Screening Out The Nutters

[2close]

Hi folks,

A recent series of events has prompted me into thinking whether as FIs we should be screening out the nutters and making efforts to prevent them from obtaining a licence.

I know our employers have commercial pressures on them to get as many students through the door and I also know that we are not psychologists and am not suggesting such but do we not have a responsibility to at least try identify those who may be a danger to themselves and others?

I'm not talking about those who are a bit slower than others and need more instruction but about those whose arrogance knows no boundaries; those who have no respect for anybody else; those who believe the rules are there for the guidance of fools and the obeyance of idiots; those whose mistaken belief in their own capabilities and who try to run as fast as possible before they've even learned to walk is going to end up in tragedy. I'm talking of those who, however much you tell them, whether it be a legality or the benefit of experience, ALWAYS know better and will always do their own thing, regardless of the consequences. :=

Or is it nothing to do with us and we simply turn up, teach and move on to the next one when all is done? :confused:


Head over parapet, standing by for incoming....who's got me body armour?:eek:

[chrisbl]

You make a fair point.

Would you include those whose judgement might be questionable. For example people who throw up a good job to folllow a dream, incurring massive debts in the process; where their potential salary is a fraction of their previous one; working in an abusive environment for mean employers pushing them to the limit, and where one mistake or illness could end that dream overnight and leave them bankrupt.

Do need to screen out these nutters as well?

[2close]

You obviously know me, chrisbl......because I definitely fall into that category!!;)

[IO540]

A recent series of events has prompted me into thinking whether as FIs we should be screening out the nutters and making efforts to prevent them from obtaining a licence.

Traditionally, the method used to screen out the nutters was called the Instrument Rating.

That's why it contains so much crap.

[fireflybob]

I'm talking of those who, however much you tell them, whether it be a legality or the benefit of experience, ALWAYS know better and will always do their own thing, regardless of the consequences.

Yes I have come across this challenge as an instructor also. It's a generalisation but some of those who come to learn to fly are in a position to do so because they are "successful" in other spheres such as entrepreneural business where they have had to be rather "gung ho" to achieve said "success". However these qualities of "press-on-itis" and a disregard of the rules are quite inappropriate when it comes to operating flying machines safely.

I think you have to quite blunt with these characters and tell them in no uncertain terms that if they are not prepared to tow the line then all further flyng training will cease! Flying should be an enjoyable experience but I feel there is no room for those who have such a cavalier attitude especially when they are operating under your supervision.

[2close]

I like it IO540, what f**** me off about the IR is that, even with x00 of IF time, an Applied Instrument tick on the FI(A) and x successful IMC students under my belt I would still have to do the full 50 hours for the MEIR, or even more ridiculous 45 hours for the SEIR. However, I digress..........soap box back under sofa!!

I agree with fireflybob as well regarding putting students in their place when they start displaying cavalier attitudes. Nip it in the bud early. And I think you've also identified the type of person who more often than not would tend to fall into this category.

Ooh, look, a group of pigeons. 1 x cat. Fling............

So, what about those low hours PPL holders who have slipped through the net and we know they are out there? What do we do about them....or is it now someone else's problem?

[pipergirl]

Traditionally, the method used to screen out the nutters was called the Instrument Rating.

That's why it contains so much crap.

hahaha..:}

When I was doing my FI rating, there was a guy at the school who was doing his PPL and his instructor hated flying with him.
He was arrogant, pain in the @r5e and the instructor felt very unsafe flying with him. He did some really stupid things like runway incursions (more than once!) overtaking people on taxiways too fast..the list continues.
The most alarming thing he did;
the instructor was sending him off solo and the cloud base was too low so the instructor said they would have to wait a few hours til the cloud lifted. So, what did the student do?He went out and took the aircraft!

Now, what I found most annoying about this-the school took a very laidback attitude to all of this. I would have grounded him for a certain length of time and made him re-do his air law exam or something before he was allowed back in the school's aircraft. But no, they did nothing!
I was quite alarmed at that more than his actions.

To be honest, as Instructors, I think the best thing you can do is try and talk to the person involved. Sometimes a little reality check/bollicking will do the trick, but if you have a live-one on your hands, communicate it to the school, let them deal with it and if they do nothing-refuse to fly with him/her.
I think flying attracts some strange individuals who think they are invincible and unfortunately, I only think there is so much you can do to as an Instructor.

[expedite08]

The cookie crumbles both ways! Some nutters need to be taken out of instructing!! Ive flown with one in particular who could well be classed as mental!!

[Dysonsphere]

re pipergirls comment im only a PPL but I would have grounded him permerantly for theft of plane along with been a moron.

[DFC]

Unfortunately, the current system not only permits the nutters to continue but in certain areas encourages them.

The PPL course provides the opportuntiy to end their attempt at gaining a licence or at least rearrange their attitudes.

However, as has been pointed out, most businesses are unwilling to loose the income that a student (even a bad one) provides.

Having gained their PPL, they have to source an aircraft. Here the various groups and clubs have the opportunity to stop their carzy operation but few do. If those groups / clubs do then they can still purchase their own aircraft.

Which leads on to the airfield operators who turn many a blind eye to "characters" that fall below the normal basic safe standard.

Then we have the instructors who unless they are blind, often see these very characters in operation and when asked for a signature to revalidate a rating,

However the simple fact is that these nutters are not nutters at all. They are very clever people who manage to operate dangerously, illegally and without a care in the world because of the thousands of aviators who are unwilling to tell someone in authority what is happening.

Very often when an accident happens we hear that..........it was an accident waiting to happen / it was only a matter of time before they killed themselves etc etc

Best shown by the poster on a different thred talking about seeing a pilot arrive "VFR" in IMC stating how appaled they were at such a dangerous act. However, when asked if they reported the pilot the response was that they would not find such an act acceptable.

So as long as examminers and instructors turn a blind eye to the nutters, then they are going to encourage others to follow suit.........i.e. it is a cancer............but do you recomend a nutterectomy or less invasive treatment of the problem?

Regards,

DFC

[timzsta]

We are Instructors, not policeman.

[scroogee]

timzsta- except there are no policemen for this role.

So it leaves the problem, refuse to train them, whereupon they go elsewhere and possibly encounter a less experienced instructor who is caught out by one event too many.

Or do you train them to the best of your ability, try and teach them the correct way to do things and how to stay out of trouble (if they accept your advice) and then hope something sinks in and they don't kill anybody else if and when it happens.

I've tried both- one's still flying (I generally avoided flying with him) and has not hurt himself or anyone else (yet) but continues to gain the attention of the authorities and scares others regularily.

Another tried to self teach himself strip skills- only lost the nose spat. I finished his training but realised after the fact that if he saw something being done he would consider himself to have been "taught" and would try it.

[IO540]

The cookie crumbles both ways! Some nutters need to be taken out of instructing!! Ive flown with one in particular who could well be classed as mental!!How true. I can think of several. One of them had to vanish after a few "events"... And he had an ATPL (a nonexistent one).

There is a considerable grey area though.

Many years ago I went to a windsurfing school. The instructor (very good BTW) said that he used to get big groups of kids sent there from a nearby army base. He liked them very much because they were used to being ordered about and did exactly as they were told; no arguing and no imagination.

I think a lot of flying instructors would like the same.

A lot of the punters are a bit thick so the instructor gets his wish. These customer types drop out pretty fast anyway...

But there is a percentage of business/professional types coming in too. These are in their 40s/50s and after decades of managing other people they are not stupid, and can spot a less than competent instructor as quickly as they can spot a less than competent accountant or solicitor, or as quickly as a horse will spot a rider who is afraid of riding. These punters need a different kind of instructor; a confident and competent type which is rare on the ATPL hour builder circuit.

Unfortunately these punters do cause trouble. They are in it for the long haul and they run before they can walk. They keep looking at what aeroplane to buy and keep asking all kinds of questions like how does one fly to Italy - of an instructor who has never been past the crease in his chart. Some of them, the younger ones especially, can be rather arrogant.

Unfortunately these are the punters who have the funding for the long haul.

As regards the nutter who took the plane without authority, why not report him to the police?

[Whirlybird]

It's not easy. But I do think that teaching someone to fly involves much more than showing them how to manipulate the controls and draw a line on their chart. Attitudes are far more important.

So if someone has an inappropriate attitude, you tell them so. If you think that the way they're going, they'll end up killing themsleves, you tell them that, and you tell them exactly why. Some people will listen, and you have to assume that everyone is willing to learn, even if it takes a sledgehammer to teach them, until proved otherwise.

If someone breaks the law, eg by stealing an aircraft (and taking one when the instructor said not to is stealing) you teach in a very direct way - you go to the police!

And if, despite everything, you still feel this person shouldn't be flying, and is a danger to themselves and others and always will be, you tell them so, and tell others if necessary. That also is teaching/instructing. You can't get out of that kind of responsibility, any more than you can decide not to teach them anything else which is unpleasant.

If, however, the flying school owner, CFI, or whover, takes no notice, or wants the student's money regardless, there's nothing you can do, unless the situation appears to warrant taking things further, but like...where?

[DFC]

We are Instructors, not policeman.

Very true. No one is suggesting that you try to make an arrest.

However, there are various channels through which you can (and in some cases must) report illegal and dangerous flying.

I have no doubt that every instructor would report the yob breaking into a car in the club car park so why not apply the same to the yob breaking the law in other ways.

One may find that the first case is simply someone locked out of their own car and in the latter case it may have been perfectly legal but it is the turning one's back on such situations that is the problem.

It is true that instructors and examminers can be just as bad - how many PPL students present themselves at Gatwick for attempt number 4 - not as many as take more than 3 attempts to gain a pass.

Whirly,

There is the MOR scheme and CHIRP to name two methods and then there is also simply a letter to the CAA.

Regards,

DFC

[mad_jock]

The CAA isn't interested.

The one and only time I have contacted them about an issue they wern't interested. You had to turn into a special policeman, they expect you to provide court level quality of evidence. Pictures, photo copys of techlogs, other witnesses names and addresses.

If its a medical issue they tell you to talk to the medical section, who then tell you to talk to licensing who tell you to talk to medical etc etc.

With certain individuals you haven't got a chance. They way the whole thing is setup they can bypass any sort of control put in place. If they own thier own plane they are pretty much uncontrollable. Even if they don't, there are lots of schools out there with some moral standing, there are those close to red line or over it who only care about cash flow.

If PPL examiners had the power to cancel class ratings on seeing a substandard level of piloting ability; there could be some hope but they can't.

There have been PPL's who have clocked up double figures in MOR's in one day who are still flying without any sanction.

[Cap'n Arrr]

There are a few options available that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. Dont pass them for a flight review, or recommend them for a licence test. Attitude is part of airmanship, which as just as big a part of aviation as landing.

2. Make clear notes as to the cause of your concern in the students records. As has been said, speak with the CFI, CP, school manager and senior staff. If, as has been said, he flogs a plane without proper authorisation, FFS do not sign the form after the fact to "tidy things up"

3. If he displays too much attitude in the briefing, cancel the flight. If you're airborne, cancel the lesson and turn back to land. I'm obviously not talking about minor things, but if you feel its serious enough...

4. The most serious one. Refuse to fly with him under any circumstances. Explain why in a calm manner to both him and the CFI. Do not get emotional about it, simply state the facts, and that you feel distinctly unsafe, or personality clash, or whatever reason it is.

5. The less "moral" one: Deliberately make his training unpleasant (and no I haven't ever done this, nor do I advocate it). He will take his business elsewhere, whether the school likes it or not. REPEAT: I DO NOT ADVOCATE DOING THIS!!!:=

Most of the ones I've given are for fairly serious guys, who you feel are a risk to themselves and/or others. Otherwise, turn up and teach, but DO NOT MOVE ON TO THE NEXT LESSON until he reaches the required standard, both in handling AND airmanship.

[homeguard]

What a terrible time some of you have had. I really don't envy some of you at all. I just thank god that i'm healthy and still sane.

As I enter my sixties the possibility of dementia is always just round the corner, I suppose, but I hope that paranoia will stay at bay. Unlike many of you I still remain reasonably sane - but then how will I know that i've gone mad. When i've gone round the bend will it be obvious to me and will I care. Has it happened ALREADY?

Meanwhile God bless all that come before me to learn to fly. I love my flying and it is my life. I hope that the time never comes when I perceive anyone who comes to me to learn to fly as 'a nutter'. Will the day ever come that i'm good enough to judge them! Each day I look back with dread and embarrassment of what I have done and the right to act as a judge seems further away.

I see many doing lots of things that I do not like or approve of but thats life. Better that I keep a concentrated good eye on myself otherwise who knows what I might do, as I lose my sanity!

[Magic and Sparkle]

Having only been instructing for a short time, I was anxious to see if the scare stories about 101 ways students will try to kill you was indeed accurate!! Thankfully my experiences have proved otherwise and most students have been keen, committed and serious to learn. Unlike a friend of mine who nearly had a sticky ending when a student - older, richer, over confident etc... - thought he knew it all and promptly tried to pull the mixture twice, wouldn't hand over control when instructed and finally almost made it into controlled airspace.!! Suffice to say the flight didn't last long...
I think as instructors we have a certain duty of care to ensure that those we are teaching are fully equipped to enter the big wide world of GA, safely and competently. Don't slack on checks, airmanship, accurate flying etc... Yes flying is meant to be fun but standards have to be kept to ensure it stays that way!!

[snips]

In these days of a "Compensation Culture" I bet it wouldn't belong before the solicitors got involved if there were an incident.

The failure to act upon/turning a blind eye is considered as bad as doing it yourself.

:zzz:

[VFE]

Interesting thread.

Homeguard's attitude, whilst admirable, does suprise me - you must be insane mate, sorry! :oh:;)

Whirlybird speaks sense as usual, Mad_Jock tells it how it is as usual and Cap'nn Arrr gives sound advice. Many thanks for those postings guys & gals.

For me the answer comes down to one thing and that one thing is what helps me answer any burning questions regarding a potential PPL holder under my instruction.

That one thing is my own conscience. Think about it.

VFE.

[Whirlybird]

That one thing is my own conscience. Think about it.


VFE,
I agree. It's the reason I'm thinking of telling a particular student that if he doesn't change I think he's liable to kill himself - this is a timely thread for me. If he does kill himself, I need to know that at least I did everything possible. I can't do much more - he's not really 'my' student (except occasionally) - and I've mentioned my fears to everyone else involved anyway. :(

[homeguard]

To talk of people killing themselves (and others) or just about every other level of catastrophe unless that is you the instructor intervene is appallingly arrogant. It is taking oneself as an instructor far too seriously.

I DO NOT allow any talk in our club about people killing themselves or of death at all. A flying club is not the place for it. I have never had anyone 'try to kill me' in an aeroplane ever and I don't expect to. Safety at my place is paramount. When I have found myself in the position of a student going too far it has been MY fault not the students. I've therefore been required, in the past as I learnt my trade, to look at myself and to consider how much better I could have tackled things. If I couldn't come up with the answer from my own experience i've then been given good advice.

To believe that because we are Flight Instructors we hold a moral high ground that is much much superior to many of our students is way off the mark. Whirlygig argues that we should teach them (students, sometimes called nutters by others) how to morally behave. As an example she would go to the authorities and report someone so as to give her students a lead. A kind of peoples police. We used to call such people 'tell tales' or 'sneaks' and usually got a slap from mum for 'telling tales out of doors'. Why whirligig thinks that running to sir will make much difference I don't know. It would be sure to be counter productive with an almost certain 'tit for tat'. Not much of a contribution to safety when everyone is watching their back.

Anyway, let us all get a life. We're not gods because we can fly an aeroplane. We're usually very ordinary, narrow minded and blinkered. To teach students to fly we can do but for anything else, like real life, most of us probably have an awful lot more to learn.

[DFC]

Homeguard,

If I see someone breaking into your home, I wil do nothing. After all we don't want to be tell tales now do we?

Your post correctly shows that instructors must be examples to other members of the flying community. i.e. They must show good example in all aspects of their operation.

----------------
If PPL examiners had the power to cancel class ratings on seeing a substandard level of piloting ability; there could be some hope but they can't.


No they can't. However, if it was serious enough, I would write them a line explaining where I thought their standard fell below that expected of a basic safe and competent pilot and send a copy to the CAA for attaching to their file. If they are not members of our club then a letter to the other club / group / airfield owner will do. Thus when they ignore your advice and have the accident you expect, the evidence is there that you did your best to prevent it rather than simply turning a blind eye.

Regards,

DFC

[Arfur Feck-Sake]

homeguard,

With respect, some people ARE likely to kill themselves and they have to be told. I don't think it's something we can "sweep under the carpet".

Talking of "nutters", have you heard the one about the trial flight customer who decided to "loop the loop" on climbout in a C152, just like she'd seen on TV? They're out there!!

[homeguard]

Well yes I would of course appreciate it should you call the police when you see someone breaking into my home.

There are clearly defined rules/laws that are obvious to us all but there are others which only some subscribe but others do not. Whose to say when I act in one way that i'm wrong simply because some others don't like what i'm doing or simply wants to cause me gip for whatever reason. It is interesting that the reporting hotlines for tax dodgers and the like all report the same, that is that something like 80% of the calls are vindictive or simply wrong. The CAA tell the same story. Perception isn't always fact.

The line that I do not like about this thread and i'm therefore fighting it, is this awful smug I know best thing thats gathered pace. The idea that you are willing to call your bread and butter 'nutters' bothers me enough but there is also a hint of; "no one seems to listen to me, neither the CFI or the owner, what am I to do"? Perhaps the CFI or owner has got a better perspective but that isn't being asked. The idea that 'my student tried to kill me .....' strikes me as being a wee bit precious and a part of a not very good instructiing technique (I do not claim to be above that) and whatever that has lead up to such an event needs revising.

The purpose of the examiner is to ensure as best you can a minimum standard of safety by assessment. The flying skills and airmanship is only demonstrated during one short moment on a particular day. The examiner job isn't a culling exercise - how horrific that would be if it was. There has been much talk with regard to a new stand alone FI qualification which i'm very much for. However some of it, it is proposed, should be an assesment of suitability to be an instructor. A sickening thought and god only knows what sort of animal would be produced. Certainly not one that I would like.

[mad_jock]

The "they are all out to kill you" line is purely a method of trying to get you to survive until your experence level is up enough you can spot and deal with problems while they can still be laughed at.

The real scares are usually with students who you have relaxed your guard with because they are actually pretty good. They would suddenly out of the blue pull a blinder when you lest expect it.

Generally 99% of students are completely without problems apart from learning to fly

of the 1 % there are 2 distincted groups

1. overconfident but pretty good sa/handling/nav/reflex skills and a pretty good knowledge of the rules. They get away with murder because they can make it up as they go along. Generally they just annoy people, lots of close shaves but never get themselves in to much trouble.

2.Overconfident but clueless, average handling skills if that, navigating a circuit can be hit or miss. The rules that they don't know are stupid and not worth thier time. But they can pull it off on the day to pass the test. These are the ones which end up causing problems.

To be honest I never had a duty of care to the student I really didn't care if they killed themselves after passing. I did have a duty of care to the pax that they took with them and other aircraft.

[Whirlybird]

homeguard,

So what would you do if you sent a student on a half-hour solo flight with a nearly full tank of fuel, and he came back after nearly two hours with a low warning fuel light on...and when we dipped the tanks, he must have been practically running on fumes! If when it was pointed out to him, he swore there had been fuel there, but someone must have siphoned it off? If that was only one example of a number of other silly, over-confident, and dangerous things of a similar ilk which he'd done? If you'd mentioned it to the powers that be, who agreed that he was an accident waiting to happen, but figured he'd pass a test and maybe improve...and they can't stop him flying his own helicopter after that?

You can call it arrogance or telling tales if you want...personally I think you listened to nanny a bit too much as a child. I will tell him what I think, in the hope that he'll maybe change his ways. Because if he does die in an aircraft - and I think the odds are too high for comfort - I don't want to think that maybe, just maybe, I could have changed things....if I'd tried. I don't want that on my conscience. Would you? Or maybe you don't have one! Or you're one of these people who can shrug it off since it wouldn't legally be your fault.

Finally, my name is WhirlyBIRD!!!!

[Cap'n Arrr]

Homeguard

Whilst I can see where your annoyance at this "Instructors High Ground" in this thread comes from, it is not about someone who fails to make the field a few times in a forced landing, or who take longer than usual to go solo.

It is about those rare students who consistently knock back advice or instructions given to them, and who have the attitude that they know better. The ones who consistently have incidents, doing stupid things like descending without a clearance more than once, damage aircraft regularly, and refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, unless they do something right. As a 600 odd hour instructor, yes, I do know more than the guy on his 3rd lesson about flying a plane, even though I do not and never will know everything. It's not about arrogance, it is a simple fact.

As an instructor I have a duty of care. I have to take care that the student I am instructing, or sending solo, is not about to do something outside his limits, be they physical limits, or just a big crosswind, or become a danger to himself or anyone else along the way.

Fact is, the way I see it, nutters isnt the best word. Only nutter I ever heard of asked for a trial flight in a warrior to take him up to 15000', where he would get out but be ok thanks to his protective invisible shield. And I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the 80 hours to first solo students, the ones who push on because they love flying, and strive to improve and listen to everything they get told, even though they take longer to learn.

Even of the ones who initially have an attitude problem, many of them will calm down after a serious talking to (or 2) by an instructor. There is, however, the rare one out there who will not, and I believe that is the type of person about whom advice is being sought. Should a decision need to be made, I agree that one person cannot make it, however after transferring his training to another instructor, if he/she also has similar issues, it is probably a little more than yourself not getting along with the student.

Anyways, that went way longer than intended. It's not a personal attack on you homeguard, just my opinion. Comments welcome, and I'm off.

[homeguard]

Of course we know more than the student with a particular regard to the course they are undertaking with you.

Whirlybird (I apologise for getting your name wrong - no excuse) the student should not have been signed off for the flight unless you could be certain he would comply with the briefing and would be safe. For me there is no morality or concience in it, the chap that you describe would not be cleared to go by me. Why did you send him on the flight knowing what you do? That for me is the real question. If you were pressed to do so raises another question.

Meanwhile I sincerely believe that you should try to shrug off your pre-occupation with death. That I presume is what workers talk an awful lot about in funeral parlers. In flying clubs flight should be the central issue. The Great Reaper comes in his own time.

[Whirlybird]

Why did you send him on the flight knowing what you do?

I didn't know it then...till after the flight. He wasn't my student most of the time. It's since then that I - and others - have been worried.

I'm not preoccupied with death...unless I see someone trying very hard to get the Grim Reaper to speed things up! But neither do I think it's a taboo subject. In flying clubs safe flight should be the central issue. :ok:

[VFE]

To avoid the issue of possbile death at a flying school is like avoiding the issue of sex education at school! Head in the sand behaviour Homeguard, sorry but I think you need to rethink - see me! You appear here as a very experienced instructor who for some reason has a desire to appear meek and humble... perhaps a self preservation instinct all of your very own?

Granted, scares happen when we take our eyes off the ball and it's only ever our own fault but sometimes, just sometimes, a student comes along who raises alarm bells. Call it instinct, call it common sense but most instructors experience it sooner or later. Homeguard claims many years of instructing so I find it hard to believe he/she has yet to experience this themself. One can only surmise they're trying to quell a percieved bigheaded arrogance here.... but my perception of this thread is that some very thoughtful, conscientious and caring instructors are genuinely concerned about the safety of persons under their tutelage.

Nothing arrogant about that IMHO.

VFE.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again--wash'em out in ground school:}

no- I'm not really joking:ouch:
and I'm not military:=
PA

[homeguard]

Yes most certainly i've experienced some of what has been described but certainly not all. The issue is not that. The difference appears to be where one puts the blame. When things have gone wrong and of course it has, it has usually been my own naive, stupid and sometimes extremely arrogant fault. People can be like aeroplanes and bite when not handled correctly. However, i'm convinced no one has ever tried to kill me, save on occasion my wife when i've arrived home at some ungodly hour from the airfield.

Some years ago a smashing FI(r) working for me (she's a Capt. on a B757 nowadays i've heard) came to me to say that in just a few weeks of instructing she'd had two instances of a T/F grabbing the controls during the take-off and the initial climb. What was she doing, if anything, wrong?

The questions to be asked; Had she fully involved the T/F perhaps allowing them to apply the starter, check their brakes, steer the aeroplane, check the controls full and free etc, etc. Most importantly did the T/F have their feet on the rudders and one hand on the stick/column for the take-off. Did she patter rudder (yaw), elevator (pitch), Aileron (roll) during the initial roll and the take-off with them following through. In other words were they fully involved. She said no for she'd been taught that for a trial flight she should emphasise to them that they keep their hands and feet away from the controls. A T/F could kill she had been told. Stories of having to elbow people in the face to release their grip during a spiral dive were in the forefront of her mind. She would therefore introduce them to the controls only when they were at a safe height. A friend of hers from the same course also had had a few scares. They both seemed to have attended the Valhalla School of Death & Flight Instructing.

My advice was simple, she should involve the T/F's fully right from the off and that it was important that the student had their hands and feet on the controls and that they should follow through during the T/O. She took the advice and applied it and the scares she had twice experienced so soon in her career never ever happened to her again. Was I particular clever? No, for I only repeated that which I had been taught and what I had also learned from some educating occasions experienced some time later but just the same, the hard way.

Whirlibird, you were clearly sold a pup. Shouldn't your anger be directed at those who should have told you about this individual? Shouldn't the training record have primed you and had you read it? Are you just possibly taking out your quite understandable embarrassment and tossing it at the student, who has the privilege of knowing no better (sic). Could it have been poor judgement on your part to send this student solo without better knowledge of them. We've all done it by the way and I claim to be no better just wiser from the event.

Talk of safety is the way forward and I support that 100%. It is a positive thought.

[Whirlybird]

homeguard,

I'm neither embarrassed nor angry, as it happens. Why should I be? I knew this chap was well on in the course, and had done quite a bit of solo flying, but was simply rusty after a winter break. I did a couple of circuits with him, suggested he do a couple more alone before he flew off on the mini-crosscountry he wanted to do, and made sure he had plenty of fuel. At that point no-one else knew either, AFAIK. To me he had always appeared a bit odd and maybe not that bright, but so what?

But now that we all know, and know that he appears not to listen to anything that's said to him by anyone, and if mistakes are pointed out says they didn't happen or were someone else's fault, and exhibits potentially dangerous behaviour in a number of ways, but is close to getting a PPL as he could probably pass a flight test....what, precisely, do you suggest we can do? I really, really would like to know!

[DFC]

what, precisely, do you suggest we can do? I really, really would like to know!

Have a review of their training record. You did record your feelings regarding their attitude and the things they did at the time didn't you?

Having reviewed the training record with the student you can have a discussion with them about the standards required to operate safely as a pilot and make it clear that unless they display the appropriate standards they will not be put forward for the flight test and if standards do not improve they will be limited to dual flights only.

The instructors see how the pilot operates over the full length of the course. If they put forward a person for test then the examminer must take it that in your professional opinion they are suitable and reach at least the minimum required standard.

So it is not a weeding out process - unless they decide to weed themselves out.

Once they get their licence then it is very hard in the UK to stop them doing their best to kill unsuspecting members of the public.........and the clever ones are often good students because they recognise that they have to be to complete in minimum time so that they can get on with doing ti their way asap.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Come on DFC, you know you haven't got a shred of evidence for

Once they get their licence then it is very hard in the UK to stop them doing their best to kill unsuspecting members of the public

The only way to make this business 'perfect' is to turn it into something like the RAF, which rejects any applicant whose **** is outside a very narrow dimension range.

[S-Works]

I assume we will all be issued with Brown shirts when we join the Insgructor 'police' force. After all we are just protecting the public and these people from themselves......

Someone remind me how many times in history that line has been used?

I prefer to think that as FREE people we have a choice, some make bad choices but on the whole I think we do a pretty good job.

To be frank I am terrified of people like who think it is perfectly reasonable to make laws to suit there own point of view and then naturally rigorously enforce these laws. Writing to the CAA to 'attach' your point of view to a strangers file just because you don't like the way they do something........ I assume you will be seeking powers of detention next because you don't like they way they did the Check or they ignored some part of your made up rules.
:ugh:

[homeguard]

But the student dosn't need to be 'put forward' for the test. They can be tested by whom they wish when and wherever. They do need the completion certificate completed and signed. That certificate should not be held back if they have completed. Their log book also will require verification. If the log book is correct then it should be verified. Should they wish to go elsewhere then they can expect that their training record will be forwarded. An examiner will be entitled to see the training record.

Whirlibird, what can you do. I don't know what AFAIK means. You say he has completed lots of solo - good. Has he dissappeared in a similar fashion before. Presumably he had fully planned his xcountries in the past and have stuck to the plan - why did he not do so on this occasion. Had he properly planned the short excusion on this particular day or did he perhaps have it in his head that a short jolly in the local area didn't require such detail. Sounds a bit like that, to me. When your enjoying yourself two hours can seem only minutes. Regarding stolen fuel - people say all sorts of silly things in self defence.

I recently had a candidate, trained by us, that I briefed for his QXC. In answer to my question; what is your fuel endurance, what is the fuel required and what is your reserve contingency, he looked at me with a blank stare. After some thought, prompted by me, he replied "i've got plenty, the same trip is done lots of times and there's always been loads of fuel left over". Needless to say once i'd peeled myself off the ceiling we addressed the matter.

I also wanted to know from the instructors concerned why the student didn't complete their plog fully and understand it. I discovered that he did but was lazy and always required prompting. He wasn't lazy again I can promise you.

He will doubt be a captain taking me on me hols in a few years time, somewhere cheap and warm. If i'm too hard on him now he could have me thrown off before we depart, for talking during the safety brief, ugh!

[Whirlybird]

homeguard,

AFAIK - "As far as I know"....sorry!

I can only hope you're right. It's true, people do lie and come up with silly excuses, not something I understand, but that doesn't make it a dangerous thing to do. I don't know his history that well. I do gather he's a bit of a walking disaster. But like I said, I just hope you're right.

[Flingingwings]

FWIW,

The starting point in 'weeding out the nutters' has to start with FI's.

There are some first rate enthusiastic professional instructors out there, but there are also some lazy idiots.

An FI is only going to be as good as the person that taught them, because 'You don't know, what you don't know'.

It is no good an FI flying on a totally unsuitable day and then trying to convince ppl's they shouldn't. IMHO we should be setting the standard.

Examples:
The FI who on a fly out arrived looking like death warmed up, before proudly boasting he'd been on the 'pop' till 0400.

The CFI who before an LPC asked the collected FI's if the applicant smelt of booze? Applicant did, and still having flown walked away with an LPC

The CFI who proclaimed a SFH ppl needed his next ten hours flown dual as he'd been seen 'twirling' past a hotel at 100' agl as he flew past. Two guesses who'd shown the ppl that trick?

The same FI who buzzed a speedboat along a busy beach and who routinely flew over the water below the height of the nearby cliffs.

Maybe when 'our' own house is in order we'd be in a better position to identify the 'nutters' :confused:

Rotary wise I can only think of one place that fails people on LPC's if they don't make the required grade :uhoh:

And don't start me on FI's who don't brief properly.

My yard stick always has been and will always be - 'would I trust this person to fly my family'. For me it's that simple :E

[Pugilistic Animus]

Home guard...Stories of having to elbow people in the face to release their grip during a spiral dive were in the forefront of her mind. She would therefore introduce them to the controls only when they were at a safe height. A friend of hers from the same course also had had a few scares. They both seemed to have attended the Valhalla School of Death & Flight Instructing.

I do agree with your statement in regards to allowing the student to follow through on the flight controls--if you wanna swim ---you gotta get wet:ok:

My opinions on the matter:

to preclude having to elbow students--or resort to other acts of violence:
All necessary info should have been drilled in at ground school and those touching the ship---understand it--- because it's difficult to advance manuevers and or procedures when conceptual understanding is poor---
I don't believe that ground school be taught in a superfluously technical manner---quite the opposite-in fact

---but ---

even at the most basic level VFR-contact---horizon /needle/ ball and airspeed there's gobs of material to be learned--and only true-hearted people would remain---of course that does not prevent a student from flying maneuver that they understand---very early on--but should the student tackle a cross country flight without thoroughly understanding weather/notams/ airspace/ flight planning and weight and balance with a modicum of aeronautical decision making skills? --NO---

but--

Turns/ climbs/unusual/ attitudes/ TO LDG are more immediate issues and can be readily understood---you can make a very professional pilot [in an average person!!} in less than 200 hrs---not experienced but professional---and a ppl who will live to tell plenty lies in the hangar:}

-- and --

--this could be done well within the US required time 40-50 hr---but IF and ONLY IF the instructors creative not necessarily the student--


My view of the matter may be too simple but to me flying is simply contact/ instrument/ aerobatic/ formation---with the personal option of stopping anywhere along the line--whilst staying safe and well within one's chosen personal limitations--

Flying really does it's own laundry anyways--I suppose:rolleyes:

As for me I ONLY deal with professionals:cool:

PA

[expedite08]

Flingingwings,

You got that spot on!! There are some real idiots out there. Im looking at possibly doing an FI course but the two FIC instructors Ive looked at so far are appaling!

One's an ex old School RAF person whos stuck in WW2! The other is a bitter failed airline pilot!!

Im not going to pay 6-7k to get abused!! I'm mad but not a sadist!!

A couple of freinds have said finding a good FIC instructor is like gold dust, but when you do find one, you cant go wrong!

[Flingingwings]

And thats my point.

Good schools is the wrong line of thinking. What this industry needs are good instructors, and to weed out those that aren't.

It's a chat I've had with VeeAny at the helicopter safety evenings. The after meeting chats in the bar have shown that a high number of students get little to no pre flight briefings and some schools will suggest that brand new students start on 3 hours actual flight training per day :eek:

Problem is students know no better and have no idea what to expect. It's been suggested that the CAA create a form on line that is basically a Code of Practice. A form that will allow a new student to know exactly what they should be getting for their money. The form to be printed off (for free) and signed by the new ppl student. The form becoming the front sheet of any training records. No form = no training :E

All FI's pass the initial rating test but three yearly isn't enough to ensure standards are maintained. It's also been suggested that every once in a while a CAA Ops Inspector arrives unannounced and asks to sit in on a pre flight briefing. We could all make the extra effort to pass a revalidation, but what 'we' need is a way of seeing who's not making the effort on a day to day basis.

I made a better job of explaining hovering over a beer to one student, than the students actual instructor who'd provided no preflight brief, and when the student struggled with hovering suggested they look at take offs and landings :ugh:

Other suggestions were a prescribed Wx minima for trial lessons, and an official line removing the myth that good pilots or instructors will get students to solo after 5 hours. IMHO thats nothing to boast about! This information could go on the same form as above, and be required to be kept by the schools.

Nobody disagrees that the lot of FI's can be pretty poor at times, whats wrong with parting the wheat from the chaff and taking active steps against the cowboy operators????? I'd never advocate paying a lazy instructor the same as a thorough professional instructor.

Just maybe, one day decent instructors will teach 'nutter' students properly, so that they become decent licence holders.

I'd also like to add that I'm not tarring all instructors with the same brush. :ok:

Thoughts/comments???????????

[S-Works]

Take a look at On Track training at Wellesbourne. I find them to be first class. They are staffed by airline pilots and senior CAA staff. They also only do Instructor training so are very focused.

[VFE]

Are you going thru their FIC at the moment Bose?

VFE.

[S-Works]

Nope did my Instructor course with them a couple of years ago. A friend has just done it with them and still says the same impeccable standards are maintained.

They do the full gammt of trainining right up to training instructor trainers.

[expedite08]

Anyone recommend a good one on the south coast!!??

[2close]

Whilst it may be off thread, I also did both the CPL and FI courses with On Track. Superb instruction. Mostly ex RAF aircrew instructors (which I also had for Post-PPL continuation training, IMCR and Aeros and I believe to have the best instructional techniques but that's just my opinion :ok:).

[Matthew Adams]

I think it's our responsibility as instructors to slightly aid in this process.

In the spirit that every flight instruction is provided, there is also assessment. I all too often see instructors passing students on lessons before they are ready to move on. If they don't meet the required standard they shouldn't progress further through the syllabus.

If the situation, does arise, I think it's best to try and make the student come to their own decision that flying (or trying to fly commercially isn't best for them). Try and put the flight into scenario and ask how they would see them fitting into a commercial airline.

There has been one student who I flew with once, and others flew with who I would have serious misgivings about getting into an aircraft with. He did, however, pass on his 6th series commercial :eek:

[homeguard]

Then good for him for sticking at it and succeeding. Wish him all the best!

[scherzo]

You could PM me for a suggestion!!!

[deice]

Homeguard - don't you feel there is a limit somewhere in how much time and effort you should require to pass a PPL or CPL or whatever license? I know that some are slow learners but the issue is that it doesn't end with them completing their exam. They then need to practice on their own, safely. If it takes 6 attempts to complete a CPL then perhaps there's more than just slow learning to worry about.

A recent student of ours just bent up a C172 in unbelievably nice weather, no wind (2 knots variable), CAVOK etc. Still managed to run off the runway and into a fence about 100 m from the centerline after a run of 500 meters. Nothing wrong with the aircraft, but you need to pay attention to what you are doing.

Nobody understands why this happened and he has no explanation of his own. Wants to fly the jets but I'm seriously worried. Still, he managed a PPL so it's all fine and dandy then, or?

[VFE]

Matthew,

I would imagine other instructors have flown with your students and thought some were not showing the required level too. All we can go by is the level displayed at the end of the previous lesson - if the student ticks all the boxes we move on. If, for some reason, the student has forgotten or regressed slightly on their next lesson with another instructor (bad day perhaps?) it is often just part and parcel of learning and also, the slight pressure of flying with a different instructor. Also, students all too often will pretend they have not been taught something when questioned about it by a different instructor. To mount the high horse and suspect poor instruction is rather naive.

VFE.

[chrisbl]

Nobody understands why this happened and he has no explanation of his own. Wants to fly the jets but I'm seriously worried. Still, he managed a PPL so it's all fine and dandy then, or?

Sounds like he is just what the industry is looking for considering the number who do sem to take a CAT off the end.:bored:

[homeguard]

deice

Can only be three reasons for overshooting; Too high, too fast or both. Only one rule - GO AROUND unless height and speed are correct. Light winds are usually the most difficult condition for most. Get things wrong and no time to correct - events overtaking.

Breaking an aircraft is an expensive way of learning but how much effort and how long it takes dosn't matter much. Often in my experience the slow learner is often the one who learns in depth and will be the most experienced.

A point that we instructors must not forget is the importance of the student understanding the factors with relation to calm conditions. The student should be checked out on a calm day for the same reasons as on a windy/gusty day. On the one hand too high a speed will be consequential but on the other control ability is essential. On a strip of only 600m the calm day will require that the pilot has established the correct speed early on and is always on guard to go around. Our single engine SOPS require that an assessment is made at 300ft with an absolute land/go around prior to the threshold. If they are deciding during the hold-off - that is too late!

[Matthew Adams]

To mount the high horse and suspect poor instruction is rather naive.

Not suggesting that.

Just suggesting that sometimes students do need consolidation before moving on, the old building block technique, how can they move on when they haven't grasped the basics idea?

[VFE]

Gotcha. :ok:

VFE.

[deice]

Homeguard, this guy was taking off! I know light winds can cause mess ups on landings, but taking off in a light wind is a no brainer, really...