Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Whirlybird and LadyinRed make very good points re the teaching skills involved in all this.
I agree with Whirly that there are more than just a few instructors out there who have absolutely no idea about actually teaching something.
In the airline world, before becoming a line trainer, TRI etc, the JAR's require a "Core Course" to be undertaken. This deals not with the technical and flying aspects, but with the core skills of imparting knowledge, ie, how to teach. Only a successful pass in this course will lead on to training as a TRI etc.
Beyond that, airline instructors and examiners must demonstrate a continued ability to facilitate debriefs based on human factors as well as the obviously important technical and flying side of things.
So whatever the arguments on the merits or otherwise of NPPL/PPL instructors, it seems to me a re-think is vitally overdue in how these instructors are actually trained.
I agree with Whirly that there are more than just a few instructors out there who have absolutely no idea about actually teaching something.
In the airline world, before becoming a line trainer, TRI etc, the JAR's require a "Core Course" to be undertaken. This deals not with the technical and flying aspects, but with the core skills of imparting knowledge, ie, how to teach. Only a successful pass in this course will lead on to training as a TRI etc.
Beyond that, airline instructors and examiners must demonstrate a continued ability to facilitate debriefs based on human factors as well as the obviously important technical and flying side of things.
So whatever the arguments on the merits or otherwise of NPPL/PPL instructors, it seems to me a re-think is vitally overdue in how these instructors are actually trained.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walking the walk
I do not think that I am unique in having decided almost as soon as I had my PPL that I wanted to become an instructor and I actually gave up a well paid job in the City to study for CPL and AFI as it was then. Whilst learning to fly I realised I was not being instructed at all as the guy concerned was only interested in the hours in his logbook - why else did I do 5 hours of instrument flying after only one hour in the circuit??
It might make an interesting poll to ask Why do people learn to fly and why do they want to become instructors? I am sure that some are altruistic, desire to put something back into the system, have a natural affinity for teaching and helping others to learn, although I know that there are a great many self-centred ones only interested in hours building. However they cannot all be like that and all these guys in their 40s doing CPL for the first time must realise that there is no chance of ever getting into an airline? Or are they all dreamers?
Incidentally does anyone think it would be a good idea to form an instructors association?
I do not think that I am unique in having decided almost as soon as I had my PPL that I wanted to become an instructor and I actually gave up a well paid job in the City to study for CPL and AFI as it was then. Whilst learning to fly I realised I was not being instructed at all as the guy concerned was only interested in the hours in his logbook - why else did I do 5 hours of instrument flying after only one hour in the circuit??
It might make an interesting poll to ask Why do people learn to fly and why do they want to become instructors? I am sure that some are altruistic, desire to put something back into the system, have a natural affinity for teaching and helping others to learn, although I know that there are a great many self-centred ones only interested in hours building. However they cannot all be like that and all these guys in their 40s doing CPL for the first time must realise that there is no chance of ever getting into an airline? Or are they all dreamers?
Incidentally does anyone think it would be a good idea to form an instructors association?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lady in Red:
Personaly I think you are in the minority on wanting to become an instructor from the outset. There is very little reason at that point from both the potential financial gain and the ability to "put something back" (not a lot to put back unless you have got your licence and have flown around in different environments to gain experience).
As for "Or are they all dreamers?" - well I would say that they are.
But I also understand them and feel for them as I know that it is very difficult to "wake them up" once they have set about it.
In many ways, it is this "dream" that allows for low pay in the instructing industry AND harsh terms of employment in the airline industry.
In my view, the instructors were once mostly on their way to an airline job and the "system" provided for them to build hours towards their CPL/ATPL. That system has been abolished now so there is only the incentive of "keeping your hand in" that provides a stream of new "instructors" until they move on.
What I think we need (by we, I mean those that are in this for the long term) is teaching skills to be expected beyond just the rating to instruct.
Also it is difficult to communicate with a 20 year old instructor when you are a 40/50 year old PPL student. The older student will always suspect the maturity of the instructor regardless of his flying skills. This is were "people skills" come into play.
Thus, perhaps we need a minimum age too ;-)
I wonder how many experienced instructors here agree that
one of the most frequent questions asked on the way to the a/c
for the first time is "so...how many years have you been flying then".
Personaly I think you are in the minority on wanting to become an instructor from the outset. There is very little reason at that point from both the potential financial gain and the ability to "put something back" (not a lot to put back unless you have got your licence and have flown around in different environments to gain experience).
As for "Or are they all dreamers?" - well I would say that they are.
But I also understand them and feel for them as I know that it is very difficult to "wake them up" once they have set about it.
In many ways, it is this "dream" that allows for low pay in the instructing industry AND harsh terms of employment in the airline industry.
In my view, the instructors were once mostly on their way to an airline job and the "system" provided for them to build hours towards their CPL/ATPL. That system has been abolished now so there is only the incentive of "keeping your hand in" that provides a stream of new "instructors" until they move on.
What I think we need (by we, I mean those that are in this for the long term) is teaching skills to be expected beyond just the rating to instruct.
Also it is difficult to communicate with a 20 year old instructor when you are a 40/50 year old PPL student. The older student will always suspect the maturity of the instructor regardless of his flying skills. This is were "people skills" come into play.
Thus, perhaps we need a minimum age too ;-)
I wonder how many experienced instructors here agree that
one of the most frequent questions asked on the way to the a/c
for the first time is "so...how many years have you been flying then".
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
Eee Bye Gum................this thread has woken up a treat. Many thanks all of you though please read the other forums as well. Lady in Red - nearly had you as my background music to an aerobatic glider airshow act once. It was but 15 years ago when the BCPL came in. We had a safe system prior to that largely where remunerated PPLs did the instructing. I do have a shrewd idea that overall safety in the private, sporting and recreational aviation field has not changed all that much but it has got ridiculously expensive. WE NEED MORE FOLK COMING INTO OUR HOBBY. It has ever been the case that the junior BALPA members have seen instructing as a route to the jet's right hand seat. Those who take up flying for a future career are a very small proportion and that MUST be appreciated by you all. Sorey if I am talking down to you but I do feel you all miss the point - or at least a fair proportion of you do. In any case I am 65 and a seniur citizen so there - a self confessed member of OFFA (the Old Flying Farts Association) - but not yet in my dotage; putting plus 5 and minus 2 on the G meter regularly. I only want what, in essence, the BGA in SLMG and the BMAA in microlights have had for the past 25 years at least. Is there some moral barrier between them and us???? I think not.
Trapper 69
Trapper 69
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flogging a dead horse
Listen, lets cut through the crap!
The winge'rs who rattle on about poor pay and how they are exploited are quite right, they are. But, as the saying goes, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I, like the Lady in Red, had a good career and changed it to buy a flying school. I was never under the illusion that it would make me rich or even give me the living that I was used to. It was what I wanted to do. No complaints!
I employ a number of Instructors; hour builders towards that distant airline job. Doctors and Policeman fulfilling a hobby. Retired Airline Training Captains and ex-service pilots in retirement. The mix is a concophony of backgrounds and aims.
Do I pay them enough, NO! Can I pay them more, NO! Do I want to pay these highly trained people who in the main have spent a fortune getting licences and ratings with a lot to offer, proper rates of pay that reflect their knowledge and skills, YES! Is the money there to do it? NO
Get real! As the Lady in Red has indicated, believe it or not Trapper has a point, their are other things in life, for some it is flying, don't sneer. AOC's, Operations Manuals, Pentions and the Seniority on the company ladder isn't all that can be got in life or out of flying. My school exists because of my Instructors, members and students who, whatever their means, support, help provide aircraft, garden furniture, roof repairs, time in helping to run the place and so on.
The flying clubs around the UK provide a fantistic opportunity to everyone from the van driver pooling just enough to pay for their PPL and to the potential airline pilot stepping onwards to the airline career.
I don't like the NPPL but we do need to get back to the ' flying club'. The JAA was designed to facilitate the very real needs of the airlines and has imposed a totallly wrong demand on GA. Things do need to change. People like Barry and BEagle need the support they deserve in the efforts they are giving, free of charge, and if a more realistic GA flying world can be developed out the mess, wonderful!
The winge'rs who rattle on about poor pay and how they are exploited are quite right, they are. But, as the saying goes, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I, like the Lady in Red, had a good career and changed it to buy a flying school. I was never under the illusion that it would make me rich or even give me the living that I was used to. It was what I wanted to do. No complaints!
I employ a number of Instructors; hour builders towards that distant airline job. Doctors and Policeman fulfilling a hobby. Retired Airline Training Captains and ex-service pilots in retirement. The mix is a concophony of backgrounds and aims.
Do I pay them enough, NO! Can I pay them more, NO! Do I want to pay these highly trained people who in the main have spent a fortune getting licences and ratings with a lot to offer, proper rates of pay that reflect their knowledge and skills, YES! Is the money there to do it? NO
Get real! As the Lady in Red has indicated, believe it or not Trapper has a point, their are other things in life, for some it is flying, don't sneer. AOC's, Operations Manuals, Pentions and the Seniority on the company ladder isn't all that can be got in life or out of flying. My school exists because of my Instructors, members and students who, whatever their means, support, help provide aircraft, garden furniture, roof repairs, time in helping to run the place and so on.
The flying clubs around the UK provide a fantistic opportunity to everyone from the van driver pooling just enough to pay for their PPL and to the potential airline pilot stepping onwards to the airline career.
I don't like the NPPL but we do need to get back to the ' flying club'. The JAA was designed to facilitate the very real needs of the airlines and has imposed a totallly wrong demand on GA. Things do need to change. People like Barry and BEagle need the support they deserve in the efforts they are giving, free of charge, and if a more realistic GA flying world can be developed out the mess, wonderful!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing I have read here seems likely to solve the fundamental problem of cost.
Fiddling about with who can teach is unlikely to change anything. We do need to get more people involved but this will only happen if we cut costs. Tax on fuel and the sheer cost of parts and maintenance are what keeps the costs high, not who is in the cockpit.
Why waste effort on changing instructors, but use that energy to try and reduced fixed costs, then we may have something worthwile.
Fiddling about with who can teach is unlikely to change anything. We do need to get more people involved but this will only happen if we cut costs. Tax on fuel and the sheer cost of parts and maintenance are what keeps the costs high, not who is in the cockpit.
Why waste effort on changing instructors, but use that energy to try and reduced fixed costs, then we may have something worthwile.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see how some costs can be reduced but cannot see how we can change the earning power of the potential customer.
It seems that the post PPL population is full of three types of people:
1) PPLs struggling to afford the currency of their licence.
2) Wealthy individuals who have the financial strength
to pay what it costs.
3) Mostly "unhappy" instructors !!!
We cannot increase the group in (2) and we cannot help those in (1) as FTOs are not charities.
As for those in (3)......the only ones "happy" are the ones that
can afford the terms and conditions
It would be interesting to know if costs of parts and the hourly rate of maintenance organisations is really a "rip off".
If these costs *can* be reduced plus any future reduction of fuel duty on AVGAS (and if it is passed on to the students) THEN there may be chance of increasing the new PPL applicants.
I *still* don't see how the idea of increasing the number of instructors would do this
It seems that the post PPL population is full of three types of people:
1) PPLs struggling to afford the currency of their licence.
2) Wealthy individuals who have the financial strength
to pay what it costs.
3) Mostly "unhappy" instructors !!!
We cannot increase the group in (2) and we cannot help those in (1) as FTOs are not charities.
As for those in (3)......the only ones "happy" are the ones that
can afford the terms and conditions
It would be interesting to know if costs of parts and the hourly rate of maintenance organisations is really a "rip off".
If these costs *can* be reduced plus any future reduction of fuel duty on AVGAS (and if it is passed on to the students) THEN there may be chance of increasing the new PPL applicants.
I *still* don't see how the idea of increasing the number of instructors would do this
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
Still fizzing away............!!!!!!!!!!!
My paper for the PFA on PPL and NPPL(SEP) instructors for the NPPL(SEP) was not the only one.
Another proposed use of unlicensed but still suitable aerodromes for the training as was the case in the UK prior to around 1966. Something the BGA with SLMG and the BMAA with microlights have been able to do for decades. Even JAR-FCL does not require the use of LICENSED aerodromes.....!!!!!
The last was to allow CERTAIN suitable aeroplanes operated on the basis of a Permit to Fly to be used for training towards an NPPL(SEP) as with the BMAA with certain suitable microlights.
If all this came into being then there could indeed be a major reduction in the cost of the NPPL(SEP) with a consequent large increase in the number of folk from all walks of life coming into private, sporting and recreational aviation which is what probably 75% of our customers really want.
The NPPL(SEP) is a NATIONAL licence and does not have to meet ICAO Annex 1 or JAR-FCL or any future EASA requirement so the UK is at liberty to set what requirements are deemed appropriate.
Comments please.
Trapper 69
My paper for the PFA on PPL and NPPL(SEP) instructors for the NPPL(SEP) was not the only one.
Another proposed use of unlicensed but still suitable aerodromes for the training as was the case in the UK prior to around 1966. Something the BGA with SLMG and the BMAA with microlights have been able to do for decades. Even JAR-FCL does not require the use of LICENSED aerodromes.....!!!!!
The last was to allow CERTAIN suitable aeroplanes operated on the basis of a Permit to Fly to be used for training towards an NPPL(SEP) as with the BMAA with certain suitable microlights.
If all this came into being then there could indeed be a major reduction in the cost of the NPPL(SEP) with a consequent large increase in the number of folk from all walks of life coming into private, sporting and recreational aviation which is what probably 75% of our customers really want.
The NPPL(SEP) is a NATIONAL licence and does not have to meet ICAO Annex 1 or JAR-FCL or any future EASA requirement so the UK is at liberty to set what requirements are deemed appropriate.
Comments please.
Trapper 69
The CAA is already looking at the current requirements for SEP training aerodromes; when they have concluded their review the NPPL P&SC will be in a better position to consider whether it meets their objectives.
But significant changes may impact adversely upon aerodrome operators' businesses. Hence, like it or not it seems that another Regulatory Impact Assessment would be required....
On this issue I consider that we should all wait until the CAA has had a chance to present its proposals. Rushing headlong at them like a bull at a gate will be unlikely to be of much benefit.
But significant changes may impact adversely upon aerodrome operators' businesses. Hence, like it or not it seems that another Regulatory Impact Assessment would be required....
On this issue I consider that we should all wait until the CAA has had a chance to present its proposals. Rushing headlong at them like a bull at a gate will be unlikely to be of much benefit.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of licensing a field is high, but how will it change things for clubs who don't operate their own aerodromes? Will they be put out of business by schools operating from potentially shonky little fields that can charge less?
Again this is a proposal that could have disasterous effects on the industry by taking us back to the 'olden days' when people were happy to put up with basic conditions. For the average PPL this is unacceptable. People want to feel part of a professional environment hopefully with modern equipment and facilities, taking us back to the '60's seems like a crazy idea, but what do I know.............
I agree with BEag's that we should wait and see what the CAA propose before any other ludicrous plans are put forward.
Again this is a proposal that could have disasterous effects on the industry by taking us back to the 'olden days' when people were happy to put up with basic conditions. For the average PPL this is unacceptable. People want to feel part of a professional environment hopefully with modern equipment and facilities, taking us back to the '60's seems like a crazy idea, but what do I know.............
I agree with BEag's that we should wait and see what the CAA propose before any other ludicrous plans are put forward.
At the moment an 'aerodrome' can be anything from London Airport to Farmer Giles' muddy old meadow. Somewhere in between there are 'licensed' and 'unlicensed' aerodromes, gliding sites, microlight sites.... Training can take place at some aerodromes for certain types of aircraft and certain levels of training.
My preferred term is 'approved training aerodrome'. Depending on what it has to offer, approval would be given for specific training activities at a specific aerodrome. A helicopter FTO doesn't need the runway length which a MEP FTO would need; a Microlight training school probably needs less aerodrome facilities than a school training people for a PPL. 'Licensing' is not the issue per se; ensuring that facilities are commensurate with the nature of proposed training operations being conducted probably is.
"I wish to conduct the following training from this aerodrome. It has the following on-site facilities and the nearest off-site fire and rescue services are situated x miles from the aerodrome" No need for a 'licence', surely, just 'approval' subject to whatever limitations on the nature of training, number of movements etc which the Authority are happy with?
Muddy little fields in the middle of nowhere with a couple of tatty old cloth bombers, a tacky little portakabins with a single bar electric fire, a few old armchairs, no phone, a kettle, no running water, powdered milk and a mangy old cat glaring at customers from the corner - with only a rarely-emptied portaloo out back aren't going attract many into flying in the year 2004! But equally not many will want to be greated by the sycophantic smarm of a top marque car salesman - they'll just hear the sound of cash registers ringing away in their heads!
There is a need for review; let's give the oft-maligned Belgranists a chance to do so!
My preferred term is 'approved training aerodrome'. Depending on what it has to offer, approval would be given for specific training activities at a specific aerodrome. A helicopter FTO doesn't need the runway length which a MEP FTO would need; a Microlight training school probably needs less aerodrome facilities than a school training people for a PPL. 'Licensing' is not the issue per se; ensuring that facilities are commensurate with the nature of proposed training operations being conducted probably is.
"I wish to conduct the following training from this aerodrome. It has the following on-site facilities and the nearest off-site fire and rescue services are situated x miles from the aerodrome" No need for a 'licence', surely, just 'approval' subject to whatever limitations on the nature of training, number of movements etc which the Authority are happy with?
Muddy little fields in the middle of nowhere with a couple of tatty old cloth bombers, a tacky little portakabins with a single bar electric fire, a few old armchairs, no phone, a kettle, no running water, powdered milk and a mangy old cat glaring at customers from the corner - with only a rarely-emptied portaloo out back aren't going attract many into flying in the year 2004! But equally not many will want to be greated by the sycophantic smarm of a top marque car salesman - they'll just hear the sound of cash registers ringing away in their heads!
There is a need for review; let's give the oft-maligned Belgranists a chance to do so!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 67
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have enjoyed this thread, and would just like to make one or two observations.
I am one of the fortunate part time club instructors, with a well paid "proper" job. I instruct purely for pleasure.
I do not recognise the "hours builder" who sets out to build hours with total disregard for the quality of instruction. I have been priviledged to instruct alongside many hours builders, whos career objectives were airline jobs, but I cannot think of any of them who did not provide high quality training in a very professional manner.
Our members club flying school is presently under a much greater threat due to the expansion of commercial activities at our regional "International" airport. Landing fees have risen 10 fold over the last year and are set to double again this year so that we will be paying £30 per landing and £15 per touch and go(£230 for an hour of circuits with 6 touch and gos).
We are clearly being squeezed out of this airport by an aggressive CEO chasing his financial bonus. As things stand at present there are no viable options for our relocation, because there are no proximate licenced airfields suitable for flight training. This scenario appears to be coming more common up and down the country, and we must seek an alternative method of approving "Training airfields" if recreational GA is to survive.
As far as the knowledge base required for FI, I agree more emphasis should be placed on "teaching methods", by which I mean not only class room technique, but also the practical aspects of dealing with student landing problems for example.
Like the university philosophy however, I think that the level of knowledge should be "broadly based", but with much more emphasis on light aircraft operations. The CPL knowledge requirements are in my view too detailed in relation to commercial operations and heavy aircraft, and inadequate in relation to light aircraft operations. I imagine the reason there is not an instructor/commercial licence is because of the financial implications of set up and running costs.
Perhaps a better way forward therefore would be to take the relevant CPL modules, and substitute some light aviation ones for the unecessary modules, and integrate them into a FI course and dedicated knowledge based test, administered by the FIEs. The relevent modules could then be credited toward a CPL/ATPL for those wishing to move onward to a commercial career. This would be a much cheaper option than a whole new licence.
I am one of the fortunate part time club instructors, with a well paid "proper" job. I instruct purely for pleasure.
I do not recognise the "hours builder" who sets out to build hours with total disregard for the quality of instruction. I have been priviledged to instruct alongside many hours builders, whos career objectives were airline jobs, but I cannot think of any of them who did not provide high quality training in a very professional manner.
Our members club flying school is presently under a much greater threat due to the expansion of commercial activities at our regional "International" airport. Landing fees have risen 10 fold over the last year and are set to double again this year so that we will be paying £30 per landing and £15 per touch and go(£230 for an hour of circuits with 6 touch and gos).
We are clearly being squeezed out of this airport by an aggressive CEO chasing his financial bonus. As things stand at present there are no viable options for our relocation, because there are no proximate licenced airfields suitable for flight training. This scenario appears to be coming more common up and down the country, and we must seek an alternative method of approving "Training airfields" if recreational GA is to survive.
As far as the knowledge base required for FI, I agree more emphasis should be placed on "teaching methods", by which I mean not only class room technique, but also the practical aspects of dealing with student landing problems for example.
Like the university philosophy however, I think that the level of knowledge should be "broadly based", but with much more emphasis on light aircraft operations. The CPL knowledge requirements are in my view too detailed in relation to commercial operations and heavy aircraft, and inadequate in relation to light aircraft operations. I imagine the reason there is not an instructor/commercial licence is because of the financial implications of set up and running costs.
Perhaps a better way forward therefore would be to take the relevant CPL modules, and substitute some light aviation ones for the unecessary modules, and integrate them into a FI course and dedicated knowledge based test, administered by the FIEs. The relevent modules could then be credited toward a CPL/ATPL for those wishing to move onward to a commercial career. This would be a much cheaper option than a whole new licence.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructor Q's
I think the last two contributions are excellent.
The Approved FI schools being approved to conduct exam preperation courses for the appropiate 'Instructor Exams', as described, will add distinctly relevant training and as already said become credits later towars a CPL should an individual wish to go Public Transport.
I would also like to see 'Sandwich Courses fo the FI. Hands on Instructing under supervision within a flying club supervised by an experienced CFI approved for the purpose and backed up by mandatory attendance at an FI school throughout the training process.
BEagle's 'Approved Aerodrome' scenario also takes us forward and is an answer to the current impass in regard to the licencing of Aerodromes debate.
I'm holding my breath.
The Approved FI schools being approved to conduct exam preperation courses for the appropiate 'Instructor Exams', as described, will add distinctly relevant training and as already said become credits later towars a CPL should an individual wish to go Public Transport.
I would also like to see 'Sandwich Courses fo the FI. Hands on Instructing under supervision within a flying club supervised by an experienced CFI approved for the purpose and backed up by mandatory attendance at an FI school throughout the training process.
BEagle's 'Approved Aerodrome' scenario also takes us forward and is an answer to the current impass in regard to the licencing of Aerodromes debate.
I'm holding my breath.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the costs that surely ought to be reduced is the costs of maintenance. Here we are with instructors only making about £10 to £15 per hour, there are engineers charging a minimum fee of £60 just for basic tasks carried out by an unqualified fitter! It seems a gross disparity. May be another way of dealing with the cost issue would be for all instructors to be paid direct by the student and thus they could agree privately what they wanted to charge. Then if a student wanted to use a free of charge instructor he could but if he chose to pay a guy £60 because he really valued what he was getting then he could. Personally when I used to freelance in the old days before JAR i never had any problem being paid £25 to £30 for refresher training or IMC by private owners. (Twice what I get now working for a FTO!!)
There are some of you who will say that the ones who do it for free are keeping the pay scale down, but if it was all published in the Where to Fly Guide then everyone would know and the individuals could make their choices. Some people actually believe that if you pay more for something then it must be better etc etc. (old argument -sorry)
There are some of you who will say that the ones who do it for free are keeping the pay scale down, but if it was all published in the Where to Fly Guide then everyone would know and the individuals could make their choices. Some people actually believe that if you pay more for something then it must be better etc etc. (old argument -sorry)
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lady in Red: I'm quite in the agreement with the concept of instructors freelancing but I also know that it cannot
be applied unless those who work as full-time instructors have their employment contracts renegotiated as such.
I know from personal experience that some people prefer to be taught by one or two particular instructors.
Your proposal makes sense for those with a CPL and with some minor adjustment for public liability insurance, it would work.
However, I suspect that given the choice between freelancers and employees, most FTOs would opt for employees
and profit from the arrangement somehow.
As for engineer's rates, it is a simple case of rarity and convenience of location. We as instructors cannot
use their model because for a start, there are far too many of us
be applied unless those who work as full-time instructors have their employment contracts renegotiated as such.
I know from personal experience that some people prefer to be taught by one or two particular instructors.
Your proposal makes sense for those with a CPL and with some minor adjustment for public liability insurance, it would work.
However, I suspect that given the choice between freelancers and employees, most FTOs would opt for employees
and profit from the arrangement somehow.
As for engineer's rates, it is a simple case of rarity and convenience of location. We as instructors cannot
use their model because for a start, there are far too many of us
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wages
Instructors are definately worth £20-£30 per flying hour and should be able to earn at least £25,000+ per annum.
Many flying schools have gone to wall in recent years and others simply survive. Certainly in the case of fixed-wing most flying clubs are member owned and subsidised or constituted as non-profit making with very few exceptions.
80-90% of income will come from pilot training with self hire being just a small part of the day to day activity. The training rate therefore is the real price from which the school/club earns it's income. The solo rates are discounted rates. The money available to pay instructors ibso facto is limited. Fifteen to twenty pounds an hour to the Instructor is a good cut. The problem is that the Instructor has to take the rub alongside the school owing to downtime for whatever the reason - and we know that in flying terms downtime is manifest due to all the obvious day to day realities including weather.
Even if there was a turnaround and we saw a doubling of business don't expect much of an increase in wages or fees, however deserved. It will mean that at long last the roof gets repaired or the ILS glideslope is fixed and the localiser become FM Immune. FM immunity like the prop shaft issue a few years ago can only be put down to yet another CAA faux pas.
Not for me to protect Engineers, however not many can afford to charge much more than £20 to £30 per hour. About the same as the one man band Car Mechanic working from an old shed in a back street.
The real answer is to see the flying club brought back into the fold of general aviation. JAA has completely sidetracked the role of the flying club from the advanced training scenario. Think back just a few years when FIC and later BCPL course were very closely alied to clubs. Even the IMC course is not recognised as a credit toward JAA professional licences. While many heavy jet pilots see Instructing at the club as recreation, the CAA say it isn't and counts instructing hours toward professional flying hours. The club has lost these contibutors as well.
Many flying schools have gone to wall in recent years and others simply survive. Certainly in the case of fixed-wing most flying clubs are member owned and subsidised or constituted as non-profit making with very few exceptions.
80-90% of income will come from pilot training with self hire being just a small part of the day to day activity. The training rate therefore is the real price from which the school/club earns it's income. The solo rates are discounted rates. The money available to pay instructors ibso facto is limited. Fifteen to twenty pounds an hour to the Instructor is a good cut. The problem is that the Instructor has to take the rub alongside the school owing to downtime for whatever the reason - and we know that in flying terms downtime is manifest due to all the obvious day to day realities including weather.
Even if there was a turnaround and we saw a doubling of business don't expect much of an increase in wages or fees, however deserved. It will mean that at long last the roof gets repaired or the ILS glideslope is fixed and the localiser become FM Immune. FM immunity like the prop shaft issue a few years ago can only be put down to yet another CAA faux pas.
Not for me to protect Engineers, however not many can afford to charge much more than £20 to £30 per hour. About the same as the one man band Car Mechanic working from an old shed in a back street.
The real answer is to see the flying club brought back into the fold of general aviation. JAA has completely sidetracked the role of the flying club from the advanced training scenario. Think back just a few years when FIC and later BCPL course were very closely alied to clubs. Even the IMC course is not recognised as a credit toward JAA professional licences. While many heavy jet pilots see Instructing at the club as recreation, the CAA say it isn't and counts instructing hours toward professional flying hours. The club has lost these contibutors as well.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well ... I've just spent an interesting hour reading through this thread, and yes I'm not a power reader!
Firstly ... SAS, I think to deride all would be PPL instructors as "barely qualified" is an insult. Nobody is suggesting a fresh PPL should suddenly jump in the right seat and teach. If you really think that all you need to become "PROPERLY QUALIFIED" to teach is a CPL and FI rating then you are an ignorant fool.
WTW ... Why is so hard to understand why somebody might simply enjoy teaching and filling others with enthusiasm for a sport/pastime/career that they find so much fun. Everyone has different motivations and those not the same as yours are just as relevent.
OK ... rant over
I hold my hands up as a non instructor but like many I would like to be but can't afford it. I can fully understand how those now qualified feel both threatened and to a certain extent elitest. After all, you have spent out on your training and worked hard. It's only human nature to dislike the idea that others may reach a similar position with less expense or effort. The trouble is does that make the system fair or sensible? I personally think not.
Personally I have been flying since the early 80's. Firstly gliders, then onto power (flying Tigermoths and Cubs with WW2 era instructors) with a bit of microlighting thrown in for good measure. My radio is appalling and I'm sure I have many bad habits. However, these can easily be pulled up and my experience and knowledge of flying at PPL level is not always but often more in depth than quite a few CPL/FI's that I've met or read on here. I'd like to instruct mostly because I love flying, I love the idea of introducing potential flyers to the idea that flying need not be just about chasing ratings and airline jobs but can simply be about having fun. Romantic? ... maybe? Am I a dinosaur? ... maybe; but at 38 I don't think I'm just some old fool remembering the good old days and wishing. I've seen how the BGA and BMAA work and the proffessionalism of their instructors and I do remember how PPL instruction was. It wasn't perfect, but believe me it wasn't that bad either.
The Answer
I don't have it! ... but I do think that at the basic PPL level we don't need to have CPL level of knowledge in all subjects. PPL instructors would obviously need a sensible number of hours under their belts, and the FI course could make sure relevent knowledge is up to scratch along with flying skill, after all, surely that why you have to go through it anyway?
Would it not be OK to make the FI(R) this level and then insist on CPL ect for FI and beyond? ... or drop the compulsory approved course just to take the CPL exams. What was wrong with home study? if you failed you weren't good enough, if you passed you were? (well maybe not but that's always been the way with any exams).
Ivan ... ducking FLAK
Firstly ... SAS, I think to deride all would be PPL instructors as "barely qualified" is an insult. Nobody is suggesting a fresh PPL should suddenly jump in the right seat and teach. If you really think that all you need to become "PROPERLY QUALIFIED" to teach is a CPL and FI rating then you are an ignorant fool.
WTW ... Why is so hard to understand why somebody might simply enjoy teaching and filling others with enthusiasm for a sport/pastime/career that they find so much fun. Everyone has different motivations and those not the same as yours are just as relevent.
OK ... rant over
I hold my hands up as a non instructor but like many I would like to be but can't afford it. I can fully understand how those now qualified feel both threatened and to a certain extent elitest. After all, you have spent out on your training and worked hard. It's only human nature to dislike the idea that others may reach a similar position with less expense or effort. The trouble is does that make the system fair or sensible? I personally think not.
Personally I have been flying since the early 80's. Firstly gliders, then onto power (flying Tigermoths and Cubs with WW2 era instructors) with a bit of microlighting thrown in for good measure. My radio is appalling and I'm sure I have many bad habits. However, these can easily be pulled up and my experience and knowledge of flying at PPL level is not always but often more in depth than quite a few CPL/FI's that I've met or read on here. I'd like to instruct mostly because I love flying, I love the idea of introducing potential flyers to the idea that flying need not be just about chasing ratings and airline jobs but can simply be about having fun. Romantic? ... maybe? Am I a dinosaur? ... maybe; but at 38 I don't think I'm just some old fool remembering the good old days and wishing. I've seen how the BGA and BMAA work and the proffessionalism of their instructors and I do remember how PPL instruction was. It wasn't perfect, but believe me it wasn't that bad either.
The Answer
I don't have it! ... but I do think that at the basic PPL level we don't need to have CPL level of knowledge in all subjects. PPL instructors would obviously need a sensible number of hours under their belts, and the FI course could make sure relevent knowledge is up to scratch along with flying skill, after all, surely that why you have to go through it anyway?
Would it not be OK to make the FI(R) this level and then insist on CPL ect for FI and beyond? ... or drop the compulsory approved course just to take the CPL exams. What was wrong with home study? if you failed you weren't good enough, if you passed you were? (well maybe not but that's always been the way with any exams).
Ivan ... ducking FLAK
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that shortstripper. As an "ignorant fool" who does have an FI rating, this whole debate covers the great divide between PPL's and instructors.
If you have ever read any of my posts, then you will see that I don't think that just because somebody has a PPL it makes them incompetent and conversely having a CPL is no guarantee of ability. BUT I know far more dangerous PPL's than I do CPL's and there are very few PPL's I would feel comfortable letting loose as an instructor.
Instructing is not a job to be taken lightly, a bunch of "amateurs" would be catastrophic to the industry in my opinion.
G-KEST has stated that these are measures that may help reduce the cost of flying, I will say again (slowly) for the 20th time that this is utter bunk. FI's should get MORE money not less. How else are you able to keep decent instructors? To reduce costs, let's attack the things that actually are expensive such as fuel.
Flying is great fun for most PPL's, they only go when they want to and where they want to. As an instructor, the sheer joy of flying changes fairly rapidly into a job. Sometimes it's wonderful, others sheer drudgery mixed with the occasional serving of terror. See how much enthusiasm you have on cold, wet, windy day when students don't turn up, you're drinking coffee and not getting paid. If you love flying and teaching so much, there is a route for you.
I will always maintain that a good instructor MUST be at least 10 steps ahead of the student. A PPL teaching another PPL doesn't cut it in my book.
I always try to do the best for my students and on many occasions I have had to dip into my post-PPL knowledge to either get the point across, or something unexpected has happened that I was in no way trained for during my PPL.
Most PPL's to be honest are actually a danger to themselves and others, again anyone who can be bothered to read this BB is unlikely to be such an individual. The number of times I have been lied to, verbally abused or even threatened by PPL's because they didn't like me questioning them, especially over currency, is far from funny or even uncommon.
Should these individuals be allowed to teach the next generation of pilots? What procedures would there be in place to stop it happening? Maybe I am too cynical.
What is wrong with instructing at the moment? Nobody has yet spelled out that there is a problem that needs fixing. Why go back 20 years (rose tinted specs?) and make major changes without identifying what the issues are today and trying to fix them in a constuctive manner.
Just because somebody has a CPL and an FI ticket doesn't make them any less of an enthusiast than any PPL. Infact the reverse is true. They love it so much that they are willing to remortgage their houses and work for peanuts. If that isn't enthusiasm then what is? Get a CPL and an FI rating, then you have earned the right to bitch about instructors.
If you have ever read any of my posts, then you will see that I don't think that just because somebody has a PPL it makes them incompetent and conversely having a CPL is no guarantee of ability. BUT I know far more dangerous PPL's than I do CPL's and there are very few PPL's I would feel comfortable letting loose as an instructor.
Instructing is not a job to be taken lightly, a bunch of "amateurs" would be catastrophic to the industry in my opinion.
G-KEST has stated that these are measures that may help reduce the cost of flying, I will say again (slowly) for the 20th time that this is utter bunk. FI's should get MORE money not less. How else are you able to keep decent instructors? To reduce costs, let's attack the things that actually are expensive such as fuel.
Flying is great fun for most PPL's, they only go when they want to and where they want to. As an instructor, the sheer joy of flying changes fairly rapidly into a job. Sometimes it's wonderful, others sheer drudgery mixed with the occasional serving of terror. See how much enthusiasm you have on cold, wet, windy day when students don't turn up, you're drinking coffee and not getting paid. If you love flying and teaching so much, there is a route for you.
I will always maintain that a good instructor MUST be at least 10 steps ahead of the student. A PPL teaching another PPL doesn't cut it in my book.
I always try to do the best for my students and on many occasions I have had to dip into my post-PPL knowledge to either get the point across, or something unexpected has happened that I was in no way trained for during my PPL.
Most PPL's to be honest are actually a danger to themselves and others, again anyone who can be bothered to read this BB is unlikely to be such an individual. The number of times I have been lied to, verbally abused or even threatened by PPL's because they didn't like me questioning them, especially over currency, is far from funny or even uncommon.
Should these individuals be allowed to teach the next generation of pilots? What procedures would there be in place to stop it happening? Maybe I am too cynical.
What is wrong with instructing at the moment? Nobody has yet spelled out that there is a problem that needs fixing. Why go back 20 years (rose tinted specs?) and make major changes without identifying what the issues are today and trying to fix them in a constuctive manner.
Just because somebody has a CPL and an FI ticket doesn't make them any less of an enthusiast than any PPL. Infact the reverse is true. They love it so much that they are willing to remortgage their houses and work for peanuts. If that isn't enthusiasm then what is? Get a CPL and an FI rating, then you have earned the right to bitch about instructors.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 14th Feb 2004 at 01:45.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
I wasn't bitching about flying instructors. I have the greatest respect for them ... but I also have respect for others who don't have the money or time to be get the bit's of paper that so many see as the only way to mark you out as worthy. I see this in many walks of life and not just aviation.
I have read quite a few of your posts and mostly I find that you make great sense and speak with clarity and knowledge. That's why I find it so dissappointing when I see people like yourself who should know better making blanket statements and belittling those less "worthy". You take great delight in pointing out that you are someone who does have an FI rating and that's fine, but I am allowed my opinion too. It may be from a different angle but it is just as relevent to this discussion. Calling you an ignorant fool was a bit over the top and for that I apologise. However, assuming that I am so ignorant to think that instructing is all fun and doesn't have it's dull, dangerous or just plain "ordinary" side is just as bad. I come from the world of agriculture where we lean against gates chewing grass in the hot sun and never get wet or cold calving cows at 2am ... so what would I know of real life?
It's a shame you weren't flying earlier as you'd realise that the world wasn't invented post JAR. Things actually worked quite well if not perfectly before. What's wrong with the present system? well quite a lot actually, why else do you think this topic keeps reappearing? The BGA and BMAA do not require CPL level instructors and if you think their standards are low then I will call you ignorant again and mean it!
I'm sure you are a very good instructor and very enthusiastic about flying ... that's great. I never said I thought CPL's FI's ect weren't, I just meant we don't all want to be airline pilots.
"Most PPLs a danger to themselves and others"? well there you go again! ... perhaps you're right (but I think not). If you are, who's at fault? maybe you as an instructor? ... or are they just the ones taught by someone else or those qualified before JAR?
If I had my own house I'd remortgage it ... but I don't. If I had no kids to feed I'd chuck every penny at doing the now very expensive CPL papers and AFI course ... but I do. There are plenty of rich kids out there (my sweeping statement and only meant tongue in cheek) who's daddy payed their way, does that mean they are more likely to be better instructors? Sob story? well to a certain extent yes, but I really think spending £8000 or so just to teack basic PPL is a bit on the steep side.
Like I said it's not so much your argument but your attitude toward "mere" PPL's that I object to. To say you don't think that way but then to go on and say the things you do only goes show you are just a tad elitest.
SS
I wasn't bitching about flying instructors. I have the greatest respect for them ... but I also have respect for others who don't have the money or time to be get the bit's of paper that so many see as the only way to mark you out as worthy. I see this in many walks of life and not just aviation.
I have read quite a few of your posts and mostly I find that you make great sense and speak with clarity and knowledge. That's why I find it so dissappointing when I see people like yourself who should know better making blanket statements and belittling those less "worthy". You take great delight in pointing out that you are someone who does have an FI rating and that's fine, but I am allowed my opinion too. It may be from a different angle but it is just as relevent to this discussion. Calling you an ignorant fool was a bit over the top and for that I apologise. However, assuming that I am so ignorant to think that instructing is all fun and doesn't have it's dull, dangerous or just plain "ordinary" side is just as bad. I come from the world of agriculture where we lean against gates chewing grass in the hot sun and never get wet or cold calving cows at 2am ... so what would I know of real life?
It's a shame you weren't flying earlier as you'd realise that the world wasn't invented post JAR. Things actually worked quite well if not perfectly before. What's wrong with the present system? well quite a lot actually, why else do you think this topic keeps reappearing? The BGA and BMAA do not require CPL level instructors and if you think their standards are low then I will call you ignorant again and mean it!
I'm sure you are a very good instructor and very enthusiastic about flying ... that's great. I never said I thought CPL's FI's ect weren't, I just meant we don't all want to be airline pilots.
"Most PPLs a danger to themselves and others"? well there you go again! ... perhaps you're right (but I think not). If you are, who's at fault? maybe you as an instructor? ... or are they just the ones taught by someone else or those qualified before JAR?
If I had my own house I'd remortgage it ... but I don't. If I had no kids to feed I'd chuck every penny at doing the now very expensive CPL papers and AFI course ... but I do. There are plenty of rich kids out there (my sweeping statement and only meant tongue in cheek) who's daddy payed their way, does that mean they are more likely to be better instructors? Sob story? well to a certain extent yes, but I really think spending £8000 or so just to teack basic PPL is a bit on the steep side.
Like I said it's not so much your argument but your attitude toward "mere" PPL's that I object to. To say you don't think that way but then to go on and say the things you do only goes show you are just a tad elitest.
SS