Why do i need an instructor

[Teckair]

I was taking the 12 gauge thing as metaphorical, as a way to approach the type.

To me it was more of a joke than that. From your posts I had not noticed you to be very anti-authority.

 

 

[M61A1]

To me it was more of a joke than that. From your posts I had not noticed you to be very anti-authority.

Outwardly, that may well be the case, but the more I ponder, I'm not absolutely certain. I know self assessments can be horribly inaccurate, but I think the outward " anti-authority" in me, masks a bit of under confidence, particularly when it comes to the hands on flying. As an aircraft tradesman, I have all the confidence in the world, no problem flying in anything I've worked on. So far, and I emphasize "so far", my flying is quite conservative. While my wingman is playing down low (legally),you will find me around 1ooo agl min, and keeping over open ground, and tight circuits. Not because of the law, but because it keeps me and my aircarft safe. So far this has served me well. When it come to the law, things change. Sure, I will do what they want to avoid fines/prosecution, but I've been around long enough to know that, a lot of our laws ( not just aviation) are not really about safety, and more about being seen to be doing something about a perceived problem. Ultimately, it is trying to break the laws of physics that will kill you, the laws of man will just cost time and money, and occasionally blind adherence will kill you.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Under confident, over confident, and anti-authority aren't personality types. They are traits in students which can be problematic for anyone trying to teach them anything.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Oh, well, in for a penny . . .

 

Point 1: There are a surprising number - if you look for them - of people for whom flight instruction is a way of life. They are wholly dedicated to it, and make every effort to improve their competence. I'm not an RAA instructor, but many years ago I was a GFA instructor - and the GFA took (and still takes) instructing very seriously. Back then, most of the senior instructors were ex WW2 pilots; they were all extremely experienced survivors, and bloody good teachers. The best I ever met had learned gliding when Hitler was paying for it, and he had survived 3 years in ME 109s. He was the categorising instructor for NSW, and he checked out ALL the GFA instructors in NSW. Hell of a nice bloke - but nobody could put anything over on him. There were at least a score of people of this calibre in gliding in NSW at that time, and they kept the standards right up, without ruffling anybody's feathers in the process. OK, those people have all gone now, but the principle still applies.

 

I've found people like Tony Hayes and David Eyre and Trevor Bange in the RAA system in QLD, and there must be others like them. What is needed (if it does not already exist) is an hierarchical structure that allows these people to get together with the less experienced instructors, about once a year, and compare notes. Nobody knows it all; but in a group like that, everybody raises their standards. Easier to organise on a statewide basis than on a national basis.

 

Point 2: The process of instruction involves a steady transfer of responsibility from the instructor to the student; everybody has an "overload" point at which they "blow a fuse" and in effect stop functioning. The instructor's job is to keep the student's workload sufficiently below the student's overload point that the student can absorb the lesson; and as the student advances, to progressively increase the workload so the students "overload" point is raised. This has to continue to the point of putting the student into unexpected quasi-emergency situations (such as inducing a spin "over the top" from a climbing turn) until the student automatically does the right recovery action, and does not go catatonic. Spin training is very necessary for this reason alone. I've had ab initio students freeze up from simple getting no response to a circuit radio call; I had one bloke who grabbed the canopy release in his panic reaction to a very gentle stall - and another fellow who froze with the wrong rudder applied in a spin recovery (that resulted in a buckled rudder pushrod - but fortunately the Blanik rudder pushrods run in a tunnel, so I was still able to overpower him). A more experienced instructor than I was at that time might have been able to assess that those students were in need of extra-gentle handling. An inexperienced pilot in lieu of a trained instructor would probably have been killed.

 

Point 3: One of the purposes of instructor training, is to develop and standardise the "instruction patter" - for example, if the instructor tells the student to "flare out" from a landing approach, it generally produces the wrong result and results in the student getting a fright, which is highly counter productive. This is why you will hear the instructor tell the student to check the descent or to level out. Reading the instructor's handbook is usually very enlightening in this regard - tho I've not seen the RAA one.

 

I don't know where the RAA scene is, in these regards, right now. But it's entirely possible for such an organisation to develop a really competent pilot training system; just find the realy dedicated, experienced instructors, and put them in charge of an annual instructor training meeting.

 

 

[Teckair]

Outwardly, that may well be the case, but the more I ponder, I'm not absolutely certain. I know self assessments can be horribly inaccurate, but I think the outward " anti-authority" in me, masks a bit of under confidence, particularly when it comes to the hands on flying. As an aircraft tradesman, I have all the confidence in the world, no problem flying in anything I've worked on. So far, and I emphasize "so far", my flying is quite conservative. While my wingman is playing down low (legally),you will find me around 1ooo agl min, and keeping over open ground, and tight circuits. Not because of the law, but because it keeps me and my aircarft safe. So far this has served me well.When it come to the law, things change. Sure, I will do what they want to avoid fines/prosecution, but I've been around long enough to know that, a lot of our laws ( not just aviation) are not really about safety, and more about being seen to be doing something about a perceived problem. Ultimately, it is trying to break the laws of physics that will kill you, the laws of man will just cost time and money, and occasionally blind adherence will kill you.

You seem to have a good healthy attitude and I don't think you fit the anti-authority category.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Outwardly, that may well be the case, but the more I ponder, I'm not absolutely certain. I know self assessments can be horribly inaccurate, but I think the outward " anti-authority" in me, masks a bit of under confidence, particularly when it comes to the hands on flying. As an aircraft tradesman, I have all the confidence in the world, no problem flying in anything I've worked on. So far, and I emphasize "so far", my flying is quite conservative. While my wingman is playing down low (legally),you will find me around 1ooo agl min, and keeping over open ground, and tight circuits. Not because of the law, but because it keeps me and my aircarft safe. So far this has served me well.When it come to the law, things change. Sure, I will do what they want to avoid fines/prosecution, but I've been around long enough to know that, a lot of our laws ( not just aviation) are not really about safety, and more about being seen to be doing something about a perceived problem. Ultimately, it is trying to break the laws of physics that will kill you, the laws of man will just cost time and money, and occasionally blind adherence will kill you.

Couldn't agree more. However, I think that, as one gains experience, one sets personal minima, consciously or otherwise. Consciously is good. In addition to the laws of physics, are the opportunities of Murphy - and that's largely what aircraft certification design standards are about; they are worth reading, because they are the condensed consequences of Murphy's activities in regard to aircraft design, and what is necessary to send him somewhere else. I once lent a friend a copy of BCAR Section K (an obsolete equivalent of FAR 23); his comment, a week later, was "well, all that is no more than what you'd want in an aircraft design, anyway". A lot of the questions on this website would not arise, if people would bother to use FAR 23 as bedtime reading (I guarantee it will put you to sleep - but there's no better collection than FAR 23 and its attendant Advisory Circulars, of design wisdom for small aeroplanes).

 

Getting away from design, a few of the things I've learned are:

 

(1) Try to always have an alternative. The alternative to having an engine, is the ability to land safely. I've had to make the odd precautionary landing due to weather; you would not believe how many wires are out there; they are all over the place. What looks like a good paddock from 5000 feet may be a vertiable spider web when you are committed to it.

 

(2) Don't fly if ANYTHING is not working as it should; find out why, and fix it. If you take off with a drop on one magneto, for instance, Murphy will leap into action to cause a plug to foul on the remaining mag. Same with a low fuel pressure on one of the fuel pumps, etcetera. People call this the "swiss cheese" principle; having a known unservicability is lining up one set of holes. In WW2 they used to talk of "gremlins". On this heading, the normal form of in-line paper-element fuel filter is an open invitation to Murphy. Little aeroplanes have minimal redundancy; so what IS there, needs to be as good as you can make it. Good does not, in general, equal complicated.

 

(3) There are three critical factors, apart from airworthiness of the aircraft and the pilot; they are fuel, daylight, and weather. NEVER operate to anything like tight limits on more than one of them at a time (and don't believe the fuel gauge, always dip the tank or fill it to a known visual level).

 

(4) You normally do not find powerlines above the level of the surrounding hills. You DO find them below this. Sneaking down a valley under the clag is a really good way to discover there really was a powerline where you thought there wasn't one.

 

(5) If your passengers absolutely MUST get home, drop them off at an airport where they can catch an airline flight.

 

(6) NEVER put somebody with a camera, in a seat that has a set of controls.

 

No doubt people can add to this list. Yes, I'd cross Bass Straight in a single-engine aircraft - but it would be an aircraft with sufficient glide performance and with sufficient VFR ceiling, to glide to a landing spot from any point. I was a passenger in a C 172 on a night flight once; 5 hours over outback QLD, mostly covered in trees. It dropped a valve a week later. So a Lycoming is pretty good, but nothing is absolute if you do not have an alternative.

 

 

[frank marriott]

(6) NEVER put somebody with a camera, in a seat that has a set of controls

 

So that would rule out most if not all RAA opts?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Unless they are also a pilot, or otherwise experienced in aircraft; I should have qualified that. A joyrider with no previous aviation experience, who gets aboard brandishing a camera, is potentially dangerous, if they can put a hand or a foot on the controls. If you want to carry somebody like that in the right-hand seat, remove the controls from that seat. If your aircraft does not have removable controls, my advice is do not carry that sort of passenger.

 

 

[503]

Unless ,there given the mandatory pax brief

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

That's up to you. It would work for some people, but I've come across some that would need a baseball bat. There are too many things people should not grab or stand on, to lever themselves up to get the shot; and too many places a camera can get caught in the works if they drop it (not as bad nowadays, with miniature digital cameras, of course). The famous example was a C150 that bunted into the ground, evidently because the passenger put his foot on the elevator control yoke in his excitement to get a shot of something they were flying over. A really dedicated photographer is unconscious of everything except what's in his viewfinder. That doesn't matter if he's in the back seat of a Cessna or Piper, where there is nothing he can do much harm to.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

no training needed for young fellow

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/November/27/airplane-thief-sentenced.aspx

 

 

[Teckair]

I have never had a formal flying lesson and I have a CFI rating and can fly almost any small aircraft but that was the hard way to do it. I do think the best way to learn to fly safely is to be taught by a good instructor.

 

 

[johnm]

lie down on the couch and tell us more Teckair

 

....................... seriously though - sounds like a good story to tell Teckair ?

 

 

[Teckair]

lie down on the couch and tell us more Teckair....................... seriously though - sounds like a good story to tell Teckair ?

In 1987 you didn't need a pilot certificate, planes were not registered and there were no flying schools in the Cairns area. I bought a Chinook ultralight for $3000 and learnt to fly with it.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yep. Thems was the days before HORSCOTS took effect.

 

 

[facthunter]

The safety record wasn't much, especially with the autogyros I recall. Steep learning curve then and a search for the limits. Before that time you could do very little legally. turbulents, etc were VH. Only LAME's built them. (Where I was). EAA do things well why can't we take a leaf out of their book. For a country that keeps telling itself it has to be clever, IT isn't very.. Nev

 

 

[johnm]

thanks for that teckair and dafydd - HORSCOTS is googable

 

.......................... we've come a long way .............. for a clever country ! (actually Qld as well - also being a smart state also (if you believe the pollie rhetoric))

 

 

[skyfox1]

Yes l to taught myself to fly in 1985 l purchased an Easy riser and started the learning process crashed on the first flight repaired it and went up again and again never needed any licencing or rego then we weren't aloud to fly about 250ft and not over any sealed roads l was one of the lucky ones that did kill themselves in the process since then l had formal training because their was still heaps to learn so you definitely need proper instruction to fly safely .

 

cheers Geoff..

 

 

[facthunter]

You are a luck one if you DID kill yourself and can still post here. Nev

 

 

[skyfox1]

Thanks Nev didn't proof read before posting ..l am still here ...ha ha

 

 

[facthunter]

No one's perfect. I meant luck(Y) Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

thanks for that teckair and dafydd - HORSCOTS is googable.......................... we've come a long way .............. for a clever country ! (actually Qld as well - also being a smart state also (if you believe the pollie rhetoric))

Thanks for that; it's most interesting to read it again - and see the things CASA didn't do . . . It should be mandatory reading for all RAA members in MHO.

 

 

[Nev25]

Now that the dust has settled

 

Sorry didn't mean to stare WW3

 

Back to the question

 

Might sound like a silly question but think about itMy questioning is unrelated to aviation but similar

Why does one need to engage a pilot with instructor rating to teach one to fly to obtain a licence or certificate

 

Why can't one just get a local pilot with x amount of hours to instruct one

 

At the end of the day you do not need a professional driving instructor to teach you to drive a motor vehicle your parents or an experience driver can teach you

 

Thoughts please

I recently while trying to get the cash together for flying lessons came across a local add on gumtree for a guitar teacher

 

I've been playing Guitar off and on for 40 years and worked In the Music industry (doing Production) for around 15 years

 

Thinking to my self I can teach done it before with success

 

The add went on to say MUST have past grade 6 music theory exams DAMN

 

I remember see an interview with Elton John who openly admitted he cannot read Music

 

I can assure you a good majority of professional musicians have no formal qualifications in Music just experience

 

So based on that Elton John couldn't or wouldn't get the above position (If it was for Piano) nor would a lot of experienced professional Musos

 

But little Johnny who has been locked in a room by himself studying and passing exams could

 

The other side of the coin and certainly the reason why I posted this originally is

 

I am an accredited Sports coach (the sport is irrelevant)

 

Get asked why the (and many other sports) are declining in numbers

 

My argument is all the armchair experts who think they know how to coach the sport are driving them away

 

Its of my option people need to be accredited to coach (teach) any sport

 

But they don't need the experience to be able to teach just the knowledge on how to

 

I was just curious as to what peoples thought where

 

Thanks

 

 

[DrZoos]

And there is one of the arguments why a syllabus and instructor is needed. Because even someone like Elton John managed to look proficient, but has huge gaps in his proficiency as a musician. Undoubtably people could be tought by firends, and possibly even teach themselves. And there would be isolated cases where at say 30 hours the self taught person was better. To use the Elton example. Imagine if one was taught by a friend who failed to teach certain parts. Maybe steep turns and stalls. There would be one very dangerous pilot out there if they had no idea about stalls and spins or holding altitude in a steep turn.

 

But the reality is 99% will be safer and better pilots if they are taught what is deemed essential (ie the syllabus) and then they have a qualified instructor (ie someone who knows how to demonstrate it, impart the key skills and knowledge and check the student gets it ).

 

Once they have thier licence those like Elton John will go into self taught areas of expertise, maybe aerobatics, cross country gurus or like myself a touch an go / stol fan and get really good at certain aspects.

 

But the key thing is we need people to have the essentials in place to make them safer pilots.

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps the negative feelings come from an" ALL theory and no practical experience" concept, that some may have encountered in their lives and have lost a bit of trust in such people. There is plenty of that around. You strike that in building where the Architect has some idea of the shape but no detailed idea of how to construct it.

 

There is quite a bit of "whacky" theory out there in aviation, so choose carefully what you want to consider as FACT.

 

You can't beat a good instructor that knows his stuff and can explain it fully and has your confidence. " Can get it across". If you get to a point where you can perform the action well but UNDERSTAND why and what is going on at all times it is far less confusing to you than learning by copying alone and using things like memory joggers nemonics and a lot of numbers. ROTE learning is totally inferior to comprehension. Aviation is situational awareness and suitable responses. ( reaction and decision making).

 

The self taught pilot has the possibility of having a fool for an instructor and student simultaneously.

 

You have to know WHAT you need to know and do to perform any task well. (approximate minimum skills and knowledge base and how to apply same appropriately).

 

As an example, how frequently to have a "fix" or pinpoint with crosscountry track keeping and how to evaluate the real reliability of some of them. Nev