On 25 Sep, Mike Borgelt wrote:
> That's about what I said. The training is deficient in that those things
> aren't taught or not taught properly. There is a lot of bullshit spouted
> around the average gliding club bar and this is a bad place for an
> inexperienced pilot to learn this stuff.

That part about the bar is unfortunately very true - and I have seen
experienced pilots take spouters of nonsense firmly but politely to task
on occasions...but probably not enough.

As for the training being deficient - well, it certainly isn't perfect
and that makes it deficient. However, at the two clubs where I instruct,
the IPs make significant efforts to ensure that all instructors are up
to date. At DDSC there is also a XC panel, which oversees the XC
training and (club based) ratings - a system we are instituting at
Caboolture as we move to XC out of Watts Bridge (and eventually from
Caboolture itself for experienced pilots).

> Insist on 500 hours solo accident free before beginning instructor
> training. That way you might at least know something useful to teach and
> will have developed judgement which hopefully you can pass on.

Why 500 - why not 750 - or 250? These are purely numbers and have no
linear relationship to airmanship, flying ability - or, most
importantly, to instructional ability.
 
> At present an instructor is all too likely to be a low hours/experience
> pilot who has done a half baked GFA instructors course. Their accident rate
> doesn't seem to be any better than the non instructors. It would be
> interesting to see their accident rates per hour compared to cross country
> pilots who do 50 hours up per year.

Hmm - well, in the last 12 months I did a touch under 200hrs - and flew
heaps of XC (including 4 competitions). Right at the beginning of that,
I had the "Alice and the Rabbit Holes" incident. From that I learnt
HEAPS (and am still finding nuances that apply to many aspects of my
flying and the training I am involved in). I believe that this incident
has been extremely positive for me (and I hope by my writing for others
also).

At the beginning of this 12 month period, I had just gained my level
1 instructor's rating - and have just been upgraded to level 2
instructor. However, I don't have 500 hrs (let alone 500hrs solo and
accident free - will probably have 500hrs solo in 6 months if the season
is good though)...so by your estimate, I should not be instructing, let
alone be allowed to send people off on their first solo. I do, however,
have well over 1200 launches...

I'd be very interested in knowing what you think I lack - and how having
500hs solo, accident free would make me a better instructor. BTW as an
ex student and ex academic, it has been my experience that the best
lecturers/teachers/instructors are those who have had more, rather than
less, difficulty mastering that which they are teaching - and these
people may well have been involved in an accident/incident (eg heavy
landing) because of that difficulty. 

Interestingly, I first gained an instructor's rating with the air cadets
in the UK - which involved a 6 day continuous course...and I would
suggest that the time I spent with the level 3 instructors leading up to
regaining my instructor rating to be at least as good (if not better)
than that highly formal RAF run/organised course in 1972.

I am certain there are ways we can improve instruction - you alluded to
one already and to the CASA stuff in another email (pls could you give a
bit more info so that I can go and find it).

It's great to have you contributing this way - many thanks. Your
knowledge and experience are far too valuable to be lost to us in the
gliding movement.

-- 
Robert Hart                                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strategic IT & open source consulting                +61 (0)438 385 533
Brisbane, Australia                         http://www.interweft.com.au

--
  * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list.
  * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message
  * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.

Reply via email to