Should I get instructor rating?
 

Hello everyone.
I want to ask if you think I should get the instructor rating.
I have 530 hours, with over 380 PIC, 40 Multi with almost 30 PIC on Multi (Turbocharged Seneca), nearly 100 hours instrument with 10 in actual and 100 hours in a TAA, CPL with Group 1 IFR and IATRA written.
I got TBNT from basically every place I applied for.

I'm considering getting my instructor rating. I have a lot of experience in instructing from other field (paramedicine instructor, self defense instructor over 10 years and more), but can barely see ads for flight instructors.
I can spend this amount in the US (I have my FAA CMEL and IR as well) and get around 150-200 hours, but I don't know if it'll make a difference.

Should I get it? Is there more jobs in this field than first officers?

Hey bud, let me chime in here. I am an ex flight instructor and pilot recruiter for a 705 in Canada.
i am a big advocate for getting an instructor rating as a way of getting to an airline as soon as possible, jazz and porter hire f.os with instructor time only.
One thing that stands out to me is you have 530 TT but your looking for a job, how did you accumulate this time?
You resume to reads to me as 530 tt, 380 PIC, 100 IFR . Super charged senecas, “actual” instrument and 100 TAA is irrelevant in a resume and may even come across as over inflating your experience to some northern operators. Humility and honesty are fundamental to getting a job in Canada.

You are right you won’t see flight instructor ads in Canada, that’s because flight schools usually hire their own flight instructor students. They don’t need to advertise as they are continually qualifying and then hiring their own students.
I don’t understand your last point about getting and paying for another 150 hours in the US.

It's funny you say they are looking for dual only, because I saw an ad saying - 750 TT or 1,000 with instruction (i.e. saying dual time is that less valuable than actually flying by yourself).

The 530 is by me simply flying. It's much easier to rent a Cessna in the US and go XC with it. I highlighted the turbocharged Seneca as I have yet to come across a school in Canada to use anything remotely as powerful as this bird (which is also certified for icing condition, built in oxygen tank and full A/P, with empty weight nearly at 4,000 Lbs), so I figured it's worth mentioning. And yes I am looking for a job because I saw quite a few ads, specially here in the remote North, with minimum 500 TT. Why wouldn't I apply if that is what the ad reads? And as for the TAA - that is because recruiters put “experience with PFD and MFD”, which is exactly the requirement for any A/C to be considered a TAA, so if a company puts this line in their ad, they shouldn’t view this as inflating the experience, it’s highlighting the relevant experience IMO.

And the last point is - should I spend the amount it cost to get the flight instructor rating and get 30-35 hours or spend the same amount renting and flying in the US and get around 150-200 hours (and yes it's doable over there, that is how I got my hours), given that I barley saw flight instructor ads and the one I saw was for either class 3 and above or class 1.

All things considered, I generally suggest pilots go down the instructing route unless it is clear they would be horrible instructors. It's a great way to solidify your own flying skills and further build a good foundation while being paid to fly the hours you need to build to get further in your career. With your experience in medicine and martial arts, you'd bring a different perspective to your students that a pilot with equal flight experience would not. Some of the best instructors I ever had, be it at flight school or the airlines, had a different career before flying, so brought more to the lesson than teaching xyz exercise. With all that said, I want to address some of your other comments. I'm not trying to "set you right," but rather provide perspective on why you may not be hearing back, from another guy who used to be involved in pilot recruiting from flight schools to airlines.

Some recruiters do think that. Not all, but some. From their perspective what is the instructor doing? They're sitting in the airplane doing some teaching, but almost always watching someone else fly the airplane. They're wracking up PIC time while making someone else make the decisions and do all the flying. They view it in the same way as TC used to view co-pilot time. You used to only be able to credit 50% of co-pilot time to an ATPL, yet you were required to be there 100% of the time - just like an instructor. They view the pilot with 730 hours and a King Air type rating as more valuable to them than a 1,000 hour instructor, and certainly both are more valuable than a 730 hour pilot with no commercial experience.

You have to ask whether you're highlighting experience or are you inflating your experience that is simply covered by something else. Or, in other words, are you listing a specific type rating or an aircraft that is covered by the blanket rating? If it's covered by the blanket rating, then it's irrelevant from the perspective of someone looking at your resume. That's the whole purpose of the blanket ratings: they cover all non-high performance single or multi-engined aircraft, regardless of the onboard systems. You calling out an aircraft covered by the blanket rating serves to indicate that you don't know what your license means. As a case in point, I saw one resume that read something along the lines of C150, C150A, C152, C172M, C172R, DA20, PA28-140, PA28-180, PA38-112, PA-34. To him it looked impressive that he had flown 10 different types over I think it was something like 400 hours, and I recall he said as much in the interview. But they're all covered by the blanket ratings, so from our perspective as interviewers he had flown basic single and twin training aircraft. It came across that he may be someone who liked to inflate things, and the question was raised whether this was simply youthful exuberance or was it a negative personality trait? That's not the question you want asked during a job search.

He did not get the job.

It is a fine line that you have to walk when searching for a job. At 530 hours, there is not a lot to distinguish yourself from the next pilot, but mentioning things that are included elsewhere in your license comes across negatively to many people. Keep it simple. Which leads me to this comment on this:

You might have 100 hours on an IFR flight plan, but this comes across as inflating things again. I will grant you that instrument time is not well defined in Canada, so both interpretations are correct: either it's time on an IFR flight plan or actual/simulated time. But consider this: most instrument rated pilots log only 10% of their total flying time on an IFR flight plan as instrument time, unless they are actually in the soup for MUCH longer. Think about it: how often are you on an IFR flight plan but operating in VMC? A heck of a lot more than doing the same operating in wholly IMC, even if you're up in Class A airspace. When the recruiter comes to me and tells me a pilot with 530 hours has 100 hours instrument time, my gut reaction is that they may be padding their logbook. I may begin to question the rest of the stated time. As you can hopefully see, this plus the aircraft callout start to tell a story, whether you mean to or not. It's not that I doubt the accuracy of what you're saying, but when compared to 50 other candidates, yours could be seen as the odd-ball, and not in a good way.

But let's get back to your question.

The difference is one is an additional qualification, the other is not. More hours puts you into the ballpark for many companies sure, but you might still lose out to an instructor, so ask yourself what is an instructor doing above all else? They're working. They have a proven track record of employment within the aviation industry. Granted, for the same upfront money you would get an additional 150-200 hours compared to the 30-35 from the flight instructor rating, but after that you're either paying for more flying or being paid to fly. If you're working as an instructor, the next 200+ hours are all paid for by the company. So when you now come to apply to an airline, instead of 730 hours total time with no commercial experience behind you, you're coming with maybe 930 to 1,200 hours total time, some of which may be a mix of instructing and charter flying. Plus, you will have interacted with people that I can call behind your back and ask how you are. While you may think it is only your printed references that are called, there is a well defined black market, if you will, of pilots calling other pilots to ask about you when you apply for a job. While I make this sound as though it is specific to aviation, it's not. My sister-in-law does the same thing with the nurses she hires. I don't care what your three references say, I want the unvarnished truth, and I'm going to get that from the gal or guy I know who ran that flight school while you worked there, or otherwise I'll get someone I know to put me in touch with that person. If you've only rented for all that time, I have no one to call and check other than your references, so of course if given the choice, I'm going to hire the person that I can check up on.

That's because a Class 3 no longer needs to be directly monitored, so they're an easy hire. No one will advertise for a Class 4 because they can simply hire those from their student ranks, as rojocrv says. By the time an instructor reaches Class 2 or 1, most pilots are looking to the airlines but the flight school will start thinking they are CFI material, if they're not there already. So given there are so few of those comparatively speaking, they are in demand, hence the ads for Class 3 or above.

First, thank you for the long comment, I appreciate the effort.
So other than total time and PIC time, nothing else should be mentioned? Not even Multi Engine time? I'm asking as I ran into some ads that says "250 multi engine time required", basically saying that even if you are ATPL with PC-12 Captain experience, you won't qualify due to the lack of multi engine time, whereas the CPL guy with multi engine piston time will qualify, so it's very confusing - what should be there and what shouldn't?

And last question, if no one wants Class 4 instructor, how is one is to upgrade it?

Good questions. Generally, you keep your resume short and sweet, no more than 1 page. Your flight time section should read like a ledger. It describes your experience as cleanly and clearly as possible. I don't want to read a paragraph to see your multi-time, I want to see it in direct comparison to the rest of your experience. If I have to read any more than a second or so to get the information I need, I'm moving on to the next resume.

I used to see a lot of resumes that had been prepared by Pilot Career Centre. They stood out because they were all identical in format, but also had all the relevant information clearly outlined. If you don't want to pay for their services, you can google pilot career centre resume and see in the image results what a typical pilot resume looks like. Then you can write your resume in a similar format. In short though, your resume should outline your experience in a table, for example using what you wrote in your original post with a little bit of clarity:

Objective
To obtain a pilot position with ABC Airlines.

Note: Some people will put a brief, 3 to 5 short sentence summary here instead of an objective. Either is fine as long as it's not Tolkien-ish in length.

Flight Experience
Canadian CPL, Group 1 Instrument Rating, Written IATRA
FAA CMEL and IR

Type Ratings: [Only include this line if you have aircraft type ratings: BE02, BE10, DH8, ATR42, EA32, B737, etc. Don't include this line if the airplanes you fly are covered by the blanket type ratings]

Total Time: 530
PIC: 380................Multi-PIC: 30................Instrument: 100 (although I'd put 10 here for reasons discussed earlier)
Multi: 40................Night: xx.....................Cross-Country: XX

Note: It is also in this table where you might add things like float time, ski time, turbine time, or any other breakdown the company has asked for, such as TAA. But, be careful with your definitions. Canada doesn't recognize TAA like the FAA. As you know there is no requirement to fly a complex aircraft for your CPL here in Canada. You can get all the way to an ATPL here without ever touching a complex aircraft. It's better to simply outline the exact experience the company is looking for. As an example, if they're asking about MFD/PFD time, list that as EFIS or Glass experience. Use the terms they're using, because it's likely it is not a pilot who is first looking at your resume, and if they don't know what TAA is, your resume may not make it to a pilot for review.

Work and Education
Note: Keep this section short, ideally limited to the last 5 years for work history and only your aviation education unless you have a degree or other professional qualification.

Company Name................Position and Aircraft Type................Dates
Single or dual sentence description of the position. Less is more

School..............................Campus Location..............................Dates
Single or dual sentence description of the training. Less is more

References
Note: This is the only section of your resume that should be on a separate page, although work and education can spill over if you have lots, but you've kept them all nice and short.
Note 2: Always lead with professional references. Personal references should be left to the end.

Name, current position, current company, City, Phone, E-Mail

You are awarded a Class 4 Instructor Rating as soon as you pass the Flight Instructor flight test, or in other words, you get a Class 4 by passing the flight instructor rating. You upgrade to a Class 3 by having your Class 4, having flown 100 hours with students undergoing training towards a pilot license, have a record of training that shows you've sent 3 students for their solo, you've recommended 3 students for their flight tests and they passed those tests, and you've instructed those students for no less than 5 out of their last 10 hours. Once you meet those requirements, you upgrade to a Class 3. There is no additional flight test or exam.

The reason you don't see too many Class 4 positions advertised is that a Class 4 requires direct supervision from a Class 2 or 1 Flight Instructor, and normally that person doubles as the chief flight instructor. That places a workload on the CFI that a Class 3 does not, and many schools won't want to take on that burdon unless the school has multiple Class 2s or 1s, which was unusual in my experience. Plus, it's a huge marketing tool for a school to say that if you do your instructor rating with them, they'll hire you on as an instructor. A lot of students will look elsewhere for their training if the school is not hiring, so it is often in the schools benefit to leave a flight instructor position vacant and grab that student rather than having all positions filled and losing students to another school.

You do want to be a little strategic here. Almost all schools offer to complete your instructor rating, but if the school only has a limited number of students, you may not be getting the flying that you want, so as much as I love the mom-and-pop schools for PPL and CPL training, the larger schools are often your best bet for the flight instructor rating.

Thank a lot (!!) for all the information, I will make some amendments ASAP.. Just on a side note - TAA is a requirement in the integrated course (CAR 426.75), and is even spelled out as such in the CARs.

As for the flight instructor - the problem with the big one is they have a 6-12 months waiting list and take their sweet time with the instructor rating (some around 6 months), while I saw places that are doing it as accelerated course, and you are done within 1-2 months (which is how I did my instrument rating and CPL, 4-5 months of non stop flying). I'm not used to this one class a week slow pace.. As I mentioned, I am not young, so time is of the essence of me to secure any job, so there is that in my consideration of choosing a place. I did noticed few ads that also ask for class 4 instructor, just not as many (and I completely understand why).

Thanks +TSRA for your considered response, that's great of you! Obviously, that is a lot of valuable wisdom, to be take to heart. Without diminishing anything which +TSRA has offered, I'll add a little perspective of my own. I do not suggest it's better, just different...

First, Why do you want be an instructor? Is it 'cause you really enjoy teaching, and will give the "passing on knowledge" your best effort for the benefit and inspiration of the student? Or, is it just to get more hours into your logbook? If the latter, do the student a favour, and find a different way to increase your experience (go fly survey). I've met both types of instructors, and the "I'm just here to build my own time" people were generally not inspiring. On the other hand, I know a few career instructors who just delight when they see their student progress - and do not seek to move into another type of flying.

Then, what can you offer your student in terms of your skill and experience to pass along? Can you watch them go solo, and feel confident that they had all the skills they could need to handle getting back safely? I worried sending pilots solo if I had taught them enough. Once I hadn't, and they got it wrong. But it wasn't a solo flight, they took me too!

In respect of +TSRA saying:

I can see that differently. I give the applicant the credit that this was a true description of their piloting experience. It is what it is. If it's inflated, that's a different topic. If it's exuberant, well... I like an applicant who's enthusiastic! Personally, I would far rather talk to an applicant who has 400 hours in (we'll call it) six types, than twice the hours in the circuit all in a 172.

Mention all of your time, but while doing so, highlight the PIC time as "you" flying, and the time you were "in the cockpit" as just that. As an interviewer, I would rather hear that you did some right seat ride alongs (and probably learned a few things) than were sitting in front of your computer. If you have "been around" but not necessarily been flying the plane, i see in that that the person flying the plane was happy to have you there, (a positive thing) and you are meeting people.

For my early flying experience, a lot of it was simply being agreeable, at the airport, honest, and willing. I was given many opportunities, each I took gratefully. In my mid flying career, it mostly became apparent that people asking about my flying experience were just passing numbers along into a file for insurance in case someone ever asked. They certainly were not poking through the number themselves. You're not there yet, but you can get there. To even my surprise, in my now aged flying experience, I hardly get asked to provide a detailed description of my flying history, it's more, there's the plane, let us know when you're done with it.

+TSRA's advice is gold, take it to heart.

Be: honest, humble, agreeable, and know that the person who might hire you has done the grungy, cold fingers, unpleasant job [to get where they are now], so they want to know that you will too - show them that part of yourself. And, remember that they are looking at other things which indicate that you are careful and thorough, (which they will want to be very be with their customer/passengers/students, and their expensive plane): No "UR's" nor "Gr8's" in messages, or the way you present yourself - check spelling! These things get noticed!

Thank a lot (!!) for all the information, I will make some amendments ASAP.. Just on a side note - TAA is a requirement in the integrated course (CAR 426.75), and is even spelled out as such in the CARs.

As for the flight instructor - the problem with the big one is they have a 6-12 months waiting list and take their sweet time with the instructor rating (some around 6 months), while I saw places that are doing it as accelerated course, and you are done within 1-2 months (which is how I did my instrument rating and CPL, 4-5 months of non stop flying). I'm not used to this one class a week slow pace.. As I mentioned, I am not young, so time is of the essence of me to secure any job, so there is that in my consideration of choosing a place. I did noticed few ads that also ask for class 4 instructor, just not as many (and I completely understand why).

Cool! That's new since I've been interviewing, so thanks for schooling me on that. It's been 2 years since I did any interviewing at the airlines, and at that point anyone without an FAA ticket would have had to look up TAA, and I doubt anyone up north would know too. Good to know we're advancing as an industry! :)

If that's the case, you could look instead to a charter company - if you're willing to move, I know the likes of Sunwest and North Cariboo in Calgary routinely hire sub-1000 hour pilots in the the right seat of a King Air, 1900D, or even a Dash or ATR. Both are great companies, and I would have stayed at Sunwest for the career if I didn't want to scratch the airline itch. I'm not sure how the outlook is in Ontario for that sort of work, but if they ever get the Ring of Fire going, that'll be at least as busy as the oil sands are, and T-Bay will be the place to be! Nothing wrong with a trip up Highway 11 or 17. I bet you'd find a job before you end up in Yellowknife like I did!

I love instructing 100%. As I mentioned, I instructed first aid (including paramedicine), and was also first aid examiner (advance courses back home required examination) to new medics, life guards, teachers etc, and self defense, both 5 and 10 years respectively. I don't even mind doing ground school as most of my first aid instruction was crowd instruction, sometimes as big as 20-30 people, so I have no fear in instructing a whole class. You mentioned sending a student to solo, I got to witness first hand what 99% of the instructors never will - I was in CYOO back in 2016, and saw a solo student crush after bouncing in the runway intersection, shutting down the entire airport, and I felt the helplessness, as a former Paramedic I wanted to run and render first aid, but I knew better than to run into active runways. That lives a mark, and if I ever instruct, I will do anything in my power to make sure none of my students will ever face that. Furthermore, I am seriously considering, if I get too old and won't be hired by than, to remain class 1 instructor for good (and who knows, maybe one day become an examiner)

Again, that is assuming someone will give me the opportunity as class 4

Agreed. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a guy hiring at the airlines who looked at 50 to 100 resumes at a time, so I suppose that clouds my advice. If I switch gears and look at this from hiring an instructor, I could be convinced to see how listing the different types could be advantageous as it shows an ability to quickly adapt to different training aircraft, especially if where the school has multiple types.

Good call!

I actually live I Tbay, for the past 5 years. Sadly all the companies here gave me TBNT, and saddest part is - not even one of them provided a reason. I don't even know if it's the TT or something else, even though my time was eligible to all of them, and most of them want candidates that actually lives here (makes me wonder how many people from this small area have applied). I will definitely check those charter companies, as Beggars can't be choosers..... And I need to set my foot in some door.

Edit: I did look into both - Sunwest is not hiring, and North Cariboo minimum for King Air is 250 Multi time. That is nearly impossible to get on renting or even instructing. That is a number you usually get after flying for hire...

Ah, well that's unfortunate if you're already in T-Bay. Maybe Geraldton or Nakina?

Also, nothing wrong with asking why when they give you a PFO. It shows you want to improve yourself, and sometimes that's the conversation that gets your foot in the door when they've otherwise denied you. A lot of places won't give a reason, but it is sometimes worth that call.

The 250 Multi-Time is a Contrails requirement for the oil sands flying. North Cariboo used to do a lot of flying that was contrails required when I flew at Sunwest, so that makes sense why they would include it as a specific requirement if they're still doing that type of flying now. I happen to be married to someone in the Sunwest training department (she joined Sunwest after I left). They are definitely hiring, but have the same contrails requirements for many, but not all, aircraft types. She says they will put people onto aircraft for their non-Contrails flying but it amounts to well less than half the flying the machine will do, so not always worth it for them or the pilot. It's worth keeping an eye on those companies though, because one week they have nothing and will tell you they're not hiring any time soon, but come the next week they're begging for pilots and will move heaven and earth to get someone. Your other options would be up to Thompson, Yellowknife, or out east. I can speak somewhat intelligently about Yellowknife, and last I heard, places like Air Tindi and Summit still hired low-experienced pilots, but mostly off the ramp. It's worth a try if all else fails. Plus, that was some of the best flying I've ever done, and to steal a phrase, it's worth the drive to Yellowknife.

If you want to learn more about Contrails, read this post on AvCanada and try not to get a concussion from smacking your head on the wall!

I should have rephrased - they are not looking for First Officers, just Captains, which is why I put it the way I did - because it's not applicable to me anyway.

I thought about the ramp thing, but I can not live on $18 an hour will providing for wife and two kids (even if she gets a job up there, which is unlikely). Mind you, through good friendship I get free time building in the US, including free multi engine time building. It's pretty slow, but it's better than nothing, and those ramp position will take that away for good.

What is weird for me about those 250 Multi time position, usually people who have those hours are already working somewhere, so it means they are expecting people to leave their current place.. Maybe for direct entry captains, but why would a First Officer do that?..

I will try looking those companies you mentioned

You've hit the nail on the head about the baffling requirements of Contrails without ever reading about it. Contrails is not an air operator requirement per se, it is a requirement that some resource companies use for insurance purposes that air operators are forced to follow. If you don't want to follow Contrails, then you don't get their business. The requirements are often so high that in a pilot shortage, you can't keep a hold of pilots long enough that they build their experience to meet those requirements - well, at least without using all the different reductions and lets built into the system. Most air operators would do away with Contrails tomorrow if they could.

The thing to know about Contrails is it was constructed following a series of accidents and at a time when pilots here needed 3,000 hours to fly right seat in a Navajo, 5,000 to fly right seat in a Dash, and 10,000 to fly right seat of a 737. In the way back days, pilots spent a lot more time instructing than they do now. "Short" then meant instructing for 3 to 5 years. Now it's 3 to 5 months. The requirements were set for those times as pilots had nowhere to go for years on end, meaning a new hire pilot often didn't have a problem meeting Contrails requirements, or if they did, they were short by a dozen hours or so, not hundreds. Now that you can get on with Jazz and Encore with 750 hours or so, Contrails seems archaic, but it's been around for so long, and downturns happen frequently enough that the pain of an upturn is short lived, so Contrails will not be going anywhere anytime soon. The guy who developed the Contrail requirements laughed all the way to the bank, and most of us who worked under the system wished we had come up with the idea ourselves, if only for the millions earned on the contracting fees alone.

As for getting a job up north for your wife, don't be so sure. At least, look into it. I'll admit that things may have changed drastically since I left Yellowknife, but when I left I had friends teaching in the school system who did not have a teaching degree, and some working good paying jobs in the trucking and mining companies who only had a high school degree. Heck, my wife was earning $80k with a catering company and she had no Canadian schooling credentials to her name. But, that was 15 years ago, so it's likely changed a lot. But still worth some looking into.

Yes, the ramp work sucks, especially if things drag on. I spent a year working the ramp and got lucky getting onto an airplane after a year. Guys my age who made it to Yellowknife before me worked on the ramp for up to 5 years. When I left, guys were spending 6 months or less on the ramp, or were checked out almost immediately but did a 50/50 split ramp and flying. Regardless, while I don't agree with the whole "pilot-in-waiting" structure, almost anyone with a brain gets a type rating and commercial experience out of it. And, if the industry has a downturn, you've at least got your foot in the door for the next upswing. That can be worth more than hours in a logbook, especially when the recruiter looking at your resume recognizes a company on your resume. But it can be a hard go, and I didn't do the north with kids. That's a whole other factor to consider, which sounds like you are.

It is indeed, specially since my elder one is "graduating" kindergarten and heading for grade 1 next year. I don't want to drag her unless I know for sure I can sustain my family financially (because I always have a one year old so mom have to stay at home with him, no family in Canada) AND have reasonable expectation to start in the right seat within a reasonable timeframe, because I might get lucky, and while at it, get a callback from a different company and I have to now move her again.
It goes back to one of my first messages - the age, which goes behind just the age lol.

That "pilot-in-waiting" reminds me much of the Pay-To-Fly scheme that is common in Europe, specially in RyanAir (their CEO is actually a huge supporter of it, calling pilots "bus drivers with wings"), where pilots pay to fly company's airplane (after paying out-of-pocket for type rating). The pay is not as high as you think, but you still pay to fly, and make no income. If they can sustain it for 6-12 month, they usually go on the payroll, and even if they don't - they got the turbine time AND commercial experience... Makes you wonder which is better and which is worse.

Ah... No.

If you are employable, you should be paid to work. Now I will admit that in my early days, I did ride around right seat during some corporate single pilot operations for no pay, but I certainly did not pay to fly! it was a bit of a get to know you thing, and it worked out really well. I was offered a job shortly after, and got some great experience, but do not pay out of your pocket. Pilot employers need to be reminded that they must pay fairly for competent pilot services, and charge their clients/passengers accordingly. You do not work for nothing to subsidize a cheap pax who is looking for a deal to visit grandma! I would not want to work for a company whose business model relied on free labour, they're not good at business, are they any better at aviation? I flew Ryan Air - once.

In my opinion, pay to fly is worse. At least with the pilot in waiting program you're earning a wage while working, even if most places have a lower pay rate for PIW than non-PIW employees. It still sucks, but it is the better evil of the two. I hope we never see pilot-paid type ratings or pay-to-fly programs here in Canada, and I believe that a union like ALPA would strongly oppose such a move should the government ever get it in its head that it's a good idea. Pilot bonds are another thing I'd like to see disappear, although I do understand the reason for those given I've directly seen why a company chose to institute a bond and the fallout that occured for the owners.

As for age, it's not as big a stumbling block as you may think. Not anymore at least. I've trained a lot of pilots at the airlines who were getting their start in their late-40's into their early-50's. Sure, if you got into an airline at 50, you'd never see left seat of a 787 or 777, but left seat of an A220, A320, or B737 is not out of the question, if that was your final goal. Certainly left seat of a Dash-8, CRJ, or other regional aircraft is well within reach starting out as late as 50....assuming the industry continues on its current trend that is.

Many, but not all, air operators now view age as a benefit, not a curse. Some will still require you to outline that fact for them though. But let me explain a bit. For one, people in their 30's and older bring a level of maturity and experience that those in their 20's do not. I've described it somewhere in another thread before, but I once trained a 40-something year old ER nurse who had emergency management and decision making skills well in excess of someone with equal flight time. She taught me a thing or two, and I was the one supposedly running the sim and teaching her! Second, as most major airlines experienced over the past 10-years, having half of your pilot group retire in a 5-to-10 year span because hiring a pilot older than 28 was a no-no back in the 80s and 90s is a bad business decision 20 to 30 years later. Now almost all air operators look for a mix of ages so that retirements happen on a more manageable scale down the road. I'm not saying take your time, but don't view age as a bad thing. It may require that you place a bit more emphasis on your transferable skills than on your flying. What did you learn in paramedicine, for example, that could help you during an emergency in an aircraft or help you with risk management? What did you learn in self defense that helps you quickly assess a situation and take a reasonable course of action? These would all be in a cover letter, not your resume, but try to focus there. Maybe the people who PFO'd you need a little help to see the value in your experiences.

Now you are touching another point - I don't have a cover letter. When I did the paramedicine it was fairly easy to get in, so I never had to really contact employers in a any way so I never really thought about making/needing a cover letter. If you don't mind, what is for/good for? Is it important for employers? Do you, recruiters, view it, at all, and does it make a difference?

Every company (or recruiter) is different. Some won't look at your resume without a cover letter, while others won't take a glance at the cover letter and go straight to the resume. I've worked alongside both types of recruiters. When possible, I tried to always read a cover letter. I felt that's where I was reading about the individual. It told me more of a story than the person. I got to see insight into how the person spoke (most pilots write as they would speak), how they view themselves as a professional and individual, and what they felt made a good pilot and fit for the company. I felt I saw more of what the person could bring to a company beyond simply flying an airplane, which anyone with a pulse and a license can do (well, for the most part). After a while I learned to tell who took the time to research the company or who simply threw our company name into a template created for 50 different operators. A cover letter is good for expanding on your experience that may not be immediately obvious to the recruiter. In your example, many recruiters may not know how a field like paramedicine would apply to aviation. They may dismiss such experience without a cover letter. I'll admit, I wouldn't have known until I came across my first experience with someone transferring from medicine to aviation, but that's why most operators have a recruiting team. A cover letter is used to sell yourself where your resume may not indicate relevant experience, so, yes, it can make a difference to those who view them. But you don't know who wants a cover letter or not, unless it is specifically asked for in the ad.

My advice is to always send one unless you're specifically asked not to. In the digital age, a recruiter can decide on their own to look or not. It takes a little more time for you, but it could be the part of the package that gets you the job.

So just to get one thing straight - a cover letter is made individually for a company? Isn't it one size fits all, where, like the resume, you make one cover letter and send it along with your resume when you apply?

If you think that a cover letter is important (and I do) then I hope that you think that taking the time to make it personal is worth it. I like correspondence to appear to me to be personal, and I will then consider it personally....

On one hand +TSRA says to put my personal experience that I think will be relevant and highlight personal treats that the resume will not, and on the other hand you say to make it personal. My experience won't change from one employer to another, unless I get actual related aviation experience, so it sounds like it is more of a one size fits all with minor adjustment for a given employer? Also keeping in mind I know nothing about the company I apply for, only that they are looking for a First Officer and my resume fits the minimum requirements. So as much as I would like to make it personal, it will be more on the lines of "fake it till you make it", if I'm being truly honest about it.

Or I just have no idea how to go about cover letters lol.

I'm no expert in cover letters either, and to be honest, I have never prepared a resume, nor applied for a job ever in my life. I'm about the last person to ask about how to prepare a resume! That said, I have been responsible for hiring and training people, both in aviation and other industries. First impressions are important. Is my first impression of you to be a letter with my company name, my position in the company, and maybe even my name on it? (you thought to personalize it) Or, a less thought out "to whom it may concern" (which was photocopied to everyone)? Two otherwise same resumes on my desk? The one which has my company name/my name, and your handwritten signature on it gets picked up first.

There is a reason professionals pay money for someone else to design a cover letter and resume! Many people don't have a clue where to start, and most of us have to battle through a few versions of our cover letters and resumes before we find one that starts yielding results. What I mean is, don't beat yourself up if it seems like you don't know where to start. We've all been there.

While your experience may not change from one employer to another, how you use that experience in the workplace will vary considerably. The majority of a cover letter will be similar, on that you are correct. That's why you have to research the company you want to apply to. That's how you make the letter personal. Pilot DAR, like always, hit the nail on the head for how to get started:

I was never the guy who had his name on Pilot Career Centre or AvCanada as the contact for hiring, it was always the Chief Pilot. That's the first part of making it personal: who is Chief Pilot or, failing that, the recruiter. That immediately you've proves you've taken at least 30 seconds to find out who runs the show. The next part is, did you dig a little deeper to find our what parts of your skillset the company may want from a pilot, but that they don't advertise. Let's take some non-specific examples to see how this plays out: a bush operator, a corporate operator, and an airline. This runs long, and I don't mean to suggest you do this for every job, but rather it gives you an idea of what I thought about when I finally got the hang of writing a cover letter.

The bush position will be for a company that requires a fair amount of heavy lifting, early starts, late finishes, going in and out of the cold, and some on-demand flying. You'll be flying to remote locations in non-ATC environments with very limited support (if any) from the company, likely with limited navigation aids save for a panel-mounted GPS and your eyes, and with (or without) up-to-date weather information for the locations you'd be flying to. It may include rotation work or week-long stays at a base camp, and will likely include some mix of passenger and cargo flying, Landing on pavement will be a luxury you will have maybe at the beginning and end of the day. The focus applying to a location here is stamina and ability to follow directions, taking the initiative, and learning quickly. What do you have in your past that would be an asset to a bush pilot?

The corporate position will be for a company that has a very varied route structure, if you can call it a structure at all. Regardless, you'll likely be responsible for flight planning and, in some smaller locations, you'll be responsible for obtaining flight and overfly permits, visas, customs declarations, et cetera. You'll have to be at least familiar with Canadian and American airspace, if not higher level considerations such as RVSM and, if you're lucky, oceanic operations. You'll be on some form of on-off period, and when you're on, it could be 24 hours notice or 20 minutes notice to go flying. You could be flying for 1 hour or find yourself on the other side of the world. In some corporate positions, saying no to a trip is not an option (especially if you stay on long enough to get those sweet end-of-year bonuses that can amount to your yearly pay). The good corporate pilots have the airplane ready to go whenever the client wants to go flying. The best corporate pilots have the airplane ready and the cabin stocked with the clients favourite drinks, magazines, and snacks - some play the part of pilot, buttler, and confidante. They learn about clients work and family and can converse about a variety of topics should the client want. They learn to anticipate when the client may want to go flying based on their business and what is happening in the news cycle for that industry. The focus here is on attention to detail, taking the initiative, being nimble, a people person, and available at a moments notice. What do you have in your past that would make you a successful corporate pilot?

Finally you have the airline position. The airline environment is very structured, and you will be expected to follow standard procedures to the letter. The focus is on safety and on-time-performance above all else. You will operate within a set, but varied, route structure with more resources that you could ever hope to know in your head. Knowing where to find information is often more important than knowing that information. You will know your schedule a month in advance and will either hold reserve (they call you) or a block (anywhere from 1 to 5 days of flying). You will be part of a team: 2 pilots and maybe a few flight attendants. Your job is to fit in with that team, and knowing what someone is expected to do at what time is key. Risks are evaluated well ahead of time; the focus when airborne is a loose term called flight optimization - ensuring we get to destination by the scheduled time using the least amount of fuel and giving the passengers the smoothest ride possible. The focus here is strict adherence to procedure and attention to detail. What do you have in your past that would make you a successful airline pilot?

As you can see, there are differences, but similarities. The recruiter knows you don't have a lot of flight experience, so they're looking to see what other experiences you bring that will benefit their operation that is not necessarily involved in flight ops. Only you know how your previous experience could help them, and that's how you make it personal from you to them. It doesn't need to be long. My last cover letter was 5 paragraphs:

1. A single intro sentence stating my intent,
2. a single sentence that described my then current position, why I was looking to change, followed by a table that outlined how I met the companies specified experience levels,
3. a single sentence that outlines the skills I believe make me a hireable asset,
4. a three sentence paragraph that highlights additional skills not directly attributable to the job, but that could be used by the company at a later date, and
5. a one or two sentence concluding paragraph.

I modify the first paragraph to include the details of the company I am applying to. I modify the table in the second paragraph to match the experience called for in the job ad. I modify the third and fourth paragraphs to fit what I think the company is looking for now and in the future. I may modify the fifth paragraph if I feel it no longer flows with the first four. I then finish it all off with "Thank you for your time and consideration....Kindest Regards....+TSRA" - or something like that!

I don't think you would need the fourth paragraph at this time. For me, I used that to highlight my experience with record and document control, supervisory duties, and training program development, among other things. You could use it to highlight other aspects in your past to do the same, but you'd want to be very selective and careful at this point in your career. You don't want to make it seem like fixing to be the next Chief Pilot or Training Captain. But, you could say something that alludes to your previous instructing history and that you'd like to continue down that avenue when you and the company feel you've developed enough as a pilot to move further with the company...something like that.

Ornge is always looking for PC12 FO's, bases in Sudbury (coming), Timmins, Tbay and Sioux Lookout. They'd prefer you'd commit for a while, but there's no requirement. and you'll fly LOTS.

H.

I saw that and have applied. I'm totally ok with committing as having kids here means I'm not going to move away quickly, not after living here for Five years.. But sadly, haven't heard back

Give it time. Hiring is boom and bust, and not just by numbers. I can't remember if I said it earlier, but a company will tell you this week that they have no open positions and they don't expect any in the near future, but the next week they're asking if you could start tomorrow. Somewhere like Ornge is big enough that they may very well have a hiring planning day - a day where HR and Flight Ops gets together to go through the pilot resumes and pick out people to interview or offer jobs to. That's how we did it when I was last involved. There were three of us involved, and we'd each take a stack of resumes to go through at 0900. At 1100 we'd make our initial decisions and by 1300 the interview offers went out. At a busy time we would do that twice a month, but during lighter times (the peak seasons for an airline) we would only do it once a month. Unlucky was the pilot who applied to a position the day after we did one of these as it might be a full month before they heard anything other than the "we received your resume" that we would send out.

They did put a closing date on the ad, which made me believe they won't be touching any resume until that day to allow more people to apply (and I have no idea how many FO they are looking for (do you know if every hiring is 1 candidate or more? Or it's not even set up by recruiting and flight ops but rather management (as in they say how many they can afford to hire etc)

Every job ad is different. Sometimes it'll be for 1 position, other times it is multiple positions. That's the unfortunate part of applying - you don't know. As for who puts up the job ad, that all depends on the size of the company. At a larger company, the staff budget is set on an annual basis with hiring requirements set by Flight Ops. Once a position is required, flight ops would advise HR who would be the ones who handle the recruiting process. At smaller companies, that may all be one person. I'd think Ornge would be the former.

With that said, Mrs.+TSRA works at a large corporate outfit and they just had a scenario almost what you describe - management hired a pilot, bypassing both HR and Flight Ops, because that pilot was friends with the CFO. Normal vetting was not done, and it turns out he was not a pilot the chief pilot would have hired. The pilot has since left the company. So yeah, that happens too, but I would imagine not at a company like Ornge.