Problem with big schools

[Jesco]

Ever wonder why you won't get hired by the university where you got your PhD? Its because it leads to poor instruction. I like to call it inbred instruction.

If I try to teach you everything I know you will know a little less than I do, then you teach the next guy and he learns a little less than you know, over time you get a crappy base of knowledge and no outside information making it into the curriculum. This is very basic instructional theory and it’s why you get crappy instruction from large schools. Yes some pilots come out good IN SPITE OF the training, but I've found by in large pilots from these programs lack quality instruction and I believe this is exactly why. Comair, Flightsafety and ATP hire only from within. Its very poor practice.

I met an ATP instructor that had never actually landed on a grass strip and wouldn't. That’s nuts, a CFI should be able to handle a 172 and a grass strip.

 

[bobbysamd]

Hiring from within

I saw what Jesco is saying when I worked at FSI and ERAU. Something gets diluted in the translation when grad who was instructed by a grad instructs student. The instructors who were hired from within seemed to have a very narrow perspective and were highly dogmatic. They did not seem to understand that there were many methods of doing business. It was strictly their way or the highway. I realize that most instructors are dogmatic to a certain extent; they have to be. But there are other points of view.

I've seen Riddle go back and forth about hiring from the outside. I was hired there from the outside. I was shocked at how little I knew when I was hired and gladly received ERAU standardization. The place continued to hire from the outside but brought in a few instructors who resisted ERAU standardization. One or two were canned. The place reverted to hiring only from within because it felt it would be less trouble to standardize its own grads, who already knew Riddle. Bringing in new blood from outside helps freshen an existing program.

I believe that FSI still hires from outside from time to time, and Comair, too.

Look at it from the military point of view. Isn't the military "hiring from within?" And the military turns out great pilots. Therefore, while inbreeding is not desirable, it doesn't always mean that schools that hire their own instructors provide substandard instruction; it's just that it may lack perspective.

Now, having said all that, an important consideration when choosing a school is whether it hires its own graduates. But not to the exclusion of qualified instructors from outside.

 

[Jesco]

The military is large enough to have genetic diversity so to speak. And I would guess, perhaps someone in the military can enlighten us, that you don't graduate from the military flight school and then start teaching. You probably graduate, fly the line (or whatever you guys call it) and then later on end up an instructor. That combined with the fact that there is a much larger pool of knowledge (lots of pilots involved) prevents the problem in the military.

I would not hesitate to say that the military would balk at the idea of having recent grads teach the next class.

Like I said, I'm not saying if you went to a large flight school you are a crappy pilot, you might be a good pilot in spite of the system, I'm just saying you probably did not receive the best instruction.

 

[Chunk]

Sorry there Jessco, but it sounds like you have an axe to grind....


I did my private at an FBO. It was 141, but small. There was no "hiring from within" because it was linked with a university program and had just started 2 or 3 years prior and hadn't produced any CFI's yet.

Although my instructor was good, I wasn't as well trained (looking back) as I could have been because the system lacked depth and integration. I left there, flew a scope for the Navy for 7 years and decided to get out and finish up my ratings. I chose FlightSafety for a lot of reasons. At first, I was concerned about "incestous" training. However, the longer I train here, the more I see that there is no "secret corporate knowledge" that schools like FSI have, it's just the depth of knowledge that you are expected to learn. The books aren't copyrighted FSI material, but FAA pubs like the AFH and the IFH. You read these cover to cover several times.

The instructors are generally FSI products, but are individuals and not robots. Different backgrounds with different perspectives. We all learn in different ways and that's what keep things fresh.

If you want to know why I have been so happy with my training here, you have to go back to the FOI. The affective domain of learning. Instilling values which lead to characterization and state of mind. That's the real secret of FSI. The atmosphere here absolutely expects you to learn and study. If you don't read, eat, and sleep flying, you are not going to hack it. Sure, you might be able to pass a checkride, but you are going to be looked at as a dumb@ss, and the peer pressure is to be sharp here. The "corporate culture" of this school is that knowledge is power and performance is king. Know your stuff and fly well.


I started this school with a cynical eye...and I can see a little of what you are talking about, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Chunk

 

[abatista]

Coming from the Military I would say that they get their Instructors both from within and outside. Most 95% of people that are trained in the Military will go out to the field and work in their trade. Only 5% will stay and train. But in about 4 years or so they too will be moved. Their Instructors are always moving so I guess this is what you’re looking for.

In the case of being incorrect some students that go through the system actually become better then the instructors. Especially since some get 3 or 4 different ones training them. Again there getting instruction mindset of order and also with outside influence.

 

[Jesco]

No axe to grind, and I understand why the schools hire from within, I just think its a bad practice. And like I said, I don't think all pilots and instructors at these schools are bad, I just think the system is bad.

I find it iteresting that there is such complete disregard for such a basic educational theory.

I believe ATA in Orlando only hires from outside. Company politics aside, anybody have a comaprison on the quality of the instructors (not the aiplanes or facilities)

 

[CFI'er]

In order to become an IP in the Navy, a just winged aviator must first fly in a squadron for the experience and grade-out in the top 5%. Only the best of the best are given the chance to go back to Pensacola and be assigned the IP billet

 

[Illini Pilot]

In order to become an IP in the Navy, a just winged aviator must first fly in a squadron for the experience and grade-out in the top 5%. Only the best of the best are given the chance to go back to Pensacola and be assigned the IP billet

kinda like Maverick huh?

 

[cl-65link]

I attended college at UND and we landed on grass strips all the time. Mostly Crookston and Warren MN.

 

[172driver]

I believe ATA in Orlando only hires from outside. Company politics aside, anybody have a comaprison on the quality of the instructors (not the aiplanes or facilities)

ATA hires almost exclusively the 'inbred' CFI's from other big schools who didn't make it through the hiring process at their original school. So, not only are they teaching the same stuff but they possibly didn't learn it as well in the first place. Some of them are excellent people, some are not so bright. I'm sure some are wonderful but if I had to choose from a hat, I would take a Riddle, FSI, CAA CFI over ATA any day.

The bottom line is exactly what Chunk said...CFI's are not robots. They are individuals who learn and teach the FAA mandated material. Some go above and beyond...some don't. Big school, small school, it really doesn't matter. The best instruction comes from the best CFI. The best student can learn from any CFI.

My personal opinion is that you have a better chance of finding a motivated, professional, knowledgable CFI at a large flight academy. Again, as Chunk said, the peer pressure and resources are there. However, my best CFI was at a very small FBO.

 

[Jesco]

Perhaps he is finding trouble getting on with a larger school and is upset?

No not the case, geez, no axe to grind, just a discussion.

The only problem with your theory is that the common flight school/academy does not play a part in it. What you are talking about is basic principle in human instruction, and it is slightly flawed at best.
All it states is that the student will not learn all the instructor knows. The fact that they both went to the same school does not affect the theory.

The fact that they are at the same school is exactly the problem. When this happens within the same organization it is a continually diminishing pool of knowledge and experience. Of course I realize the core FAA material is likely always covered, but what about all the other infomation a CFI parts to the student. Information like an understanding of why you should fly at or below Va in severe turbulence for example. If that information escapes a student at some point, no other student EVER in the organization gets the information because no instructor will ever know. At least not while involved in the program.

AGAIN, no axe to grind, I'm in a masters program and I just thought it an interesting topic. I don't hate Flight Safety grads or Riddle brats, nor do I think all FBO pilots are great and everybody else stinks, just an interesting topic.

 

[Chunk]

Wouldn't it make sense that the more time and effort put into a school, the more likely you are to go in-depth into field of study?

Another factor which impedes any "inbreeding" in the training at FSI are the ground schools. The instructors aren't generally FSI products. They are usually retired from the industry. For example, weather is taught by a retired EAL dispatcher/forecaster. Masters in Meteorology from PSU, 30 years on the job. I don't think he's falling into any cyclical learning traps. We have retired controllers, retired corporate and airline pilots. Systems? Taught by an A&P. These guys are a wealth of knowledge and experience and they do not "gouge" anyone up.


I'm not playing the 'my dad can beat up your dad' routine, but your example about "how weight affects Va" gives me perspective on what you consider 'deep learning'. I assure you that that depth of knowledge is fully explored here....and more.

Chunk

 

[skydork]

No soft field

The ATP CFI probably won't land soft field because 99% of his time is in a seminole. No soft field landing in a t tail.

 

[daniel]

T-tails on grass

Just aquick reply to skydork about the T-tail thing. WRONG! We operate Piper Tomahawks and in the past Semilnoles regularly from grass fields. As with all aircraft, it is just a matter of knowing your airplane and flying it according to the AFM. The only thing that makes a T-tail aircraft unsafe on grass is the pilot.

 

[skydork]

Check your POH

Can you operate on a soft field? Of course. You can ride a wheelie as long as you want in a seminole if you know what you are doing. Does Piper publish a soft field procedure for a seminole? No. Look in a Seminole POH and there is not a procedure for soft field. No prop wash on the t-tail is why they didnt come up with one. Doesn't mean you can't, because I know you can, but get your facts straight before you slam someone.

 

[daniel]

EASY EASY

Not meant to be a slam skydork (whoa horseee!). Just a reply. I personally have over 2500 hours in T-tail aircraft (including Seminole) operating a fair amount of that time off grass. There is nothing in the POH for the Seminole that prohibits grass take offs so therefore the procedure would be the same as with any other T-tail.....ie don't start with full back pressure on the yoke as you do with a conventional tail. Simply allow the aircraft to accelerate to a speed where the T-tail will "fly" then rotate from the surface and remain in ground efect until the appropriate airspeed.

 

[172driver]

I believe the reason Piper doesn't have the soft field t/o in the Seminole POH is not because of the t-tail but because of the risk of losing an engine. Do most twins have a soft field procedure listed?

Losing an engine while flying in ground effect below Vmc might not be a pretty thing. Rotating below Vmc is not recommended in general by either the FAA or the manufacturer for this reason, though I'm sure it can be done.

 

[VFR on Top]

And I would guess, perhaps someone in the military can enlighten us, that you don't graduate from the military flight school and then start teaching. You probably graduate, fly the line (or whatever you guys call it) and then later on end up an instructor.

USAF routinely assigns newly-minted pilots to IP duty; there's even a dreaded acronym for it: FAIP (First Assignment Instructor Pilot). The SUPT IP force isn't exclusively FAIPs, but they're a significant percentage.

 

[daniel]

Good input 172Driver. You are absolutely correct about the lack of soft field being addressed in multi POH's. But, as you noted, the principles still need to be considered and the pilot has to make an intelligent decision on how to operate his aircraft under the given circumstances. Just the same as if you have a soft field that is also a short field you need to combine the techniques of the two individual procedures for the best results in that case.

 

[RFtech]

I'm in a masters program and I just thought it an interesting topic.

Hey Jesco.

Where at WVU or Marshall?