Coaching Scheme

[Trevor Harvey]

I attend every Gasco safety evening within striking distance at every opportunity , I have two attendance stamps on the last page of my log book. I've seen all the little film clips and think a lot about the information afterwards.
Talking and reading about safety matters is all very well. What I need is stick time with a capable safety pilot, you know, positive practical stuff.
I know who and where I can get it, just that it is unofficial.
Magazine articles do not help me to fly..
As for instructors who can only land tail wheels in benign conditions, I think I could be a better bet than that, having landed mine on our 24 in 290/25G35 several times with only 260hrs total 150 on type.
Meetings, coffee mornings and write ups will not impress me.
Sorry gentlemen.

[Brian Hope]

I'm sorry to hear that Trevor because in my experience you can learn an awful lot about technique and other people's mistakes by reading well written articles and talking to people. Sometimes you may learn an interesting strip flying or navigation tip that you can try the next time you go flying. Others you may only learn that the person you are talking to is stupid, but that at least teaches you to keep of of his way when you are in the air.
When I learned to fly you read up on the exercise you were next going to fly so you were reasonably cued up on what was about to happen, I see no reason to change that once you have a licence.

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian.
I'm sorry but you have concentrated on the wrong end of the stick.
I did state that I attend every safety brief I can. I also listen and chat to pilots as often as possible, don't we all?
Please don't think I just want to jump in and go, whilst listening and talking to no body.
I have listened and learned a lot and asked a lot from Para drop pilots, Tug pilots etc, about short field work, crosswinds, long/short grass. Or whatever I can think of. I have asked for and received unofficial instruction in instrument flying, navigation techniques. I will listen to and talk to anybody including known dickheads.
I really despair at being considered some kind of dumb numpty.
I have been kicking around the aviation scene with extreme enthusiasm since 1954. Please!!!

[Alan Kilbride]

Now who has got the wrong end of the stick?
Sorry if I confused anyone, but my comment on meeting up early morning and chatting with a senior PCS instructor over a coffee at the Rally, wasn't meant to be taken as a tea and biscuits chat about what to wear on a cold day while flying a Cub.
My point was that perhaps a few of the more vocal on this thread could meet up with senior instructors to discuss a way forward within the LAA coaching scheme.
Perhaps a truncated course to allow some sort of official mentoring with the backing of the LAA/CAA. If you don't talk to them, how do expect change or a reasonable explanation of why we are in the position we are in.
Meetings, write ups and coffee while discussing the way forward are generally how things work Trevor.
I really can't see how change can come about without meeting people to discuss it.

Alan
G-BJOT

[P5151]

Hi Alan

What you are suggesting is sensible if the man at the top is open to change, but from what he has writen he is not. Brian has pushed him to do more, I met him over 10 years ago and told him then that the scheme was crazy, he did not listen then he is not listening now.

So,I will continue to push until at least get an acknowledgement somethings could be improved.

[Trevor Harvey]

Why do I feel I'm being tied in knots here?
Obviously discussion has to take place, that is what this thread is about.
Constantly being sidetracked by having trivia jumped on is not helping. If all you want to do is pick holes in whatever I say then go ahead.
Suggestions have been made about how to possibly improve things.
Most of the management responses have been negative "before the PCS there was nothing" "the regulations state xyz" etc. Before the automobile was invented you travelled around looking up the ass of a cow, so stop asking us to improve the roads, be grateful.
No one is asking that every half baked idea should be immediately implemented, just accept that improvement is possible.
The details of whether the Coach qualification can be reduced to encourage more applicants. Is it allowed by the CAA or the local FTO to have their regular instructors to go "independent" part time, training on private permit aircraft? How do we assess suitably competent pilots to become local strut Coaches?
Are not the things that concern the membership. The membership just needs the result of management negotiations with their rulers. Rank and file employees are not usually welcome at high level board meetings, just that their views be acknowledged.
Please stop trying to divert this by picking up on every piece of tripe and making a big deal out of it.

[Chris Martyr]

Trevor,,,,I don't see anything on here implying that you are a 'numpty' . If anything, you epitomise the normal footprint of the average [if there can possibly be such a thing] LAA member.
Anything that gives out aviation safety related info is good , whether it be in literary form , coffee mornings, sewing circle , step aerobics, or whichever format is GOOD , because if you chuck enough sh1t at someone, some of it will stick !
Also , going flying and getting a bit of stick time with someone who you are satisfied has something to impart , is not anything "unofficial" as it isn't them who logs or signs anything , it's you .

So ,,where does this leave the PCS guys ? Well firstly they need to re-write their procedures , because as they stand , all they're doing is causing a whole shed load of confusion. That is fairly apparent from some of the postings on here. There can't be any robust defence for having a bar set so high , when most of the people who could be utilising it , are quite legally ducking underneath it !

Get it sorted now PCS chaps, because when that happens , this thread will slowly go away !

[Trevor Harvey]

Thank you Chris, I've often wondered if I'm normal!

[Chris Martyr]

Hey Trevor , No, I never said that you were normal mate !
But I'm sure you're at least as normal as any of the other guys who have contributed to this quite civilised and constructive little discussion.
One point that I would like to make though , and it's not directly connected to the politics of what this thread is about,, and I may even be lambasted from certain quarters for saying this. But :,,,I don't actually see Instructors as being the 'be-all and end all' of aviation . They are certainly extremely pivotal in laying the building blocks for whichever qualification one wishes to achieve , whether it be ab. initio PPL , IMC, Tailwheel training or whatever. But the biggest part of the learning curve is what one subsequently soaks in during the years that follow. Wise aviators [not that I'm arrogant enough to class myself as one] ,,but wise aviators , who have been around a bit , always seem to understand the bit about keeping your eyes and ears open. It's probably what attracts us to this pastime in the first place , the notion that one never stops learning.
When I observe people, mostly younger guys , who give the impression that they know all the answers , I often have a smug little smile to myself , because , once you get to a certain age , you accept that you know that you will never know everything about this fascinating pastime that we all have.
One of my favourite aviation sayings is this one. "An Instructor is an expensive encumbrance and you wont get him out of your passenger seat until you've taught yourself to fly the darn thing"

Apologies for what was almost a thread drift , but tailwheeling is a good example of however much time one spends under instruction , that Instructor can never really "teach" you how to cope in a serious crosswind landing . Sure they can bring you up to speed theory-wise , but the real core knowledge of all this is what accumulates over the years.
So getting back to what has been discussed here. As far as I'm concerned , by all means go and fly with someone you know and respect and can glean something from .
It's a non-stop learning process, whether you're a pilot , Instructor, Engineer,,,,,,,,,,even the PCS Gods.

[Alan Kilbride]

Sorry if I have offended you Trevor. It was not my intention to upset anyone, but as I see it, everyone who has so far contributed to this thread has made valid points and hope those on high take them on board and make some attempt to move forward.
I see so much hope for the future of the LAA, but the responsibility they have to the flying community has to take precedence over a guy who has 300 hours tailwheel experience, but no formal qualification.
On my part, I would like to see a progressive instructor rating which would take in Tailwheel, Wobbly prop, Dangling Dunlops etc on a case by case basis and the candidate to be assessed at each level. However that would take a huge commitment from the LAA and I suppose the CRI course is he minimum requirement the CAA will allow.
There are so many Pilots in the LAA with so much to offer, It's a shame they can't be used as we would wish without consequences.
As I have said and stand by it..... "Ask to meet with the hierarchy over coffee(or tea) to discuss a way to improve matters.

Again I apologise if I upset anyone. No intention on my part.

Alan
G-BJOT

[Brian Hope]

Hi Alan, you talk a lot of sense. The way forward has to have a recognised structure in today's litigious world. I believe that structure already exists in the CRI concept. I just wish we could get the PCS to see the potential in adopting the now many enthusiastic start of the ladder instructors. A CRI course would be a good start point for members keen to pass on their skills, and we have the ability not only to provide those courses, but to offer additional follow on training as well.
Rgds Brian.

[Trevor Harvey]

Apology accepted Alan.
Back on track.
There are numerous low hours bog standard Flying Instructors who are permitted, certificated, allowed, encouraged and paid to instruct from ab-initio to PPL standard. Some are restricted to just prior to solo standard which requires a full cat instructor to check before sending the student solo.
I have no idea what the criteria are for a CAA CRI.
Question is. Why is it necessary to raise the bar beyond that for an LAA Coach, who is only being asked to accompany a qualified pilot as an advisor, mentor, safety pilot?
If the candidate pilot requires tail wheel TRAINING then get a suitably qualified instructor.
Even then, if the Coach is well enough competent to be able to take control if/when necessary why on earth does he have to be Gold Plated to be acceptable to the PCS?
I cannot accept the litigation argument, because there are instructors doing exactly what the PCS are doing but with lower hours than the PCS requirement.
If the PCS were to be abandoned, with the advice to, " Go and find an instructor with a tailwheel ticket wherever you can". Then we would have a less onerous accessible system.
This is little different to the engineering system that LAA have fought for and achieved. Less regulated but just as safe (safer in my opinion).

[Brian Hope]

If the PCS were to be abandoned, with the advice to, " Go and find an instructor with a tailwheel ticket wherever you can". Then we would have a less onerous accessible system.

Sorry but the that logic is lost on me. Nobody is stopping anybody from seeking out an instructor to do tailwheel or any other training. You can already ask any suitably qualified instructor to teach you.
The PCS is just an alternative, the intention being that members get lower cost tuition by coaches possibly more used to LAA types.
There are those of us who think PCS needs to look at broadening its accessibility but we certainly do not want it to cease operating.

And I'm not asking you to accept that there will inevitably be a liability issue, I'm just telling you that there will be. Any organisation or business that offers a service has a duty of care to its 'customers' and has a responsibilty to ensure what he does is safe and legal. If the criteria for coaches is changed, we have to ensure that that new criteria will stand investigation in the courts, because if it doesn't and something goes wrong, the buck stops out our door.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, it simply means that we have to make sure the way we do it is safe and sensible, and we have sufficient cover. The CRI system is a recognised CAA qualification so if we go down that route, rather than an ordinary PPL who just has the experience and no qualification to back that up, then we should be on solid ground.

I do wish you would stop seeing the PCS as the bad guys, they most certainly are not, they are volunteers offering their services to members. All I want to do is see if we can make it more accessible by greatly increasing the coaching pool.

[Chris Martyr]

I don't think that anyone posting here sees the PCS as 'the bad guys' Brian . I'm sure we would all agree that the good folk who volunteer their services for the betterment of others are to be commended.

But to enable the PCS to blossom fully just needs a teensy bit more tweaking in a 'couple of areas', and I think most of the posts here reflect that.

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian.
1: I am not suggesting we abandon the PCS
2: Of course the system has to be safe.
3: Where on earth in the name of God did I ever suggest the PCS were the bad guys?
Brian.
I am in despair at your version of what I have written.
I have also reviewed other threads of years past and note that this is not the first time you have miss read my posts.
I may not be the most accomplished writer on the planet but I think most who read what I say understand what I'm saying reasonably accurately.
Allow me to reiterate.
I LIKE THE PCS!
I LIKE THE LAA!
I AM HAPPY WITH THE SYSTEMS!
I THINK THE PCS COULD POSSIBLY BE EXPANDED!
GET OFF MY BACK!
I AM SICK OF BEING MISUNDERSTOOD!