"Platoon" instructing versus dedicated...

[S. Murry]

Noel wrote (in another thread, which I will not hijack):


"Instead I'll take on ~2 students at a time and focus on
*making pilots* out of them, before taking on any more."

Noel, thanks for bringing this up. I've been thinking about this, too.

Our club uses the "platoon" system. That is just as you described in your
club. Instructors sign up, students sign up. Students fly with whoever
might be there that day. Students can also "self select" to a certain
extent by signing up on weeks when their preferred instructor is
instructing. And a certain amount of "overtime" instructing happens,
particularly as students approach checkrides, etc. (by this I mean that
students and instructors tend to "pair up" a bit leading right up to the
checkride. CFIs will come out on their "non-duty" days to help a student
finish up, but this is all done rather informally between the CFI and the
student).

I am one of the CFIs who participates in this system. I have mixed
feelings about it. I've previously trained in commercial glider
operations and commercial power schools. In most cases, I was assigned a
specific instructor throughout most or all of my training in these other
venues.

I think most people would agree that, with unlimited resources, the best
glider training would consist of: 1) Student and instructor assigned to
each other based on comprehensive psychological analysis of both student
and instructor, 2) fly one to two sorties every day, 3) stage checks by
highly experienced instructor/examiner at prescribed intervals in the
training, 4) multimedia ground school integrated tightly with the flight
lessons, 5) full-motion simulators to augment the in-glider training.

But the reality of most glider clubs (and I'm in a 100+ member club that
has great facilities, good year-round weather, owns its own 5000'+
airport, hangar, etc.--in short, about as good as it gets in the "club"
world) is that instructors are part-time volunteers. They have families,
"real" jobs, and most enjoy flying their own ships from time to time. We
operate mostly on weekends, too, which limits us to about 8 flying days a
month (give or take).

All of this leads to the following question. We know that the platoon
system is not ideal. But the ideal system is simply not feasible for most
(any?) clubs. So, under the constraints of a club environment, is it
better for students to train every couple of weeks with a single
instructor or train every week (or maybe even twice a week) but with
different instructors?

For the record, we've had good results with our platoon system. We
regularly "graduate" students (8 or so, I believe, last year) who have a
very good pass rate on their practical exams, many of whom go on to
cross-country or at least become regular participants in the sport in some
capacity.

We're getting the job done. But at our CFI meetings, the topic of "is
there a better way?" regularly comes up. Interested in the opinion of
this learned group...

--Stefan


--
Stefan Murry

[Bill D]

On May 29, 3:27*pm, "S. Murry" > wrote:
> Noel wrote (in another thread, which I will not hijack):
>
> "Instead I'll take on ~2 students at a time and focus on
> *making pilots* out of them, before taking on any more."
>
> Noel, thanks for bringing this up. *I've been thinking about this, too.
>
> Our club uses the "platoon" system. *That is just as you described in your
> club. *Instructors sign up, students sign up. *Students fly with whoever
> might be there that day. *Students can also "self select" to a certain
> extent by signing up on weeks when their preferred instructor is
> instructing. *And a certain amount of "overtime" instructing happens,
> particularly as students approach checkrides, etc. (by this I mean that
> students and instructors tend to "pair up" a bit leading right up to the
> checkride. *CFIs will come out on their "non-duty" days to help a student
> finish up, but this is all done rather informally between the CFI and the
> student).
>
> I am one of the CFIs who participates in this system. * I have mixed
> feelings about it. *I've previously trained in commercial glider
> operations and commercial power schools. *In most cases, I was assigned a
> specific instructor throughout most or all of my training in these other
> venues.
>
> I think most people would agree that, with unlimited resources, the best
> glider training would consist of: 1) *Student and instructor assigned to
> each other based on comprehensive psychological analysis of both student
> and instructor, 2) fly one to two sorties every day, 3) *stage checks by
> highly experienced instructor/examiner at prescribed intervals in the
> training, 4) multimedia ground school integrated tightly with the flight
> lessons, 5) full-motion simulators to augment the in-glider training.
>
> But the reality of most glider clubs (and I'm in a 100+ member club that
> has great facilities, good year-round weather, owns its own 5000'+
> airport, hangar, etc.--in short, about as good as it gets in the "club"
> world) is that instructors are part-time volunteers. *They have families,
> "real" jobs, and most enjoy flying their own ships from time to time. *We
> operate mostly on weekends, too, which limits us to about 8 flying days a
> month (give or take).
>
> All of this leads to the following question. *We know that the platoon
> system is not ideal. *But the ideal system is simply not feasible for most
> (any?) clubs. *So, under the constraints of a club environment, is it
> better for students to train every couple of weeks with a single
> instructor or train every week (or maybe even twice a week) but with
> different instructors?
>
> For the record, we've had good results with our platoon system. *We
> regularly "graduate" students (8 or so, I believe, last year) who have a
> very good pass rate on their practical exams, many of whom go on to
> cross-country or at least become regular participants in the sport in some
> capacity.
>
> We're getting the job done. *But at our CFI meetings, the topic of "is
> there a better way?" regularly comes up. *Interested in the opinion of
> this learned group...
>
> --Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Murry

I humbly suggest a bigger difference is the quality of the
instructors. Good instructors can deliver in both scenarios. Bad
instructors can't in either. Ask your instructor(s) about their
soaring experience.

Then there's the question of whether you'd rather have several
instructors giving you the best of their knowledge or just one. The
"platoon" system takes longer but the end result can be better since
instructors can cover for each others weaknesses. However, if you're
in a hurry, assigned instructors will get you there faster.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:28:04 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
> I don't believe in the value of random stick-and-rudder
> sessions with no pre-flight or post-flight briefing, or continuity of
> instruction.
> --Noel

Bravo.

Speaking as a student pilot who is not a "quick learning young natural", and who has had a haphazard and prolonged training, I believe that I've found the 'silver lining' to what appears to be the prevalent and defacto training methodology in the USA. (Did I?) Perhaps the 'silver lining' to the current state-of-training is this: as I approach the date of my practical test, I've come to the conclusion that no test or examiner can (or will) accurately evaluate the completeness and quality of my training, knowledge, and manifest skill. Sure, they can make an educated guess and they can evaluate a few key objective factors, but a complete evaluation? No way. The responsibility to evaluate completeness on an ongoing basis rests squarely on me.. That realization suggests to me that I should pass the "attitude" and "wisdom" components of the practical examination. Did I get that right?

CFI-Gs and recurrent training are essential to identifying and correcting my deficiencies, but the responsibility is mine. It's 100% up to me to identify the holes in my training and skills, the degradation of skills and knowledge with time, and my ever evolving limitations. It's up to me to remedy my deficiencies and fly within my limitations. That's a critical part of what it means to deserve a pilot's certificate.

My several instructors have all been terrifically skillful, dedicated, and generous, but the overall training methodology, as it plays out in practice, and in my limited experience, is catch-as-catch-can. Maybe it's suppose to be that way?? It's surely made me self-reliant. If a student is not prepared to passionately continue their training for the rest of their flying career, then they should not show up for their practical exam. It's on the student's head to make that frank self-examination.

Regarding the use of Condor and ground school, I would have been happy to try that if my instructors felt that it were useful. As it was, they were not interested and so I stayed away from Condor. I plan to try Condor after I earn my certificate.

[Tony V]

I've done it both ways and prefer the "instructor "du jour" system. I
got my Airplane Single Engine Land rating with a single instructor from
start to finish. Then, added the glider rating "the other way".

Different instructors stress different points so, in the long run,
you'll get a broader education. There are two potential downsides.
The first is that unless all of the instructors communicate well, it may
take longer to complete the training due to excess repetition.
The second is that the student will get conflicting information that may
be different to sort out.

Some prefer one method, some the other.

Tony, LsS6-b "6N"

[JC]

Interesting thread..
The system we use at my club is almost the ideal system described by
Stefan. We split the students into groups of 3-5 per instructor and
they always fly the same day, usually every Saturday or Sunday morning
and sometimes there is a weekday group. They start together and stick
with the same instructor for the entire course, normally making two
flights per day. When they are about to solo or having difficulties we
often have them fly with another instructor to make sure we didn´t
miss something or for the student to get a different perspective.
Along with the normal ground instruction by the instructor, we have 5
or 6 Saturday evening classes for all of the students with
presentations by specialists on Aerodynamics, Flight Maneuvers, Ground
Operations, Meteorology, Safety, Airspace, Regulations, etc.
One of the instructors is a psychologist and he interviews all of the
applicants before they begin. This works very well for profiling the
students and finding the best match with the instructors and also as a
way to filter out the undesireable ones.
Intstructors don´t get paid but we get a free tow for every eight
instruction flights..

We are near a very large city so there is no shortage of applicants
and we don´t have enough instructors to take all of them. Usually we
turn out around 15-20 pilots per year but only a fraction of them are
still flying a year or two later. Getting them to stay is what we see
as the biggest problem. My opinion is that for many people the sport
just takes too much commitment.
It would be great if it was cheaper and simpler but then I guess it
wouldn´t be soaring..

Regards,

Juan Carlos

[S. Murry]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 08:40:02 -0500, JC
> wrote:

Juan Carlos, thanks for the input. It's actually very interesting to
read. I know some people that think that if we offered more "structured"
training (such as you appear to offer), that we'd have better outcomes in
terms of retention, etc.

From your experience, it seems like this is not the case. In other words,
even with a very well refined program like you have, and even with turning
away some students (the horror!), and even with psychological evaluations
of new students (jeez, we've got a few licensed members that I sometimes
think need a psyc evaluation :)) you still lose a lot of members after
licensing.

Very good datapoint indeed. It sort-of confirms my thinking, too,
although it's a bit depressing to think that the sport is just too much
commitment for most people. It makes it tough to address the retention
problem since as you say fundamentally the sport is demanding, not much
you can do to change it.

--Stefan

> Interesting thread..
> The system we use at my club is almost the ideal system described by
> Stefan. We split the students into groups of 3-5 per instructor and
> they always fly the same day, usually every Saturday or Sunday morning
> and sometimes there is a weekday group. They start together and stick
> with the same instructor for the entire course, normally making two
> flights per day. When they are about to solo or having difficulties we
> often have them fly with another instructor to make sure we didn´t
> miss something or for the student to get a different perspective.
> Along with the normal ground instruction by the instructor, we have 5
> or 6 Saturday evening classes for all of the students with
> presentations by specialists on Aerodynamics, Flight Maneuvers, Ground
> Operations, Meteorology, Safety, Airspace, Regulations, etc.
> One of the instructors is a psychologist and he interviews all of the
> applicants before they begin. This works very well for profiling the
> students and finding the best match with the instructors and also as a
> way to filter out the undesireable ones.
> Intstructors don´t get paid but we get a free tow for every eight
> instruction flights..
>
> We are near a very large city so there is no shortage of applicants
> and we don´t have enough instructors to take all of them. Usually we
> turn out around 15-20 pilots per year but only a fraction of them are
> still flying a year or two later. Getting them to stay is what we see
> as the biggest problem. My opinion is that for many people the sport
> just takes too much commitment.
> It would be great if it was cheaper and simpler but then I guess it
> wouldn´t be soaring..
>
> Regards,
>
> Juan Carlos


--
Stefan Murry

[Bill D]

On May 30, 10:13*am, "S. Murry" > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 08:40:02 -0500, JC
>
> > wrote:
>
> Juan Carlos, thanks for the input. *It's actually very interesting to
> read. *I know some people that think that if we offered more "structured"
> training (such as you appear to offer), that we'd have better outcomes in
> terms of retention, etc.
>
> *From your experience, it seems like this is not the case. *In other words,
> even with a very well refined program like you have, and even with turning
> away some students (the horror!), and even with psychological evaluations
> of new students (jeez, we've got a few licensed members that I sometimes
> think need a psyc evaluation :)) you still lose a lot of members after
> licensing.
>
> Very good datapoint indeed. *It sort-of confirms my thinking, too,
> although it's a bit depressing to think that the sport is just too much
> commitment for most people. *It makes it tough to address the retention
> problem since as you say fundamentally the sport is demanding, not much
> you can do to change it.
>
> --Stefan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Interesting thread..
> > The system we use at my club is almost the ideal system described by
> > Stefan. We split the students into groups of 3-5 per instructor and
> > they always fly the same day, usually every Saturday or Sunday morning
> > and sometimes there is a weekday group. They start together and stick
> > with the same instructor for the entire course, normally making two
> > flights per day. When they are about to solo or having difficulties we
> > often have them fly with another instructor to make sure we didn´t
> > miss something or for the student to get a different perspective.
> > Along with the normal ground instruction by the instructor, we have 5
> > or 6 Saturday evening classes for all of the students with
> > presentations by specialists on Aerodynamics, Flight Maneuvers, Ground
> > Operations, Meteorology, Safety, Airspace, Regulations, etc.
> > One of the instructors is a psychologist and he interviews all of the
> > applicants before they begin. This works very well for profiling the
> > students and finding the best match with the instructors and also as a
> > way to filter out the undesireable ones.
> > Intstructors don´t get paid but we get a free tow for every eight
> > instruction flights..
>
> > We are near a very large city so there is no shortage of applicants
> > and we don´t have enough instructors to take all of them. Usually we
> > turn out around 15-20 pilots per year but only a fraction of them are
> > still flying a year or two later. Getting them to stay is what we see
> > as the biggest problem. My opinion is that for many people the sport
> > just takes too much commitment.
> > It would be great if it was cheaper and simpler but then I guess it
> > wouldn´t be soaring..
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Juan Carlos
>
> --
> Stefan Murry

It should not be overlooked that students have a large degree of
control over their own training if they are proactive about it.
Students can almost write their own lesson plans. If they do this,
any instructor scheduling system will work for them.

The first question in instructors minds at the beginning of a session
is, "What does this guy need to work on?" If students speak up and
tell the instructor what concerns them, things go quicker. Students
can do this by reading the PTS and bringing areas which concern them
to the instructors attention. If students read the Glider Flying
Handbook and write questions in the margins for areas they don't feel
they understand completely helps too. I have never known an
instructor who won't take the time to explain or demonstrate.

Unfortunately, some students won't do any of this hoping somehow,
someday, they'll get a license. This puts a heavy workload on the
instructor and makes for a long, slow route to a license.

[Squeaky]

I've done it both ways and prefer the "instructor "du jour" system. Some prefer one method, some the other.

Tony, LsS6-b "6N"

Hence the correct answer as in most tactical aviation questions is: It depends. Both obviously work, both obviously have flaws.

Ab initio students seem to do better with a dedicated instructor (who is available when they are...) who can provide encouragement and instruction while following their progress. They are familiar with what the student is doing right, wrong, where they are weak or strong, and they can base their instruction and next ride on that knowledge.

Students with some avaiation experience, or who are more driven like Flubber, would do well in platoon systems, getting varied view points and experience and being able to fly each time they make it out to the club.

I'm lucky in my club, and they do it both ways--mostly we try to pair a new student with one instructor, who does conduct ground training sessions, until they are ready to solo. At that point most of our instructors have their student fly with another instructor for the differences and for a separate evaluation before they solo.

For me, I wanted to fly everytime I showed up--even if my instructor couldn't be there. I took responsibility for my own ground school and studies (attending sessions of other instructor when they let me). But having a military background, I like flying with multiple instructors.

Either way, continuity of flying and training is a major issue--paired instructors are good, but if mutual instructor or student schedules make flying an every other weekend or worse situation it's not ideal. The platoon system helps solve the flying continuity issue, but not the instruction and personal following continuity. Being a weekend only type of sport makes it a tougher nut to crack.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 06:40:02 -0700, JC wrote:

> Interesting thread..
>
> Getting [newly qualified pilots] to stay is what we see as the
> biggest problem. My opinion is that for many people the sport just takes
> too much commitment.
>
A view from across the pond. I've heard it said that the smaller, weekend-
only UK clubs have a similar problem, but that's just hearsay because I
haven't experienced that.

I was lucky: I joined my club because I wanted to learn in glass and it
was the only nearby club with an ASK-21 and a G.103. My first gliding
experience was in an ASK-13 - I think they're OK, but they didn't grab me
and still don't. I was lucky because, when I knew enough to understand
gliding I realized that, unlike a number of the smaller clubs, my club
has a very strong XC orientation and the culture is very much that once
you're solo, OF COURSE you'll get your bronze badge, followed by the XC
qualification and then go for Silver, get into XC and start working on
your Gold and maybe try racing and/or become an instructor. IOW, there is
a defined way ahead: we don't leave a newly soloed pilot to bimble around
the airfield in two seaters or the SZD Juniors until they get bored and
leave. Of course, it also helps that the club has three good Standard
gliders (currently a Pegase, Discus, and ASW-24) which are expected to go
XC.

When I'd nearly got my Bronze and so was close to XC standard, it was
time of year for the local Regionals to be run on our field. The custom
was for the club's G.103 to be entered with an experienced XC pilot as P1
and a group of us, all at the same stage, got to crew for it. Each of us
got a day as P2. If your club runs a Regionals or equivalent on its field
consider doing the same: I can't think of a better way to show a new
pilot the joys of XC flying.

Oh yeah, we also use the 'platoon' instruction method but probably
without some of the faffing, since all instructors will have done BGA
courses and all will be teaching the syllabus in the BGA Instructors
Manual. So, if I hadn't flown with a particular instructor for a while, a
glance at my log book and a short chat told him where I was at and what I
needed to do next.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[John Halpenny]

On May 30, 6:16*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 06:40:02 -0700, JC wrote:
> > Interesting thread..
>
> > Getting [newly qualified pilots] to stay is what we see as the
> > biggest problem. My opinion is that for many people the sport just takes
> > too much commitment.
>
> A view from across the pond. I've heard it said that the smaller, weekend-
> only UK clubs have a similar problem, but that's just hearsay because I
> haven't experienced that.

I am new to gliding, but I am getting on in years, so I learn more
slowly than the young folks. I also don't get out more than once a
week, so it is taking me a while to make progress. Our club has a
"duty instructor" on weekends who is assigned from a list, like the
tow pilot, and the usual duty is one or two half days a month..

It works well for me. I can fly whenever I am available, and I get
different points of view. The club issues a training logbook with lots
of tasks and levels so both I and the instructor can see what needs to
be done. The club is, sadly, not overwhelmed with students so I can
get as much training as I want.

The alternative of a fixed instructor and a set schedule, would
perhaps get my skills up faster, but I would probably come out less
since I would have to coordinate with someone else. As it is, the club
is a place to "hang out" whenever I can and there is always something
to do.

Many years ago I belonged to a sailing club with a very active
training program. Training sessions involved crowds of students and
instructors on the dock paired up randomly in a first come, first
served format. The lessons were disorganized but the social life was
great. They later went to a more organized plan with scheduled times
and instructors, so there were far few people hanging about,... and
the club collapsed.


John Halpenny

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:45:28 -0700, John Halpenny wrote:

> Many years ago I belonged to a sailing club with a very active training
> program. Training sessions involved crowds of students and instructors
> on the dock paired up randomly in a first come, first served format. The
> lessons were disorganized but the social life was great. They later went
> to a more organized plan with scheduled times and instructors, so there
> were far few people hanging about,... and the club collapsed.
>
We're not collapsing, but I see something similar since my club switched
to bookable training rather than the traditional flying list at the
launch point.

I learned with the list: worked for me, as I got solo in six months of
weekend-only flying. I learnt on the winch in a system that guaranteed at
least two launches each time you got to the top of the queue, and three
if demand was lower. There was generally a reasonable number of people
around the launch point, so ground handling muscle was usually not a
problem and at busy times we had enough helpers to manage almost 20
launches an hour using a dual-drum winch.

Now that almost all training is booked there simply aren't very many
people at the launch point: last Saturday PM I was the only designated
launch point marshal (there are normally two) and so was very busy and
forced to rely on students and those waiting to fly to keep things moving
because nobody else was there to help by retrieving landed gliders,
fetching winch cables, etc, etc. I accept that booked training is
probably better for students, but it wrecks the launch point social scene
and makes life much harder for those running the flight line.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[noel.wade]

Let me try to put a different spin on this topic:

For those of you doing the "platoon" system, two big questions:

1) How do you get around the fact that when a student flies with an
instructor they haven't seen in a couple of months the instructor
invariably asks the student to repeat what they already know, to "get
a feel" for the student? This tends to burn several hours of the
student's time as they wait around for the launch line and the
instructor to come available. This creates a great deal of
frustration in our club among students who often only get 2 flights a
day (one of which is purely review)...

2) Relying on students to be "self-motivated" or "design their own
lesson plans" only works if the students know what the hell they're
supposed to be doing next, or concentrating on. As mentioned by
others in this thread, that works OK with transition students or add-
on rations; but ab-initio students are frequently drifting without a
compass. How does your club deal with that? In our club, we seem to
be good at telling new members to go to the launch line on their first
day and chat up an instructor. But after that it seems all they learn
to do is buy a few books, carry them around, and take repeated flights
with instructors (who's pre-flight briefings take all of 5 minutes and
post-flight briefings consist of a chat while walking the glider back
to the line). Do those of you with a platoon system find that you
have decent ground instruction? Do your platoon instructors actually
sit down with students and give them guidance? Do they make
themselves available at any other time besides on the launch-line?
What support-systems do you have in place? My experience is that
"platoon" instructors aren't tied to any students, so its easy for
them to not take any responsibility for their students' success or
failure. How do you avoid that?

[NOTE: For those who want to insist that its the student's job to take
responsibility and that truly motivated students will succeed - I
understand the sentiment but I also point to the high student dropout
rate and declining pilot population as evidence that this is a ****-
poor argument. Yes, we can see that motivated people are getting
their license; but it doesn't mean that the system is functioning
well. Most sports or skill-based activities have mentors and coaches
for a good reason - even if someone is motivated they can still use
guidance and encouragement. This can be seen in grassroots/amateur
hobbies all the way up through the highest levels of professional
athletes.]

3) For those who moved to scheduled training: Do you do anything
social in your club to support the social-scene other than having a
launch-line? Do you think events like BBQs or Seminars or Mentoring
sessions would help?

4) For those who talk about scheduled training causing them to come
out less-often: What about supplementing your in-air experiences with
flight simulators or ground-instruction (in-person, on the phone,
online, etc)?

--Noel

[Matt McKrell]

On May 31, 8:50*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Let me try to put a different spin on this topic:
>
> For those of you doing the "platoon" system, two big questions:
>
> 1) How do you get around the fact that when a student flies with an
> instructor they haven't seen in a couple of months the instructor
> invariably asks the student to repeat what they already know, to "get
> a feel" for the student? *This tends to burn several hours of the
> student's time as they wait around for the launch line and the
> instructor to come available. *This creates a great deal of
> frustration in our club among students who often only get 2 flights a
> day (one of which is purely review)...
>
> 2) Relying on students to be "self-motivated" or "design their own
> lesson plans" only works if the students know what the hell they're
> supposed to be doing next, or concentrating on. *As mentioned by
> others in this thread, that works OK with transition students or add-
> on rations; but ab-initio students are frequently drifting without a
> compass. *How does your club deal with that? *In our club, we seem to
> be good at telling new members to go to the launch line on their first
> day and chat up an instructor. *But after that it seems all they learn
> to do is buy a few books, carry them around, and take repeated flights
> with instructors (who's pre-flight briefings take all of 5 minutes and
> post-flight briefings consist of a chat while walking the glider back
> to the line). *Do those of you with a platoon system find that you
> have decent ground instruction? *Do your platoon instructors actually
> sit down with students and give them guidance? *Do they make
> themselves available at any other time besides on the launch-line?
> What support-systems do you have in place? *My experience is that
> "platoon" instructors aren't tied to any students, so its easy for
> them to not take any responsibility for their students' success or
> failure. *How do you avoid that?
>
> [NOTE: For those who want to insist that its the student's job to take
> responsibility and that truly motivated students will succeed - I
> understand the sentiment but I also point to the high student dropout
> rate and declining pilot population as evidence that this is a ****-
> poor argument. *Yes, we can see that motivated people are getting
> their license; but it doesn't mean that the system is functioning
> well. *Most sports or skill-based activities have mentors and coaches
> for a good reason - even if someone is motivated they can still use
> guidance and encouragement. *This can be seen in grassroots/amateur
> hobbies all the way up through the highest levels of professional
> athletes.]
>
> 3) For those who moved to scheduled training: *Do you do anything
> social in your club to support the social-scene other than having a
> launch-line? *Do you think events like BBQs or Seminars or Mentoring
> sessions would help?
>
> 4) For those who talk about scheduled training causing them to come
> out less-often: *What about supplementing your in-air experiences with
> flight simulators or ground-instruction (in-person, on the phone,
> online, etc)?
>
> --Noel

The crucial element to make the platoon system work is a published
syllabus.
Our students get a booklet that lays out all the instruction through
bronze badge
with a prominent space on the front for them to write their names. The
students
always show up with this because this is where the lesson plans are
detailed,
along with the reading assignments and instructor signoffs. Each
lesson plan
includes items to be covered as ground instruction, in the simulator,
and in the air.
An estimate of how many sessions should be required is also listed.

My students always show up with one, unless they're on their first
visit to
the airport, in which case we make sure they get one.

Lately we've gone to a more formally scheduled list. For several
years we'd
just left it up to the instructor, and my preference was to have a
"morning ground"
and an "afternoon group", who all stuck around and helped each other.
(I don't
require my students to hang around all day but I like to see a half
day
helping each other out from everybody.) I haven't seen the new
schedule
in action much yet, but it seems to be OK with the students more or
less
operating in a first half/second half grouping.

In the past we set up an online scheduling system. We had one student
in particular abuse this very badly: he would schedule himself every
Saturday
at 2 for a month in advance. He'd show up at 1:59 and expect to be
launched
promptly, and then disappear once he'd flown. We were glad to be shot
of him.
At least our current system is under control of the instructor, so I
have control
of when I want my students to fly. If they need to do some soaring I
can move
them to mid afternoon, or schedule them early or late in the day if
they're
getting close to solo and would benefit from calmer conditions.

-- Matt

[S. Murry]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 21:10:41 -0500, Matt McKrell >
wrote:

Noel, Good questions. I want to draw one distinction between how our
club handles instruction and what some others have described. While we do
have a "platoon" system, this applies to the CFIs, not to the students.
Students still schedule their flights (4 instructional slots per day).
Perhaps this wasn't clear in my earlier e-mail.

So, instructors volunteer and come out per an online schedule, and
students sign up (up to a week before) to fly anytime they are able. The
distinction I draw is with a system where students just show up with no
idea who might be the duty instructor and no certainty of flying. This is
not the way we do it. Students and instructors are scheduled ahead of
time, but students are not "paired" with a particular instructor.

One side-effect of this system, though, is that students can to a certain
extent "pair up" with an instructor by scheduling themselves only on days
when that instructor is signed up to instruct. Of course, this typically
means only one instructional session per month, which is far less than
optimal. Perhaps another way to look at it is that if students have a
particular instruction who does NOT mesh well with their learning style,
they at least have a means to avoid flying with this instructor. Note
that I am not aware of much of this actually happening, but perhaps it
does.

Regarding your specific questions, Noel:

1) Basically, most of glider instruction is review and practice. It is
not as complex as airplane training in terms of varied different areas of
performance. I can easily run a student through every task on the PTS on
their first flight. Of course I don't do this, but the point is that
there aren't that many things that need to be done on the practical and
these things tend to be introduced within the first 10 flights or so.
Then, the rest is just practice and refinement, and learning to do the
same maneuver under different conditions. For example, while a student
may be totally proficient in boxing the wake in calm, morning conditions,
take that same student up on a buoyant afternoon and the result may be a
less than proficient performance. It takes practice, repetition, and
experience under different weather conditions to make a well-trained
glider pilot. This should not be annoying to students. Think about this
in more general terms. All of glider flying essentially comes down to
knowing how to find an exploit lift, navigate in a straight line, takeoff
and land. If you can do these 4 things perfectly under any conditions,
you are now the world champion. Of course, nobody does these things
perfectly, which is why people spend a good chunk of their years on earth
trying to get closer to perfection. Going up and practicing boxing the
wake for the 14th time shouldn't be seen by students as "wasting time."
It's a task that should be practiced over and over again until it can be
performed well under any conditions. Then, it should be periodically
practiced (even after license) to ensure continued proficiency. If
students are bored by repetition and don't see that the point is to push
them along closer to perfection, then probably they need the CFI to be
more active in pointing out areas for improvement. Maybe they think they
are already totally proficient and no room is left for improvement?

2) Relying on students to be "self motivated" doesn't work for ab initio
students. I think this is somewhat true. As others have mentioned, we
have a pretty comprehensive syllabus and training outline that shows
students exactly what they SHOULD be studying and practicing. I think
this provides the "road map" that ab initio students need in order to keep
themselves on track. However, we are all adults, so we do rely to a
certain extent on students to speak up if they think they have missed
something or need more practice or instruction in certain areas. I think
this is true even if instructors are paired up with students from start to
finish.

Also, as I mentioned previously, as the date for the checkride draws
near, students tend to pair up more closely with a particular CFI. In any
case, ONE CFI will be on the hook for signing the student's 8710 form (the
form that attests that the CFI has prepared the student for the practical
test), so in the end a single CFI has to ensure that all the training has
been accomplished (even if not all of it was preformed by him
personally). So, for the last month or so, our chief CFI will typically
assist the student in arranging the final few instructional sessions with
a particular CFI who will do a comprehensive review and analysis of the
student's performance, fill in any gaps, and recommend the student to the
examiner by signing his 8710 form.

The other topic that has been brought up relative to scheduled training
is a resulting lack of manpower at the launch line. Personally, I think
this smacks of making students "pay their dues" by hanging out and
performing free labor in order to fly. If this is required by everyone in
the club, great, but I have seen many cases where students are expected to
show up at 9 AM (or whenever) in order to (hopefully) get on the schedule
with an instructor. This instructional slot may not happen until 4 PM,
and in the meantime the students (and not other members) are expected to
provide all the labor to launch everyone. Meanwhile, the glass ship
owners show up at the field at 11:30 AM, recruit a students to help them
assemble, then expect the students to help with ground handling and
launching. The glass ship guys launch at 12:30, returning at 5 PM, and
expect the students to help disassemble and put their gliders back in the
box. This certainly would create hard feelings among the students. It's
just not fair. Our club has assigned "ground crew" slots each flying
day. Every member (unless they are an instructor or tow pilot) is
expected to sign up for one of these ground crew slots each month. This
means that we have 40-year veteran X/C pilots out shagging ropes once a
month, just like everyone else. Students don't see themselves as "second
class citizens" and they get the benefit of sharing the experience often
with much more experienced pilots and club members. This also avoids the
"blind leading the blind" effect that sometimes occurs at clubs where the
ground crew is solely composed of less experienced (student) members. And,
it provides a great opportunity for interaction between younger members
and those with more experience.

--Stefan




> On May 31, 8:50 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>> Let me try to put a different spin on this topic:
>>
>> For those of you doing the "platoon" system, two big questions:
>>
>> 1) How do you get around the fact that when a student flies with an
>> instructor they haven't seen in a couple of months the instructor
>> invariably asks the student to repeat what they already know, to "get
>> a feel" for the student? This tends to burn several hours of the
>> student's time as they wait around for the launch line and the
>> instructor to come available. This creates a great deal of
>> frustration in our club among students who often only get 2 flights a
>> day (one of which is purely review)...
>>
>> 2) Relying on students to be "self-motivated" or "design their own
>> lesson plans" only works if the students know what the hell they're
>> supposed to be doing next, or concentrating on. As mentioned by
>> others in this thread, that works OK with transition students or add-
>> on rations; but ab-initio students are frequently drifting without a
>> compass. How does your club deal with that? In our club, we seem to
>> be good at telling new members to go to the launch line on their first
>> day and chat up an instructor. But after that it seems all they learn
>> to do is buy a few books, carry them around, and take repeated flights
>> with instructors (who's pre-flight briefings take all of 5 minutes and
>> post-flight briefings consist of a chat while walking the glider back
>> to the line). Do those of you with a platoon system find that you
>> have decent ground instruction? Do your platoon instructors actually
>> sit down with students and give them guidance? Do they make
>> themselves available at any other time besides on the launch-line?
>> What support-systems do you have in place? My experience is that
>> "platoon" instructors aren't tied to any students, so its easy for
>> them to not take any responsibility for their students' success or
>> failure. How do you avoid that?
>>
>> [NOTE: For those who want to insist that its the student's job to take
>> responsibility and that truly motivated students will succeed - I
>> understand the sentiment but I also point to the high student dropout
>> rate and declining pilot population as evidence that this is a ****-
>> poor argument. Yes, we can see that motivated people are getting
>> their license; but it doesn't mean that the system is functioning
>> well. Most sports or skill-based activities have mentors and coaches
>> for a good reason - even if someone is motivated they can still use
>> guidance and encouragement. This can be seen in grassroots/amateur
>> hobbies all the way up through the highest levels of professional
>> athletes.]
>>
>> 3) For those who moved to scheduled training: Do you do anything
>> social in your club to support the social-scene other than having a
>> launch-line? Do you think events like BBQs or Seminars or Mentoring
>> sessions would help?
>>
>> 4) For those who talk about scheduled training causing them to come
>> out less-often: What about supplementing your in-air experiences with
>> flight simulators or ground-instruction (in-person, on the phone,
>> online, etc)?
>>
>> --Noel
>
> The crucial element to make the platoon system work is a published
> syllabus.
> Our students get a booklet that lays out all the instruction through
> bronze badge
> with a prominent space on the front for them to write their names. The
> students
> always show up with this because this is where the lesson plans are
> detailed,
> along with the reading assignments and instructor signoffs. Each
> lesson plan
> includes items to be covered as ground instruction, in the simulator,
> and in the air.
> An estimate of how many sessions should be required is also listed.
>
> My students always show up with one, unless they're on their first
> visit to
> the airport, in which case we make sure they get one.
>
> Lately we've gone to a more formally scheduled list. For several
> years we'd
> just left it up to the instructor, and my preference was to have a
> "morning ground"
> and an "afternoon group", who all stuck around and helped each other.
> (I don't
> require my students to hang around all day but I like to see a half
> day
> helping each other out from everybody.) I haven't seen the new
> schedule
> in action much yet, but it seems to be OK with the students more or
> less
> operating in a first half/second half grouping.
>
> In the past we set up an online scheduling system. We had one student
> in particular abuse this very badly: he would schedule himself every
> Saturday
> at 2 for a month in advance. He'd show up at 1:59 and expect to be
> launched
> promptly, and then disappear once he'd flown. We were glad to be shot
> of him.
> At least our current system is under control of the instructor, so I
> have control
> of when I want my students to fly. If they need to do some soaring I
> can move
> them to mid afternoon, or schedule them early or late in the day if
> they're
> getting close to solo and would benefit from calmer conditions.
>
> -- Matt


--
Stefan Murry

[Ventus_a]

In an ideal world the student would be switched on and proactive in their training but glider clubs can be difficult to 'crack' as in feeling a real part of the scene and a feeling of belonging. In my experience that makes a real difference in the level of keenness from the student and along with social activities at the club can help bind them to the sport

At my club the instructors are rostered on and the students mostly fly with who ever is on duty. They are free to fly with any instructor by arrangement and some choose to do this. Here in New Zealand we have a structured syllabus that leads through to being a qualified glider pilot which goes some way to keeping good continuity between the different instructors.

http://www.gliding.co.nz/training/syllabus


One of the bigger problems I have seen in the last 8 years since my return to the sport is 'old worn out' instructors staying in the game for the free flying with students and trial flights. They only flew when someone else was paying and showed little interest in progressing the students through the syllabus. Fortunately for all concerned this has largely disappeared in the last couple of years. I would also like to be very clear that some of our 'old timers' are/were excellent instructors and with their years of experience are of great value to the club

Colin

http://www.glidingauckland.co.nz

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:50:39 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

> Let me try to put a different spin on this topic:
>
> For those of you doing the "platoon" system, two big questions:
>
> 1) How do you get around the fact that when a student flies with an
> instructor they haven't seen in a couple of months the instructor
>
As I already said, I think this is helped a lot in my club by the fact
that all UK instructors teach the same syllabus and will write notes in
the student's log book about what was taught and, less commonly, about
things that he things need more work.

> 2) Relying on students to be "self-motivated" or "design their own
> lesson plans" only works if the students know what the hell they're
> supposed to be doing next, or concentrating on.
>
This simply doesn't happen for the reasons given above. As my club
teaches on the winch, and its quite usual to be solo well before getting
an aero tow sign-off (I got mine a year after going solo). A result is
that a student will do 2-3 launches on the trot and there will normally
be an extensive debrief at the end of that set.

> 3) For those who moved to scheduled training: Do you do anything social
> in your club to support the social-scene other than having a
> launch-line? Do you think events like BBQs or Seminars or Mentoring
> sessions would help?
>
Some things get rolled into the booking. A pre-solo booking is always for
a half day and assigns two students to an instructor and glider. We never
roster for less than two instructors + gliders plus a launch marshal,
assistant launch marshal, winch driver and tuggie. Trial flights don't
normally interfere: they use a third glider and instructor, who may be
available for training if only a few trial flights have been booked.

If you take a morning booking you're expected to be there for the hangar
unpack, DI, and setting up the airfield. Similarly, afternoon bookings
expect the student to help with clearing the field, washing the gliders
and hangar packing.

The upshot of all this is that there should be enough people to help with
driving the cable truck, moving gliders and there's a bit of time for the
group of students socialise among themselves and with other club members
who are on duty or just hanging out.

We also run flying evenings twice a week during the season - all off the
winch for noise reasons - which are part training and part social,
especially as there is usually food involved and these sessions often end
with a pint in a local pub.

> 4) For those who talk about scheduled training causing them to come out
> less-often: What about supplementing your in-air experiences with
> flight simulators or ground-instruction (in-person, on the phone,
> online, etc)?
>
Some members use Condor over winter, but the club doesn't have a
simulator despite it getting discussed from time to time.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |