US Flight Instructor Conditions

[CAVU]

I am finally leaving the world of the underpayed, overworked flight instructor, and find myself with enough time to reflect on the outrageous conditions many instructors are forced to endure.

At all levels, flight instructors push the safety envelope whilst conducting their instruction, and to be sure, despite my own best efforts, there were many occasions when financial worries and severe fatigue certainly compromised the quality and safety, of my flight instruction.

The maximum 8 flight hour rule is often used to push instructors to fly well beyond the safe limits, and unscrupulous instructors use it to build time. In both cases, quality of flight instruction and safety are greatly compromised.

I think it is time the FAA took a closer look at these problems and legislates to limit daily and weekly duty hours for flight instructors. Airlines have had such limits for years, and I am baffled as to why flight instructors should be any different. I think the JAA, despite its' flaws, got it right in applying duty limits for FIs.


Some may argue that there are flight schools whose businesses would no longer be viable as the result of such rules, but my response to this argument is simple. If a company cannot afford to provide reasonable working conditions (and pay) to staff involved in flight safety then frankly they should not be in business. Flight training, and aviation in general, would be a better, safer and more enjoyable environments for it.

I am sure there are thousands of guys flying for the airlines now, who had to struggle much longer than I did, but still have a social concern for their younger pilots.

My questions are:

1. How many would be prepared to lend themselves to a lobby to the FAA, perhaps via AOPA?

2. Why would you not be involved in such and effort?

3. Does anyone have any other points to add to those already made?

[ 02 September 2001: Message edited by: CAVU ]

[ 02 September 2001: Message edited by: CAVU ]

[zerozero]

Funny that our respective callsigns are diametrically opposed.

Unfortunately so is my position on your strategy.

While I would whole-heartedly support improved working conditions for the nation's CFIs, I'm opposed to the practice of lobbying for special interests.

I'd much rather see the industry reform itself--or perhaps have the FAA take action on their own accord--than enlist the help of AOPA or any other special interest group.

Not to stray too far afield, but it's my feeling that special interest groups, political action committees, lobbyists and the like have undermined American democracy and I simply wish to stay out of it.

But still, I can't disagree with you that CFIs and other entry-level pilots are hopelessly exploited.

[CAVU]

zero zero.

I think industries, by their nature, rarely reform without outside pressure as completely free markets are only inclined to maximize their profits. And, of course, this takes place whilst paying little attention to the social consequences of their business practices.

I am a libertarian at heart, but I have realise very few men use the capacities which distinguish themselves from being mere animals, to sacrifice their own self interests for the welfare of others. This is the core reason for the existence of government, let alone the FAA and other groups.

I think "special interest' groups are a direct consequence of a democracy, but the problem for America is perhaps the disproportianate influence they wield in Washington.

I don't beleive I have ever seen this issue raised by the aviation press and don't know of another why to bring it to the FAAs' attention?

[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: CAVU ]