First restricted 100h unpaid?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Meteorology Avenue
Age: 44
Posts: 189
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First restricted 100h unpaid?
In Germany are some ATO's that offer you the opportunity to work for them
after your successful FI rating test, for free(first 100h), as they call it
'Praktikum'(internship).
Is it legal?
Is it common in other EASA's schools/states?
Do the students get course discount having 'free' instructors?
after your successful FI rating test, for free(first 100h), as they call it
'Praktikum'(internship).
Is it legal?
Is it common in other EASA's schools/states?
Do the students get course discount having 'free' instructors?
In France aeroclub instruction is unpaid!
In the UK, glider instructors have traditionally never been paid. Microloght instructors are invariably paid more than aeroplane instructors.
Different countries, different cultures.
In the UK, glider instructors have traditionally never been paid. Microloght instructors are invariably paid more than aeroplane instructors.
Different countries, different cultures.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I could put in my ha'penny worth - but I'd have to charge you!
Actually, since it is Xmas, here goes:
Perhaps an AFI should be paying to fly? Think of it this way, a fully qualified, experienced and senior instructor should be following most of what they do. In the microlight world, they have to be "in the vicinity" of the airfield, ideally - to be frank - on the ground.
So, listen in to each of the basic pre-flight briefs at least once to make sure they cover the ground and fit the school style. Some, I listen in to from the office, others I have sat in with the student.
Fly with the instructor to cover some simple things - no-one has ever been taught how to do a trial flight on their instructor course! Or taught GST revision, in my experience!
Fly with the student, to see how they are getting on.
Talk with the student. Talk with the instructor.
Could be 20 flying hours and 100 hours groundschool in all that.
I make that 20 x £150 = £3,000 .... + 100 @ £25 = £2,500 .... Total £5,500.
So for the first 100 hours of tuition the AFI does, I should be deducting £55 an hour to cover the supervision. Well, £55 an hour is more than what most instructors earn!
Thus my point: maybe AFIs should be paying their schools!
And think of the poor student up with a new "instructor", what value for money are they getting? I had one guy who came out of his instructor course never having flown in controlled airspace, so we did a mock "trial flight" and after letting him really hang himself by waiting 15 to 20 mins, I asked him when he was going to ask the "student" if he wanted to fly the aircraft, and demonstrate the controls. I should be knocking £55 an hour off the student's rate!
I have paid for an instructor to do his instructor course, and he has earned it back. I have been supervising instructor to two others. All three now have more than 2,000 instructional hours.
But imagine wasting my time on someone who logs 200 instructional hours and then gets a job on a commercial carrier. What a waste of time and money! No wonder schools go bust.
Actually, since it is Xmas, here goes:
Perhaps an AFI should be paying to fly? Think of it this way, a fully qualified, experienced and senior instructor should be following most of what they do. In the microlight world, they have to be "in the vicinity" of the airfield, ideally - to be frank - on the ground.
So, listen in to each of the basic pre-flight briefs at least once to make sure they cover the ground and fit the school style. Some, I listen in to from the office, others I have sat in with the student.
Fly with the instructor to cover some simple things - no-one has ever been taught how to do a trial flight on their instructor course! Or taught GST revision, in my experience!
Fly with the student, to see how they are getting on.
Talk with the student. Talk with the instructor.
Could be 20 flying hours and 100 hours groundschool in all that.
I make that 20 x £150 = £3,000 .... + 100 @ £25 = £2,500 .... Total £5,500.
So for the first 100 hours of tuition the AFI does, I should be deducting £55 an hour to cover the supervision. Well, £55 an hour is more than what most instructors earn!
Thus my point: maybe AFIs should be paying their schools!
And think of the poor student up with a new "instructor", what value for money are they getting? I had one guy who came out of his instructor course never having flown in controlled airspace, so we did a mock "trial flight" and after letting him really hang himself by waiting 15 to 20 mins, I asked him when he was going to ask the "student" if he wanted to fly the aircraft, and demonstrate the controls. I should be knocking £55 an hour off the student's rate!
I have paid for an instructor to do his instructor course, and he has earned it back. I have been supervising instructor to two others. All three now have more than 2,000 instructional hours.
But imagine wasting my time on someone who logs 200 instructional hours and then gets a job on a commercial carrier. What a waste of time and money! No wonder schools go bust.
I used to use a hairdresser where I could get a cheaper haircut if I had it done by one of the apprentices. 2 times out of 3, that worked out fine - once in a while I rather felt that they should have been the one paying me!
But that doesn't mean that the apprentice isn't still being paid apprentice wages.
And an FI(R) gets paid typically around £10/hr less than an FI, whilst the student doesn't pay any less. That £10 presumably is supposed to cover their supervision.
It's how it is I suppose, but flying for free is dodgy most places and none of us should tolerate it in a commercial environment. Fine amongst mates or family, but not otherwise.
G
But that doesn't mean that the apprentice isn't still being paid apprentice wages.
And an FI(R) gets paid typically around £10/hr less than an FI, whilst the student doesn't pay any less. That £10 presumably is supposed to cover their supervision.
It's how it is I suppose, but flying for free is dodgy most places and none of us should tolerate it in a commercial environment. Fine amongst mates or family, but not otherwise.
G
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At our school, a restricted instructor gets paid £5 less than the unrestricted instructor rate. The student pays the regular rate and the supervising instructor gets the £5. Seems fair.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Derby
Age: 45
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal?
That's not something I could answer.
I can't imagine the students getting a discount because the Instructor is working for free.
The flight school still wants it's share which is leasing out an instructor and aircraft.
The fact that the instructor is working for free has nothing to do with the student unless we talk about the experience the instructor could pass on.
I have always heard France has instructors working for free.
I did not think any German schools would start the same concept.
What I would like to ask though, do the instructors get paid for teaching Navigation, Weather and so on or is that free too?
I can't imagine the students getting a discount because the Instructor is working for free.
The flight school still wants it's share which is leasing out an instructor and aircraft.
The fact that the instructor is working for free has nothing to do with the student unless we talk about the experience the instructor could pass on.
I have always heard France has instructors working for free.
I did not think any German schools would start the same concept.
What I would like to ask though, do the instructors get paid for teaching Navigation, Weather and so on or is that free too?
As I understand it, the unpaid instructors in French clubs are volunteers in a not-for-profit environment. You get much the same here in Britain in many gliding clubs. For that matter, quite a few instructors who belong to syndicates instruct for free within those syndicates as part of "mucking in", whilst the rest of the time charging a commercial rate elsewhere.
Can't see a problem with any of that - what we're talking about here is where somebody is being asked to work for nothing in a for profit environment. I'm sure we can all see problems with that, although not with a slightly reduced pay for somebody with a slightly lower level qualification.
G
Can't see a problem with any of that - what we're talking about here is where somebody is being asked to work for nothing in a for profit environment. I'm sure we can all see problems with that, although not with a slightly reduced pay for somebody with a slightly lower level qualification.
G
