Helicopter Grade Three Instructor Rating

[Peter Holstein]

I invite comments, for or against, the following suggested proposal.

Grade Three Helicopter Instructor Rating – Australia
Presently in Australia, we have the Grade One and Two Helicopter Instructor Ratings only. The Grade Two Initial Issue Rating can be attempted when a pilot has no less than 400 hours.
One issue that continually comes up when assessing pilots for this initial rating is the lack of general knowledge and one could probably argue that most pilots are more likely to have this requisite knowledge when attempting their CPL(H) Test and then they quickly forget all this information immediately thereafter. Another point of interest is that most Instructor Candidates claim they have never felt more confident or capable in a machine than they do after having completed their Instructor Training and that is despite some having considerable operational experience.
Several other countries allow instructor training and rating considerably earlier in their career than Australia presently does. (From memory, I think USofA allows the training to commence immediately after CPL(H) training however, their course is considerably less than the 40 hours required here. (Someone might care to correct that if I am wrong.) Of course, our fixed-wing peers can start Instructor Training immediately upon achieving their CPL(A).
One frequent claim on these forums of late is the lack of instructors particularly at the Grade One level so it would stand to reason that if this is the case, then pilots getting into this field of endeavour have reduced significantly in recent times. (Maybe someone from CASA might like to confirm whether this is the case statistically?)
One argument against allowing Helicopter Instructor training to be commenced before the 400 hour mark has been the perception that the candidate lack real-world experience. Whilst it is generally considered that this contention has some merit, it could be suggested that this argument is flawed when one considers the similar issue concerning fixed-wing pilots and the practices in place elsewhere.

Proposal
A Grade Three Helicopter instructor Rating be introduced.
Candidate to have minimum of 250 hours prior to undertaking the Flight Instructor Rating Test.
First 150 hours under Direct Supervision.
Twelve months experience and a minimum of 200 hours ab initio instructional experience before being able to undertake the Initial Issue Grade Two Instructor Rating.

Course – Same as presently required for the Initial Issue of the Grade Two Helicopter Instructor Rating including the requirement to undertake PMI training.
If Industry considers the proposal has merit and is worth pursuing, I am prepared to draft a submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[FerrariFlyer]

I think its always good to question the status quo. Just because we have been doing something a certain way for a certain time does not always means its necessarily the right way, nor the best way of going about things! Times change.

A couple other points to consider, from what you have already put forward:

- Being a dual-rated pilot myself, I believe the manipulative skills required to fly a helicopter are greater then what is required to fly an airplane. It is also easier to get yourself into trouble in a helicopter then it is with an airplane, particularly at an earlier experience level. As you suggested, if people could start instructing at an earlier level then 400hrs TT, it would be paramount that they were closely supervised and the type of flight training they were conducting be somewhat limited until such time that their experience grew, along with there handling skills. I remember my instructor at the time, with near on 3000hrs TT, saying he had too many grey hairs from instructing and the few peers I know of who instruct today say that it is challenging and not for someone with minimum hours.

- You also mentioned a lack of general knowledge after the CPL(H), which is true. However, I found from personal experience over the last couple years that this knowledge came back by way of practical exposure to real world flying. I believe people should have some practical experience to draw upon before they start teaching others how to fly. If we were to allow very low hour pilots to instruct, would this have a negative effect on the overall quality of future pilots? Perhaps the Grade 2 rating needs to incorporate more on the topic of theory to bring people back to a level they were at when they achieved their CPL(H). Oranges and apples, I know, but think of a doctor finishing their degree and then going straight into a teaching role...the theory element will be strong, but what of the practical element to the profession?

- Would lowering the hour requirements to start an instructor rating correlate to an increase in instructor numbers, particularly at the Grade 1 level? It would be interesting to see what instructors at, or near this level think. I wonder if the ongoing shortage is more related to uncompetitive remuneration and minimum career progression options rather then a minimum hour requirement being hard to meet at the beginning.

I am certainly not against the idea, but think such a proposal warrants very careful consideration. Such a change would have wide ranging effects on the industry over both the short and long term.

[Porno]

I couldn't agree more with FF's post. Well written/said!

I also am dual rated and achieved my instructor rating (h) at the minimum required hours some years ago. The theory part of the question is simple to fix and cheap I might add, and it is up to the individual to maintain a professional level of knowledge. The flying experience is not.

I feel that a helicopter instructor should have some flying background in the helicopter before training students, and it does produce a much better product at the end of the day.

When I look back at first training a new pilot with my relatively low "working Hours", it was hard work. Alot of my attention was taken controlling the helicopter and still learning myself(generally), and I couldn't imagine doing the rating and teaching straight out of the CPL(h) licence.

One more point, is doing the actual rating. Its hard work at low hours!

My final thought. I feel it is already low enough and the "real wold" experience is required to build on a "good/safe" helicopter instructor. It doesn't compare to the fixwing world, as all of their training is in a stable platform and upper level.

Hope it made sense... Im no writer, thats why I chose aviation as a career.

Porno

[DJ]

It doesn't compare to the fixwing world, as all of their training is in a stable platform and upper level.

I've never really formed an opinion on the topic but i think the above quote really says it all. Helicopter instructing would be a completely different and more dangerous world to live in (I haven't lived in it personally) I would imagine. Thus a suitably qualified rotary instructor should, I think, have that much more experience than our fixed wing friends.

[Eric Hunt]

I feel we already have a safer system than the US where a student is being taught by somebody with only 100 hours more than he has.

I did my instructor rating in 1976, and have seen a lot of newly-stamped Grade 2s in schools. I can comfortably say that the instructors who had over 1000 hrs before doing their ratings were far easier to supervise, and had better student results, than those with the bare minimum 400 hours. The "minimum" instructors had a larger proportion of incidents and near-incidents than the "maxis" as well.

[skypig]

We have a unique situation in Australia:-

Few people with NO interest in instructing, do. (Pilots with enough experience to instruct can get other jobs.)
The slight shortage of instructors and greater shortage of G1s with experience and desire for CFI positions mean that the wages are sufficient to live off for those wishing to make a career out of it. – Much better for the industry on a whole and especially students.
Remember, if the wages were to fall, in line with FW for eg, lots of G1s would be out flying the line, and taking those jobs.
As a very broad generalisation I’d say an experienced G1 instructor would be on par with a SE line driver $70 - $85K/year.
A CFI would be approx $100K – similar to a starter twin job. A CFI “with the lot” (ME, IFR, NVG, Instructor Training) can expect $150K+ - similar to a ME line driver, maybe with some C&T.

For these and other reasons (some above), I’d oppose any dumbing down, or removal of impediments regarding instructor ratings.

Sky "You want experience, you pay, like I have" Pig

[Yakking]

Not to sound cynical but;

As a very broad generalisation I’d say an experienced G1 instructor would be on par with a SE line driver $70 - $85K/year

$85k for a grade 1 is massive. I don't know too many schools that would offer that much. I wouldn't be confident that a schools profit margin would be large enough to support multiple instructors on such incomes.

IMHO and own personal experience, I would suggest that the reason there's a shortage of Grade Ones is a lot burn out after spending 1000hrs or so in the left seat. They need to find a new challenge or something to 'excite' them in aviation again.

As has been documented before I did my training in the States and as a result instructed for my first job. I think a Grade Three has merit, but I would like to see the finer details. IMHO the US instructors I encountered had much better ground knowledge than their Australian counterparts. I attributed this to the fact that they go straight from learning to teaching so the info is fresh in their minds.

[Aladinsane]

I may be highacking the thread (sorry Pete) but if, as I suspect, the real issue is not the instructor experience, but the standard of the new CPL(H).

It is my opinion that the dual/solo hours breakdown is not allowing the instructors to do their job as 1/3 of a 105 hr course is solo (thats 35 hours folks). Yes, of course, a period of confidence building solo and consolidation is warranted and valuable. But 35 hours?

As a CFI recently submitted to CASA, does the government let a learner car driver, cruise around the streets by themselves without an instructor?

While I perch on my soapbox, CASA should add GPS navigation in the syllabus, how much longer can we put our heads in the sand and pretend that GPS isnt used and then wonder why we have so many GPS induced VCA's?

Back onto the thread, I personally cant see too much value in a helicopter Grade 3, there are bigger problems than instructor experience IMHO Peter.

[skypig]

As a CFI recently submitted to CASA... CASA should..... how much longer can we put our heads in the sand

CASA should do a lot of things. CASA will do a lot of things, eventually. Most of them won’t be what they should do. The answer to “heads in the sand”? “A lot longer than we can hold our breath for!”

I’m for once completely serious when I warn you CASA are the enemy of every aviator. Do not let a smile or some rehearsed motherhood statement fool you. They are bad news! I’m not suggesting you upset them or “take them on”. It’s fairly difficult to “beat” a virtually unaccountable government department. Smile, offer nothing, treat them with suspicion, contempt and treat them to the lack of co – operation they deserve.

Sky "Midnight rant over" Pig

[Freewheel]

This topic came up a while ago here and I was in favour of it.

Having met a few newly minted instructors since then, I'm against it now.


If anything, I can see some gain in going the other way, ie minimum TT of 500 or even 1000 for new instructors. For the record, I got an instructor rating as soon as I could have, even doing a charter or two just to make sure I had the magic 400 for the test. If I got another run at it, I'd go and do something else for another 500 hours.


Why more?

In simple terms, having gone through the process of gaining 500 - 1000 hours, new instructors will be much more versed in the vagaries of industry, not just the physical skills involved.

The skills of an individual are going to be tested as per the flight test and syllabus and really aren't going to be that different wherever you go or who teaches you.

The traps and traumas that can make or break a career are often only encountered with experience and having somebody able to pass those on from the instructional phase makes a massive difference to the end product.

Finally, the knowledge gained of the award/salary mechanisms will make the playing field much more level. 400 hour instructors often find themselves as exploited as new CPL's by the unconscionable.

[mja]

Good thread and opinions - a couple of questions;

1. Peter, you are a well known CFI that carries out training for G2 instructors as well as new students for their initial CPL(H), would it not be feasible that it is the duty of care that the training instructor ensure's that the student is competant and able to not only fly the machine but also teach how to fly the machine? This idea (G3) has merits, but what are the thoughts of training CFI's and ATO's on the matter?

2. If a G3 rating was introduced (as Peter has described), would this not open a pathway for pilots who really do want to be instructors as a career as long as any program has varying levels on competance?

My experience with flying schools is that most have working charter businesses as their core business and the flying school contributes to that core business. It sounds like the argument is that new G2 or G3 Instructors need to be in the 'field' to gain this charter/operational experience before becoming an instrcutor. I tend to believe that most pilots get an instructor rating (being 250 or 400 or 5,000 hours) are working for a comany with charter op's etc anyway? I am not sure how many flying schools exisit that are just 'flying schools'? I dont think there are many? So, if I owned a helicopter company and could add value to my business by starting a school (as many do) my instructors are still going to be working pilots as alot of instructors have ther rating paid for by the company and do a return service agreement, flying in all facets of the company.

We all know that good instructors don't need 5,000 hours, I believe it truly comes down to the individual pilot, the CFI doing the training and the ATO passing the student and the company who is employing the instructor. I like the idea and it has merits, but if CASA or regulators or Industry cannot keep standards high (particularly schools who just want your money) this will (may) be a revolving thread.

[Eric Hunt]

I was CP of a charter company and CFI and ATO of the school for 11 years. We never hired a newly-qualified pilot. Why not?

The reasons were many; the student had aims to go other places, such as mustering or interstate; the student sometimes barely met the minima for the licence, and we were looking for pilots with the ability to do much more; the core business had contracts with customers which required the pilot to have over 1000 hours; even for a half-hour scenic flight, we wanted a pilot who had seen a bit more than just the CPL syllabus; we only used the R22 for occasional charter work such as photography, and no way in the world would I put a newby onto that work; and the crusher was that we only had turbines on charter, and the insurance companies were the ones who imposed a 700-hour minimum on us - so no newbies.

Sure it's tough on the wannabes out there. In the US, a new pilot immediately does an instructor rating because its the ONLY way to get more hours up, and as soon as they can be employable (over 1000 hrs) they move on. Here at least it's a career choice to instruct.

[Peter Holstein]

I will add to my original post. I am not convinced either way about the introduction of the Grade 3 at this point in time but I will offer some (valid) arguments that have been raised:

1.Say Bloggs achieves the CPL(H) in 105 hours and then moves to the south coast where he is employed as a line pilot flying 20 minute scenic for the next 300 hours. (It happens)! He then returns for an Instructor Rating. Nowhere is the 'quality' of flying experience questioned or considered nor is there any requirement that it be considered! It is possible (again, it happens) that he has never even done a nav in this whole time and if he clocked up the hours within the year, he may never have seen another auto either. What does this pilot bring to the Instructor Rating that makes him any more or less qualified to undertake the training?
2. I did not suggest the training start immediately after the issue of the CPL(H) - I said at the 200 hour mark as an arbitary figure mindful that I consider that real-world experience is essential but how much is enough? I think that most of us will agree that the sharpest we fly and the best we know the theory is immediately after the issue of our CPL (in most instances), so why not capitalise on that and offer the next phase at a stage that best utilises this strategic point in our careers.
3. Some overseas countries offer the rating much earlier and some offer the course in only 25 hours Vs our 40 hours without any trouble so what makes Australia unique in this regard? Are we somehow suggesting that we produce an inferior product that cannot be trusted to produce a product that can operate like the rest of the world?

On a final note I suggest that just because we have always done something in a particular manner since day dot does not mean we need to close our mind off to change or any opportunity to review what and how we do things. We are talking about a set of rules that have been with us for years and were probably instigated when pilot training was conducted in B47's and Hillers. Let's keep our minds open to any possibilities?
I appreciate the comments passed so far. I think for the most part they are all constructive and valid and all lend themselves to a valuable debate on the matter.

[Porno]

1.Say Bloggs achieves the CPL(H) in 105 hours and then moves to the south coast where he is employed as a line pilot flying 20 minute scenic for the next 300 hours. (It happens)! He then returns for an Instructor Rating. Nowhere is the 'quality' of flying experience questioned or considered nor is there any requirement that it be considered!

I was one of these... "scenic tours and basic photo work". The little experience of 290hrs in the real world I had, before starting the instructor rating. And it gave me a better understanding of just simply handling the aircraft. (Isn't any "PIC" flying - 'quality' flying experience).

[SuperF]

Don't do it. you will end up with the crap that we are currently getting out of a lot of the NZ training schools.

Instead of creating a lower level why don't you make it a requirement to have a minimum 1,000TT before you are allowed to instruct, then you will get a better level of instructor, as they will have some real world experience.

[skypig]

What is the advantage of lowering the experience requirements for an instructor rating?

1.Cheaper for flight schools to employ instructors due to greater supply.

Any others?

Sky "Standards need raising not dropping" Pig

[Les Norton]

I too agree there is no real advantage in having a grade 3 rating, and personal think that a grade 2 rating should be lifted to at least 1000 hr TT!

1. All it is going to do is allow the flying schools to start paying less wages to there low hr instructors, put a few more on and have a couple of spare instructor's sitting around fighting over who is getting the new starters. (Back to the low timer working for free)

2. Not saying all low time instructors would not be able to teach, but surly an instructor with 200-500 hr's TT, can't offer a new student the same level of training as a 1000+ Hr Instructor. Their is more to learning to fly a helicopter then just achieving what is laid down in the 105 hr syllabus. You need to REALLY learn how to fly, and its all those little things that a 1000 2000 3000+ hr pilot has picked up over the years from his personal experince and can pass on too you that may just save your bacon once you get your CPL and are let loose on your first job.

3. I have heard it a number of times and have seen it a few times myself, the most dangerous time in a pilot's life is the 500-1000 hr period, when he is starting to get the feel of things and starting to get a little bit cocky (You no we all went through it) and thats when you run in to trouble. If you have a low time instructor going through this, but they don't have the actual stick time (experience) because they have been in the left hand seat for the last 300 hr's, thats when its going to hurt.

4. Last one. If I was a new student looking to get a licence and have saved up my hard earned 50 or 60k (What ever it cost these days for a CPL), I think I would be a little peeved if a 200-300 hr pilot was going to teach me. For that much money I want the best training possible and you won't learn what you need to now unless the instructor has already REALLY learnt to fly him self.

Don't get me wrong about low time pilots, we all had to start somewhere, and I'm all for promoting low time pilots, I just think for the sake of a good safe industry low time instructor's are not the go. Sorry to those that disagree.

Just my thoughts this late in the evening...

[DisTracTion]

This could cause a little thread creep but, the comments are considered and reflect nearly 20 years in the helicopter industry.
When I went looking for a flight school I was looking for the most experienced pilot i could find. This experienced pilot had years of not just military experience but a whole test pilot carrier as well. This man was not only very experienced, but a dedicated instructor. He actually cared, he was not building time on his way somewhere else. while the 3 level rating has its merits, 1000 hours would also be a way of perhaps solving a few other problems. there would be less instructors to start with but they would be paid a fair wage as some of them would be choosing instructing as a carrier path not a stepping stone to other jobs.
This would have to improve the overall standard being produced, improve conditions and wages for instructors which would attract higher time pilots back into the instructing pool. NZ would benefit as well with moving the bar up not down.
grade 3 instructors should perhaps be allowed to sit and pass the instructor rating straight out of the CPL but then need to go out into industry to get real industry experience before qualifying to instruct as a grade 2.
great thread to consider and mould perhaps the future quality of our newer pilots.

[harold]

Some of us seem to think the magic 1000's of hours experience is the answer to the problem? Well how about this cat amongst the pigeons?
If we all agree that standards have eroded over the last say 10 years, and that is the general consensus, isn't it a fact that most CFI's and senior instructors have 1000's of hours yet we still have problems with maintaining a satisfactory standard? I've flown with 1000's of hour pilots who know jacksh*t! I recently flew with a 2500 hour pilot who did not know how to join a circuit. I also flew with a 900 hour pilot, all 22 and 44, who couldn't do a weight and balance for the R22 on his BFR. So really, anybody who thinks just having hours is panacea to all our 'standards' problems better think again - it just isn't so!
I think the suggestion might have merit if structured properly and managed well. It could allow pilots to get into a paid job earlier (sure there will always be someone willing to not pay them but that's another matter) and could also see pilots far better equipped for the real world. Doing another course of training soon after obtaining the Commercial Licence surely can't be a bad thing?

[droptmcguts]

Ive always maintained that a Grade 3 would be a good thing.

My sugestions would to only allow the Grade 3 to act as PIC on the students Nav flights, This way the junior instructor is allowed to chalk up some much needed hours while the student conducts a reletive boring flight.

One the Grade 3 reachs the magic 400 hours he can sit for a Grade 2 up grade etc.