How to Standardize Flight Instructor Development: A Conversation with an Airbus A320 Captain Roman Dziuba

Roman Dziuba Roman Dziuba’s personal archive 4,500+ flight hours, more than 2,700 of them as captain of an Airbus A320. Roman Dziuba went from a graduate of a Ukrainian flight academy and a flight data analyst to an airline captain on international routes.

Over the years, he has filled the roles of both an analyst who saw flights through onboard data recordings and a pilot making decisions in the cockpit.

Roman also earned an FAA Airline Transport Pilot certificate with an Airbus A320 type rating and completed dedicated professional training qualifying him for instructor duties.

He is now preparing to launch SkyPath Aviation Academy in the United States, with an Instructor Excellence and Standardization Program at its core.

We spoke about how a captain’s work and decision-making under difficult conditions are structured, why flight experience and a certificate alone do not make someone a teacher, and what needs to change in the training of those who teach others to fly.

— Roman, hello. What does a captain’s job involve beyond flying the aircraft?

— Hello. In short — organizing a flight so that it goes safely. Assessing weather and restrictions, making fuel and routing decisions, distributing crew tasks, managing risks. Flying the aircraft is part of that work. The captain is responsible for the quality of the entire team’s decisions.

— Before you took the controls, you spent several years working with flight data. How is that work structured technically?

— Flight Data Monitoring is the systematic analysis of onboard system recordings. Flight parameters are recorded continuously: altitudes, speeds, glideslope deviations, g-loads, moments of flap and slat deployment.

The analyst’s task is to identify recurring patterns and deviations that may seem insignificant in a single flight but point to a systemic risk when viewed across a series.

When you later sit at the controls yourself, you see things differently. A minor deviation that feels routine in the moment looks different in the data — like part of a trend. That experience strongly shaped how I later assessed situations in the cockpit.

— You mentioned a method you use for complex decisions. How does it work?

— Before a complex decision, I break the situation into five components. Facts — what is reliably known right now. Threats — what could develop next. Options — what actions are available. Safety — which option leaves the most room if the situation changes.

And the last one — cross-check by the crew: are we ignoring information that contradicts the original plan? Captain status does not mean that the captain’s first idea is always correct.

Strong CRM — Crew Resource Management — means the captain creates conditions in which the first officer can speak up in time.

— Can you show how this works with an example?

— Say the crew is flying an approach and weather conditions are deteriorating. Fact: the latest weather report shows parameters at the edge of the allowable limits. Threat: conditions are trending worse and may drop below minimums by the time of landing.

Options: continue the approach with readiness for a go-around, request a different runway with better conditions, divert to an alternate airport. Safety margin: which option leaves the crew the most room — in terms of fuel, weather at the alternate, and time available for the next decision.

Cross-check: the captain states the plan, the first officer confirms or draws attention to a factor that could change the calculation. The decision is made jointly, even though formal responsibility lies with the captain.

— Your path to the captain’s seat was not straightforward. What from that path shaped your approach?

— After flight academy, I did not have enough hours for the vacancies — many required around five hundred hours. I joined a company that operated helicopter and fixed-wing missions and worked there with flight data and the safety management system.

I planned to retrain on helicopters — the program was cancelled. I had to start over: I joined a large passenger airline as a first officer on the Airbus A320. The type rating course was difficult. At one stage I felt I was not coping.

The situation changed after a switch of instructors. The new mentor gave me more autonomy and, more importantly, showed that he trusted my abilities. That changed the quality of my work.

Roman Dziuba Roman Dziuba’s personal archive — One instructor was able to change everything?

— Yes. And that is the main lesson I took from it. Sometimes a pilot needs room for independent decision-making and the sense that the mentor believes in their ability to handle the situation.

Later, working with less experienced colleagues, I remembered that. If I saw that someone was technically capable but held back by a lack of confidence, I created conditions in which they could make the decision themselves and gradually build confidence.

— Is that where your position comes from — that a good pilot does not automatically become a good instructor?

— From that, and from later observations. Completing a flight safely is one competency. Transferring knowledge systematically is a different one entirely. An instructor needs to explain the logic behind a decision, observe the student’s thought process, intervene at the right moment, and still leave room for independent analysis. This has to be taught separately and deliberately.

I say this in part from my own training experience. I completed a formal Instructor Preparation program — flight instruction methodology, aviation psychology, human factors, CRM, flight safety. That training showed me how much of instructor work lies beyond what flight experience alone teaches.

— What, in your view, should happen after an instructor earns the certificate?

— The certificate confirms baseline qualification. Beyond that begins what often receives no attention: how the instructor teaches, how they assess, how they communicate, how they develop a trainee’s ability to think safely.

This requires systematic work: teaching methodology, threat management, human factors, decision-making. And here it is important to understand the scale of the effect.

Over a career, one instructor trains dozens, sometimes hundreds of pilots. Some of those pilots later become instructors themselves. If strong teaching standards are established, their influence does not end with a single graduating class — it changes the quality of work for the generations that follow.

— Tell us more about SkyPath Aviation Academy. How is the project structured?

— At its core is the Instructor Excellence and Standardization Program. It covers eight areas: communication, teaching methodology, standardization, CRM, threat and error management, human factors, decision-making, and aviation leadership.

SkyPath will be the first platform where the methodology can be tested in a real training environment: run it through our own instructors, collect feedback and outcome data, refine the standards.

At the next stage, I want to open the program to independent instructors who do not work at SkyPath. After that — collaborate with other flight schools and training organizations.

Over time, the model can grow through partnership programs, a train-the-trainer format, and standardized training materials, so that other organizations do not need to come to our academy specifically.

For me, the purpose of the project is exactly this: to develop an approach to instructor development that can eventually be applied far beyond a single school.

Roman Dziuba Roman Dziuba’s personal archive — Why the United States?

— According to FAA data, at the end of 2025 there were more than 145,000 flight instructors in the United States. It is one of the largest flight training systems in the world, with a developed general aviation infrastructure and a clear regulatory framework.

At the same time, the federal context directly confirms the relevance of the problem: in 2026, the FAA and the Department of Transportation continued the Aviation Workforce Development Grants program.

Approximately thirteen million dollars is allocated for flight personnel training, and among the eligible projects are programs that develop instructional, leadership, and communication skills in certified flight instructors.

In other words, the federal program addresses a number of the same instructor development priorities on which the SkyPath program is built.

I hold an FAA Airline Transport Pilot certificate, and I speak from the perspective of someone who knows this system from within.

— What mistake do you see most often in the industry?

— When standardization is reduced to checking whether procedures are followed. Procedures matter. But standardization serves something deeper: ensuring that people share a common professional model — how to recognize threats, how to discuss risk, how to make a decision, and how to debrief an error after a flight.

— What will change in pilot training in the next two to three years?

— Training will shift toward competency-based assessment and scenario work where the focus is on decision quality, risk management, and crew interaction. The role of human factors and data analysis will grow.

At the same time, the shortage of qualified instructors cannot be solved by increasing their number. What is needed is systematic work on teaching quality and standards.

— Final question. What would you say to someone just starting a flying career?

— In the first years, the most important thing is learning to ask precise questions, analyzing your own errors, and understanding why a procedure is designed the way it is. A strong professional foundation is built from discipline and the ability to learn from every flight.

Aviation training is growing more complex: human factors, scenario-based training, and competency assessment are taking on a larger role. Demand for instructors is growing alongside it — but quantity does not replace teaching quality.

SkyPath is intended to translate Roman Dziuba’s years of flight, command, and analytical experience into a structured approach to instructor development — for the people on whom the training quality of the next generation of pilots directly depends.