Flying schools going tits up.

[mad_jock]

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/362720-hmrc-again.html#

As can be seen on this thread the tax man is taking a challenge to court about the employment status of flight instructor. In a dispute with Sherburn Aero Club and an FI.

It has been a practise for years that some people try and avoid paying employers national insurance. To this end some schools forced FI's to work self employed and to be fair some FI's wanted this arrangement as well.

You might think why does this effect me?

Apart from those clubs who will go out of buisness taking with them any money on account. Some clubs are set up on a charity basis where each member is liable for a share of it debt's.

I will let ppruners who have more knowledge of law to comment on this.

But watch out if they win and they have a witch hunt around flying schools I can think of a fair few there are going to be tears before bedtime.

[IO540]

You should be OK, MJ, because in any scenario where HMRC determine that a "self employed" person was in reality an employee, it is the case that the alleged "employer" was deemed to be deducting PAYE.

It is therefore the employer who gets done by HMRC for the money they are deemed to have deducted.

This is the standard trap for employers who use long term subcontractors. If the subcontractor status of the person is disallowed by HMRC, the chap can just smile and walk away, and the employer gets done for the deemed deductions.....

At least I hope I understand you correctly (an employer of all kinds of people for over 30 years).

[julian_storey]

I guess a flying school / club should be no different from any other kind of business though.

If an instructor works EXCLUSIVELY for one school / club on a 'self employed basis', then a 'master and servant' relationship will exist. In this situation, HMRC will try to argue that that the relationship is in fact 'disguised employment'.

On the other hand, if an instructor works on a self employed basis for a number of people, he / she is genuinely self employed and HMRC can then have absolutely no issue with the arrangement.

[mad_jock]

I know I am OK. I was always employed on PAYE. But had a couple of discussions with CFI's who had definite views about FI's had to be self employed or they weren't getting a job.

The reason why I posted this is because there could be a fair few schools go tits up due to the employer having to pay back payments and interest.

Its worth while students checking out how thier school is set up and flying balances off pretty quick if they have the self employed FI set up.

The clubs that are charitable there members could end up with a nasty bill.

[r44flyer]

I think it's about time there was some clarity on this situation, as from what I've been told in the past HMRC has largely ignored it. I think it's quite common to find self employed instructors contracted to just the one school.

Unfortunately, forcing instructors into employed status means money for NI payments etc will either drive down the salary of the FI or drive up the cost of rental, neither of which is a welcome idea right now. Margins at some flying schools are tight enough so I can't imagine they find it easy to absorb these new costs if PAYE is new to them. Some might well be in trouble.

[dublinpilot]

It's not just the employere NI.

There is an administrative cost in operating a payroll, especially where the hours vary, and those calculations have to be done for each payment.

[r44flyer]

True.

I hope no one starts flying for peanuts if it gets even worse than it already is.

[mad_jock]

I would disagree Dublin.

I used to do the wages for my ltd company which had 6 of us using it while contracting.

Each run takes 5 mins per person to enter it through the sheet and run the tables. Then 10 mins at the end writing all the cheques and envelopes. This went down to 1 min per person and 5mins for the cheques after I knocked up a spreadsheet and got printable cheques from the bank.

I will admit you do get people out there who make a living off making out payroll is difficult and alot of work, it isn't.

Mind you its a very common excuse thought for flying schools who don't want to pay NI contributions.

And it makes a huge difference to the FI with state benefits.

Also I have heard the minimum wage unit are looking at a few schools as well.

[IO540]

It comes down to whether the school wants to have employees in the legal sense.

Employees can be great or they can be dishonest, or all in between.

After 1 year you cannot just sack somebody. You can make them redundant but you have to abolish the position which means it cannot be filled for some (long) time. There are ways around it but they involve subterfuge like "reorganisation".

You can be sure the person is still in touch with friends in the company and if you make it possible to get sued the required information will find its way back to the ex employee and he will pop up at the Tribunal.

So there are excellent reasons for having SE people because they can be fired anytime, but equally if the work genuinely exists then it is a great solution for both parties.

HMRC attention varies widely and I've seen some amazing lapses of their attention, but also the very opposite.

Anybody using SE contractors should do the following

- get absolutely proper invoices from them
- make sure they bring their own equipment (PC, slide rules :) etc)
- pay them like normal trade suppliers (30 day terms)
- offer NO job/work guarantees of any kind whatsoever
- terminate the contract every few months, for a few weeks

and the list goes on; it's a well worn topic.

I should think that flight instruction is a perfect area for SE instructors because the workload varies so much.

OTOH the instructor has to make a living too so if he doesn't get enough dosh overall he will seek other employment......

[bigfoot01]

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. In my industry, there are examples of people doing this, in order to 'avoid ' tax. It goes like this, you pay your self up to the lower rate limit and then take the remaining money from the company as Dividends, (assuming you make this much). Hence you avoid paying higher rate tax (it used to be a bit better than that, but increases in captial gains taxes have wiped that out). You can also claim expences, e.g. if you are office based mileage to and from work; headphones; books; parking; etc. which are essentially tax free.

Another interesting one is where you pay an otherwise unworking partner to do secretarial work or similar to support your business, taking advantage of a tax free allowance.

Those nice people Customs and Revenues don't really like either first scheme where the person looks like an employee. E.g. single predominant source of income; working in the same role for more than 2 years; no contract, or a contract that looks like an employment contract. The sancation is they usually assume no more than 5% expences and the remainder is payed as direct pay, attracting PAYE; and both NI's. I suspect with the high training costs and potential around VAT losses, they will be looking at this area. During times of recessions, they tend to get very excited about enforcement...

The partner approach, they get suspicious if the partner does not seem to bring in money or direct value cannot be found in the work. I think they recently lost a case on this, but I know it is an area causing people concern...

I think they can also go back 7 years!

[IO540]

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. In my industry, there are examples of people doing this, in order to 'avoid ' tax. It goes like this, you pay your self up to the lower rate limit and then take the remaining money from the company as Dividends, (assuming you make this much). Hence you avoid paying higher rate tax (it used to be a bit better than that, but increases in captial gains taxes have wiped that out). You can also claim expences, e.g. if you are office based mileage to and from work; headphones; books; parking; etc. which are essentially tax free.

Another interesting one is where you pay an otherwise unworking partner to do secretarial work or similar to support your business, taking advantage of a tax free allowance.

Those nice people Customs and Revenues don't really like either first scheme where the person looks like an employee. E.g. single predominant source of income; working in the same role for more than 2 years; no contract, or a contract that looks like an employment contract. The sancation is they usually assume no more than 5% expences and the remainder is payed as direct pay, attracting PAYE; and both NI's. I suspect with the high training costs and potential around VAT losses, they will be looking at this area. During times of recessions, they tend to get very excited about enforcement...

The partner approach, they get suspicious if the partner does not seem to bring in money or direct value cannot be found in the work. I think they recently lost a case on this, but I know it is an area causing people concern...

I think they can also go back 7 years!

I think there are some misconceptions in your post, bigfoot.

First, dividends don't save income tax; they merely avoid NICs. But they deprive you of the ability to fund a PP.... so in the long run, assuming you are a lower rate taxpayer in retirement than before, you lose out there. Also divis can be paid only out of distributable profits.

Expenses, yes, but only if incurred wholly in the running of a business.

The partner case you probably refer to was a famous but quite specific married couple case where the wife was paid dividends. Had they been unmarried, or had she drawn a salary, it would not have applied.

As you suggest, the whole picture hangs on a list of indicators, and a smart contractor will keep as many of these in place as possible.

Finally, I wouldn't call the Revenue 'nice people'. They are aggressive cynical bastards, who know that anybody who is actually successful will always write a cheque to keep his life simple, so if one is into boats, horses or planes, they will hit you with an "enquiry" knowing full well that you will settle somewhere between the cost of hiring a tax barrister (£10-20k) and what they ask you for. A busy inspector can run a few dozen such "enquiries" concurrently, and he gets indirect commission on his recoveries. The punters who want their day in court, or who want that strange concept called justice, are usually the less successful ones, and the inspector will try to avoid those.

[Fuji Abound]

The badges of employment versus self employment are well established before the Courts. In the vast majority of instances it will not be difficult to determine status. It would be ridiculous to argue that all FIs should be employed or self employed.

There are many features of the work undertaken by a FI and his relationship with school(s) which would dispose to the possibility of either arrangement.

IO540

On a minor point of order you dont deprive yourself of being able to fund a pension as the current rules only take account of your employment history in the run up to obtaining pensionable age. That said, there would be some that would question the benefits of funding a pension these days!

You are otherwise correct in your comments.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

You should be OK, MJ, because in any scenario where HMRC determine that a "self employed" person was in reality an employee, it is the case that the alleged "employer" was deemed to be deducting PAYE.
Unless the contract is between the school and a one-man limited company owned by the contractor, in which case HMRC go after the one man under IR35.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If an instructor works EXCLUSIVELY for one school / club on a 'self employed basis', then a 'master and servant' relationship will exist. In this situation, HMRC will try to argue that that the relationship is in fact 'disguised employment'.

On the other hand, if an instructor works on a self employed basis for a number of people, he / she is genuinely self employed and HMRC can then have absolutely no issue with the arrangement.
Wrong on several counts.

Having only one client does not produce a "master and servant relationship" or make you a "disguised employee" - employment status law is much more complicated than that, and people have won against HMRC in court despite having only a single client for several years. (You are however right that HMRC will try it on.)

Similarly, whilst having more than one client is a jolly good indicator that you are not a "disguised employee", and the odds could well be in your favour, this is not a magic bullet, and you could still be found to be a "disguised employee".

There is one very simple rule to remember about employment status: "there is no magic bullet", and hence no simple cases.

[Say again s l o w l y]

This could be a very big thing really.

Clarification is really required, there are schools out there taking the p*ss royally, but the arrangement sometimes suits FI's as it allows them to Foxtrot Oscar at short notice if something better pops up.

For people like me, this won't make a difference, but for full time FI's whose sole income is from one school it should be good.

Many clubs and schools need to get more organised anyway, this will force it to happen.

It may even help them keep a closer eye on the accounts. Many schools have gaping holes and there have been a lot of cases where people have taken the mick something chronic and have only been found out a long time after the fact.

In good schools this won't make a huge amount of difference, but with some of the hookier ones, this will make things better if it goes through.

[Mike Cross]

AFIK the general rule is that if the payer dictates when and how the job is done HMRC will view it as employment. If the worker decides it then it can be treated as self employment.

Example
You pay someone to paint your house. He provides the materials and does the job his way to his own timetable, self employment.
You obtain paint ladders etc and employ someone to do the painting at an hourly rate under your supervision at set times, employment.

I suspect that the pitiful wages of FI's mean HMRC have more rewarding targets to pursue.

WRT clubs owned by their members. They are generally companies limited by guarantee with each member typically guaranteeing one pound, which is the most they can be called on to pay. The clue is in the word "limited".

As for schools run as charities, I'd love to see one that's registered with the Charity Commissioners!

[IO540]

the arrangement sometimes suits FI's as it allows them to Foxtrot Oscar at short notice if something better pops up.

The thing is that an employee can FO at zero notice anyway and there is nothing whatsoever the employer can do about it. The employer still has to pay the employee for hours actually worked. Obviously the employee won't get a reference from that employer but he won't need one because he has already found himself a new job :)

The stuff about having to give notice works in only one direction: against the employer.

In the end, if the business is there, then various formulae will suit different people. If the business is not there, no amount of employee protection will do anything because the employer's business will go TU.

[belowradar]

Aviation is a funny business where many (not all) clubs exploit young keen and eager pilots desperate to log hours and jump to the airlines. This is a mutually exploitative relationship normally with a good turnover so nobody gets exploited for too long.

Club gets good income from trial lessons and instructor logs hours and eventually lucks out.

Unfortunately the rest of the world operates slightly differently in that most people want to earn a decent income and have some written terms of engagement with benefits (pension etc). Most organisations are happy with this concept and are able to pay said benefits.

I would like to see these existing tax rules enforced so that some shoestring clubs fail with the better more law abiding ones remaining. Good news for self employed instructors and employed (but only if you really are self employed as per normal tax interpretation).

[mad_jock]

The problem is certain individuals have started using the references as a weapon against any FI who goes against the status quo.

From personal experience until the 5 years is up it can become a horrendous battle to get any airport ID issued.

[bigfoot01]

IP540 You are probably right, and I probably don't understand these things :-)

I will observe, however, that transferrence of income from income at a higher rate tax to Dividends does provide a marginal advantage...

[BabyBear]

bigfoot, the greatest advantage of dividends is actually up to the 40% threshold. Take minimum salary to ensure NI is credited whilst minimising your contributions and then take dividends above this, which no tax is actually paid on, up to the 40% threshold. The company of course has to pay corporation tax on the dividends as they are profit. This assumes the company is profitable enough to pay the dividends or that they are coming from reserves.

Above the 40% threshold the tax to pay is 32% (unless it's changed recently) and no NI on dividends from individual or company.

The total tax paid is generally the same whether salary or dividend route, the difference is whether the employee or employer pays it. IE PAYE (20%/40%) plus NI or PAYE (32%) and corporation tax.

BB

[S-Works]

MJ, I think your title of the thread is a little melodramatic and the reality of this is it effect very few people. I am guessing from your tone that there is some history there somewhere?

Most schools I know have the full timers on PAYE and the part timers can be either. Which makes sense to me.

[IO540]

The total tax paid is generally the same whether salary or dividend route, the difference is whether the employee or employer pays itIndeed, and in most scenarios where the business proprietor pays himself using divis, it is totally the case of the business being no more than a vehicle for his livelihood which he is free to run as he wishes (let's face it, what else is the purpose of a business?) so dividends do no more than avoid NIC.

I am not a tax specialist but I don't think there is any income tax saving, in any scenario.

Most instructors I have known were SE and some got as little as £10/day retainer. But they were all thumbing through airline job ads the whole time anyway and if I was the employer I would obviously strongly disapprove of that, especially so openly before customers. The tolerable attitude is different between a PAYE person and a SE person.

[mad_jock]

Not really I was on paye.

Some of the arseholes I came across running schools when i was an Instructor were shocking in the extreme. And the industry will be well rid of them and thier flying rafts.

You will be surprised how many it does affect the PAYE self employed can be quite regional. You could find that large areas of Britain suddenly loose a fair number of quite well known schools. And you know what these airports are like once there isn't a flying school on site the doors will be shut landing fees increased and another GA airport is gone.

Actually I just don't want PPL's to loose money when schools go tits up.

And the sitting all day for 10 quid is being looked at as well by the minimum wage unit. Cabair got done for that a couple of years ago. So sitting in the school unpaid answering the phone is going to be out the window as well.

[Say again s l o w l y]

MJ, I think your title of the thread is a little melodramatic and the reality of this is it effect very few people. I am guessing from your tone that there is some history there somewhere?

Most schools I know have the full timers on PAYE and the part timers can be either. Which makes sense to me.

No it isn't. The vast majority of schools/clubs operate this way. For part-time FI's who have proper jobs, then this matters not a jot, but for the backbone of the instructing community (The poorly paid airline seeking newbie) this will make a huge difference.

If this helps clubs sort their lives out and pay a living wage to Instrcutors, then this should hopefully benefit all in the long run. Though there will be casualties along the way.

Whether these casualties are missed, is a different matter.

[IO540]

With the obvious disclaimer that I have never run a flying school (instead spent 30 years in manufacturing) my guess is that a flying school is a damn hard business to run.

Unless you have a super catchment area, and an exclusivity deal with the airport owner (or you ARE the airport owner) preventing a competing school setting up. Then you could have a nice business, capable of funding a good level of customer service, with dedicated career (PAYE) instructors, etc.

Most schools work in a cut-throat competition environment where there is always somebody along the road, with a more decrepit fleet and paying an even lower rate to instructors, working out of an old leaking hut, and working himself for next to nothing, able to compete pretty well because most punters are clue-less - just like I was when I started on this long paper-collecting road.

There was a hope a few years ago that schools would set up with modern fleets (basically meaning DA40-TDi) which would pick up most of the business and this would "clean up" the cowboys. This might have eventually happened if Thielert had not delivered such a crap product and turned the financial cards totally against those bold enough to try this otherwise very smart business formula.

If I was running a school I would keep my fixed costs to the absolute minimum and this means almost nobody on PAYE - except maybe the receptionist. Fixed costs is THE business killer. Capital expenditure is the other one (it saps cash without reducing your profit, and "cash is king" in all business regardless of creative accounting) but you can control that, and nowadays most office equipment is dirt cheap.

The trick, I guess, is finding half decent instructors who are willing to work on a very loose package. But then recruitment has always been the hard bit :)

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

You are absolutely right, it is a very very tough business. I doubt there are many Flying Schools that make a reasonable profit, unless they provide commercial training. This will prove to be even more the case during the current recession.

Providing continuity of work (whether the FIs are employed or self employed) is inevitably equal tough. I can think of few business more effected by the weather.

I feel it is an industry that will ultimately benefit by some deregulation. Keen "amateurs" who have a love for flying and, I would add, often considerably more expereince than some instructors, who are willing to do a FIs course and committ one or two days a week maybe the best route for the industry to take.

[slamdunk]

This is a re-post from the thread started on the flying instructor forum, with the following additional clarification - HMRC are taking a case against Sherburn to the Special Commissioners in London. A decision will be made as to whether instructors at Sherburn are employed or self employed. The outcome will create a precedent which can be applied then to other clubs/schools and any underpaid tax and NI backdated a number of years. My original post:

Why are "self employed" instructors not concerned about this?? If HMRC win against Sherburn it will create a dangerous precedent. In the current economic climate, I can't see Flying Schools being able to pass on the costs of Employers NI to customers without there being a reduction in overall demand for flying training.

Therefore if overall income to Schools is unlikely to grow a newly defined "employed" instructor can't earn any more. In fact they might earn 12% less to cover the School having to pay Employers NI. So the same pot of earnings we get now is redefined to cover normal pay, holiday pay, sickness pay etc etc.

Perhaps more importantly - I like to manage my own tax affairs. I prefer to deduct my business associated expenses prior to paying tax, and do not want to be in a situation where HMRC can deduct PAYE/NI at source on gross pay and I have to fight to get it back retrospectively.

If HMRC win and other schools are challenged, I'm not sure I can afford to instruct as I currently do because I'm sure it will mean I'm paid less and taxed more. Perhaps I shouldn't worry then, because if this forces good Clubs like Sherburn to decide they can't afford to run a school it will all be outside my control in any case.

[honda cbx]

You are quite right in what you say, if this action goes against Sherburn it could have major repercussions for other flying schools.

[Fuji Abound]

You are quite right in what you say, if this action goes against Sherburn it could have major repercussions for other flying schools.

If HMRC win against Sherburn it will create a dangerous precedent.

You are both wrong I suspect. It will do no such thing. Such cases are inevitably decided on the facts. There will be no point of law at issue and the circumstances of each school will be different.


Perhaps more importantly - I like to manage my own tax affairs. I prefer to deduct my business associated expenses prior to paying tax, and do not want to be in a situation where HMRC can deduct PAYE/NI at source on gross pay and I have to fight to get it back retrospectively.


If you are self employed you MUST manage your affairs. It is a matter of fact whether or not you are self employed. The test is not unreasonable.

[civil aviation]

Although cheapskating, to reduce costs and the price of the product, is usually popular with consumers, it is unfair to businesses which operate ethically and within the law.

Cowboy club or commercial FTO's should not be supported by students.
Typically, any business which is dubious in terms of employment will, also, be cutting corners in other areas of its activities- insurance and maintenance being obvious examples in FTO's. Your cheap(er) lessons may end up being an expensive or terminal experience.

The (low) pay of instructors issue is much older than PPruNe although it seems to be contradicted by that other old chestnut- the shortage of instructors.

The unavoidable problem is that day-to-day demand for instruction in the UK is extremely variable and highly unpredictable so an annual 'decent living wage' isn't possible for most FTO's or instructors. Add to that, the well-known amateurism/enthusiast approach which typifies UK flight training and you have a perfect recipe for poverty affecting proprietors and employees.

The fact is that, because plenty of people love football, flying, riding, sailing etc., many are not involved in such businesses for rational economic reasons.
I've never met a poor scrap dealer or funeral director and I did meet a man who has made a lot of money from CAA/JAA PPL's (in Florida) but, sad to say, that's never likely to happen here unless........ landing fees are abolished, fuel duty is slashed, the climate changes etc. etc.

[honda cbx]

Wrong, as i said before , i think we all know a self employed person must look after their own books!! The actual grey area is the dividing line between employed and self/employed.Ask any HMCR inspector and you will get a different answere everytime!! Hence case at the tribunal. And as i said, if the s... hits the fan, its belly up time for a lot of flying clubs.

[S-Works]

Wrong, as i said before , i think we all know a self employed person must look after their own books!! The actual grey area is the dividing line between employed and self/employed.Ask any HMCR inspector and you will get a different answere everytime!! Hence case at the tribunal. And as i said, if the s... hits the fan, its belly up time for a lot of flying clubs.

I don't think so. As I said before I think it's being a bit melodramatic. Most of the clubs I have been involved with have made the split between full time and part time without a problem. Part time with other jobs are able to be self employed, full time are on PAYE. Just the same as the rest of us.

I think with the changes in the rules and the return of the PPL Instructor we will just see a shift away from the hours builders and move to more part timers and the old backbone of career Instructors.

What it will do to wages remains to be seen.

[Fuji Abound]

You are confusing the issue. The dividing line is grey, but most examples fall well too one side or other of the line. If they dont, the business has been poorly advised.

In the vast majority of cases it is clear who will, and will not, succeed.

I dont know the details of this case. However, people go before the General and Special Commissioners for all sorts of reasons. Particularly as concerns the General Commissioners the case often has very little merit.

The Commissioners are often required "simply" to establish the facts. Once the facts are deduced the decision is self evident. On occasions (the more especially before the Specials) the key is a point of law.

Is this case on appeal from the Generals I wonder, or have the parties agreed it may be taken directly to the Specials?

As I said before, unless their is some new pivotal point of law, which I very much doubt, I would be surprised if this case establishes any precedent.

[IO540]

I agree with Fuji. The "self employed or not" thingy has been around for years and is well rehearsed. A newcomer to "business" may well be unaware but it is easy enough to find out with a bit of research on the internet.

Simply working truly freelance for more than one school and using wholly one's own equipment should be pretty good.

Of course working for more than one school is not something the schools will approve of, which then sets up a trap for the school employed the SE instructor.

[honda cbx]

The "self emplyed thingy" has been around for years and is well rehearsed, mmmm , strange then that it still raises it's ugly head !!Especially when you consider that experienced business people are involved!

[belowradar]

Honda CBX

Especially when you consider that experienced business people are involved

Now that could definitely be a very large assumption. Experienced business people have just been appearing in front of Congress and our own Members of parliament. Some cricket loving business people are in hot water, other sober bank exec's are not having a great time.

[honda cbx]

My point exactly!! it's not as black and white as some people seem to think!

[BEagle]

If this case encourages The Revenue to start snouting about, the only people to suffer will be:

1. Wannabee airliner drivers masquerading as FIs.
2. Potential students.

PPL schools will merely offer the opportunity for PPL (and/or 'fATPL')-holding FIs to do some instructing. NO PAY - just refund of petrol money and perhaps the cost of lunch.

No real issue for the PPL school - but not much fun for the kid trying to use flight instruction as a way to pay off the cost of his/her fATPL or to 'build hours' for that all-important (and utterly dull) 737 co-pilot job.

As ye sow........

[Fuji Abound]

Come on guys, you arent being serious are you. All sorts of things continually raise their "ugly" heads even though the ground rules are pretty clear. People make the same mistakes time after time either because they cant be bothered to read the rules, havent got the time, receive poor advice, think they will get away with it etc. That has always been the way of things. It doesnt mean the rules are new and it doesnt mean the rules arent well rehearsed. As I said before, if you examine the vast majoity of these cases employers make the most basic of mistakes and shouldnt be surprised when their collars are felt. In fact it is more than likely that the Revenue will not pursue those cases where the employer has made a reasonable effort to stay the right side of the line.

I think Belowradar has it, so called experienced buisiness people can and do make the most elementary mistakes, and they are elementary mistakes not because the rules arent black and white, and not because traps have been set, but because they are too stupid or arrogant to avoid making the mistakes. Sorry, but that is the way it is.

I would be the first to accept their are areas of legislation that are complex, new and still in the process of the ground rules being established. It is all too easy for anyone to run into problems in some of these areas and understandable when they do - this is not one of them.

[AJMortimer]

BEagle

PPL schools will merely offer the opportunity for PPL (and/or 'fATPL')-holding FIs to do some instructing. NO PAY - just refund of petrol money and perhaps the cost of lunch.

Hmmm... I seem to remember it was like that back in the '80s before everyone jumped on the 'commercial bandwagon'.

Experienced FIs, with bags of knowledge, instructing at weekends, students sponsored by airlines - and therefore not dependent entirely on the 'self-improver' route only (as is, generally, the case today).

A bit like the housing market - if there are no first-time buyers the market suffers. As with aviation, if there were no 'self-improvers' where would the industry have been during the past 10 years?!

I hope the likes of easyJet and Ryanair appreciate just how lucky they have been to avoid the (expensive) cost of pilot training thanks to the flying schools who have provided the means by which embryo pilots could gain the requisite experience - and who are now suffering and having to face possible litigation.

If the flying schools can't operate due to the cost of employing instructors, then the aviation industry will suffer and no one will be complacent then.

AJ

PS: The job of a B737 First Officer may be routine, but I never found it 'dull' - however it can't have been all that good as I have moved on to 'better' things outside aviation. The thought of doing basically the same job day-in-day-out just never appealed. I'm pleased I 'did it', but as keen as I was on flying, not as a transport pilot for the rest of my working life!

[BEagle]

AJ - I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing!

Personally I would welcome the return of the enthusiastic, experienced PPL/FI - and airlines having to select and pay for their own pilot trainees. If that meant the end of lo-cos ferrying drunken hen parties about, then so much the better!

There are a lot of 'fATPL' holders out there who are simply unemployable due to personal qualities and/or CRM. So they sit grumbling at flying schools whingeing about pay rates whilst delivering pretty indifferent flight instruction.

Does any other industry allow its most inexperienced people to instruct newcomers to that industry? Frankly, I find it utterly bizarre.

[IO540]

There are a lot of 'fATPL' holders out there who are simply unemployable due to personal qualities and/or CRM. So they sit grumbling at flying schools whingeing about pay rates whilst delivering pretty indifferent flight instruction

A lot of truth in that... some instructors I flew with were good but some were such clowns that one wonders what airline could ever take them on.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I have to agree with BEagle, whilst I was an hours building FI and I know that many do give a good service, however now I know that the best instructors are usually a lot older and more experienced.

I would however, hate to see a return to unpaid instructors and frankly with my experience of PPL's, there are not that many who would fit into the experienced and dedicated mould that is really required.

Someone doing bits and pieces is not what's needed, there needs to be a new breed of professional instructors who do it as a career. They need to be paid decently and be available more than just once a week, like most PPL FI's would be.

If someone has a 9-5 job and especially a family, then the chances of getting any more than that out of them is impossible.

The only problem is, that no-one wants to pay for it.

Until that is forced upon people, then we will have this stupid bitsa system we have today, where good training is often more a game of chance than a given.

There are great FI's out there, but there are some real numb-nuts as well and there is no way a prospective student has an real way of seeing who's who. Until it's too late...........

Most schools are so concerned about simple survival that actually doing a good job and being customer focus just goes out of the window.

I actually want to see a bit of carnage in the industry, that way we might have some opportunities for some of the decent schools.

[AJMortimer]

BEagle

I agree.

Especially the lack of experience - and the wrong attitude - of some FIs who are in it for themselves rather than the student and the greater good of general aviation.

Why is it that everything in life seems to get worse rather than better? Or is it me getting older and more cynical?!

AJ

[xrayalpha]

Perhaps the professionalism - or lack of it - that you bemoan about light aircraft instructors is why there are now more microlight schools than light aircraft ones (according to FTN).

Of course, to be a microlight instructor your hours after becoming an FI count for nothing - even with 3,000 hrs on a microlight C42 I could not become a CRI to check people out on a light aircraft C42!

The reverse was also true, even with a full light aircraft licence, our C42 instructor had to fly 60 hours in a C42 microlight before he could start a microlight AFI course.

Even with 3,000 hours I'd also still need 30-odd hours to get a JAR licence.

Means three things:

One - as a microlight instructor, you are doing it for the love, or for the money to make a living (or both!). There is no "golden future" beckoning! And if you enjoy your job you keep working on how to improve - because you them get even more fun out of it.

Two - as a student, you are having to pay nearly as much for your microlight lesson as in a light aircraft, because although microlights are cheaper to run, the instructors have to earn more if you want to retain them (because they have families etc to keep in food and clothes).

Three; as a microlight flying school, you have to ensure your instructors get a living income - or they will give up or leave, buy their own aircraft and set up a rival school (it is very very easy to set up a microlight school). One way to stop instructors leaving is to ensure the existing students get the best possible service, since word of mouth is the cheapest advertising.

Gosh! That raises a whole lot of points about the flying training industry!

Very best,

XA

[mde]

Why not form limited companies, one for the flying club and one each for every aircraft that the flying club uses. Yes there are costs involved, accountant fees and filing fees but as long as you keep little or no assests in the flying club there would be little point in the revenue chasing the club-a man of straw is not worth sueing. The added advantage in this day and age is that one accident that results in a claim by an injured party would not effect the other assets.If the revenue deem that a person is an employee and not self employed they persue the employer not the employee

[bogbeagle]

In answer to Fuji Abound...it's the Special Commissioners who heard the case.