Scudrunners

Great idea Slick


Nothing makes a company run more smoothly that treating your employees differently.
"They need",  in your post, might be substituted with "they want"


Love the rationale on sim vs. Flight time.
Yep, old guys spend thousands to get an instructor rating to not fly.
And the young ones...?  Better they do all the flying .it  is just coincidental that it is loggable.


Yep, I can see this is a formula for success in retaining top talent while the turnstile spins on the streamers.


Read the ads for instructors.  " this will lead to."  .....is a common theme
No where will you read an ad  for instructors that states we will not expect you to work a 70 hour week , and only get paid when we have a student for you to work with.


As to me. Right now I am a bit to jaded, and intolerent of what is happening to be an effective instructor.  Maybe after I have seen my friends make it rather than quitting in frustration


In any event, this is thread drift.
What I hope to see is a few instructors or students going back to their FTU and questioning the practice.  Of course they will initially be shamed into silence, but over time, cracks will appear, and hopefully we can return to the point where a student can do a turn without needing to do a clearing turn first..
I believe there are some good CFIs out there who recognize the stupidity here, and will have a meeting with their instructors to stop it...one can only hope.

[quote author=Trey Kule link=topic=7110.msg19243#msg19243 date=1505845012]
And in discussing this with some new CPL types, I was told that , in doing a PPC recently, they were required to actually pull a checklist out first..run the prelanding checks, including full rich on the mixtures, brief the turn, do a clearing turn, and then do the steep turn.  Once straight and level again, mixtures could be reset,!


I am not making this up.
[/quote]


We should send in undercover pilots who would be perceived as "new CPL types" and document how bad it really is.


I can vouch for this. It certainly seems to be behavior that is on the rise. Maybe is a cult-ure thing.

[font=Verdana][size=2px]I too, gave thought to it when I was retiring.  But a couple of my buddies did do it, and their experiences were not good.  One was told that if he used the term "backside of the power curve". He would be failed as the term is not used anywhere in TC publications, and therefore is not to be used in flight training,[/size][/font]

Why when I copy and paste does it not work, like the above post?

"Why when I copy and paste does it not work, like the above post?"


Chuck:

It worked for me.  Do you have a 12-year old grandchild...?    (;>0)

[quote author=Trey Kule link=topic=7110.msg19310#msg19310 date=1506013017]
Great idea Slick


Nothing makes a company run more smoothly that treating your employees differently.
"They need",  in your post, might be substituted with "they want"

Love the rationale on sim vs. Flight time.
Yep, old guys spend thousands to get an instructor rating to not fly.
[/quote]
I think my point got missed here.  The idea is to best apply the talent that's available while hopefully retaining the younger guys.  I'm not looking it up right now but IIRC you don't need an instructor rating to teach instrument flight.  Hell, you may not even need a medical to do sim training.

What I proposed helps everyone and if I was retired from an airline I'd be fine with teaching in a box on the ground if that's where I made the biggest difference.

It's actually amazing what you can teach without an instructor rating:

Instrument rating
Float rating
Multi-engine
Tailwheel
Type Rating
Type Familiarization

Note that unless otherwise specified in the CARs, you don't even
need a CPL to provide flight training (eg tailwheel, type famil)
unless you want to get paid for it, I guess.

I once had a student pilot check out a retired TC Inspector/ATPL
on the C421B.  Nice guy.  I issued him his C500 type rating.

[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=7110.msg19320#msg19320 date=1506027053]
Why when I copy and paste does it not work, like the above post?
[/quote]

Do a preview when you post. If you see any [size=78%] tags or similar. Take them out.

I don't know why but the site automatically puts them in when you try to quote thing sometimes. It's odd.

Applying talent and retaining young guys?
As it happens, today Flying Magazine had an article on their website.
The US training system is quite different than Canada.  To give instruction for a CFI rating you need to have been an instructor for two years.
Apparently they are running short of instructors with that much experience!!


Now, instead of looking at how they could change working conditions and pay to retain instructors, the 142 schools want the regulations changed so only the last few hours of an instructor rating need be done by an instructor with experience.

So, if accepted, a 250 hour , newly minted instructor would be able to do almost all the instruction, to train another instructor.  What could possibly be wrong  with that plan?


As to sending in undercover pilots.  I understand TC did that in BC, awhile back, and it resulted in a DFTE getting banned forever.  This type of thing though, is stupid, not illegal, Er, I mean irregular. I dont think TC has the manpower to do it.  But they are able to see this on checkrides.  Maybe they think it is OK.

The experience pool at TC, I am told is dwindling as well.