Instructor standards falling? [Archive]

Flying Farmer

9th Sep 2008, 15:56

Tell you what Bose if I was hardly fit to go solo when I started instructing it beggars the question what use is a freshly minted PPL.

I do agree that the current system is not perfect, but blaming low hours instructors isn't the way forward. I wasn't perfect as an instructor when I first started out but would like to think once I had some time under my belt that my students got value for money.

You hit the nail on the head when you say that career professional instructors need a decent salary, I would consider instructing again at some point but who on earth is going to pay 50K a year and thats just to match a SFO salary!

The only instructing that might come near the salary required would be CPL/IR and thats not bringing the experienced guy to the PPL student.

Ivor_Novello

9th Sep 2008, 16:10

On the other hand I had young instructors who were fantastic, motivating and very well prepared both in the air and in the theory (even if just passing thru, waiting for an airline job), and older retired airline Captains or ex-RAF types who were indeed very experienced but not very good at instructing and rather unfriendly.

Got to remember that military and line training instructors teach people that have already been thru a selection process. It's much harder teaching a man off the street, with no particular talent or aptitude.
So a 12000 hours fast jet instructor does not necessarily make a good PPL instructor.

Ivor

S-Works

9th Sep 2008, 16:13

I do agree that the current system is not perfect, but blaming low hours instructors isn't the way forward. I wasn't perfect as an instructor when I first started out but would like to think once I had some time under my belt that my students got value for money.

And who paid the price of you getting time under your belt.......
;)

Why oh why do we think that those waiting for the airlines or finishing with the airlines are the best candidates for PPL teaching? How about EXPERIENCED PPL's teaching what they know..........

Flying Farmer

9th Sep 2008, 16:25

Agree Bose, as I said the systems not perfect but is all we have at the moment.

You honestly think your experienced PPLs will not have a period of time adjusting to the demands of instructing as well? I'm fully in favour of them btw, if they can pass the FI flight test they should be as good as instructors who follow the current route.

I'm also interested how you would classify an experienced PPL?

S-Works

9th Sep 2008, 16:34

I know the systems not perfect, I just struggle to defend it!!

I would describe an experienced PPL in this scenario as one who has between 500 and 800 hrs, a proven experience of touring and multiple types, not just the same 500hrs repeated. One who understands the wider issues relating to PPL flying, such as getting notams, weather licensing requirements etc. Someone who has the social skills to go with the experience and who genuinely wants to teach not just log hours and dream of flying a jet.

Passing the FI course without the requirement for CPL exams etc would meet the teaching requirements, it is the real world experience that I want to concentrate on.

Perhaps holding something like AOPA Gold Wings would demonstrate the sort of experience level I am trying to get across.

Mickey Kaye

9th Sep 2008, 16:51

After letting my AFI rating lapse some 15 years ago and being currently in the process of revalidating it – effectively I am having to do the whole FI course.
Personally I feel that the standard of teaching on my “second” flying instructor course to be a lot better. I also feel that I am expected to teach to a much higher standard to pass my renewal/revalidation test.
I would therefore assume that the standard of the finished instructor to be higher today than 15 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that I will be a better instructor this time round.

Flying Farmer

9th Sep 2008, 17:12

Thanks for the clarification Bose. Given that level of experience I could foresee PPLs with those hours making a very useful contribution.

I do see a few potential problems. Firstly as we know the vast majority of private flyers drop out of the scene fairly quickly, finding these experienced PPLs who ALSO wish to teach might be difficult. I can't imagine there are going to be enough to fill 10% of the positions available.

Secondly the background knowledge needed to adequately teach the long and short briefings. This may be achieved by increasing the ground school hours form the existing 125? To a figure that ensures sufficient knowledge. I'm not suggesting for a minute the full 650 hours needed for the ATPLs!

JOE-FBS

9th Sep 2008, 17:23

I have to put in a word for instructors, all mine have been very good in my vast 33 hours to date. Given the tone of some posts, I especially want to defend my current instructor, 19 years old and hour building. He's at least as good as the age 40+ instructors I have flown with. He's clear, helpful, precise and all the other things one needs when learning.

The disgrace about instructing is the pay and hours. The hourly rate at my club (and as far as I understand it they pay the market rate and make more reasonable demands than some) is less than another 19 year old I know gets paid to teach kids to play cricket. It can't be right. Given the hourly rate for flying, the proportionate increase to pay instructors a decent rate would hardly be a show-stopper.

Whirlygig

9th Sep 2008, 17:39

Just going back to the original post, I think the CHIRP reports to which the OP refers both involve a "Senior Instructor". They are therefore unlikely to be young hour building instructors so a few of the srguments above may not be applicable to thiese cases.

Sounds like extreme arrogance in one case and preciousness in the other; character traits that aren't confined to any one type of aviator!!

Cheers

Whirls

S-Works

9th Sep 2008, 18:01

Bose I did respect you at one point, but the way you keep harping on about hour builders makes me think you're a real c&%t. I know you personally and am getting more and more offended by what your write on here.

Oops, hit a raw nerve..... ;)

And you of all people have always known my view on this subject.

While the industry is devalued by those using it as a ride onto 'greater' things we are going to have poor pay and conditions for those who want to make a career of teaching. As long as the industry sees the FI as not being a proper job but just a stepping stone, the career FI's will continue to receive wages that barely feed them and the students will continue to receive sub standard training.

I don't think every hour builder is the devil, just those who don't do the role justice. Oh and I never mentioned 'young' at any stage.

Now if that view makes me a ****, so be it. But until the industry improves the core of PPL Instruction we are going to continue to have a massive drop out rate and poor standards.

Whirlygig

9th Sep 2008, 18:25

the career FI's will continue to receive wages that barely feed them and the students will continue to receive sub standard training.
The first does not imply the second and your corollary is false! Neither do I believe that the PPL training environment is the reason for post-PPL drop-out rates! You have some valid conclusions but the consequences are not necessarily those portrayed!

Cheers

Whirls

Chuck Ellsworth

9th Sep 2008, 18:27

Poor pay and substandard teaching go hand in hand.

Canada also suffers from substandard instructors, it has been like this for decades.

What I believe would make the standards of flight instruction better is kick out all the drones in the regulator that collect indirect welfare from the taxpayers and replace them with people that truly care about the industry.

We could start with two classes of instructor.

Professional high time instructors who want to teach, to attract them the pay must be on a par with an airline captain.

Apprentice instructors, mentored and overseen by the professional so as to build up their teaching skills in a structured manner. These apprentices would of course receive a wage that would allow them to stay in the industry.

Paying high wages to top notch teachers would not really be all that more expensive to the students because not only would they be better trained they would do it in far less flying time.

As a plus maybe one could go to an airport some day and not have to watch these schools land little trainers on their nose wheels. :E

bjornhall

9th Sep 2008, 18:28

What you learn as a PPL student is not particularly sophisticated stuff. A low hours instructor, if he or she is good at what they do, is quite sufficient for basic training IMHO.

There are other aspects that are way more important than mere experience, such as being able to follow a syllabus, being able to teach the students just what they need to know, neither more nor less, and teaching according to current best practices as opposed to how it was done back in the 60's.

The idea that one is necessarily a poor instructor just because one has less than 500 hours, or because one aspires to do something else after what one is currently doing, is as offensive as it is erroneous.

Kanu

9th Sep 2008, 18:30

I don't think every hour builder is the devil, just those who don't do the role justice. Oh and I never mentioned 'young' at any stage.

As for the nervous Instructor, do I start my tirade against young hours builders again or just keep quiet to save a ban................

:rolleyes:

S-Works

9th Sep 2008, 18:30

Whirls,

The consequences are just a scenario. But I do think that poor standards do contribute to post PPL drop out.

PPL's who are badly training, do not get essential information on even simple things like flight planning etc do not have the confidence to go beyond basic rental and as a result get bored and give up flying. An Instructor who encourages them to spread their wings AND shows them how to do it could go a long way towards improving things.

I would just like to see FI's treated as proper professionals, it might encourage more of them to take it up as a career and actually improve the sorry state of GA.

S-Works

9th Sep 2008, 18:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by bose-x
I don't think every hour builder is the devil, just those who don't do the role justice. Oh and I never mentioned 'young' at any stage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bose-x
As for the nervous Instructor, do I start my tirade against young hours builders again or just keep quiet to save a ban................

Bloody hell I have hit a nerve...... :p

I do seem to recall having withdrawn the 'young' comment around the time of that post and my point was I had not made any young reference in this discussion.
:ok:

DBChopper

9th Sep 2008, 18:36

Paying high wages to top notch teachers would not really be all that more expensive to the students because not only would they be better trained they would do it in far less flying time.

:confused:

I'm sorry Chuck, allow me to clarify. You are saying that if the most experienced / talented instructors got paid airline salaries, there would not be a much greater cost picked up by the student? Where exactly would all the extra money come from to cover their wages then?

Flying Farmer

9th Sep 2008, 18:46

As always the mud starts to get thrown, back on topic please ladies and gents!

I'm in agreement with Bose, with some reservations! Those been that even high hours PPL instructors WILL take some time to settle into the job , just the same as the CPL/IR FIC guys do. To be a top class instructor will always take time and experience, it just so happens that PPL instruction is the bottom of the pile so the less experienced instructors will be found in these jobs, always has been always will be.

Now if you want to encourage highly experienced aviators away from the TRI positions, meaning those with a wealth of experience in aviation terms, someone is going to have to foot the bill, experience dosen't come cheap.

Chuck Ellsworth

9th Sep 2008, 18:49

I'm sorry Chuck, allow me to clarify. You are saying that if the most experienced / talented instructors got paid airline salaries, there would not be a much greater cost picked up by the student? Where exactly would all the extra money come from to cover their wages then?

If a student got their license in say 50 hours instead of 75 to 100 hours you do not need to have more than grade five to do the math on the cost factor.

For what ever it is worth when I got my PPL it was completed in the minimum required at that point in time 30 hours, why does it take up to 100 hours now?

It sure can't be the airplanes used in today's training schools because we were taught on tail wheel airplanes.

Hell in today's world if you wanted to be taught on a tail wheel airplane you would be hard pressed to find a flight instructor who could get one airborne before they lost control of it.

sp6

9th Sep 2008, 18:54

Both schools I've worked for have actively tried to break the relationship I've had with my students in order to make them fly with the Restricted instructors.

Any benefit I bring from having 500 odd instructing hours, half a dozen sucessful skills tests and no desire to go to an airline, is negated by my higher costs to the schools and my willingness to call out short cuts and operational irregularities.

Despite every PPL I meet bemoaning the number of different instructors they have, the schools are indifferent. I would rather be in a position to supervise and help the Restricted Hour Builders, but to the school I am an expensive irrelevance........

dont overfil

9th Sep 2008, 19:03

The instructor in the twin mentioned in the Chirp report was probably earning reasonable money with his extra instructor ratings. The worry is that he is probably fairly senior in his training organisation and his arrogance will rub off on his students and other instructors.
Bose-X; I think you are correct because this will be the best way to get instructors with the right attitude. It should not however be an excuse to pay poverty wages.
Some hours builders are excellent instructors, but there should be a warning in the human performance and limitations paper to explain the effects of enormous debt on the attitude of instructors.
DO.

IO540

9th Sep 2008, 19:09

Regardless of instructor quality, there is a limit to what can be taught, in 45 hours, to the average PPL intake, aged around 45 and often a business/professional but not the young cream of the cream of the Royal Air Force, selected by kicking out some 90%+ of already carefully selected candidates.

The UK average is around 60 hours, depending on who you ask. I took 66 hours, which included walking out of one school at 20hrs that was operating really obviously crap maintenance practices (an AOC holder too).

It would be easy enough to turn out pilots capable of getting out their laptop and straight off planning a trip right across the UK, or UK to Greece or Spain or whatever. And then jumping into a plane and doing it. This is what a PPL holder should be able to do - it is 100.000% within his privileges.

Why can't he do it?

Well he could but the PPL course would be 100hrs. It would involve a lot of cross country, no great need to bang tons of circuits because you would be landing in different places, no great need to go solo at all actually because by the time you got the PPL you would be able to fly with your eyes shut, would be enormous fun, and would cost £20,000.

One would also need slightly better quality planes in which to do these trips, than the UK school average. Result: a £25,000 PPL.

Any takers?

:)

I know there are many poor instructors but I think this debate is a bit like the fashionable one about "worsening" adult literacy. The evidence, such as there is, is that a higher % of young adults can read and write than say 50 years ago. What has changed is that while a lot of those who could not read were doing jobs where it didn't matter, a lot of those jobs are gone and these people are now ending up in positions where they get exposed to stuff like email, and their incompetence shows them up to ridicule.

Same with PPL training. All those years ago, there was little or no CAS, no notams, nobody cared what you did. You could fly into clouds. Many got killed but that was OK - hey, this is a risky hobby.

What is the latest on those American experiments where they took an ab initio student to a PPL/IR in about 50-60hrs TT, using purely scenario-based training, with no solo time at all? It doesn't suprise me this works because so much of what a pilot needs to know is detailed operational stuff. To learn to just fly isn't hard, especially if you do it in a low pressure learning environment (few if any circuits, plenty of enroute time).

bjornhall

9th Sep 2008, 19:15

IO540, that's where one will be anyway after some 100 hours, if one sets ones mind to it ... The thing is tho', one does not need the instructor to oversee that latter training.

The fundamental flaw in this type of discussion is to more or less openly assume that the student will never know anything their instructor did not teach them before they obtained PPL. :)

Flying Farmer

9th Sep 2008, 19:16

As an example, my first paid instructing job paid £10 per flying hour. Given a 2 hour slot, to cover pre and post flight briefings it works out at yep you got it £5 an hour!

Now work that forward and say you do 500 hours a year, well work it out yourselves! it hardly covered the running costs of the car to and from the airfield.

Is it any wonder its seen as an hour building exercise until a proper job comes along. The schools offering these levels of pay really ought to be ashamed of themselves.

DavidHoul52

9th Sep 2008, 19:22

My first instructor was campishly gay - I didn't mind - it was a bit of a laugh. Next two lessons were with another instructor who was grumpy and impatient. I left that school partly because of that and partly because the school's booking system was chaotic, and moved to another school and another instructor who seemed God-sent! I stayed with her right until I passed my skill test - never too much trouble to give advice even though she was only paid for actual flying time - focused on where I was psychologically as well as on my (sometimes sadly lacking) skills. Always good humoured - an absolute pleasure, :ok:

In spite of this the school concerned charges more than just about all the other clubs for aircraft hire, and the instructor rates are lowest. They really don't deserve the excellent staff they have.

VFE

10th Sep 2008, 08:38

My belief is that insufficient slot times for students are a far greater contributory factor towards poor instruction than professionally qualified pilots attempting to progress their career via the world of PPL instruction but hey, we'll allow Bose-X to bang on about his pet hate then hopefully he'll disappear. Those who know him know exactly why he carries such a heavy hex so let's try to move away from pandering to his fixation, born from wealth and advancing years, because it's getting us all nowhere.

VFE.

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 09:18

Wow, I have hit a raw nerve. The mudslinging begins. :p

Hey and less of the advancing years, still got some mileage in me yet...... :p
;)

It's not my only pet hate, but it does rank high. Of course as usual my comments are misinterpreted by those with the guilty conscience.

What I want to see in flight training is consistency and Instructors paid and treat as professionals. While flight training is used as a vehicle for those wanting to move onto 'better' things the profession will continue to be seen as a transient one and Instructors treat as minimum wage 2nd class citizens.

421C

10th Sep 2008, 09:40

Wow, I have hit a raw nerve. .......Of course as usual my comments are misinterpreted by those with the guilty conscience

Bose
It's hardly a "raw nerve". What you've said is that a significant part of the established, qualified PPL Instructor body are utterly incapable of teaching and barely fit to fly solo. You didn't only put it in some moderate way like "I think standards would be higher and GA would benefit if more instructors were XYZ". You should expect and deserve a reaction as blunt and vigorous as the tone you use in putting your own views across. This doesn't mean "raw nerve" or "guilty conscience" or you have been "misunderstood". It means you have said something pretty controversial or extreme and people disagree with you. I do.

Personally, I've trained since the early 80s with every kind of instructor - young hours builder, airline retiree, career commercial instructor, career PPL instructor. I didn't observe any pattern of the low hours builders being substandard. If anthing, their energy and motivation was sometimes the highest and compared favourably with the cynicism and grumpiness one sometimes saw in career PPL instructors (not the pro retirees). Personally, my respect today for a young person who's funded the whole fATPL thing and done all the training through to the FI Rating would be even higher than in times past, and I'd be happy if I were starting from scratch to get all the PPL training from such a person. Post-PPL, as IO540 points out, there is a lot to learn about practical use of the qualificaiton - that's a job for the AOPA Mentor scheme perhaps. The basic PPL course just doesn't leave scope to add more stuff.

I don't recall that there ever was a mythical golden age of experienced PPL Instructors dominating the instructing scene. Now, I do agree that the CPL requirement currently is too onerous and probably prohibits people who would have a lot to contribute to instructing from doing so, so the new EASA rule will be a good thing.

rgds
421C

IO540

10th Sep 2008, 09:41

that's where one will be anyway after some 100 hours, if one sets ones mind to it .Agreed, but the vast majority of PPLs don't ever make it to 100hrs.

Another statistic I read somewhere, purporting to come from the CAA, was that some 90% give up before reaching 100hrs TT. That is only ~ 40hrs post-PPL.

This has been debated here many times but IMHO the inadequate amount of instruction is the main factor responsible for most PPLs chucking it in. Admittedly a large % were never going to stay anyway (the xmas PPL gift students, those doing it as a personal challenge, those who need to save for a month for each lesson, etc) but that still leaves maybe half who might have done, had they not felt like they are standing at the edge of an abyss when holding their new piece of paper.

To keep flying post-PPL, one needs a bit of a kick. Pre-PPL, the kick is the fact that you are not finished yet. Once you have the piece of paper, the old incentive is gone and may be replaced with some new one, which could be going places, or changing over to an aerobatic course. Going places is why I learnt to fly, but it does require a bit of a budget, a bit of time, and access to something reasonable.

I had my fair share of crap instructors but in retrospect that never held me back - knowing the constraints of the training system and the WW1 syllabus.

My 1st ever instructor told me he had only 150hrs, but he was very good. Some dreadful ones had thousands. Perhaps the best were the retired ATPs.

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 10:12

421C

Quote:
Some of the best instructors I've seen have minimal hours. It all depends on the training they have received and their aptitude for flying and teaching.
That may be so, but my experience has shown that the majority of them are barely fit to fly solo let alone teach.

Actually what I was saying was that the majority of the of the minimal hours instructors were barely fit to fly solo.

significant part of the established, qualified PPL Instructor body

I was not referring to a significant part of the established PPL instructor body.

The only contraversial thing I have said is that in part the hours builders being prepared to work for nothing and the minimal hours guys offering nothing in the way of experience damages the flight training industry and prevents career instructors from being treat as the professionals that they are, keeps career wages on the bread line and devalues the profession, deters those who would consider coming into the industry part time or full time with no airline aspirations but likely to have considerable experience of flying applicable to the PPL sector.

You and I teach because we enjoy it and can afford it. What about the guys who have vastly more experience than either of us but who need to be paid a proper wage and can't afford to come into teaching? The industry is missing out on a wealth of experience and the potential to improve standards because the market is devalued. Now if my words are harsh then so be it.

Round 2.

IO540

10th Sep 2008, 10:22

I have a fairly basic question.

Where will a "proper wage" (whatever it may be) come from?

It can come only from customers. Where/how will a school get the customers?

If instructors were severely underpaid, but the customers are there, that would imply that anybody owning a school is making loads of money. I don't see anybody who owns a school making loads of money.

Now let's say you fill a school with excellent instructors. Is this going to generate much more money for the school? I don't think so - the only way that would happen is much later down the road, when a lot of pilot graduates find that the excellent tuition they got (which went way beyond the PPL syllabus ;) ) has enabled them to get much more out of their piece of paper, so they hang around the airfield, the whole scene becomes busier and more attractive for others to hang around in, etc. Nobody is going to look that far ahead.

At the last school I trained (2002, IMCR) the instructors got a £10/day retainer and about £20 per flying hour. Obviously they were ATPL hour builders. Nobody made money at that school; in fact at the very end the owner lost 6 figures through fraud.

Nibbler

10th Sep 2008, 10:26

Often you don't know you've had a poor quality instructor until you are trained by a better one. I'm not talking about any personal issues here as I've met some really great (fun) instructors who were not very good at teaching. I have been both a adult education teacher and motorcycle instructor (teaching other instructors to teach) and I was instructed during my PPL by a number of instructor 'types' - hour builders, new FI's, Older QFI's and CFI's.

Clearly the number of flying hours an instructor has really has no place in the quality of teaching argument. Minimum hours instructors who have been taught well, have a real passion for both flying and teaching, who are actually able to teach are the sort of people who are needed.

Pay has a part to play and I agree the 30-50k level might bring every instructor in the country to your interviews but that level of funding for PPL / NPPL is simply not available, within a reasonable price to the student in a competitive market. However I know for a fact more money is available to pay instructors a better hourly rate but whilst there is plentifull supply of fresh young hour builder's out there who will work for £5 an hour or less - then who cares?

Some schools are clearly taking advantage of this situation with little thought for the paying customer. From a commercial point of view it is much better to pay the instructor as little as possible as it is when a student takes 80 hours to attain their PPL/NPPL rather than 45. By the time the student finds out it is usually far too late, the money has already been spent.

The solution to the problem IMHO is in 3 parts:

have the CAA produce league tables for the average number of hours to pass the PPL/NPPL for each school
include on the table the number of attempts prior to a pass
require schools to publish/display these tables in house
Widen the scope of available people who want to instruct by removing the CPL and class 1 medical requirements, giving schools a greater number of potential instructors to choose from
Create a formal PPL/NPPL training trade body which requires its members to pay all instructors an hourly rate for both hours of a two hour slot at the national minimum wage, beacuse working is working in the air or on the ground - flying rate would be negotiable and private / optional.
Make membership of the trade body worthwhile by ensuring any membership funds paid are used to promote the body to potential students in all parts of the UK
Have an Instructor Membership of the organisation - with some form of basic tests for entry - class room, flying and written with a grade/star system and certification.
Obtain the backing from relevant national bodies, interested parties and other aviation related organisationsMany other trades have gone this route to improve the standards in their business sectors. There is no practical reason why aviation training at the PPL/NPPL level could not do the same.

windriver

10th Sep 2008, 10:34

Where will a "proper wage" (whatever it may be) come from?

In a nutshell changing the flying school/club business model. Diversify to offer more associated aviation related products and services to the wider market.

There's a lot of people out there interested in flying/aviation but will never have the resources or opportunity to realise an ambition to fly.

There's so much more to "flying" than an hour or two every now and then - it's an interest for life.

IO540

10th Sep 2008, 11:25

Can you be more specific?

As I see it, learning to fly is well up the list of "things I must do before I die" of a very large proportion of 50+ year old men, and it appears this market is still largely untapped.

windriver

10th Sep 2008, 11:45

Can you be more specific?

Yes... very much so, but not here! Simply because it would be likely that the some concepts would be taken out of context in the forum environment and this thread in particular and therefore not be seen as a "wholistic" (sp?) "solution."

DavidHoul52

10th Sep 2008, 13:43

Where exactly would all the extra money come from to cover their wages then?

An example of cost to student (Cessna 152) per hour

Aircraft hire £130
Instructor £25

So.. if the instructors fee is increased to £37.50 he/she has a massive 50% increase. The student however, has an increase in cost of only 8% - hardly noticeable. Quite possibly the club could even absorb some or all of this increase.

I feel students would also be happy to pay for briefings so long as the material was not what they would have already read in their PPL guides and was relevant to the lesson (obviously).

421C

10th Sep 2008, 14:02

Actually what I was saying was that the majority of the of the minimal hours instructors were barely fit to fly solo.

And that's the bit I disagreed with and thought was controversial!

Your other stuff I do agree with. The structural "problem" (if there is a problem) with PPL flight training is exactly as you describe it. The presence of a large cadre of low time instructors willing to work for unsustainably low wages has the effect of
- crowding out career PPL instructors, except those who are senior enough to make more from examining, being CFIs etc
but the benefit of
- making flight training cheaper than it would be otherwise.

I am not sure that standards suffer from a "majority" of low timers being unfit. From my experience, they are a pretty good bunch; but that is a small sample.

The problem in the UK is that no-one has managed to run a school which breaks out of the low price model that prevails. In the US, many schools have career instructors; either full timers or part-timers alongside the hours builders; my sense is that FI there get $40 or so per hour after the school takes its cut - and that this rate is charged for ground briefing as well as flight. I think this helps make the balance of flight vs ground training time better. Also, many schools have reasonably modern training aircraft (C172s with G1000, DA40s) so students have the choice between older and newer aircraft. But, in the UK it feels like the student population won't pay for the extra cost of more experienced instructors, more ground briefing, newer airplanes or post-ppl continuation training. It's a difficult dilemma, and I don't know the answer.

rgds
421C

dublinpilot

10th Sep 2008, 14:27

I too would like to see experienced PPL's teaching, but I don't see it happening. (By experienced I mean people who have done lots in aviation, not just the same local burger runs over and over again). My thinking is this.

Experienced PPL's will not need the money from a second job. Their first job provides a good income, otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to get good quality experience as a PPL. So money will not be a motivating factor.

So they must want to do it for the flying. The trouble is most experienced PPL's will have little interest in flying around the circuit, or doing the (relatively local) cross countries that are involved in PPL training. So the flying will not be much of a motivating factor either.

That leaves the 'reward' of seeing someone develop and learn. Perhaps there are enough people for whom this is sufficent reward to give up their weekends/evenings, but I doubt it.

I imagine an experienced PPL would be happy helping newly qualified PPL's expand their experience and taking on bigger challenges, but not so trilled about goind around endless circuits.

dp

TurboJ

10th Sep 2008, 14:45

I would describe an experienced PPL in this scenario as one who has between 500 and 800 hrs,

Not necessarily - 800 hrs built up over 10yrs+ does not, IMHO, mean they are experienced.

In those 800hrs, built up over a long period of time, many bad habits will have been devloped and from my own experience those 'experienced' PPLs with a few hours were the ones on the way to accidents.

If these types of PPLs were to then become instructors, what would the standard be then ??

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 14:51

Not necessarily - 800 hrs built up over 10yrs+ does not, IMHO, mean they are experienced.

In those 800hrs, built up over a long period of time, many bad habits will have been devloped and from my own experience those 'experienced' PPLs with a few hours were the ones on the way to accidents.

If these types of PPLs were to then become instructors, what would the standard be then ??

Good point, perhaps tightening the hours into a smaller time frame. But also I think that a well taught FI course should knock out the bad habits but still leave behind the Private flying experience.

And that's the bit I disagreed with and thought was controversial!

Ah, perhaps your sample has been better than mine. Once they get a few hours under there belt they do OK (inline with my other comments) but it is the customer who is paying for them to gain the experience (which was commented on as well).

Say again s l o w l y

10th Sep 2008, 16:16

In any industry the customer ends up "paying" for inexperienced people. Otherwise you wouldn't get anyone new in any business.

That's just how it works. New engineers, new designers, new teachers, new mechanics etc.etc.

We would all love to only have to deal with people who have been doing the same job for 30 years, but that isn't a realistic propsition, nor is it necessarily the best way to get good service.

There are PPL's out there who would make great FI's, but there are a far larger number who would be god awful.
At least with young inexperienced CPL holders, a good CFI can try and mould them into a decent FI and their recent training and capacity to learn makes them ideal candidates.

Of course there are good "hour builders" (I hate that phrase as the vast majority of FI's do an excellent job no matter what their original motivation.), there are the occasional idiots too, but on the whole, standards aren't slipping in any way.

Have pass rates changed? Are we having more accidents caused by poor training? If no, then how can you quantify a statement as open as "Instructor standards are falling". Frankly a load of bo**ocks if you ask me.

We do need to work out how to retain good FI's in the industry, but harking back to the "good old days" of PPL FI's is madness. That's what scr*wed the industry in the first place and ensured that no-one could get paid enough to even make a living wage.

So what happens, people bail as soon as they can, why? They can't afford to do anything else. End of story.

The simple answer is that people need to pay more for their training. At even £25/hr an FI is cheap compared to plumber or electrician or even a hairdresser and yet people whinge like mad when they are expected to pay a sensible amount for someone to teach them to fly.

VFE

10th Sep 2008, 18:34

Say Again S L O W L Y

Well said!

When Bose-X didn't know enough to know how much he didn't know he was screaming on here about how he loves instructing for free.... :rolleyes:

VFE.

dont overfil

10th Sep 2008, 18:56

SAS
The title of this thread was a question not a statement and it has encouraged some sensible debate.
As DH52,others and yourself have said we need to pay good instructors a decent wage and the difference in cost to the customer is not much.
After all many schools have smartened up their image by investing in newer aircraft and I'm sure they are reaping the benefits of lower running costs and retaining the type of customers they need who have a substantial disposable income. This is surely the way forward but paying instructors more is not as obviously a tangable benefit as shiny aeroplanes. We now need enlightened management to keep moving the image and the product upmarket.
DO.

IO540

10th Sep 2008, 19:06

I know my posts in this thread have been along a different line but I say again - if there any recent reduction in fresh PPL holder competence, it is quite unlikely it can be laid at the door of the instruction.

The whole training business is going about it the wrong way.

Too much emphasis on circuits (lots of sweat, brain just goes dead);
Too much emphasis on the first solo;
Old fashioned navigation skills, inappropriate to present day airspace challenges;
Training planes are mostly wreckage;
Self fly hire planes are mostly wreckage (hard to find non-anorak passengers to come along, so a big chunk of PPL utility value is lost);
Experienced PPLs strongly discouraged from hanging around schools they trained in (because they usurp instructor authority) - this touches on to the "mentoring" project which has been talked about for years, and which most schools will not touch with a bargepole for the reason just given;
Poor marketing fails to attract well funded individuals so only the really keen enter the scene (or the hopeless ones);

Etc.

800 hrs over 10 years is about 5 times UK PPL average!!! That represents a flying budget of the order of £12000/year which is hard to do unless you earn something like £50000 gross, and if you are making that much you are unlikely to have time to do voluntary work; such generosity becomes possible only much higher up the scale :)

I am not convinced that PPL instructors screwed the business. Admittedly they were around way before my time, but I have flown with a few who were such and got grandfathered to a BCPL or whatever. Some were good, some bad, but all seemed to have done a lot of varied flying. Whereas today's instructor (retired ATPs excepted) have rarely probed the nearest crease in the chart, not because they would not like going somewhere (most would love to) but simply because the syllabus does not require them to.

If there was a golden age of PPL instructors, it happened to coincide with a different era where most normal people didn't look at a 1950-design plane and cringe. Since then, society has changed and those with enough money to fly tend to do other things.

MIKECR

10th Sep 2008, 19:10

Was speaking to 2 of my 'hour building' instructor mates today. Seems this thread has generated some chit chat at the club. Not surprisingly, great offence has been taken by some of the comments directed towards the more junior FI's who seem to be regarded with such contempt by certain individuals. 'Yes' they are hour builders, 'yes' they work for pittence....no point however in having some prejudiced jibe at them re your views of instructing standards....blame the system!

dont overfil

10th Sep 2008, 19:44

Yea Mike. The Chirp report suggested "experienced" instructors.
DO.

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 19:45

Say Again S L O W L Y

Well said!

When Bose-X didn't know enough to know how much he didn't know he was screaming on here about how he loves instructing for free....

VFE.

Nothing to do with me in that respect as I am happy to Instruct for free.

However I do think that FI's are getting a raw deal. I know, how odd for you to comprehend that I am not on this crusade for selfish reasons.....

Whirlygig

10th Sep 2008, 20:19

Whilst there are people who are prepared to work for free, then instructors will never get a respectable, professional wage - simple as.

Cheers

Whirls

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 20:28

Come on then Whirlygig, explain that one.

There is a difference from a freelancer who is prepared to give there time for nothing to people who would not go near a club in a million years in return for having the favour returned in the future to someone working for free at a club.

But I stand by to be educated by your perspective on this matter.

VFE

10th Sep 2008, 20:45

I know, how odd for you to comprehend that I am not on this crusade for selfish reasons.....

No, just egotistical ones. YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!

VFE.

Whirlygig

10th Sep 2008, 20:50

Say again s l o w l y

10th Sep 2008, 20:56

DO, absolutely right.

Unfortunately, there is an argument that many flying school owners use (rightly as well much of the time) which is that no matter what the schools pay, then frozen ATPL holders will bail for the first airline job that comes along no matter what they are paid by a school, so why should they bother paying a decent wage?

I don't agree, but that is the mentality of many school owners.

The training industry does need to attract more people with cash. The life blood of flying is that it is open to all, but there is a shift towards microlights and a/c like the Ikarus for those of us with less disposable income and we need to attract the more affluent to the more expensive SEP machines.

Why the more affluent? Well, frankly, prices are too low to allow clubs to do anything but survive most of the time, unless they have seperate revenue streams such as mentioned by Colin at Strathaven. So if you can't get enough in to allow you to invest with some surety, then it just won't happen.

I have been in the training iundustry for a few years and I wouldn't invest one penny of my own money into as it is. Not a chance. The roi is rubbish and the risk enormous. I'd rather buy Bradford and Bingley shares to be honest.

IO makes some very good points, though I will disagree about PPL FI's stuffing things up. When people work for for free just for the "love of flying" and because they have a salary from elsewhere they don't really care, it utterly stuffs things up for anyone who relies on their profession to actually pay them.

I had a massive row with a BA training captain when he said he didn't want paying. I said, "no, you'll be paid the same as everyone else, if you want to give your money to charity then fine." He basically wanted to try and jump the queue and get more students and charge less. I even found out he had not charged certain people for his time on flights. I went crackers.

You may say "how nice of the chap, to give his time for free." However, that is utterly unacceptable in a team of FI's, it undermines everyone else and is incredibly selfish. Just because you earn £150K/year doesn't mean you can ride roughshod over others who rely on teaching to earn a living.

A good school has a core of FI's who work together. Parity of pay is an essential part of that. Start having different pay scales based on anything other than experience or subjects taught (IR, IMC, Aero's etc) and you are just asking for trouble.

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 20:59

Basic micro-economics, that's all. if flying schools (i.e. employers) know that they can get someone to work for free, then they will recruit that person. If flying schools can't get people to work for free, then they realise they'll have to pay.

I stated a basic premise of supply and demand, sorry that you can't grasp the simple concept. It's a principle that works across all markets, not just aviation.

But it's OK for you to do it, just no-one else eh?

Cheers

Whirls

I don't work for a flying school......

Quote:
I know, how odd for you to comprehend that I am not on this crusade for selfish reasons.....
No, just egotistical ones. YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!

VFE.

Wow, you really are pissed with me. Never mind you can always come and kick my ass or something to make you feel better. :p

BigEndBob

10th Sep 2008, 21:07

Just for reference, any instructors making around £10,000pa might be entitled to Working Tax Credit:IR Tax Credits - Do I qualify?, What are tax credits (http://www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/Qualify/WhatAreTaxCredits.aspx)

For single person on £10,000 worth around £600.

Whirlygig

10th Sep 2008, 21:11

It doesn't matter whether you work for a flying school or not; neither do I!

The basic premise, whether it applies to you Bose-x, or anyone else, is still the same - that whilst some people (in whatever circumstances, in whatever profession) are prepared to undercut wages by working for free, then wages rates across that market will be kept lower.

Anyone who is crusading for living wages for professional instructors should not also be accepting of those who work for free.

Cheers

Whirls

S-Works

10th Sep 2008, 21:20

Say again s l o w l y

10th Sep 2008, 23:09

Whirlygig

10th Sep 2008, 23:14

One can only imagine it's an inherent belief in Thatcherite ideals with a superficial hint of Scargillian solidarity!

Cheers

Whirls

eharding

10th Sep 2008, 23:18

Bose, are you saying you instruct for free? What are you, nuts?

Seriously, why would you do that? I wouldn't walk into someones office and offer to their job for naff all, so why would you do the same to other FI's?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! - for Pity's sake, I'd planned to start a thread on how rubbish contract domestic painters and decorators are nowadays, what with all these young hour-builders just serving time before getting a big industrial contract to paint an oil-rig or a bridge. With any luck, Bose would have been round and emulsioned the lounge and a couple of bedrooms for free before he twigged.

Say again s l o w l y

10th Sep 2008, 23:22

Sorry mate!
It won't be long until winter though and you could probably nip up to the airfield and get one of the FI's there to do it for you, probably won't cost you more than a bag of chips.

It might be their only chance of meal once the weather has turned.

blagger

11th Sep 2008, 06:58

I understand totally what people are saying about free instruction, but I am a PPL/FI who scraped together the funds to do CPL groundschool and FI course for the love of instructing and I can't charge for my flying (other than expenses for fuel to airfield etc..) so what should I do? Give up instructing until I've paid for a CPL when I can then charge? As a part-timer it could years to recoup the cost.

S-Works

11th Sep 2008, 07:46

Bose, are you saying you instruct for free? What are you, nuts?

Seriously, why would you do that? I wouldn't walk into someones office and offer to their job for naff all, so why would you do the same to other FI's?

If I were to work for a school I would expect to be paid for the work and I would never take a job away from someone who is doing it or wants to do it for a living.

But there is more to life than money and I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around.

When you are doing things yourself and helping out people who never go near the schools the unexpected rewards are often worth it. I have 3000hrs of private flying and more than 120 different types in my log book and a significant number of those are a result of my belief. I have had the privilege of flying aircraft some people have laboured decades to restore and they have never let another soul fly. I have flown and taught in interesting types that most FI's won't go near because they don't have dual controls or are very difficult to fly.

There is a big world outside of the spam can trainer fleet and I am lucky enough to be trusted by people in this part of the aviation world to fly their aircraft. You also find philanthropy brings out the best in people as well, often resulting in unexpected touches. For some of us that is reward enough.

And in response to blagger - Well done - A true passion for aviation, prepared to put something in and expect nothing in return. My hat goes off to you. :ok:

Aviation is a passion for some........

VFE

11th Sep 2008, 07:52

Wow, you really are pissed with me. Never mind you can always come and kick my ass or something to make you feel better.

Taking the kinky pills again!

VFE.

Fuji Abound

11th Sep 2008, 08:17

This concept of providing something for free is an interesting one.

Aviation, like a few other sports, straddles the divide between a professional occupation and a “hobby”. I can also think of sub aqua and perhaps sailing as other examples. Sailing is at the extreme given that almost no body involved with sailing makes money from the sport - yes there are delivery skippers and there are some professional race skippers but in the main it is a “hobby”. Never the less there are RYA approved schools where you will pay for a course of sailing instruction, there are “non approved” schools where you will also pay, and clubs where members will take you out for a sail and will, with any luck, teach you how to sail, usually in a “non structured manner”.

Perhaps it is “structure” that provides the key. If you pay for a course of instruction you can reasonably expect that a feature of the contract will be the course is structured - structured in terms of how standards are maintained, at what times the service will be available and how the course material will be taught. (I might add because this is what you can reasonably expect it doesn’t always mean this is what you will get).

On the other hand, certainly with free lance instructors, analogous to a degree with the sailing club member, there may be a distinct lack of structure. The member will almost certainly have other commitments so the training will only be available when it suites him. The training will not be supported by the back up provided by an organisation. If the instructor is ill the training will stop, the instructor is not in the business of providing infra structure, so there will be no simulators, no back up aircraft or boats, no briefing rooms etc.

Aviation training, unlike sailing, is regulated by law. In consequence the standards of training should always exceed a minimum standard. However, the freelance instructor and the fly training school are both capable of meeting that standard. Each is offering a different product and has very different over heads to cover.

Training schools have confused themselves. Many of the instructors accept their pay is in two parts - the first part is money, the second part is hours which they need for their future career. In exactly the same way this is why delivery skippers use to be paid a pittance. The instructors are often self employed or at least are paid as if they were. The schools make money out of the aircraft rental. If you employ a solicitor he charges solely for his time, but something like 40% will cover his salary, 30% covers the overheads, and 30% is profit for the partners. As a consequence the instructors are devalued by the schools and are “treated” as if they were self employed but enjoy few of the benefits of being self employed because it is assumed part of their pay should be in kind. The instructors generate the profit of the business but as such they are not charged out as if they were.

So my point is that the training industry has always sat at an uncomfortable crossroad - it wants to operate as a “proper” business adopting the accepted model of a commercial service providers, but it doesn’t want (or cant or wont) adopt the same business practices of a commercial service provider in any other industry. It is therefore its own worst enemy and probably has little to complain about if some freelance instructors are willing to provide their services for free.

jxk

11th Sep 2008, 08:38

If you paid instructors a proper wage the cost of learning to fly would go UP and the number of customers would go DOWN = less instructors and aircraft required; everyone suffers. It's the old law of supply and demand.
I did the AFI course at the same time BA was laying off pilots with the result that quite a few went back into instructing and as a result there were less instructing posts available and I couldn't afford to give up the day job. However, doing the course was interesting and educational.

S-Works

11th Sep 2008, 08:57

JXK - I don't think that is the case. Take a look at the earlier example about the economics of raising the price. It is not difficult to absorb.

The issue revolves around how FI's are paid as well. Most get a very tiny retainer and flying pay. They majority don't get paid for the briefing time in a 2hr slot and so this is an area where the standards suffer I think. The motivation is to get into the air as quick as they can so they don't lose any precious hours or flying pay often giving lip service to the briefing. This is exasperated by students turning up late, previous lessons overrunning etc.

The briefing is an equal part of any flying lesson and as such the Instructor should be paid properly for this time.

Fuji Abound

11th Sep 2008, 09:57

To add to my earlier comments many of the flying schools run their businesses as if it were a hobby, not a business. The owners may make a living out of doing so, but they are unlikely to attract any investment. It is because they cant attract investment the PPL training market has remain unchanged for as many years as I can remember and will not change so long as the present regulatory environment remains in place.

That is the reason they don’t or cant pay their instructors properly and also the reason why the aircraft are poor.

A very few have tried to invest heavily themselves (where they have funds available from their own resources) but I don’t think any one has succeeded because the majority of the market is not willing to pay the prices necessary for them to recoup their investment. A few individual willing to pay an extra 10% or 20% an hour is not enough.

Take two aircraft, one new the other 20 years old in a condition that reflects its age, charge £20 a hour more for the first and watch what happens. As little as £20 is enough to ensure you have almost no takers for the first and a que for the second - extraordinary you might say, but they are the facts.

For that reason as I said earlier the business model is fatally flawed. Bose has a point that if the aim is to turn out good pilots there may be a better way in which everyone involved accepts they are running a club not a business.

The only exception are commercial training providers which is the only market where the schools can operate as a business. At this "level" the economics change. The "punters" are on a mission, the business is able to operate in almost all weathers, and must invest a considerable sum in the infra structure - which keeps the free lancers and smaller schools at bay. Schools like Oxford make money, they are a business and they are investable.

Anything else is a hobby, which as a bonus you might make a bit of money at and have a lot of fun running. It is just a shame these operations sit at the cross roads as I commented earlier - neither fish nor fowl - and it is the instructors and students that often suffer the consequence.

VFE

11th Sep 2008, 11:47

At the end of the day I see no statistical evidence of instructor standards decreasing from any organisational body involved with flight safety. I do however see that more GA pilots are falling foul of airspace changes, more regulations and an AIS made no easier for the majority of pilots both professional and recreational, but alas I digress...

To me this thread seems a puerile attempt by *some* to elevate their status by creating a perception that they somehow know better than everybody else. I see it all the time working at an airfield all week - everybody is an expert... it's endemic! At times I think Freud would've had a field day routing out the hidden issues behind someone who feels they have to constantly poke their head above the parapet to seek affirmation from their peers. Sadly, it's always the ones with the loudest voices which we get to hear time and time again but that's life I guess.

This thread has no grounds. In the words of Dragons Den: "I'm out!"

VFE.

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 12:12

Aviation is a passion for all of us, just because you are happy to prostitute yourself doesn't mean you have any right to denigrate what others do.

Hours = so what, in my book. Like any job, the longer you are in it, the more experience you gain, it's just that in flying we record things to a greater degree.

Trying to say that the hours themselves have a tangible benefit is rubbish, especially nowadays.

If an FI wants to go off to the airlines, then whether they have 1000, 2000 or 3000 hours matters very little now. Does your face fit and do you have a rating/ability to pay for one is far more important than what is in your log book.

So the old, "but you are getting hours" argument is simply out of date.

If somebody does a job, then they should be paid the market rate. You don't need the money, but are happy to take work away from someone who does, just because you are "freelance"? Whether you are associated with a school or not matters not a jot. I'll fly outside of any school association, but I preform the same job, to exactly the same standard as I would in a school, so therefore I expect to get paid for it.

I have a passion for flying, but I also have a passion for paying my mortgage. People working for naff all damage that and make it very hard for the anyone trying to earn a living from teaching to do so.

Your motivations come across as incredibly selfish. "I'm loaded, so I'm alright Jack." I'm also in the lucky situation where I have a few quid in the bank and an income from elsewhere, so flying could be just a hobby for me, but I count myself as a professional pilot who has not just my own interests at heart, but those of my students and other members of the FI community. Working for free doesn't fit any of those criteria.

I've still got plenty of hours in the book, flown some wonderful machines, met some amazing people and always done my damndest to ensure that I offer value for money, but I have never worked for free and never will. I've done favours for friends and have waived my fee on occasion
(For example I had a young student who had bags of talent, but due to some horrid circumstances couldn't afford to fly anymore. I found him a cheap machine and donated my time for free as I couldn't bear the thought of him being lost to the industry and having seen how distraught he was, I just did what any normal person would do when they saw someone working as hard as he did. I helped out in the only way I could. That is alright, doing it as a matter of course is not.)

Being "trusted" with someones aircraft.......... What are you on about? You're an FI, your job is to be PIC and teach someone. How can you do that if you aren't competent enough to be "trusted"?

You do a job, you get paid. Simple.

S-Works

11th Sep 2008, 12:41

SAS, as you wish. I am not getting into a fight over that one. To many fronts at the same time.....

Reward does not have to be about cash, it's as simple as that. I am happy with the rewards I get for teaching so lets leave it at that.

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 13:16

No, reward is about getting "market rate". That = money, or at least it does to the rest of the population. Try and convince yourself otherwise, but the basic fact is that by working for free, you denigrate our profession.

one-punch-mickey

11th Sep 2008, 13:33

Am I right in thinking that to be an instructor you must achieve at least the theory examinations at CPL level, but you do not actually need to have a 'CPL'? But without a CPL then you cannot be paid for the instruction?

If that is the case then perhaps that's why Bose-x and others don't charge for their time, because they cant?

mazzy1026

11th Sep 2008, 13:38

I haven't been on this forum for a year or so now, but I caught this thread, like I tend to do whenever this subject comes up, and I feel that maybe a different perspective.You all seem to be clued up on instructing and the like, either as a professional or someone who has a lot of hours. Let me give it from my perspective (8hrs post PPL).I'm lucky to be in a very good job with good pay and conditions etc. It's nothing to do with aviation, but you'd class it as a good job. Big problem though, I have never to date woke up to my alarm and been happy about the day ahead – looking forward to my job. There is only one job in the world (so far as I know in my life to date) that I would truly look forward to going to each morning, and I believe that to be Flying Instructor. Here’s two very simple little problems: it costs a packet to train, and the wages are insufficient to live in the current era. The first problem of training wouldn’t be so much of a problem really, if I didn’t have any commitments – which I do. However, if I was to go back in time and stay single and live at home and reject any commitments, it would still take me years to build up a career to be able to afford training etc. Catch 22. Even if I was lucky to get the CPL and FI and all that, I’d still need another job to be able to afford to live. So the only other option I am left with is the PPL/FI where I can enjoy flying, and still have a career elsewhere. This is NOT a rant, but the way it IS. I am living with that, and have accepted it. I’m not going to argue about flying for free etc but I honestly have to say that if someone offered me an hour a week to do trial flights or something, unpaid, I wouldn’t say no. Bose-x, I do agree with a lot of the things you say, especiallyQuote: (button not working in works browser)"Reward does not have to be about cash, it's as simple as that. I am happy with the rewards I get for teaching so lets leave it at that."Don’t get me wrong, I’d never actively go out and seek full time free employment, because that would mean I was either rich, or had nothing better to do, in which case I like the idea of getting paid and giving the money to charity or something, therefore not undermining paid work. I do think people have been very harsh with their personal attacks (I certainly hope anyone who calls you a c*** on here never makes it to FI as I wouldn’t want them teaching me). And back to the age old argument of quality of instructors – I think it’s arrogant to pick on one particular reason why you think an instructor would be good or not. You can either teach, or you can’t – it’s probably all down to personality (but then I’m calling myself arrogant).I live in hope that one day I’ll have a PPL/FI and that I can do an hour or so here and there, passing on something I love doing. Quote:"Apprentice instructors, mentored and overseen by the professional so as to build up their teaching skills in a structured manner. These apprentices would of course receive a wage that would allow them to stay in the industry."Show me where I sign up. All the best.(Sorry for lack of formatting - works browser is junk).

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 13:42

An interesting post Mazzy, but you are missing one vital point, that any job eventually becomes that. A job.

I love flying, I have spent 10's of thousands on it and I am very lucky to be able to earn a living from flying aircraft, but I never lose sight of the fact that it is a job.

Sometimes it is awful, sometimes it is the best thing in the world, but flying for a living is a whole heap different from being a PPL.

An FI doesn't get the choice as to who they fly with, where they fly or when (obviously wx is a factor) and you are constantly at work in the cockpit, or on the ground.

Many people make that mistake and try to equate PPL flying with teaching. The two things are totally different, yes you are up in the air, but that is about the only similarity.

It's about as different as going for blast across a wonderful mountain pass on a beautiful day in your new car compared to slogging up the motorway driving a lorry.

mazzy1026

11th Sep 2008, 13:50

Absolutely right SAS. I suppose I am looking at my own experiences, and all the good times "I" had when I was learning, and trying to build the picture from that. Everything has it's downfalls, like you say.The only response I can give, is that I'd rather have the downfalls of that job, than any other :)

VFE

11th Sep 2008, 13:52

The problem with doing an hour of instructing "here or there" is that it's a sure fire way to balls a student up.

You don't get good at instructing overnight it takes time and rarely equates to how much knowledge you possess as a pilot. Forget that at the students peril.

VFE.

mazzy1026

11th Sep 2008, 13:52

Quote:"The problem with doing an hour of instructing "here or there" is that it's a sure fire way to balls a student up."I agree - I mentioned doing the trial flights...

VFE

11th Sep 2008, 13:55

That wasn't directed just to you Mazzy. Trial lessons are one area where most full-time instructors would happily see someone you describe taking up the slack.

VFE.

mazzy1026

11th Sep 2008, 13:57

I suppose even the odd renewal, experience check, or even someone to chat to for advice. Even if I had one student who flew every Saturday with me - great stuff all round I think.

S-Works

11th Sep 2008, 14:02

An interesting post Mazzy, but you are missing one vital point, that any job eventually becomes that. A job.

You are completely right SAS. One way of preventing it becoming a job is not to do it as a job but as a diversion.

I believe that I have enough experience to put something back into flying by passing back the experience that I have gained over the years. I am prepared to put back and ask nothing in return. If that makes me a monster in the eyes of those who 'just do it as a job' then so be it. But it does make a very sad reflection on the way society is these days. All about money and self gain.

Flying Farmer

11th Sep 2008, 15:03

Nope its about paying the mortgage and putting food on the table :*

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 15:36

Utter rot, Bose.

This is not about "putting something back in". That's just emotive rubbish, but since you bring that argument up.

I've put plenty into the flight training industry over the years. Money, time, effort and a whole host of other intangibles. I've earnt in reality the square root of f'all compared to the effort I've put into GA. 7 days a week, 12-15 hour days and you reckon because you're doing the odd free flight you are "putting something back". Don't make me laugh.

So, is it wrong to expect to get something/anything back?

Is it ****. I'll ask you a question. If you had all your money and your Porsche taken off you tomorrow, would you still teach for nothing?

I doubt it. So don't get sanctimonious, you are lucky, you don't have to get paid. The vast majority of FI's aren't as lucky as you or I and need to earn from their profession.

Without FI's the industry dies, it's already in a parlous state with falling student take ups and an atrocious record of keeping people on board once qualified.

Why make it even more difficult for FI's to stay in the industry. How is flying for free helping anyone apart from the PPL's you fly with who most likely could afford to pay you easily?

Of those thousands of hours and hundreds of types are you telling me that none of these private owners can afford to stump up £30/hr for an FI?

In what way are you "putting something back" by not charging people wealthy enough to own their own a/c?

If you were helping out struggling students who couldn't otherwise finish their training, or doing something like air cadets or young Eagles, then you could use the argument you are "putting something back".

What you are doing is using your own wealth to compete with other FI's in an unfair manner.

What's next, someone offering to split the costs so that they can get another type in the logbook, even though they are performing a job?

Oh hang on, that's already happened in the airline world. Really worked well for everyone didn't it? If your name happens to be O'Leary then yes it did, but for the rest of us? Nope.

Fuji Abound

11th Sep 2008, 16:13

Without FI's the industry dies, it's already in a parlous state with falling student take ups and an atrocious record of keeping people on board once qualified.

SAS

Ok, to be provocative, why is it a job for which you should get paid well or at all?

If a pilot does a FI course and wishes to teach for nothing is his teaching by definition any better or worse than yours?

If he has invested his own capital in a "nice" aircraft which he is willing to use for training, is the student getting a better deal than going to some crumby school?

Which of these students is more likely to stay on board once qualified?

In a capitalist economy you dont get paid by right for anything - you either get paid because the legislation protects your profession from every other Tom Dick and Harry who thinks they can set themselves up in the same business or because no one else is prepared to do the job, or you do it better than most.

There are lots of Tom, Dick and Harrys who at least think they can teach people to fly, and their are lots willing to do it for nothing because they think they will enjoy it, so the only thing that keeps the business going is the regulatory framework which protects even those who do it badly but have the right bits of paper.

If the regulatory framework changes so will the industry - dramatically - for the better - well who knows! :)

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 17:27

Why should you get paid for any job? Just because I enjoy flying doesn't change anything. I'm lucky because I enjoy my job. I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me that just because a job is "fun" you shouldn't recieve any pay for it.

Go tell that to Lewis Hamilton. Sorry fella, you enjoy racing too much. I'm afraid you are going to have to do it for free....

Payment has nothing to do with competence. I make absolutely no judgement on Boses abilities based on the fact he doesn't charge, that isn't the thrust of the argument and frankly I wouldn't know as we've never worked or flown together.

Supply and demand controls the market rate in our economy, but it gets sent skew whiff when someone comes in and does it for nothing because they don't need the money.

If PPL's are allowed to teach (obviously I understand that they already can....) but not get renumerated, that completely changes the economics of the business and obviously wages will be depressed by more people competing for a smaller slice of the pie.

My argument is that this will actually damage the whole industry long term. You cannot have the same control over staff who only do a job "for a bit of fun" so standards will slip. I've seen it with my own baby blues.

At one place I worked we had a bunch of PPL FI's at weekends and Frozen ATPL FI's during the week. It was chaos. There was no team atmosphere, everyone taught different things in different ways and looking back on it, it just wasn't good enough. I was a sprog at the time and didn't know any better so I thought this was normal.

If someone invests their hard earned into a nice aircraft and sets up an RF and all the gumph that goes with it, then good luck to them. They won't last 5 minutes with just one machine and one FI no matter what they charge, but good luck anyway.

You are also making the very wrong assumption that people who get paid ie CPL holders with an FI ticket do a worse job than a PPL FI would.

Seriously, that is a laughable suggestion. Some might be good, but I know lots and lots of PPL's, some of whom I even count as friends :rolleyes: but there aren't many who I'd employ as FI's without significant re-training.

They are safe and competent pilots and have even done things like fly to other countries (shock horror!) or fly "past the fold in the map" (gasp!) but most haven't got the groundschool or the currency to become FI's without a long and expensive process, that the current FI rating wouldn't really cope with.

This is before we start going into issues like bad habits, which we can all suffer from. In fact the ones who seem most immune from the bad habit issue are the 250hr wet behind the ears mob. They are also used to learning at a phenomenal rate and are usually as keen as mustard. Exactly what I would want in any new and inexperienced employee. No matter what the industry.

Fuji Abound

11th Sep 2008, 19:11

You are also making the very wrong assumption that people who get paid ie CPL holders with an FI ticket do a worse job than a PPL FI would.
No, I am seriously not. My point was that whether an instructor gets paid or not every instructor is (or should be) trained to the same standard. That is what the FIs qualification, as any qualification, seeks to achieve.

Why should you get paid for any job? Just because I enjoy flying doesn't change anything. I'm lucky because I enjoy my job. I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me that just because a job is "fun" you shouldn't recieve any pay for it.

And

Supply and demand controls the market

You see this is the point. You have chosen to do something a lot of people will do for little or no pay. Most jobs involve significant elements of grind and that is why there is a shortage of people willing to work for nothing. Moreover most jobs require a degree of continuity - for example, you don’t want to talk to a different solicitor every time you ‘phone. However many think that they can do a bit of teaching when it suites them (while the normal day job pays the mortgauge) and they are probably right. Does the student care if you are there when he ‘phones up on a Friday - almost certainly not, as long as you are there for his lessons every Wednesday. We pay people because in many cases it causes them to turn up in the morning and spend at least some of their time doing something they would prefer not to be doing!

My best instructor ran a bedroom furniture shop - it provided him with a good income, he taught three afternoons a week, his students knew when he was on “duty” and he was never short of a booking. He was hugely enthusiastic about his flying (perhaps the more so because only teaching three days a week he looked forward to each teaching day) and he was very good at what he did. As it happens he was paid.

If I started a club which invested substantially in new aircraft and was staffed by PPL FIs or whatever new animal EASA might throw up I would probably get plenty of volunteers and I might even run a successful business. Alternatively I might find by paying my instructors they were more committed and turned up more reliably. I wonder.

S-Works

11th Sep 2008, 20:51

Utter rot, Bose.

This is not about "putting something back in".

As you wish. I think we have to agree to disagree on this. You are clearly driven by a financial need to extract money from aviation. I am not. When I teach I am committed and I think you will struggle to find anyone who has not been satisfied with the quality of my teaching. Many of them on this forum.

Whether I choose to charge or not is my concern and just because more often than not I choose not to believing my reward comes in other ways is my prerogative.

Getting bitter and twisted because you perceive that I might be better off than you just displays a green eyed monster that I would not have expected of you.

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 20:54

So, none of your comments actually say that an unpaid or PPL FI is "better" than a paid or CPL holder?

If you put your money where your mouth is and invested wads of cash in a flying school, then you would be utterly nuts to entrust your investment into the hands of unpaid volunteers, who are less accountable than paid staff.

Volunteer management is totally different from managing paid staff. The rules are totally different. I wonder if anyone has actually thought of that?

People are not paid only because they are doing something they don't like. Or to just turn up. If that is how you work, then you are in the wrong job.

In teaching flying you are paid to impart knowledge and because you have demonstrated the ability to do this by passing an FI Course. You are aslo being paid for the responsibility you take.

Turning up is a given, not something you are paid for.

That's like trying to argue that you deserve a pay rise simply because you do your job well. That's what you are paid to do in the first place! You don't deserve more money just for doing what you are contracted for.

All FI's who teach to the same level should be trained in the same way, but standards will always be variable. FI's are all different, schools are all different and students are all different and need different approaches.

You mention the example of a student who comes in once a week. That's OK, but what about the students who come for an intensive course who want to be there 5 days a week or even more? Many, many students do their courses in that manner, so you need a range of people to keep continuity of training.

You cannot expect someone to be there full time and not get paid. What about on the rubbish weather days when there is no chance of flying. Who is going to chat to the walk in customers. Do you just shut up shop on poor days? Could you really expect someone who's a volunteer to sit there bored out of their mind from 9-5 during the long and very boring winter months?

It just isn't practical without full time paid staff available every day.

Bose, your financial status means as much to me as what the pope had for breakfast, but to set your mind at ease I'm in the lucky situation of not having to work if I don't need to.
I don't NEED to extract cash from aviation and you make it sound like a grubby and distasteful act just because I believe in a fair days wage, for a fair days work.

This is why I used this phrase "The vast majority of FI's aren't as lucky as you or I and need to earn from their profession."

It is not I who has the wierd attitude to working and getting rewarded financially, but then again, as professional pilot who holds an FI rating, I can charge for my services, so I do.

After having invested >£50K in my own training, then why the hell not?

S-Works

11th Sep 2008, 21:05

So, none of your comments actually say that an unpaid or PPL FI is "better" than a paid or CPL holder?

I don't seem to recall saying that remuneration had anything to do with the quality of the Instructor. In fact the entire vein of my comments throughout this has to been to campaign to have Instructors treat as the professionals that I believe that they are and be remunerated appropriately.

However seeing the mudslinging aimed at me over the fact that I more often than not I choose not to charge (and I am in a very very tiny minority) makes me wonder if I am giving Instructors more credit than they deserve when it comes to my view about the level of professionalism.......

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 21:22

That comment wasn't aimed at you Bose.

Contacttower

11th Sep 2008, 21:34

(and I am in a very very tiny minority)

I wouldn't be so sure about that, I know of a few people who do instructor for free and to be honest I have mixed feelings about it....

On the one hand why should bose or indeed anyone else conform to someone else's notion of how the flight training industry should operate....or feel they have a 'right' to be paid because they themselves have invested a lot of money in their training....or indeed try and impose their notion of 'fairness' (whatever that might be) on other people.

But more realistically the essential argument that people who instruct for free undermines wages does stand up to scrutiny and for that reason if I ever decided to start instructing I would charge even though I wouldn't need to.

Fuji Abound

11th Sep 2008, 21:46

So, none of your comments actually say that an unpaid or PPL FI is "better" than a paid or CPL holder?

Correct.

unpaid volunteers, who are less accountable than paid staff.

I am not sure because you pay someone they are more accountable. In what way do you imagine this to be so?

You cannot expect someone to be there full time and not get paid.

Agreed. Almost always true unless they are retired.

Who is going to chat to the walk in customers. Do you just shut up shop on poor days? Could you really expect someone who's a volunteer to sit there bored out of their mind from 9-5 during the long and very boring winter months?

.. .. .. but how many flying schools pay their staff when they are not working?

How many flying schools pay their staff a living wage? I dont mean a wage that they can live on when they are 20, but a wage that makes it a worth while career when they have a mortgauge to pay and a family to look after. What type of instructor does that encourage?

When I did my BSAC course it was done in a first class club enviroment. The instructors were excellent. They enjoyed passing on their skills, they enjoyed teaching. They accepted significant responsibility - at least as much as a FI. They were paid their expenses. The club produced excellent divers. When I "qualified" as an instructor I didnt expect to get paid for the instruction I gave because I enjoyed it, and I felt it was an opportunity of returning the time others had put into my training. It worked because it was a club enviroment. Most flying schools are not clubs, but if I startyed a flying school staffed by "volunteers" (at least in so far as the FIs were concerned) I suspect it might do as well as conventional schools. Such a school would offer a different "product" and therefore whether or not it would undermine traditional schools I am less certain. I suspect there are plenty of enthusiastic pilots who would enjoy a bit of instruction for expenses only.

Say again s l o w l y

11th Sep 2008, 22:52

Volunteer management is something I know a little bit about since my wife used to run a Volunteer centre and now spends her life running about the Government putting volunteering onto the political map. So by a process of sublimation I've learnt a bit about how it works.

Volunteers cannot be "told" to do anything unlike a paid member of staff, basically you generally have to suit the role to the individual not the other way around. You have to have a code of conduct and the volunteers have no recourse in law for employment rights

The definition of a volunteers is they are working for the benefit of a third party, not for your own benefit. There is an incredibly fine line between a volunteers role and job replacement.

How is working for free benefitting society in the case of an FI?

One of the big problems with how FI's are paid, is that just because you aren't in the air you are still working. Answering 'phones, dealing with potential customers etc.

Unless you are an FI you don't really have any idea of how hard the job can actually be.

BSAC instructors aren't often full time divers, but if you want an example, how about you go and tell the divers in Aberdeen who are working and earning other people money that they should be happy to spend weeks in a diving bell and do it for free.

The fact is that we are losing FI's because of pay. Life has been getting better pay wise thanks to a fairly dire shortage of FI's, so in this case the laws of supply and demand are now skewed towards the FI and especially the experienced FI who can teach more than just the basics.

I know of a certain school who have been trying to attract an experienced CPL FI, but even for a salary of over £30k, there haven't exactly been many takers.

bjornhall

12th Sep 2008, 05:50

Regarding those who are opposed to free instructing due to reduce their income... I suppose those people never use free software, don't visit a free website if there is a commercial alternative, only use flight planning software that they paid for rather than something freely given away, and of course would never lend anyone anything that could instead be bought in a store... And so on.

Whirlygig

12th Sep 2008, 07:19

As someone who bought a Pprune PT, your analogy is irrelevant and doesn't apply.

There's no such thing as free software just as there's no such thing as a free lunch! The software is paid for, either through previous sales when it was the latest version, advertising etc. Same for websites.

Lending and borrowing are a totally different concepts.

Cheers

Whirls

S-Works

12th Sep 2008, 07:39

BSAC instructors aren't often full time divers, but if you want an example, how about you go and tell the divers in Aberdeen who are working and earning other people money that they should be happy to spend weeks in a diving bell and do it for free.

Wrong simile I think. I would equate the BSAC Instructor to being an equivalent of the club FI and the commercial divers to being an airline pilot.

So I would not expect anyone to go and work for an airline free of charge even the same as I would not expect to go and work offshore free of charge. Having worked as a HSE Closed Bell Diver and a HSE Part 1&2 Instructor as well as being a NI and a Course Director recreationally, I am therefore qualified to understand the distinction.....

A flying Instructor is a professional working in a recreational industry with customers who are flying for leisure.

Although I think we have gone beyond the point of reasoned debate on this as we are in territory of judgement being clouded by self protection.

Whirly - You are wrong, and I think that is why your and others judgement has become so clouded and really is a sad indicator of the world now. There are people who just give things away for the good of others. I know of 2 IFR flight planning applications developed and give away FREE with no advertising or other ask-back in the last month alone. The Firefox browser is FREE and is given away for the good of the community. Bill Gates just gave away $26billion.

Believe it or not there are those of us who are still prepared to do something without asking what's in it for me.....

Fuji Abound

12th Sep 2008, 08:02

I think this discussion has probably run its course but it has been very interesting - thank you. Sometimes it is well worth challenging established ideas and sometimes it is worth seeing if there is any merit in these ideas which is of course always much harder when you are already firmly sat on one side of the fence.

A couple of final points

A flying Instructor is a professional working in a recreational industry with customers who are flying for leisure.

and

Volunteers cannot be "told" to do anything unlike a paid member of staff, basically you generally have to suit the role to the individual not the other way around. You have to have a code of conduct and the volunteers have no recourse in law for employment rights

Bose makes a sound point in response to the question I asked. FIs are professionals and hopefully whether they are working for free or not they maintain the standard they were taught to set. I agree if you are a volunteer the relationship with your "employer" is different, but it is often not as different as you think. Indeed sometimes volunteers, particularly when they are professional volunteers, are more committed than employees. Do you think a doctors who work for FDOC are less or more commmitted because they give their services for free? Why do you think they give their services for free? Perhaps it is because it is something different, something enjoyable, a way of giving something back which they are happy to do all the time the normal day job pays the bills. Moreover, it is a lot easier for a club to not seek the help of a volunteer in future if he is not up to scratch than to dispense with an employee.

There are clubs up and down the country involved in a whole host of different sports which are very well run and run largely or wholly by volunteers. Closer to aviation, I dont know how many gliding clubs operate - are their instructors paid and if so how? At any rate powered flight schools have always been "potected" by the regulator. Not many pilots are prepared to incurr the time and cost to do a CPL and FI and not get paid. FIs who are not CPLs are a breed not encouraged by the industry.

If EASA change the rules the dynamics of the whole industry may change.

tbavprof

12th Sep 2008, 08:38

View from across the Pond...

Interesting discussion. But the concept of a non-CPL non-IR FI seems a bit silly. So, is PPL considered a "recreational" pursuit, first step on the long road, or a combination of both?

For the pure recreational crowd, we've got two alternatives over here. "Recreational Pilot" with limits on passengers and operations (night, xc distances, controlled airspace, etc.). Trained by full-fledged FI's.

Or "Sport Pilot" trained by sport pilot instructors. The aircraft themselves are restricted, which effectively limit passenger-carrying capability. Operations are pretty much under the same restriction.

Neither license recognized for international use.

But I think that a PPL, with all the privileges it contains (no separate night rating here, it's part of the basic PPL requirement), should be done by someone above that level, especially if it's just the first step toward the ATPL.

No denigrating anyone's skills, experience, motivations, or the morality/justification for compensation, but if you're training potential professional flyers, it ought not be with a PPL. If you want to issue recreational-only licenses and use recreational-only instructors, that seems fair.

'India-Mike

12th Sep 2008, 10:10

... sure I would if I didn't need a totally irrelevant CPL

Maybe once you've done your CPL you'll be in a position to determine if it's irrelevant or not:ugh:

tbavprof

12th Sep 2008, 15:17

Gemma,

Have to ask two questions...

1. If you're concerned about increasing recreational flying, would it satisfy you to have a "less-than-PPL" certificate available for less-than-CPL FI instruction received?

2. I'm not questioning your knowledge or abilities, but if you feel you have enough of both to be instructing others, why haven't you done the CPL/IR? :bored: Sorry, on our side there are plenty of "recreational" flyers that move up the ratings scale for personal satisfaction and insurance premium reductions, and never give a thought about actually using their CPL or ATP in an AOC environment.

Say again s l o w l y

12th Sep 2008, 15:19

Some more very interesting posts.

My last one on this as I've far better things to do with my time, such as have a social life!

Bose, you are again trying to make the point that by flying for free it is an altruistic act. Does self protectionism come into it. Well, :ugh:! Of course it does. Only an utter imbecile would argue that it doesn't.

So Bill Gates gave away $26 billion. That's nice for him, he's only got another $24 billion in the bank. Firefox is free. Uh huh, but what about the data it can mine for the developers or the other applications that it opens up for them. Most of your examples aren't of altruism, but of loss leaders. A way of marketing or getting a name known for future benefit.

However, it is easy to be altruistic when you have more than you need. It is a totally different situation in this case. Most FI's are full time and therefore haven't got the time to have second jobs to pay the bills. So they do their best to try and stay in the flight training industry for as long as possible.
Most other clubs that are being used as examples aren't full time businesses, but evening or weekend hobbies. Nothing wrong with that at all, but very different propositions from a run for profit business open all day everyday.

If we were talking about a true non-profit making club, then that can be viewed in a different way, but there aren't many of them left in this industry are there?

It is possible to make a living from teaching, but it is incredibly difficult. I tried it or a couple of years. It wasn't fun and nothing saps your enthusiasm for a job more than the stress caused by knowing you won't b able to pay the rent/mortgage, petrol or even food.

When I was a new FI struggling to get by on £9 per flying hour it was incredibly hard. Fortunately for me, my fortunes changed for the better and I can now treat flying as a "hobby" I probably became a better FI once I was able to stop worrying about how much money was in the bank or if I could afford to fill my car up. I know I became far more relaxed as a person without all that stress.

The people I really think are dedicated to the industry are those who put up with sort of crap and carry on teaching for years. That is true dedication to aviation.

chrisbl

12th Sep 2008, 16:35

I will soon be a FI(R). I will also be a PPL . I have a decent day job which makes me a higher rate tax payer which makes going for the CPL an expense I dont want or need. I am instructing not for the money but for the pleasure it will give me in being an efficent and effective instructor.

Clearing the equivilent of £7 a lesson will in no way payback the cost of the instructors course and the atpl exams so why would I want to waste any more on a CPL?

I am sorry if it pis*s' off some of you but my investment was in my hobby. I dont need the CPL for what I want to do.

As to the suggestion that having a CPL proves something - well in my case it would mean I have more money than sense. Besides which I have an FAA Commercial so I could do the CPL if I chose to do so. I object to paying £1000+ for a flight test.