The Value of Experience

[FiWi]

Hi all,

While reading through some topics, I often encounter the explicit or implicit statement that an argument must be wrong or right because the person making said statement has a lot of experience.

I'm a bit intrigued by such statements, which got me thinking a bit. I don't think having a lot of experience in itself doesn't mean much in a teaching environment or when having a discussion. It doesn't make your statements or arguments any more true or false than any other person's claims. Where it does come into play, is explaining your statements. It -hopefully- allows you to clarify why X, Y or Z is the best course of action. It might help to explain why A is wrong and B is right.

When I think back to some training courses, the instructors that made most impact on me -and whose teachings I still use frequently- are those who encouraged questions and critique. It led to them explaining the concepts in a different way, which led to a deeper understanding. They didn't feel personally attacked when their teachings were being questioned, or at least they managed to hide it very well.

On the other hand, the instructors who got offended if you dared to question something they said because they had gathered over 10 000 hours worth of experience, were often the most forgettable. If anything, their attitude was often impeding the learning process instead of helping it.

I remember a discussion about a regulation once. The highly experienced instructor's explanation was 'because i've been doing it like this for 20 years'. The 'mid' experienced instructor's explanation was to show me where to find the regulation, and proof me wrong that way.

I can't help but have the distinct impression that the easily offended group is teaching because they have a tendency of wanting to show off their experience. The other group is more invested in their students progress. I am aware I'm working with stereotypes here, and most instructors are likely a bit of a mix of both personalities, but generally, you can quite quickly figure out on which side your instructor belongs.

It's likely a cultural or regional thing as well. In the US it seems to be more culturally accepted to use the experience argument as a valid explanation. In Canada not so much.

Anyway, I'm curious what other things you have noticed about your past instructors. At first hey are all god like creatures. Eventually you start to see them as somewhat flawed humans.

[Winnie]

Well... I've been of the opinion for ever (since I started flying) that to teach the basics for a license, the instructor is just as well coming straight out of svhool with no experience other than the basic maneuvres required, as THAT is what is being tested for. The Canadian system is an aberration with only 100 hours, personally I believe the solo flying should be cut in half, the dual fling increased, and the total be brought up to match most of ICAO with 135 hours total at the end of the training. Also I find that the knowledge part of some young pilots is really weak, it's almost like the "curve of remembering" ACTUALLY means something.

It has become a big thing now to have a bunch of courses in addition to the flying part, such as outdoor survival and first aid (not bad in and of itself), that takes the focus away from what they really need. The Basics.

You mention cultural differences between the US and Canada. I find the opposite of what you wrote. In Canada there are almost no low time instructors, almost every one have multiple thousands of hours and long experience in the bush. Whereas in the US the instructors generally have just a CPL before they instruct.

In MY opinion, and I have said it before, learn the basics from someone who know only the basics, then when you go to work, learn the profession from those guys who can explain why certain barrel sling are better than others, and how to roll up your steel longline. Your first job is going to be ferrying an aircraft, not placing a tower.

[FiWi]

15 hours ago, Winnie said:

 

You mention cultural differences between the US and Canada. I find the opposite of what you wrote. In Canada there are almost no low time instructors, almost every one have multiple thousands of hours and long experience in the bush. Whereas in the US the instructors generally have just a CPL before they instruct.

 

I agree that on the rotary wing side of things the instructors in Canada are much more experienced than in the US (and possibly other parts in the world). I wasn't talking about the actual experience levels though, more about the fact that the reasoning of 'i'm experienced, so I know what i'm doing' is more widely accepted as a valid argument as to why a statement is right or wrong. Whereas in Canada you'd expect a bit more of a factual explanation.

[Winnie]

Unfortunately I've seen quite a lot of the "I'm right and you're wrong, because it's always been this way.." here in Canada in the rotor environment. If we were to go as far as arrogance, I think when it comes to rotor flying, the 2 most arrogant nations are Norway, and Canada... I've heard from lots of pilots from those two nations, explaining to me why they are simply the best...