After reading the many responses in the threads on instructor pay and prospects one can only draw the conclusion that instructing is not a recognised profession.
Why, as put forward by some, would an instructor for instance have to want to be a commercial pilot and therefore have a plan for progression other than as a teacher?
The implication here is that an instructor is paid almost nothing because it's only a phase in a career path and not a profession in itself.
This leads one to think that actually, the only way to continue as an FI is to go commercial or get a non flying job and instruct part time.
And that implies that an instructor must have a job that pays enough to allow him/her to subsidise the students and schools! That's not what other professions have to allow for though.
So how can flight training be called a professional qualification? Does a car mechanic have another job so he can fix your car at a discount rate? Or does your osteopath work in a bar part time so that he can drop the price of fixing your back?
When an FI goes to get the qualifications he needs, he pays professional rates. But when he charges himself out to the student he recieves less than half what he should be earning.
My suggestion then, is on each hours flying, the FI should give the student about 20 minutes on the controls and only give half the available information in his briefings and general patter.
See how long it takes and how much it costs to learn to fly then.
Flight training is a job. Cut it with rose tinted specs if you want but it's a job. And it's a job that few can do well and requires tremendous commitment
So why are today's crop of instructors hell bent on giving those skills away so that tomorrow's instructors never even step forward?
Do you really want to fly that much? While you try to shove wet spaghetti up a cats behind?
Personally I'm done with being insulted by the industry. Good luck if you think it's acceptable.