What's new
By:

Instructors??

Flythenumbers:

I am sorry I can''t follow your thoughts on instructing.

Good instructors require the talent to teach, however to be a good instructor you must understand the subject.

There are just to many poor instructors in flying schools to day, poor because their instructors did not understand the subject as they both have no experience in having actually flown commercially.

And I must point out the subject is not writing exams, rather it is understanding how to fly the airplane.

Now once again lets take my simple question about tailwheel airplanes.

These are basic machines yet few instructors understand how to fly them, does that not give some indication of the quality of instructors availiable.

Or is it your opinion that a talented instructor can just teach him /her self how to fly one?

Chas W.
 
My original response was to whether a 230 tt, new inked CFI should actully teach. My response is on that is: sure, if they are skilled. The fact that they have 230 hours is not a good indication of their skills and capabilities. Nor does a high tt by default make you a great instructor. Yes, experience is valuable, but some experiences contribute less than others and ability/talent can compensate for lack of experience.

Could a talented pilot teach himself to fly a tail dragger? Lots of people can teach themselves to do anything. We teach ourselves every day if we are open to new experiences and trying something new or in a different way. Thats not to say that we won''t make mistakes, we learn from mistakes. Often the more talented (and to your point) more experienced will make less. So yeah, they could teach themselves to fly a tail dragger. Someone had to teach themselves to fly tail draggers in the first place. Is it unsafe, well, its certainly not as safe as learning from an experienced pilot such as yourself.

Could I teach myself to fly tail draggers: well, to be honest, I don''t think of myself as a talented pilot. I''m told that I''m above average in some things. On others, I need experience to get me through, no shame in admitting that. I have read books on the subject, and want the opportunity to fly em, planning on doing trying one this summer.

Does a CFI need tail dragger experience? Would it make them a better instructor? Hmm, likely, but I don''t think its required, UNLESS they are planning to teach in them. (Its like saying should a CFI have aerobatic experience. Be great if they did, but not required for the job unless that is the job.)

I guess I feel for the thread because low timers often get dumped on for being low timers with little other consideration. I had a CFI who was talented, he took an opportunity to fly whatever he could. He used to show me how to read winds on water. He used to talk about how to control the aircraft in the event of aileron failure and/or rudder failure and/or elevator failure. He offered a wealth of knowledge. He was one of the companies top light aircraft charter pilots. Might suprise you to know he was also a low timer. (... and now you know the rest of the story...)
 
So what is the answer to getting the student through the course in 45 hours?

As far as the cost difference between 45 hours and 75 hours that would pay the instructor quite nicely wouldn''t it?

Here is a question for you.

There was a time when the private license was 30 hours, all the airplanes were tailwheel and most students received their licenses in around the 30 hour time frame.

Why could it be done then and not now with more simple airplanes to train on?

Why 75 hours now and 30 hours then?

Chas W.
 
----------------
On 3/12/2003 9:54:13 PM Charles W. wrote:

Maybe more experienced instructors would get the student through in 45 hours instead of 75 hours?

Charles W.

----------------​

This may indeed be true, but since anyone with the type of experience level you seem to be talking about would demand at least 4 times what the average instructor is paid today, the cost of that 45 hours would be far more than 75 hours at the present rates.

Also, lets face it, the items taught in the PPL and CPL are not overly complex. The number of hours that it takes to get the licence has very little to do with the instructor. Most of the extension in time is due to weather, sporadic student flying and failure of a student to grasp one element (ie. landings). None of these problems can be solved with experience.

This is not to say that there are not poor instructors - I''m sure that there are. The number of unemployed instructors, however, serves to regulate the level of instruction. If you needed 3000 hrs to instruct how many surplus instructors do you think there would be? HOw do you think the level of instructing would change if the instructors new they were literally irreplaceable?
 
I don't know the answer, but I have a guess. The sporadic student bookings which I mentioned are, in large part, due to monetary constraints. A PPL costs in the $6000 range - if it's done in 45 hours. There is also less government financial help to get your licence than in the past. People run out of money. Simple as that. I had to take 13 months off when doing my PPL because I ran out of money - of course that extended my time.

Granted, wages, etc. have also increased, but I'm sure that the cost of training has gone up at a far faster rate.

For example - an aquaintance of mine got his licence in the late 40's. It cost him $300 - and when he got his licence the government gave him back $100 and gave the flying club $100.

So since the 40's, the cost of flight training has increased 3000%, based on a $200 cost to the student.
 
I have to agree with the comment about a more experienced instructor does not necessarily mean faster learning times. I remember having a hard time getting the flare right, and my instructor thinking that somehow he could just force me to learn it. The truth is, I knew it was bad, I knew what I was doing wrong, but it took me a while to learn how to fix it. Sometimes thats just how it goes.

In the other hand, experience helps alot when it comes to recognizing how students learn. In the end, I would think that being a better teacher, that is, having teaching skills, would help a student to learn faster than having lots of hours. For CFIs, I recommend the US magazine on flight training. It has great articles on students and teachers. Can''t remember the exact name, but it obvious when you see it on a magazine rack.

Hmm, perhaps its just that we produce better pilots today? This could be hard to admit, but maybe in the ''old days'' there was contentment to give a pilot their license and let them learn more on their own. It was safer to do so before than today. The air is busier. I would have to say that learning to fly in controlled airspace likely added an other 5-10 hours to the time it took me, bringing my time to the 65 hr mark. I just hated using the radio, made me nervous as hell. The funny thing now is that I don''t find it a problem at all, and even my radio work continues to improve. It sounds funny, but I think what helped was hearing another instructor be more relaxed on the radio and in some part, be a bit silly. I made me realize that they (ATC) weren''t going to totaly berate me if I got in a bit wrong, or missed something. AS long as I acknowledged clearances, and didn''t do anything unsafe. My first instructor have me repeat everything, more as if it was IFR. The supervisor/examiner acknowledged that often alot of recent IFR instructors have VFR pilots doing that for no good reason. I guess here is a case to support of Charles. The new instuctors should know better not to overload a student.

And wow, a PPL for 6K, that would have been nice. I did mine in a 172, and the costs were more like 11K. My instructor told me going in that 11K was alot more realistic than the rates most schools post. (Most seem to post using TC mins, a 150, and simulator, and say around 6-7K) I think this is bad for potential students, but at the same time, realistic examples would likely scare away potential people.
 
If you take a look at the hours it takes to go solo at each individual airport you''ll see a direct correlation with the amount of traffic at that airport. Over the last few years we have seen an increase in the amount of time it takes our students to get to the solo level, we have also seen a large increase of traffic and many procedural changes to our airspace. The good old days of the relaxed solo are gone at this airport. Even the experienced pilots (2000 hrs+) come down rattled after dealing with the congested airspace. The radio work alone keeps many "Licensed" pilots away from this airport.

Also on a business side….Insurance has increased and any claims that a school would need to make could be the straw that breaks the camels back! In other words you better be dammed sure that your student will deal as best as possible with any and all situations that come their way.

Flythenumbers said:

“In the other hand, experience helps alot when it comes to recognizing how students learn.â€￾

This statement really struck home with me. A good teacher is one that can adjust their methods of teaching to fit each individual student. Sure if the instructor gains that experience from flying in the industry great! But a lot of instructors bring that to their flying positions from previous experiences.
 
I just with that Instructors would teach more grass strip landings and techniques therein. For some reason, it just feels right to land a light aircraft on a grass strip. You also get to understand why its good to get off the ground in ground effect. If your softfield technique is off on a grass strip, its alot more noticable.

The is an instructor in New York State that teaches ''advanded'' landing techniques for bush type work. Looks like fun. I think the article said his landing strip is about 800 ft long, water on both ends. Definately teach a student to land better.

Was at Lindsay last weekend for lunch. Saw two ski planes, be great to try that and feel what its like. I guess breaking is out of the question.
 
To all of you:
I am just a helicopter pilot/Instructor
Here is my toonies worth
Who is the better instructor, the low time guy or the hightime guy?
Well, I started in this business as an instructor and still am. Why should the older, more experienced guys be better, granted that it took less time to solo, and less time to get their license before, but someone mentioned something about airspace, and radio work. There just is so muc more to know these days, and that is not just the instructors fault now is it? It also comes down to the student, how interested is he/she to do a good job? Here we have students just out of high school, who came here to learn "Cause it looked fun", they don''t know anything about airplanes, bareley know how to drive a car if they do. Why blame it on the instructors that the times keep on increasing?
I have seen very poor old time instructor, and very good low time instructors, and the opposite. If the industry changed a little, perhaps ther would be a chance for the low timers to first go out into the industry to do their work, and then go back into training later on, rather than the other way around.
If you feel that you don''t want to be trained by some 19 or 20 year old, because they have no experience, are you willing to pay the extra money to have some 50 year old ex airline captain for his time to train you? I work at a school with both fixed and rotaty training, and we in general have a good bunch of instructors, but most of them are very young. Does this make them bad instructors? I think not!
Each summer for the last few years our school have had the Cadet contract, and they make it off in 45 to 50 hours, but then again they are here for 6 to 7 weeks and live and breathe aviation. our general student population is here for 2 years going through PPL to CPL, IR and Multi and instructor rating. In the states when I worked there, the average was 1 year from nothing to complete with all ratings.

Is it the instructors fault that the students are taking so long to complete their ratings? I dont think so (IMHO) I think the students dedication has changed, they (Generalizing) don''t study for classes, they don''t prepare for lessons, they don''t bring all equipment needed, they don''t want to come in in the morning, they don''t wnt to finnish late and so on. Whoose fault is it? I don''t know, but I don''t believe it is only the low time instructors worth.

Thanx for reading, and sorry I was long winded!
Sincerely, Harald
 
----------------
On 3/19/2003 8:56:41 PM Charles W. wrote:

Maybe the cost has risen 3000% but so have the wages.

When I learned to fly the rates were $10.00 Dual and $8.00 Solo.

I made $35.00 per. week.
----------------​

Doesn''t really matter that instructor wages have increased. The whole point was that the increased cost of learning to fly is extending the time taken to get a licence. Your posting of the Dual/Solo rates supports my argument.

If you are saying, however, that all wages have increased 3000%, I would have to say that you are wrong. Assuming $35/week was an average blue collar wage, one would expect average blue collar wages today to be $1050/week? I don''t think so. Add to this the fact that other costs not associated with flying (eg. fuel, vehicle cost, housing, etc.) have increased disproportianally to wage increases. People today have less disposable income - and flight training requires a greater percentage of that disposable income.

Just out of curiousity, when you were getting students their licences in the minimum times, how experienced were the instructors? Weren''t they relatively inexperienced, just as they are today?
 
This thread was about inexperienced instructors vs. experienced instructors.

When I learned to fly I received my private license in 30 hours, the instructors were both relatively inexperienced and experienced.

The airplanes were tailwheel Cessna 140''s and Fleet Canucks. Todays trainers are Cessna 150''s 172''s piper Cherokes etc. So if the airplanes I learned on were not easier to fly why does it take so much more time to get a Private License today?

I trained at Toronto Island Airport with a control tower so it was not in an uncontrolled enviorement.

The time required to complete a Private License to day is 45 hours so how come the Canadian adverage is 75 hours?

Maybe Transport Canada should increase the minimums due to the fact the Instructors they license are unable to meet the minimum hour requirement that is presently in force?

Anyone have any ideas?

Chas W.
 
I still maintain that the extension of times from 45 hrs. to 75 hrs. has much more to do with the student than with the instructor.

I am an instructor. At this moment I have a handful of students approaching flight test stages:

Student One - extreme confidence issues. Took a lot hrs to go solo. Since going solo, everything is on track time wise. I expect this student to get licence in 80 - 85 hrs. Three bookings/week.

Student Two - 40 hrs total. Has to complete solo x-country, pre-flight preparation. Should have licence @ 45 hrs. One booking/week.

Student Three - Took 3 years off. Had about 35 hrs when resumed, but took a while to regain level. Is struggling with navigation. Will get licence @ about 80 hrs. One booking/two weeks.

Student Four - working on licence for 3 years. One or two bookings/month - some of which get weathered out. Will have to save for a month to pay for dual x-country. Licence @ 100 hrs. Maybe.

These are just a few examples. Which ones of the extended times were the fault of the instructor? It could be argued that #1 was my fault, but I''m not a psyciatrist. Last two entirely fault of students - sporadic bookings, change in instructors (because of time frame), constant review of previous exercises.

Taking just these three examples, average will be 75 hrs. or higher. Even if we say the first one is my fault and eliminate it from the equation the average would still be 75 + hrs.

These students are indicative of all the students at our school. Most of the students who come regularly (and prepared) go solo quickly and are licenced in close to minimums. The rest take their time and thus take more time.

Maybe it has something to do with the ages of the students as well. The younger the person, the more quickly they want to be licenced. Older people seem to treat the lessons themselves as a hobby.

Raising the minimums is not the answer because with the right student, 45 hrs. is more than enough to teach them what they need to know. As flight instructors, part of our job is to discuss with students how to get their licence faster and more cheaply. At least I consider it part of my job. It even entails suggesting quitting if they just don''t seem to be making progress - something which I have done - see student #1. All we can make is suggestions, however. It''s their money - they can spend it however they see fit.
 
Sakism:

If forty five hours is "more than enough" to teach thme all they need to know, then what is the problem? How come the adverage is 75 hours?

Is it because the students of today are somehow dumber than the students several generations ago?

It would be nice if more instructors would share their thoughts on why we learned to fly in 30 hours and it now takes 75 hours.

What I want to know is why I find that a great many of the licensed pilots who I give advanced flight training to have trouble with simple things like x/wind landings and basic airplane handling skills?

Could it be the problem is because of Transport Canada''s requirements and or their course outline and the methods that instructors use to teach items such as how to judge landing heights prior to during and after the landing flare?

I sure would like to find out what the problem is.

Chas W.
 
Hey Charles,

I think some of the problem with the younger generation might just be a simple fact of discipline and street smarts. Now dont take it the wrong way, but I''m between you and the younger generation. I beleive that the younger kids of nowadays dont have the street smarts and McGyver type mentalities as say people of your vintage or even mine.

I get the impression that people from the older generation had to work that much harder and concentrate that much more on the task at hand because it was more of feast or famine type era.

There were not as many freebies, or parental support as there seems to be now. Kids from long ago got out on their own alot sooner and thus had to become self supporting at a much earlier age causing a greater need for self discipline, attention span and just being to do what needs to be done on your own.

I guess its more of a discipline and/or "do what you have to do" at an earlier age and learn from it.

Just my opinion.

*An opinion is like an ...hole, everbody has one.

Cheers

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
A Cars Question For A Friend
Replies
4
Views
1K
Charles W.
C
I
Need Information
Replies
0
Views
1K
Ironman2909
I
P
Who Would Recommend This Guy?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Genus
G
T
instructor thoughts
Replies
1
Views
1K
downwash
D
L
Check Rides
Replies
2
Views
903
L'ACADIAN
L

Latest posts

Back
Top