Scudrunners

[quote]class one instructors who have no clue how to make new class fours[/quote]

Oh, they make class fours all right - just
crappy ones, for a bunch of reasons:

- they might be qualified to make a class 4,
but they have no experience at it

- or they are repeating their mistakes, and
really don't care that they are

- like 99% of the flight instructors in Canada,
they have no interest in efficiency, because
TC sure as hell doesn't.  When was the last
time TC read an FTU the riot act for averaging
100 hrs to PPL?  Never.  That's not a metric
of success, for them.

- they cringe and live in fear of TC, and have
no idea how to keep TC happy, so they throw
everything including the kitchen sink into their
PGI and flight training syllabus, in the insane
idea that if they include everything, they cannot
be doing anything wrong

I remember suffering six years of insanity, trying
to help out the local FTU.  The PRM "interview" - a
Gestapo interrogation, more like it - then [b]six years[/b]
of back and forth on a simple FTU MCM (no AMO)
which blew up to a half an inch thick.  In the USA
the FAA specifies it in half a page in the FARs.

Eventually I wrote a letter to TC and told them to
go fuck themselves, and come take the keys for
the FTU.

The poo-bahs arrived, and told us what they wanted
for the STCAP and LTCAP for the PVI (all of our previous
submissions were totally rejected after hundreds of
hours of work) and they were amazed at how long and
complicated our MCM was for our tiny, two-aircraft FTU
with [b]NO[/b] AMO!

I told them that everything that was in that bloated,
monstrous MCM was put in there at their request.

Back on topic ...

You become a good class 1 instructor [i]despite[/i] TC. 

That's a really important lesson to understand. 
Most people don't have enough interest in flight
training to do that.  They want to go get a job flying
a twin, like 99% of the flight instructors want to.

As for stick & rudder skill, well ... no one gives a
shit, and haven't for many decades.  Crashing is
a "learning experience".

Look at how Bob Hoover was treated by the FAA.
He was diagnosed with "cognitive dissonance"
and had his medical pulled.  So, he moved to
Australia, passed all their tests, and continued
to fly airshows there.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, F. Lee Bailey,
the US Congress and Senate pressured the
FAA to provide more information about this
curious "cognitive dissonance" diagnosis.

A miracle, the FAA proclaimed - Bob's
"cognitive dissonance" condition disappeared!

And that is what Bob Hoover got, for being
a really good stick and rudder pilot.

And just imagine what studs those Inspectors
were - they took down Bob Hoover.  They
were someone.

[quote]roll inverted after take off[/quote]

If you read Bob Hoover's autobiography
"Forever Flying", that's exactly what he did
at the WAC, years ago, in his first flight in
an unfamiliar (to him) Soviet aerobatic
aircraft.

I guess Bob Hoover is a [b]BAD PERSON[/b].

Just once, though, I would like to see even
one single inspector fly his routine:

[quote]I remember suffering six years of insanity, trying
to help out the local FTU.  The PRM "interview" - a
Gestapo interrogation, more like it - then six years
of back and forth on a simple FTU MCM (no AMO)
which blew up to a half an inch thick.  In the USA
the FAA specifies it in half a page in the FARs.

Eventually I wrote a letter to TC and told them to
go fuck themselves, and come take the keys for
the FTU.[/quote]

There are a lot more of us out here Colonel who have suffered through basically the same insanity, most like me just got out of aviation in Kanada and TC just keeps on running the show and ignoring their own laws.

No wonder the training industry in Kanada is a joke.

Actually I wouldn't mind if a class one can't fly very well.
I just want thon to be able to teach [u]me[/u] how to fly.
I know if they can't demonstrate things, my idea won't work.

[quote]I want class ones to be able to do everything that's in that FTM[/quote]

SSU: An interesting reg that you and I
are very familiar with, which applies
to [i]all[/i] flight instruction in Canada:

[quote]CAR 405.14
Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter
[b]shall[/b] be conducted in accordance with the applicable flight instructor
guide and flight training manual or equivalent document [/quote]

Use of the FTM and FIG is not optional -
see the word "shall".  This is fundamental
for all class of instructors.  And it doesn't
matter if you disagree with them - tough.

Another incredibly important reference
for any instructor is the flight test guide
(eg for PPL, CPL, etc) which must be
used and referred to during flight training
to ensure that the student knows exactly
what he has to do, and how he has to do
it, to pass his flight test.

The class 4's that he produces, must
understand this.


[quote]I wouldn't mind if a class one can't fly very well[/quote]

I have a serious problem with that.  By
the time someone is a class 2 instructor
he should be able to give a pretty good
demonstration of the maneuver, and he
should be able to talk while he is doing
it, and at the same time he should be able
to maintain situational awareness (traffic,
wx, fuel, airspace, time, etc).

A class 1 instructor by definition is a class
2 instructor that additionally is able to
teach new class 4's.  He should be a good
stick.

[quote]they don't need to have experience doing
everything under the sun with an airplane, with
any kind of airplane[/quote]

That's a slippery slope.  IMHO a class 1/2
instructor ought to be able jump into a type
he has never flown before (after reviewing
POH/AFM) and teach on it.  He should not
require dual first.  See the CARs:

[quote]CAR 405.22
No person shall conduct flight training in an
aircraft unless the person is familiar with the
flight characteristics, operating limitations
and operational performance data specified
in the aircraft flight manual or equivalent document[/quote]

Why?  Because that kind of flexible instruction
is exactly what is needed.  Not just 172 drivers
need instruction.  So do people with Cherokees
and Beechcraft and Mooneys and Comanches
and Grummans and Cirruses.  Especially Cirruses. 
And homebuilts, like RV's, which are everywhere.

If a senior (class 1/2) instructor isn't capable of
providing that much-needed instruction, who is
going to provide it?

Answer: no one.  And that means plenty of aircraft
accidents are going to happen.

This is why Chuck and I are so hard on instructors
that lack experience in different aircraft.  These
one-trick ponies are terribly limited in what they
can do.  It hurts them as much as everyone else.

A senior instructor ought to be able to fly a kitchen
table and an electric fan.  This kind of skill comes
from experience, generally of widely varying kinds.

IMHO a class 1 instructor must be both a master pilot
and an expert teacher.  If he is lacking in either
department, it's going to severely limit his usefulness.

For example, I know that surface acro is kind of
"my thing", and I apologize if that gets tiresome.

But, we are required to teach engine failures, and
they don't all happen at 3000 AGL, as on the flight
test.  Sometimes they happen at low altitude, and
they are often fatal, because they are not taught
well, if at all, despite the requirement to do so in
the pre-solo checklist in the PTR.

But again, applying the law of inequalities, if you
can do a surface loop, an EFATO turnback is pretty
boring.  I can eat a sandwich while I do that.

It pains me when an aircraft is capable of doing
something, but a pilot is not.  That is not a good
pilot.  That is a situation that needs correcting.

[quote]the assumption that a class one is
super experienced in everything[/quote]

In a perfect world that would be true, but
unfortunately, as Chuck keeps pointing out,
is it not.  A class 1 instructor rating just means
that you are an ace of your FTU.


[quote]guys use that to worm their way into all
sorts of stuff they got no business doing[/quote]

Quite true.  I know of all sorts of instructors who
got in 'way over their heads, trying to fly something
that they were miles behind:

[img][/img]


[quote]flying something and instructing on something are two slightly different kettle of fish[/quote]

Ideally, someone instructing on an airplane
ought to be able to make that mother sing
and dance.  I know in the real world this is
often not the case, but this guy is what I
would call a competent instructor:

[img][/img]

The DC3 is a real pussy cat for that kind of demo.

However it is mind boggling how many instructors can not fly an accurate X/wind approach and landing let alone teach it.

Here is a simple basic skills test.

With a moderate X/wind, say fifteen knots at forty five degrees off the runway fly the approach and flare to two feet above the runway one hundred feet from the start of the pavement.

Then fly the length of the runway maintaining the center line and maintaining two feet changing from the crabbing correction to the wing down slipping correction until you run out of runway.

What percentage of instructors can do that accurately?

[quote]What percentage of instructors can do that accurately?[/quote]

Not enough!  As you point out, there are
plenty of class 1 instructors, but not many
of them can fly very well - nowhere near
the limits of the aircraft.

Lest the inevitable grumbling of "cowboys"
starts, let's see what TP 975E, the TC Flight
Instructor Guide has to say on the subject:

[quote]Teach your students to have mastery over the aircraft;
to fly with verve and spirit to the limit of the aircraft's flight envelope;[/quote]

See CAR 405.14 - the FIG is NOT optional.

Another litmus test for a class 1 instructor:

Have him take off from a 6,000 foot runway
surrounded by a built-up area in his mighty
172.  Engine fails at 500 AGL.  Does he put
it into a house, or back onto the runway? Is
one preferable to the other?  If so, why?