Flying Instructor Association

[StuartRawlinson]

Hi Girls and Guys,

I thought I'd let you know that at shoreham we have set up a Professional Flying Instructor Association. We have around 30 flying instructors from the local area with further cells setting up around the country with further expansion expected.

Our aim is for some sort of standardisation and a bit of leverage to when it comes to things such as instructor pay, an issue that I imagine plays on all our minds at times.

It is headed by Dorothy Pooley with support from the Guild, CAA and other oganisations.

If any of you would like to join us with our quest, please email me at [email protected] and I can give you more details.

Cheers guys and safe flying,

stuart

[orionsbelt]

Great!
Standardisation on what ''the Pooleys Pre-flight briefings guides'
Over rated and very expensive £1400 or there abouts for the set.
Good Idea for an Instructors Association but should it not be directed by AOPA?


Cheers ***

[Flying Pencil]

I guess it will be directed by anyone who gets off there arse and does it.

[StuartRawlinson]

The association is lead by its members and not any one individual, everything is voted upon by those who attend.

We have close links with AOPA although we do not want to be run by them, we want to represent ourselves as a united union.

[BillieBob]

And has anyone run this bright idea past the officers of the original Professional Flying Instructors Association?

[Sleeve Wing]

BillieBob.

The original Professional Flight Instructors Association was formally inaugurated in about 1972 at the then Oxford Air Training School. I believe it was recognised as a specialist trade union.

The main instigators were Dave Lowe(later BIA) and Tony Kember (later CAA) when we were all Commercial Flying Instructors there at the time.

The need was the same then as now - a single strong voice to represent people who were inadequately represented by the only alternative, BALPA.
This representation was also to try and get some sense into the question of, specifically, adequate salaries and allowances for professional career Instructors.

Maybe some further research into the original setup will help and may also save some time in reconstituting it.
It may also still be in existence but as an inhouse negotiating body at OAT.

Good luck.

Sleeve.












Rgds, Sleeve.

[porridge]

I don't think OAT tolerate anything that smacks of organised staff associations. Past representatives have been made to depart most ignominiously I seem to recall!

[BEagle]

There are far too many 'Peoples' Fronts', 'Popular Fronts', 'Peoples' Popular Fronts' and 'Peoples' Popular Fronts' attempting to represent various sections of the GA world as it is. Why is there a need for another?

Put up your pay = put up prices
Put up prices = even more customers go to the USA

Your choice, I regret to say. And you can blame it on the CAA for approving JAR-FCL training outside our national borders. No other JAA state does so, as far as I'm aware.

[StuartRawlinson]

We have attracted quite a few enquiries and many people who want to join our association. At the end of the day people will always want to fly, and if airports can charge up to £60 for an hours circuits, why can the instructor only earn £10 for the same flight. Although our association's concern is not primarily about pay, it is something that us flying instructors who are trying to earn a living are concerned about.

If people wish to join and get the free legal advice and other offers and benefits of joining the association, then please contact me via [email protected]

Cheers and safe flying,

Stuart

[Say again s l o w l y]

A good idea and not beyond time either.

I understand what BEagle says about sending more people over to the states, but I think there is an awful lot of room for improvement and the market WILL accept it. Our students and members seem happy with £22/hr since they know the training they get is very good. The pricing is very open, with it split into a/c costs, landing fees and instructors time. Nobody has ever complained about the rate the FI's get. Landing fees maybe, but these aren't under our direct control.

Now can we start pushing for reducing the tax burden?

[BEagle]

A job, perhaps?


The taxation must be tackled first - VAT on training activities should go!

There should also be a EASA/DfT review about approval of JAR-FCL training outside JAA states. Particularly now that any previous training carried out for a ICAO PPL(A) may, if properly supported with the relevant training records, count towards a JAR-FCL PPL(A).

I can understand the need for career FTO instructors, but at PPL(A) level what many would like is more experienced pilots (such as retired airline and military pilots and experienced PPL holders) to become part-time PPL/FIs able to receive remuneration without the current, frankly absurd, 'commercial level knowledge' requirement - and fewer wet-behind-the-ears pre-airline 'hours building' wannabes.

[BEagle]

As we're talking about experienced pilots, the relevant knowledge can be assessed prior to starting a PPL/FI course and refreshed during the course. But perhaps CPL-level Air Law should be mandatory. Rather like the former pre-JAA Restricted BCPL/FI requirements, in fact.

There must, however, be no lowering of FI standards.

No reason why the current system could not continue alongside the part-time PPL/FI I proposed above - and let the RFs choose which category they want to teach for them?

[RVR800]

Just a note of caution

If one reduces the training requirement for something then that will increase the pool of available labour - more people will be able to afford to do the training and will have the time to do that training

That will mean according to the laws of supply and demand that
fees will fall as the pool of hobby PPLs willing to work for nothing rises.

People that own aircraft that need crewing by cheap FI labour want to reduce labour rates for FIs to improve their cut of course..

[BEagle]

Not so. Selection for the FI course should be based on proper assessment. That doesn't really happen at the moment - any FIC FTO with high standards gaining a reputation for failing FI students would soon be boycotted in favour of somewhere less demanding....

Part-time PPL/FIs permitted to work for remuneration as a Rating, not a Licence privilege is what I'm actually advocating. A couple of wise heads happy to instruct on 1 or 2 days per week in their spare time would be more attractive to many than some hours-building youth with minimal experience. No reason why they should be paid any more or less.

NOT the same thing as at a Commercial FTO; the main problem they have is that just when an FI is becoming very useful, he/she legs it to the airlines to sit in a broom cupboard twiddling autopilots with a stranger 2 hours at a time 5 times per day 4 days per week.....

[unfazed]

Interesting debate - I will wade in with support for the idea of a professional association ! Why.....

If an employer is charging student's £40 an hour for the instructor why the hell does the instructor only get half of that amount (supervised solo considerably less but student charge is the same?) - Looks to me like the market can and will pay but middle man takes massive cut.

Why should instructors earn less than McDonald's burger flippers (nothing against burger flippers but they don't need as many medicals or exams).

Why not look at other countrys for example FAA Gold Seal instructors - self employed true professionals (who can operate independently without breaking daft rules like "must have licensed field for ab initio" - "must work for middle man Mr R Off" - same guy same uniform operating for him or her self (Oh suddenly you are now a dangerous insane criminal madman !!!).

"OAT Don't like organised staff association" - I bet they don't !

A lot of managers and CFI's from the "good old glory days" have created the situations where youngsters earn a pittance HOWEVER they gained their status and skills in a system that DID pay them a salary - Did treat them well ! and did allow them to receive company paid for or sibsidised flight training for extra qualifications (in any other profession that is still the norm !) - Oh and also paid them expenses, paid for medical expenses and renewal fees and check rides at cost !

Q - Why then are they themselves so tight with the younger generation who have more stringent exams to pass (no PPL, BCPL route for them).

Association badly needed in my humble opinion !

[homeguard]

In just about all other professions except perhaps law (most lawyers are from well funded parents) the state profides funding for professional qualifications. A young neighbour of mine has recently started her 7 year university course in Architecture funded by the state. There are no state funded courses for even the JAA/EASA theory examinations yet alone flying skills training. This situation is appalling.

The rather odd reaction to this fact, it would appear, is that so many new pilots expect members flying clubs which operate as none profit making or at best only achieve a tiny cash surplus to fund them. They also appear to believe that the PPL student should cough up whatever dough is required to make their life easy. No chance i'm afraid. The majority of flying clubs in MOST countries are set up and funded by enthusiastic groups or individuuals. US instructors earn say $15-20 (£10-15) per hour. In France the majority of Instructors are unpaid. French airfields and their flying Clubs are ran by the local Chamber of Commerce (ie Local goverment) as a local facility for recreation.

In the US an Instructor is required to pass only a high level PPL based written examination and a general handling flight test to attain a licence to be paid, which they call a CPL (intended to be at a very basic level for simple aeroplanes). There is no requirement to attend an Instructor Course but only to pass an Instructor test - most will need some training to pass the test just the same. In France the Instructor Rating is still primarily based on the PPL.

The majority of flying Clubs within the UK desperately need part time Instructors who are unpaid or semi-professional to instruct 'fellow club members'. It may be the opinion of some amatuer accountants that their clubs are making fortunes on their backs. They are not! If i'm wrong please would somebody doing better set up a seminar for all club owners into what we are doing wrong and how fortunes can be made from owning flying clubs.

BEagle is correct and he has previously published on this site his club prices and indeed his rate of pay. People like BEagle and many others including myself are already making it possible for the ordinary person to achieve their dream by providing low cost clubs where they can learn the basic skills. Yes, I could pay my instructors £30,000 per annum and pay all their costs while working for me. To do this I will double my charges. How many 'self improver' CPL/ATPL's flying airliners today would be doing so if they had had to find £10-15,000 for a PPL to start them off.

How many of you moaners on this thread aspiring to be or are Instructors offered to add to the pay of your Instructor during your PPL training because then you thought the pay scale was wrong and unfair. I suspect none of you could make that claim. The majority of you no doubt found the cheapest club you could find.

If you wannabe an airline pilot get the money from them the airlines but better still lobby government for your professional training funds. Now that you have your professional qualifications don't bite off the hands that fed you so well.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It does strike me that you fellows, whilst arguably on the right track, might do worse than either ally yourselves with one of the big "multi-trade" unions, or simply join one. With 30, or even 300 members your ability to negotiate (or wield any power) is still very small.

To pick one, somebody like the TGWU or BALPA would arguably be able and persuadable to encompass flying instruction under their wing. Whilst less directed, they have the size to employ legal advice, publish information, put your side of the discussion to the press if required to a level that a smaller staff association won't.

G

[unfazed]

I]so many new pilots expect members flying clubs which operate as none profit making or at best only achieve a tiny cash surplus to fund them.[/I]


In the US an Instructor is required to pass only a high level PPL based written examination and a general handling flight test to attain a licence to be paid, which they call a CPL

The majority of flying Clubs within the UK desperately need part time Instructors who are unpaid or semi-professional to instruct 'fellow club members'.

Whoops slip of the keyboard

Anyway point 1 - Non profit making clubs ??? where ?? who ?? Most so called clubs are profit making private commercial enterprises that employ a at the very least a CFI and Op\'s "team" - most true "clubs" for members have fallen by the wayside.

In the US yes - there are less "obstacles" to teaching students but then as you gain experience that can be recognised hence my reference to Gold seal instructors.

The majority of clubs in the UK rely on low paid instructors who are well trained and qualified and hoping to get into an airline. That doesn\'t mean that they should be exploited by club owners.

Homeguard - it sounds like you are a club owner looking out for the poor old student and making sure that he is safe from those unscrupulous instructors who have the audacity to think that they should be rewarded for the hard work and professional instruction that they provide - Or are you simply looking out for Numero Uno ?

[slim_slag]

The solution is not protectionism or unions but just simply a case of getting supply and demand right. As demand for instructor's skillset isn't going to change much any time soon the only way to increase instructor's pay is to decrease the supply of instructors.

Several ways to do this. For instance. Make it less attractive to airline wanabees by making dual hours given not count for ATPL issue. Make it harder to get an instructor ticket by requireing more hours in your log book before you can apply. That might be beneficial because there are plenty of 250 hour instructors out there who just sit there like bumps on a log, taking hours and a few quid off the student and giving little in return. Require 1000 hours of light aircraft flying before you can get an instructor ticket and you will have a limited supply of very very good people who really know their stuff. They get paid more so it's worth doing as a career, and the punters get some quality instruction which might even reduce the cost of their PPL as they need fewer hours to get it.

In the US an Instructor is required to pass only a high level PPL based written examination and a general handling flight test to attain a licence to be paid, which they call a CPL (intended to be at a very basic level for simple aeroplanes). There is no requirement to attend an Instructor Course but only to pass an Instructor test - most will need some training to pass the test just the same.

It's somewhat harder than that. The FAA CFI oral is rightfully feared and and you also need an IR which is not as easy as some think, but that's not really relevant. Even in the US the end result is still too many 250 hour bumps on logs, most of who have never been above 10000 ft or been far enough away from their home base on their own that they required refueling to get back.

And I'm not sure why lawyer's qualifications should be mentioned in the same breath as pilot's qualifications. CPL theory could be taught down the adult local college of knowledge, should be subsidised like A levels are, and shouldn't cost more than a few hundred quid. The practical side should be paid for by the airlines. Of course if you make it easier/cheaper to get, then supply of CPLs goes up, airlines can demand you have a type rating before they employ you, and airline pilot's pay goes down.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Kissmyquirrel

I find it difficult to believe you are complaining about £40.00 per hour, this is obviously a case of your Diamond shoes being a little tight and your wallet being too small for your £50's.

You are teaching in an (albeit expensive) basic trainer, basic flying skills. In the fixed wing world, (whereby since JAR FCL you aint anybody unless you have a spent an equivalent amount of money as a CPLH/FI on a multi IR) up until last January the school that I used to teach at used to pay £6.00 per hour. We thought we had swum the channel when we got an increase to £10.00!!!

Assuming you are wanting to move into bigger and better machinery (Perhaps wrongly!) then doing two hours per day five days per week earns you over 20k! Not bad as an apprenticeship.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but I know guys who are struggling like mad financially, they may be hourbuilding in which case - perhaps- its going to be jam tomorrow but now is when they need help.

I wish the PFIA all the best I just hope that they generate the income to be effective

[unfazed]

SLIM SLAG - The solution is not protectionism or unions but just simply a case of getting supply and demand right. As demand for instructor's skillset isn't going to change much any time soon the only way to increase instructor's pay is to decrease the supply of instructors.


FTO's quite like to be able to churn out and recruit a ready supply of new FI's - this enables them to dictate the amount of renumeration and the other conditions of employment. I agree that supply and demand dictate pay levels however the problem is with the fact that some FTO's create new instructors who have no real world experience of for example - grass field operations (just one example).

I suggest that to make supply, demand and indeed pay better balanced the way forward is for Instructors to be freelance contractors who are not restricted from working independantly for themselves or FTO's. Get rid of the monopoly training establishments, get rid of the daft rules such as no ab initio training unless licensed strip, let people work for themselves and see what the market will bear ! Even at the very worst you still may have too many FI's but market laws will favour the most efficient and those who are providing the best customer service (be that to a student or to an FTO).