The Coaching Scheme has been in operation for a number of years now and has no doubt assisted a lot of LAA members over the years. I am grateful to the volunteers who work within the scheme and all the volunteers who help the LAA in whatever area. However, in my view the scheme is failing to deliver what it should not because of any fault in those who work within the scheme but because of the restrictive way it is set up.
Why do I say this, well recently a friend contacted a coach for different type training but the coach was not available. Other friends report having contacted the scheme for help and never having heard back from them. Others prefer to pay for Biannuals rather than the scheme either citing lack of availability of coaches or a coach they are comfortable with.
I was on the EC when the scheme was being negotiated with the CAA. The original idea was to try to get a system in place which followed the BMAA Instructor scheme. In that scheme a pilot can become an Assistant Instructor if they have flown for at least 100 hours as pilot in command of aircraft, at least 40 of which must have been in microlights. To go on to be an instructor following a period as an AFI, the minimum being 10 months after the AFI rating was issued, and having had at least 100 hours teaching in microlights you will have become eligible to take a test to be upgraded from AFI to FI.
Now this is of course to become full instructors not just coaches. Coaches are of course flying with qualified pilots so it could be argued that it carries less risk, but because of the rules set by the CAA must hold an Instructor rating and something in the region of 1000 hours. This I believe has lead to a situation where there are insufficient coaches, and that it is almost impossible for a non commercial pilot to become a coach.
Given that many three axis microlites can cruise well above 100 mph and often out perform many group A LAA types I do not see how it is justified to make becoming a coach so difficult when in theory a person can become an assistant microlite instructor with 100 hours, and a full instructor after 10 months having given 100 hours of instruction.
So, I reiterate I am in no way having a go at anyone within the current scheme who volunteers their time to help others. What I am saying is that the scheme should be renegotiated with the CAA to bring it more in line with that of the BMAA. I do not expect for one minute that we will be allowed to instruct as there are too many flying schools with vested interests, but a more realistic entry requirement for prospective candidates should be aimed for.
Open for debate!!!
Coaching Scheme
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
Re: Coaching Scheme
Steve, thank you for your comments.
LAA members may make contact with LAA coaches directly through the telephone and e-mail details available for each coach on the LAA website under "Pilot Coaching > Find a Coach". You can review LAA coach locations using the following URL: http://www.tinyurl.com/laacoach. There is also a dedicated LAA e-mail which is forwarded to both Will Greenwood and myself for a response, which is "coaching (at) laa.uk.com". We will do our best to respond quickly, but do allow upto 7 days depending on the complexity of the required response. You will appreciate that myself, Will, and many of the coaches have jobs and family commitments which our LAA coaching must fit around.
When I took over as chairman of the Pilot Coaching Scheme, there was no published guidance as to how one applied to become a coach. I considered that the process should be transparent where members could review the requirements prior to applying, and therefore published Coaching Scheme Leaflet 3.1 which provides guidance to applicants. We are keen to encourage experienced pilots to assist other LAA members through the coaching scheme, and are proud of the services we provide.
With the introduction of JAR-FCL, and now EASA, there exists a requirement for any differences training, class rating renewal training, and the "one hour with an instructor" for class rating revalidation to be conducted by the holder of a current instructor certificate. Due to existing legislation and insurance policies, we now require all LAA coaches to be either a Class Rating Instructor or Flight Instructor.
The minimum experience level to obtain a EASA Class Rating Instructor certificate is 300 hours of flight time as pilot on aeroplanes. However, this experience level would be insufficient to safely provide training of any value to our many LAA pilots. Given the variety of aircraft and the environment from which many LAA pilots operate, a broad experience of owning and operating several LAA aircraft provides a sound foundation of knowledge, skills, and experience for the coach to pass on.
I acknowledge your frustration at the experience levels we set. The 1,000 hours came from an insurance requirement from when the Pilot Coaching Scheme was set up. In the days before the introduction of the Class Rating Instructor, the PFA approached a number of insurance companies and asked for the PCS to be added to aircraft insurance policies thereby allowing coaches (who at the time did not necessarily hold an instructor certificate) to instruct; this was the minimum experience the insurance companies stipulated; I now use this as a guide rather than a minimum. No negotiation is required with the CAA since we set our own experience levels which exceed the requirements set by the CAA.
Being a commercial pilot is of little benefit either, since the hours requirement applies to experience on single-engine piston aircraft. As many will attest, several thousand hours flying an airliner will do little to develop the handling skills required for our area of General Aviation.
Given the desire to encourage experienced pilots into the scheme, I even created the process within the scheme whereby I train our own EASA Class Rating Instructors in-house. Where new coaches are selected who do not hold an instructor certificate, I provide the training course as a service free of charge to the LAA and it's members. I also conduct the Assessments of Competence required under EASA for revalidation and renewal of our coaches instructor certificates along with regular seminars to keep them updated with changes in legislation and instructional techniques.
The system is set up and run to provide our members with a supply of knowledgeable instructors across the UK experienced in LAA aircraft, and our type of flying, which we are happy to recommend for their training. We will do our very best to respond to our members flight training needs. Whilst it is disappointing when they do, LAA members are of course free to seek training elsewhere.
Finally, I can assure you that conducting type conversion training from a farm strip carries at least the same level of risk as ab-initio training from a licensed airfield.
Do get in touch directly if you wish to discuss the matter further.
Kind regards,
Jon
LAA members may make contact with LAA coaches directly through the telephone and e-mail details available for each coach on the LAA website under "Pilot Coaching > Find a Coach". You can review LAA coach locations using the following URL: http://www.tinyurl.com/laacoach. There is also a dedicated LAA e-mail which is forwarded to both Will Greenwood and myself for a response, which is "coaching (at) laa.uk.com". We will do our best to respond quickly, but do allow upto 7 days depending on the complexity of the required response. You will appreciate that myself, Will, and many of the coaches have jobs and family commitments which our LAA coaching must fit around.
When I took over as chairman of the Pilot Coaching Scheme, there was no published guidance as to how one applied to become a coach. I considered that the process should be transparent where members could review the requirements prior to applying, and therefore published Coaching Scheme Leaflet 3.1 which provides guidance to applicants. We are keen to encourage experienced pilots to assist other LAA members through the coaching scheme, and are proud of the services we provide.
With the introduction of JAR-FCL, and now EASA, there exists a requirement for any differences training, class rating renewal training, and the "one hour with an instructor" for class rating revalidation to be conducted by the holder of a current instructor certificate. Due to existing legislation and insurance policies, we now require all LAA coaches to be either a Class Rating Instructor or Flight Instructor.
The minimum experience level to obtain a EASA Class Rating Instructor certificate is 300 hours of flight time as pilot on aeroplanes. However, this experience level would be insufficient to safely provide training of any value to our many LAA pilots. Given the variety of aircraft and the environment from which many LAA pilots operate, a broad experience of owning and operating several LAA aircraft provides a sound foundation of knowledge, skills, and experience for the coach to pass on.
I acknowledge your frustration at the experience levels we set. The 1,000 hours came from an insurance requirement from when the Pilot Coaching Scheme was set up. In the days before the introduction of the Class Rating Instructor, the PFA approached a number of insurance companies and asked for the PCS to be added to aircraft insurance policies thereby allowing coaches (who at the time did not necessarily hold an instructor certificate) to instruct; this was the minimum experience the insurance companies stipulated; I now use this as a guide rather than a minimum. No negotiation is required with the CAA since we set our own experience levels which exceed the requirements set by the CAA.
Being a commercial pilot is of little benefit either, since the hours requirement applies to experience on single-engine piston aircraft. As many will attest, several thousand hours flying an airliner will do little to develop the handling skills required for our area of General Aviation.
Given the desire to encourage experienced pilots into the scheme, I even created the process within the scheme whereby I train our own EASA Class Rating Instructors in-house. Where new coaches are selected who do not hold an instructor certificate, I provide the training course as a service free of charge to the LAA and it's members. I also conduct the Assessments of Competence required under EASA for revalidation and renewal of our coaches instructor certificates along with regular seminars to keep them updated with changes in legislation and instructional techniques.
The system is set up and run to provide our members with a supply of knowledgeable instructors across the UK experienced in LAA aircraft, and our type of flying, which we are happy to recommend for their training. We will do our very best to respond to our members flight training needs. Whilst it is disappointing when they do, LAA members are of course free to seek training elsewhere.
Finally, I can assure you that conducting type conversion training from a farm strip carries at least the same level of risk as ab-initio training from a licensed airfield.
Do get in touch directly if you wish to discuss the matter further.
Kind regards,
Jon
Jon Cooke
Pilot Coaching Scheme Chairman
028380
Pilot Coaching Scheme Chairman
028380
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Re: Coaching Scheme
Hi Steve, I too applaud the concept of the PCS and those whose volunteer efforts have helped members improve their skills, but like you I think it needs to reconsider its modus operandi. It has always had the ability to be the jewel in the LAA's crown but unfortunately it has never matured into that position. The problem is that you can have the very best mousetrap in the world, but if Joe Soap is happy with an easier to obtain, albeit not so high quality local mousetrap then they simply won't be beating a path to your door.
I don't believe it needs to renegotiate its remit with the CAA, I think it needs to tailor its offering to what the market requires.
I think PCS does a great job with difference training, strip flying etc and LAA members can be persuaded to use it for that. However, where I think it is missing a trick is with revalidation flights; it's simply too much of a hassle to organise a coach. However, there are now a veritable plethora of CRIs (Class Rating Instructors) around the country and the reality is it is they that are doing many LAA members' (and others') biennial revalidations. That is not set to change in any great hurry because the CRIs generally cannot charge for their services, and they are readily available in most areas of the country.
My solution would be for the PCS to embrace the CRIs, not see them as the opposition. The more specialised talents of the PCS coaches could so easily be used to run seminars for CRIs to improve their skills and training methods, thus enabling them to better assess pilots at revalidation time, the one time when some positive attitude, planning and handling advice can be imparted.
Improving pilotage is not a competition between the PCS, flying schools and the CRIs, they should all be working together, singing from the same hymn sheet and raising the standards of flying in recreational aviation.
I have broached this subject to Jon and I know he isn't enthusiastic, but I live in hope that maybe one of these days he'll see the value in the perfectly usable but not so high tech mousetrap .
I don't believe it needs to renegotiate its remit with the CAA, I think it needs to tailor its offering to what the market requires.
I think PCS does a great job with difference training, strip flying etc and LAA members can be persuaded to use it for that. However, where I think it is missing a trick is with revalidation flights; it's simply too much of a hassle to organise a coach. However, there are now a veritable plethora of CRIs (Class Rating Instructors) around the country and the reality is it is they that are doing many LAA members' (and others') biennial revalidations. That is not set to change in any great hurry because the CRIs generally cannot charge for their services, and they are readily available in most areas of the country.
My solution would be for the PCS to embrace the CRIs, not see them as the opposition. The more specialised talents of the PCS coaches could so easily be used to run seminars for CRIs to improve their skills and training methods, thus enabling them to better assess pilots at revalidation time, the one time when some positive attitude, planning and handling advice can be imparted.
Improving pilotage is not a competition between the PCS, flying schools and the CRIs, they should all be working together, singing from the same hymn sheet and raising the standards of flying in recreational aviation.
I have broached this subject to Jon and I know he isn't enthusiastic, but I live in hope that maybe one of these days he'll see the value in the perfectly usable but not so high tech mousetrap .
014011
Re: Coaching Scheme
Hi Jon / Brian
Thanks for the replies. Well I guess that until the membership pushes for change that the PCS will never achieve what it could if those at the top are happy with the status quo.
Jon I reject your assertion that being a commercial pilot is of little benefit, these people were required to hours build so have often built up hours in spam cans. Many of then get instructor ratings on route which again eases their route into the system. You only have to look at the profiles of our coaches to see that this is true.
Again I will make the point that I am grateful that these people and others volunteer their help. My point though the scheme should have been negotiated on the basis of experience on types not hours, especially with the insurance companies.
If we just accept the status quo we will always have what we have now. Cliff Piper did his best at the time of negotiating what we have currently. Now that the CAA is showing a lighter touch there is the opportunity to make this as Brian says the Jewel in our crown. Many members will not complain in writing because there unfortunately a suspicion among some of the membership that if you do you will be in some way blacklisted. I know that this is not the case but as I am a previous strut coordinator and was on the EC for about 10 years they do complain to me.
When I have negotiated insurance premiums for new group members I have found that they can be diverted from the numbers game and that they will accept experience on other types and that a new pilot in a group does a minimum number of hours under supervision before going solo.
I would like to see a system which mirrors that of the BMAA, but given that would be very difficult I would like to see the requirement for an instructor rating to go, that our coaches be used to train more coaches so there is a better availability especially those with access to aircraft to coach in.
Thanks for the replies. Well I guess that until the membership pushes for change that the PCS will never achieve what it could if those at the top are happy with the status quo.
Jon I reject your assertion that being a commercial pilot is of little benefit, these people were required to hours build so have often built up hours in spam cans. Many of then get instructor ratings on route which again eases their route into the system. You only have to look at the profiles of our coaches to see that this is true.
Again I will make the point that I am grateful that these people and others volunteer their help. My point though the scheme should have been negotiated on the basis of experience on types not hours, especially with the insurance companies.
If we just accept the status quo we will always have what we have now. Cliff Piper did his best at the time of negotiating what we have currently. Now that the CAA is showing a lighter touch there is the opportunity to make this as Brian says the Jewel in our crown. Many members will not complain in writing because there unfortunately a suspicion among some of the membership that if you do you will be in some way blacklisted. I know that this is not the case but as I am a previous strut coordinator and was on the EC for about 10 years they do complain to me.
When I have negotiated insurance premiums for new group members I have found that they can be diverted from the numbers game and that they will accept experience on other types and that a new pilot in a group does a minimum number of hours under supervision before going solo.
I would like to see a system which mirrors that of the BMAA, but given that would be very difficult I would like to see the requirement for an instructor rating to go, that our coaches be used to train more coaches so there is a better availability especially those with access to aircraft to coach in.
Steve Arnold
020667
020667
Re: Coaching Scheme
Thank you Brian and Steve for your comments and feedback.
The BGA has also asked me to conduct training for their tug pilots who have been issued with temporary CRI certificates as an interim solution to a similar issue where they did not previously hold instructor certificates. The CAA have mandated that they receive formal instructor training which is currently being arranged via the LAA and it's Pilot Coaching Scheme.
I had a question from a recent PPL applicant during a PPL Skills Test who believed the same and asked me how my "hours building" was going
.
The reality is that, as a volunteer, we provide our time free of charge and often at expense to ourselves for the benefit of the LAA and its members. We run a professional and well respected service which must fit around our work and family commitments. Since both of you have held voluntary positions you will know that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes which is not publicised or recognised and for which there is little reward or thanks. You will see above that a lot of the issues you have raised have already been done or are being done to raise the standards of flying in recreational aviation.
Kind regards,
Jon
You will be aware that I started doing this when I became chairman: there was an article in Light Aviation back in 2011. The seminar which I hold annually for LAA coaches also has an open invitation for any Class Rating Instructor to attend. For 2016 there will be many legislation changes which are important to communicate to the instructor community. I have planned the next seminar during my annual leave from my day job - it'll be held on 17th September 2016. The Notice to Coaches and press release is just awaiting confirmation as to who will be presenting this year. Feel free to contact Penny for more details.My solution would be for the PCS to embrace the CRIs, not see them as the opposition. The more specialised talents of the PCS coaches could so easily be used to run seminars for CRIs to improve their skills and training methods
Some years ago, there was (and still is!) concern over the standard of training provided by some in the CRI community. In my LAA role I made a genuine offer directly to the CAA to oversee the training, continued professional development, and standards, of ALL CRIs in the UK. The offer still stands.I have broached this subject to Jon and I know he isn't enthusiastic, but I live in hope that maybe one of these days he'll see the value in the perfectly usable but not so high tech mousetrap.
Whether the coach obtains a CRI certificate, or not, is actually immaterial. If the LAA are to provide pilots who conduct any flight training, then the pilot needs to be suitably trained to conduct this task. Any responsible organisation would do the same, for whatever job or task. We use the training towards the EASA CRI certificate as a vehicle to provide the training a pilot would need, in any case, to conduct coaching for us. The training is then properly documented and the coach receives a CAA issued certificate to legitimately conduct recognised flight training as pilot-in-command. Additional benefits of the coach holding a CRI certificate are that the flight training provided by the CRI can be used towards EASA required certification such as differences training, renewal training, and the "one hour with an instructor" required for class rating revalidation.I would like to see the requirement for an instructor rating to go
The BGA has also asked me to conduct training for their tug pilots who have been issued with temporary CRI certificates as an interim solution to a similar issue where they did not previously hold instructor certificates. The CAA have mandated that they receive formal instructor training which is currently being arranged via the LAA and it's Pilot Coaching Scheme.
Whilst I did complete my commercial training via this route many years ago, many coaches did not. This route has not been available since the introduction of JAR-FCL in 2000; commercial pilots may now only obtain the required licences and ratings via the integrated or modular route irrespective of their previous experience. The route via hours and experience is no longer available, and hasn't been for many years.Jon I reject your assertion that being a commercial pilot is of little benefit, these people were required to hours build so have often built up hours in spam cans.
I had a question from a recent PPL applicant during a PPL Skills Test who believed the same and asked me how my "hours building" was going
.Penny, Sheila, and I answer a huge number of enquiries from flying schools, independent CRIs, and LAA members about flight training on Permit to Fly aircraft and the National Private Pilots Licence which we now administer. I'm in Oslo as I type, and have had three LAA member telephone calls this morning plus one from a flying club, two e-mails requiring a lengthy response, plus this. Not bad before setting off to work in a few hours time?Improving pilotage is not a competition between the PCS, flying schools and the CRIs, they should all be working together, singing from the same hymn sheet and raising the standards of flying in recreational aviation.
The reality is that, as a volunteer, we provide our time free of charge and often at expense to ourselves for the benefit of the LAA and its members. We run a professional and well respected service which must fit around our work and family commitments. Since both of you have held voluntary positions you will know that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes which is not publicised or recognised and for which there is little reward or thanks. You will see above that a lot of the issues you have raised have already been done or are being done to raise the standards of flying in recreational aviation.
Kind regards,
Jon
Jon Cooke
Pilot Coaching Scheme Chairman
028380
Pilot Coaching Scheme Chairman
028380
Re: Coaching Scheme
Jon
Thanks for your reply and sorry to disturb you in Olso, and again I thank you and the other volunteers. Like you when running a strut, running security at the rally and when on the EC 99% of the time it was while holding down a full time job and at my expense so I know how you feel especially when it may appear that someone is not appreciative of what you do. My raising and pushing this topic is because I want to see the PCS improved.
I think part of the problem is what you have yourself raised pressure on time. Any employed coaches have to fit this in round their work commitments and family life. Which is why I advocating more coaches and a simpler route into coaching.
I do not want to add to your workload, delegation is the name of the game and perhaps restructuring so the perhaps some form of coach rating where those at the top of the game can share responsibility and nurture other coaches. What would also help is inclusion of what aeroplane a coach has available to coach in in their profiles.
Without being trying to be rude to anyone with my aeroplane for example there are weight and balance issues which would rule out a number of coaches for them to coach me in mine. So when looking for a coach that sort of information is invaluable.
Thanks for your reply and sorry to disturb you in Olso, and again I thank you and the other volunteers. Like you when running a strut, running security at the rally and when on the EC 99% of the time it was while holding down a full time job and at my expense so I know how you feel especially when it may appear that someone is not appreciative of what you do. My raising and pushing this topic is because I want to see the PCS improved.
I think part of the problem is what you have yourself raised pressure on time. Any employed coaches have to fit this in round their work commitments and family life. Which is why I advocating more coaches and a simpler route into coaching.
I do not want to add to your workload, delegation is the name of the game and perhaps restructuring so the perhaps some form of coach rating where those at the top of the game can share responsibility and nurture other coaches. What would also help is inclusion of what aeroplane a coach has available to coach in in their profiles.
Without being trying to be rude to anyone with my aeroplane for example there are weight and balance issues which would rule out a number of coaches for them to coach me in mine. So when looking for a coach that sort of information is invaluable.
Steve Arnold
020667
020667
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Re: Coaching Scheme
P5151 wrote:Open for debate!!!
I take it that it's not open for debate then ! As Brian says , this should be the jewel in the LAA crown, but instead , I get the impression that it's a bit of an "Emperors New Flight Academy". 1,000hrs minimum and none of these airline johnnies cramping our style ! Just that alone kind of tells me something . In the airline that I work for, there are indeed pilots who finish a long sector, walk off the flightdeck and then don't want to even see an aircraft until they're rostered back on duty. But there are plenty more who will be straight on with the green suit and straight down to the hangar !Cookie wrote: get in touch directly if you wish to discuss the matter further.Jon
Now, which one of the above two categories do you reckon would be totally suitable candidates and which one of the above do you reckon wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole ?
Engineering Inspectors are a very valuable commodity which the LAA cannot do without. The PCS scheme though, could disappear tomorrow without making a jot of difference. Please don't misunderstand me as I don't actually want this to happen. But it has to remember that it's there as a 'nice to have' for it's membership and if it subsequently turns out easier to source an outside, independent person for type conversions, BFR renewal, etc etc...then it may well regret not tapping in to the mass of knowledge and experience that could be available from within to help achieve this !
Come on you lot,, come up and smell the coffee . You're there for the membership, not the other way round.
022516
-
Alan Kilbride
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:41 pm
- Location: York
Re: Coaching Scheme
While I can see the official side of this and tend to agree with Cookie, my situation is that I have over 450 hours Tailwheel, mostly in Jodels (117,120,1050) and a little on VP1 and Minicab.
After a Tailwheel endorsement, most PPLs are only just embarking on conventional aviation and need further experience with experienced Tailwheel pilots. Having this experience in Crosswinds,Tailwinds, short strip,low vis, turbulence, European touring etc, How can I pass this on without having to jump through hoops and great expense to myself for what I would pass on for free? (expenses only).
There is a shortage of LAA coaches and is not likely to improve in the near future.
If there is no way of doing this, so be it. But a loss to the LAA all the same. I have mentored members at my Club, but worry that mentoring is not an official LAA qualification and there may be repercussions if anything goes wrong. I would be more than happy to spend a weekend or two being assessed and taught to teach, but have no desire to become a CRI or qualified sky god.
As for the airline pilot debate Chris got it right when he said some Pilots get off the big Bus and fly little 'uns for fun, but I suspect that Cookie was saying Bus drivers hours can't count as GA hours and I agree with him
Alan
After a Tailwheel endorsement, most PPLs are only just embarking on conventional aviation and need further experience with experienced Tailwheel pilots. Having this experience in Crosswinds,Tailwinds, short strip,low vis, turbulence, European touring etc, How can I pass this on without having to jump through hoops and great expense to myself for what I would pass on for free? (expenses only).
There is a shortage of LAA coaches and is not likely to improve in the near future.
If there is no way of doing this, so be it. But a loss to the LAA all the same. I have mentored members at my Club, but worry that mentoring is not an official LAA qualification and there may be repercussions if anything goes wrong. I would be more than happy to spend a weekend or two being assessed and taught to teach, but have no desire to become a CRI or qualified sky god.
As for the airline pilot debate Chris got it right when he said some Pilots get off the big Bus and fly little 'uns for fun, but I suspect that Cookie was saying Bus drivers hours can't count as GA hours and I agree with him
Alan
037174
Re: Coaching Scheme
It's good to see more opinions please keep them coming.
I believe like Brian that the scheme could be the Jewel in our Crown but not without change.
The issues are:-
Not enough coaches.
The entry requirements for being a coach are over the top.
Too many of our coaches have day jobs which restrict their availability.
I will reiterate the requirement to be an Assistant Instructor for BMAA is 100 hours
Full instructor 100 hrs of teaching and 10 months experience .
These people can do ab ignition training.
Coaches 1000 hrs, instructor rating......where on earth is the parity in this?
The net result is that people like me do type conversions something we are happy to do but something which should be covered by the coaching scheme.
I believe like Brian that the scheme could be the Jewel in our Crown but not without change.
The issues are:-
Not enough coaches.
The entry requirements for being a coach are over the top.
Too many of our coaches have day jobs which restrict their availability.
I will reiterate the requirement to be an Assistant Instructor for BMAA is 100 hours
Full instructor 100 hrs of teaching and 10 months experience .
These people can do ab ignition training.
Coaches 1000 hrs, instructor rating......where on earth is the parity in this?
The net result is that people like me do type conversions something we are happy to do but something which should be covered by the coaching scheme.
Steve Arnold
020667
020667
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Re: Coaching Scheme
Well,,,apart from a small gang of "regulars", this topic , unfortunately seems to have slipped through relatively un-noticed.
Could it be because many don't see the LAA as a flight training organisation ? Look at the CAA , they can issue you with a licence , they have a whole plethora of excellent Safety Sense Leaflets and other literature, but they certainly won't train you !
Could it be because most members [like myself] find it so much easier to use a convenient, independent person/organisation ?
Of course, if someone like for example, Charlie Huke was resident at my field , I would most certainly use him , not because he's a PCS coach , but because of his good reputation and he seems like a nice bloke.
Ironically, there are probably thousands of LAA'ers who are very adept at side-slipping traditional LAA type machinery onto short runways and who are more than happy to offer advice and to ride alongside pilots who may have the qualifications but not be quite as experienced , yet many of these experienced people don't quite fit the rather unrealistic demographic that the PCS has set.
So,,,who are the losers here ? The LAA..nope . The membership ?...nope . External instructors/organisations ?.....Nope.............
Meanwhile, back in the sales suite of The Acme Mousetrap co. Purveyors of the Finest [aviation quality] mousetraps , the two Directors seem perplexed.
"The monthly sales graph seems to have flat-lined old boy", says one .
" I just don't get it, we have the best quality sales team in the world", replies the other.
"Absolutely, look at Hoskins, Distinction Diploma from The University Mousetrap Squadron , then there's Snodgrass with his NASA sponsored Degree in Applied Physics".
"Oh well", says the first one, "If the small fry aren't interested in our product , the corporate customers must be ".
" How's the Downing St contract going",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Naah, they've gone and got another bloody cat haven't they.
Could it be because many don't see the LAA as a flight training organisation ? Look at the CAA , they can issue you with a licence , they have a whole plethora of excellent Safety Sense Leaflets and other literature, but they certainly won't train you !
Could it be because most members [like myself] find it so much easier to use a convenient, independent person/organisation ?
Of course, if someone like for example, Charlie Huke was resident at my field , I would most certainly use him , not because he's a PCS coach , but because of his good reputation and he seems like a nice bloke.
Ironically, there are probably thousands of LAA'ers who are very adept at side-slipping traditional LAA type machinery onto short runways and who are more than happy to offer advice and to ride alongside pilots who may have the qualifications but not be quite as experienced , yet many of these experienced people don't quite fit the rather unrealistic demographic that the PCS has set.
So,,,who are the losers here ? The LAA..nope . The membership ?...nope . External instructors/organisations ?.....Nope.............
Meanwhile, back in the sales suite of The Acme Mousetrap co. Purveyors of the Finest [aviation quality] mousetraps , the two Directors seem perplexed.
"The monthly sales graph seems to have flat-lined old boy", says one .
" I just don't get it, we have the best quality sales team in the world", replies the other.
"Absolutely, look at Hoskins, Distinction Diploma from The University Mousetrap Squadron , then there's Snodgrass with his NASA sponsored Degree in Applied Physics".
"Oh well", says the first one, "If the small fry aren't interested in our product , the corporate customers must be ".
" How's the Downing St contract going",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Naah, they've gone and got another bloody cat haven't they.
022516
Re: Coaching Scheme
I have to say that for me this is extremely topical.
As it stands, in Scotland, there are only 2 Pilot coaches serving the whole country and at my field which is probably the busiest GA field in Scotland the nearest LAA coach is a couple of hours drive away. The result of this is virtually no representation from the LAA other than via our local permit inspector.
At my field there is in fact now quite a "them and us" divide between the local flying school and the mostly LAA owner pilots. The existing FI's who pass through the local flying club typically arrive as a fresh faced CPL/IR/FI with only around 250-300hrs in Cessna’s and Pipers having virtually nothing to offer an LAA pilot flying a vintage taildragger or a slippery light weight plastic speed machine, how could they having never flown such a machine?
So what is tending to happen is chaps like myself now find ourselves in demand at weekends acting as "safety pilot" or "group check pilot" and indeed I am now also conducting "introductory flights" for the local flying club due to the lack of instructors. My last weekend was spent jumping between a C152, PA38, PA28, Supercub then a Super Decathlon in a variety of 'roles' all of which I do for free.
Now myself personally, I would very much like to become involved with the PCS however having only around 650hrs and no CRI/FI rating I fail to meet the minimum criteria despite my flying background being extremely varied.
So logic would dictate that a CRI or FI ticket would make sense on top of my CPL, well yes it would, but as has already been mentioned most of us have day jobs and families and such a thing is very difficult to fit in, especially given there is nowhere in Scotland to undertake a CRI course meaning a couple of weeks away from home. This is made even more difficult for me trying to work my way up in the world of F1 Air Racing which is eating most of my annual leave with trips to the US.
There are many other chaps like myself out there who want to help but don’t have the time or perhaps money to commit to an FI or CRI, so the sad reality of the system seems to be that its gone in 2 directions, FI's who are only used by LAA members when a Bi-annual renewal flight is required, and a bunch of other "non-qualified" guys who have several hundred hours on LAA machines and are in reality acting as mentors but not under the LAA banner as we don’t meet the requirements.
It’s not the way it’s supposed to happen but where I am that’s the way things are getting done on the ground.
How can it be resolved?
Perhaps the PCS should have its own CRI 'equivalent' rating which can be taught locally at minimal cost / time for all involved. The abilities of the pilots with something to offer the PCS should already be far higher than those of a fresh faced 250hrs CPL so one would expect reaching the required standards far quicker.
I understand in this day and age of liability issues that this would be hard to swallow however while there are so many hoops to jump through the people who could be utilised simply won’t bother, things will merely continue to be done by guys operating in the "grey areas" that they are now...not ideal for anyone.
As it stands, in Scotland, there are only 2 Pilot coaches serving the whole country and at my field which is probably the busiest GA field in Scotland the nearest LAA coach is a couple of hours drive away. The result of this is virtually no representation from the LAA other than via our local permit inspector.
At my field there is in fact now quite a "them and us" divide between the local flying school and the mostly LAA owner pilots. The existing FI's who pass through the local flying club typically arrive as a fresh faced CPL/IR/FI with only around 250-300hrs in Cessna’s and Pipers having virtually nothing to offer an LAA pilot flying a vintage taildragger or a slippery light weight plastic speed machine, how could they having never flown such a machine?
So what is tending to happen is chaps like myself now find ourselves in demand at weekends acting as "safety pilot" or "group check pilot" and indeed I am now also conducting "introductory flights" for the local flying club due to the lack of instructors. My last weekend was spent jumping between a C152, PA38, PA28, Supercub then a Super Decathlon in a variety of 'roles' all of which I do for free.
Now myself personally, I would very much like to become involved with the PCS however having only around 650hrs and no CRI/FI rating I fail to meet the minimum criteria despite my flying background being extremely varied.
So logic would dictate that a CRI or FI ticket would make sense on top of my CPL, well yes it would, but as has already been mentioned most of us have day jobs and families and such a thing is very difficult to fit in, especially given there is nowhere in Scotland to undertake a CRI course meaning a couple of weeks away from home. This is made even more difficult for me trying to work my way up in the world of F1 Air Racing which is eating most of my annual leave with trips to the US.
There are many other chaps like myself out there who want to help but don’t have the time or perhaps money to commit to an FI or CRI, so the sad reality of the system seems to be that its gone in 2 directions, FI's who are only used by LAA members when a Bi-annual renewal flight is required, and a bunch of other "non-qualified" guys who have several hundred hours on LAA machines and are in reality acting as mentors but not under the LAA banner as we don’t meet the requirements.
It’s not the way it’s supposed to happen but where I am that’s the way things are getting done on the ground.
How can it be resolved?
Perhaps the PCS should have its own CRI 'equivalent' rating which can be taught locally at minimal cost / time for all involved. The abilities of the pilots with something to offer the PCS should already be far higher than those of a fresh faced 250hrs CPL so one would expect reaching the required standards far quicker.
I understand in this day and age of liability issues that this would be hard to swallow however while there are so many hoops to jump through the people who could be utilised simply won’t bother, things will merely continue to be done by guys operating in the "grey areas" that they are now...not ideal for anyone.
Last edited by Deshartua on Wed May 18, 2016 4:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Des Hart
037923
037923
Re: Coaching Scheme
Des
You have hit the nail on the head. In my case 700 hours 30 plus types in my book mostly in LAA aircraft, constant speed, retracts and diesel and I have coached unofficially over 15 pilots onto type. At least 7 of those had no tailwheel experience and I did the conversion with them before there was a requirement for them to be done officially. I am though deemed to have insufficient experience? So, right now I am converting someone on an RV4. We have tried to get help through the scheme but have failed.
The issue is the over the top requirements for people to qualify as a coach.
In my view the whole thing was flawed from the outset and should be renegotiated so that more coaches can be qualified. Why ant type of Instructors rating is required for coaching is beyond me.
I am now being contacted by email by other people who are unhappy with the scheme as well as by local members who I know.
I will be writing something for the magazine which hopefully Brian will publish as I feel the scheme is failing the membership in two ways. Firstly there are insufficient coaches so ordinary members have to do coaching outside the scheme, secondly good candidates like yourself are being overlooked because of the OTT requirements.
You have hit the nail on the head. In my case 700 hours 30 plus types in my book mostly in LAA aircraft, constant speed, retracts and diesel and I have coached unofficially over 15 pilots onto type. At least 7 of those had no tailwheel experience and I did the conversion with them before there was a requirement for them to be done officially. I am though deemed to have insufficient experience? So, right now I am converting someone on an RV4. We have tried to get help through the scheme but have failed.
The issue is the over the top requirements for people to qualify as a coach.
In my view the whole thing was flawed from the outset and should be renegotiated so that more coaches can be qualified. Why ant type of Instructors rating is required for coaching is beyond me.
I am now being contacted by email by other people who are unhappy with the scheme as well as by local members who I know.
I will be writing something for the magazine which hopefully Brian will publish as I feel the scheme is failing the membership in two ways. Firstly there are insufficient coaches so ordinary members have to do coaching outside the scheme, secondly good candidates like yourself are being overlooked because of the OTT requirements.
Steve Arnold
020667
020667
Re: Coaching Scheme
Thanks Steve,
Glad I'm not the only one feeling like this. There is a real serious issue developing where 300hrs FI's are teaching guys who become 300hr FI's and round and round its going with a subsequent degradation in flying standards and more importantly general airmanship. Alas with FI pay so poor most are trying to get into the airlines as quickly as possible and have little interest in flying anything other than a PA28 or C172, to be honest most simply don't have the cash.
I have a huge amount of respect for what Jon is trying to do with this and I appreciate the restrictions he has placed on him by EASA but the PCS system simply isn't working, certainly not where I am. I fly almost every weekend and I couldn't even tell you who our local Coach is, I doubt any of our members could given I expect he's extremely busy around his own area, there is however a HUGE need for a PCS where we are.
Like you I am basically 'teaching' tail wheel to a guy right now while he waits to fly with an actual Instructor and I spent half of Sunday flying with him and then also getting another chap back up to scratch who hasn't flown tail wheel for around a year. I probably now have as many hours from the rear seat of the Supercub as I do from the front, not that I get to log half of them!
At the end of the day if I can impart one bit of knowledge that saves someones life one day then I'm happy, and if by helping to convert someone onto a new type stops them getting bored and leaving flying then again I'm happy. I really don't care if its part of the PCS or not, I will continue to offer to share whatever knowledge I've managed to scrape together over the last 20 years of flying to anyone who asks.
At the end of the day GA needs all the help it can get right now......
Glad I'm not the only one feeling like this. There is a real serious issue developing where 300hrs FI's are teaching guys who become 300hr FI's and round and round its going with a subsequent degradation in flying standards and more importantly general airmanship. Alas with FI pay so poor most are trying to get into the airlines as quickly as possible and have little interest in flying anything other than a PA28 or C172, to be honest most simply don't have the cash.
I have a huge amount of respect for what Jon is trying to do with this and I appreciate the restrictions he has placed on him by EASA but the PCS system simply isn't working, certainly not where I am. I fly almost every weekend and I couldn't even tell you who our local Coach is, I doubt any of our members could given I expect he's extremely busy around his own area, there is however a HUGE need for a PCS where we are.
Like you I am basically 'teaching' tail wheel to a guy right now while he waits to fly with an actual Instructor and I spent half of Sunday flying with him and then also getting another chap back up to scratch who hasn't flown tail wheel for around a year. I probably now have as many hours from the rear seat of the Supercub as I do from the front, not that I get to log half of them!
At the end of the day if I can impart one bit of knowledge that saves someones life one day then I'm happy, and if by helping to convert someone onto a new type stops them getting bored and leaving flying then again I'm happy. I really don't care if its part of the PCS or not, I will continue to offer to share whatever knowledge I've managed to scrape together over the last 20 years of flying to anyone who asks.
At the end of the day GA needs all the help it can get right now......
Des Hart
037923
037923
Re: Coaching Scheme
Des
Like you I help wherever I can, but I hope Jon can now see that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed. If the LAA is to provide a coaching scheme there should be no need for people like us to have to do what we are doing. Or it should be adapted to embrace those who have shown they are capable of providing help.
Like you I help wherever I can, but I hope Jon can now see that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed. If the LAA is to provide a coaching scheme there should be no need for people like us to have to do what we are doing. Or it should be adapted to embrace those who have shown they are capable of providing help.
Steve Arnold
020667
020667
-
Chris Martyr
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:58 am
- Location: Horsted Keynes Sussex
Re: Coaching Scheme
Looks like all of the contributors here are in agreement then ! [bar one]
Better wait for the Flat Earth Society to come along with the solution..............................
Better wait for the Flat Earth Society to come along with the solution..............................
022516