just trying to get some conversation going.......but really, should someone with the ink still wet on their CPL really be allowed to instruct?? something like the blind leading the blind. What do you high time guys think the requirements should be?......
Instructors??
- Thread starter RB
- Start date
Not a high time guy, but I think that such a decision should be made at the interview. Some people "use" flight instruction careers as a way of building time and getting paid, and then leaving without a true passion for teaching people and sharing ones love for flying.
If they show they really wish to do such a job, perhaps they should do "dirty work" first, and making themselves known around the airfield, and then after 6 months if they have not left due to boredem, the Flight Training Center will know who really wants to be an Instructor and who is in it for money and time.
Any good?
Smooth skies,
Dan
If they show they really wish to do such a job, perhaps they should do "dirty work" first, and making themselves known around the airfield, and then after 6 months if they have not left due to boredem, the Flight Training Center will know who really wants to be an Instructor and who is in it for money and time.
Any good?
Smooth skies,
Dan
One more thing......
Flight instructors are NOT in it for the MONEY!!!! Take a look at one of their pay slips sometime!
Flight instructors are NOT in it for the MONEY!!!! Take a look at one of their pay slips sometime!
Have either one of you gone through the training to become an instructor? It''s a lot of work! It also requires up to date and current information. Who better to already have that information then a student who has just passed their commercial licence.
I have had many an aviation parent (Capt. 747 AC) come in with their kid looking for a flight school and sincerely express that they don''t know the first thing about training anymore. Sure the more time in the industry counts for a lot but so does currency.
Dan does bring up a point I can agree with. Instructors should be enthusiastic! Regardless of their long term goals they should want to instruct. Unfortunately that is a very hard thing to gage and is, in a way, left up to the potential Flight Training Unit. Good schools can spot the sincere candidate.
Age on the other hand plays a roll in confidence. Some students feel more comfortable with an older/younger instructor.
Cheers,
S
I have had many an aviation parent (Capt. 747 AC) come in with their kid looking for a flight school and sincerely express that they don''t know the first thing about training anymore. Sure the more time in the industry counts for a lot but so does currency.
Dan does bring up a point I can agree with. Instructors should be enthusiastic! Regardless of their long term goals they should want to instruct. Unfortunately that is a very hard thing to gage and is, in a way, left up to the potential Flight Training Unit. Good schools can spot the sincere candidate.
Age on the other hand plays a roll in confidence. Some students feel more comfortable with an older/younger instructor.
Cheers,
S
- Thread Starter
- #5
All good points, but i would rather be taught how to fly in the real world then just taught how to pass a flight test. How much is one missing when they are taught how to fly by...lets say a bush pilot, who instructs in the winter, compared to someone with a fresh CPL.? Which person will come out as a better pilot. One of the most important skills a pilot has is good judgement and decision making. Would someone with 250 hours have these skills matched to a seasoned pilot?.
Are you talking about the bush pilot that flys over gross and pushes wx to get in or the one that always does his weight and balance?
Starling:
Why would you "always" do a weight and balance?
I can''t see any need to do a W&B unless there is a need, such you have reason to suspect you may be close to gross weight, or the envelope may be out of limits.
But to "always" do one is a waste of time.
Chas W.
Why would you "always" do a weight and balance?
I can''t see any need to do a W&B unless there is a need, such you have reason to suspect you may be close to gross weight, or the envelope may be out of limits.
But to "always" do one is a waste of time.
Chas W.
Maybe more experienced instructors would get the student through in 45 hours instead of 75 hours?
Charles W.
Charles W.
I''ve thought a lot about this, and like many I also questioned the logic of having a 230 hour instructor training student pilots.
But I came around a bit. The Canadian aviation industry appears to place greater weight on experience rather than training, no? While we might be slowly moving away from that and towards a European style of training and pilot selection, wouldn''t most agree that it doesn''t matter where you did your training, who your instructor was, what a/c you flew...just that you got your license.
After that, you slug it out somewhere...on the ramp, in the bush, whatever...you get on a groundschool and then into the cockpit...you do the company training,a dn you build up the experience...
MY POINT: a commercial ticket is what makes you eligeable to work as a pilot in Canada...whether your instructor had 230 hours or 5000, the point was to meet the standards and pass the flight test. We could easily argue about the "Value Added" aspect of flight training and how better, more experienced intructors would make better pilots, but most of the people here have likely been through this process and are now looking back on it.
If I suggest anything to people interested in becoming comemrcial pilots, it is simply to do your training as quickly and cheaply as possible...get a job on the ramp somewhere, then shut your mouth, and keep your eyes and ears open. Work hard, continue to keep your mouth shut, and good things will happen...sooner or later.
That''s my take anyways...
But I came around a bit. The Canadian aviation industry appears to place greater weight on experience rather than training, no? While we might be slowly moving away from that and towards a European style of training and pilot selection, wouldn''t most agree that it doesn''t matter where you did your training, who your instructor was, what a/c you flew...just that you got your license.
After that, you slug it out somewhere...on the ramp, in the bush, whatever...you get on a groundschool and then into the cockpit...you do the company training,a dn you build up the experience...
MY POINT: a commercial ticket is what makes you eligeable to work as a pilot in Canada...whether your instructor had 230 hours or 5000, the point was to meet the standards and pass the flight test. We could easily argue about the "Value Added" aspect of flight training and how better, more experienced intructors would make better pilots, but most of the people here have likely been through this process and are now looking back on it.
If I suggest anything to people interested in becoming comemrcial pilots, it is simply to do your training as quickly and cheaply as possible...get a job on the ramp somewhere, then shut your mouth, and keep your eyes and ears open. Work hard, continue to keep your mouth shut, and good things will happen...sooner or later.
That''s my take anyways...
- Thread Starter
- #10
exactly, plus would''nt you feel more confident and well informed if you had an instructer with experience.????
P.S most bush pilots or similar have amazing weight and balance skills, they place there cargo in the most efficient places as well as fly with different PIC seating positions.
P.S most bush pilots or similar have amazing weight and balance skills, they place there cargo in the most efficient places as well as fly with different PIC seating positions.
Can we do polls here? It would be interesting to see what the majority of people feel...
An instructor with lots of experience
A fresh instructor with all the knowledge
Well, to me, both sound professional enough. I suppose I can speak from experience. My PPL was taught by two main instructors at the good old victoria flying club in YYJ BC. One of the instructors was English just like me, and I was his FIRST student, EVER! I felt very comfortable with him. He knew everything, and I did not have any quarms against him.
Then, when I flew with my other instructor who had been and still is an instructor, for a few years before me, he treated me exactly the same, and ran the same "program" during my 2 hour daily slots.
Come to think of it, the more experienced one was more "lenient", and would be a little less "by the book" although that is said in the lightest of ways. Someone above said "do W&B only if absolutely neccersary". Well, tell that to the English first time new guy instructor and he might lecture you by the book and tell you to do a re-test! Where, the more experienced would be less likely to have a heart attack if you told him that, and come to an agreement that that is probably quite true.
IMO (in my opinion), I think both types, through experience, are perfectly up to the job, and I admire any professional pilot for getting where they are today
Smooth skies
Dan
An instructor with lots of experience
A fresh instructor with all the knowledge
Well, to me, both sound professional enough. I suppose I can speak from experience. My PPL was taught by two main instructors at the good old victoria flying club in YYJ BC. One of the instructors was English just like me, and I was his FIRST student, EVER! I felt very comfortable with him. He knew everything, and I did not have any quarms against him.
Then, when I flew with my other instructor who had been and still is an instructor, for a few years before me, he treated me exactly the same, and ran the same "program" during my 2 hour daily slots.
Come to think of it, the more experienced one was more "lenient", and would be a little less "by the book" although that is said in the lightest of ways. Someone above said "do W&B only if absolutely neccersary". Well, tell that to the English first time new guy instructor and he might lecture you by the book and tell you to do a re-test! Where, the more experienced would be less likely to have a heart attack if you told him that, and come to an agreement that that is probably quite true.
IMO (in my opinion), I think both types, through experience, are perfectly up to the job, and I admire any professional pilot for getting where they are today
Smooth skies
Dan
Well even if an instructor had many hours of flying most experience with a pilot comes from experience flying. A 5000 hr instructor and a 230 hr instructor cant teach you more about flying then what is required to fly.
Most knowledge comes from hearing things or experiencing them yourself. Recurrecny in training is also a good thing as well. Since it is fresh off the top of there heads.
Secondly where is a pilot gonna start earning his experience? Through instructing right? So if its your perogative to gain experience from a 5000hr instructor, then go ahead, no ones to argue. But a 230 hr instructor can do the same job and everyone must start out somewhere so i dont see the point in argueing how "every job" in avaition is for high timed pilots. Next thing you know someone is gonna say that a ramp rat should have 1000hr''s.
Point being what else do you want out of an instructor? They are there to teach you how to fly, if you want to learn more about flying, obviously more hours will do the trick. I got my training from a low time instructor and never had to go to the extremes of 75hours.
If an instructor has a good teaching outline to follow on every flight, then learning the required curve shouldnt take as many hours!
Most knowledge comes from hearing things or experiencing them yourself. Recurrecny in training is also a good thing as well. Since it is fresh off the top of there heads.
Secondly where is a pilot gonna start earning his experience? Through instructing right? So if its your perogative to gain experience from a 5000hr instructor, then go ahead, no ones to argue. But a 230 hr instructor can do the same job and everyone must start out somewhere so i dont see the point in argueing how "every job" in avaition is for high timed pilots. Next thing you know someone is gonna say that a ramp rat should have 1000hr''s.
Point being what else do you want out of an instructor? They are there to teach you how to fly, if you want to learn more about flying, obviously more hours will do the trick. I got my training from a low time instructor and never had to go to the extremes of 75hours.
If an instructor has a good teaching outline to follow on every flight, then learning the required curve shouldnt take as many hours!
Well, I remember asking my instructor one time about taking a buddy up and having him take the control column to see what its like. Could I do it? Should I do it? That sort of thing. He response was "Well, you can fly a plane, so why can''t you teach someone how to fly?" He was a young instructor, and a very very talented pilot.
Okay, now obviously I''m taking the devils adovocate position. But my point is more that its not about the hours an instructor has, its about their abilities. There are also some students who all they want is a PPL so they can ''blast off'' across the country in the plane they just bought.
In the end, I hate it when people start to put hours and years of experience ahead of ability. They seem to think that their hours and age out weight talent and common sense. I have always felt in any industry that this is just a way for older average people to justify why a younger more talented person isn''t worth the same money as they are.
Okay, now obviously I''m taking the devils adovocate position. But my point is more that its not about the hours an instructor has, its about their abilities. There are also some students who all they want is a PPL so they can ''blast off'' across the country in the plane they just bought.
In the end, I hate it when people start to put hours and years of experience ahead of ability. They seem to think that their hours and age out weight talent and common sense. I have always felt in any industry that this is just a way for older average people to justify why a younger more talented person isn''t worth the same money as they are.
Of course experience means very little, that is why low time pilots just jump into complex airplanes and teach, its because of their superior natural abilities.
After all who needs experience when you are talented.
Speaking of experience how many instructors are qualified to teach on something really basic like tailwheel airplanes.
Chas W.
After all who needs experience when you are talented.
Speaking of experience how many instructors are qualified to teach on something really basic like tailwheel airplanes.
Chas W.
I didn''t say that experience counts for nothing, just that its value is variable and is balanced against talent. Haven''t you ever seen another individual that you admitted, even secretly, that they are better than you? (If you haven''t, well, age will teach you humility.)
"Of course experience means very little, that is why low time pilots just jump into complex airplanes and teach, its because of their superior natural abilities."
Could very well be. Surely you must conceed that there are people out there who are just as better at something. Would you rather take your training with a CFI who took 500 hrs just to get the lisence and 3 times at the flight test? (He''s experienced after all.) Or would you rather take the 230 hr CFI who aced his exam, and people find him highly skilled and a good teacher?
In the end, I do think experience adds value. But don''t assume its the only factor. To prejudge an instructor because they have 230 hrs and no tail dragger experience is wrong.
If you same you want to have students to get a license in 45 hrs instead of 75, aren''t you promoting student talent instead of just experience? That same student may become the CFI too, so where you wrong to encourage him to use talent to get there faster?
"Of course experience means very little, that is why low time pilots just jump into complex airplanes and teach, its because of their superior natural abilities."
Could very well be. Surely you must conceed that there are people out there who are just as better at something. Would you rather take your training with a CFI who took 500 hrs just to get the lisence and 3 times at the flight test? (He''s experienced after all.) Or would you rather take the 230 hr CFI who aced his exam, and people find him highly skilled and a good teacher?
In the end, I do think experience adds value. But don''t assume its the only factor. To prejudge an instructor because they have 230 hrs and no tail dragger experience is wrong.
If you same you want to have students to get a license in 45 hrs instead of 75, aren''t you promoting student talent instead of just experience? That same student may become the CFI too, so where you wrong to encourage him to use talent to get there faster?
