Instructor's Pay
Instructor's Pay
Guest
Posts: n/a
This topic always seems to be being discussed!
I doubt that you would get much of a pay rise if any at all for becoming unrestricted. I suppose it depends on the school and how generous your boss is.
(oh, and you have got 100hrs instruction aswell haven't you?)
I doubt that you would get much of a pay rise if any at all for becoming unrestricted. I suppose it depends on the school and how generous your boss is.
(oh, and you have got 100hrs instruction aswell haven't you?)
Guest
Posts: n/a
At some places the answer is yes
... But not a great deal
The major benefit is that you can operate
independantly and can threfore cover for others and thereby do more hours and thereby earn more money..
[This message has been edited by RVR800 (edited 30 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks to both for the response.
I have over 300hrs of instructing now.
It's just that I was "caught" in the rule changes regarding the method of AFI/QFI upgrades. What with being a "Saturday Man" at the Club, I have not always been at the right place, at the right time to qualify for the "supervision".
On another matter: anyone here working full-time at a "major" training org ?
I would like to move on to that type of teaching when I give up my "day job"....
I have over 300hrs of instructing now.
It's just that I was "caught" in the rule changes regarding the method of AFI/QFI upgrades. What with being a "Saturday Man" at the Club, I have not always been at the right place, at the right time to qualify for the "supervision".
On another matter: anyone here working full-time at a "major" training org ?
I would like to move on to that type of teaching when I give up my "day job"....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry to intrude but I just thought I'd say, as a student, I have no idea how you guys live on the woeful pay you get. When I first started training I was horrified at paying £100 an hour...now I can't see how anyone makes any money. It must be the love of risking your lives with us wannabies 
Keep up the good work! (now stop p**sing around on the net and get back to work
)
Keep up the good work! (now stop p**sing around on the net and get back to work
)Guest
Posts: n/a
This is quite a touchy subject. Money always stirs up feeling with people, But instructor pay is crap. There is no other way to put it.
I found myself reading an article about the PFA coaching scheme in popular flying this weekend. It made my blood boil.
The CAA has in its wisdom authorised the PFA to designate coaches, who need not hold anything more than a basic PPL, to teach and check pilots on PFA or permit aircraft. This in it's self is quite a good idea, why not allow someone who knows an aircraft for example a Europa help another pilot learn to fly his/her new plane.
The part that gets my goat is they get paid for it. Thay have had no formal instructor training nor do they hold a licence that allows hire or reward flying. We have all had to splash out thousands to get and maintain our instructor ratings. We have also had to study hard to get our commercial licences inorder to do it, paid or not it now seems under JAR.
How much do we get paid £5 or £20 if your very lucky per hour. Then the tax man comes in. The PFA coaches take £35 per flight or per hour I don't know which, of which £10 goes to the PFA for admin (nice little earner) and the remaining £25 is for the coach for expenses! Does the tax man get any? Well he can't because PPLs are not allowed to fly for hire and reward and if they did it would be illegal.
So what do we have? We have the PFA trying to do the right thing with PFA type a/c safety, but they end up rubbing every instructor in the countries nose in it. They get paid more than us, possibly don't pay tax on it and they didn't have to pay for a CPL or FI rating. And what do we do? NOTHING.
Isn't it time we all got together and fought for a better deal? How about a British version of the American NAFI (National Assoc of Flight Instructors) to help instrucots with problems such as this one or pay perhaps.
Let me know what you think.
------------------
AP
I found myself reading an article about the PFA coaching scheme in popular flying this weekend. It made my blood boil.
The CAA has in its wisdom authorised the PFA to designate coaches, who need not hold anything more than a basic PPL, to teach and check pilots on PFA or permit aircraft. This in it's self is quite a good idea, why not allow someone who knows an aircraft for example a Europa help another pilot learn to fly his/her new plane.
The part that gets my goat is they get paid for it. Thay have had no formal instructor training nor do they hold a licence that allows hire or reward flying. We have all had to splash out thousands to get and maintain our instructor ratings. We have also had to study hard to get our commercial licences inorder to do it, paid or not it now seems under JAR.
How much do we get paid £5 or £20 if your very lucky per hour. Then the tax man comes in. The PFA coaches take £35 per flight or per hour I don't know which, of which £10 goes to the PFA for admin (nice little earner) and the remaining £25 is for the coach for expenses! Does the tax man get any? Well he can't because PPLs are not allowed to fly for hire and reward and if they did it would be illegal.
So what do we have? We have the PFA trying to do the right thing with PFA type a/c safety, but they end up rubbing every instructor in the countries nose in it. They get paid more than us, possibly don't pay tax on it and they didn't have to pay for a CPL or FI rating. And what do we do? NOTHING.
Isn't it time we all got together and fought for a better deal? How about a British version of the American NAFI (National Assoc of Flight Instructors) to help instrucots with problems such as this one or pay perhaps.
Let me know what you think.
------------------
AP
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is so odd that you could almost describe the whole issue of pay/basis of engagement as a good example of the "British disease".
Until JAR came in, the flying schools had it "easy" when it came to sourcing Instructors. The self-improver route meant that there were plenty of "instructors" willing to work for nothing, just to get the hours.
Note my use of lower case 'i' for these type of people, who by and large have no interest in t e a c h i n g. Being an Instructor is NOT just about having the rating.
Now that JAR is here, in time, the flying organisations will have to become competitive on pay as the number of "sheep" who are willing to work for nothing, gradually decline.
In the USA, it is quite routine in a professionally run flight school, for the Instructor to use a Punch Card machine at the start of the lesson and the Clok Off at the end of the lesson to present you with a separate bill for the instruction element of your lesson.
I really don't accept that if people wanted quality instruction, they would not be prepared to pay a decent sum for a Teacher as opposed to someone with just an Instructor rating.
Until JAR came in, the flying schools had it "easy" when it came to sourcing Instructors. The self-improver route meant that there were plenty of "instructors" willing to work for nothing, just to get the hours.
Note my use of lower case 'i' for these type of people, who by and large have no interest in t e a c h i n g. Being an Instructor is NOT just about having the rating.
Now that JAR is here, in time, the flying organisations will have to become competitive on pay as the number of "sheep" who are willing to work for nothing, gradually decline.
In the USA, it is quite routine in a professionally run flight school, for the Instructor to use a Punch Card machine at the start of the lesson and the Clok Off at the end of the lesson to present you with a separate bill for the instruction element of your lesson.
I really don't accept that if people wanted quality instruction, they would not be prepared to pay a decent sum for a Teacher as opposed to someone with just an Instructor rating.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Walkingthewalk,
I`ve met a lot of instructors who have, quite mistakenly, made the same assuption as you.
Upgrading to FI (having observed 25 solo flights) is one thing but it does NOT make you a QFI. Your not a QFI until you have had the "no applied instrument" restriction removed from your instructor rating!
Getting back to your question, I do think you should get some sort of payrise.
Your employers may say that you are not entitled to a payrise until you can teach the IMC rating (ie. by becoming a QFI)
The privilages of the FI(R) and FI are not really significantly different. If I remember correctly the only things an FI can do which a FI(R) can't is send first solo's and work unsupervised. Is this really going to put more money into your employers till?
------------------
Pull back and the houses get smaller - pull back a bit more and the houses get bigger!
I`ve met a lot of instructors who have, quite mistakenly, made the same assuption as you.
Upgrading to FI (having observed 25 solo flights) is one thing but it does NOT make you a QFI. Your not a QFI until you have had the "no applied instrument" restriction removed from your instructor rating!
Getting back to your question, I do think you should get some sort of payrise.
Your employers may say that you are not entitled to a payrise until you can teach the IMC rating (ie. by becoming a QFI)
The privilages of the FI(R) and FI are not really significantly different. If I remember correctly the only things an FI can do which a FI(R) can't is send first solo's and work unsupervised. Is this really going to put more money into your employers till?
------------------
Pull back and the houses get smaller - pull back a bit more and the houses get bigger!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't agree with you Night Rider. If your working at a small flying school then being able to work unsupervised is a big finanial benifit to a school.
I might of miss understood your last point. Why should it make any difference in pay if you have no instrument restriction when you're teaching the basic PPL.
------------------
AP
I might of miss understood your last point. Why should it make any difference in pay if you have no instrument restriction when you're teaching the basic PPL.
------------------
AP
Guest
Posts: n/a
If a PFA coach gets £25 per hour, then unless he can PROVE that his expenses (e.g travelling) came to at least that amount, then he is flying for hire or reward. The money recieved must be declared as taxable income, less any provable expenses.
I think most PFA coaches hold professional licences and hold or have held instructor ratings or Mil QFI.
I think most PFA coaches hold professional licences and hold or have held instructor ratings or Mil QFI.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Let me get this straight," said a friend of mine. "Based on what you're telling me about being a flight instructor, the guys flying the 747s over my house were originally taught to fly by someone who 1) had just learned to fly himself, 2) was working sixteen hour days, and 3) was barely paid enough to eat?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
In addition to the 23 Coaches that Babble and Airprox refer to, there are circa 50 Assistant Coaches whose only claim to fame is that they "are skilled on flying the particular types of aircraft widely used by the PFA movement". They carry out the check but don't sign the form FCL150CJAR etc. The full Coach does that. Apparently the CAA have agreed to this. The £35 "expenses" less £10 to the PFA is per check, not per hour. The last SEP check I did took longer than an hour.
Makes the navs and techs, commercial GFT and FIC look irrelevant, doesn't it?
Edited for clarity.
[This message has been edited by Yogi-Bear (edited 09 May 2001).]
Makes the navs and techs, commercial GFT and FIC look irrelevant, doesn't it?
Edited for clarity.
[This message has been edited by Yogi-Bear (edited 09 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yogi Bear,
What is a SEP check?
According to JAR FCL 1.245 the requirements for renewal of a Class Rating (single engine piston)include:
(B) complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor
This raises several points: firstly, this is a training flight, not a "check", secondly it does not need to last more than one hour, therefore the client could elect to terminate the flight after one hour, thirdly it must be conducted by a flight instructor.
I presume it is within the power of the CAA to authorise persons who are not flght instructors to conduct this flight, despite the wording of JAR FCL.
babble
What is a SEP check?
According to JAR FCL 1.245 the requirements for renewal of a Class Rating (single engine piston)include:
(B) complete a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor
This raises several points: firstly, this is a training flight, not a "check", secondly it does not need to last more than one hour, therefore the client could elect to terminate the flight after one hour, thirdly it must be conducted by a flight instructor.
I presume it is within the power of the CAA to authorise persons who are not flght instructors to conduct this flight, despite the wording of JAR FCL.
babble
Guest
Posts: n/a
SEP check? My shorthand for "a training flight of at least 1 hours duration with a flight instructor".
Now, instructor's pay. Lessons are £90 to £100 per hour to the punters now. Any more scope in that to pay instructors so they can afford a crust, never mind defray their investment? Well the PFA have shown how to improve the ante by circumventing the whole house of cards. The NPPL is going to be interesting!
Edited for fun and 'cos mi latins know gud.
[This message has been edited by Yogi-Bear (edited 05 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Yogi-Bear (edited 09 May 2001).]
Now, instructor's pay. Lessons are £90 to £100 per hour to the punters now. Any more scope in that to pay instructors so they can afford a crust, never mind defray their investment? Well the PFA have shown how to improve the ante by circumventing the whole house of cards.
The NPPL is going to be interesting! Edited for fun and 'cos mi latins know gud.
[This message has been edited by Yogi-Bear (edited 05 May 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Yogi-Bear (edited 09 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
My feelings on the subject are similar to Airprox. Indeed, whilst I agree that the 25 observed Solos plus 100 hrs instruction DO NOT make you a QFI, I am "stuck in the system" so with 300+ hrs. instruction and the observed Solos, I feel that I can say that I have developed the judgement as to whether someone is "ready for first solo".
As for IMC training, the increased revenue is only a function of demand (in the first place) and if the given Club has a lot of demand then yes, they would be keen on having IMC Instruction capacity.
As for IMC training, the increased revenue is only a function of demand (in the first place) and if the given Club has a lot of demand then yes, they would be keen on having IMC Instruction capacity.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yogi-Bear, I'm sorry my posting was seen as babble, But I am trying to raise a valid point.
I phoned the CAA FCL who had no idea that the PFA were doing this coaching scheme. They couldn't see how it was legal and agreed with me that it took the mick out of instructors. They are going to investigate..
The PFA told me that they do have permission from the CAA.
They also told me following some training a PPL with no instructional experience can become an assistant coach. The is no requirement to have any commercial licences. They also agree that it is not for hire or reward meaning that they a coach cannot log the time in his/her log book or be payed. They have though made an agreement with the taxman to allow £25 of expenses per hour (the PFA said).
If a coach who has had no training costs can get £25 tax free for expenses then what about an instructor who gets paid £10??
------------------
AP
[This message has been edited by Airprox (edited 06 May 2001).]
I phoned the CAA FCL who had no idea that the PFA were doing this coaching scheme. They couldn't see how it was legal and agreed with me that it took the mick out of instructors. They are going to investigate..
The PFA told me that they do have permission from the CAA.
They also told me following some training a PPL with no instructional experience can become an assistant coach. The is no requirement to have any commercial licences. They also agree that it is not for hire or reward meaning that they a coach cannot log the time in his/her log book or be payed. They have though made an agreement with the taxman to allow £25 of expenses per hour (the PFA said).
If a coach who has had no training costs can get £25 tax free for expenses then what about an instructor who gets paid £10??
------------------
AP
[This message has been edited by Airprox (edited 06 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Isn't it incredible that the PFA claim that their assistant coach scheme for the SEP renewal training flight is approved by the CAA, yet CAA FCL calim to have no knowledge of the scheme?
It seems very dodgy to me. A PFA member could easily do the flight, get his or her log book signed, then refuse to pay £25 expenses, instead only paying an amount which the coach could prove he had incurred (e.g travel costs).
Alternativly if the PFA member had agreed to pay £25 to the assistant coach, and there was an accident during the flight, an inurance company lawyer might argue that a promise of renumeration (over and above incurred expenses) had been made, and thus the flight was illegal so they don't have to pay out.
It seems very dodgy to me. A PFA member could easily do the flight, get his or her log book signed, then refuse to pay £25 expenses, instead only paying an amount which the coach could prove he had incurred (e.g travel costs).
Alternativly if the PFA member had agreed to pay £25 to the assistant coach, and there was an accident during the flight, an inurance company lawyer might argue that a promise of renumeration (over and above incurred expenses) had been made, and thus the flight was illegal so they don't have to pay out.
