Coaching Scheme

[P5151]

Hi Chris

Brian has posted about CAA change of policy on infringements which is pertinent to the issue here. If LAA members are an at risk group this is something the coaching scheme should be looking at, probably as part of a BFR.

[P5151]

Hi All

I am currently on holiday but am still receiving pm and email about the coaching scheme.

The most frequent complaint is not being able to get hold of a coach, the second is coaches who do not appear to be current on type. I will not provide the specifics provided to me as the members who have contacted me appear not to want me to.

Again I applaud the efforts of those who give up their time to help others so please do not take my raising of this subject as a personal criticism. My aim is to motivate a change to try to get a more realistic entry level for coaches and increase the number of coaches available.

[Deshartua]

I guess it would be very difficult for coaches to be current on all types that they may find themselves flying and I expect this is part of the reasoning behind the high hours requirement, IE that they have enough experience in general to be able to transition between a variety of types safely.

For your typical FI they are probably only flying 4 or 5 similar types and jumping between them frequently but PCS would expose pilots to a far greater number of types, many of which will have very unique foibles. We had an accident a few months ago where a fresh faced FI was asked to help a pilot get current again on a Europa with Tri gear, unfortunately with low hours and no time on anything even remotely similar the FI was unable to save a large bounce which resulted in a collapsed nose wheel.

Personally before flying a new type I like to read the POH / pilot notes etc from cover to cover and take the time to understand all the aircrafts systems and any oddities it may have. I then look at previous accidents reports for the type both here and in the US to try to understand if there are any common "gotchas".

For example, before I started flying the Tri Pacer I noticed there were 2 common themes, 1 hitting the ground hard short of the runway, caused by the significant sink rate than can build up if you get it too slow, the other seemed to be stalling on the climb out after a go-around, there are some very large pitch changes going on there with full flap and the trim handle in the roof would be fairly unfamiliar to pilots who have just transitioned from typical flying school machines.

Also, when I started flying the Cassutt, it came with a terrible reputation of killing people, stalling on the base to final turn being a common one which leaves no time for recovery, a lack of appreciation of increasing stall speed with G I suspect is the issue there given the speeds the Cassutt tends to fly at.

Once you are aware of these issues and understand them they are easy to avoid and it makes sense to learn from other peoples mistakes.

Now that's how I approach things but I suspect that's not the case for many FI's jumping into LAA types to do a Bi-annual or refresher training etc, I would doubt they would have the time to read a POH from cover to cover during a busy day of instructing. They are still doing the job however and for many LAA pilots there is simply nowhere else to turn given the lack of LAA pilot coaches available.

Regards

Des

[P5151]

Hi Des

I agree completely. A friend of mine once said fly the aeroplane you are in not the one you flew yesterday. Something which stuck with me and which is relevant every time you fly.

There is actually a very good video on VAF at the moment on the base stall to finals. They are flying an RV7 and slow to approach speed,from memory they initiat 30 turn to finals and then put in a bit of into turn rudder. Stall!! With 1200 foot lost to recovery. You would be very dead in the circuit.

Now why you would put into turn rudder in an RV is beyond me. To tighten the turn drop the nose increase speed a bit and a bit more bank with ailerons is all that is need. If however you had been flying Tailwind and tried to fly an RV like a Tailwind you could easily find yourself in the base to finals stall as rudder is needed for all turns in the Tailwind W8.

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. A friend asked me to accompany him in a type I had not flown for over twelve months, I refused unless I could get back up to speed on the machine first.

[Trevor Harvey]

I fly an Emeraude from a farm strip in Sotland, this strip is 99% of the time completely deserted.
I have not flown for a year due to medical/permit maintenance/domestic issues.
I have no doubt that I can get mentoring/instruction/revalidated from someone reasonably local, 23nm to be precise.
However it is unlikely to be an LAA coach as they are as scarce as hens teeth.
They would also have to travel.
Or I can do as I have been doing, fly carefully and white knuckled till up to speed then fly and base the aircraft somewhere more suitable for a while.
As a result, Biennial instructional hours are more conveniently done in a PA28 by an instructor who has little or no interest in tail wheels or grass and costs about £160. I spend the hour familiarising on a new type that I am unlikely to fly again for another two years.
If LAA coaches were more readily available in the far eastern deserts of Haggistan I would be first on the list.
Perhaps I should move closer to civilisation.
I

[P5151]

Hi

We have had other posts from Scotand an I have received emails from there. The problem is that the bar has been set too high for many competent people to become coaches. Member up there are giving unofficial coaching to help people, it is really no different to here in the midlands.

In my view the whole thing needs renegotiating removing the instructor requirement and using a more realistic experience level. As I have pointed out we are talking about coaches who accompany an already qualified pilot, not ab initial training, so why the instructor requirement.

I can't remember whether it was a previous poster or someone who contacted me by mail, but he like me is carrying out an unofficial coaching role, apparently successfully so why is this not taken into consideration. I actually did the difference training on a Tailwind for someone who is now a coach, because as a Commercial Pilot he gained an instructor rating. Unfortunately he could not coach in my machine because of C of G issues.

We need those at the top to start addressing these problems not just ignore them.

[Trevor Harvey]

I agree with that. My own experience of differences "training" was to be mentored by a friend with 1000 hours on type for some 10-15 hours followed by 2 hours with a non LAA qualified tail wheel instructor who signed me off. This was 8 years ago.
There are also various engineering courses arranged, that I would love to attend but with venues requiring a three day camel ride or military planning and in flight re-fuelling are impossible to consider.
I chose the isolated grass strip regime in the desire to grow out of the training school based "what do you think?" sort of environment. But now wondering if that was a good idea.

[mikehallam]

Whilst fidgeting about discussing minute & detailed adjustments to the current two yearly stricture one might stand back and ask what was sooooo wrong with what went previously.
i.e. 'nothing at all' once you had a PPL !

On that basis either we had lots of crashes or perhaps just suffered 'bad airmanship'. The latter occurs all too frequently now, one hears, with circuit discipline being abysmally poor.

In seeking to find the best middle path to deal with the perceived problems it would be pertinent to examine the original statistics and reasons for the current system - which in itself is already a concessionary arrangement brokered with the CAA by our LAA.

mikehallam.

[P5151]

Mike

Circuit discipline has always been poor. I often am confused whether aircraft are in the circuit or going off on a cross country when people stretch the circuit. Often I leave the circuit let it clear and come back when its safer. They have a very good set of photos at my field showing the circuit, often people are 1/2 a mile outside on the down wind leg and extend so far down wind it leaves them with a 4 mile final.

You only have to fly into the rally to see the good and the bad.Clear concise joining instructions which are often ignored.

The circuit is a scary place!!

[Trevor Harvey]

Mike.
I don't quite follow the meaning of your post.
This thread concerned the qualifications required for a pilot to become a "coach" ie:- FI rated.
There are no doubt numerous perfectly capable pilots out there, willing and able to pass on their experience/knowledge. Some of which are doing so un-officially. What we, the membership, needs is a list of names that we can contact, and for those names to have been approved by LAA as "Coaches". Pilots with a PPL do not need a qualified FI for ab-initio training or rating issue, just a bit of help, encouragement, advice, mentoring to improve their skills.
This may be asking for a second level of "restricted instructor" or whatever management wish to call it, but some way of legitimising the current word of mouth system so that those of us who operate "off grid" can easily find who is available.

[P5151]

Trevor

We are arguing for the same thing, coaches should be coaches, they are not instructors and should not be required to have that rating.

If we were to to ab initial instruction then an instructor rating is appropriate, but our coaches are not they are coaching existing PPL holders.

[Chris Martyr]

A pity that the PCS big-wigs have not chosen to partake in any of this. It is after all quite a sensible and constructive debate and Steve's original point is very, very valid indeed .
It would be foolhardy indeed to just hope that the topic will simply fade into oblivion and ignoring it may just de-stabilise the PCS itself onto the slippery slope to oblivion .
Just to re-cap : Jon's statement regarding the EASA Instructor requirement of 300hrs , which was deemed insufficient for the PCS scheme's 1,000hr requirement is nothing more than a complete and utter absurdity ! There is the small matter of the Instructor who doesn't actually know how to instruct.
Some fully fledged sky-god with confidence, experience and knowledge oozing from every bodily orifice may be all very good in theory , but if he happens to be incapable of sharing any of this with others, then he is about as much use to the PCS as a dead pigeon ! Whether he has 300hrs or 30,000hrs !
LAA members who are decent enough to want to share their knowledge and experience are not going to go away , however much of an encumbrance the honcho's of the PCS perceive them to be and folks who wish to benefit from these fellow LAA members knowledge and experience aren't going to go away either !
It has been noted in certain circles that independent Instructor's have been branded as 'Feral' , which is not only derogatory, but actually rather nasty. Dis-crediting one's adversaries is one of the oldest middle management tricks in the book and will fool nobody !
Our Scottish friends also serve to highlight the point that some of the UK's lesser populated regions desperately require some kind of database , where the relevant expertise may be sourced . Now whether that will be under the auspices of the PCS remains to be seen. Of course, we all hope it will be, but I'm certainly not going to be holding my breath on that one.
Just to clarify, I have no aspirations whatsoever to be a Coach/Instructor and there is no personal axe being ground here , but I have just renewed my BFR [yesterday] not with a PCS Instructor as there are more Instructor's here in S.E. England than you can shake a stick at [is the penny starting to drop now at the PCS ?] but my Instructor colleague is bloody good at what he does,,,,and no,,I neither know nor care how many 'hours' he has !
I can only repeat what I said earlier : Come on PCS, you're here for the members , not the other way round !

[P5151]

Hi Chris

Rest assured I will not let this drop. My next action will to be to write something for the magazine. If that fails I will stick myself up for election to the board.

I left the EC many years ago because I felt the LAA was in safe handsand it has been for many years I have a great deal of respect for most of the members John Brady in particular. But!!! This is an issue which has not been addressed and I think that those who know me will know that tenacity is my middle name!

[mikehallam]

Trevor,

I was only attempting to question the whole requirement for a compulsory bi-annual check.

For those pilots regardless of that stricture who want a helping hand, surely almost any well in hours and type PPL would likely be delighted to be a sit in check pilot.
I've received such help a few times years ago at Redhill etc. and done it for newer friends in return later on. That was for tail-wheel flying at the time when the "conversion" was never formalised, just Common Sense.

Seems to me that the CAA in separating nose from tail-wheel in licence sub sections have only served to deter folk from ever 'daring' to acquire tail wheel experience, or of course from the joys of aspiring to flying or even owning one.

So slowly as we old and 'ace' pilots die off it will eventually only he-men can daringly prove their skills piloting such hot ships. [All nonsense but .....?]

mikehallam

[Chris Martyr]

Yes Mike , you are actually quite right here mate !
Your posts about this may be conceived as going off at a bit of a tangent , but there was a time when one's flying hours were assessed by an appropriately accredited Instructor and then you were signed off to continue flying. I don't believe that the amount of fatalities/airspace busts was any different [ probably less ] than today !
The big difference now though is that the whole thing has been turned into a bit of an empire . The Yanks have always had the BFR and it's subsequent renewal has always been , in my experience , one where any relevant aviation topics/airspace issues have been addressed by the Instructor and respective candidate.
But we now have what is almost "a system within a system" and it is [they are ?] trying to over-complicate things unnecessarily.
I also maintain that Steve is quite right in questioning it . The fact that nobody offers any explanation does rather justify that he is quite correct in doing so !