Improving the lot of instructors

[time4achange01]

Hi,

New poster on this forum, but very interested in the way that Flying Instruction operates.

Seems to me that various regulatory structures have been put in place by a number of Government bodies. These structures form the framework within which instructors are employed; and often, it would seem, exploited. I'm referring, in particular, to employment legislation which provides the facility for Flying Instructors to be deemed "self-employed".

As many of you know, the title of "self-employed" provides a hefty stick with which you can be beaten.

How many of you fly overladen aircraft...particularly the smaller Cessnas and aerobatic details? How many of you send students out in marginal conditions...because you need the cash? How many of you extend your flying day to the point where you are seriously fatigued...because you need the money..or you daren't refuse to continue to work?

I think that most of these undesirable situations occur as direct results of the Instructor's employment status. It emasculates him.



When there's an accident/incident, the finger is pointed at the commander/instructor...we all know that he exists in a little sphere. Within that sphere, the commander exercises his authority and judgement without prejudice or external influence......and, of course, we also know that this is a convenient myth. The reality is that the Instructor's decisions are shaped by the financial realities of his world; and the lack of influence which he is able to wield.

I think that it is unacceptable for legislatory bodies to be able to divest themselves of responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

So, I propose to do something about it...or at least try. But I need your help.

I'm conducting research for a film which will illustrate how Flying Instructors are affected by their lack of employment rights...and how that lack influences their decision-making and, therefore, the safety of their students and all other air travellers who share the airspace.

This film will, at the very least, be circulated to concerned MPs, the CAA, HM Revenue and Customs and, of course, Youtube. If it's good enough, it may reach a still wider audience. I can't promise that there will be a change for the better. I can promise that, if you do nothing, there will be a change for the worse.

So, how can you help?

Well, your participation is vital. Without it, nothing can be achieved. What I'd like you to do is provide footage.

Take a video camera and relate your concerns/experiences. Most contributors will need to do this anonymously, by taking steps to hide their faces. If you can't do this successfully, I can do this for you. Similarly, I can dub another voice onto any recording that you make.

You will all realise what sort of footage I am looking for...powerful stuff, particularly that which illustrates the conflict between cash and safety. Try to be brief, though.

If you want to make specific allegations, the sort with names, you will have to reveal your identity to me. So, it's probably best to be non-specific. If you do reveal your identity to me, I promise that nothing short of a Court Order will compel me to make it known to a third party. Be brutally honest.

Once this stuff is in the public domain, it will be much harder for the legislators to feign ignorance.....and the next time that there's a fatality, they might have a fight on their hands.

Send your video evidence on DVD as an AVI, or better still, send the original DV tape. All evidence to be with me by end of March, please. I will edit, compile and be the conduit.

If you have good ideas on how to further this campaign, I'd like to hear those, too.

In the first instance, contact me by pm or email. I am sorting out a new postal address for your video packages. The address which I gave previously can no longer be used by me as it could be construed that my project was in some way linked to the University of Hull, which it is not.

[SkyCamMK]

You have a poor and misinformed view of the instructor role (I think) and should do a little more basic research perhaps from those who insist on being self employed and choosing when how and who to work for. Your objective is not one I would support. A career instructor is a completely different proposition and should be supported for those who like security and monotony. I have read some of the threads regarding status and there are some who suffer but a good motto is "Don't be a victim" A level playing field is uncommon so be prepared to play uphill until it is your turn to play downhill. Most instructors are using the job as a stepping stone. I will be interested to see what support you receive.

[time4achange01]

Thanks for the interest in this project. You are right, of course, the level of response will be the arbiter of this project's value. It could be that there is no case to answer...or that it just doesn't matter.

BTW, I see that you do aerial photography, using 150's. Would that be two crew and long-range tanks?

[homeguard]

I too find it appalling that anyone should wish to make a film about flying instructiing with the sole intention of portraying it as unsafe and dangerous.

A good start time4achange01 would first do research into the real instructing world. You will discover it is populated with very different people than what is suggested by you.

If your actual needs are what I believe them to be. Get yourself off, in the time honoured tradition, to a brothel - relieving, educational and fulfilling! The cold shower afterward will be just as stimulating! But most of all this experience will make a far more interesting film than a pack of lies promulgated by a random selection of anonymous halfwits, which is what you appear to be seeking.

Hardly an impirical a study.

[time4achange01]

What could be more empirical than the amalgamation of many instructors' experience?

The purpose is not to promote Flying Instruction as dangerous. That is just a means to an end; the end being an improvement in the working conditions of flying instructors. Of course, safety benefits accrue to this goal.

Why would instructors tell lies? If they do, they risk the consequences. I don't want to see lies.

Do you think that all of your colleagues are halfwits; or only the ones that disagree with you?

BTW, what makes you think that I like girls?

[G_STRING]

Timeforachange (or whatever your pseudoname is)

All my postings on this board have been for the reason of either trying to give, or receive help.

To yours, I make an exception.

What a sad, mis-informed t**p**t you come over as. If you think that the sort of deception you advocate will ever improve the intructors 'lot', then you are not only deceitful and sly, you are living in la la land.

G_STRING (an inspiring instructor)

[TheOddOne]

Be brutally honest.


OK, I will.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I know of one flying school where a new instructor wanted to be self-employed, but after a few months the management said that they thought it didn't comply with HMCR guidelines as the instructor had been working more or less full-time for them. The instructor is now, I believe, on a salary + flight pay.

All the schools that I know of are very insistent on having a strict code of weather conditions for solo student flight and provide proper supervision especially of new instructors. I don't know of ANY instructor who is pressured into flying if conditions aren't suitable.

Sorry, chum, no takers here. Why not go and make a film about lax standards of lecturing at Briish Universities and how they dish out degrees for any old subject like cornflake packet coupons?

TheOddOne

[ProfChrisReed]

I think you are all right to be a little suspicious of the original posting.

My concerns were raised in the thread originator's third posting, "What could be more empirical than the amalgamation of many instructors' experience?" As a Professor of some years' standing, I can say that this is not a definition of empirical which would pass muster in any respectable University (of which Hull is one). Sample bias, as a starter.

A little research reveals that the University of Hull does have a Logistics Institute at that address, but BCG Bridgepoint Limited has a different address. BGC's business is in supply chain consulting, not making films about flying instructing. The Logistics Institute offers membership to local businesses and individuals, but again this is not the kind of research in which it engages.

I've alerted the Director of the Logistics Institute and also BCG.

If my conclusions are mistaken, the original poster could always respond to correct my conclusions.

[time4achange01]

G-string (or whatever your pseudoname is). Do try to be nice. Nobody likes a keyboard warrior, you know.

Deceptive and sly...I don't think so. I think that I've been very open as to my intentions and methodology.

If there is no problem within the industry, no-one will make any video contributions and my project will simply die. There's really nothing to get excited about. If there are problems, then they should be addressed. Who can argue with that?

Of course, I expect there to be resistance from people who expect to suffer from instructors having a fair deal. Obviously, I don't know whether the contributors to this thread fall into that category since, like me, they remain anonymous.

Time for me to bow out, I think, before any more unpleasantries head my way.

[hotcloud]

I cannot believe some of the responses from my fellow instructors relating to the thread Time4achange01 started. It really saddens me to read some of the replies. At least if you disagree with Time4achange01 please afford the courtesy he/she deserves. I have been instructing for over 10 years and have always been respectful to others, if I disagree with someone, I at least try to put forward my views in a constructive manner. Time4achange01 I can only apologies for some of my fellow instructors, hope that you continue to put forward your views.

[time4achange01]

Professor, I couldn't resist. Here's what the dictionary says about empirical:



Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?empiri02.wav=empirical')) Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\ Variant(s): also em·pir·ic http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?empiri03.wav=empiric')) \-ik\ Function: adjective Date: 1569 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data> 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory> 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws> 4 : of or relating to empiricism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism)
— em·pir·i·cal·ly http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?empiri04.wav=empirically')) \-i-k(ə-)lē\ adverb



The bit about observation or experience nails it, for me. I'm asking people to relate their experiences.

The sample would be self-selecting, as you point out, but that doesn't invalidate its evidence. You're not a scientist, I think, but a lawyer. I'm neither.

But let me make this my null hypothesis.."there is no problem to be addressed within the instructional industry".

Just one piece of evidence to the contrary will allow me to reject this null hypothesis.

Does that work? It's late. Perhaps there's a scientist out there who can straighten out my thinking, if I have it wrong.

I don't understand why you guys are being so defensive. My post has clearly touched a nerve or two.

As to being suspicious, Professor. What's to be suspicious about? I've stated my intentions pretty clearly. I'm not trying to bamboozle anyone. I want to improve the industry for the ordinary guy.

Seems to me that you should be climbing aboard, or else coming up with some reasoned objections to my project. I haven't heard any reasoned objections, yet. The advice to "get laid", whilst welcome and surely well-meant, hardly constitutes a valid objection to my proposed film.

If you think that my project will do more harm than good, fight your corner...let's hear it.

I would have expected you, as an academic and lawyer, to welcome any attempt to bring a measure of dignity to the instructors' profession.

And just what is the relevance of my mailing address?

[ProfChrisReed]

The relevance of the mailing address (now edited out, I see) is that it suggested that this was a project being undertaken by BCG Bridgeport Ltd, a respectable management consultancy, and the Logistics Institute at the University of Hull, a respectable university.

My inquiries have discovered that this is not true - neither is responsible for the original posting.

My objections are simple:

1. Misattribution of this kind can cause real damage to the victims of the misattribution.

2. The proposal suggested it was an academic research project, whereas at best it could be described as a piece of (I presume amateur) journalism. There's nothing wrong with journalism, nor indeed with highlighting abuses of any kind, but this is not academic research.

3. Lawyers, surprisingly to some perhaps, generally have a profound respect for the truth. I think the original posting was deceptive, and thus it annoyed me.

I used to be an amateur instructor on gliders, which is why I look in on this forum, but have no connection with professional flight training and thus no axe to grind.

Anyone who wishes to participate in this project, now that its true basis has been identified, should of course feel free to do so. One of the other things lawyers tend to like is free speech, and time4achange01 should note that I've never suggested he shouldn't put forward his views or attempt to carry out his project. However, he or she should take care not to mislead his readers.

[woodcoc2000]

time4change01
How many of you send students out in marginal conditions..

never!! as an instructor i care too much about the student and my own license to send them out solo in marginal wx.. there are also rules to follow with regards to this and i have never broken them. Indeed with some students; i make sure the wx is near perfect. all instructors i know of would do the same; it would not be a nice feeling seeing a student of yours going off into an un-friendly sky..

as for working long days yes i have and have been damn tired too; but if i had deemed it dangerous would not have continued. same with other instructors i know of..

go and get your video evidence; but i reckon in the un-edited version all you will see is good judgement.
all the best

[timzsta]

If we have grievances to raise about safety issues as Instructors we will raise them through the appropriate channels. Firstly we will talk to our line managers and employers. If we are not satisfied we will raise them through the CHIRP programme. If still not satisfied we will raise them with the Regulatory Authority - namely the CAA.

We will not raise them with somebody on PPRUNE.

[VFE]

If you want to know why instructors might not earn as much as they should then you only need look at what FTO's are charging for a flying lesson these days. Indeed, just look at the advert featured at the top of this page for example:

Multiflight: still charging £29'950 for Zero to CPL/IR - exactly the same price they were quoting almost SEVEN years ago! How can these schools still manage to do this when instructors are crying out for a better wage? I'll tell you a possible answer to the problem.......

The schools need to unite for once and set base levels for what they will charge and blacklist those schools who undercut the industry-set standard. Until then, flying schools will continue to charge the customer way under-inflation prices and the instructors will continue to earn less than what we deserve for what remains a very challenging, respected and highly professional job.

VFE.

[Whirlybird]

Your basic premise is wrong! I've been self-employed almost all my working life (and I'm approaching retirement age) both before and after I became a flying instructor. I've insisted on remaining that way. Why? Because then I'm the one who decides what I will or will not do. I'm my own boss, and I can't be manipulated into doing anything I don't want to do. And your list...How many of you fly overladen aircraft...particularly the smaller Cessnas and aerobatic details? How many of you send students out in marginal conditions...because you need the cash? How many of you extend your flying day to the point where you are seriously fatigued...because you need the money..or you daren't refuse to continue to work?

Well, I've never done any of those things, or anything similar. But if I did, it would be MY decision! Whereas if I was an employee, my boss could insist I work longer hours or whatever. You've got it precisely backwards.

We self-employed, if we've got any sense, always make sure we have enough strings to our bows that an employer needs us more than we need them. Most flying instructors I know are either hourbuilding - in which case instructing gives them the hours for free - or they have another source of income, or they're well-established career instructors who are respected and needed. And they have no boss to say they can't take other jobs or work for other flying schools or whatever...as can happen if you're an employee.

I don't often criticise strongly, but you, mate, are talking rubbish! Go find people who really, really need your help - such as self-employed cleaners, or worse wtill the ones who aren't self-employed and get treated like slaves!

Finally...

I think that most of these undesirable situations occur as direct results of the Instructor's employment status. It emasculates him.


As a self-employed, independent, female flying instructor, I really, really think you should delete that statement.

[DennisK]

Hi pruners, can a rotary guy butt in to your thread please?

The wonderful thing about these forums is the freedom to express ... but reading through some of the more extreme posts on this thread, I find it unsettling to see the level of venom that has appeared on the subject. I cannot believe the various posters stopped to think through the effect of such words on our industry image.

A pprune contributor has expressed a desire to investigate a particular area of aviation employment and any adverse effects. The stated aim was to improve instructor conditions. Yes .. We all support that.

The initial post sounds a very reasonable project but for what my tuppence is worth ... probably doomed to failure.

The flying training industry is alive and well. But yes ... pay conditions are not good. How can it be otherwise in a situation where the activity is so pleasurable that person A is prepared to pay £300 an hour for the experience, (rotary) and person B receives payment for doing the self same thing.

I never like to admit that I have been a flyer for over 50 years, and was a CAA approved examiner for 30 years. I've owned two flying schools and three AOC companies, (fixed and rotary - employing half a dozen instructors & commercial pilots) and, on leaving the RAF, worked as a freelance instructor/examiner myself for the first ten years as a paid employee.

In that time, I have never, ever seen or heard any instructor or commercial pilot do any of the things originally suggested. It just doesn't happen in spite of the original poster's assumed financial temptations or threats on jobs. 99% of all instructors I have known or employed - have been absoutely professional, particularly in the areas of safety and student welfare. The one per cent was a real oddball on the money although still a safe pilot.

The SAFETY word is and hopefully always will be, the prime consideration in our flying business, and that approach is the only one I have observed in my many years in the flying training and other areas of this industry.

Even today, having almost totally retired and with my business sold, I still receive letter/e-mails from newly qualified FI (r)s seeking employment for little or nil pay. Understandably they want to be part of the charisma of our flying world.

As an ex employer, I would never take up such offers. We need to raise the salary bar somehow ... but I don't have a definitive answer as to how we achieve that.

IF and it is a big if ... we can persuade our customers to pay more, (ie a realistic rate) that is one answer. The same problem exists in the maintenance side of the business. Our customers will pay more, but only if we let them understand the years of training, dedication and professionalism ... AND the associated safety they are about to receive and also providing the the industry doesn't break ranks. We need to be aware of monopoly rules of course.

Pilot's union ... another possible solution perhaps, and not the existing bodies. Balpa seem to manage it!

But to close good buddies ... leave the venom to the crap press ... we still have the ordinary decent rules of economics. No story ... no profit. The furore will go away.

Good and safe flying to you all out there. Young and like me ... not so young!

Dennis Kenyon.

[Whirlybird]

Dennis, excellent post. :ok::ok::ok:

[portsharbourflyer]

IR35 compliance rules do suggest that it is a very grey area for a Flying Instructor to be a truly independent contractor (self employed). These are the HMRC rules the Oddone refers to.

The main reason to go self employed through a limited company is to benefit from the been able to write expenses off against tax and recieve payment through dividends of a limited company, thus avoiding having to pay national insurance on a good percentage of your earnings. I am aware some self employed people still operate on a PAYE basis; which means there is little tax benefit from self employed status.

Now it is certain that as a restricted instuctor needs to be supervised then no way can a FI(R) be self employed. A self employed FI (unrestricted), then it is possible to work on a self employed basis providing that you are working for more than one school or change your place of work within a certain time period, (plus you would also need to organise your own public liability insurance and such forth).

The main concern of HMRC are the "disguised employee", ie: those who claim to be indepedent contractors for the tax benefits but have remained at the same place of employment for so long that they cannot be distinguished from the permanent staff. These "permy-tractors" have got away with it by and large due to the cost of auditing someone for IR35 compliance.

Just because someone has been operating on a self employed basis doesn't necessarily mean they would pass the IR35 compliance criteria. If you are operating on a self employed PAYE basis then HMRC don't care as they are not really losing out on any tax.

[Whopity]

Now it is certain that as a restricted instuctor needs to be supervised then no way can a FI(R) be self employed. Why not? What has supervision got to do with employment? They may have a PPL and cannot be employed. What about a members club where there are no employees? I know numerous FI(R)s who only instruct part time, some at more than one school and they are certainly not employed as Instructors!

[portsharbourflyer]

Whopoty RTFQ or FTFT,

Statement was "SELF EMPLOYED" not employed.

Go back and re read my post and attempt to understand the context and applicability of what was written.

The issue is employees using self employed status to obtain certain tax benefits and employers making people work on a self employed basis to minimise costs etc, in some cases this can be done legally if certain guidelines are followed, however in serveral instances it is a a low level of financial fraud.

[homeguard]

portsharbourflyer

Your difficulty appears to be that your world is one of the Employer and the Employed.

But, that is not everyones view and we are all free to be as we please. It is not the role of the Inland Revenue to dictate whether or not you have to go to work for someone else or not, that is your choice. The HMRC job is to collect tax - a different issue.

I did a straw poll of the instructors that I work with and everyone without exception wished to be self-employed although for differing reasons.

You make an incorrect assertion that by being self-employed you are required to hold Public Liability insurance, not so. For the purposes of the clubs insurance all instructors whatever their status will be covered and also within the 'Employers Liability, insurance although some may be 'self-employed'.

The guidance issued by the HMRC only show criteria that they will accept without question but it is not the law. Nor is it intended to be a definition of employment/employed status. There are many others issues in that regard other than tax.

[Whirlybird]

There is nothing to say an FI(R) can't be self-employed. Imagine the scenario: "Please come to work for me for the next two days and I'll pay your usual rate; I can supervise you, and you can then go back to whatever/wherever you were before". Nothing written anywhere saying that's illegal.

However, insurance is a different issue and depends on the insurance company. The flying school I work for checked this specific point recently, and self-employed insructors are NOT, REPEAT, NOT covered by the flying school's insurance. I suggest you all get your own ASAP.

[portsharbourflyer]

Homeguard and Whirlybird your statements are correct, but you are still missing the point.

Whirly, if a restricted instructor chooses to go and work somewhere on a one off basis then if full PAYE tax is paid on the earnings then no issue then no problem with that, however that should be considered temporary employment or casual employment. If the same instructor is trying to place those earnings through a limited company or a sole tradership in order to gain tax benefits then there is an issue. There is nothing written directly to say a restricted instructor cannot be self employed but the way I interpret the guidelines for self employed / independent contractor status it would suggest all restricted instructors would need to be employed.


Homeguard, correct it is up to an individual to choose to be self employed, however the self employed status is subject to the guidelines. Yes HMRC are responsible for collecting tax. Now if you are using the self employed status to gain tax benefits with regard to claiming back VAT, putting expenses against tax or using a limited company to receive payments via dividends then the HMRC can ask you to demonstrate that you meet the self employed / independent contractors criteria. If it is considered that you do meet the criteria then you will be liable for back tax bills. You may know that HMRC are very keen to determine those that are self employed and those that are "disguised employees".

Homeguard, yes there may be other issues aside from tax, but it is only when the tax isuses are missused anyone in authority will be interested.

If an individual is outside those guidelines then you may have to argue the case to a tax auditor one day.

[BEagle]

time4achange01, why not make a film about something more important...

The threat to UK GA posed by EASA, thanks to Brown and his gang of traitors signing us over to Europe.

[homeguard]

whirlybird

If as you say and you are correct I would suggest that your club reviews their insurance immediately.

Remember that the situation is complex. The self-employed flight Instructor is flying within the clubs aircraft, with the clubs student/member. They are acting on behalf of the club and the club is paid by the student. In this situation the instructor will find it difficult to obtain Public and Employer Liability Insurance in their own right. The law that applies to the definition of employees can be different from the definition with regard to tax rules. For instance it is possible for a Tribunal to rule a person an employee while at the same time the HMRC accepts the same persons self-employed tax status.

portsharbourflyer

Look up Mal Scaffolding v HMRC. Mal Scaffolding won this appeal emphatically and in reality blew the HMRC guidelines apart.

Because people may put themselves in the best tax position they do not, by doing so, become awful people. As the judges in the above appeal pointed out the HMRC hardly sought to be objective and fair to the appellent during their investigations.

[Falconideo]

I never considered being a FI.

Pay is c##p and I considered it a job for people that weren't up to scratch for proper comercial flying jobs.

My own story is: My dad is a traing cpt for Monarch and he made sure that my training was very thorough and therefore he decided that I should start flying the 76 as soon as I left OAT's APP 276.

Also, an FI is not really a Commercial Pilot, I always thought of them as Flying Prostitutes that fly for food!

I guess some people are lucky, other are good pilots...:rolleyes:

[Nearly There]

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[SkyCamMK]

Falcon Idiot more like, I know it's good to have a wind-up occasioanally but if you really are serious then you are a sad sad person...

[DennisK]

For Falconideo

All views are welcome on this forum, but I cannot agree with yours.

Can I just mention that as an ex service pilot, ex PT pilot that now holding professional licences for both fixed wing and rotary, and approaching 15,000 hrs civil hours ... over the years I have owned and run on a day to day basis, three public transport businesses and three flying schools, (fixed and rotary)

I suppose in that time I might have employed a couple of dozen line pilots and a similar number of instructors. All I can say is that for what my judgement was worth, I soon learned that any pilot who had spent more than a few years in flying instruction was invariably a more rounded and usually safer pilot in difficult conditions than the non instructor variety.

I've lost count of the occasions I put a newly qualified CPL in a difficult emergency situation which resulted in a poor recovery, but cannot recall a single occasion when this happened with a new CPL who had extensive flying instruction experience.

I believe you should re-examine your correspondence and re-consider a poorly thought out post.

However, we all agree, instructor pay is too low, but most instructors, particularly rotary, will tell you job satisfaction is high, certainly higher than the years I spent poling a lumbering old giant straight and level at 35,000 feet.

Hope you like the solid old S-76. Unless its a ++

Dennis K.

[OneIn60rule]

FI pay stinks but that's if you start at the beginning of the food chain.

As you get more *rights* i.e. teach commercial, instrument and multi, you receive more money and can pick where you wish to work.

I never found a job at the airlines, I guess I must be a really bad pilot? No, I did not have the hours that's about it.

A commercial pilot with an Instructor Rating is much more aware of things as far as i'm concerned.

It seems that the BIG COCK's got their heads twisted a bit too much nowatdays.

*Oh look that man flies a 737, he is the best there is*

*Oh look that guy's an instructor.. did you know those are the ones that were too **** to get a job at the airlines?*
(If this is true that must mean we are cranking some really dangerous pilots)

This attitude doesn't surprise me the least.

/end

[Duchess_Driver]

Falconideo....


"My own story is: My dad is a traing cpt for Monarch and he made sure...."


Nuff said you @rse.

[davidcoe77]

Number one rule in Aviation. Try hard to get along with everyone on your way up then you wont get shafted too badly on your way back down.:O

[RwyWetWetWet]

Nice one Dennis:ok:

I am glad to see that so many people agree on the poor pay instructors get. It must surely mean something, specially now that there are not many of us around.

I noticed that some outfits are already raising their salaries (18K for ppl fis), and they are actually getting experienced instructors from lower paying aero clubs.

Some of us do it for the satisfaction we get, but it would only be fair if there was a consistent salary meaning we could actually pay the bills!

Cheers,

[portsharbourflyer]

Homeguard,

Been away for a few weeks, so sorry for the delay in replying.
Very interesting the MAL Scaffolding case vs HMRC, I can see the argument you are proposing. As said it is a grey area and we could debate it for hours.


PHF

[homeguard]

portsharbourflyer

We could indeed.

the two most important parts of the judgement which sets out new ground is;

a) the right of an individual to be employed/self-employed as they and the contractor see fit.

b) That two individuals working side by side both doing the same job can as each agree with the contractor, one be self-employed whilst the other is an employee.

Both the above decisions alters the HMRC standards significantly. It was as; a) you are employed when assessed against defined criteria pretty much in the same way that is decided in a Employment Tribunal, you have no personal choice and b) Should you be doing the job that an employee does normally then you are an employee for tax purposes.

In the particular case heard the employee was different in that, when there was no scaffold work they had to attend the yard and do whatever work the employer stiplulated such as tidying and maintenance etc. The self employed worked on a fixed price and attended only to complete the work previously agreed as the contract.

[G-STAL]

I'm sure your Training Captain Dad will be really proud of you when he reads your post.

Remember that it was an FI who set you on your path to your S76.

Aviation used to have a culture of respect!!

[Falconideo]

I have to apologise, for leading everyone to believe that I fly a S76...It's actually a B767NG!

"Remember that it was an FI who set you on your path". Absolutely, he was an excellent pilot... however, I paid him breakfast a few times to save him from starvation.

[Duchess_Driver]

A 767NG - wow!

Still an @rse

[2close]

Seriously,

Do we, as sub-standard CPLs :{ and FIs, have any representative body (apart from AOPA) that we can join?

Can we join BALPA (Falconideo goes into uncontrollable spasm at this suggestion!) or any other pilot's organisation?

I am already a member of AOPA UK and AOPA US but feel there may be some room for something more specific for FIs.

There are many non aviation professional bodies in existence, some good, others not, but an officially recognised professional body, specifically by FIs for FIs, with formal structure, legal status, membership levels, representation, etc. may not be a bad idea.

I'm only brainstorming but are there any opinions?

2close

[lady in red]

Three years ago we set up the Professional Flying Instructors Association to assist instructors with all sorts of issues including legal, insurance, employment etc. We have regular meetings and invite speakers from CAA and other parts of the industry, usually held at Shoreham Airport. So far, although we have a successful regional group in the South, trying to get a group going in the North has proved more difficult. We are also trying to get a group started in the Cranfield/Coventry region.
We are hoping to get a website launched shortly and recently did a test run on a magazine, but it is hard to do all of this with a volunteer committee of one (plus various cooptees for projects) and minimal funding. The will is there, but more members are needed and more people willing to help. One of the members posted on this subject a couple of years back, but publicity is in short supply. So any volunteers or potential members (£10 per year to join) send me a PM.

[VFE]

Lady In Red,

Sounds super, but your post does not fill me with enthusiasm! I could chuck you a tenner but where's that gonna go exactly? First and foremost is the requirement for transparency. Then we may might forward....

VFE.