Improving the lot of instructors
Educated Hillbilly
Whopoty RTFQ or FTFT,
Statement was "SELF EMPLOYED" not employed.
Go back and re read my post and attempt to understand the context and applicability of what was written.
The issue is employees using self employed status to obtain certain tax benefits and employers making people work on a self employed basis to minimise costs etc, in some cases this can be done legally if certain guidelines are followed, however in serveral instances it is a a low level of financial fraud.
Statement was "SELF EMPLOYED" not employed.
Go back and re read my post and attempt to understand the context and applicability of what was written.
The issue is employees using self employed status to obtain certain tax benefits and employers making people work on a self employed basis to minimise costs etc, in some cases this can be done legally if certain guidelines are followed, however in serveral instances it is a a low level of financial fraud.
Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 8th Mar 2008 at 14:08.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
employed v self-........?
portsharbourflyer
Your difficulty appears to be that your world is one of the Employer and the Employed.
But, that is not everyones view and we are all free to be as we please. It is not the role of the Inland Revenue to dictate whether or not you have to go to work for someone else or not, that is your choice. The HMRC job is to collect tax - a different issue.
I did a straw poll of the instructors that I work with and everyone without exception wished to be self-employed although for differing reasons.
You make an incorrect assertion that by being self-employed you are required to hold Public Liability insurance, not so. For the purposes of the clubs insurance all instructors whatever their status will be covered and also within the 'Employers Liability, insurance although some may be 'self-employed'.
The guidance issued by the HMRC only show criteria that they will accept without question but it is not the law. Nor is it intended to be a definition of employment/employed status. There are many others issues in that regard other than tax.
Your difficulty appears to be that your world is one of the Employer and the Employed.
But, that is not everyones view and we are all free to be as we please. It is not the role of the Inland Revenue to dictate whether or not you have to go to work for someone else or not, that is your choice. The HMRC job is to collect tax - a different issue.
I did a straw poll of the instructors that I work with and everyone without exception wished to be self-employed although for differing reasons.
You make an incorrect assertion that by being self-employed you are required to hold Public Liability insurance, not so. For the purposes of the clubs insurance all instructors whatever their status will be covered and also within the 'Employers Liability, insurance although some may be 'self-employed'.
The guidance issued by the HMRC only show criteria that they will accept without question but it is not the law. Nor is it intended to be a definition of employment/employed status. There are many others issues in that regard other than tax.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing to say an FI(R) can't be self-employed. Imagine the scenario: "Please come to work for me for the next two days and I'll pay your usual rate; I can supervise you, and you can then go back to whatever/wherever you were before". Nothing written anywhere saying that's illegal.
However, insurance is a different issue and depends on the insurance company. The flying school I work for checked this specific point recently, and self-employed insructors are NOT, REPEAT, NOT covered by the flying school's insurance. I suggest you all get your own ASAP.
However, insurance is a different issue and depends on the insurance company. The flying school I work for checked this specific point recently, and self-employed insructors are NOT, REPEAT, NOT covered by the flying school's insurance. I suggest you all get your own ASAP.
Educated Hillbilly
Homeguard and Whirlybird your statements are correct, but you are still missing the point.
Whirly, if a restricted instructor chooses to go and work somewhere on a one off basis then if full PAYE tax is paid on the earnings then no issue then no problem with that, however that should be considered temporary employment or casual employment. If the same instructor is trying to place those earnings through a limited company or a sole tradership in order to gain tax benefits then there is an issue. There is nothing written directly to say a restricted instructor cannot be self employed but the way I interpret the guidelines for self employed / independent contractor status it would suggest all restricted instructors would need to be employed.
Homeguard, correct it is up to an individual to choose to be self employed, however the self employed status is subject to the guidelines. Yes HMRC are responsible for collecting tax. Now if you are using the self employed status to gain tax benefits with regard to claiming back VAT, putting expenses against tax or using a limited company to receive payments via dividends then the HMRC can ask you to demonstrate that you meet the self employed / independent contractors criteria. If it is considered that you do meet the criteria then you will be liable for back tax bills. You may know that HMRC are very keen to determine those that are self employed and those that are "disguised employees".
Homeguard, yes there may be other issues aside from tax, but it is only when the tax isuses are missused anyone in authority will be interested.
If an individual is outside those guidelines then you may have to argue the case to a tax auditor one day.
Whirly, if a restricted instructor chooses to go and work somewhere on a one off basis then if full PAYE tax is paid on the earnings then no issue then no problem with that, however that should be considered temporary employment or casual employment. If the same instructor is trying to place those earnings through a limited company or a sole tradership in order to gain tax benefits then there is an issue. There is nothing written directly to say a restricted instructor cannot be self employed but the way I interpret the guidelines for self employed / independent contractor status it would suggest all restricted instructors would need to be employed.
Homeguard, correct it is up to an individual to choose to be self employed, however the self employed status is subject to the guidelines. Yes HMRC are responsible for collecting tax. Now if you are using the self employed status to gain tax benefits with regard to claiming back VAT, putting expenses against tax or using a limited company to receive payments via dividends then the HMRC can ask you to demonstrate that you meet the self employed / independent contractors criteria. If it is considered that you do meet the criteria then you will be liable for back tax bills. You may know that HMRC are very keen to determine those that are self employed and those that are "disguised employees".
Homeguard, yes there may be other issues aside from tax, but it is only when the tax isuses are missused anyone in authority will be interested.
If an individual is outside those guidelines then you may have to argue the case to a tax auditor one day.
Last edited by portsharbourflyer; 8th Mar 2008 at 17:34.
time4achange01, why not make a film about something more important...
The threat to UK GA posed by EASA, thanks to Brown and his gang of traitors signing us over to Europe.
The threat to UK GA posed by EASA, thanks to Brown and his gang of traitors signing us over to Europe.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance
whirlybird
If as you say and you are correct I would suggest that your club reviews their insurance immediately.
Remember that the situation is complex. The self-employed flight Instructor is flying within the clubs aircraft, with the clubs student/member. They are acting on behalf of the club and the club is paid by the student. In this situation the instructor will find it difficult to obtain Public and Employer Liability Insurance in their own right. The law that applies to the definition of employees can be different from the definition with regard to tax rules. For instance it is possible for a Tribunal to rule a person an employee while at the same time the HMRC accepts the same persons self-employed tax status.
portsharbourflyer
Look up Mal Scaffolding v HMRC. Mal Scaffolding won this appeal emphatically and in reality blew the HMRC guidelines apart.
Because people may put themselves in the best tax position they do not, by doing so, become awful people. As the judges in the above appeal pointed out the HMRC hardly sought to be objective and fair to the appellent during their investigations.
If as you say and you are correct I would suggest that your club reviews their insurance immediately.
Remember that the situation is complex. The self-employed flight Instructor is flying within the clubs aircraft, with the clubs student/member. They are acting on behalf of the club and the club is paid by the student. In this situation the instructor will find it difficult to obtain Public and Employer Liability Insurance in their own right. The law that applies to the definition of employees can be different from the definition with regard to tax rules. For instance it is possible for a Tribunal to rule a person an employee while at the same time the HMRC accepts the same persons self-employed tax status.
portsharbourflyer
Look up Mal Scaffolding v HMRC. Mal Scaffolding won this appeal emphatically and in reality blew the HMRC guidelines apart.
Because people may put themselves in the best tax position they do not, by doing so, become awful people. As the judges in the above appeal pointed out the HMRC hardly sought to be objective and fair to the appellent during their investigations.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Prostitutes
I never considered being a FI.
Pay is c##p and I considered it a job for people that weren't up to scratch for proper comercial flying jobs.
My own story is: My dad is a traing cpt for Monarch and he made sure that my training was very thorough and therefore he decided that I should start flying the 76 as soon as I left OAT's APP 276.
Also, an FI is not really a Commercial Pilot, I always thought of them as Flying Prostitutes that fly for food!
I guess some people are lucky, other are good pilots...
Pay is c##p and I considered it a job for people that weren't up to scratch for proper comercial flying jobs.
My own story is: My dad is a traing cpt for Monarch and he made sure that my training was very thorough and therefore he decided that I should start flying the 76 as soon as I left OAT's APP 276.
Also, an FI is not really a Commercial Pilot, I always thought of them as Flying Prostitutes that fly for food!
I guess some people are lucky, other are good pilots...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructor pay
For Falconideo
All views are welcome on this forum, but I cannot agree with yours.
Can I just mention that as an ex service pilot, ex PT pilot that now holding professional licences for both fixed wing and rotary, and approaching 15,000 hrs civil hours ... over the years I have owned and run on a day to day basis, three public transport businesses and three flying schools, (fixed and rotary)
I suppose in that time I might have employed a couple of dozen line pilots and a similar number of instructors. All I can say is that for what my judgement was worth, I soon learned that any pilot who had spent more than a few years in flying instruction was invariably a more rounded and usually safer pilot in difficult conditions than the non instructor variety.
I've lost count of the occasions I put a newly qualified CPL in a difficult emergency situation which resulted in a poor recovery, but cannot recall a single occasion when this happened with a new CPL who had extensive flying instruction experience.
I believe you should re-examine your correspondence and re-consider a poorly thought out post.
However, we all agree, instructor pay is too low, but most instructors, particularly rotary, will tell you job satisfaction is high, certainly higher than the years I spent poling a lumbering old giant straight and level at 35,000 feet.
Hope you like the solid old S-76. Unless its a ++
Dennis K.
All views are welcome on this forum, but I cannot agree with yours.
Can I just mention that as an ex service pilot, ex PT pilot that now holding professional licences for both fixed wing and rotary, and approaching 15,000 hrs civil hours ... over the years I have owned and run on a day to day basis, three public transport businesses and three flying schools, (fixed and rotary)
I suppose in that time I might have employed a couple of dozen line pilots and a similar number of instructors. All I can say is that for what my judgement was worth, I soon learned that any pilot who had spent more than a few years in flying instruction was invariably a more rounded and usually safer pilot in difficult conditions than the non instructor variety.
I've lost count of the occasions I put a newly qualified CPL in a difficult emergency situation which resulted in a poor recovery, but cannot recall a single occasion when this happened with a new CPL who had extensive flying instruction experience.
I believe you should re-examine your correspondence and re-consider a poorly thought out post.
However, we all agree, instructor pay is too low, but most instructors, particularly rotary, will tell you job satisfaction is high, certainly higher than the years I spent poling a lumbering old giant straight and level at 35,000 feet.
Hope you like the solid old S-76. Unless its a ++
Dennis K.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Derby
Age: 45
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never had such a good laugh before.
FI pay stinks but that's if you start at the beginning of the food chain.
As you get more *rights* i.e. teach commercial, instrument and multi, you receive more money and can pick where you wish to work.
I never found a job at the airlines, I guess I must be a really bad pilot? No, I did not have the hours that's about it.
A commercial pilot with an Instructor Rating is much more aware of things as far as i'm concerned.
It seems that the BIG COCK's got their heads twisted a bit too much nowatdays.
*Oh look that man flies a 737, he is the best there is*
*Oh look that guy's an instructor.. did you know those are the ones that were too **** to get a job at the airlines?*
(If this is true that must mean we are cranking some really dangerous pilots)
This attitude doesn't surprise me the least.
/end
As you get more *rights* i.e. teach commercial, instrument and multi, you receive more money and can pick where you wish to work.
I never found a job at the airlines, I guess I must be a really bad pilot? No, I did not have the hours that's about it.
A commercial pilot with an Instructor Rating is much more aware of things as far as i'm concerned.
It seems that the BIG COCK's got their heads twisted a bit too much nowatdays.
*Oh look that man flies a 737, he is the best there is*
*Oh look that guy's an instructor.. did you know those are the ones that were too **** to get a job at the airlines?*
(If this is true that must mean we are cranking some really dangerous pilots)
This attitude doesn't surprise me the least.
/end
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructor pay
Nice one Dennis
I am glad to see that so many people agree on the poor pay instructors get. It must surely mean something, specially now that there are not many of us around.
I noticed that some outfits are already raising their salaries (18K for ppl fis), and they are actually getting experienced instructors from lower paying aero clubs.
Some of us do it for the satisfaction we get, but it would only be fair if there was a consistent salary meaning we could actually pay the bills!
Cheers,
I am glad to see that so many people agree on the poor pay instructors get. It must surely mean something, specially now that there are not many of us around.
I noticed that some outfits are already raising their salaries (18K for ppl fis), and they are actually getting experienced instructors from lower paying aero clubs.
Some of us do it for the satisfaction we get, but it would only be fair if there was a consistent salary meaning we could actually pay the bills!
Cheers,
Educated Hillbilly
Homeguard,
Been away for a few weeks, so sorry for the delay in replying.
Very interesting the MAL Scaffolding case vs HMRC, I can see the argument you are proposing. As said it is a grey area and we could debate it for hours.
PHF
Been away for a few weeks, so sorry for the delay in replying.
Very interesting the MAL Scaffolding case vs HMRC, I can see the argument you are proposing. As said it is a grey area and we could debate it for hours.
PHF
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who and When
portsharbourflyer
We could indeed.
the two most important parts of the judgement which sets out new ground is;
a) the right of an individual to be employed/self-employed as they and the contractor see fit.
b) That two individuals working side by side both doing the same job can as each agree with the contractor, one be self-employed whilst the other is an employee.
Both the above decisions alters the HMRC standards significantly. It was as; a) you are employed when assessed against defined criteria pretty much in the same way that is decided in a Employment Tribunal, you have no personal choice and b) Should you be doing the job that an employee does normally then you are an employee for tax purposes.
In the particular case heard the employee was different in that, when there was no scaffold work they had to attend the yard and do whatever work the employer stiplulated such as tidying and maintenance etc. The self employed worked on a fixed price and attended only to complete the work previously agreed as the contract.
We could indeed.
the two most important parts of the judgement which sets out new ground is;
a) the right of an individual to be employed/self-employed as they and the contractor see fit.
b) That two individuals working side by side both doing the same job can as each agree with the contractor, one be self-employed whilst the other is an employee.
Both the above decisions alters the HMRC standards significantly. It was as; a) you are employed when assessed against defined criteria pretty much in the same way that is decided in a Employment Tribunal, you have no personal choice and b) Should you be doing the job that an employee does normally then you are an employee for tax purposes.
In the particular case heard the employee was different in that, when there was no scaffold work they had to attend the yard and do whatever work the employer stiplulated such as tidying and maintenance etc. The self employed worked on a fixed price and attended only to complete the work previously agreed as the contract.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Prostitutes
I'm sure your Training Captain Dad will be really proud of you when he reads your post.
Remember that it was an FI who set you on your path to your S76.
Aviation used to have a culture of respect!!
Remember that it was an FI who set you on your path to your S76.
Aviation used to have a culture of respect!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying prostitutes
I have to apologise, for leading everyone to believe that I fly a S76...It's actually a B767NG!
"Remember that it was an FI who set you on your path". Absolutely, he was an excellent pilot... however, I paid him breakfast a few times to save him from starvation.
"Remember that it was an FI who set you on your path". Absolutely, he was an excellent pilot... however, I paid him breakfast a few times to save him from starvation.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously,
Do we, as sub-standard CPLs
and FIs, have any representative body (apart from AOPA) that we can join?
Can we join BALPA (Falconideo goes into uncontrollable spasm at this suggestion!) or any other pilot's organisation?
I am already a member of AOPA UK and AOPA US but feel there may be some room for something more specific for FIs.
There are many non aviation professional bodies in existence, some good, others not, but an officially recognised professional body, specifically by FIs for FIs, with formal structure, legal status, membership levels, representation, etc. may not be a bad idea.
I'm only brainstorming but are there any opinions?
2close
Do we, as sub-standard CPLs
and FIs, have any representative body (apart from AOPA) that we can join?Can we join BALPA (Falconideo goes into uncontrollable spasm at this suggestion!) or any other pilot's organisation?
I am already a member of AOPA UK and AOPA US but feel there may be some room for something more specific for FIs.
There are many non aviation professional bodies in existence, some good, others not, but an officially recognised professional body, specifically by FIs for FIs, with formal structure, legal status, membership levels, representation, etc. may not be a bad idea.
I'm only brainstorming but are there any opinions?
2close