potential instructor to explain Vx and Vy the way you and others did on a different thread..If they do it the same way make sure they never are allowed to hold an instructor;'s rating.

Now to the OP. I went through the same questioning a year or so ago...My experience with the local FTUs I dealt with was not positive. Not one of them (three called) asked about my eperience. Not one of them asked if I was current , or what type of aircraft I had flown lately..
They all basically told me I would do the whole instructor course again. Which was a bit frustrating.

I called TC's local office..Talked to a very nice lady who explained the legal requirements, and discussed the practical requirements. She referred me to another person in their office, and I got a good and thorough briefing on what is required.

It is not as onerous as some of the class 1's would have you think..My advice is to start with talking to the training folks at your local TC office..They are a great unbiased resource.

There have been many changes..Mine was expired for 22 years...It seems we are no longer able to cut a square hole in a sheet of paper and hold it up in front of a student to show them attitudes , but must come prepared with a full on power point presentation. I am exaggerating , of course, but you get the idea.

Having said that, there are many things you can do that do not require an instructor rating...
You can teach float flying if you are rated and get current again.. You can teach IF rating, something that real world experience is gold. Multi engine, tail wheel, checkouts with types you are familiar with..None of which need an instructor rating though there are some requirements that you must meet.

Just as an aside, because it caught.. When was the last time you filed a flight plan? Did a full W&B calculation, or thought about things like Vx and Vy..Navigated using Ded Reckoning or pilotage?
How familiar are you with VFR rules?Going back sometimes takes a great deal of "remembering all the things we forgot"

I hope you will forage through it..The industry needs instructors with experience outside the FTU, particularily as the emphasis now is training over experience for the new pilots coming up.

Good luck

[Shiny Side Up]

It is not as onerous as some of the class 1's would have you think..

Would you describe what the Colonel laid out above as onerous?

[photofly]

When was the last time you filed a flight plan? Did a full W&B calculation, or thought about things like Vx and Vy.

Apparently actually bothering to think about things like Vx and Vy rather than parrot what you read in a text-book is a disqualifying activity, if you want to be flight instructor. According to some, that is. Heaven forbid we should ever have a flight instructor who actually knows anything about aerodynamics and is able to answer a student's question. Christ - if I had ever had an instructor who had a proper understanding of Vx and Vy and had been able to teach it I wouldn't have to waste my time arguing the toss about it on this shitty forum.

[photofly]

I'm sorry, I just needed to vent. I feel better now.

[trey kule]

Mr. Fly

There is a huge difference...Huge...between understanding a subject, and teaching it at the appropriate level to your student.
The challange arises, as an instructor in imparting the necessary knowledge to your student so they understand it and can practically apply it; Not bring them up to a PHD level of aerodynamic understanding. We used to call it K.I.S.S. It is very easy to Overteach a subject and confuse the student..I am sure you want to share your in depth knowledge of all things aeronautical, but you must consider the level of your student.
Vx and Vy , I believe can be adequately explained to a student ppl in a very short time so they understand the practical applications. That is the job of a good instructor. Some of the best pilots I know can teach this well in about 5 minutes so a student can understand how to apply it and the safety considerations.

Vx and Vy are simply not that difficult to understand and apply.

CS is a bit like that cough medicine that tastes terrible..Unpleasant, but lots of wisdom there if you can get by the presentation.

[Beefitarian]

I'm sorry, I just needed to vent. I feel better now.

Can you imagine if ground school was like this place in real life? You utter something wrong asking for clarification or just say something in a different way than they would and get gang raped for it. It's like cave men here in the Thunder Dome.

ARRRGGGHH WE NO LIKE GRAPH, KILL!!!

[Cat Driver]

The challange arises, as an instructor in imparting the necessary knowledge to your student so they understand it and can practically apply it; Not bring them up to a PHD level of aerodynamic understanding. We used to call it K.I.S.S.
Vx and Vy , I believe can be adequately explained to a student ppl in a very short time so they understand the practical applications. That is the job of a good instructor.

Vx and Vy are simply not that difficult to understand and apply.

How many times have you had new pilots who were experts on theory and all the numbers, but couldn't do a proper approach and landing with a cross wind Trey?

[photofly]

How many times have you had new pilots who were experts on theory and all the numbers, but couldn't do a proper approach and landing with a cross wind Trey?

Do you honestly believe that a thorough, willful, enthusiastic and deep-seated ignorance of theory and numbers makes you a better pilot? It sure sounds like you do.

[Cat Driver]

Do you honestly believe that a thorough, willful, enthusiastic and deep-seated ignorance of theory and numbers makes you a better pilot? It sure sounds like you do.

No, of course not.

So let me ask you a question.

If you had a choice between a wizard with paper who can't fly the airplane properly and someone who understands the theory and the basics on a level to pass the written exams who can fly the airplane to its design limits and knows how to make good decisions operationaly....which one would you hire?

I have hired hundreds and believe me the paper experts who can't fly are out there.

[photofly]

Do you honestly believe that a thorough, willful, enthusiastic and deep-seated ignorance of theory and numbers makes you a better pilot? It sure sounds like you do.

No, of course not.

So let me ask you a question.

If you had a choice between a wizard with paper who can't fly the airplane properly and someone who understands the theory and the basics on a level to pass the written exams who can fly the airplane to its design limits and knows how to make good decisions operationaly....which one would you hire?

I have hired hundreds and believe me the paper experts who can't fly are out there.

The better operational pilot, of course. But I bet the wizard who can't yet fly the aeroplane can learn, and become as good as the other guy, in time. As long as he doesn't believe he's better than he is, and still has the drive to improve. How do you feel knowing the stick-and-rudder guy no longer has the interest (or maybe never had the ability) to look any deeper than the shallow TC-mandated minimum amount of knowledge? That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling either.

I know Avcanada is a place where people sign up to be pilloried, and are supposed to enjoy the experience. But just sometimes the constant level of carping and moaning (which I know isn't meant in a nasty or personal way) interjected into any thread where people are trying to slog through something complicated in a genuine effort to improve themselves - is a bit irritating. To be honest one might hope for a bit more support from the old-timers here, and if they don't want to offer support and encouragement in the enterprise perhaps they could keep their negativity to themselves?

[Cat Driver]

I am sorry you feel that way photofly, from what I can gather reading your posts on Avcanada you were thinking of getting an instructors rating about a year ago.

It appears you think some of us old timers are just to negative on these subjects so maybe it would be better if there was a forum that did not allow old timers.

That way we would not be able to rain on your parade.

[photofly]

I am sorry you feel that way photofly

I don't actually think you give a good goddam how anyone else feels.

[Cat Driver]

Really?

When it comes to flight training you may be correct photofly.

Training was one of my main means of earning a living in aviation and I always tried to be impersonal when it came to turning out a top notch well trained pilot.

Anyhow you and I appear to have different ideas on flight training.

Best we just go our own way, I hope you end up as successful as a teacher of aviation as I was.

. E.

[Beefitarian]

You do seem to post a lot against book lurnin' cat.

[Cat Driver]

My position regarding book learning beef is it comes a distant second to aircraft handling skills and sound decision making skills once the individual is flying commercially.

Here is a question for you to ponder over when trying to decide how deep my book learning really went.

Over the decades I wrote and passed almost every written exam in aviation, how else could I have held so many licenses?

In so many countries?

Sooo...here again is the bottom line for me.

My position regarding book learning beef is it comes a distant second to aircraft handling skills and sound decision making skills once the individual is flying commercially.

[Beefitarian]

Hey for the most part I get where you're coming from. I'm just making an observation that you can be pretty tough on guys just because they're academic. Sometimes a well educated pilot can work the rudder pedals.

[Shiny Side Up]

How many times have you had new pilots who were experts on theory and all the numbers, but couldn't do a proper approach and landing with a cross wind?

Actually I've never encountered such an idiot savant. Some of the Colonel's level who could do both, a few good sticks who could land in a decent crosswind but were sort of clueless as to how to explain how they could do it, and a lot who didn't know either, but usually that last group were aces at pushing "direct to" and who could give a long winded speech on that radio ending with the traditional "any conflicting please advise".

[Colonel Sanders]

. makes a valid point that 99% of pilots are (heavy)
equipment operators, just like people who operate
bulldozers or cranes. They don't need to design them
from scratch like that nutcase in FLYING magazine
(melmouth) just operate them.

Some of the most challenging work I've done involved
misbehaving homebuilt and experimental aircraft. That
required some fundamental understanding about what
was going on, to diagnose the problem and engineer a
solution.

Generally that is not required with certified aircraft,
where the pilots live in a world with no sharp corners.

The airplane is carefully maintained to be in a safe
condition and to have predictable characteristics as
described in the POH/AFM and supplements, which if
they bother to read and follow, will generally give them
very good advice about how to operate their aircraft.

Getting a pilot to read and adhere to the POH is at least
as important as them being able to choose the right
4-digit NACA airfoil. Probably more important.

Another time that understanding of the fundamentals
comes in handy is diagnosing maintenance problems
with certified aircraft. Again, this is well outside the
scope of a licenced pilot - their AME generally takes
care of that.

One of the most important lessons a new instructor
needs to learn, is that they cannot do a brain dump of the
178 things they know about a particular flight lesson
to the poor student, who might drive a truck or is a
farmer, and might remember 2 or 3 things that the
instructor tells him in a lesson. Very few of my students
have held a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering.

In terms of prioritizing stuff, I would really like a student
to understand the particulars of his aircraft operation
(eg familiar with POH) and to be proficient at operating
it (eg recent stick time). I am less concerned with his
knowledge of AN hardware and metallurgy, for example.

I do checkouts on the C421, which is probably one of
the more complicated piston/prop aircraft around. It
is far more complicated and difficult to fly and maintain
than the jets that I fly. Seriously.

Anyways, last 421 checkout I did, I told the nice young
fellow to buy a manual for the 421B from Essco, and
read it ahead of time. When he showed up, I asked him
if he had read it (TKT) then handed him a clipboard and
asked him to draw the complete fuel system for me.

For the flying portion, we did a bunch of takeoffs and
landings (leaving the circuit every time) to a full stop,
just like you fly the airplane in real life.

No touch & goes, but we went up and down and up
and down and he worked his way through all the various
different power settings, and I taught him the procedures
to operate the aircraft in the departure and approach phases
(high workload) without damaging those delicated geared engines.

I'm pretty sure he hadn't taken a second year course
in fluid dynamics, but at the end of it, he flew the airplane
pretty well.

PS Here is a very nice online fluids course:

http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/

But you should not feel obligated to take it, if you want to fly
an airplane. Personally, I would rather see a new ATPL take
an economics 101 course, first. Again, priorities.

[photofly]

The airplane is carefully maintained to be in a safe
condition and to have predictable characteristics as
described in the POH/AFM and supplements, which if
they bother to read and follow, will generally give them
very good advice about how to operate their aircraft.

Getting a pilot to read and adhere to the POH is at least
as important as them being able to choose the right
4-digit NACA airfoil. Probably more important.

Well, quite. If you look at the thread that dissolved into a discussion about Vx and Vy, you'll see that I began it by asking a question about a particular procedure from the POH.

If my memory serves, it was hardly more than two hours and five posts until someone weighed in with the the side-snipes and shit stirring:

How is it possible to even read 59 knots on a C172 airspeed?
And I sure never got good enough to maintain a indicated airspeed within one knot, so you guys are far better pilots than I am.
If it is so important to teach to such fine limits what criteria do they consider " to clear 50 feet " to clear it by one inch, one foot?

We hadn't even digressed to "book learnin'" when Avcanada's very own Mr Magoo was out poo-pooing the contents of the POH.

A simple question about procedure gets a sarcastic bitchslap from Avcanada's Master Educator. If that's .'s idea of appropriate educational technique then I can't wait to do it differently.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm rather fond of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics
but I'm not sure it's going to get you laid on a Saturday night.

PS If you're jonesing on the technical side, click on

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=85939

Two doors down the hall, on the left. Applications of induced drag
with plenty of juicy, controversial eyecandy.