Instructor Shortage.

[hadagutful]

Interesting to see in today's Australian Aviation section an ad entitled "Rusty Flying Instructors".
There is a shortage of well qualified instructors and there has been a number of ads in the media but this one goes a step further by offering to get you current again for FREE and give you a full-time position. Almost an offer too good to be true!

The organisation is the Royal Aero Club of WA and there would certainly be worse places to be than Perth. Who knows but they may also be paying above award salary and treating people like human beings!
Anyway seems the worm is definitely turning reflected by the pilot shortage right through the industry both domestically and internationally at present.

Pilot training is fast becoming a bit of an issue, is anyone else out there having trouble finding a good reasonably experienced instructor who is readily available?

[das Uber Soldat]

yeh we've been hiring complete morons recently, people who haven't flown in 15 years etc.

Significantly worrying.

[trolleydriver]

Loved instructing, the most rewarding flying I've done. Would be back doing it tomorrow if i didn't have to put up with the Paperwork Bullsh#t....... Do you know how many times you have to sign your name just to send someone solo?????? I remember not so long ago when the student would just get a medical, the CFI would write out the student licence, and then when I was happy with the students ability, I could step out and let them go for a lap by themselves:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I got out of instructing, when it was taking over 2 months to get a SPL back off CASA :ugh:

RAA is looking better all the time :(

[thinking pilot]

Is it really worth it, crap wages and conditions, par for the course.

Work as a storeman and earn 35 to 40k. Will they offer me this money.

Probably not.:ugh:

[kiwi chick]

had to have a giggle at the "crap wages" bit...

when I had my wee "incident" with a student (which, just briefly, entailed me saving an aircraft AND his ass after he did a very very silly thing), the flight ended up being 0.4 hrs... and I got paid $6.00... BEFORE tax... :ugh:

still, at least we didn't get charged a landing fee i guess... ;)

[kingtoad]

c'mon KiwiChick - more detail pls.
Curiosity is getting the better of me.

And $6 BEFORE tax - sounds like something the Australian Govt would do.

[RENURPP]

I loved instructing and would go back tomorrow if the pay and conditions were OK. which leads me to the question.
What could I expect with the following, held grade 1 ME CIR ATO approvals CFI approval aero's formation training around 8,000 hrs instructing.

[mates rates]

I am a retired airline pilot thinking of getting back into part-time instructing.Have made a few enquiries around the place but it's difficult to convince yourself to work for such low pay.I have another part-time training job which pays good money so why would i bother?

[kiwi chick]

Hey Kingtoad! Will PM you... unless there's a thread on here somewhere

"really, really dumb things that people do... and the really dumb instructors that don't notice... " :ok: :ok:



there is however a photo on proon of the carnage... lol

[crack-up]

RENURPP

What do you reckon your worth as an instructor? Don't forget if it's not what you are doing now, you may have to refresh your knowledge.
I reckon the C172 may not be as well equiped as the 717.

[Wanderin_dave]

I'd love to instruct, as with everyone else the money's the problem.
I'm a former chief pilot, few years of charter work so i bring a bit with me to the table.

I moved back to Melb with the intention of becoming an instructor. So what was i expected to do? Fork out $15K and i was told that the best i could be offered was $300-350 a week casual wages. You'd have to be mad! This was with the mob with the best pay in town too!!

So i did what many others have done, left aviation and walked into a job with nowhere near the responibilities/stress and earning $1000+ p/w.

Instructors are worth at least whatever they can get elsewhere. Pilots are not muppets we have significant skills and the aura of just being a pilot opens doors (silly, but true). When unemployment is low we can find well paying jobs in other industries. I'm not going to take a significant pay cut just to get back in the cockpit. I love flying and am lucky enough to have a weekend job which keeps the 'hand in'. If i didn't i would go pay for a few hours a month, fly at my leisure and still be well ahead financially.

I've got 1500 hours, all the useful bells and whistles. So what would it take for me to instruct?
Either pay for my training and a $45k salary, i'm happy to be bonded, this is a 2 way street after all.
Or if i have to pay for my training then it'd have to be $50k+ . Lot of people will look at this and think he's crazy, but i can get better than this elsewhere. At the end of the day this is business, i'm not gonna cut my own legs off because i love it. I've got a life and responsibilities too that need to be looked after.
So any offers? :E

[Arm out the window]

Young instructors will work for low pay to build hours.
If you legislated to set, say, a 2000 hr minimum experience level prior to someone obtaining an instructor rating, then schools would have to pay a decent wage to get people who could be making good money elsewhere, and flying schools would be staffed by experienced pilots, both good things in my view.

The cost of flying training would rise, turning people off the idea and maybe making it hard for schools to stay afloat in the short term, but if (as we are told) the aviation industry is going to continue expanding, the demand for pilots should drive wages up across the board and make it worthwhile for young people to invest in a CPL.

The alternative is to continue as we are, with low-hour instructors working for not much and no incentive for more experienced people to come back into the training system and pass on what they've learned.

[Capt Mo]

It is promising though that many flight training organisations are now paying at least the award salary for their instructors. It is good as it means that people who are recieving low casual wages can find somewhere that is willing to pay them what theyre worth!!!! Of course there are still places that are paying and treating their instructors like crap :ugh:- but the instructors are realising that they can get better conditions elsewhere - and hopefully soon enough there will be more schools paying what they should be!

For anyone wondering what decent conditions are out there, im hearing is between $35 and 45K for a few places for a grade 2 Instructor. Obviously not great - but better than the past. :D

So for anyone seemingly "stuck" on crappy wages - go take a look around, and see if you can find some better conditions. Good luck!:ok:

Mo

[Wine Glass]

Guys,

out of interest can someone give me a rough guide of casual rates and how it works these days? I have a Grade 2 with some other bits (aeros, form...). If I wanted to do a bit of instructing on the side apart from the day job, are you paid per flying hour? What is the ballpark going rate?

PM if you prefer, but am interested in "giving something back".

Cheers!

[Berner]

Just had a quick look at the GA award which you can get your hands on at afap.org.au. If you want all the details go have a look there.

A pilot flying an a/c up to 1360kg gets $31489 pa. If you need to use IFR then you get another $4435. Gde 3 gets nothing extra, Gde 2 gets $2524 and a Gde 1 gets an extra $5050 pa.

If you're casual you should receive 1/800th of your full time equivalent plus 25% per flying hour. So a gde 2 not teaching IFR in smaller training a/c would get 31489+2524/800x1.25=$53.14 per flying hour.

Unless you work for Basair, then it's $31/hr.:E

[11percent]

Award rate for casual instructing is 1/800th of the annual wage you would otherwise be getting.

For a M/E, G1, IFR it is around $58 per hour.

I recently heard of a large international flying school at Parafield offering ATO's $29.95 per hour. I wounder if they make the connection between not having staff stay / join and this sort of attitude??

Folks, we finally have these penny pinching wankers on the ropes, if you don't stand up and demand award wages now, you prostitute yourself and future generations of pilots.

Think about it!

[megle2]

And don't forget

If I returned to instructing there would be every chance I would end up in either the same or very similiar training aircraft that I left almost 30 years ago!!

I will stick to the glass cockpit for a while yet.

[rotcivtolip]

Quite a few training schools use planes with glass cockpits. :ok:

[bonez]

Until the regulator starts doing something about the poor standards of instruction, standardisation and testing and the resulting poor product, it will remain a mess, and the industry will pay sometime in the future:ugh::ugh:

Certainly good pay and conditions will help, but it is not the only problem.

CASA have to kick @rse as well. :eek:

[schoolboy]

When will some of you people get off your high horse ane start to appreciate you are not the left (or right) hand of god!

There are flight schools (and I am really close to one!) that pay well above award, but when a position is advertised we only get a few responses (and not of any quality). The salaries offered by some mobs (ours included) would put the figures mentioned above to shame, but the quality of applicants make a garbo (and I mean no disrespect to garbos, just trying to make a comparision. Actually they might be better value, at least they arn't up them selves!) seem the man for the job.

Wake up to yourselves and be realistic, you are only pilots!

[jamsquat]

Here Here!!!!! And most are just out of instructor school as well. Students teaching students. Quality!!!:ok:

[crack-up]

Not a bad call schoolboy, but you need to look at the whole picture.

You obviously have a vested interest in this thread, but having acknowledged this, I can see where you are coming from.

There are companies that do pay the right salaries (wages), and they do offer the right conditions.

Sure there are those who don't!

Can any one tell me what is the going rate for a Grade 2 Instructor, with all the right boxes ticked? I don't mean what you think you are worth, I mean what you are worth.

Be real, there are companies out there who want grade 1 instructors and are prepared to pay the odds, but in most cases, the applicants are to frightened to commit!

"Instruct or fly big jets", that is the question."

Get real you pussies! Stop procrastinating and having a go at those who are for real.
DO IT!

W##k as P##S

[VH-FTS]

Around $35K

[VH-XXX]

We advertised for a CFI over the last 4 years and got 1 applicant in Melbourne. We were specifically looking for someone who was possibly semi-retired, part time or similar with a view to have someone say grade 2 run it when they were out of town, however they appear to be as rare as hens teeth these days. Every younger instructor wanted 500 twin hours in 1 year and usually moved on.

[bushy]

Most GA pilots do not want to be in GA. They should not be. There should be another way to get airline jobs.
GA is too important to have uninterested, temporary pilots and operators. If we had permanent pilots and operators, we would have "permanent" salaries.

[kiwiblue]

GA is too important to have uninterested, temporary pilots and operators. If we had permanent pilots and operators, we would have "permanent" salaries.

Ya might be onto something there Bushy! :ok: Suggestions for how that might be achieved?

[poteroo]

[B]From a 'Grey' Perspective - Part-time Instructing is Great !/B]
I'm 66, retired, and fly about 250 hrs annually instructing here in a smallish city. The local GA flight school find it a great thing to have a 'local' G1 available to step in when things get busy. I also do RAA instructing for the local school.
Both schools find it satisfactory because I'm not about to move on with a career, and I'm not dependant on instructing for living.
And, before you ask, I don't do it for nothing. RAA pays $40/hr, GA pays $50/hr for general work, $60/hr for specialist instruction such as low level, tailwheel,formation.
The cost of maintaining a G1 and Class 1 medical isn't cheap - I reckon that it can cost me up to $700 each year - so I need to be paid. Throw into that the CASA requirement that I undergo 6 monthly proficiency checks with my CFI, and I guess that it costs over $1000 annually.
From my point of view - it's good because it keeps me sharp, and I feel needed - an important consideration when you age. But, if they could get younger, career aspiring instructors - who needed the work, then I'd step aside willingly.
There are several other ex airline, ex instructing retirees living round here, but they have no real desire to re-enter the GA scene. Some have expressed interest in RAA instructing - which might just suit them, but even that involves an ever increasing level of upskilling.
I'm not surprised that the ' Royals' are seeking older instructors to re-enter the profession. I think it's a classic win-win approach.
happy days,

[bushy]

The multi crew pilot's licence may be the way.
If the airlines use that as a requirement, then those who put in the time and money to get one will know they are going to be qualified for airlines, not GA. There will be two different streams, one for airlines, and the other for GA, and both will be seriously interested in the future of the industry they are in.
Australian GA has been almost destroyed, firstly by a flood of tax dodgers many years ago. They were not interested in the future or soundness of the industry, but only interested in their own tax accounting. They bought thousands of aeroplanes, and thousands of unsustainable charter companies started up.
Secondly by a flood of airline wannabies in recent times who had been persuaded by flying schools to spend big dollars to chase the very few airline jobs that were sometimes available.
The airlines did not bother with recruit training, or do much planning. There was always a big pool of wannabies available, far more than they needed. They liked it that way, and are talking to the govt now to try and make it continue despite the damage it does to GA. They can usually scare the pollies.
There is also the psychological aspect, which the airlines and the military use. "Only the best are good enough for us - many don't meet our standards."
This builds their image at no cost to them. The poor wannabies pay.
It will take some time to get dedicated airline training going, and hopefully the many pilots who have been "parked" in GA for all those years wil finally get what they want in that time.

[Mesopause]

I hear from a mate the new people on the block, fast track pilot training, just took on a Grade 2 and are paying him 55k a year!!!

This company, for all its flack, seems to be improving flight training on all fronts - and for the better!!

Good instructors are probably worth more than 55k but at least its a positive move in the right direction!!!

I hear this is at least 20k higher than what most other schools are paying Grade 2's!!! :ok:

http://www.ftpilottraining.com/

[Yaholo]

Does anyone know if the company advertised in the Australian takes people without their Instructors rating and trains them from scratch? I just have a twin CPL and was considering applying but the paper advertisment just said
"Rusty Instructors"

[KRUSTY 34]

It's simple really,

Flying schools that fail to remunerate their instructors accordingly will die!

Those that appreciate the worth of of an ever dwindling resourse will survive.

What does ab-initio cost the student these days? When I started it was approx $65 per hour. From what I have seen the same old sh!t box C152's are flogging around. The cost of a second hand one 22 years ago was between 35-45 G's. has the relative cost of the industry gone up that much. I know that flying training is 3 or 4 times more expensive.

So who's making the money?

Not the instructors methinks!

[bushy]

There will always be plenty of grade three instructors, as long as wannabies are gullible enough to believe the sales pitch without doing some research.
But they won't stay very long if they do not soon progress to better wages.
It seems that no-one tells them that employment is often on a casual basis, with payment by the flying hour, and often only a few hours a week.

[Richo]

Yea Krusty, I used to pay $50 per hour in a C150 that I still see in the circuit area on a regular basis.

As for where the money goes, well there are many places but the largest percentage of todays increased cost is to the AD operator and ASA. These are charges that did not exist in our day and have now been added to the cost of training.

Just about all the other costs have grown fairly well in line with the cost of living index. Maybe someone like CFI can give you some better figures.

But I feel you are right on the money about the the instructor wages. It looks to me that they have remained behind the CPI and have lost ground over the years.

richo

[Walrus 7]

I'm probably stepping into the lion's den by putting this one up on a commercial pilots' forum, but what the hell!
What impact, positive or negative, do we think the introduction of a Private Instructors' Rating would have?
Mostly they would work on weekends and only teach to PPL level without any testing authority. It would mean that schools would have a weekend cadre of permanent instructors with the "passing through" types working on the weekdays (and with some weekend work where needed). I see it like this.
Positive: students don't lose trusted instructors, so their training progresses uninterrupted and therefore costs them less.
Positive: private instructors would be less likely to run to other companies for better money because they aren't commercial and wouldn't be in the program for the $$. The result would be a stable school environment.
Positive: the private instructors are more likely to be experienced pilots (because the schools wouldn't take on a PPL with very little experience), which partly solves the problem of inexperienced instructors teaching inexperienced students.
Negative: the young instructors with twins in their eyes would have a reduced avenue for building hours.
Negative: the reduced number of CPLs within a group would also reduce the number of available pilots for charters, joyflights and so forth.
Let the cudgels be drawn.
Walrus

[corowacomet]

Is that you VH-BCY???!!!!!
Seriously though why don't we introduce "Private RPT pilots" for all of the aforementioned reasons? An idea like this would have many flying school operators, Dixon, Westaway and Godfrey et al salivating as we speak!
Quite seriously now though if these Private instructors are so experienced and keen to teach surely they could spend a bit of time and pass seven easy exams and a flight test? Then they could be paid for doing the same thing and everyone (except the paymaster) would be happy. Although doesn't a system like this operate in the UK?
The Comet

Surely that is you Bernie?

[Walrus 7]

Corowa,

There is no suggestion that the private instructors wouldn't be qualified instructors; just that they wouldn't have to be CPLs.

Walrus

[Unhinged]

If they can fly the sequences to demonstration standard, then they can fly to the standard required of a Commercial Pilot.

If they know their theory in enough depth to answer PPL students' questions, then they know their theory in enough depth to pass the CPL exams.

A CPL is an evaluation of their ability to operate at this level; an Instructor Rating is an evaluation of their ability to teach while doing so.

If they can't fly to demonstration standard, or they don't know their theory well enough to answer students' questions, then they shouldn't be instructors.

Instructor should mean CPL.

[redsnail]

There used to be instructors in the UK with PPLs. However, they could only instruct to the PPL level.
This system was in place for the "improver" route as you needed 700hours for the CPL.
It's now been scrapped since the JAA license has come in.

[kiwi chick]

Wake up to yourselves and be realistic, you are only pilots!

... as opposed to all the other professionals that are able to teach people how to fly.

:ugh:

[poteroo]

Standards, Standards !!

This PPL 'instructor' stuff has been done over well on this, and the instructing thread. I'm with Unhinged on this - we really need a single, high, standard in the industry, and that's CPL.

Sorry, Walrus7, it won't ever get up while we have most of the industry already complaining of perceived declining instructor skills. Anyway, isn't there a 500hrs minimum experience requirement in the UK just for starters? CFI might care to comment?

The original thread referred to the retraining of instructers who have been out of the industry for some time, which looks to be intended to increase G1 numbers...not G3 or G2. If this is what it achieves, then maybe this will bring back more experience to the upper instructing ranks, and might not be a bad outcome?

happy days,

[Walrus 7]

Agree with you on the standards. OK, lets just say that you are all correct and the private PPL is a bad idea. Accepted. Can I then have suggestions on how to solve the problem below?

Young instructors are only in it to build hours so they can clear-off to the regionals when they get the chance. That is very disappointing for the students who have become used to the instructor and really don't like having to change. On Saturday I spoke to one student who was in dismay that his third instructor in six months had left. It impedes the student's progress and costs them more money as they then have to spend air hours getting used to the new instructor's idiosyncracies before any further progress can be made.

Imagine spending a year at a college and having three lecturers in that time; each one of which doesn't totally agree with the way the previous one taught. When I was studying for my UPPL in 1989, my instructor moved to another school that was 100 kms from my home. I drove the extra distance every weekend to stay working with him rather than stay at the old school and have another instructor.

The problem of poor flying standards in this country will improve when the instructors themselves can pass on significant experience learned from getting it wrong in the real world. Give me a grey instructor who only works on the weekend rather than a passing youngster who only knows what the books say.

Walrus

[mingalababya]

Agree with you on the standards. OK, lets just say that you are all correct and the private PPL is a bad idea. Accepted. Can I then have suggestions on how to solve the problem below?

I'd like to see a system whereby 'career' instructors can get secondment to an airline on a monthly basis whilst still instructing most of the time, thereby allowing them the best of both worlds. They'll get to fly faster and more sophisticated aircraft (which is what we all aspire to) whilst on secondment, but at the same time, still be at the grass roots level with 'back to basics' flying.

It would probably never happen, but this surely would be one way to ensure that top quality instructors stay at the grass roots level, whilst fulfilling their desire to fly in the airlines. Thoughts anyone?

[milehighsociety]

BUSHY SAID THE FOLLOWING:

Most GA pilots do not want to be in GA. They should not be. There should be another way to get airline jobs.
GA is too important to have uninterested, temporary pilots and operators. If we had permanent pilots and operators, we would have "permanent" salaries.

Mile High SAYS:

Bloody good on you Bushy, well said. I am an operator up north.. I pay above award wages with room for raises for good performance and have great conditions as well as lots of flying hours. I do a bunch of training etc etc..

Recently, I had a pilot who took a job at above conditions.. promised for those conditions in return, 12 - 18 months. With this I was satisfied. The pilot left after 9 weeks and 200 hours.

I wasted time and money training someone to do a job well... and am now left with a gap in my experience pile to fill just as I really need it for our expansion.

Basically, I got screwed.. future pilots will ask "why is pay so poor in GA?"

My answer will be "Becasue pilots rape employers for their own good and then move on, making it no where near worth paying well, nor training well, so just shut up and do your hours and clean the plane." - Its harsh, but you pilots are bringing it on yourself...(Not pointing the finger at everyone, I have some awesome employees, but most ruin it for some)

So.. to all you pilots up and coming and especially to those of you happy with a great GA career, what would make you happy enough to stay with one operator?? Given all my pilots are more than happy with their pay and treatment, even the ones leaving. I am keen to know. Id love to have some loyalty from those I work hard to treat well, and perhaps even get that treatment back.

If you can come up with a decent suggestion and reasonable proposal, Im all ears.

[kiwiblue]

The pilot left after 9 weeks and 200 hours not bad, not bad at all. If those hours are consistent I'm surprised there is not a path being beaten to your door.

My answer will be "Becasue pilots rape employers for their own good...

Please don't take this comment as a personal attack... but in exactly what way is that any different to how employers have been treating pilots for how many decades??? I am not going into specifics here, but from experience I can tell you of years living below the poverty line (as defined by the government), paid only for airborne hours -and few enough of them in the off-season, paid significantly worse than minimum wage, no protections, no conditions... and you want me to sympathise because the worm is turning??? The only thing I can say in defense of that situation was it was better than being on the dole -at least I had a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

I pay above award wages with room for raises for good performance and have great conditions as well as lots of flying hours. I do a bunch of training etc etc...

Good for you. Again, I'm surprised there is not a path being beaten to your door.

[milehighsociety]

I know you werent looking at directly at me with your comments however, I have just been through GA myself.. Im probably younger than alot of you. Im not going to subject my pilots with anything like what other operators have..

That pilot was pretty quick to jump on our wagon... and still she jumped ship first opportunity, despite a good multiple type twin job just 6 or 8 weeks away.. Not to mention strong possibility of turbine time shortly after..

Where does that leave me?? Leaves me pretty badly stung and for the first time I understand why pilots have earnt their treatment.. I should have seen this earlier when I was on the other side of the fence.

So anyway, its a catch 22. Pilots want all the fair treatment in the world, but despite expensive training to line etc etc etc... they are more than happy to depart without a wink of any feeling of any wrongdoing, they dont take into consideration what they are doing to their employers.

This can only be desribed as being used and abused. Whilst not all pilots do it, the ones that do really really hurt the system. My company will be very seriously affected for up to 6 months for what I can see becasue of this pilots departure and she was well aware of her importance in the system, and how much we gave to get her in that position.

If pilots use and abuse GA operators just so they can piss off to the airlines, future pilots will get used and abused to recover the losses incurred by the old pilots. Operators simply cant offer a good deal and lose out every time, its not worth it. The result..... todays current industry treatment of pilots.

[solowflyer]

Just going back to the PPL instructor thing. I know several retired ex instuctors/ex airline pilots who have hung there headsets up due to all the BS in trying to keep a class 1 medical but are still able to hold a class 2,surly there is a way the industry can accomadate these older instructors.

[poteroo]

Soloflyer - not a silly idea at all! If RAA instructors, who often operate in the same airspace as GA, only need a Class 2 medical - then there's some precedent.

Have to admit to becoming a bit more aware of the medical these days

happy days,

[tubby one]

not sure if it has been mentioned - Pt 61 will make provision for instructors with Class 2 medicals, there are a number of other changes contained in the Part which make good sense particularliy withe current shortage of instructors.:)

[nibbio86]

Hi,I'm an italian guy living in Melbourne. As I've just started my training,I would like to know if with the current instructors shortage is it likely to be sponsored by any australian school barely with a CPL,NVFR,CSU/RU and of course a Grade 3 instructor rating.

Cheers

[Over and gout]

a great GA career

I didn't know that existed!

[kiwi chick]

Mine's pretty close. :ok:

Just not quite enough flying - but when is there ever?! ;)

[Walrus 7]

Getting retired captains in on Class 2 medicals is a great idea. But will there be enough of them to go around? Will it be enough to make a difference at the lower end? Probably not, but it would be a great start.

Any other good ideas?

Walrus

[Bendo]

Guys there IS scope for instructing as a PPL - it's called RAAus.
:rolleyes:
I am not knocking RAAus instructors (I have been one myself) or their clients, but I have just exited a Club situation where a few of the PPLs had egos that certainly outstripped the priviledges and limitations of their licence, as well as their ability.
As a few have said above, if you think you want to be an instructor, go out and get qualified as a professional instructor.

[hoggsnortrupert]

Back in 1994, I undertook B737 training in the USA:
The FAA testing Officer was an "elderly" chap, in his 70's with a PPL:
This guy had a history of having flown "every boeing having been produced" and after being told I had Passed, and we shot the S--t, proceded to show me his invitation from Boeing to fly, or train on the 777:
Please forgive me if my "FACTS" are a bit jaded, but some that read this may recall his name, as it evades me just now.
But the point is that the FAA were only happy to have his experiance?
Is there a moral in here somewhere?
H/Snort

[djpil]

Seems to be a mish-mash of stuff on PPL instructors here.
- PPL because of medical issues - so the question is whether it is safe for an instructor to have only a class 2 medical. This was the basis of the proposal discussed at FLOT 2003. My experience in the USA is that aerial work doesn't have the same medical requirements as RPT.
- PPL rather than CPL course completed? My experience is that the nav work on CPL was not relevant to PPL stuff.
- in any case, any proposal that I've seen still needed an instructor rating which would address all issues of competency regarding training towards a PPL.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"My experience is that the nav work on CPL was not relevant to PPL stuff"

Hmmm! Interesting comment.

1) Low level of training / low level of experience = low hr PPL

2) High level of training / low level of experience = low hr CPL

3) Low level of traing / high level of experience = high hr PPL

4) High level of training / high level of experience = high hr CPL

Now, who should we ideally have training the next generation of pilots, especially given that most CPLs start out as PPLs?

Really a no-brainer, isn't it!

I was a (3) for 6 or 7 of the first 10 yrs of my flying career.

I was pretty good too! .....or so I thought!

You will never convince me that I was not a much better pilot for having undertaken CPL training - including the navs.

Dr :cool:

[Walrus 7]

DJP,
You have summed-up my main contentions quite well. Having a CPL means you have a higher level of training than a PPL, but it doesn't make you a better pilot. Flying hours are what make you a better pilot.

I spoke with my CFI today about a PIFR course that was planned. Now under a cloud because the instructor that was going to run it has bolted to fly Shrikes. It's left the school and the students in deep brown stuff.

Sure, they can replace him with a newbie, but that newbie won't be qualified to run a PIFR course!

That's one example of the problem right there.

Walrus

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"Having a CPL means you have a higher level of training than a PPL, but it doesn't make you a better pilot. Flying hours are what make you a better pilot"

Let me get this right!

A higher level of training does not make you a better pilot!

Just keep telling yourself that - it will make you feel better for your lack of training.

Go do the PretendIFR. You may well be the ideal candidate. It was created for PPLs who can't get their flying up to the standard of a SEIR or MEIR

Dr :cool:

[hoggsnortrupert]

The FAA testing Officer was an "elderly" chap, in his 70's with a PPL:
I should have said: He had held a ATP, with regard to the medical and age he was reduced to a PPL, but held/retained type rating examiner:
I am at work right now, away from my Log Book, I "think"? his name was Budd Bricker?????.:ok:
Heavy duty in the experiance, and a bloody neat chap:
H/Snort

[Unhinged]

Instructor should mean CPL holder for all of the reasons which I and others have already said.

Nevertheless, there are scenarios where an Instructor who has previously held a Class 1 medical, but now has a Class 2 and so is technically operating as a PPL, should be allowed to operate as an instructor - and get paid for it !
e.g - Conducting a BFR renewal for someone whose BFR has not yet expired
- Subsequent twin endorsement (not initial twin endorsement) where the new type is substantially similar to a type already held by the student (e.g. Seneca endorsement when they already have Seminole)

The Instructor has a CPL, they are just not medically authorised to exercise those privileges, and in these situations the student is still capable of operating with a high degree of safety if the Instructor is suddenly incapacitated.

[Walrus 7]

Yes, Dr, you have it right. Just because a person has trained to a higher level, if they never use that training, then it doesn't make them a better pilot. It makes them a higher-qualified pilot, but once you're out of the training environment and on your own in the world you learn from flying and flying repetitively.

I've flown with low-time CPLs and high-time PPLs (and vice-versa) and as far as I am concerned, the better pilot was generally the one who flew more often.

Other than the good Doctor (because his opinion is already known) does anyone else disagree with what I have said?

Walrus

[Unhinged]

The best predictor of airmanship isn't the training level or the amount of flying a pilot does. Attitude - personal commitment to do well - is what counts most.

Every day I see pilots who fly frequently and who are complete rubbish; Their self-belief far outweighs their abilities, and since they believe themselves to be good pilots they will never actually improve.

The best pilots I see are the ones who push themselves to do better: Attitude, on-going training and experience are all in there.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Its interesting that in general you find that those who push the line that you don't need a specified qualification to do a particular job are those who lack the required qualification!

Dr :cool:

[PA39]

Why would any senior instructor want to stay or return to such a bastardised industry? You work your a**e off trying to do things by the book and get you're a**e kicked by some ex RAAF FOI hitler that just wants to destroy your ego. Some a**e wipe thats used to flying state of the art multi million dollar machinery, whose never had to fly heaps of s**t for a crust, or never conducted anNDB let down over some remote location in the middle of the night in rain and water dripping on their head!! They are not there to help you but to critisize you for the slightest error. For what? peanuts.

Instructing today is an absolute joke..........give 'em enough $$$ for 20 hrs flying and you're guaranteed a GFPT or a license irrespective of whether you really can cut it or not. Instruction by some grade 3 with 200 odd hrs that wouldn't have a clue how to really handle an aircraft and has never flown a decent charter let alone one in poor wx. So it continues on, the experienced guys leave and you are left with........the teachers who can't teach the teachers.Result s**t h***e pilots.

I've wandered off course a little in this post, but the whole Instructor rating/PPL/CPL training syllabus needs a big overhaul.

[poteroo]

PA39
We live in hope, but the much discussed change to CASR Part 61, does not yet show any light-at-the-end-of-tunnel. Part 61 is intended to replace CAR Part V, and CAO 40. They started on it in 2000, so who knows when it will be implemented. The so called Manual of Standards has not yet been published, and that might require 'improved' instructor training?

Unfortunately, it looks like instructing will become even more enslaved to this bureaucratic monster called CBT, (Competency Based Training). I cannot see how this alone will produce better instructors - in fact, it's a source of frustration to many, and probably a reason many are quitting instructing.

Unhinged, et al
I've had a look into the proposed CASR 61 in regards to instructing without holding a Class 1 medical, and there are certain limited proposals there.

See 61.130 (4) and, 61.660 (3) for these.

Frankly, they are possibly still a bit too restrictive, but it's what 61.660 (3) does not say which is encouraging. It really does allow for instructing in probably 80% of the work which might come in the flight school door, particularly specialist stuff like BFR's, type endorsements, ratings, currency checks etc.

Remember that the whole concept of allowing experienced, but non Class 1 medical, instructors back into harness is not about them doing a wearying full days work. Rather, it's intention is more toward older instructors filling in the gaps.

happy days,

[PA39]

Poteroo
It was a sad day when a senior FOI informed me in no uncertain terms that on an observed PPL test that I was too hard on the candidate. I failed the candidate for entering a heavy stall whilst recovering from an unusual attitude (spiral dive) under the hood. My personal training syllabus taught students how to survive, not just how to manipulate the flight controls. However thats not in the day VFR syllabus. Ask how many grade 3's have REALLY done spin training as part of their FIR. You'll be lucky to get an honest answer, but I can assure you there is a lot who have not. Why? because the guy who taught them, didn't do it either.
It can only get better!!

PS
The class 1 medical goes the same way. If you're in the "set" and you've a pot belly, beer gut and out of nick, you'll get by ok. If your out of the "set' and your over 55 then its the 14 point deal. Go over 14 points and your up for a $300 stress test etc etc, and if you're 55 or over gives away 12 of those points to start.

[Walrus 7]

Dr,

Where here has anyone said that unqualified people should be allowed to do certain jobs? If you believe that I said it, then please point it out to me. I have said that it is not your qualification that makes you a good pilot, it is your skill and attitude, and most of that comes through experience.

If it was the qualification, then I would be as good a pilot as you (or any other IFR pilot) the day after I got my ticket. I don't think so. That ticket really only means that I am considered safe enough to go out there and learn.

That's the same of any qualification, aviation-related or not; from a drivers' licence to a Diploma of Arts. I've seen many people come through my company waving a BA and they weren't worth a cracker until they had a couple of years in business under their belts. Flying is no different.

I understand your position but I think you're wrong. Sorry.

Walrus

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Its OK, I get the picture!

You only made 7th Walrus, and your still sh*tty about it!

Dr :cool:

I guess the other six take the p*ss outta ya huh!

[training wheels]

it is your skill and attitude, and most of that comes through experience.
And that should be relevant experience as well. Compare a 5000 hour PPL who's flown mostly cross country, or a 1000 hour instructor who's taught ab-initio and cross country many times over .. who do you think would be of better value to the student pilot?

[404 Titan]

Walrus 7
I have said that it is not your qualification that makes you a good pilot, it is your skill and attitude, and most of that comes through experience.
I’m sorry but most of it comes through good training first and foremost and then it is refined through relevant experience and supervision i.e. proficiency checks whether they be BFR’s, IFR renewals or company standardisation checks. Experience on its own doesn’t make a good pilot.

[Bendo]

Walrus

Sorry chum but you are only partly right, and I think Training Wheels has the other part of the story.

A PPL receives a minimum of 40 hours training - maybe more.

A CPL spends 3-5 times that with an instructor breathing down his neck and improving his standards.

Thousands of hours as a PPL tooling around the countryside on sly charters, doing low-passes outside the Aero Club, circling approaches cos you think you're and Ag Pilot and generally pulling your dick won't make you a professional.

These are the initial training standards we are talking about here. Lowering standards for instructor training will only lower the standard of pilot training that results. :=

[Unhinged]

Lowering standards for instructor training will only lower the standard of pilot training that results

Hear hear !

It still amazes me that so often we get our least experienced instructors to do the ab inito training. In those first few lessons when new pilots are learning foundational skills and attitudes which everything else builds upon, we should be putting them in the hands of the most competent instructors we can find. Less experienced instructors can then do a good job of building on that solid beginning.

Student pilots need the best instruction we can possibly offer, not the most expedient.

[Bendo]

I have had a few students that came to me from other schools in the region... much bigger "sausage factory" schools.

Because they are "only" a PPL student they are dicked around no end and when they finally get a Gr3 that will fly with them, all they get is their hand held around the nav route - no pre-brief, no de-brief - and "well that was OK but you'll have to do another check ride with the CFI before you can go solo nav".

Many of these students have fundamental technical problems that would have been nipped in the bud if they had flown with a GrI earlier in their training :{

[Lasiorhinus]

"well that was OK but you'll have to do another check ride with the CFI before you can go solo nav".



You'd think the student should be informed before setting out on cross country nav's with junior instructors, that no matter how well they fly, they'll have to do it all again AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE before being sent solo.

I did all my training up to PPL level with senior instructors and only senior instructors, under the philosophy that flying with them was a better use of my dollar. Yes, there were times that I couldnt get a lesson booked without having to take a junior instructor - so I accepted the delay and booked again for later.

If everyone did the same thing I did, junior instructors would find it almost impossible to make any money. This is, clearly, a poor situation for junior instructors, especially those who do indeed wish to make instructing their career.

Without getting into the instructor vs charter route debate for hour-building, I personally beleive that one should only become an instructor if they want to become an instructor, and then only when they have some knowledge to impart. I'm not going to attempt to define how much knowledge, but I did my own training under the philosophy that, all other things being equal, the instructor who'd been flying for a few decades would have more wisdom to impart than the one who did their TIF a year or so before I did mine.

[Unhinged]

Junior/less-experienced instructors have a huge amount to offer, and I get cranky at the generalisations that turn up about their perceived lack of ability - Many new instructors work extremely hard to be good at their jobs. But the truth is that they are still in the early stages of teaching; On-going check and training, coupled with increasing experience, will help them grow into well-rounded instructors.

It isn't sensible for students to insist on only senior instructors if there are others available. There are good and poor instructors at all levels - I reckon I've worked with the whole range.

But students whose instructors have not taught them about attitude flying, or the practical benefits of longtitudinal stability in an aeroplane, or how to really use the ground cushion when landing a helicopter, or indeed any of the real arts of flying will just take longer to reach the required standards.

Senior instructors to lay the foundations, junior instructors to help students develop and refine their flying skills, and then back to the senior instructors to put the final polish on - That's the way it should be. Then the students learn, the junior instructors grow and develop professionally, and the senior instructors are used to the best possible effect.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Damn it! Why wasn't I taught "how to really use the ground cushion when landing a helicopter" ?

Dr :cool:

[Unhinged]

Any time, good Dr :ok: !!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Oh yeah, maybe cause I only learnt on fixed wings!

Though some of my landings could sure do with a "ground cushion"!

:cool:

[Unhinged]

Dr ...
I bet BH pushes you hard about attitude flying each year at renewal time. Great instructor, delivering on the basics !

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Unhinged - Now there's someone with qualifications AND experience! Great combination.

Ah yes, Sideshow Bob makes me sweat for my renewals. He even makes me hand fly the FTDK!

Dr :cool:

[triadic]

The standards these days are way below what they should be. With very few and perhaps notable exceptions:

A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 10 or 15 years ago

Why is this so?

Many interwoven reasons no doubt, but include:


No minimum hours for instructing - I believe it should be >750hrs.

No adequate supervision by CFI's

Many sequences not taught as the instructor did not get taught it (too windy for x/w circuits!!!) yeah!

No regular checks of students by CFI or A/CFI to test product

CASA fails to understand what they have to regulate and FOIs don't do enough flying/tests.

CASA fails to check CFIs and senior instructors and fails to apply appropriate standardisation

Too many flying schools approved to do >CPL training = reduced standards


Why are these and the many other reasons behind generally poor standards and the failure of the regulator to address them? Easy: Commercial pressure

[autopilot_86]

Just Would Like To Know Where Does F Atpl Holders (200 - 250 Hours) End Up With A Job. I Am Aware That Minimum For Rex And Q Link Are 800 And 700 Hours Respectively. Does This Mean That F Atpl Holders Can Only End Up With An Instructing Job? Will It Be Possible For F Atpl Holders Ending Up With Rex Or Q Link If They Self Fund For A Saab 340 Or Dash 8 Type Rating? Thank You.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 10 or 15 years ago"

Wow! And they reckon I'm opinionated!

I would probably insert "Some pilots" for "A pilot".

In the last couple of years I have flown with a few reasonably new PPLs and CPLs on long X-country trips that were quite "charter trip"-like.

I have been impressed with their professionalism and abilities.

Somebody out there is doing it well!

Dr :cool:

[Unhinged]

A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 10 or 15 years ago

* No minimum hours for instructing - I believe it should be >750hrs.
* No adequate supervision by CFI's
* Many sequences not taught as the instructor did not get taught it (too windy for x/w circuits!!!) yeah!
* No regular checks of students by CFI or A/CFI to test product
* CASA fails to understand what they have to regulate and FOIs don't do enough flying/tests.
* CASA fails to check CFIs and senior instructors and fails to apply appropriate standardisation
* Too many flying schools approved to do >CPL training = reduced standards


A bunch of wild opinions, factually incorrect, and deliberately made as dramatic as possible.

"No minimum hours for instructing" - In which universe is that ?
And as for the headline statement, what a load of old cobblers.

It's a wind up.

[kiwi chick]

I have said that it is not your qualification that makes you a good pilot, it is your skill and attitude, and most of that comes through experience.

If it was the qualification, then I would be as good a pilot as you (or any other IFR pilot) the day after I got my ticket. I don't think so. That ticket really only means that I am considered safe enough to go out there and learn.

Have to stick up for Walrus here - I've met some absolute tossers who have JUST scraped through a CPL flight test and there is no way I would like be called the same kind of pilot as them.

I believe experience, combined with the attitude, and training, all come together in many, MANY different ways - with the total package not always being the most desirable. :(

I think that skill and attitude count for a lot, I most of mine I am sure I gained through experience. :ok:

[404 Titan]

kiwi chick

I don’t think anyone has said we agree that “qualifications” makes a good pilot. What I have said and I will stand up and be counted for it is that in very few cases does “experience” on its own make a good pilot. I will say it again, what makes a good pilot is: (In this order)

1. solid training,
2. a mature attitude,
3. proper and thorough ongoing training and checking and
4. to a lesser extent, experience.

Fact, experience on its own without the others mentioned above generally makes a poor pilot.

[trolleydriver]

So just how would you define a "good pilot" ????

Is it a pilot that can;

Always land the smoothest?
Maintain the closest tolerance on an instrument approach?
Turn knife edge onto final and roll out on the centre line?
Make all their radio calls exactly right?
Conduct a forced landing onto a football field and walk away?

I agree with 404, but some things just can't be taught and you can't put an old head on young shoulders no matter how much training you give them. Relevant experience is what counts :ok:

[Kickatinalong]

I'm grade 2 and My club pays just over $50.00/ hr in the air "$0" for briefs.I'm told that's the award, so we get award pay but not award conditions.
Kickatinalong

[triadic]

A bunch of wild opinions, factually incorrect, and deliberately made as dramatic as possible.

Hate to disappoint you, but for some years now the product has been nowhere as good as it was in the 70's and 80's, and as I said “few and perhaps notable exceptions” my experience supports that view.

Sure there has always been those below par, but these days it seems if you have the $$ you can get your ticket in a cereal pack! There continues to be sequences that get a tick in the box, but the student has never done. Why is that so?

I would probably insert "Some pilots" for "A pilot".

Sure it was a broad based statement, but I suggest it is close to the mark and many senior instructors I have spoken with over the past year or two have agreed with me. If you have been around for a while, you would know!

Please tell me how many schools have their CFIs fly with their instructors and students on a regular basis? How else do you monitor standards? Many tests are a joke and no ATO should be permitted to test his own students, especially above PPL.

Raise the bar and make it harder for schools to get >CPL training approvals

[corowacomet]

"..Many tests are a joke and no ATO should be permitted to test his own students, especially above PPL..."
I have either had training at or contact with five schools over the years for CPL, IR, renewals etc and can honestly say that schools that conducted their own testing had higher standards than the ones using external ATOs. This is my own experience only but I think the difference was very noticable.
External ATOs can become 'attached' to one organisation if it provides enough work and if there was a run of failures it would be more likely that a new ATO would be found rather than it provoking soul searching from the CFI.
I know of one school CFI/ATO who would not be asked to test students from surrounding training organisations even though they were desperate purely because his standards were high and failure would be a forgone conclusion. Again this is my experience only however I would be very interested in what others have to say on the subject.
The Comet.

[Unhinged]

Hate to disappoint you

Not disappointed at all - Your post was a series of personal opinions without any facts, statistics or other hard evidence to back them up, so you couldn't possibly expect to be taken seriously.

many senior instructors I have spoken with over the past year or two have agreed with me

Well, this senior instructor doesn't (obviously), and nor do any of the other senior instructors that I talk to every week.

My PPL(A) test was 1991, CPL(A) was 1992, so that seems to qualify me as one of those uber-pilots who you think are so much better than the yoof of today. In fact, of course, we were no better or worse then than the PPLs/CPLs being trained today.

I don't know what your particular gripe is, but clearly something has got under your skin. If you set out the facts to support your case we can have a reasoned discussion. Until then it is just a bunch of wild opinions, factually incorrect, and deliberately made as dramatic as possible.

[triadic]

My PPL(A) test was 1991, CPL(A) was 1992, so that seems to qualify me as one of those uber-pilots who you think are so much better than the yoof of today. In fact, of course, we were no better or worse then than the PPLs/CPLs being trained today.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and you may even be one of the "exceptions" that I mentioned. But then you need to look back at least another decade or more before your time to be even able to compare!

My PPL & CPL were both obtained in the mid '60's, so obviously we are from different worlds. I had been instructing for 20yrs when you did your CPL and with all due respect it is my opinion based on experience and seeing the product change at the end of the sausage machine. The rot had set in even before your time! We are now in at least the 3rd or 4th generation of a breed of instructors that really don't know what they don't know and as a result then don't teach the things they don't know! Even many FOIs and airline C&Ters are in that boat. In the airlines, it is sound and strick SOPS that save the day. Standardisation if you like! Sadly it is missing from many schools and many GA organisations.

The most obvious one to compare over the years is "airmanship". There is certainly a very different view and priority given to such teachings these days.

But as another poster said

1. solid training,
2. a mature attitude,

is a good place to start. But he failed to mention "standardisation" which is were the regulator and others don't seem to see is missing these days!

:ok:

[404 Titan]

triadic

I have to agree. I learnt to fly 22 years ago and looking back I can see that the rot with some of the schools was starting then. The only thing that saved the day then was that the DCA as it was then called did “ALL” the flight tests. No in-house flight test or freelance ATO’s. By the way while I didn't use the word “standardisation”, I did imply it in:
3. Proper and thorough ongoing training and checking.
:ok:

[Flintstone]

Fascinating subject and I look back on my instructing time with fond memories but the thing that's bugging me is this..............


Autopliot_86, why do you start every word with a capital letter?Just Would Like To Know Where Does F Atpl Holders (200 - 250 Hours) End Up With A Job. I Am Aware That Minimum For Rex And Q Link Are 800 And 700 Hours Respectively. Does This Mean That F Atpl Holders Can Only End Up With An Instructing Job? Will It Be Possible For F Atpl Holders Ending Up With Rex Or Q Link If They Self Fund For A Saab 340 Or Dash 8 Type Rating? Thank You.

[-_HowUdoiN_-]

triadic,

I am confused. If your saying the standard has dropped since the 60's and 80's, wouldn't that mean the 'good' pilots of these era's have created the 'poorer' quality product from their instruction techniques and or quality of testing? Why do you propose this has happened?

[GA Instructor 977]

I dunno!
Yeah the pay is crap, but at the end of the day, what wages can the industry support.
I've been at both ends of the scale, my first boss paid me about $14000 for a year full time, but back then you considered yourself lucky to get a job with less than 500 hours. Now there are companies that do pay above the award, but they can't get people to relocate out of the major centres to work in a good job. The good jobs are not in the big cities, they are out bush with the smaller flying schools and charter companies!

[solowflyer]

If I had my time again I would definetly train with a smaller school. Did my PPL with a one man operation, we would quite often land on a beach somewhere or on an ag strip on a hill side. Then went on to do my CPL at a larger city flying school and they would not even let you land on an un sealed runway. Maybe its just me but I feel that I am alot better off from this previous training I had been given. Down with the sausage factories I say

[GA Instructor 977]

I definitely think that the smaller operators give the best quality. Having been a Chief Pilot at a small (4 plane) "bush" op (so yes I am a little biased) we trained every student as if they were going to be flying into the same short, rough and hairy remote strips in the same indistinguishable terrain as we did on charter. The students all enjoyed the experience, which is a world removed from a 1000m grass/gravel level, no obstacle "ALA" that you will get from the sausage factories. I did my training partly at a small bush school, and spent way too much money being stuffed around at one of the sausage factories. When I see my old bush instructors today, they still remember me, but the instructors from the sausage factories have no idea. I was just a number! finishing my CPL and doing my FIR with a small school, I got serious one on one instructing, not just "next please".
Also as an employee at these sort of operators, I have learnt that you will definitely get appreciated more than if you are 1 of 20 junior instructors.

[sprocket check]

GA Instructor

I couldn't agree with you more. I trained in a single instructor operation away from the city, spent 4 hours driving each way for my lessons!! in comparison to the city schools, well there just isn't one. As you say, a number, they pass you on the street as if you were a complete stranger. Not to mention the time you spend in the air is 98% of your lesson, not 60% as in BK. The learning environment is critical and I think the smaller operators that take care of their students are more effective. I know for a fact that hour for hour you get twice as much out of a small country school than a major city one. And probably pay less for it...

[Walrus 7]

One operator hinted to me that smaller schools are facing another problem: training of CPLs. With the new multi crew license coming in, the airlines are looking for people with multi crew and multi engine time. Many smaller schools are also charter operators and the instructors double as charter pilots. Whereas that is likely to get them good twin time in Barons, Senecas or Navajos, it's usually single-pilot ops. The flying schools want their pilots to learn how to fly the thing alone, which is exactly what the airlines don't want.

Now that the big 'chain store' schools will be sending CPLs direct to the airlines to fly under the multi crew rules (I think QF have said they will take 100 from direct entry next year?), it's better for the CPL to learn at a 'chain store' than it is via a smaller school because they will start earning better money.

The result is a threatening shortage of both quality instructors and charter pilots at the smaller schools. Admittedly, QF have said that they will still take 300 through the GA path, but if the new ticket is successful, that will likely reverse in the future.

Solutions, opinions etcetera eagerly sought.

Walrus

[404 Titan]

Walrus 7

I’m sorry but what you have said is aero club bar talk. Airlines will continue to employ pilots from a broad cross-section of the aviation community. All the MPL may do is change the way future cadets are trained and cadets after all have been around since the 60’s. Airlines need to through the net as far and wide to attract the pilots they need and at the same time keep pressure on terms and conditions, especially with the current pilot shortage world wide. Airlines will continue to employ pilots from the military, other airlines, GA and MPL (Cadet) schemes.

[M14_P]

Weigh up working for hopeless money for what it is you are trying to achieve in this industry. If the Airlines is where you are trying to go, put in those hard yards to get there, many many instructors have stuck at it at the local aeroclub around these parts and, made it into AirNZ and it's smaller carriers. It can be done, by being an instructor, so go do it, working as a storeman won't help you get into the airlines.
Or if it isn't for you, then don't moan about how bad it is and go do somethin else! :)

[mingalababya]

Undergoing training for the MPL at your own expense would be a big risk unless you're assured of a job after training. Because of this, I think there would still be many pilots willing to go through the traditional GA path as this gives more career options than what the MPL has to offer.

As for instructor shortages ... well, I'm wondering how many trainee instructors are there in Melbourne currently? I've been trying to get a mutual partner to complete my training, but not much success thus far. (I need another 12 hours of mutual).

[Walrus 7]

404,

It's not aero club bar talk. The issue was raised with me by a flying school CEO who is facing that as a reality. The consequences may not arise as dire as they could be, but it is a real concern.

That schools who operate charter don't want to teach their CPLs to operate in multi-crew environments is also not bar talk. Ring them and ask them.

Who can say what will happen? What ever it is, the flight training environment is going to change in Australia (see Doug Nancarrow's editorial in Aviation Business) and there are probably going to be casualties.

Walrus

[404 Titan]

Walrus 7

A perusal of my profile might enlighten you to my background. I have also been involved in recruitment in the past with my current employer here in Asia. The root cause of the problem for flying schools in Australia at present is too many schools scratching for too few students. When you take a look at the breakdown of student pilots over the last five years it becomes obvious that a larger and larger percentage of those students are foreign cadets. It is a fact that less Australians are training for a pilots licences and those that do have a licences are switching to RAAus to remain current as the cost of flying in GA has become prohibitive. Those schools that have traditionally trained cadets will have to establish a MPL course as that is what their client airlines will want. Those that don’t will wither away. I’m afraid the CEO person you have spoken too wants to blame the MPL, which by the way hasn’t yet started in Australia in any meaningful way, but soon will, for his/her own failings in recognising where the industry is going. I can assure you that my airline will continue to employ pilots from a broad cross-section of the aviation community. If they don’t T&C are likely to spiral out of control. Supply and demand at work.