Swiss Driving Instructor (Fahrlehrer/in FA) common mistakes
Swiss Driving Instructor (Fahrlehrer/in FA) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Quoting a speed limit, priority rule or licence-category requirement from memory without stating the legal basis (SVG article, VZV/VRV provision, or ordinance), and then applying it to a scenario in the wrong category (e.g. treating a 3.5 t vehicle as a car).
Candidates learn rules as practical habits from their own driving career and never build a mental index from statute to situation; the exam asks for the norm, not the habit, and category boundaries (weights, trailer combinations, special permits) are exactly where habits are wrong.
What to do instead
Build a one-page personal table per topic: situation, governing norm, threshold values, exception. Rehearse aloud by answering every practice scenario in the form 'norm first, then application'. For weight and category questions, always state the threshold that decides the answer before giving the verdict.
Explaining a vehicle-dynamics phenomenon (understeer, load transfer, ABS intervention, aquaplaning) as a list of symptoms without naming the physical cause and the driver input that changes it.
Candidates memorised symptom vocabulary for the theory test years earlier and never connected it to the forces acting at the tyre contact patch, so they cannot reason about an unfamiliar combination such as a loaded rear axle on a wet downhill bend.
What to do instead
Practise a fixed causal chain for each phenomenon: mass and centre of gravity, load transfer, available grip at each axle, resulting vehicle reaction, correct driver input. Apply the same chain to at least three variants (empty/loaded, dry/wet, fast/slow steering input) until the reasoning, not the label, is what you produce.
Demonstrating or describing a driving technique in a single correct-looking sequence, with no observation phase, no mirror or blind-spot check before the manoeuvre, and no commentary on what the driver is monitoring while performing it.
The candidate performs the way an experienced driver does it automatically, silently and smoothly, and forgets that the examiner is assessing the teachable structure; observation and monitoring are invisible unless verbalised.
What to do instead
Always deliver techniques as a four-phase structure: observe (mirrors, blind spot, road scan), decide and signal, act, verify. Narrate the observation phase explicitly every time you demonstrate, and state which cue tells the driver to abort or repeat the manoeuvre.
Analysing a hazard scenario only up to the first obvious danger (the car pulling out), ignoring the second-order hazards it creates (the cyclist swerving around it, the following vehicle closing up, the pedestrian hidden by the stopped car).
Candidates scan for the salient object rather than reading the scene as a developing system, and they stop the analysis once a plausible answer exists, which is precisely the habit that produces single-cause answers.
What to do instead
Use a forced three-layer scan on every scenario: what is visible now, what is likely to develop within the next few seconds, and what escape space remains. State a concrete planned response for each layer, and practise on ordinary street scenes until the layered answer becomes the default.
Designing a lesson as a topic list ('today: roundabouts and parking') rather than as a measurable learning objective with a starting-level check, one focal point, staged difficulty and a defined success criterion.
Candidates plan from their own knowledge structure, which is organised by subject rather than by learner progress, and they have rarely written objectives that another instructor could assess without asking them what they meant.
What to do instead
Write every lesson plan in the form: observable objective, entry check, single focal point, two or three graded exercises, success criterion, transfer task. Have a peer read the plan and predict exactly what the learner will be able to do at the end; if they cannot, rewrite the objective.
Giving corrective feedback as a general judgement ('you drive too fast', 'you are not smooth') instead of describing the observed behaviour, its consequence in that situation, and one specific alternative action.
Candidates imitate the way they were once corrected, and under exam pressure they compress feedback into an evaluation because it feels efficient; they also fear that specific feedback sounds harsh.
What to do instead
Use a fixed feedback frame every time: what I observed, what it caused, what to do instead, then check understanding. Rehearse giving the same correction at three levels of severity and confirm that each version still names a concrete behaviour and a concrete alternative.
Treating learner errors as knowledge gaps and answering with an explanation, when the error is actually a perception, routine or anxiety problem that an explanation cannot fix.
Candidates are strong on content and default to explaining; they do not run a diagnostic step before choosing an intervention, so a learner who fails to check the blind spot receives a lecture about mirror geometry instead of a trained routine.
What to do instead
Before responding to any error, classify it aloud: did the learner not know, not perceive, not have the routine, or not dare? Then match the intervention: information, guided perception task, repeated drill, or reducing pressure and rebuilding confidence. Practise this classification on recorded or observed lessons.
When a learner makes a dangerous error, taking over the controls or continuing the drive without a structured debrief that reconstructs the situation, the learner's perception at the time, and the decision point where it went wrong.
Candidates prioritise safety and smooth progress, so the immediate correction feels like the whole job; the reflection that turns an incident into learning is skipped because it takes time and skill to guide.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed post-incident protocol: stop safely, let the learner describe what they saw and intended, reconstruct the decision point together, agree one alternative action, then re-drive a comparable situation in the same lesson. Practise guiding this conversation without supplying the answer yourself.
Answering questions about instructor duties, duty of care, supervision obligations, documentation and reporting with general ethical sentiment ('I would act responsibly') rather than the specific legal duty, who it is owed to, and what evidence documents it.
Candidates prepare ethics as attitude and law as rules, and never join the two, so they cannot say which duty is breached in a concrete case or what record would demonstrate that the duty was met.
What to do instead
For each duty (supervision, instruction, vehicle condition, record keeping, confidentiality, reporting concerns) write: legal basis, who is protected, what a breach looks like in practice, what documentation proves compliance. Answer scenario questions by naming the duty and the evidence, not the sentiment.
Handling a first-aid or accident scenario by jumping to transport or paperwork and leaving out the ordered emergency steps, the correct alert content, and the safety of the scene before casualty care.
Candidates rehearse the administrative aftermath because it is familiar from daily work, while emergency action is rarely practised and feels like someone else's responsibility once the emergency services are called.
What to do instead
Drill a fixed sequence until automatic: secure the scene and own safety, alert with precise location, number and type of casualties and hazards, then provide care within your competence, then preserve evidence and record facts. Rehearse it aloud on changing scenarios including one where you are the first person on scene.