How to Teach Future Airline Pilots

R

rt4388

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
192
Display Name
Display name:
rt4388
Hey guys, so as usual, I'm looking for some advice from you all. I've started instructing at a school that trains mostly foreign (Asian) students who will be flying jets within the next year or two.

I would like to teach these students habits and knowledge that can be easily transferred over to the airline when they start.

So I have two questions: any recommended readings to help me understand what type of flying they'll be doing so I can teach stuff that is applicable to both what they need to know today and what they'll be doing at the airlines? Second, how would you cater your teaching style to make it more applicable to what they'll be doing at the airlines? Obviously, I want them to pass the check-ride, but I'm hoping to teach them habits, knowledge, etc. that can be transferred over to what type of flying they'll be doing on a daily basis.

As always, thanks for the help!
 
A very strong foundation in Basic airmanship would be the first 5 things on the list of ten most important things to learn.

Systems knowledge and stressing the importance of not just knowing the procedure but understanding why you do a procedure. There are times when a checklist reader can read themselves into a corner that makes things worse if they don’t actually know how systems are integrated and work together.

Encourage and stress the importance of professional standards/attitudes. There are pass fail standards throughout a pilots career but they are minimum standards. It is important to remember that’s what is required to get hired and not get fired after you’re hired. It’s not the performance that we should expect from ourselves. Professionals try to be their very best all the time and are constantly challenging themselves to improve. Hauling around hundreds of people is a huge responsibility and should be treated as such. Many people dismiss what is required of airline pilots but it is a very dynamic environment occupied by heavy aircraft moving at high speeds. It is not trivial. The worst pilots I crewed with were the ones dumb enough to actually believe they were just a bus driver.
 
Give the a roll of quarters and send them to the video arcade. If UPS has it's way they won't exist.
 
SkyDog58 said:
You should train every private pilot student the same. You should train every commercial pilot student the same. What their long term aviation plans are is not relevant to the certificate/rating they are currently seeking.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh, I disagree with you a bit here. I see what you're saying, but depending on where/what they're flying you would train them differently. For instance, if a CFI were training a student who planned on flying in Alaska, the weather discussions would probably be much different than if they planned on flying in the dessert.

Further, I would even argue that these aren't long-term aviation plans. They'll be in the front of an A320 well before I'm in a CRJ.
 
Rod Machado once said, "Everything about learning to fly a small plane applies to a big plane, but nothing about flying a big plane applies to a small plane." Or something like that. My apologies if I didn't get it quite right.

Lots of cases in the accident records of airline crews who forgot the basics or never learned them. How the pitot-static system works, pitch+power=performance, induced drag, etc for example.
 
I wouldn’t teach anything differently. I’d just stress and harp on checklist usage, systems knowledge, and CRM a little more.
 
Don't be surprised when the flight school will want you to pass students along a little faster than you want to.

I would also bet the school has its own specific style syllabus for you to follow that closely follows the PTS but different.
 
rt4388 said:
Ehhhh, I disagree with you a bit here. I see what you're saying, but depending on where/what they're flying you would train them differently. For instance, if a CFI were training a student who planned on flying in Alaska, the weather discussions would probably be much different than if they planned on flying in the dessert.

Further, I would even argue that these aren't long-term aviation plans. They'll be in the front of an A320 well before I'm in a CRJ.
Click to expand...


Except the pilot is qualified per the ride you recommend him for to fly in both AK or SoCal, so I'd at least touch on both ends of more extreme climate. I mean otherwise it's like not teaching DA because you live in a sea level temperate area.
 
Zeldman said:
Don't be surprised when the flight school will want you to pass students along a little faster than you want to.

I would also bet the school has its own specific style syllabus for you to follow that closely follows the PTS but different.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: This right here! You'll get slammed trying to teach outside material that the syllabus doesn't call for. They want them trained a certain way and up to a point, and then their airline will take over. Great attitude by you though trying to teach them additional material that may save their ass someday, but I think you'll be constrained. IMO.
 
James331 said:
Except the pilot is qualified per the ride you recommend him for to fly in both AK or SoCal, so I'd at least touch on both ends of more extreme climate. I mean otherwise it's like not teaching DA because you live in a sea level temperate area.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But without a doubt, the training is and should be tailored towards the types of flying they are doing. Should I touch on everything in the ACS? Yes. In addition to this, does every (maybe I should say most?) CFIs talk about stuff that is outside of the ACS? Yes. My question is, where should these efforts be focused.
 
rt4388 said:
Agreed. But without a doubt, the training is and should be tailored towards the types of flying they are doing. Should I touch on everything in the ACS? Yes. In addition to this, does every (maybe I should say most?) CFIs talk about stuff that is outside of the ACS? Yes. My question is, where should these efforts be focused.
Click to expand...

Stick and rudder and pilotage.

I'm a broken record in my saying VFR PPL primary training should be done in a glider, or failing that a J3 or 7AC or similar.
 
Teach what you would to any other pilot. It is up,to the individual to seek out, or learn more specific to what they will be flying later, and on thier own. There is nothing special about teaching a student pilot that is going to go to the airlines compared to a student that just wants the license as a hobby. Anyone going to the airlines will have the time in the next licenses to learn more. And then when they get hired they will go through the airline specific training. Just teach your students to be pilots.
 
I'm a regional airline instructor. Just do a really good job of teaching the basics, especially instrument flying. The airline will handle the rest. If in doubt, I'm sure your school has thoughts on what to emphasize. You can never go wrong teaching stick and rudder, touch and feel.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Systems knowledge and stressing the importance of not just knowing the procedure but understanding why you do a procedure. There are times when a checklist reader can read themselves into a corner that makes things worse if they don’t actually know how systems are integrated and work together.
Click to expand...
I kind of disagree. That might have been true in the 707/727 days, but today's airplanes are pretty smart and the checklists are well written. I've seen more guys screw things up royally when they go off-script and think they're smarter than the Boeing engineers and stop following the checklist and start making up their own procedures.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I kind of disagree. That might have been true in the 707/727 days, but today's airplanes are pretty smart and the checklists are well written. I've seen more guys screw things up royally when they go off-script and think they're smarter than the Boeing engineers and stop following the checklist and start making up their own procedures.
Click to expand...
It was definitely a bigger issue on older airplanes but I still had experiences in FBW airframes where good systems knowledge beyond the min standards prevented a screwup.
I agree it occurs at a lower frequency in the more automated airplanes.
 
The main difference between older airliners and the newer ones is that on the older ones a flight engineer who was typically an experienced mechanic was responsible for knowing and operating various systems while on the newer ones, a computer is. In neither case was or is the pilot expected to know how things work.


:happydance:


Just having a little fun my dear ATPs. Please don’t get mad. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Sluggo63 said:
I kind of disagree. That might have been true in the 707/727 days, but today's airplanes are pretty smart and the checklists are well written. I've seen more guys screw things up royally when they go off-script and think they're smarter than the Boeing engineers and stop following the checklist and start making up their own procedures.
Click to expand...
This is true. In fact when I got typed in the Bus they specifically refused to go in depth on systems. What can you manage from the cockpit?? That’s the extent of what they wanted you to know.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
I'm a regional airline instructor. Just do a really good job of teaching the basics, especially instrument flying. The airline will handle the rest. If in doubt, I'm sure your school has thoughts on what to emphasize. You can never go wrong teaching stick and rudder, touch and feel.
Click to expand...
Sweet. Thanks for the advice! Any bad habits that you consistently see? Or knowledge areas that are lacking? Asking more for myself now.
 
It starts with the voice....ya either got a pilot voice....or ya don't. ;)

and buttons....do teach form and technique in pressing and depressing buttons.
 
rt4388 said:
Sweet. Thanks for the advice! Any bad habits that you consistently see? Or knowledge areas that are lacking? Asking more for myself now.
Click to expand...

Make sure that you continue to fly in addition to your instructing. Grab another instructor and fly real IFR in the system. Be ready for when we call, we are expecting a skilled, proficient instrument pilot. We'll handle the transition to whatever aircraft you're assigned to. We don't have time to teach you how to fly IFR.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Make sure that you continue to fly in addition to your instructing. Grab another instructor and fly real IFR in the system. Be ready for when we call, we are expecting a skilled, proficient instrument pilot. We'll handle the transition to whatever aircraft you're assigned to. We don't have time to teach you how to fly IFR.
Click to expand...
Yeah.... But why would you call an unproffieciant pilot?? Do you screen resumes? Further more do you interview??
 
Kritchlow said:
Yeah.... But why would you call an unproffieciant pilot?? Do you screen resumes? Further more do you interview??
Click to expand...
I think it’s tough to see if their proficient until they actually get in the sim. Unless you look at their logbook totals and see they have XX amount of hours in actual and XX amount of approaches flown in the last 6 months. Even then, it’s tough to gauge their proficiency until you actually work with them in the sim IMO. When I got hired, the CA doing my interview said it’s not the company’s job to teach you how to fly an ILS. Their job is to teach you how to fly an ILS in their jet.
 
jordane93 said:
I think it’s tough to see if their proficient until they actually get in the sim. Unless you look at their logbook totals and see they have XX amount of hours in actual and XX amount of approaches flown in the last 6 months. Even then, it’s tough to gauge their proficiency until you actually work with them in the sim IMO.
Click to expand...

That.

Also looking at their past flying jobs is a great indicator, sadly many 3rd world countries put ink wet CPLs into type rating level planes with hundreds aboard, but as Mr Barker used to say "the price was right".
 
SkyDog58 said:
The main difference between older airliners and the newer ones is that on the older ones a flight engineer who was typically an experienced mechanic was responsible for knowing and operating various systems while on the newer ones, a computer is. In neither case was or is the pilot expected to know how things work.


:happydance:


Just having a little fun my dear ATPs. Please don’t get mad. :smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...
And that would be part of the reason I harp on systems. I was an FE on the 727 ;-)
 
rt4388 said:
Agreed. But without a doubt, the training is and should be tailored towards the types of flying they are doing. Should I touch on everything in the ACS? Yes. In addition to this, does every (maybe I should say most?) CFIs talk about stuff that is outside of the ACS? Yes. My question is, where should these efforts be focused.
Click to expand...

How to speak up in a culture that doesn’t question authority at all?

How to not trust the auto-throttles and understand sink rate and inertia in something that weighs more than a small strip mall?

How to not hit a sea wall at SFO when the above two lessons fail?

:)
 
Asian Students? Follow the syllabus because once they leave they will not be allowed to do anything but rote memory work. Most can quote the entire manual but if you really want to mess them up....give them a visual. This is not racist but based upon years of experience. Our normal training requires 28 hours in the sim before a type ride. We had one Japanese female that did 57 hours FOUR times and Line IOE training that two training pilots refused to pass her but management was told to pass her. As long as she followed a precise checklist of “this altitude and this speed” she was tolerable and watched like a hawk by her crew. Give her a visual and it was a complete disaster. She was “retired”.
Why the special treatment? Her uncle was THE bigwig of Japanese aviation that gave foreign companies landing slots.
 
Best way to teach a student that doesn't have English as a first language and is marginal on English proficiency is to "Talk a lot, very clearly". And "get them to talk a lot". Talk a LOT!
 
Tarheelpilot said:
And that would be part of the reason I harp on systems. I was an FE on the 727 ;-)
Click to expand...
Cool.

While working as a mechanic at an airline I passed the FE written based on the 727 with a 96%. Before I passed the test, the airline had been taking mechanics to become professional flight engineers but then they decided to make the FE strictly a route to the right seat for young aspiring pilots. Since I wasn’t a pilot at the time I was SOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top