Coaching Scheme

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian.
I am well aware of all that.
In the hangar next to me there is a syndicate of 4/5, at least 3 are airline pilots, at least one has flown tailwheel and 747s long haul, all are enjoying light aircraft flying from grass. Please stop thinking that I need advised that some, probably many, ATPLs fly for fun. I personally know several ATPLs who do.
In a similar vein, I spent my working life in engineering, toolmaking, tool design, special purpose machine design/building.
I retired 11years ago and I have several machine tools in my workshop and now "play" at the same thing.
I have friends who retired and would never want to see a Bridgeport mill or lathe ever again, and are happy to spend their time on the golf course or drowning worms by the river.
We are all,,,, most,,, on the same page.
Can we stop this "ahh but!" thing?

[Chris Martyr]

Ooh Err Missus ! Hope it wasn't me that steered the debate around to the airline pilot thing.
We are though , all fairly united in the general message. Apart from the odd wibble .
Essentially , it doesn't make a scrap of difference what one's background is , whether it's airline , IT geek , pastry chef,,,,,..All that counts is the relevant knowledge and experience .

The only thing that I found a little mystifying was one of Jon's earlier statements where he deliberately seemed to want to distance the PCS from people with airline experience . Just seemed a bit odd from a guy who flies commercially himself . [ flightbags at dawn ? ]
Similar logic can be applied to the 1,000hr [approx.] requirement . It almost surmises that someone with 1,200hrs logged is four times better than someone with 300hrs logged ! Utter tripe in fact and a good reason to bring in some slightly more realistic selection parameters.
Precisely ! ! The above affliction pretty much negates any prospective candidates regardless ! A proper and thorough vetting process to ascertain for the right stuff and not necessarily a million hrs PIC, glowing CV's , overflowing pilot-log , T/R's on everything since the Wright Flyer.....
Please ,please chaps , just modify the selection criteria to something a little more realistic , it can only be a win/win situation for the membership and the PCS.
If not , people will just end up voting with their feet....Like most are doing now !

[P5151]

I had a good chat with Brian at Air Expo yesterday and we are on the same page with this. He assures me that it is being discussed at board level which is great, but what we need is action.

I had hoped that persuasion would see changes and am still hopeful but given that only 8.6 per cent of the membership have been on a course I wonder when the penny wil drop with the man at the top that PCS is failing the membership!

[P5151]

I had a good chat with Brian at Air Expo yesterday and we are on the same page with this. He assures me that it is being discussed at board level which is great, but what we need is action.

I had hoped that persuasion would see changes and am still hopeful but given that only 8.6 per cent of the membership have been on a course I wonder when the penny wil drop with the man at the top that PCS is failing the membership!

[Cookie]

Given our previous correspondence via e-mail, it's a little disingenuous to attack me personally Steve.

I have deliberately refused to insult or point fingers because I as I have said appreciate those who help voluntarily. I would ask that no one post anything that could be construed as such.

Chris' point, albeit crudely portrayed, about requiring the right skills and attitude as well as just experience is correct. As we often find common sense regulations across the Atlantic, I thought I'd look at the requirements for a EAA Flight Adviser; they require:

To be a flight advisor, he/she must apply and conform to any one of the following experience measures:

* Minimum 500 hours combined with flight testing (“phase 1”) experience; or

* Minimum 1,000 hours PIC time and significant experience in sport aviation aircraft (i.e., homebuilts, vintage, warbird, ultralight, etc.)

A similar experience requirement to the LAA. However, a EAA Flight Advisor only "helps the pilot conduct a self evaluation, as well, as evaluate the flying characteristics of the [EAA Flight Advisor's] aircraft. The pilot then uses that evaluation to decide whether he or she is capable of flying that airplane. If not capable, the flight advisor explains where and how he or she can get the proper instruction, or alternatively find someone to make the initial flights. A flight advisor also suggests best practices to follow when flight testing a homebuilt aircraft (e.g. runway selection, weather minimums, etc.)"

The EAA Flight Advisor does not conduct any flight training. In order to conduct training under the FAA system equivalent to the training our coaches deliver, you would require a FAA Commercial Pilots Licence, Instrument Rating, and Certified Flight Instructor certificate. The CRI certificate in the UK allows those with experience to share that with other pilots by completing a short course relevant to the knowledge and skills required to provide class rating training (such as type conversions, differences training, the one hour with an instructor for class rating revalidation, etc). However, the 300 hours TT which is the minimum required to obtain a CRI certificate would simply be insufficient to allow that pilot to safely deliver training to our members in the variety of aircraft and environments in which they might be expected to train.

A proper and thorough vetting process to ascertain for the right stuff

That's exactly what we do. It's the same process I went through when I first became a coach, and is what the CAA recommend in AIC 22/2001 [Pink 19]. I have appointed seven new coaches in the last twelve months, and have two new coaches booked in for a CRI course with me in November from the areas you have highlighted.

The only thing that I found a little mystifying was one of Jon's earlier statements where he deliberately seemed to want to distance the PCS from people with airline experience.

If you look back, that's not what I said. A number of our coaches are airline pilots who continue to enjoy recreational flying, although we have a broad range of experience within the scheme including test pilots, military pilots, airline pilots, and a number of private pilots.

We are keen to develop the scheme to better meet members' needs, and have been successful in delivering training to a large number [albeit a small percentage!] of members already.

Jon

[Trevor Harvey]

Jon.
Thank you for that.
I would seem however that the "Flight Advisor" would require the higher qualifications, in a similar situation as you yourself would need in order to administer the System.
The actual grass roots instructors however seem to only require the normal instructor qualifications on the types of aircraft they are instructing on.
Surely a coach converting someone from a 152 to a Kitfox or helping regain currency to an otherwise qualified pilot doesn't need to have thousands of hours on warbirds and every type of aircraft known to mankind?
It doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

[Chris Martyr]

Not having had the pleasure of meeting either Jon or Steve , I cannot really judge upon what is disingenuous and what is not. Although I do have a sneaking feeling that they may have both taken up cudgels before on this matter.
I only stumbled across it as a spin-off from another thread regarding something else and had a read through the PCS related literature on LAA's website , afterwhich I concluded that Steve, in my opinion ,actually did have a point .
Anyone bright enough to get through the RAF's aptitude test can expect something of a high level grilling if they wish to progress further. Likewise any candidate who is offered a cadetship and subsequent position in an airline. The same applies to people who enrol in a flight academy with the aim of achieving CPL/ATPL qualifications.
But getting back to the good old LAA flying ethic,,, has there been a problem in the past with LAA'ers blundering into airspace that they shouldn't ? or jumping into aeroplanes that were way beyond their capability of handling ? OK, there has been the odd whoopsies , but I hardly think that we are an organisation of reckless mavericks , and I don't think that we really need our own version of an 'Aviation Centre of Excellence' to save us from our own misdemeanours.
Of course , we all need our skills checking on and brushing up from time to time , but that is mainly down to setting good personal standards for ourselves and unfortunately will not come from having some sky-god in the other seat telling us what d*******s we all are and what a great pilot he is......
....And yes , I'm quoting from real life here, from a colleagues experience and I won't name the PCS person concerned , to protect the guilty !
But to re-iterate Trevor's point . What happens if a Kitfox/Europa owner, who just happens to be a CFI , puts an ad in LA mag offering assistance to other prospective Kitfox/Europa owners in giving type conversion,BFR etc and other familiarisation training . This CFI may or may not be eligible to be part of the PCS , or he may have a lot to offer the lesser experienced guy , but not wish to be part of the PCS out of his own freewill. And what if he just happens to reside in one of the more remote areas of the country.
No,,,I'm not going to mention 'The Emperor' again , but as someone else said , what is on offer should be tailored to the needs of the membership.
I believe that this has been recognised from certain quarters and the sooner it is brought to fruition , the more beneficial it will be to all.

[Jeremy Liber]

I suspect I'm not fully aware of some of the background to conversations alluded to so am putting my two-pen o worth in slightly blind-sided but...

It is worth keeping in mind that LAA PCS (and Jon as its head) is taking (personal) liability for what is done in the name of the PCS.
Given that he is not paid for this responsibility and that the activity mostly takes place out of his view, at strips he might never have visited and at what might be overall called 'arms-length', I would think it prudent for LAA PCS to expect higher entry requirements than for a 'bog' CRI.

Stand-alone CRIs are responsible for their own actions, if they are under the umbrella of a flying school then the school takes some responsibility but has close oversight of what he/she does.

The situation with LAA PCS is much more remote and so, if only for his own preservation but maybe for ours also, I can see the sense in raising the bar. This is not to say that the PCS shouldn't be improved but does put a slightly different view on the situation.

[P5151]

Jon

Thousands of words typed here supporting change and asking for improvement in PCs availability, but a stern refusal to budge on your part, that is not an attack on you that is merely a statement of fact.

I have repeatedly said I am grateful for what you and the other coaches do but can never accept rules which are disproportionate and I will continue to push until there is change.

The fact that you have appointed 7 coaches recently is irrelevant if you are still using the over the top standards you have set, and we still have a shortfall of coaches, and while non PCS members are filling gaps in the holes left by PCS.

8.6 percent of the membership had been on a course?? If I were the man in charge and saw those figures I would be asking myself why are we not reaching a larger audience. Well a number of us have explained why we are not but there is still no change to the system and a refusal to listen to others concerns, again here I am merely stating a fact.

If you can give me a logical reason for refusing to look at people as prospects who are currently doing coaching off PCS I will back off. I agree with you that there should be a minimum standard but 1000 hrs is a crazy number, especially where people may have experience of instruction in other areas which can be adapted to PCS, and may have other skill which offset not being able to reach that hours number.

[mikehallam]

Having read for far too long now some demanding & persistent exchanges I am not at all sure I'd be comfortable flying P1 with someone of Steve's personality, ability is not all.

In any case surely our generously voluntary LAA organisers have sufficient & first hand practical experience in organising and monitoring to call the shots ?

mike hallam.

[P5151]

Jeremy,

I do not disagree with anything you have said but the question is how you raise the bar?

I am sure that you like I have seen many high hours pilots who were not as good as some lower housed ones. How many hours someone as is no guide at all to how good they are, it all depends on the type of flying they have done, on what types their skill levels, their ability to pass on information and communicate clearly, to manage risk and act as a rock model, etc,etc,

This I maintain could be achieved by a skills test of people who have demonstrated an ability, despite not having 1000 hours in their book.

I have had horror stories emailed to me of PCS coaches charging a fortune for their services and being completely unfamiliar with the aeroplane they are coaching on. Again I will not post specifics to protect the guilty. In fact some of the coaching experiences members have shared would have caused accidents if the coaches advice had been followed, again through lack of familiarity with the aircraft they were coaching on.

Personally I would not use a coach unless I knew he was really current on the type I wanted coaching in.

You are right in this age there is potential liability for the coach those at the top who run PCS and the association itself if a coach gets it wrong. So, not only do I think there should be changes in how coaches are recruited but also there should be a recent requirement on type or skill before a coach can use his skills to coach another member so examples like those above do not occur.

[Jeremy Liber]

Fair points Steve.

However, what that would probably mean for Jon is a massive increase in (voluntary) workload whilst he gave every good, bad and indifferent coaching applicant a flight test - I don't think that that is practical.
There has to be a 'bar' at a level that weeds out more 'bad' applicants than it does 'good' applicants thus leaving Jon and his team a manageable pile of likely 'lads/lasses' with more than an evens-chance of 'passing'.
I suspect that if he had a team of 20 deputies then a lower bar could be a practical proposition.

Regarding coaches requiring to be current on the type they are coaching on, again I suspect that this would do more harm than good as you would end up with far fewer coaches suitable for 'your' aircraft type.

Putting a higher bar to coach recruitment should mean that you get coaches who are able to quickly learn the foibles of a new type and then give someone a type-conversion onto it. I have done this on a couple of occassions recently with aircraft I'd not flown - aircraft and crew were re-useable afterwards in both cases and the pilots concerned seem to be safely progressing under their own steam.

I suggest that the overall PCS principle is fairly sound and workable given the constraints on those involved. I know that, when selecting coaches, Jon does not just look at hours flown but also at variety of types and categories of aircraft (large/small, low powered/high powered, nose/tail-wheel, etc.) as well. He has to have some easily applied, early yard-stick.

Nothing is perfect but we are in a world of real-politik.

[RichardMaxted]

Related but not directly to the discussions above.

As a new member of the LAA aircraft owning fraternity I am to a large extent blessed with being based at an airfield with other LAA members and a very patient set of engineers and a gent of an inspector.

However, there are still many "idiot" questions that I have about really simple things as I try to match my car maintenance head to all of previous " don't touch" certified aircraft ownership. I also worry that I am worrying about the wrong things much of the time...

I wonder if there would be millage in having a few experienced LAA owners who could mentor a new aircraft owner who is not a builder right through the whole process of their first year of operation. A confidential friend at the end of the phone sort of thing. Someone who can tell the new owner when they are worrying too much, not enough, or about the wrong things. To go through the whole "Have you applied for ..." process and even things like helping the new owner get a sense of how much time to set aside for an annual ?

[Brian Hope]

Hi Richard, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said there are other owners around you and you have already formed a good relationship with your inspector. It is inevitable that when you are new to permit aircraft ownership you are going to be apprehensive but I've never yet known a fellow member who won't offer help and advice should you ask.
From LAA's point of view, we are looking at an expansion in education and courses to help members build, maintain and operate their aircraft. I do not know yet what the timeline will be on this but it is certainly regarded as a 'must do' at Board level and I would hope to see at least some initial steps being taken before the end of the year. Meanwhile I would say that the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask, so take the opportunity to talk to your inspector and other members, and of course you can call HQ and pose queries on this forum, as I know you have already.
Good luck with your aircraft ownership, it is a road to an awful lot of fun and friendships.

[jamespearce]

I recently re-validated my SEP employing an instructor listed by the pilot coaching scheme. I applaud the system of re-validation as a means of keeping the likes of me, a farm strip pilot, up to speed and maybe catch some bad habits before they become dangerous. The coach concerned was easy to contact and was clear about the requirements and intentions of the re-validation process. He came to my strip which made it very convenient. Although it was made clear it was not a test, no pilot of worth wants to show themselves up and I took myself out on several days to polish up my general handling skills. I suspect my coach had an inkling of my preparation and proceeded to throw several other googlies that proved "interesting" and thought provoking - just the point? He was not particularly phased by my embarrassing and inelegant arrival back at my strip in a 14 kt crosswind and made my excuses for me. I feel now, though, I will be a better pilot after my session with this coach and I highly recommend the scheme, thanks.