What are the attributes of a good instructor?

[turboplanner]

I don't think it would be hard to get to a happy ending here, some key points being:

 

RAA could develop a formal syllabus with modules for pre-flight study (student), pre-flight briefing (instructor) standard modules for flight instruction, standard radio and so on.

 

That alone would create something that a prospective pilot could look at and know where he would be going, a student could look at and know what to study now and what to be ready for next, and instructors who knew what stage the student was at, what had been the weaknesses so far, who extra study/flight training to give the student, and so on.

 

In terms of how the instructor imparts knowledge to the student, and how he assesses whether the student has absorbed what he's been taught, and whether he is capable of flying solo/away from the field/with passenger etc. Certificate IV is available right round Australia in tech schools and includes modules on assessing whether your student has absorbed your training. In my opinion any instructor out there who hasn't passed Certificate IV in training is nuts, because without that you can't show evidence that you were qualified to send a student solo. I'm aware that the training phase is the safest period of a pilot's life, but these days you do have to protect your house and assets, and Certificate IV is not a terribly big imposition. The bonus of doing it, is if you are one of the brutal yelling types, you'll be retrained in motivation and will be less stressed when you are training, and a hell of a lot more relaxed when your student goes up solo, having been assessed methodically.

 

I've run out of ideas here but this would certainly lift the satisfaction index on both sides for very little effort.

 

As we know, most students and weekend pilots disappear because they run out of spare funds, so minimising their spend while they are training is actually an investment in the future because they then have more to spend down the track, and they not only will spend that budget but bring friends and workmates in.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

An instructors professional association and a code of conduct would help.

 

 

[M61A1]

I was under the impression that RAA had a formal syllabus in sect 3 of the ops manual. I'm not sure that CertIV is the answer (not that I have any idea what the answer is), depending on how it is applied, it could be a huge imposition on a struggling training facility, that could have good instructors, just not certified CertIV. I would have thought that to become an instructor, you would need to have already been assessed as having instructional skills. That said, I'm sure that like most people, they can turn it on or off when it comes to assessment time.

 

I have been around my share of CertIV qualified instructors in aviation and I don't think that the quality of instruction has been improved by it.

 

 

[johnm]

30 years ago I learnt with one GA club and had various instructors - it was always enjoyable and the chief instructor always looked over the other instructors - they did not send me solo till I had 17 + hours ! and I did not care - I trusted the decisions that the instructors had to make

 

Probably 8 years ago I started ultra lights and they sent me solo after 3 + hours (without looking at the log)

 

Like Motz implies ? - I think us mere pilots should always trust & appreciate our interaction with our instructors - if you don't ........................... go find another - otherwise you don't get your monies worth ...................... and the skills you are supposed to be learning will suffer

 

 

[turboplanner]

M if there's an incident you have to be able to demonstrate that you had instructed and assessed that your instruction had been comprehended. As far as I've seen, other than a Teacher's certificate, C IV is the only Certificate which shows that you have been trained to impart skill and assess that that skill has been comprehended and can be performed.

 

 

[Bandit12]

As the title says - let us hear it. This is not a whinge thread for all of the bad instructors, or even one to plug your favourite instructor. Tell us about what it is that you like to see in an instructor, or what it is that they do that really has helped you to learn. GAA/RAA/GFA/HGFA - it doesn't really matter what type of aircraft.

 

I'll start with one point - my best instructors never told me about every mistake that I made, but helped me to learn to recognise and start to correct them myself.

 

 

[M61A1]

M if there's an incident you have to be able to demonstrate that you had instructed and assessed that your instruction had been comprehended. As far as I've seen, other than a Teacher's certificate, C IV is the only Certificate which shows that you have been trained to impart skill and assess that that skill has been comprehended and can be performed.

Most CertIV instructors do that by getting you to sign a document saying that you understood what it said...... kind of pointless except for covering your butt. So then just what does the instructors rating signify? I have no idea of the necessary qualifications, but I would have thought part of an instructors rating would mean that you have been assessed as being competent at assessing the ability and skills of your students.

B12, I too have found that the best instructors will give you "a bit of rope", then let it go wrong a bit then help you recognise where it's going wrong, and demonstrate the right and wrong ways along with the associated outcomes. If I'm paying to be there, I'm doing my best, I don't need yelling at. (not happened to myself, but have heard of it)

 

 

[ayavner]

My instructor always starts each briefing with what I did right. He never comes right out and says i did something "wrong" but in the discussion, it slowly comes out as he paints the picture, then suddenly I realise it by myself! Then we talk about it...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The instructors I get the most out of are the ones who can clearly identify what im having trouble with, and sets task's to correct the issue. They set objectives, and they are very small incremental reachable goals which can be achieved quickly.

 

I did a cert 4 and to be honest I didnt get a great deal out of it. Understanding people is something that can;t be taught IMHO.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You may not have realised why you were doing Cert 4; it's not a psychology course it's more in line with ISO 9000 series which a lot of people here would be familiar with. It ensures a step by step is processed, audited and logged; it does save your butt when this is done, and more importantly the incident is much less likely to occur, nut it's similar to Human Factors training - we know that causes most deaths, but if you don't take it seriously or don't apply it methodically there's no benefit and you go down that long chute.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I hear what yor saying tubz, but for that rationale to be correct then "student' accidents would be the "problem". But thats not the case statistically speaking its the safest part of your career..:).. I don't think there is a great issue with people sending people Solo 'dangerously". While im sure it happens I dont think its the reason our friend in the magazine was unhappy, and I dont think its what drives people away from (or towards ) any particular school. Assessing standards for certificate issue may be more the issue I think.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

And as far as the RAA are concerned, as long as you stick to the syllabus, and have a student record they can "nail" you with later, you are good to go...mmm, shhh Andy...

 

 

[ayavner]

I think herein lies (some of) the rub. Sure stick to the syllabus, heck that would alleviate alot of this stuff right there! But there seem to be soooo many shades of grey in interpreting the syllabus... Take Straight and Level for example. One instructor might take it as complete once you have been shown how to level off and hold it there consistently. Another one may want to drill you on it till you're +/- 10 feet! Same thing with Climbs - one may see that you can get to an assigned altitude by setting power and attitude correctly - another may say no 70 knots isn't good enough, Vy is 68!

 

and so on.... and yes, while we should all strive towards perfection, what we are talking about is "at what level can we consider this box ticked" so we can move on to the next. It has to be assumed those things will improve naturally anyway as you are doing other things, so sometimes dwelling on them is counter-productive.

 

So yes, syllabus, BUT it would be nice to see some level of standardisation where instructor "preferences" are not the deciding factor in "passing a module" for want of a better term. Maybe my examples aren't the greatest, but this is just from a lowly student perspective.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

I found when I was learning, that I was under a huge stress load in the early stages. The instructors I learnt the most from were confident in their flying abilities especially with respect to regaining control of the aircraft if needed. Because of that, they were able to create a more relaxed atmosphere in the cockpit which meant that they weren't adding to my stress load with theirs. That is not to say that they were "laid back" or slack. The instructors I liked best were sticklers for getting things right, they just didn't go into loose propellor mode when I made mistakes.

 

In so far as getting things right, there are a lot of grey areas in flying where most pilots have an opinion as to the "right" way to do things. For example, some radio calls at non-towewred airfields are "reccomended" but not mandatory. In grey areas, an instructor should let the student know what the regs say, and maybe even the instructor's preferred way of doing things. But if the student varies their practice in a grey area, the instructor shouldn't make a song and dance about it. Or worse yet, as reported elsewhere in these forums, physically assault a student.

 

Also, I think an instructor should know when to shut up. Some I experienced seemed to want to talk all through the flying part of the lesson as well as the ground briefing. That just guarantees information overload for students in the early stages of their training. And that just hinders their progress. That's fine if your primary goal is to milk the student for all they're worth rather than teach them to fly.

 

Also, an instructor has to be honest with their student and fair. My favorite instructor used to pip me about my airspeed on final if I let it drop by more than 4-5Kts. One day he was flying the final and I noticed that he had let the airspeed drop and I pinged him with the same "airspeed" call he used to use with me. He looked over at the ASI, smiled and said "you got me", no tantrums or excuses, he just accepted it, corrected it and we went on from there. Honesty.

 

One other thing this same instructor used to do quite well is to get me settled before a lesson with a short social chat. I was very nervous in the early stages of my training and when I rocked up to the hangar, it always seemed like he was never in a hurry and we'd start chatting a bit. Somehow he managed to get me started on my preflight and into the cockpit before I had realised we had made the transition. It just seemed seamless they way we went from chatting to flying and it worked a treat for settling my nerves.

 

I guess all the above blather is my way of saying that a flying instructor must have very well developed interpersonal skills and confidence in their ability.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Nice one:)

 

 

[Owi]

Also, I think an instructor should know when to shut up. Some I experienced seemed to want to talk all through the flying part of the lesson as well as the ground briefing. That just guarantees information overload for students in the early stages of their training. And that just hinders their progress. That's fine if your primary goal is to milk the student for all they're worth rather than teach them to fly.

Too right! When I started out, on my tenth lesson, I had a new instructor who, although a friendly chap, just kept on yapping about a whole bunch of things about what was going on including warning me of planes that could just crash into you on the taxi ramp! All this while the weather was marginal and the crosswind was probably near the aircraft limits. Well, being such a newbie and struggling to absorb all of this info, I just freaked out and this lesson in circuits (cut very short due my stress) was the worst ever for me. I quit that school not long after.

 

To me, everybody has their own ideas of what they see as a good instructor. Some like a strong but fair disciplinarian, others like their instructors to be relaxed, bordering on slack (that could be bad for some). It goes without saying that there are some behaviours that should not be tolerated from instructors, like berating/belittling or physical admonishment. Each to their own, though.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[webbm]

Just further to the original post, I wouldn't mind seeing a mandatory introduction sheet given to students who come back after their TIF, which explains RA-Aus, a bit of a history, how it fits into the regulatory framework, what to expect during your training, who to talk to if you have questions or problems and other tips. RA-Aus would make certain text mandatory, but the flight school would also be free to put in other info, such as a list of instructors, the CFI and other staff details, hours of operation, aircraft list, prices, how to book, etc. A lot of this stuff I learnt as I went along but would have been nice to know up front...

 

Nothing fancy, just a double sided A4 that that can be printed at the school...

 

Cheers.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

That's a good idea.;)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Its less of an issue in RAA I think than GA, but I'm pretty sure that the local nuerosurgeon didnt get taught to be one by one that was a course ahead of him....... This whole concept of student to instructor to some other form of flying is B/S.

 

People who want to instruct should be instructors not just people who want to fill a log book.....

 

That said aviation is expensive, the cheapest way of teaching someone if looking merely at an hrly rate is with a noob....of course wether you get an hours worth of value out of that hour...thats the question

 

Of course railing against something that has been the "way it is" since Tiger moths were newly minted may well be as useful as headbutting a brick wall......

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

 

[68volksy]

Sounds like it might be worthwhile splitting this discussion into "What makes a good RA instructor" and "What makes a good GA instructor"? Horses for courses in my book. I don't agree with the different standards for RA at all but that's an entirely different question!

 

Judging a good GA instructor is really quite easy in my book. Firstly they have to be entirely focused on instructing and not just building hours to get themselves somewhere else. If they're low on hours then an instructors rating from a reputable school is an absolute necessity. There's only a few schools that the boss would hire instructors from - schools that have been around for a good while and have a very high reputation. Lastly a good instructor in my mind has some decent experience. If they're low on hours then some good life experience - enough to have put the ego in check and knocked the cowboy out of them.

 

A good RA instructor is another thing altogether and I like to keep looking back at the whole point of RA - the simple and cheap way to fly. A good RA instructor is much harder to find in my mind as it's a very limited field. There's nowhere really to progress to or any extra challenges in the way of larger aircraft, charter flying etc. if you've committed to RA instructing. That and you can be quite limited financially. Any instructor looking to make a good bit of money out of RA should probably be avoided as it's not going to happen! I'd be looking for an RA instructor that's older, maybe recently retired as a good indicator. Someone doing it because they love it is the primary qualification. Someone not motivated by financial concerns would be the RA ideal to be sure the aircraft is getting the attention (dollars) it deserves.

 

In Goulburn we've been hunting for RA instructors for several years but good quality ones just do not exist. The current instructors that have joint GA/RA qualifications have too much GA work to give much time to the RA side. The GA work is also much better paid. The RA industry has got too big is my basic view. When it was the rag and tube boys floating around there were enough enthusiastic souls out there to support the new pilots. Now with the GA-lite end of the spectrum being so huge its left a big gap in the training side. If RA was happy paying GA rates for training then there'd be a considerable increase in the amount of quality instructors as most instructors don't seem to bother with RA when they can earn almost twice as much training GA (plus have all the advantages of going on to other forms of flying and aircraft in GA). GA offers a career path and opportunities whilst RA offers a past-time or extremely rewarding hobby is the gross generalisation.

 

 

[68volksy]

To link what I said above to the original post there's no point asking RA instructors to do a Cert IV at this stage. Get them up to GA standard and then impose a Cert IV at that level would me my advice. It's all going to lead to an increase in costs however which i think needs to happen in RA training in order to get qualified and experienced people out there throwing unknowing students into the sky.

 

Peanuts = monkeys

 

Coffee and chocolate biscuits = qualified instructors!

 

 

[facthunter]

68, Why do you think the GA situation is OK? The difference in the money is not the real issue. The training and selection of the candidates is more the point.

 

I think we all agree that instructors should be from the most skilled and experienced people and have the right temprement. ( Not every one who knows something wants, or can do, the job of teaching it to someone else).

 

Using instructing to gain hours enables schools to get their instructors for a low cost. This has been a factor for ever in civil flying.

 

An instructor of merit has to have a passion for flying and enjoy relating to people. Flying a plane is a REAL life experience and the instructor gets to know the pupils abilities and personality pretty well as he/she has do deal with both.

 

Not everyone is up to it.

 

The worst thing that could happen situationally with flying training is that the student be put into the sky without a good solid understanding of the basics and therefore likely to have some serious incident because of this . No-one can guarantee there will be no incidents but they should not be as a result of lack of suitable knowledge Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

To link what I said above to the original post there's no point asking RA instructors to do a Cert IV at this stage. Get them up to GA standard and then impose a Cert IV at that level would me my advice. It's all going to lead to an increase in costs however which i think needs to happen in RA training in order to get qualified and experienced people out there throwing unknowing students into the sky.Peanuts = monkeys

 

Coffee and chocolate biscuits = qualified instructors!

Volksy I partially agree with your first statement about peanuts and monkeys, but the second assertion is not necessarily true and in a LOT of instances these days, is demonstrably false. I think that all you can guarantee when you pay more, is that you're likely to get greedier monkeys.

A quick scan through the corporate boardrooms these days should tell you all you need to know about "more pay = better talent". If you still believe that, you haven't been paying attention since 2008.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

In Goulburn we've been hunting for RA instructors for several years but good quality ones just do not exist.

gee. Thanx. Id have to disagree with pretty much all of your sentiments. There are many fantastic RAA instructors out there. There are many fantastic GA instructors aswel. And of course there are crap ones in both fields.

 

Some younger RAA instructors are EXACTLY what the industry needs. Its the old school blokes that fall asleep in the aeroplane with you (dont laugh im serious) that tend to scare the younger generation away. Id put my 21 year old instructor up against ANY GA instructor out there if you use the right criteria to judge. ie, passion, enthusiasm, careing nature, skill, teaching ability and above all, the ability to keep students coming back because they ENJOY the experience and progress well.

 

Far too much generilsation going on here Volksy. Like you, ive been exposed to both RAA and GA instructors and honestly I couldn't draw a line between them as far as what I got out of the lessons if looking specifically at RAA or GA.

 

A good instructor is a good instructor, RAA/GA whatever. And they DO exist mate, believe me. Maybe the good ones dont want to go to Golbourn mate:)

 

 

[Bandit12]

A good instructor is a good instructor, RAA/GA whatever. And they DO exist mate, believe me. Maybe the good ones dont want to go to Golbourn mate:)

And that is why I asked the question - what are the attributes of a good instructor? You could probably ask the same question of attributes of school teachers, scout leaders, sports coaches, driving instructors, and university lecturers, and end up with many of the same attributes.