Helicopter Grade Three Instructor Rating

[Peter Holstein]

As promised earlier, the Training Submission on Instructor Training is finalised and submitted.
I invite ANYONE with an interest in the subject to contact myself at aerowasp@bigpond.net.au for a copy by return email and I welcome any and all comments; good, bad or indifferent!
All comments/concerns will be collated and used to form a balanced opinion of what Industry thinks overall so please, now is your opportunity to have your say!
PS: If you do forward comments/concerns about the submission, and you want your opinion to count, please do me the courtesy of including your real name as anonymous replies will not be included in the mix.
Cheers,

Peter

[skypig]

Peter

I'm genuinely confused. Why is this issue being promoted when there are so many others that don't need debating, just changing?

I've yet to receive an answer to my question of May 3rd:

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?

The ability for lower time pilots to get a job is not reality as it doesn't create jobs, just lowers the bar, the remuneration and passes the unemployment up the chain to more experienced and qualified pilots.

Skypig

[Peter Holstein]

Skypig,
The promotion of this idea is an attempt to address issues of standards and industry expectations. It is but 1 idea and if anyone else has others, I'm sure most of us would be delighted to hear them.
The submission, I think, addresses your question asked on May 3rd and your comment about "Cheaper for flight schools to employ....."is but your opinion.

Your own statement: "Why is this issue being promoted when there are so many others that don't need debating, just changing?"
What are you doing about these so many other issues and what are they?

[skypig]

"Cheaper for flight schools to employ....."is but your opinion.

Sure, my opinion and fact in fixed wing and every country that has lower experience requirements for instructors. Would you dispute this?
Would you suggest a G3 would get the same remuneration as a G1 or 2, for doing what previously would have been done by the G1/2?

What are you doing about these so many other issues and what are they?

Nothing

Cost and time of having a basic type added to an AOC.
Appalling theory exams (and CASA being unaccountable)
Airports being closed.
Operators being priced out of airports.
Requirement to do IRTs in certified IFR AC.

If someone had the time, motivation and energy to tackle aviation issues, perhaps these and others would be more worthy issues than "dumbing down" instructor ratings?
SP

[Peter Holstein]

Skypig,

The last thing I wanted to do was get into some form of slinging match with someone/anyone here on this issue, but I take offence to your comment:

If someone had the time, motivation and energy to tackle aviation issues, perhaps these and others would be more worthy issues than "dumbing down" instructor ratings?

There is absolutely nothing in my submission that I suggest, or would suggest, 'dumbing down' the instructor rating - in fact, the exact opposite is the case!

As for those other items you mentioned as being issues that need addressing; they do BUT they need addressing by those that are affected by them.
If you or anyone else considers that item 1 for instance is an issue, then there are avenues for addressing these things but once again, if noone bothers to speak up AND offer alternatives, then don't complain when nothing changes!
The same can be said for every other item you have mentioned.

"BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE!"

[skypig]

OK
I know that “dumbing down” was an inflammatory term. Reducing the experience required prior to instructing doesn’t seem to be “the exact opposite” though, and as stated, at this stage I can’t identify any beneficiaries. (Beyond the aforementioned flying schools).
Peter, I wouldn’t doubt for a minute your good intentions. Good luck.

Sky “Devil’s Advocate” Pig

Ps
Sorry for the slanging match. It was more fun than the DG course I’m trying to do online.

pps

Can I add renewing DG/CRM/ASIC certs/cards and "anti terrorist" control locks to the list of things that needs changing, but not by me?

[Freewheel]

Can I add renewing DG/CRM/ASIC certs/cards and "anti terrorist" control locks to the list of things that needs changing, but not by me?

"A long journey begins with a single step".


Can't remember who that quote's from, but it's been good to me.




I'm still not convinced by the whole Grade 3 thing though....I think skypig's right, there's a whole bucket load of other issues that need fixing, perhaps more so than instructing standards.

[mja]

Any one read the submission? Peter sent it to me today as he has offered us all, I have some questions and comments to ask in due course, but I think any further comment should be after the submission is read, if it be too agree or disagree!.......

[vortexstate]

As for the majority of civilly taught pilots out there, I also took on any available flight to build my hours and experience. Having reached the “magic mark” of 360 hours, I commenced my Instructor Rating to be a brand new spanking Grade Two Instructor, under supervision, by the minimum 400 hour mark upon completion. While under supervision, at no time did my CFI allow me to work unsupervised or conduct any training not already covered previously until I lost my supervision status. I was continually scrutinised and checked so my students received the best abinito training I could give. Advanced training and emergencies came as I improved my instruction technique, but the scrutinising continued for a time to come.

Upon receiving my Grade One Instructor Rating and now having many thousands of hours instructing, I expect the same from a junior instructor to pass on to my students the same training standard as my original CFI. Ultimately, what you are taught in your informative times is carried on to your teachings!

A couple of points to ponder.........

A junior instructor (regardless of their flying hours) should be supervised by a Grade One by personally sitting in on all briefings/debriefings and sign off every lesson. This shows a progressive improvement of the junior instructor.

The junior instructor should only cover already covered lesson plans, at the basic level and as they are improving their ability they take on a higher level of training after being checked out and signed off by the CFI.


I also have now read the submission and have made several constructive suggestions of my own in private. Maybe along with other proposed changes, one should have an “objective read” and do the same. We can either make suggestions or sit back and be arm chair critics for the way ahead.

I have to hand it to people like Peter Holstein and others that have stood up to the plate over the years and made suggestions for positive changes in the industry. If any changes are implemented to the training industry, it will be for the betterment of the whole industry.


VS

[Coriolis]

I just read the submission and whilst I do have a couple of matters to raise, I think these are some of the best ideas I've seen raised in years. Well done.

[skypig]

OK
Now I’ve read the proposal I can comment, right?

The comments re the theory providing “no real understanding of the required concepts” is arguably accurate (“no” is probably a bit strong).
Of course this could be fixed over night by having an exam that examined required concepts. CASA seem to have no interest in this.
I’d respectfully suggest that most current and experienced pilots would be unable to pass (without study) the CPL/ATPL exams. It’s been my experience that most instructors are incapable of teaching the current theory syllabus (Due to the obscurity of the knowledge currently examined)

REAL WORLD- Three theory providers:
1. Charges $X and requires 6 weeks of your time. Good pass rate.
2. Charges $X and requires 6 weeks of your time. Great knowledge, virtually no one passes.
3. Charges $2X and requires 12 weeks of your time. Great knowledge, good pass rate.
Which one might survive?

Grade 3
What sequences would the initial GIII be allowed to teach under your proposal? Not pre solo, so all the basic sequences will be over (and therefore unpractised by the GIII). Autorotations? Pinnacles? Low flying? Confined areas? Slope landings?
Maybe they will be restricted to Navigation, which means they are not moving towards the proposed 50 hrs of elementary helicopter flight training. (As an aside, many instructors don’t understand, and therefore don’t record separately “elementary” instruction.)

Whatever they do, would have been previously performed by a now unemployed GI or GII.

In your Bloggs example (700hrs of scenics prior to GII rating). I would have thought that 1400+ TOs and landings would have, at the very least, given Bloggs a LOT more spare attention to concentrate on technique (his/hers initially, then his/her student)

Something most people do agree with is getting rid of the “mutual” component of the 40hr course.

CFI
The industry is desperately short of CFIs.
Reducing the viability of instructing as a career and making it more available as an hour building exercise to lower hr pilots will make this worse.
(I know this is not the intention, but as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, look at FW and overseas. Australian Helicopter Instructors are currently paid significantly more than these groups. This allows {just} for Instructing to be a long term prospect. Anything that reduces opportunity for career instructors seems bad news. How can this proposal not?)

The proposal that a CFI applicant holds “either a diploma in training and assessment systems....” sounds good, but won’t help the shortage.

I actually enjoy and seek out training in instructional/teaching techniques. Good training in this area is in very short supply unfortunately, partly because it is generally poorly remunerated. (More money in selling, or training salesman, than training trainers.)
My experience in Cert 4, and RPL is disappointing at best, unless jargon is your aim that is.


I admire the work you have put in, and choose to assume your motivation is well placed.
My opinion is, a huge improvement could be realised by a new theory exam (unlikely) and 40hrs of dual instruction with a GI for the FI GII rating (Easy for CASA to change, surely).

Sky "Moving Forward " Pig

[Coriolis]

I actually meant sling load.

[CYHeli]

Coriolis if you go to this link, scroll to page 50 of the 102 pages you will see that ridge and pinnacle is part of the CPL syllabus.

Day VFR Syllabus

H6.6 Land on and take off from a pinnacle or ridge line (CPL only)

It is not marked as optional in the same fashion as say sling loading is.

I haven't read the submission, but do find what SP is reporting is quite interesting.

[edit] - sling loading is in the syllabus also as an option and some schools (PHS & Kestral for example) do/did teach it.
It depends on whether students are up to standard and if they have enough time left in the short course or not.

[skypig]

Well, that saved some typing. At least I have an electronic copy of the Day (VFR) Syllabus 01 Oct '08 now

SP

[mja]

Well, it is SkyPig, not SkyPug, if you want to be rude show yourself, however, SkyPig can reply/comment on BS as Peter has asked for opinion's on BS. I have read the submission, if 'others' as Coriolis explains, have not read the submission, just email and ask Peter, he is very happy to send it to you! SP can say what he wants, he has a vested and common interest on this topic and this industry. Also, flapping gums? My goodness, are you Coriolis an actual pilot with an instrcutor rating? By the way, pinnacle training, I know I did that (for my CPL), Glass House Mountains, where did you do yours (CPL that is)?.........have a nice day!................

SkyPug,

Couple of questions for you? If you did read the submission, and no doubt you have, why not forward your submission to the author instead of flapping your gums all over this site when most of the readers on here haven't seen the submission and therefore don't know what you're attacking or referring too? Might like to check your own training btw; we don't have pinnacle training in Australia???

[Peter Holstein]

I think I made it quite clear in the beginning that anonymous responses would not be considered! In the time it took Skypig to post his response on here, he could have forwarded an email that would count - naturally he hasn't. Bit like a vote for the Greens next week; sure, you had your say but at the end of the day it all adds up to nothing!

[skypig]

I think I made it quite clear in the beginning that anonymous responses would not be considered!

Well, not from the beginning:
Your first post

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

Your second

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.

Anyway, I’ve emailed my response. I hope it’s of some use.

Coriolis

I actually meant sling load.

That’s some funny $hit
(sling loading wasn’t even previously mentioned, doesn’t even rhyme... )

Sky “I’d rather put my di*k in a meat grinder than vote for the Greens” Pig

[Rodge]

Peter,

I respect that you have 1000’s of hrs flying these fantastic machines and are looking at the future of the helicopter industry in Aus and that is a big thumbs up, good luck.

I am about to invest 100k into a school that will teach me the base level of flying, provide me the skills to keep me alive and not to forget the basics of the industry, the contacts and the edge over the next new pilot to secure that allusive 1st job.

I will demand a quite senior pilot that enjoys teaching and has loads of knowledge to pass on to me about the industry and someone that is not thinking about his dream job because he has already been there and done that and is enjoying being home on a regular basis. I hope he is being payed very well and that he is not living on macca’s and sleeping in the schools carpark.

I am sure that there are low hr pilots that could train someone like me very well but there will be some that cannot and I cannot take that chance with this much money as I only have one shoot at this.

If we put it this way, we are all building a house extension for 100k no one here would like to see the apprentice on the job site everyday doing the very best he can and the Builder coming only to take your money and fix a few things? Not the start I wish.

Just a point of view from the fence.

Rodge :oops:

[Eric Hunt]

Nicely put, Rodge.

I know that in our school, the students appreciate the grey hair on the "silverbacks" and know that they already have runs on the board.

When they fly with the grade 2 instructors, they are still getting quality instruction (we are VERY standardised) but I still find them knocking on my door to get a clarification of some aspect of a sequence, or to understand why something might be so important to learn.

A Grade 3 rating will allow minimal-experience pilots to become instructors sooner and then to turn around and teach the syllabus, but is that all we are trying to pass on? The ability to pass a test? Do you want your instructor to only have 100 hours more than you?

As Rodge said, the apprentice might know what he is doing, but I prefer the foreman to do the job - he got to be foreman for a good reason.

[Bite_me]

I've read the submission and I think some of you are missing the point completely!