student failed

[clumpinglitter]

I've been instructing for close to 8 years now, and I'm always evaluating my own performance. My goal is to be able to take any input and spit out a perfectly homogenized product. In the end, I believe that just about every aspect of a student's aviating is under my control, if I can just find the right lever to move.

So I would be very hesitant to accept that a failure was my student's, rather than my own. In my view, that would be an abdication of my responsibility to improve my training system.

Sure, critically review your own performance and never stop until you hang up your wings. That's part of the joy of craftsmanship, the always striving to be better.

Here's how I see it -- he really screwed up by letting himself get all flustered, distracted, and behind the aircraft. There's really no good excuse for that, especially since it's something we had discussed. On the other side, I should have put him in more situations where he got pressured, flustered, and had to recover. There isn't much "joy" in the old craft today, that's for sure.

As a fellow MSPer, would you care to say the examiner your student had? Even initials? It sounds like they had "Iron" Mike Anderson.

It was Barb Mack. I haven't talked to her yet, but I'm really interested to hear her side of the story. Like why she didn't believe my student after he said he didn't understand her diagram about where to touch down with the short field landing. Which she was drawing in the air. And why she was being extremely picky, to the point of getting after him when his altitude was like 20 feet off -- I'm guessing she was trying to add pressure and distractions. And why she was two hours late to the checkride while my student sat there waiting with her husband, while he went through three entire photo albums of airplane pictures to use up time. I'll add a note to this thread after I talk to her, because it's completely possible that there are good explanations for all of these things. I feel bad that my first checkride with this examiner went so badly, and now, she probably has rather negative feelings about my ability, too. So I'm hoping we can have a good discusion about the things that went wrong. I know an examiner's attitude toward the instructor definitely matters.

I've taken three rides with Mike Andersen, and he's always been great. He's not your buddy by any means during the ride, but he's very fair. I've had him try pressuring me or messing with my airplane, but he'll stop if you tell him to knock it off.

He was still around at the flight school after I became a CFI and we've gotten in some heated debates about the best way to prep students for a checkride. He's open about the fact that he thinks some pressure and intimidation is good, because he thinks it preps students to handle an intimidating examiner better.

After this, I have to agree somewhat. I don't think you need to be a bully or break down confidence like it sounds he does, but a person does need some exposure to flying under pressure. If only to demonstrate that he can handle it so it's not a surprise when it happens in real life. And yeah, I kind of did think that nothing bad would happen as a CFI, because I'm supposed to have some semblance of control over the process. But I guess when people are involved, anything is posible.

-C.

 

[jrh]

After this, I have to agree somewhat. I don't think you need to be a bully or break down confidence like it sounds he does, but a person does need some exposure to flying under pressure. If only to demonstrate that he can handle it so it's not a surprise when it happens in real life.

For what it's worth, this guy I know doesn't have that stellar of a pass rate...I can think of at least 5 signoffs he's given that have ended in failures, so maybe that, along with my personal experience with him, has lead me to believe this technique doesn't work. Or maybe it's his instructing, I don't know.

I just don't see that strong of a corrolation between pressuring a student in training and their success or failure during a checkride. I know plenty of people who have gotten the "pressure treatment" during training and still busted a ride because of nerves. I also know a lot of people who have really laid back instructors, then they get sent to a really crusty, mean, old examiner, and they do fine. I don't think pressuring a student in training accurately reflects how they'll react with a real examiner next to them.

What I *have* seen a corrolation with is a student's confidence and their chances of passing. Of course I've seen confident students fail, but usually those are the overconfident ones. A really well-balanced, sharp, comfortable, confident student can take on any examiner out there.

If putting pressure on a student boosts their confidence by proving to them that they're able to perform under pressure, then great. All I'm saying is to be careful about who, when, and where you use this technique. I don't think it's a one-size-fits all, "this is the best way to prep every student" method.

 

[Snickersnwa]

Dang, this is not an easy job.
-C.

:yeahthat: I agree 100%


My very first private pilot signoff failed his oral, and I took it pretty hard too. I was surprised to hear him tell me later that he only got about 2 hours of sleep the night before his oral (oral and flight split up to be on different days at the 141 school that I work at). He told me that his brother came into town from back home, and that he was up late. So, we went over what he botched up, and the rest went very well. He was a rock star on the other two stage checks in the course (from the feedback that I got from the stage check pilots), scored very high on the knowledge exam, and always did well with oral quizzing from me on a daily basis… things happen. A lot of other great advice has already been shared here. Everyone has their days…

The unsat came from messing up a MEL procedure that’s zero tolerance, but we beat the MEL to death during training…

Just keep on keepn’ on…

 

[tgrayson]

What I *have* seen a correlation with is a student's confidence and their chances of passing.

Sure, but do they pass because they're confident, or are they confident because they're good?

 

[tgrayson]

Here's how I see it -- he really screwed up by letting himself get all flustered, distracted, and behind the aircraft.

Yes, but are those things outside an instructor's control? I don't think so. As jrh indicated, I do think such behavior is more likely to occur with a candidate who lacks confidence, and one who lacks confidence is one who lacks experience. Overtraining the candidate is the best way to ensure that there is the depth of experience and confidence to keep his cool in new situations.

How much flight time did this student have going into the checkride?

 

[jrh]

Sure, but do they pass because they're confident, or are they confident because they're good?

Ahhh...indeed, you are a wise one. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

But seriously, you have a point. I think confidence and skill feed off each other, although skill probably ought to come first.

I can say this though: A confident and skilled pilot probably won't do as well if you take away his confidence. By pressuring a student during training, if they crack, what does that prove? All it does it make them think, "Gee, if I screwed up under pressure now, how bad will I screw up under the pressure of the checkride?" It makes them worry that much more about a checkride, when in reality most checkrides aren't too bad if you know what you're doing. At least that's the effect it had on me.

In my opinion, this is one of those psycological issues with people where they either have it, or they don't. I don't see pressuring someone as training as much as it is testing. You might find out how your student reacts under pressure, but I don't think it teaches them much about the solution, how to handle the pressure. I'd rather teach them to be very proficient and let the whole confidence/pressure/reaction thing take care of itself.

And while I'm at it, I'll throw this question out...why do some examiners feel the need to intimidate applicants to begin with? How someone reacts while being intimidated has little to no bearing on how good of a pilot they'll make. Do the examiners think it will show decision making abilities more clearly? If so, that's BS. The pressure a pilot faces when confronting bad weather or sick passengers is totally different than the artificial pressure of a checkride. A checkride can be administered fairly and accurately without the examiner being a jerk.

Shame on the scary examiners out there who are making us have this discussion.

 

[clumpinglitter]

Yes, but are those things outside an instructor's control? I don't think so. As jrh indicated, I do think such behavior is more likely to occur with a candidate who lacks confidence, and one who lacks confidence is one who lacks experience.

After considering this, I actually think there may have actually been some overconfidence going on. Which lead to surprise and inability to deal when things started to go south. I talked to the examiner, and she actually didn't have as much insight as I'd hoped about why things went so wrong.

Overtraining the candidate is the best way to ensure that there is the depth of experience and confidence to keep his cool in new situations.

How much flight time did this student have going into the checkride?

He had maybe 58 hours. Maybe more solo time would have helped him. Can you explain more about the overtraining thing?

-Christine

 

[tgrayson]

But seriously, you have a point. I think confidence and skill feed off each other, although skill probably ought to come first.

Agreed.

By pressuring a student during training, if they crack, what does that prove?

Nothing. You don't want them to crack. But if confidence comes from encountering challenges and succeeding, then you must challenge the student, yes? And whenever the student is challenged, there is the potential that he cannot meet the challenge, right? Ideally, you will create challenges that the student has a high probability of meeting, so that you have an ever-increasing confidence and skill level.

In my opinion, this is one of those psychological issues with people where they either have it, or they don't.

I'm don't quite agree with that. Methods of dealing with pressure are learned behaviors, and they can learn new behaviors. This is what you teach when you simulate an engine-out. You're replacing an "oh sh*t" reaction with a focused problem solving behavior.

And while I'm at it, I'll throw this question out...why do some examiners feel the need to intimidate applicants to begin with?

The only examiners that I've run into with that philosophy have been FAA Inspectors. DPE's depend on having a good reputation to get business, so it's foolish to develop a reputation for intimidation. That said, the only Examiner associated with the MEM FSDO is regarded as being intimidating, but I don't think it's intentional. She just has poor interpersonal skills. She only gets business because there's no one else close by.

 

[jrh]

You don't want them to crack. But if confidence comes from encountering challenges and succeeding, then you must challenge the student, yes? And whenever the student is challenged, there is the potential that he cannot meet the challenge, right? Ideally, you will create challenges that the student has a high probability of meeting, so that you have an ever-increasing confidence and skill level.

...

...Methods of dealing with pressure are learned behaviors, and they can learn new behaviors. This is what you teach when you simulate an engine-out. You're replacing an "oh sh*t" reaction with a focused problem solving behavior.

Very good points. Maybe my perspective is skewed because I only know one instructor who uses this technique, and frankly, I don't like the guy. I had a bad experience with him and have talked to other students who have had similarly bad experiences with him.

But you're right, how a person reacts is indeed a learned behavior, even if it's learned subconciously. And there's no reason a person can't learn a positive way to deal with the pressure. With the right approach, like you suggested of increasing confidence and skill at the same time, I now agree pressure can be an effective tool to prep students.

 

[tgrayson]

He had maybe 58 hours. Maybe more solo time would have helped him. Can you explain more about the overtraining thing?

58 hours is reasonable. I would have raised an eyebrow at 45 hours, but there are many instructors sending candidates with 35-45 hours.

Overtraining is the idea that you train a student well past the point where he seems to "get it." Why would you do that? 1) The learning needs to be deep or it's easily lost. The repetition reinforces what he's already learned and gives him confidence. 2) He probably still has misconceptions somewhere that will crop up in unusual situations that you just haven't seen yet. Only time in the cockpit will give you the chance to fix those. 3) The experience reduces the effort required to achieve a certain performance level.

When I'm evaluating a student's performance, I'm concerned more than just making sure he can achieve the goal. I'm also looking at how hard he's working. My desire is that whatever he does should appear effortless. Only that way do I feel that he has completely mastered the phase of flight under evaluation.

The drawback is that not every student would agree with these goals. Some want (or need) to get through the training in a minimum amount of time and money.

So you'll have to choose where you want to be on the scale. You'll get a lot of business if you promise to send people for checkrides at 40 hours, but you probably won't feel good about your quality of output. On the other hand, if your average turns out to be 80 hours, you may turn out fine quality, but no one can afford to fly with you. My average hours for a PPL is probably around 70.

 

[tgrayson]

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I only know one instructor who uses this technique, and frankly, I don't like the guy. I had a bad experience with him and have talked to other students who have had similarly bad experiences with him.

What exactly are we talking about here with "pressure"? If you mean yelling and screaming, that sort of thing, yes, that's out of bounds.

I also think that presenting them with challenges while they're still learning the basics isn't a good idea either. I had one instrument instructor who, in the sim, kept failing all my instruments when I was still struggling to fly the airplane. That wasn't a learning experience, IMO, because I wasn't ready for that.

 

[Snickersnwa]

Agreed.
The only examiners that I've run into with that philosophy have been FAA Inspectors. DPE's depend on having a good reputation to get business, so it's foolish to develop a reputation for intimidation. That said, the only Examiner associated with the MEM FSDO is regarded as being intimidating, but I don't think it's intentional. She just has poor interpersonal skills. She only gets business because there's no one else close by.

That’s probably true most of the time. Now, I can only speak for the school that I instruct at (UND), but we have 4 DPE’s that are employed by the school. If a student needs a 61 checkride they’ll go through the four DPE’s that we have (not much of a choice; actually there is NO choice. The applicant doesn’t know which one of the four they’ll get until the morning of the check). These examiners don’t *charge* for the examination because the school supplements their salary for the positions they hold at the school.

In short, some of our DPE’s have very negative reputations.

 

[tgrayson]

In short, some of our DPE’s have very negative reputations; and, if given the chance, I’d bet very few would take a check from them.

That's a shame. In my view, the school should control this situation. If I were a Flight School Chief, I'd carefully monitor the DPE's performance and threaten to withhold business if they didn't straighten up.

 

[Snickersnwa]

That's a shame. In my view, the school should control this situation. If I were a Flight School Chief, I'd carefully monitor the DPE's performance and threaten to withhold business if they didn't straighten up.

Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. One of the DPE’s is the “Director of Flight Operations,” another was a former director, and the other two hold high positions at the school as well.

I’ve only had to go through a 61 check once (for my MEI, the rest were 141 with examining authority) and that went really well. For some people, not so much. I think it’s an intimidation thing for a lot of people that don’t do well… they psych themselves out before it even starts.

The thing that I don’t like is that the students have a limited selection of DPE’s. Sure, they could go to Fargo, ND, but they’d have to coordinate getting permission from the school to take away an airplane for almost a whole day to conduct the check. So, most (if not all) do the checks through the school because there really isn’t a choice.

/End hijack…

 

[jrh]

What exactly are we talking about here with "pressure"? If you mean yelling and screaming, that sort of thing, yes, that's out of bounds.

No, no, it was nothing like that. It was more him being very picky about some dumb little things, making a big deal out of them, and giving a lot of negative comments without much positive. It was an overall feeling I got when I sat next to him. You ever flown with somebody who just sort of made you squirm? That was this guy. Real quiet most of the time, but when he talked it seemed negative or condescending.

Honestly, it's been years since my flight with him, so I can't remember many specifics, but I remember he left a bad taste in my mouth--bad enough that I haven't flown with him since. One of the specifics I remember is that he made a big deal out of me flying an ILS at 95 knots instead of 90. Ok, sure, I was off airspeed and that was a problem. But by the way he talked about it, it sounded like I didn't know how to fly an ILS, it was a major problem, etc.

 

[tgrayson]

when he talked it seemed negative or condescending.

Gotcha. Yes, our chief flight instructor was like that. Everyone hated to fly with him. I think he took it as a measure of his ability to find stuff to criticize. He would sometimes come out of an oral chortling about he confused the hell out of a PPL student.

One of our check airman earned a bad reputation amongst the other instructors because of how critical he was on his stage checks, and they avoided using him, which he realized. One evening over a pitcher of beer, I pointed out to him that when he did these stage checks, the students did not know him or trust him and until they did, they would not listen to anything he had to say. His best strategy would be to be as complimentary as possible and then slip in just a very few suggestions about where the student needed some work. If he stepped over the line with too many criticisms or gave the student the impression that he did not respect them, then they might reject everything he had to say.

Apparently he took this to heart, because I checked around with the other instructors 4-5 months later and they all seemed very happy with him and said their students liked flying with him.

 

[clumpinglitter]

Overtraining is the idea that you train a student well past the point where he seems to "get it." Why would you do that? 1) The learning needs to be deep or it's easily lost. The repetition reinforces what he's already learned and gives him confidence. 2) He probably still has misconceptions somewhere that will crop up in unusual situations that you just haven't seen yet. Only time in the cockpit will give you the chance to fix those. 3) The experience reduces the effort required to achieve a certain performance level.

I get it. Thank you.

We flew again today, and I cut it short because his performance was pretty bad. He was completely tensed up, making error after error. We sat and talked for about two hours afterward, and I think we now have a good understanding of what happened, where we are, where we want to be, and how to get there. So I think he's feeling a lot better about the unsat and has it all in perspective. I'm still feeling pretty bad about it myself, but whatever. All I can do is try to fix it and try to not let it happen again in the future.

-C.

 

[MFT1Air]

You deal with it by turning it into a victory.

Figure out what you could have done differently in preparing this student and make sure you do it for all your future students. Just like any skill, you learn by making mistakes and resolving to not make them anymore.

:yeahthat:
Concur. Sounds as if you're a dedicated instructor who is involved with a student's performance. You'll do well.

 

[PanJet]

...It was more him being very picky about some dumb little things, making a big deal out of them, and giving a lot of negative comments without much positive. It was an overall feeling I got when I sat next to him. You ever flown with somebody who just sort of made you squirm? That was this guy. Real quiet most of the time, but when he talked it seemed negative or condescending....

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, I know exactly what you're talking about. The funny part is he has a lot of ideas that aren't even correct.

Anyway, as for the main subject at hand, my second checkride signoff failed his first time around, and I thought for sure he was going to do fine. Turns out he failed on a lot of minor stuff that he never should have missed, but one little thing led to another and the nerves just got worse and worse. It happens, it sucks, but it happens.

Flew with him again once or twice, and he did fine the second time around.