Why do i need an instructor

[DrZoos]

Almost every time i fly i see idiots doing stupid stupid stuff. I for one am so glad these clowns are not allowed to instruct

 

 

[DrZoos]

Almost every time i fly i see idiots doing stupid stupid stuff. I for one am so glad these clowns are not allowed to instruct

I might also ad that some of the pilots flying most regularly are the ones doing the dumb stuff. like the firefighting helicopter that took off straight across my runway this week and nearly killed us both. Obviously not looking or listening

 

And his two mates who did the same even after seeing us nearly kill each other

 

Great that these morons are not instructing as they are breaching every rule in the book every day

 

 

[M61A1]

I was in no way suggesting that Having an instructor isn't the best way, only that it is not absolutely necessary to learn, other than legally. I think that the original point of the thread has been somewhat lost. It was in regard to learning from pilots whe are not instructors.

 

As I have posted on another thread, I have had plenty of opportunity to learn from some very experienced and good pilots, but because they no longer hold an instructor rating, it's not legal "training". How foolish would we be to ignore good advice (still training) or education, whether hands on or theory, solely because it didn't come from from someone who has a certificate.

 

There have been plenty of threads about who's allowed to play with the controls, and who will be in the poo if it goes tits up. So, not legal, but not necessarily stupid in my opinion.

 

 

[M61A1]

Almost every time i fly i see idiots doing stupid stupid stuff. I for one am so glad these clowns are not allowed to instruct

How can you be really sure that they're not?

 

 

[503]

My first ga instructor never let me really learn until I spent to much $$ if I could go back and with the right person shown me what the effect of controls really is it would have saved lots of $$ ie: pull push kick those peddles o" that's what happens not keeping secrets and dragging it out eg: little pull push learn f all .im still not happy about that but didn't really know any different at the time this somewhat killed the dream .anyone that flys fix wing could have saved that part of the bullshit and lots of $$$$$.if I get back into flying fix wing I'm much more educated for the next round ,although flying ppc just to fly low and slow with nowhere to go is good for now ,I just feel ripped off with the ga thing,with my little 60 is hrs fix wing I'm sure I could save someone else from the same rip off and not kill anyone eg at 3000 feet and try this etc.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

No doubt being taught to fly by other pilots or even teaching yourself is possible (not legal but possible), my biggest concern would be making sure the non instructor rated pilot that's teaching is current in the right seat. This was the hardest thing for me to get the hang of and honestly it took me 5 hours of circuits before I could land unassisted in the right seat.

 

 

[poteroo]

I might also ad that some of the pilots flying most regularly are the ones doing the dumb stuff. like the firefighting helicopter that took off straight across my runway this week and nearly killed us both. Obviously not looking or listeningAnd his two mates who did the same even after seeing us nearly kill each other

 

Great that these morons are not instructing as they are breaching every rule in the book every day

Emergency services would be 'priority 1' at any controlled airport and you should assume that they are very likely to act similarly at yours. Regardless of procedural rights and wrongs - you need to make allowance for this traffic, insofar as that's possible. When we hear 'bomber 1' taxiing or rolling - we get out of his way. Just as you get your car out of the way when your see flashing lights and hear sirens on the road. These guys are flying heavily loaded units which have no ability to dodge us, and IMHO, we should give way to them at all times. And, they are far from morons - not only are they the best pilots, but many probably are instructors in another life and behave accordingly when there. Apologies would be appropriate.

 

happy days,

 

 

[68volksy]

Let me shed some light for you Volksy.Here is the requirement for CPL (150 hours)

 

• 70 hours total as pilot-in-command (PIC)
   
   
  
• 20 hours cross-country PIC
   
   
  
• 10 hours instrument flight (5 hours may be in a simulator)
   
   
  

 

 

So.. How do the 'facts' relate to your 'informed' post above?? This isnt the first look down your nose at RAA post you have made, but lets make it your last hey? At least arm yourself with some facts before you start sprooking how easy it is to be an Instructor. Or come down to the coast and do an RAA instructor course, ill soon change that attitude of yours.

You forgot to mention that the integrated CPL courses (the ones that allow CPL in 150 hours) are the integrated courses run only by the larger flying schools and universities. In many of them after 3 years of flying and theory you also walk away with a Degree.

 

I don't see why the premise that a GA instructor has to have had more training than an RA instructor is hard to accept? The facts are really quite clear. The facts also support the whole rationale behind RA's self-governing culture which is a good thing. I'm not saying RA should have any more training so no need to get worried about extra study - I'm just pointing out that there is really not as much of a gap between an instructor and a pilot as many believe. The gap is even less in RA was why i mentioned the GA hours. The saddest part of it all is that the gap between a pilot and a good instructor is even harder to spot as the student pilot is generally swept off their feet by the first instructor they meet....

 

Lastly - please do not try to to make it sound as though doing an instructor course (RA or GA) is all that difficult. For RA you only have to apply yourself to reading or classrooms for anything from 20 to 60 hours worth of theory and get the 20 hours of flying in. The major difficulty comes from trying to juggle it in between a full-time job and family. If you're capable of getting a licence to begin with then you can be pretty sure you'll get through.

 

And don't get me started on bloody epaulet stripes!

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

please do not try to to make it sound as though doing an instructor course (RA or GA) is all that difficult.

For RA you only have to apply yourself to reading or classrooms for anything from 20 to 60 hours worth of theory and get the 20 hours of flying in.

 

If you're capable of getting a licence to begin with then you can be pretty sure you'll get through.

In my experience, getting an RAAus instructor rating is certainly not guaranteed and is very unlikely to be achieved in the minimum required hours

 

What evidence do you have for these assertions ? (assuming you aren't just trolling)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Have you completed an RAA instructor course Volsky?

 

 

[68volksy]

In my experience, getting an RAAus instructor rating is certainly not guaranteed and is very unlikely to be achieved in the minimum required hoursWhat evidence do you have for these assertions ? (assuming you aren't just trolling)

The minimums are there for a reason and no doubt in my mind there are some instructors out there who were capable of getting there in the minimum hours. There are also schools offering the instructors rating for a fixed fee with the minimum hours. I know for a fact that graduation is often guaranteed from some of them once you pay the funds. That's a whole other argument though...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

What a load of BS.

 

 

[68volksy]

Have you completed an RAA instructor course Volsky?

And the relevance of that is? I don't see why we need to make this personal. I'm simply discussing the current state of play with the facts as they stand.

 

Let's call me simply an invested observer for the sake of this discussion.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The relevance is, you have no bloody idea what your talking about. How can you possibly have an idea of whats involved?

 

Its personal when you belittle the trade with the rubbish you have spoken here. The FACT is, your not an instructor, you havnt completed the course, so your going on heresay. Your opinion is simply that, an un educated, un substantiated load of rubbish.

 

 

[68volksy]

I haven't belittled the trade in any way. All i've done is state some simple facts. If stating the facts undermines the authority of the instructor gods then i'd argue they shouldn't be on such a pedestal to begin with. The whole point of RA-Aus was to reduce the cost and red-tape of flying and to get people into the air doing what they love with minimum fuss. I believe the 75 hours came from a realisation that you could quite easily teach someone else to fly a Thruster or Gazelle after that much time. Further it was a simple fact at the time that the RA-Aus certificate was not in any way to be considered a stepping stone to flying 747's. Again i point out that this is a good thing!

 

As i said above though there is a massive difference between accumulating epaulet stripes and actually being any good at what you do. That's the same in every industry around the world. A lawyer or accountant isn't good at what they do simply because they passed their exams. A mechanic isn't good simply because they passed their apprenticeship. It's their approach and years of continued learning and experience that makes them truly valuable.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I know for a fact that graduation is often guaranteed from some of them once you pay the funds. That's a whole other argument though...

What a load of rubbish. You havnt given any facts at all. The fact is the pic requirement or cpl is less than raa. :) what say you learned observer to that fact??

 

 

[68volksy]

Learned is a bit of a leap...

 

RA - 75 hours as pilot in command

 

Integrated CPL - 90 hours as pilot in command

 

Non-integrated CPL - 120 hours as pilot in command

 

Am i missing something?

 

I really didn't want this to turn into a GA versus RA discussion though. I simply wanted to point out the minimums to people. The GA minimums are also not as high as many people would think. Hence the reason there are dozens of unemployed junior Grade 3's with shiny degrees wandering around the country willing to sweep the floors and fly for free just to get some hours up.

 

 

[Teckair]

I believe the 75 hours came from a realisation that you could quite easily teach someone else to fly a Thruster

My guess is you have never flown a Thruster let alone tried to teach someone else to do so or you would not be making that comment, unless you are a troll.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Volksy, I don't k ow where you get your info from, but it's 70 hours pic for a cpl. Not 90 old son. ;) so I ask again. How does that fit with your " opinion" ?

 

Feel free to make up your own numbers, but the facts are there in black and white mate.

 

 

[poteroo]

Learned is a bit of a leap...RA - 75 hours as pilot in command

 

Integrated CPL - 90 hours as pilot in command

 

Non-integrated CPL - 120 hours as pilot in command

 

Am i missing something?

 

I really didn't want this to turn into a GA versus RA discussion though. I simply wanted to point out the minimums to people. The GA minimums are also not as high as many people would think. Hence the reason there are dozens of unemployed junior Grade 3's with shiny degrees wandering around the country willing to sweep the floors and fly for free just to get some hours up.

CASA has made an attempt to raise the standard, (as they perceive it), of Grade 3 instructors via their large special team. All initial GA instructor ratings are done now by a CASA FOI. It's really too early to tell if that is working. Some comments heard about the paperwork and procedures becoming more onerous - but flying skills remaining unchanged. Given that it was industry's complaints about lack of flying skills which prompted this CASA activity - it remains to be seen whether they have targeted the right sector. Maybe. After 50 hrs in the GA course, you would expect a higher standard of instructor to result - but this is purely subjective. A 20 hr course is going to struggle to attain the same level of understanding. That's not RAAus bashing - it's just an opinion.

 

However, it's much more likely that the RAAus instructor candidate has a stronger incentive to learn because they have a more complete understanding of what it is they want to do. No charter, no turbines, no RPT jets......... just quietly instruct in RAAus because they want to be an instructor. Now I'd favour the motivated student any day. So, the actual product at the end of the RAAus IR course may actually be a more rounded and motivated instructor - irrespective of how many hours were involved. IMHO - 20 hrs is unlikely to really cover the course and I'd be very surprised if it stays at 20 hrs. (30 might be more realistic?)

 

happy days,

 

 

[68volksy]

From your post motz - 70 hours PIC plus 20 hours cross-country as PIC = 90 hours total.

 

Not sure why everyone keeps asking if i live under a bridge? Not the nicest name to be calling someone and something that I honestly thought the members of this forum would have been above.

 

Teckair - read my post again that included the line you ripped out of it. You'll realise that is not my opinion in any way but rather an attempt at trying to rationalise the 75 hours that was decided upon. They were simply the only two aircraft I could think of that might have been around at the time the decisions were made. If however you're arguing that the guys that decided on the 75 hour minimums were wrong (as the aircraft that were around back then were very difficult to fly) then that's a different matter and would go a long way to support my argument.

 

 

[facthunter]

I feel that an hour in most U/L's doing anything other than sitting there in calm conditions letting the countryside drift along below( hardly ever happens like that) is far more concentrating of the mind than the equivalent in a plane made by the big three and doing similar sorts of things .

 

I also believe (having done both) that the instructor in a U/L has to be more on their toes generally than the more predictable GA trainer, because 1 the planes generally are more touchy and have to be flown very precisely, because they are smaller, have low wing loadings and less inertia and sometimes they are of a pretty ordinary design that has a few handling glitches that come free with it.

 

2. for the above reasons they are more subject to mechanical turbulence wind gusts and are often more difficult to recover from "situations" that a student may get them into. The "window of opportunity" to correct the situation is more precisely defined.

 

SO..... You can pack a lot more experiences into a shorter time in a U/L.

 

You can learn from anybody. Some students have shown me situations I never would have believed a plane could get into. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes pots. Very true. The ga requirement is 30 dual an 20 mutual. How much benifit there is in the 20 mutual hours is very debatable.

 

The biggest difference IMHO is the cpl exams . I would like to see at least a couple of these exams being a requirement of an raa senior.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Volsky, it's 70 hours pic which has to include 20 hours cross country. ;) again, please research your " facts" before sprooking them here.

 

 

[facthunter]

Volsky. That's magnificent. vol (flight, in French). Sky (we know what that is).. Nev