Minimum requirements for instructors

[Adrian Lewer]

hi all just wondering what is the minimum requirements for the RAA instructor rating.. cheers.

 

 

[Ultralights]

around 75 hours pilot-in-command experience a training course for the instructor rating can be commenced. There are different requirements for persons with experience in aircraft other than ultralights. Refer to the RA-Aus Operations Manual section 2.08 for information about the instructor rating.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Congrat's again ultralights. I'm looking to head in that direction myself. I've only about 15hrs PIC so far tho. Just completed x-country.

 

In a nut shell, whats involved in the course? Any flying, how many hrs, what training manuals to read up on, etc.

 

Cheers

 

Ant.

 

 

[Yenn]

I know of several pilots who have done the instructors course, and good pilots they were, but the killer as far as instructing goes is the high cost of insurance. Of those I know who did it only one went on far more than about 1 year. All you need is to find a job at a school, or if you are on your own to have a large population base to provide a source of students.

 

Even where I live in the Gladstone Qld area there is no flying school for either RAAus or GA. That is an area with a population of I guess 30,000 people most of whom would be on above average wages. I think motor boats and fishing take the money rather than flying.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

At present the flying is 20 hours and PMI (theory) course 30 hours. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

 

The 20 hours flying is generally treated as a lesson-by-lesson replica of the syllabus. As to how you fit in the Nav training component, that can depend on who is teaching you as to how it's structured. The sooner a uniform structure is fully introduced with regard to this, the better.

 

It is my opinion that 100 hours minimum is not enough. It should be more like 200+ Remember that in GA to be an instructor you'll need atleast 150 hours for your commercial licence (more likely to be over 200), then the hours obtained gaining the instructor rating, so 100 hours pales into insignificance.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

At present the flying is 20 hours and PMI (theory) course 30 hours. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

You are correct Brent

 

It is my opinion that 100 hours minimum is not enough. It should be more like 200+ Remember that in GA to be an instructor you'll need atleast 150 hours for your commercial licence (more likely to be over 200), then the hours obtained gaining the instructor rating, so 100 hours pales into insignificance.

I couldn't agree more. Instruction requires far more than just about being able to teach each lesson of the syllabus & the theory to go with it. After 75 hours of ultralight flying I barely even recognised how little I knew ! There maybe exceptions but I'd guess not very many.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[motzartmerv]

ok.. so for a GA cpl its 150 hours. 70 hrs in command and 80 duel.. And another 20 duel and 30 mutual for the instructor rating.. So the requirement of 75 hours is actually more then the command time needed for the cpl..The only differnace is RAA doesn't have the 30 hours "mutual' time requirement.so technically i could have more command time then a GA instructor. I get a bit miffed by guys always saying 75 hours isn't enough. By the time you take out the sequences that RAA doesn't teach there isn't a great deal of differance between the ga and RAA instructors (IMHO). Ive been instructing at a GA school that happens to have RAA registered acft, so most of my students have been PPL or 200 hour CPL cantidates, and i tell ya, some of these guys are coming to me with GFPT obtained elsewhere and can't even do steep turns and are scared out of there wits when i mention stalls. I reckon its the quality of the instruction given that counts. Mind you i have had a few "licensed" RAA guys wanting to convert to the J160 and a couple of them had never done a steep turn and had only 2 or 3 stalls under there belts..and these guys HAVE a RAA license.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Its very disappointing to hear you have seen so many pilots who struggle with steep turns & stalls (whichever syllabus / licence they have). But its not the ability to demonstrate & teach that sort of manoeuvre which I suspect would be lacking in most ( but perhaps not all) very low hour instructors . I'm thinking more of exposure to lots of weather conditions, aircraft types, airfields for example.

 

I assume you are a low hour instructor - if so so I can understand you feeling a bit miffed but I did say there might be exceptions ! But maybe you might feel differently at some point in the future

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Crezzi.. i can see where ya coming from regarding the experiance of instructors . specifically the exposure to weather and aerodromes etc.. But this is where it gets a bit murky for mine.. Some time ago i posted a thread regarding the 5 hour cross country minn for RAA. Now, my point was that perhaps instructors should aim to expose students to marginal weather in a controlled fasion so that they can get to see what its like to make descisions on the go regarding WX. And not just fly in perfect WX during training..

 

The overwhealming response was " Shut up MM, the system works, you get a license to learn, students find out about these things by experiance"..now, the phrase having your cake and eating it to jumps to mind. On one hand we say that the RAA license is a ticket to go and learn as PIC, and on the other hand some are saying that the low time instructors don't have the experiance to pass on..Now, how are we sappose to pass this knowlage on in 3 hours of x-country training??

 

So how does a few hundred or even a few thousand more hours translate to the student in 3 hours??

 

cheers

 

 

[motzartmerv]

To illustrate my point.. My instructor (who did my nav training) has over 20,000 hours.. Commercial ops and instructing combined. so you could say he's seen most things nature could throw at a pilot.. My nav training was done in over the minn time of 5 hours, we actually did about 8 or 9.. But do you think all that experiance sitting next to me carried over to me?? I think not, he taught me the ded reckoning method, how to spot a few impending problems, but there weren't any to be seen, and thats about it.. Now how has that 20,000 hours helped ME??.. I could have had exactly the same training from a brand new 75 hr RAA instructor..could i not??

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Hmmm... 20,000 hours does not an instructor make.

 

An interesting observation Motza.

 

I guess its one thing to know how to fly, and something compleatly different to be able to teach the knowledge.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

IIRC the thread you refer to was specifically about whether students should be exposed to marginal weather conditions ? That's an entirely valid question but its not what I'm saying - I'm suggesting that its preferable if an instructor has a wide experience NOT that he does so with a student. And he's more likely to have had that (& many other valuable experiences) if he has flown more than the legal minimum number of hours.

 

I'm not really thinking of things like dead reckoning which is a syllabus item that a low hour instructor should be able to adequately teach. Though to be honest with 75 hours I was still amazed every time my x-c plans worked out ;-)

 

The type of knowledge I have in mind is more general "background" & isn't necessarily transferred during the few hours of flight exercises but is diffused during all the time a student typically spends in & around the flying school environment.

 

I'm sure you are correct that no amount of hours guarantees an individual is a great instructor and of course the ability to teach is paramount. I guess my point is that, IMO, that ability is more effective if the teacher has a depth of knowledge that is unlikely with only 75 hours as P1. Perhaps I'm just basing this view too much on my recollection of what I knew at that stage.

 

Enough for now - Night All

 

John

 

PS Apparently several states require applicants to be driving instructors to have held a licence for 3 years !

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I think that this is a very interesting thread. I learned to sail as a kid over 35 years ago. By the time I was 19 or 20 I knew that I knew all there was to know about sailing. Now, all the years later I know that I know stuff all!

 

I think that the latter situation is also valuable because it is attitudinally much safer. Whilst I am not necessarily cautious, I'm well aware of what may lie around the corner and I plan accordingly. Ditto for flying.

 

I was flying with my daughter the other day. She's a very good S&R pilot, better than I'll ever be. She's also 16. We were cruising at 2500' and we were approaching a bit of tiger country. I opened the throttle and began to climb. Once we were settled into the climb I asked her "what am I thinking right now?" She talked about trim, engine parameters, airspeed etc. All good stuff. But my answer was "None of that - I'm thinking about WTF I'm going to land if this engine stops!".

 

One beautiful afternoon about 6 months ago I was hanging around the aerodrome being the wheels and the wallet for my daughter. I thought "this is too good a day to be on the ground". So I got an aircraft and loaded in a local pilot. This guy is over 80, still flies, has plenty of twin time, plenty of IFR time and loves simple little 'planes. We headed out and did some PFLs. On one of our approaches neither of us saw the @#$%^ SWER wire until we were late final. As we were climbing away the other guy said quietly to me "If you'd had to you could have got in there no worries. I've been in that situation a couple of times. Always go under them, always. And watch the ground, not the wires. If you watch the wires you'll hit them, but if you watch the ground and get nice and low you won't hit the wire." Another little nugget was stowed away for future use.

 

This is about absorbing knowledge and more importantly wisdom. The quiet word saying to my daughter "here, if you do it like this it's easier and better because..." These people are not instructors, they are wily, old pilots. Whilst S&R skills are important it is the wisdom (and cunning ;-)) of long experience that will keep you alive. If you can borrow from someone else then you might live long enough to develop that yourself. On this subject, "The Pilots' Lounge" on AvWeb is a useful read.

 

I'm far less concerned about the hours for an instructor's rating (except see below) than I am about the broad knowledge, the attitude and the instructional capacity of the instructor. I've seen many young instructors who were very good S&R pilots, had good theory knowledge, understood PMI but ultimately hadn't seen enough of life to be a really good instructor. They were competent, very competent, but not excellent.

 

My caveat about hours is that instructing is like another whole layer on the wedding cake. The cake is already about 3 layers high and in order to be able to instruct it has to support a whole extra (big) layer. That means that the bottom layers need to be so natural that they are automatic. That leaves plenty of headroom for the instructor to do what they are intended to do which is instruct - not fly.

 

The other thing is that I'm certain that someone with 20 years of experience, on the ground, training and using the principles of experiential learning every day (whether in a university or a factory or whatever), will make a better instructor than someone who has thousands of hours but really no idea about instruction. We have probably all sat alongside instructors with many, many hours who really should be in some other job!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Mazda]

Very, very wise words Mike.

 

One thing that always niggles away at me is hours vs experience. Does a 20,000 hour airline pilot really have 20,000 hours, or just one hour 20,000 times? To me, an experienced pilot is one with broad experience. It's someone who can fly VFR with a map and a compass, fly IFR, do aeros, fly formation, fly singles and twins, tailwheel and nosewheel, fly in traffic or in the bush, notices those little specs on the horizon that soon turn into traffic, notices weather, notices little glitches with the aircraft, and has those wonderful gems of information like the older pilot Mike flew with. It is someone who knows the answers to aerodynamics, systems or procedural questions asked by students, without having to open a Trevor Thom book to find out.

 

I suppose it is a competitive market, so students can choose to fly with any instructor they prefer. Personally, I have a strong preference for those with broad experience. Who others choose is up to them.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Love the cake analogy Mike - in my case it was many hours before I felt that the bottom layers might support anything more than my own learning !

 

I think Mazda is correct that total hours is a very crude measure that does not necessarily equate to experience. Hour building in a familiar plane in the local area increases one rather more than than the other. Perhaps the pre-requisites

 

for the instructor course should be achievement based rather than simply hours ?

 

Eg signed off in at least 3 types of aircraft, landed & t/o at least 20 airfields, completed a x-c of at least X hours & including an overnight stop.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[facthunter]

The situation.

 

Some good thoughts there. Some extra input.

 

If a bare certificate is just so you can go out there and have a good chance of becoming a good pilot as you gain experience,

 

Then the first few hundred hours of instruction might be regarded similarly, ( that you are learning from the students.) NOT how to fly of course, because you already think that you can do that, but to cover the UNEXPECTED. How far do you let the student go.? Is he/she likely to freeze on the controls, panic interfere?. Is there ANY confusion in the way that the message has come across. Do you set a good example with airmanship, How do you treat a particularly talented student, or at the other end of the spectrum, some one who is definately a worry, but loves flying? The miriad ways of getting across to the vastly different people that you will encounter, An on-going process that never ends. You are never perfect at it, humans being humans. The ab-initio instructor will be on a steep learning curve.

 

...... Another thing to bear in mind is that you operate under the direct supervision of the CFI till you upgrade to a Senior instructor so he/ she has an ongoing proactive role in your development. Work closely with them. Nev..

 

 

[Mazda]

 

It’s a really tough one because the safety record is good. Mandating additional requirements would make it more difficult/expensive and could lead to an instructor shortage as there is in GA.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Interestingly x/c and nav has figured in posts above and I cannot really see why. The subject is not (or certainly was not and I do not believe it has yet changed) a part of the instructor training syllabus.

 

 

However it does raise an area which I have considerable contempt for in terms of control of instructor training and standards – hence the quality of the pilots the system is capable of producing as a result of those instructors being turned loose. This is by no means exclusive to RAAus but is also endemic in other disciplines – particularly recreational aviation areas.

 

 

The accepted premise is that a basic instructor training course makes you an instructor. You may then teach anything that you have an endorsement for with no further training on How or What to teach which is associated with that endorsement. There is some kind of implied assumption that you will automatically ‘know’ what to teach – and may attempt to do so with precious little personal experience (even if you have thousands of hours in something else).

 

 

The situation is further irritated when there is actually no laid down syllabus for the endorsement – or – as happens too often, the endorsement is at best sketchy and lacks depth and theory support.

 

 

As an example: When I did my float/amphib endorsement there was no syllabus just a string of flights tagged together in a particular sequence that covered what you need to know – plus you were given a video to watch. The training happened to be quite good and was most enjoyable – they even threw in a free crash when one of the mainwheels jammed up and the CFI I was flying with lost his cool and pushed on with a landing when all we had to do was turn up the wick, put the other wheel up and land on the grass on the floats or even take the machine back to the water and then beach it!

 

 

More irritating was not just the gap in the course (it took a month to re-build the thing) but that the CFI blamed myself for not taking over from him when I later pointed out the obvious recovery action he should have executed. I may have also been a CFI with far more experience than the individual I had been saddled with, but I knew nothing of float planes and should have been treated strictly as a student – which is what I certainly classed myself as. However I was being given plenty of motivation to learn rapidly.

 

 

When I returned I was allocated to the school Pilot Examiner and things really got better – well there was another initial hiccup! The situation was a bit rushed as this would be the first flight after the rebuild so the PE did a full air test then I got in. He taxied us out and handed over. He then got alarmed when I took it onto the grass, switched off and got out saying that if he did not mind I would like to do my own pre flight inspection.

 

 

I found five bolts on the float attachments out of safety (not done up) and the water rudders still disconnected. The PE then got his morning exercise by sprinting the half mile required to pick up some spanners and things while I hung around and had a smoke.

 

 

At the completion of the course I wrote a syllabus for the school and forwarded a copy to AUF – which AUF totally ignored and did not even acknowledge.

 

 

At that point I was an endorsed float/amphib pilot and once my card was stamped was quite entitled to instruct on one, and as a CFI issue endorsements, and as a PE do the same for new instructors and instructor renewals – with a grand total of five hours experience and 16 water landings in ideal conditions! Not this little black duck – I owe my students more than that!

 

 

Then again, when we got the ‘close proximity’ endorsement introduced a vastly experienced formation pilot wrote an excellent syllabus (that was circulated amongst the Pilot Examiners) but again AUF totally ignored. We still have the endorsement but no laid down means of getting it. We now also have a whole string of new endorsements – but where are the underpinning laid down standards and where is the experience requirement to instruct on those subjects?

 

 

Returning to less esoteric endorsements, how about something simple like nose wheel/tail wheel?

 

 

I struggled for years to get AUF to introduce a ‘tailwheel endorsement’. I had good reason – one of my self imposed little efforts was to make flying Thrusters safer, more understandable and easier for anyone who wanted to fly them. I picked the most difficult type that was/is generally regarded as an evil witch of a thing to be avoided – yet is perfectly controllable and much of a pussycat when mastered – but one that keeps you honed up somewhat.

 

 

I got particular satisfaction when my students with only a few solo flights under their belt, wheel landed heavy T500s in cross winds with no drama and outwardly little effort. They knew no better and just did what they had been taught – situation normal!

 

 

But there are other ‘witches’ as well and the Skyfox is well up there with the Thruster as are some other types – because they are real tail draggers and you have to both understand the physics and be taught the techniques to operate them safely.

 

 

ALL of the factory produced Skyfoxes were crashed! Most of them by experienced GA instructors with minimal tail dragger experience – but holding tail dragger endorsements. They passed on their own lack of knowledge to their students. AUF suffered via skyrocketing insurance premiums and then no insurance availability at all. But it was not the aircraft – it was the quality and experience of training in them!

 

 

So often have I cringed when I see instructors, who are highly experienced on nose wheels, get a tail dragger endorsement on something simple like a Drifter (which in my book is a ‘conditional taildragger’ by virtue of having a wheel at the back) then go and take on something serious they are simply not equipped to fly let alone instruct on even though they may be qualified to fly the thing.

 

 

Perhaps it is easy to ask the question “what are the requirements to be a flying instructorâ€. These are laid down and are easily read and complied with. But that is just the ‘requirement’. It does not mean that it is complete, or that it is effective, or that it is even safe in practical terms!

 

 

There is still a deal of work (and intelligent insight) required to visualise what an instructional task is in practice and then apply that in a responsible manner at the workface via effective standards and training – that themselves are understandable and are not inherently prohibitive in a recreational environment.

 

 

Experience plays a large part in this. Not simply hours and years but experience on the subject matter and type to be taught on. To be an effective instructor requires that you are master of your environment, relaxed and confident, and may thus pass to the student all the benefits of that base. I do not believe that anyone other than an arrogant prick can do that on the basis of an endorsement and a few hours no matter how many thousands of hours they have doing something else.

 

 

I stress that I am discussing primarily endorsement usage here – not the newly categorised instructor who has no choice but to learn his/her trade in practice, and hopefully under the umbrella of a sound school and wise CFI.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Yenn]

Why should anyone be surprised about RAAus pilots not being able to do steep turns. The definition of a steep turn is 60 deg or more and that is illegal for RAAus, although I must admit that I don't have any way of checking bank angle so may have exceeded the 60deg.

 

Another thing, could we equate suitability of instructors with abilities of pilots. What are our accident rates, what are the causes of our accidents. I know that the only time I bent an aircraft it was not due to poor tuition.

 

 

[farri]

Some good thoughts there. Some extra input. If a bare certificate is just so you can go out there and have a good chance of becoming a good pilot as you gain experience,

Then the first few hundred hours of instruction might be regarded similarly, ( that you are learning from the students.) NOT how to fly of course, because you already think that you can do that, but to cover the UNEXPECTED. How far do you let the student go.? Is he/she likely to freeze on the controls, panic interfere?. Is there ANY confusion in the way that the message has come across. Do you set a good example with airmanship, How do you treat a particularly talented student, or at the other end of the spectrum, some one who is definately a worry, but loves flying? The miriad ways of getting across to the vastly different people that you will encounter, An on-going process that never ends. You are never perfect at it, humans being humans. The ab-initio instructor will be on a steep learning curve.

 

...... Another thing to bear in mind is that you operate under the direct supervision of the CFI till you upgrade to a Senior instructor so he/ she has an ongoing proactive role in your development. Work closely with them. Nev..

Facthunter,

 

Knowing the answers to these questions is what makes a ( SUCCESSFUL INSTRUCTOR ),it is not something that can be easily taught.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

ALL of the factory produced Skyfoxes were crashed! Most of them by experienced GA instructors with minimal tail dragger experience – but holding tail dragger endorsements. They passed on their own lack of knowledge to their students. AUF suffered via skyrocketing insurance premiums and then no insurance availability at all. But it was not the aircraft – it was the quality and experience of training in them!

Whoa, Tony. In my 500 odd hours of tail wheel Skyfox ownership - never scratched the duco once from new :) ... apart from one top notch fox instructer, I do agree with the rest of the quote though.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Yup - sorry HPD I should have said ALL new Skyfoxes that were sold to schools.

 

I got that surprising bit of info from a senior factory employee who had been with the factory since Day 1.

 

It is a bit sobering is it not?

 

Not as sobering as it was for an airline pilot who had bought one as an investment and cross hired it to a school. One day he was on final in a different Skyfox with his own on short final doing tuition. He had a ring side seat of watching it get spread all over the end of the runway! That sort of thing would really put you off your own landing!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yenn, the definition of a steep turn is a turn at or above 45 deg, why am i surprised that "licensed" pilots can't do them??...because its part of the syllabus and a requirement for issue of the license is that students can do them to a satisfactory standard ie, not loose or gain more them 150 feet during the turn. I get concerned when guys can't do them, but only doing a couple of stalls before issue of the license is criminal in my view.

 

I think i may have been missunderstood in my previous post regarding my instructor with 20,000 hrs not being able to pass on knowladge in the 3 hours minn xcountry time.. I reckon he is a fantastic instructor, but no matter how good the guy is, theres not a lot of knowladge going to be passed on in the minn time..that was sorta my whole point. So it ties in with what crezzi was saying and i agree with his thoughts.

 

my point was that theres plenty of young GA instructors around and us low time RAA instructors aret that different from them experiance wise. Thats probably why we still need to be resposible to a CFI, and thats why i reccomend to evry newbie to hang around the school as much as possible and "chew the fat" with as many experianced guys as they can. Or even better, hang around on this forum, the knowladge base with guys like Togscentral, crezzi, high plaines drifter and many others is absoultly invaluable when talking about these matters..

 

 

[poteroo]

Merv,

 

It takes time for pilots to assimilate knowledge, and I agree, the currect cross country requirements don't even come near what you probably need. The newer, (higher) hours will go some way toward that.

 

The experience discussion is never-ending. In the UK, there's a requirement for instructors to have 500hrs TT before they do their course in GA. In Oz, you can start straight after CPL - could be as low as 150.1 hrs TT. My observations are that these pilots are struggling to cope with flying and instructing. More and broader experience will always be beneficial.

 

Tony,

 

Couldn't agree more about instructing immediately after being endorsed. In GA, and RAA, you can immediately conduct 'endorsement' training on, for example, a tailwheel type, after your own paperwork is official...and you are G2 or SI level. A recipe for disaster! I've seen 2 Cessna 180's groundlooped by GA instructors who were so arrogant that they took on an endorsement.......without any RH seat experience whatsoever. (Remember, in GA at least, you have to be 'endorsed' in the LH seat - so have never had a minute of RH experience prior to your 1st endorsement!!). It's really dumb.

 

I hope that RAA have a 2nd look at the implications of allowing inexperienced instructors to give 'low level' training in the near future. I'm hoping that the bar will be set a bit higher.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Mazda]

I'm not sure of the time requirements in the UK, but I do know that private pilots can become GA instructors. They do not need a CPL.

 

In the US, GA instructors do not need to operate under an AOC (i.e. fly with a school). At first this might sound like it would encourage the cowboys, but I think it goes the other way entirely. For one thing, people can teach their family members in their own aircraft.

 

The best thing though is the old experienced guys can still instruct. I'm talking about the retired airline and military pilots, or people who once had their own flying school, charter busines, airline. In Australia these guys are discouraged from instructing!

 

Many of these older guys are not prepared to work in a standard sausage factory flying school, being paid peanuts and being told by spotty faced grade 3s how it should be done. They don't want to teach in tired old aircraft when they have their own spotless personal aircraft which is not on the school's AOC. And they sure don't want to part with tens of thousands of their retirement savings for an AOC, and spend hours and hours satisfying CASA that they've produced enough paperwork, just so they can spend a few hours on weekends passing on some of their skills.