"Platoon" instructing versus dedicated...

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

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.

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.

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"

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Tony V

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.

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 |

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