Consistent Student Syllabus?

I posted this over at rec.aviation.student, but forgot to crosspost it
here..

Thought I'd CC it here and see if I can get any info, as there's been
no response there yet..

A few questions for those more knowledgable...

Is there a defined flightschool / flight training syllabus in the USA?

Other countries?

The reason I ask is that I spend alot of time reading various message
boards, here in the newsgroups, as well as a few blogs, and it seems
strange to me the amount of variety in training methods, sequences,
and procedures that I read.

Here in Canada, the syllabus is laid out by Transport Canada, and
based on my experience so far, is followed by all designated flight
training units and instructors.

All students learn the same lessons, generally in the same order. The
published syllabus is available right on the Transport Canada website:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ge...artII/menu.htm

The only variences to the training regiment are based on student
ability. If the student needs extra training on something in
particular, then the lesson plan stops, and is repeated untill
adequate progress is made. Then, it continues where it left off, in
sequence fashion.

Yes, some lessons can be done out of sequence, within reason.. For
example, I had to wait some time to get my spin training out of the
way as the winter months were very cold this past winter, and the
thermal stresses placed on the engine from those sorts of maneuvers
were deemed extreme enough to delay the lesson, as opposed to cracking
cylinder heads.

Also, although "Approach and Landing" is not listed untill exercise
18, I was obviously doing them (or at least attempting, right from the
first flight) long before that exercise came up.. However, the finer
points of such were taught, and practiced in more detail, once lesson
18 arrived.

However, you see what I mean... There is still a laid-out regiment
for the most part.

Some of the message boards I read have students that seem to be
overwhelmed, and I personally think it's because their instructors
have then all over the map when it comes to lesson plans.. When I
read about some students being pushed under the hood in their first
few flights, or are doing stall training on their 3'rd flight, or
flying cross-countries very early on in their training, it baffles me.

Just curious...



---
Mark Morissette
Courtice, Ontario, Canada
http://oshawapilot.blogspot.com (My student pilot blog)

Hi Mark,

I'm a CFI here in the states. I use the Transport Canada program,
modified a bit to reflect the needs of the US FAA, with most of my
'independent' students. Most CFIs in the US have a fairly wide latitude
to tailor their instruction to the individual needs of the students.
The 'objective' standards required to earn the US Private Pilot are
outlined in the FAA's 'Practical Test Standards' (PTS), which describes
the competency level, tolerences, and manevuers the candidate will be
tested on. The FAA knowledge test is very well known, and almost all
CFIs know what level of knowledge is required to pass the test, so we
try to teach that at a very minimum; it really isn't enough, butb many
of us see that as a minimum starting point.

Many flight schools have 'standardized' curricula, and there are
several published ones available from different sources. Generally,
regardless of the specific curricula used (including 'home-rolled' ones
created by independent CFIs), the progress and transition scheme is the
same: Basic straight/level flight, then turns/climbs, then stalls, then
manevuers, etc....

But CFIs are highly trained professionals. We have to use our
professional knowledge to modify and adopt *any* syllabus or program to
the individual student; it's virtually impossible to say "During lesson
4, every student will exhibit a knowledge of Power-On stalls...."

Student performance varies widely. I have had students who picked up
normal landings in a single lesson. I have had others who took 5 or 6
lessons to get to the same point. Was the former the 'better' pilot?
Actually no. He just got to a certain point faster. But I would have
served *neither* student well, if I blindly adhered to a schedule that
made the first student spend 3 hours on something he had mstered in 1,
and allowed the second student only 3 hours for something he needed six
for.

Most CFIs have a plan for the progress of their students. We know what
skills they need, and how to tach them those skills. But we also know
that flexibility is one of the most vital attributes of both pilots and
instructors. So, I guess the answer to your question is 'sort-of'.

Cheers,

Cap

wrote
But CFIs are highly trained professionals.

You've got to be ****ting me, right? Of course with a name
like captainwubba, we get an idea about just how professional
you are.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

Sigh. Bob, where did that come from? The sizeable majority of CFIs I
know *are* indeed highly trained and dedicated professionals. Many are
buildign time, it is true, but that doesn't change their
professionalism.

As you well know, to earn a CFI, unless one comes from the military,
one has to work towards and pass the written, oral, and practical exams
for Private Pilot, then the three for Instrument Airplane, then the
three for Commercial pilot, then the four for Flight Instructor. Most
flight schools today won't hire a CFI without 500 hours for insurance
purposes. My CFI oral alone was eight hours...the examiner was very
focused on making sure CFIs knew their stuff. Your experience may be
different, but CFIs I work with, and the others that I know are
dedicated to their students and to their profession. many of us
instruct because we *want* to. Many of the CFIs I know are
professionals in other fields; we aren't in it to get rich, or to build
hours.

Oh, and the little shot about my 'professionalism' based on the screen
name I choose to use? Do you *really* believe that my professionalism
as a pilot and instructor has anything to do with the name I choose to
post under? The posts I have made using that name...ever displayed a
lack of professionalism? Come on Bob...you're usually better than that.

Cheers,

Cap

I'm a CFI here in the states. I use the Transport Canada program,
modified a bit to reflect the needs of the US FAA, with most of my
'independent' students. Most CFIs in the US have a fairly wide latitude
to tailor their instruction to the individual needs of the students.

Ok, as I thought, based on what I've read here in the newsgroups...
What really gets me is how it seem some students are flying lessons in
orders that make no sense based on my experiences as a student.

Student performance varies widely. I have had students who picked up
normal landings in a single lesson. I have had others who took 5 or 6
lessons to get to the same point. Was the former the 'better' pilot?
Actually no. He just got to a certain point faster. But I would have
served *neither* student well, if I blindly adhered to a schedule that
made the first student spend 3 hours on something he had mstered in 1,
and allowed the second student only 3 hours for something he needed six
for.

Ok, very true.. I wasn't suggesting that one "blindly" follow a
syllabus even if a student was clearly not progressing.

What I was trying to get at however is that at least *some* sort of
lesson plan be used... It just baffles me to read about students that
are making up their own lesson plans to ensure that they are
effectively learning stuff, instead of just flying around sightseeing
once they are post-solo.

Yes, our syllabus here north of the border is certainly flexable...
If I had ever reached a lesson (or may yet reach, for that matter)
where I was not progressing or needed extra practice, then yes, the
lesson plan would stop, and I'd get more practice untill I myself (or
my instructor) was satisfied.

Anyhow, thanks for the info. :-)

---
Mark Morissette
Courtice, Ontario, Canada
http://oshawapilot.blogspot.com (My student pilot blog)