How many hours at CFI?

[pilot#476398]

I hope none of it makes it to regulation. I agree w spikes points. I also believe extra hours in the training environment will only increase training accidents not decrease commercial flying accidents. If anything the use of Robinson products and their "tricky" flight habits have decreased the knowledge and experience of entry level pilots. Sure the sfar has reduced accidents but made a pilot who doesn't get to experience many limits of his machine... No throttle control, limited attitude flight due to mast bumping risk, little to no experience with full touchdown autos due to low inertia and "stiff legs". Take a look at the new video posted on YouTube. "Pov helicopter crash original" not a training accident but a foolish demonstration of high da and a tailwind... Screaming a need for a more experienced pilot in his machine

 

Now I wish I had trained at Bristow! Oh' well, woulda, shoulda, coulda, but too late now!

[Spike]

Mike,

 

Good discussion and hopefully it provides your team with meaningful input. And, I stand corrected if you are already consulting with the operators…..

 

However, you said; “Much of your wording above is about shortcomings in the pilot pool for operators. My input was about accident reduction in the training environment.” In my opinion, these elements are inherently connected. That is, a strong house starts with a solid foundation. Simply put, fix the nature of the training business and you may have a beginning………

 

Again, in my opinion, while instructors need mentorship, I believe flight schools need mentorship even more…….

 

Please understand, prior to the implementation of Robinson SFAR, many schools trained and graduated 160 hour CFI’s while flying the Robinson products. And, while the SFAR was established for a reason (which is still up for debate), there were many instructors who operated the R22 safely on a daily basis and produced competent pilots all the while teaching low-g, SWP, low RPM, full-downs, w/o governors, etc……. As already stated, homogenized training may not have benefited the industry as a whole....

 

With regards to the 200+requirement, if I attend a school that operates a S300 and I am competent to pass a CFI check-ride at 160 hours, the additional required hours would cost me an additional er…eh… 10 to 12K even though I have no desire to fly a R22. Not beneficial in any shape or form, especially if I’m positioned to be hired upon graduation…..

 

Howabout this, (and forgive me as this is off the top of my head); when I visit restaurants in the nearby big city, in order to determine if I want to eat at a particular establishment, I refer to the health score which is issued by the local Department of Public Health. Sure, I could simply look at a consumer type of website like “Yelp”, but I prefer not to solely rely on internet gossip networks which are based on someone’s opinion and, not all restaurants are “Yelped”……..

 

With the above in mind, instead of increased regulation, why can’t IHST establish a scoring system to rate flight schools? Your team can provide standardized guidelines and mentorship which the school must meet in order to receive a good grade. After that, the grades are published which would drive customers (students) to the schools with the better grades. This way you enhance the end product from the bottom up and eliminating the need to regulate from the top down…………..

Edited September 5, 2013 by Spike

[Mikemv]

Spike,

 

"With regards to the 200+requirement, if I attend a school that operates a S300 and I am competent to pass a CFI check-ride at 160 hours, the additional required hours would cost me an additional er…eh… 10 to 12K even though I have no desire to fly a R22. Not beneficial in any shape or form, especially if I’m positioned to be hired upon graduation….. "

 

This was discussed along with the CFI being a rating that requires "no additional training" by part 61. It was also mentioned that CFII is the required career path requirement at most flight schools now. So additional time between the 150hrs. Commercial and 200 hrs. to be recommended would be filled in with both CFI & CFII training. The percent training in non-Robinson products was also mentioned. No one wants to economically burden anyone along the flight training path. That one consideration may keep this recommendation from going through!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

"With the above in mind, instead of increased regulation, why can’t IHST establish a scoring system to rate flight schools? Your team can provide standardized guidelines and mentorship which the school must meet in order to receive a good grade. After that, the grades are published which would drive customers (students) to the schools with the better grades. This way you enhance the end product from the bottom up and eliminating the need to regulate from the top down………….. "

Now there is an idea!

Maybe the FAA or NTSB could do that. Some IHST members are flight school operators so I can not see a that working and we are all volunteers. How could we handle CFI turn over and the school rating you suggest? Does this take place annually? IHST is looking for feedback and ideas from everyone. This is why I asked for feedback to take to the next web conference on Sept. 18th.

Along the lines of flight school ratings, would a part 61 school (could be a lone CFI) be less than a 141 school? Would modern FITS SBT curriculums count more than antiquated approved 141 programs with only one hour of ADM prior to a practical tests? Just throwing out the various problems for your simple recommendation. Can we come up with something that works?

Send me an e-mail if you can outline how you see it working and being valid and I will bring it forward. That goes for any idea in detail from anyone. It has to be outlined and presentable.

For anyone reading this, go to www.ihst.org look under training drop down menu and fact sheets. There are three or four that address autorotations. Shawn Coyle, Nick Mayhew, Steve Sparks, Tim Tucker and the training work group have developed info for CFIs to bring forward. Maybe you guys can step up, be professional and reduce accidents so that no changes are deemed necessary.

Mike

[Spike]

Mike,

 

I’ll reply via PM or email so not to clog up anymore of the thread….

[Wally]

I took my CFI ride at about 1500 hours, 100 of which were MOI and as an IP at Fort Wolters.

 

 

 

 

 

How do you guys know that teaching makes you a better pilot than someone who say, does tours in a 44, or photos in a 22? Not a CFI, which is why I ask.

 

I know it made me a better aviator if not better pilot. Teaching anything gives you more time to learn and also exposes you to novel views of the subject of instruction in a condensed fashion. If you've ever asked a question in class, you know that principle ideas, even if expertly worded, don't always enable understanding. The capable and motivated instructor has to find the intellectual handle for the student to grasp for accurate and correct learning to happen in that case.

And, the CFI/IP has to try to think ahead of the student and anticipate the next attempt to kill you both. I might not have gained in control touch, but...

 

I think it would all depend on what the non-CFI was doing for those 1000hrs.

 

Point well taken.

 

I wish flight instruction was an economic proposition for more experienced aviators, but it's a chicken and egg proposition: does having 200 hour CFIs result in a better pilot population because of the learning opportunity afforded the low-timers; or would having high-timers teach be more effective?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Wally

[Flying Pig]

Its a tough situation the industry is in. Im always looking for ways to fly, ways to make extra money on the side. But teaching at a flight school in an R22 or an S300C is not worth my time and effort in the slightest. I did some fixed wing instruction at a school, and again, the guy was a friend of mine and we had fun doing it, but beyond that, I had other things to do beyond sitting in a C172 or an R22 sweating my butt off in August. So I see an issue with how much information can you cram into your first 200hrs?

 

I dont view flight instructing as an entry level job per se. I look at it that primary flight instructing has a dire lack of experienced applicants so the industry is forced to employ new CFIs because nobody else is interested. If flight instructing paid $85,000-$100,000 per year with benefits and a retirement you would probably find people making a career out of it. And there are places that have that set up. Places like URS or other schools who offer advanced instruction in other types of aircraft. Look at the military and even LE flying. I was long lining in an MD500E at 4500ft with about 450hrs TOTAL time and flying patrol on NVGs. Its about the quality of the instruction and I believe the maturity of the student.

 

But...... I made it to where I am in my career and all of my primary instruction was done by CFIs who had 1000hrs or less and being a CFI was their first job. They taught me what I needed to know and then some. So the way its set up seems to be working pretty well. The thing is, CFIs arent out there killing people in crashes on a regular basis.

 

So is this all a solution looking for a problem?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Flying Pig

[Mikemv]

FP,

 

The data shows otherwise and that the highest percentage of helicopter accidents is in instruction and then in private operations.

 

So fatal or not just let the highest accident sector continue and accept it?

 

Mike

[Flying Pig]

Does it differentiate entry level instruction vs re-current/advanced instruction?

[pilot#476398]

Is it the same in countries who require their pilots to have more experience before becoming instructors?

[Mikemv]

Does it differentiate entry level instruction vs re-current/advanced instruction?

The data can be searched and broken down in many ways. It can differentiate but I am not the one to provide that specific info here.

 

We are responding to the data after it is broken apart and presented for a clear path to addressing accidents. Primary instruction is the area with most accidents, (flight schools/CFIs) and not 135 operators, mountain training, etc.

[Mikemv]

Is it the same in countries who require their pilots to have more experience before becoming instructors?

Great question P476398

 

No!!!!!!

 

This was discussed in our work shop at Flight Safety! Tim Tucker made a presentation to us about other countries as he is active in them.

 

Most active countries have 3 or 4 levels of Instructors and much higher standards both in hours, testing, boards, extended training for instructor applicants, etc. Most have mentoring programs and oversight of new instructors. Some of our group members are EASA qualified instructors at the highest level.

 

Their accident rates in the training environment are much lower and do not lead the category of operations for accidents.

[Spike]

Aaaah, but they pay for that experience and elevated requirements… A CFII "over-there" is probably double what we pay here in the US…. That’s why most of them come here to train and, funny enough, go back and seek the additional levels…. That is, gained the foundation here in the US but built the house back home.....

Edited September 6, 2013 by Spike

[Spike]

Does it differentiate entry level instruction vs re-current/advanced instruction?

 

This is a key element of understanding where primary instruction needs to go…

[pilot#476398]

The "catch 22" of the training market!

[Pohi]

I've probably said this before, but a person (or industry) saying that by increasing the minimum number of hours a student is required to have will therefore make better and safer pilots is as silly as thinking that a restaurant can increase the menu price of their food and therefore make the customer get better tasting food. The only way that the food will taste better is if the cook prepares it better and as a last case scenereo, the waiter refuses to bring crappy plates to the customer.

 

If the industry as a whole and/or the FAA believes that there is a huge problem with the current accident rates and the quality of the new pilots and its a lack of hours that is the problem, then they are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. A huge reason that there are such poor instructors teaching is because the FAA allowed them to get there. The FSDO cutbacks where they won't do checkrides anymore (which made for unbiased checkrides since the inspectors don't care either way if a student passes or fails) lead to a DPE market. I'm not going to sling mud here, but there needs to be a very serious and thorough look at the quality of the DPE and what the quality of the applicants these DPE's are certifying. That, my friends, is where the problem lies. The last person responsible for the quality of our next generation's pilots are failing miserably.

 

Its not entirely their fault, its also the whole business model that is to be blamed. Making pilots is a business. Giving checkrides is now a business. Giving lots of checkrides is good business. Getting called back for even more checkrides because you pass everybody is great business.

 

The one great benefit to the industry with respect to the FSDO doing checkrides is that there was zero motivation for the FAA inspector to let anything other than qualified candidates become certified pilots. This is not the case any longer and imho, we are now seeing one of the unfortunate results.

 

In conclusion, raising minimum hours to be a CFI is not going to fix anything. If a person wants to make a difference, that person needs to focus their time and energy on issues or solutions that will actually produce the desired results.

 

(And to answer the OP's question, waited until 200 to do my CFII Checkride so I could do the SFAR sign off at the same time)

[Flying Pig]

Great question P476398

 

No!!!!!!

 

This was discussed in our work shop at Flight Safety! Tim Tucker made a presentation to us about other countries as he is active in them.

 

Most active countries have 3 or 4 levels of Instructors and much higher standards both in hours, testing, boards, extended training for instructor applicants, etc. Most have mentoring programs and oversight of new instructors. Some of our group members are EASA qualified instructors at the highest level.

 

Their accident rates in the training environment are much lower and do not lead the category of operations for accidents.

But thousands of those instructors do their Private through CFI in the US. So they go back to their country and do more flight training, and gain advanced instructor ratings. Are those foreign students making their mistakes in our system. Yes, it's still a student making a mistake under our FAA umbrella, but it may be cutting down significantly on the number of entry level training accidents in their countries

 

A similar example in my industry, law enforcement. Not LE aviation, I mean LE overall. Agencies that hire lateral officers as a rule vs new recruits have a drastically lower level of trainees failing the training program and making dumb new guy mistakes. Because by the time they are qualified to work for Awesometown PD, they have already made their dumb newguy mistakes on someone elses stat sheet.

 

You, Tim Tucker and the others you are working with are far more versed and aware of the CFI industry than I am. just a thought. Nor am I opposed to making changes, but I agree with Pohi.

 

Out of curiosity, how do the helicopter training stats compare to airplane training stats? Most airplane CFIs will be pushing 300hrs by the time they become CFIs. What training area are the most accidents happening in helicopter training? Is it broken down by maneuver being taught?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Flying Pig

[Mikemv]

Pohi,

 

Great post. I actually agree with you.

 

Please note: There is more to the proposal that includes an approved ground training course for CFI applicants (may be available on line or through other venues) and specifics about time in make/model. All of our efforts are not listed here as they are going through AFS-800, AFS-600 and other FAA areas.

 

The goal is to increase competency via better training, and provide that training to flight schools, CFI, etc. Also, to increase the requirements for the CFI that can teach CFI applicants.

 

As stated, this is in the works in the FAA system along with the IACS and PTS revisions. It is not just about more hours but more competency.

 

As far as DPEs, you hit that nail on the head and has been one of my complaints to AFS-800.

 

As per 8900.10 chng. 200, the FAA has been on a witch hunt but of course addressing the wrong DPE's. It is a battle, thanks for your comments.

 

Mike

[Spike]

I too agree with Phoi.

 

A short story; in my local area, a long time well respected –tough, but fair DPE has been losing business. Why? Because the local schools now send their applicants to a “sure thing” DPE in another region…..

[Mikemv]

FP,

 

IHST, USHST does not gather airplane info!

 

It was brought up in the work shop about a Comm. airplane pilot having 250 hours and Comm. helo pilot only needing 150. Which pilot flies in operations that require more skill? Airport to airport or otherwise?

 

It was also mentioned that airplane CFIs have 100 more hours than a CFI-RH. I do know if any of this matters and no one pursued making them the same although the question was asked!

 

"Out of curiosity, how do the helicopter training stats compare to airplane training stats? Most airplane CFIs will be pushing 300hrs by the time they become CFIs. What training area are the most accidents happening in helicopter training? Is it broken down by maneuver being taught?"

 

Autorotation training causes the most accidents with the CFI being late to intervene being number one. USHST has worked with the FAA on AC61-140 and another about to be released along with some fact sheets (recently changed to be titled safety bulletins at www.ihst.org) Shawn Coyle developed one and Tim Tucker and some of us the others. The information is provided to give CFI-RHs a better handle on autorotational training. But CFIs know it all once that rating is attained as was shown in the other post where a CFI was training zero airspeed and pedal turn autos outside of the syllabus (safely to date, and I am not against this training but showing that CFIs do there own thing and may or may not accept input).

 

 

Spike was the only one to offer a suggestion and I have already taken his input/plus forward. It has been distributed to the training work group and will be discussed on the Sept 18 web conference.

 

I am still open to suggestions to take forward if they are outlined and sincere.

 

Members post here with words like: "thousands of pilots, word on the street, no PTS change has EVER made a difference, many, all, things (accidents) are not bad, etc. with no data to back up those words. Internet posting is easy, USHST responds to data.

 

Please offer some valued input and help address helicopter accidents.

 

Mike