How Should I Know That my Student is Ready for His First Solo???

[Pull what]

Not sure why you two need to get so worked up?

MJ you said its meant to be safe and fun. I added it should also be taught and supervised by professional instructors. Do you not agreee with that?

Flying instruction is meant be safe and fun taught and supervised by professional instructors-cannot see what is wrong with that statement unless it makes you feel uneasy!

I appreciate you both need to refer to people as twats if they do not agrree with your way of thinking but do you also both think that makes you appear right or makes you sound like a professional instructor.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Originally Posted by An Aggravating Eejit

Thanks I am flattered, if there is anything I can help you with let me know.

You can help by simply posting more than one line of nonsense and actually contribute something useful.

Obviously you think of yourself as an instructor without parallel, so why not help educate us poor souls...

[Pull what]

But the difference is I do not see either of you as twats, just two flying instructors who have the interest to be on here and share your views- I may not agrree with them but I will still talk to you in the same manner as if we were in the pub facing each other.

[mad_jock]

Not uneasy at all quite happy with my status thanks.

Now back to the questions I needed help with.

Come on show us if you have any background knowledge at all about what you are talking about?

Then use this to expand your one liners implying that nobody else is doing correctly apart from you and DFC. And the rest of us by implication are unprofessional and a danger to flight safety.

Until you do that unfortunately you do come across as a trolling tw@t with no substance to your statements.

[Pull what]

Then use this to expand your one liners implying that nobody else is doing correctly apart from you and DFC. And the rest of us by implication are unprofessional and a danger to flight safety.

Would you like to post an example of the above so I can correct your misunderstanding

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not sure why you two need to get so worked up?

MJ you said its meant to be safe and fun. I added it should also be taught and supervised by professional instructors. Do you not agreee with that?

Flying instruction is meant be safe and fun taught and supervised by professional instructors-cannot see what is wrong with that statement unless it makes you feel uneasy!

I appreciate you both need to refer to people as twats if they do not agrree with your way of thinking but do you also both think that makes you appear right or makes you sound like a professional instructor.

So what about the extremely competent amateur instructors? I know plenty of superb FI's who aren't "professionals" but do a fantastic job.

If you have no idea why you have got the reaction from MJ and I, then I suggest you reread your excruciatingly arrogant first post on this thread.

First impressions last as they say. My first impression of you, to put it as charitably as I can, was not positive.

With respect, no it is not and this is how accidents occur- gut reaction is a small part of the preperation for first solo.

DFC, yet again, is the only instructor, so far, to appear like a professional instructor I would like to employ or work with.

This sort of post highlights the problem not only with this forum but also the low standard within the UK instructing profession-as long as people like you are allowed to post on here in that manner I cannot be bothered to add anything else.

If you wonder why you've got a reaction from me, then you need glasses. You know nothing of the people who post on here or their experience and yet you feel qualified to make snide, unqualified comments about people's competence.

You may notice that I have not slagged of your instructing abilities, just your personality. At least I've been able to glean enough information to make that judgement. I don't call you a tw@ because I disagree with you, but because of the way you come across.

Contribute if you want and qualify any comments you wish to make and I might disagree, but I'll at least show you some respect.

Come in here and make silly comments having a go at people, then expect to get a size ten boot up your backside from me.

I've been around on Pprune for over 10 years and I've seen the steady decline of the quality of poster. You are just another nonsense poster who adds nothing but noise.

Sorry Zyg, just skip over this stuff.

[Pull what]

MJ there is some information here which may be of interest

Aviation Instructor's Handbook - Google Books

page 8.12

[Say again s l o w l y]

What has that book got to do with anything. It's a handbook. It isn't the law. Or are you the sort of FI who simply follows the "rules" without thought.

That section doesn't mention first solo though, simply post-solo debriefing. The first solo is a special case and that bit isn't applicable in my eyes.

[mad_jock]

Ehh what the hell has that got to do with the questions I asked you?

For a start its FAA and we do do things differently over here. We put alot more emphasis into how people learn and the instructor adapting there teaching style to the student not the student changing there learning style to the instructors teaching style.

And as an example of FAA -> UK difference I think you will find that NDB dip doesn't happen in the FAA world. Strange that cause it always happens in UK air space.

Unusal attitude correction. FAA teach to lift the wing using rudder. UK you would get a good talking to or failed for it.

Actually reading it. Instructor should have a radio to abort the exercise if required. Great whats the student meant to do parachute to the ground and let the aircraft crash.

[Pull what]

Actually reading it. Instructor should have a radio to abort the exercise if required. Great whats the student meant to do parachute to the ground and let the aircraft crash.

Read it again it says ANY solo operation.

[Say again s l o w l y]

So what? That doesn't mean a thing. What about your opinion, rather than just using an American textbook for reference?

[mad_jock]

"Any solo operation" that will be fun when they are flying x country's

Also technically its illegal in the UK for anyone to transmit on a ground based station (yes I know you can use it when in an aircraft taxing) on aeronautical frequency's. Thats an additional exam and license.

Its FAA recommendations not UK ones. RAF do have a duty pilot in the tower when they are operating. There is no requirement for flying schools in the UK to have a radio watch. I have worked at a CFS approved school and there was also no SOP to give radio cover to solo students.

[Zyg]

Thank you Gentlemen for spicing up that thread...........

For the past 7 days i have been wondering around flying schools and aero clubs conducting individual interviews with flying instructors, concerning my research.

The scientific technique that i am using in my project is called «Critical Incident Technique" or CIT and has its roots back in the 1950's...
Its a very efficient and reliable method and is based on incidents that come out from interviews with Subject Matter Experts (SME's). The "bad" thing is that its very time consuming and effort demanding.
The more participants you have the better will be the outcome of course and that's what i want to have...a solid, credible and scientific based piece of work ....

Although its too early for me to reach to a conclusion, i have spotted some really interesting things in the way that flying instructors are making their decision either to send or not their student to his/her first solo....i promise you that when i finish my analysis i will provide a link to a site that my research will be available....
I will continue my data collection until the end of June and after that i will analyze it using "grounded theory"....

Just for my records and in order to be more sure about the findings (i cannon use officially in my research anything that is not coming from participants that have signed a participant concept form ) could anyone of you give me some replies on the following ? ? ?

(This is a modified version of the interview schedule that I am using….)

“I would like you to think back to a flight or session of flights that you have had with a student pilot within the last year or so, where at some point you were engaged in a process of assessment (formal or informal) with a view to sending the student for his/ her first solo.
I would like to avoid situations of currency checks or annual checks or checks for specific purposes such as area solo, cross-country flying, aerobatics, or type-conversions, because I am only interested in pilot’s first solo flight”
Key questions
Think of a student that you have flown with recently, preferably within the last year, under these circumstances, but don’t tell me their name.”

• “Did you allow them to fly solo that session?”
• “What was it about that student’s flying that made you say [‘no’ / yes] on that occasion?”
• Where there any specific “incidents” that you can recall from that particular flight that affected your judgment?? (what this student did or did not during the flight)
• What preceded and contributed to the ‘incident or incidents?
• What was the outcome or result of the student’s actions or inactions?
• What would you expect from that student to have done?
• Did that student gave you a specific feeling (negative or positive) about his/her performance even before the flight?

Please be specific and concentrate on a particular flight and student and do not express your all-embracing instructing experience which although is invaluable is not usable in that specific method that I am using….

[Pull what]

• “Did you allow them to fly solo that session?”
• NO
  
• “What was it about that student’s flying that made you say [‘no’ / yes] on that occasion?”
• THE STUDENT FAILED TO USE CARB HEAT CORECTLY ON ALL 5 APPROACHES (no selection)
• Where there any specific “incidents” that you can recall from that particular flight that affected your judgment?? (what this student did or did not during the flight)
• THE KNOWLEDGE THAT I WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE STUDENT FROM THE COURSE IF HE DID NO GO FIRST SOLO AFTER THIS DETAIL
  
• What preceded and contributed to the ‘incident or incidents?
• TWO QFIs HAD REFERRED THIS STUDENT TO ME FOR A FINAL CHECK.(They could not get him to use carb heat)
  

• What was the outcome or result of the student’s actions or inactions?
• HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE COURSE
  
• What would you expect from that student to have done?
• USE CARB HEAT CORRECTLY
  
• Did that student gave you a specific feeling (negative or positive) about his/her performance even before the flight?
• HE ASSURED ME THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE NEED TO USE CARB HEAT CORRECTLY IN THE PRE FLIGHT BRIEFING AND UNDERSTOOD HE WAS BEING GIVEN AN EXTENSION OF TRAINING TIME TO ALLOW AN FS.
  

[DFC]

MJ and SAS,

You have totally missed the point I made and seem to have profesed to being as much caught up in the emotion attached to the first solo as the student.

Based on MJ's statement I believe that the "debrief" could go along the lines of;

MJ - "Congratulations that was a great first solo you must be very happy"

Student "Thanks. Why do you think that I bounced twice and then re-landed in the last 100m before just about stopping before the hedge"

MJ - "I don't know. I did not take the time to observe what you did"

Student - "Can you please foirward my records to a decent school please"

It is not so much about the amount of the "debrief" is could simply consist of "well done". However, anyone who has trained lost of ab-initio students will have one or more cases where the first solo was not just the standard 1 flight round the circuit before heading for the bar.

If you observe what they do - you might see something that in the subsequent leson can be worked on - even if you don't de-brief it at the end of the flight.

Instructing is a professional activity. Even if someone does it unpaid part-time the activity is still professional and standards should not be based on the renumeration or lack of it.

There is more than one UK civil operator which requires a supervising instructor in the tower for first solo.

Should we not debrief candidates at the end of their skill test?

---------

Zyg,

While MJ and SAS may have "spiced up the thred" they have revealed a very important issue. The instructor is often as emotionally and mentally involved in the struggle to solo as the student and this can have an effect of how the instructor handles the situation.

Thereore I would say that for many in the case of the borderline student, the instructor can often put themselves under unnecessary pressure to release the student - they become personally involved - they fail to keep a professional distance. In such cases, not sending the student solo can be harder than sending them solo.

Unfortunately, you seem to base your questions on emotional reactions to events and snap decisions.

Reasons for saying no;

Failed to fly as well during previous session(s) (at the end of which the decision was made to send them solo next time if the standard was maintained).

Traffic levels increased.

They have to avoid traffic that they did not spot - I pointed out and have a drop in confidence.

The weather has changed

They exhibit initial signs of fatigue.

and about 100 other reasons.

Reason for sending solo;

They demonstrated the required safe standard and conditions are suitable.

So as I say above, sending them solo is often easier and more clear cut than not sending them solo.

[Cows getting bigger]

DFC makes a good point. I think I mentioned somewhere else the 'rush' to get 25 solos in order to de-restrict an FI rating. Personally I feel this requirement should be dropped/amended; the better FI will have made a 'no' decision as many times as a 'yes'.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Err DFC would you care to point out where I mentioned that I don't either go into the tower or use a handheld radio to help me monitor students on not just first solos, but subsequent solo consolidation flights?

Or that I have my spies in the local ATC units and other local airfields, so that if there are any problems, then I am usually well aware of them before the student even gets back.

What has the skills test got to do with this? It is a completely different flight, however, I always have a listen into the examiners debrief, talk to the student afterwards and then have a word with the examiner seperately to find out if there are any areas that they aren't happy with in relation to the training we do.

I do like the way you are trying to be subtle and have a go and basically call MJ and my unprofessional, when you have no idea what you are talking about.

My first FI job was in an old school, chaotic environment which relied solely on the competencies of the individual FI's, instead of there being a set system with decent checks and balances along the way.

So I am intimately aware of the need for structure and to even intimate that I simply allow emotion and fun to be the sole drivers and forget about the process is for one thing, utter nonsense and secondly insulting.

I am a pragmatist. Not everyone responds to one way of teaching and to make things enjoyable means that your student is more relaxed and learns faster, however that has to be tempered by the strucure of the school.

A formalised debrief after the first solo is usually a waste of time, simply because the student isn't receptive. You might have points to make, but dragging them into briefing room and trying to get them to concentrate on any mistakes they've made is akin to trying to control a classroom full of 3 year olds with ADHD who've just been drinking fizzy pop and munching on sweets.
There is a time and a place and anyone who is a "professional" instructor should be able to judge when it is appropriate. Our students are emotional beings too and to try and pigeonhole them into a single way of doing things often doesn't work. Each needs handling differently, especially in the civvy world. The job of a "professional" is to find the way the maximising the training benefit for each individual, whilst working within a system of checks and balances that ensure that standards are kept high and that nothing is ever missed.

Being a "professional" is more than being a slave to process. If that's how you do things, then you are akin to the management consultant who tells everyone to follow the tools of say project management and learn all the buzz words, but completely forget that the process is simply part of it. Actually getting the job done is far more important and the process is nothing more than a tool to help you. In this case a fantastic project manager doesn't need a six sigma blackbelt to do their job. They could do it without the training. However, someone who is not so skilled might find that the process helps them to reach the required standard.

Process is no substitute for experience, knowledge or talent.

I'd love to be teaching students in a military environment. It sounds like a piece of cake. The "raw material" you are dealing with is much better, you don't have the commercial pressures and you don't really have to deal with motivation issues other than by saying "get better or you're chopped."

That's easy. Teaching smart kids is rewarding, but simple compared to the usual work of a civvy FI in a busy PPL school, where you are often not just an FI, but a father confessor, hand holder, motivator, slave driver, shoulder to cry on, cook, cleaner and bottle washer.


Now, back to Zyg's question. (ZYG, it's been a while for me thanks to a medical restriction, but I have hundreds of examples from more than a year ago.)

* “Did you allow them to fly solo that session?”
Yes
* “What was it about that student’s flying that made you say [‘no’ / yes] on that occasion?”
All sections of the pre-solo flight were conducted safely and with no need for input from the FI. Approaches were safe, touchdowns good, radio calls succinct and showed an understanding of the traffic pattern both in the circuit and joining and exiting the circuit and their impact to it.
* Where there any specific “incidents” that you can recall from that particular flight that affected your judgment?? (what this student did or did not during the flight)
The student was able to correctly judge the busy traffic pattern despite incorrect R/T calls from the other traffic.
* What preceded and contributed to the ‘incident or incidents?
The student had been able to get good situational awareness whilst completing engine run up checks and whilst taxiing.
* What was the outcome or result of the student’s actions or inactions?
They identified and dealt with a potentially dangerous situation and didn't simply rely on the R/T to help them build their SA.
* What would you expect from that student to have done?
Exactly what they did.
* Did that student gave you a specific feeling (negative or positive) about his/her performance even before the flight?
This student is very aware (almost overly so) of their strengths and particularly their weaknesses. They are risk averse and seem very considerate in their actions. This allows me to trust their judgement and to feel that they can handle any situations that might arise during a solo exercise.

[Pull what]

In such cases, not sending the student solo can be harder than sending them solo.

A very good point - It is essential fo follow rules, procedures and common sense as well a 'gut reaction'. Sending a student too early, in some cases, can actually reduce confidence and lead to other problems with subsequent solos.

With regard to post FS de briefing, I can understand SAS taking the student to the pub but I prefer a more formal approach which maintains the professional attiude of the training programme rather than personal whim. The post flight FS briefing should take place as early as practical after FS and as well as the obvious should include the technical log/authorisation sheet, aircraft servicalbilty and the responsiblity of becoming an aircraft commander. It should also be considered that delaying this de brief may also be seen by the student as a lack of interest. I always mention to the student that not only is FS a significant milestone in their flying career but also in mine!

There is always time for the pub after the days flying but de briefing is for the school-yarn spinning and boasting is for the pub!

[Say again s l o w l y]

You aren't quite getting it.

Doing a formal debrief immediately after the first solo isn't professional. It's ludicrous. Just because it says that you should do something in the manual, doesn't mean it's a good idea. A lack of "interest"? A lack of interest in what?

Being a "pro" means that you are able to teach your student in the best way possible. Trying to fill their head with the intricacies of techlogs and what being a commander means whilst they are still on a massive high and about as receptive as a brick wall is madness.

For a start, I'd have done all of that prior to them going first solo, infact I teach them about techlogs from virtually day one. Get them doing it from the start either with me or with me just checking it afterwards and signing the bits I need to sign as PIC.

Sometimes the best place for a debrief is the pub not the club house. A debrief doesn't have to involve a white board, model aircraft or the FI being the boss. Sometimes all you need is a good chat through the issues to try and get to the root of a problem in someone's thinking.

Let me guess, you're significantly older than me and think that sit down, shut up, class room based learning is the best way forward for teaching kids in schools. If so, then I'm afraid your approach is simply old fashioned. It works in some cases, but being flexible in your approach to teaching makes life a whole lot better for students in the long run and a hell of a lot more enjoyable for the FI too.

In your example, I understand why the student was cut, but apart from a briefing session, was there any real work done to try and identify why the student wasn't applying carb heat? Was it simply a capacity problem or was there a mental block there for some reason.

It isn't good enough in my eyes simply to use the stick technique of "get better or you're chopped" I've always taught in an environment where that sort of thing is totally unacceptable. You need to get to the root of the problem, not simply wash your hands of them and wait for the next student to come along.

That's just lazy teaching.

[mad_jock]

You can do what you like with your own license and student and if it works for you and your students jobs a good one.

But civi instructors have to deal with students that arn't the cream of the crop have an age range of 16-70 and are all individuals who are paying themselves for a service. Some of them are wanting to go onto be commercial and when we know this the anti is raised and they get trained to a CPL standard they are aware of this and are usually quite happy about it.

The rules and regulations are followed. You will find there are no sepecified procedures defined. There is a syllabus which we all do. But its very loose with no defined methods for quite a few exercises.

For example is a steep turn an emergency avoidance manouver or an exercise in coordination. Does the student roll in sedately or do they roll in as if they were avoiding another aircraft. Even the FII's around the country teach the exercises differently.

To be honest when I was a full time instructor I did very well out of the very formal old school instructional style instructors. They usually appeared after 5 hours instruction and completed the course with me. Some have gone on to commercial and alot of them are still flying. All past the test first time and none of them have had issues with check flights with other schools/clubs.

To be honest your example of failing someone for not using carbheat says more about a lack of talent teaching than it does about anything else. But then again maybe you were trapped by your procedures into only teaching in a certain manner. Thankfully for myself I am only limited by my imagination how I get a student to do an action.

Personally I would have got the student.

1. Vocalise the checklist
2. Read and do the the list instead of using it as a checklist.
3. Taken the student out of the circuit and done circuit boxes away from the field at alt.
4. Made them do a pop noise with there finger before doing the carb heat. Then every time they forgot it make the pop noise myself then take the piss when ever possible about it.

Never had to go past the 4th one which actually proved rather effective. They ended up forgetting the pop using the carb heat then remembering the pop and doing it afterwards. But I presume its unproffesional to have students making poping noises in the cockpit.

I have only had one student that defeated me and to my knowledge he still doesn't have a license. And that student was one of the reasons why I left full time instructing. It was one of the many huge blowups with the CFI that I would never send that student solo on my license, I didn't care if the CFI did. But my gut feel was that he would come to grief and my name wasn't going to be in the tech log when he did.

And you did offer to answer the our questions

Give us your theory on learning and how students process information in the learning enviroment.

Then please explain the factors that can degrade the proccessing of information and the ability to learn form that information.

Then explain how the student will benefit from a formal long debrief from a first solo straight after completion.