Coaching Scheme

[Trevor Harvey]

Mike.
The biennial one hour instruction is a different issue.
If the CAA in their wisdom want a biennial hour of "Instruction" then that would obviously require an Instructor. In the same way that ab- initio training is by an instructor. So be it.
The Coaching scheme although it does include instruction is primarily a Coaching scheme.
I think we are all on the same wavelength here.
We are not asking that an instructor rating qualification/hours be reduced, but that a COACH be allowed legally, requiring less qualification rather than the ad-hoc word of mouth system at present.
This system is already in place, except that the requirement of 1000 hours plus whatever else is required is holding it back.
A year or so after I bought my Emeraude and got the tail wheel sign off I was in touch with an instructor from my original flight school. He was now flying for an Airline, instructor rating long since lapsed, he had no tail wheel experience. We flew for a happy hour while he placed a chart over the screen and "instructed" me on blind instrument flying, ending by vectoring us on to short final to home base.
I cannot and do not wish to log that as such as I only have a NPPL but in the event of a cockup on my part it may come in useful. It cost me nothing but a couple of pints, and he got to play with a 600kg fabric classic.
I logged PIC. No one died, no puppy farm was threatened.

[Chris Martyr]

The biennial one hour instruction is a different issue.

Trevor, me old chum , it's not really a different issue as it is all part and parcel of the same problem and ironically enough is probably why the LAA/PCS is losing out here. I don't believe that we're dealing with fools here , but equally I am a little mystified that opportunity seems to be going straight past the door of "The Emperors New Flight Academy" .
As mentioned , I renewed my BFR last Friday with an independent Instructor. I have no idea what his total logged hours are and neither do I care. But in the event of him not having 1,000hrs in his book , he would not be eligible to renew BFR's , or instruct in strip flying or anything else as far as the LAA/PCS is concerned ! This Instructor, like myself , is based at a 450m grass strip . So who are the losers here ? It's a buyers market !
Sure, from my point of view, the PCS bods can keep their heads well and truly lodged in their rear ends for as long as they want , but chaps like yourselves in the lesser populated regions could definitely benefit from them doing what they really should be doing ! [but aren't]

[Trevor Harvey]

Why can't I stay logged in for more than a few hours?

OK Chris.
I seem to be missing something. I thought we were just talking about increasing the numbers of coaches.
If the intention is to allow LAA PCS to take on the task of flight training for LAA members from ab-initio to BFR including encouragement after a long lay off, mentoring, stripping, tailwheel differences etc, then yes absolutely.
This would certainly be The Utopian Academy of Real Flight.
Considering that people who would join such an organisation would already be highly motivated as members and not just the box tickers "things I must do before I die".
Flight training in taildraggers or nose buriers, with no interest in bus driving.
Excellent.
This would allow the current ailing flight schools to either die or become the Airline Pilots School of Tin Tube drivers. Graduates of which would need re-trained to enter the real world.
The NPPL being the goal/limiting factor of course, mustn't tread on the toes of EASA God forbid.
Have I got it right this time?
I finally bit the bullet after retiring in 05 and took the NPPL route because that was all I needed.
Prior to that I flew gliders on and off for years, had numerous odd hours of "flight experience" and 3.5 hours to solo in a 152 in 85/6. I have 4 exercise 14 to my name, the first n 1956. No point mentioning that to a disinterested instructor. So I have considerable experience of deteriorating standards of instruction.

[Brian Hope]

Trevor, let's not start going down the road of slagging of Flying Instructors and criticising training standards. Instructors, whether independent or working for a School or Club, are the backbone of GA training and the fact that many ATPLs continue to instruct is because they are still enthusiastic about our sort of flying. You don't really think they do it for the pittance it pays do you!
Any training scheme will be better for having these highly trained instructors as part of its team, the PCS most certainly is, the debate is whether we can also use experienced 'ordinary' pilots to mentor the low time or less confident/competent pilot.
My view is that with the CRI scheme now pushing out many more pilots who can instruct and mentor, we would be better off being the organisation that takes them under under our wing and mutually ensures that CRI training standards are at an acceptable level. Those many CRIs will then be readily available around the country to make the PCS the broad-based scheme it needs to be to have any effect on reducing some of the wholly avoidable mishaps caused by inexperience and/or an ill-considered or non-existent 'what if' attitude.
Rgds, Brian.

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian.
I certainly did not intend to come across as slagging off instructors, nor training standards.
By motivated I meant the students. And it is a fact that the advice to students being " don't pay up front in case the school goes bust", does not point to a hugely thriving business.
I apologise for referring to airline pilots as Tin Tube drivers,.
There is a difference between the type of flying we do and the type of flying expected of some flight schools primarily concerned with sending their students on to ATPL standards,
If I/we can't be a little flippant and compare the current highly regulated system to the days of a wooden shack on a grass field, it's a sad day for freedom.
I can only point out that I of course would like to see the administration of flight training in LAA aircraft for LAA students by LAA appointed instructors, coaches, mentors, expanded to cover the country and widely available.
I say again I'm not trying to slag anyone off. And I'm pretty disappointed that I am being seen as such.
However as for "deteriorating standards of instruction"
My view on that refers to things such as, no spin training, no full stall training in many cases, an attitude of don't let the situation develop before taking action to the point where the student is afraid of the dreaded spin because he has never seen one. This has nothing to do with the competence of the instructor, but current policy.
I may have got the details wrong but try to see what I'm getting at.
Trevor.

[Brian Hope]

If I/we can't be a little flippant and compare the current highly regulated system to the days of a wooden shack on a grass field, it's a sad day for freedom.

You can say what you like Trevor, but the freedom to speak also means you also have to accept that some people will not agree with you, and have a right to say so.

The spin/no spin training argument has been going on since they altered the syllabus many years ago. I believe the general view is that the most likely time you will spin is in the circuit, probably wracking it around the turn onto final having overshot the base leg. Recovery from an actual spin in this situation is odds on impossible, recovery from the incipient stage is possible provided you recognise what is happening, so that is why they now concentrate on recovery from the incipient spin. That makes sense to me but it wouldn't hurt to show all students how the incipient stage develops into a full blown spin, at a suitable height of course, a reality check on inattention when you are low and slow does wonders for pressing home the message.

" don't pay up front in case the school goes bust", does not point to a hugely thriving business.

I think that's good advice, given the uncertain state of GA training these days. As a general rule it does not reflect badly on the good will and integrity of those running the schools, it's just that staying in business in an industry with high rents, expensive to maintain hardware, weather issues and a generally low uptake of students in recent years isn't easy.
I learned to fly 40 years ago, and the school I was learning at went bust, and that was at a time when flight training was booming. I was too skint to have paid anything in advance even if they'd asked!
None of this adds to the PCS debate, so apologies for that, but we will all do better if we find a way to work together, rather than become opposing factions.
Rgds, Brian

[P5151]

Thanks guys for your input.

My initial intention when opening this debate was to try to get our scheme initially to adopt a more reasonable approach to the recruitment or acceptance of coaches. As I a nd others have pointed out a number of members are coaching outside the scheme because of a lack of coaches, especially in places like Scotland.

If couches are to be required to have an instructor rating then let them instruct.

The 1000 hours requirement is absolute nonsense. I had just gone solo with 4 hours under my belt I was still nervous about this when a guy came to our club with 3000 hours who wanted to hire a C172. All the instructors were diving for cover but my instructor got volunteered to do his check ride.

My instructor asked me to come along as I would learn something. Long story short, suffice today I had assumed the crash position on take off, two times during the flight and I really thought I was going to die on landing. My instructor asked what I had learned later, well one was that 3000 hours means jack xxxx!

Since then I have flown with instructors who could not fly a Tailwind, Kitfox and others. Our aeroplanes are often very different from each other and very different from the C150, Piper training type.

I do not want to ruffle feathers and would wish to keep all the volunteers who operate in the scheme on board but it needs to embrace those who have shown an aptitude for coaching who have a lot of experience on LAA types and work on the basis of what it is a coaching not an instruction scheme.


Now if it were expanded to instruction and coaching and two classes of instructor coach I would be even more happy.

[Brian Hope]

I'm with you 100% on opening up the criteria to enlist more coaches Steve, but we may have different ideas on how that might be achieved. The CRI (Class Rating Instructor) qualification enables a PPL holder with more than 300 hours (P1) to do type conversions, check outs, refresher training and the biennial revue flight. The qualification entails 30 hours ground instruction and at least three hours flight instruction, plus a test. I have seen such courses advertised for less than £1500.
In my view the CRI is certainly not trained to the level of a Flying Instructor, but he/she should at least have a better grasp of training methods than somebody who has carried out no Instructor training at all.
As I've said before, if the PCS engaged with these CRIs and gave then continuing assessment and training where they needed it, we could have very many more coaches around the country.
The argument that instructors can't fly a Kitfox or a Tailwind is not particularly relevant. What a coach or Instructor engaged in flying LAA types needs to be is adaptable to different types of aircraft and I believe the PCS coaches are cleared for aircraft of different classes of difficulty. That is something that can also be translated to the CRI position.
I'm not suggesting any of this is easy to put in place, and I don't doubt that liability and insurance issues will raise their ugly heads, but if we are ever to open up the PCS to the much wider audience it deserves then we have to change the current criteria to become a Coach, and use our particularly highly capable Instructors to oversee and nurture the CRIs.
Rgds, Brian.

[Chris Martyr]

If couches are to be required to have an instructor rating then let them instruct.

Is that for 2 seater types or 4 seater types Steve.

Sorry mate . Couldn't resist it. I'm insanely childish for a man of 62 [going on 7].

But in all seriousness, thank you for bringing this to peoples attention, and also good to see that there is still the ability here to create healthy debate with nearly 40 responses and over 900 hits without any negativity and vitriol.
Fairly minimal response from the top end , but that may actually be a good sign. Perhaps they too have been stimulated into positive thought and can take something away from this from which to work on.
But if the above sentence is not true , then maybe they should bear in mind your 'middle name' Steve.
Again . Well done mate. I support you're suggestions to the hilt !

[P5151]

Hi Chris,

I have deliberately avoided having a go at anyone because I really value the work they all do and time they give up for us and the association.

Brian, I agree with all you say but if we are not engaging with the CRI community we should offer more courses for those who have shown an interest, the experience and an aptitude for coaching. We have almost a million quid in the bank why is this not being invested in the coaching scheme.

I would perhaps even suggest that the LAA could buy a couple of the more popular types for use of coaches for conversions. The problem I have recently come up against is in converting someone on to my RV 4 who is a new tailwheel conversion. I have got him to the point of doing everything right round the circuit to the point of touchdown at which point I have to take over because of lack of dual controls. RV's because of their power, quickness of control response can bite the unwary. We have done 2 hours of taxiing too.

We had hoped to use a coach with an RV 6 but that is no longer available, so a friend has taken him up in his 7. Again someone who is not a coach.

The way things are set up a coach will normally coach in your aeroplane which in my case means that the coach can do no more than I have already done. I would prefer that he could do several full take off and landings dual before biting the bullet and letting him go solo as there would be less risk.

If the association had a 6,7, or 9 this could be done and perhaps a Europa and a Kitfox types which had bitten people in the past proper coaching could be given.

I am just throwing this out as an idea for discussion, but it seems sensible to me .

[mikehallam]

Steve,

a) You're asking rather a lot, it's your plane, you chose it and any pilot you want to fly it & who's in need of instruction need only find an appropriate school ?

Naturally he/you'd have to find such an outfit and being professional they'd expect to be paid. But why not?
You can't expect them to remain in business on the off chance that folk like you might or might not use their services from time to time if/when you can't persuade the LAA to help them by doing a full conversion course for you AND fund purchasing a similar hot ship for training.

b) How on Earth do you think WWII pilots managed moving into a single seat 1000+ h.p Spitfire or Hurricane ?

Seems to me your prospective RV pilot is in need of a lot more than amateur coaching, perhaps his ab initio training needs up-dating, but please not at the cost of our Association !

Going on about some sort of lesser training qualification lower than Instructor (& how will they earn their bread ?) & apparently even lesser than the bi-ennial check pilot scheme the LAA already operate is a bit thick !

mike hallam.

[P5151]

Hi Mike

Thanks for your input.

Lets relate your Spitfire comment to the requirements to be a Coach.

I understand that many Spitfire pilots had less than 10 hours on type before they were sent into combat and that many Spits and and other types were lost in training accidents, more than combat?? As against a CRI requirement and a 1000 hours to become a coach?

As I have said we have almost a million in the bank what are LAA going to do with this if it does not benefit members? Cost to the association, what is the cost to the association of a fatal accident in one of our fleet, what are the cost to members of increased insurance premiums. I remember a time when it was almost impossible to insure a Kitfox until the check scheme was brought in.

I brought the suggestion about scheme owned aircraft which could be used by coaches for discussion and a possible way forward and am happy to hear views on it. I see it as being rather like being able to hire a bike to do a CBT or rider training on.

[Chris Martyr]

Whew !,,,the debate's taken a bit of a wacky turn here .
Steve's campaign regarding the 1,000hr Instructor/Coach requirement is spot-on and should be addressed forthwith !
As far as the LAA acquiring aeroplanes and training people is concerned though ? Good idea in principle, but realistically,,unfortunately, a non-starter .
Picture this : Guy becomes interested in LAA type ['plane that is] enquires to LAA .
"Oh yes, we can supply Info Pack, support you throughout build process, oversee maintenance and operation and even train you to fly it". Then months after getting its first PtF, goes and kills himself.
Grieving widow gets on blower to ScumbagLawyers4U.com and all of a sudden the million quid surplus in the LAA account [and the rest] beats a hasty retreat .
Not just that , but what types of a/c do they acquire to train people on ? I can feel the headache coming on now.
If you're looking at an RV , then your best bet is the RV community. Likewise with other types . Europa's and Kitfox's have bitten a few in the botty , but the best people to ask are the ones who are right there in the thick of it. Now,,,if they just happen to be PCS people , then all well and good, but there is just the chance that they may be massively knowledgeable and experienced people , but can't be @rsed to jump through the PCS hoops,,,,,and maybe even one or two [ Messr's Cooke & Greenwood look away now] of them CRI type johnnies !
So, who are the losers here? [ why do I keep having to say that]

[Brian Hope]

Steve, we have money in the bank because we have been prudent. The Board quite recently reconsidered the minimum emergency reserve requirement, which we have met, and any surplus funds that become available can be used on projects that benefit the members. For example, additional expenditure has been allocated for the 70th Anniversary, including the Rally, and not raising fees and subscriptions. Personally I do not see that buying aircraft for use by the PCS, at this time, comes even close to being a good use of members' funds.
However, I don't go with the liability argument. We are involved in what is, by its very nature, a potentially dangerous sport. Of course there will be liabilities but that is not a satisfactory excuse on its own to write off doing something that to all intents is a reasonable activity. We just have to do it well and ensure we have satisfactory cover.
I'd like to see ab initio flight training and continuing training opportunities taking place under the LAA banner, a much wider expansion of the PCS if you will. Whether that happens under direct LAA control, probably unlikely at the moment, or under some form of LAA 'sponsorship' I don't really know, but it is a goal to aim for. When the ULAA started in 1946 its core business was assisting flying groups, most of which taught new group members to fly. CAA Regulation killed that activity off, but in the current CAA regulatory environment I believe we could aim to bring something similar back. Would that be a not for profit 'Club' arrangement or a commercial venture - I don't know, but I think some time soon we should be looking at ways we could make it work within the existing Flying Club/School regime that currently exists. I believe we have to try to work with existing training organisations, not against them.
This debate goes well beyond the 'we need to reconsider Coach qualifications' issues; PCS will be 20 years old next year, we should be looking at where it sits in today's operating environment and what we need it to do over the next twenty years. Like most things though, we need to find people with vision and commitment to stick their heads above the parapet and volunteer to get involved, something we unfortunately find increasingly difficult to do.
Rgds, Brian

[Cookie]

The spin/no spin training argument has been going on since they altered the syllabus many years ago.

Whilst there is no full spin training in the PPL syllabus, there is still incipient spinning (Exercise 11: Spin Avoidance). This is also a required item on the CRI and FI Assessment of Competence.

Full spinning is still in the Flight Instructor (FI) syllabus and FI Assessment of Competence. All Flight Instructors will have completed this training and testing - CRIs are not required to do this but it is recommended as part of their training and test.

I believe the general view is that the most likely time you will spin is in the circuit, probably wracking it around the turn onto final having overshot the base leg.

The GASCo Stall Spin Study showed that the climbing turn carries a greater statistical risk:

http://www.gasco.org.uk/news/general/ne ... ?p=1036698

Many LAA aircraft may not exhibit the benign stall/spin characteristics which pilots may have experienced during their initial training. This is one area where the instructor/coach needs to be more experienced in order to ensure training in the broad range of LAA aircraft we have on the fleet is safely and confidently delivered.

So, right now I am converting someone on an RV4. We have tried to get help through the scheme but have failed.

If this is the RV4 at Wellesbourne, I was contacted about using my RV6 for his the initial part of his conversion training, to then complete the training onto the RV4. Due to the fact that I sold my RV6 aircraft last year, I can no longer assist in this way but, since I am regularly at Wellesbourne, I offered to conduct the coaching myself on this RV4 for this member.

Steve's campaign regarding the 1,000hr Instructor/Coach requirement is spot-on and should be addressed forthwith !

This system is already in place, except that the requirement of 1000 hours plus whatever else is required is holding it back.

There is no 1,000 hours minimum requirement! Stated in Coaching Scheme Leaflet 3.1 and as explained by myself on page one of this thread, the requirement for a new coach to have a sound foundation of knowledge and skill to pass on to others is not unreasonable. I issued the guidance in CSL 3.1 in order to provide a transparent process for those interested in becoming a coach. This is not a minimum, but is a guide to the experience level needed to safely conduct coaching on the wide range of LAA aircraft and various training environments we coach from.

We are keen to encourage experienced members to join the Pilot Coaching Scheme team. The current process demonstrates how we meet our obligations in ensuring all of the coaches we provide, and recommend to members, meet a minimum standard in terms of licensing, experience, flying, and instructional ability.

My view is that with the CRI scheme now pushing out many more pilots who can instruct and mentor, we would be better off being the organisation that takes them under under our wing and mutually ensures that CRI training standards are at an acceptable level.

I am keen to encourage all Class Rating Instructors to develop their knowledge and skills, whether they are a LAA coach or not. The annual LAA CRI Seminar which I conduct on behalf of the LAA is open to any Class Rating Instructor. As stated on page one of this thread and previously offered the UK CAA, I would be happy to oversee the training standards and standardisation of all CRIs in the UK.

Now if it were expanded to instruction and coaching and two classes of instructor coach I would be even more happy.

There have always been two grades of coach, which is issued to the coach upon their initial appointment: Assistant Coach, or Full Coach. Typically Assistant Coaches have little or no previous formal instructing experience and whilst they gain experience are approved to conduct the “one hour with an instructor” and refresher training, both of which under EASA legislation require a valid CRI certificate. Full Coaches are more experienced instructors approved to conduct all of the courses and training we offer.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... tails.html

“Full Coaches are shown in blue and bold. They are able to do specialised training, difference training, diploma courses, refresher courses and licence revalidation.
 
Assistant Coaches are shown in blue. They are able to do licence revalidation by experience.”

However, returning to the issue of lack of currency on type if I were a coach and had not flown a type for some time I would ask to be allowed to refamiliarise myself before coaching.

That is not unreasonable, and is what we have always informed all applicants may happen when their training starts with the coaching scheme:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... Apply.html

To quote myself from the above webpage: “In addition to your normal aircraft operating costs, you should be prepared to bear the cost of this pre-coaching flying, and ensure that your aircraft insurance policy covers the coach to fly as PIC.  The coach may, of course, fly with you acting as P2 during his familiarisation in your aircraft, and this is recommended.”

The most frequent complaint is not being able to get hold of a coach

As previously stated, there is a webpage listing coach contact details with both telephone number and e-mail, a Google map of LAA coaches, a dedicated e-mail address - coaching (at) laa.uk.com, and also LAA Head Office to contact where the enquiry will be forwarded for response.

"The Emperors New Flight Academy”

We are proud to provide LAA members with a high standard of training in an informal and cost effective way. Repeatedly insulting the significant effort which goes on behind the scenes to support the LAA and it’s members is of no benefit to your argument or this debate. Without the efforts of volunteers and without the administration process and procedures we have in place, there would be no coaching scheme. You may not remember: the Pilot Coaching Scheme was originally set up to support LAA members who were owners of an aircraft type for which they could no longer obtain insurance.

The requirements to become a coach have not significantly changed - if anything, I now appoint pilots with less experience than were previously accepted. There is nothing new about the requirement for coaches to hold a current CRI certificate either, which has existed since the introduction of JAR-FCL in 1999, well before I took over as chairman of the coaching scheme. Where this was previously revalidated by experience, in September 2012 there was a change in regulation under EASA which meant that CRIs must complete an Assessment of Competence at least every six years, which as a Flight Instructor Examiner (FIE) I conduct for them which then meets EASA/CAA requirements whilst completing LAA standardisation training also.

Our continued commitment to LAA members has been to meet their training needs by providing a countrywide network of coaches capable of conducting a high standard of flight training in a safe learning environment. We are happy to accept constructive suggestions as to how to improve the scheme, but you will see that many of the points raised above have been an integral part of the scheme for many years.

Regards,

Jon