Where have all the instructors gone??
 

I have posted a few times on this forum including on the thread entitled "the worst decision", I thought I would start a new thread to see if anybody can shed light on the question posed above?

I am baffled. I read the doom and gloom often posted about instructor pay, and would agree, it is very often far too low, but isn't this cause and effect? The instructor shortage is real unless I am living in another world, maybe I am?. Surely pay directly affects the number of people willing to become instructors so schools must (and have) increased pay dramatically otherwise they will simply be unable to meet current demand which is higher than it has ever been.

I recently had an inquiry from an airline pilot who after 4 years, didn't like the lifestyle and wanted to come back into instructing. He advised me that, as a senior FO we was taking home about 4,000 GBP a month and would love to make the jump but assumed that instructor pay was far less than he could live on. By the end of the call he was astonished (I think) when I indicated current instructor pay was very similar although I reminded him newbies do start at around half that but can move up quite quickly if they are good. So, where have all the instructors gone? I remember a time when I would get least one CV a day, lucky now to get one per month!

So for the person who originally posted the thread that it was his/her worst decision to become an instructor, I would strongly argue that is not the case for many who have enjoyed fruitful careers as instructors, and in particular today, its a great career step with plenty of options to earn good money. With airline retirement age now up to 67 and rising, (55 in my time) whats the rush, spend a few years enjoying flying and teaching, then move on....please!

I wont argue that a senior captain in a descent airline is always going to be paid a lot more than the most senior instructor, but as I found out, there is more to life than just pay. Lifestyle, home life, being at home more with the family are all factors (plus less jet lag and cataracts), and for me, as an fairly old timer, I would much rather 'fly' the aircraft than sit back bored and manage a modern jet, especially one with a sidestick (sorry Airbus lovers), or maybe even one with an auto stall recovery system!! Bring back aircraft that need a pilot to recover from a stall, preferably one trained by an instructor that knows how to teach it properly!

SJ

Might make a decent wage doing CPL/IR training in the UK, but PPL training should be kept part time if you have and alternative well paid job.
As sole trader/instructor/examiner with a receptionist i can only afford to pay myself the equivalent of £20 hour if i average out my hours.
I could not afford to employ another instructor.
Why do i do it, i can survive and enjoy being my own boss and enjoy the company of folks who want to be there and not clock watching.

My situation's very similar, except that I cannot afford a receptionist! I'm the proverbial chief, cook and bottle washer.......

My receptionist works virtually for free. Of independent means.

At least in Germany, most instructors lost their jobs because now there are "plenty" of "experienced" instructors working at the LBA, who "need" to maintain all their ratings and currencies by working at Flight Schools for free.........

:mad:

Traditionally we had recreational instruction and commercial instruction. In their wisdom the CAA disolved the Panel of Examiners who presided over recreational instruction and effectively combined it with commercial instruction. This survived for a number of years but with increasing costs and additional licensing requirements it has become an un economic model. The recreational flyer has suffered huge increases in cost caused by fuel, the cost of aircraft, maintenance and aerodrome operating costs, the only area where any saving can be made is at the instructor level. Some countries still regard recreational flying as a "Club" activity where qualified members train other members at minimal cost, no it won't pay instructors a living wage but it is not intended to, get a real job and instruct as a sideline. If you want to earn a living wage you need to become a "Commercial Instructor. Unfortunately, we don't train "commercial instructors", only apprentice instructors who need to gain experience teaching recreational pilots before they can move on to commercial training. The European regulations that have morphed out of JAA rules have largely scuppered any natural progression for instructors wanting to progress up the commercial tree; the cost and opportunity to obtain the required levels of experience are simply unrealistic. All this has been predictable for the past 20 years but its only as we run out of existing experience that we start to realise the aviation industry has shot itself in the foot by producing an unsustainable model.

This... +1
Depends on how much you like either activity.
Then also... recreational vs. commercial instruction are completely different worlds. Especially when it comes to integrated ATPL instruction, the syllabus has become inflexible. Also there are plenty of restrictions (for instance many aerodromes do not accept light aircraft or training flights -or landing fees are high enough to prevent it-).

In my case, I miss it, and I'm trying to find a place where I can instruct some of my days off.
But I reached a point after about 7 years where I needed a break (4+3 yrs with a 5 year gap in the middle). Mostly I needed to fly myself, go from A to B. I targeted a couple of aerial work companies but joining an airline was easier right now and long-term it seems a more stable option.

Also most schools need to improve the conditions offered (not just salary), and become more serious and honest.

There are several non current but highly experienced instructors around and due to no fault of their own have been forced out of the industry. Cabair shed a few experienced CPL/IR Instructors when it went bust. Some experienced guys from another CPL/IR school were got rid of when there was a clearout in favour of younger, cheaper, inexperienced Instructors so leaving the the older ones "high and dry". I know some of them would like to get back but they simply cannot afford to go through the renewal process. Medical renewals and seminar costs plus refresher training to renew SEP, MEP, IR plus FI are all costly and are financially beyond them. These are at just 2 ATO's that I know of and I think there may be others. What a waste of talent!

You summed it up. A waste of talent. To anyone that can bear the reality please see my final post on the " the worst decision".

I remember when the CAA bought out the 70hr P1 rule for multi engine. Just about killed off MEP, other than those wanting to go commercial.
Not done any MEP training since. I'm sure the number of experienced MEP instructors is way down for IR training.

Totally agree with your comment, but it was not the CAA that made this change, it was the start of the European rules invented by the JAA.

Before you can obtain a MEP Class rating you must have 70 hours PIC.

Where have all the instructors gone? They're waiting for the student to be ready before they appear.... Any decent instructors would have gone into hiding to avoid teaching the wrong thing as mandated by the "authorities". Either that or they had learned as much as instructing could offer, and went off searching for more challenges. Some of the shortage is possibly created simply through the power of suggestion. There doesn't have to be a shortage of something to ensure demand drives prices up. Oil is a classic example of the market being manipulated by talk and nothing more.

FI isn't a professional qualification.
 

After reading the many responses in the threads on instructor pay and prospects one can only draw the conclusion that instructing is not a recognised profession.

​​​​​Why, as put forward by some, would an instructor for instance have to want to be a commercial pilot and therefore have a plan for progression other than as a teacher?

The implication here is that an instructor is paid almost nothing because it's only a phase in a career path and not a profession in itself.

This leads one to think that actually, the only way to continue as an FI is to go commercial or get a non flying job and instruct part time.

And that implies that an instructor must have a job that pays enough to allow him/her to subsidise the students and schools! That's not what other professions have to allow for though.

So how can flight training be called a professional qualification? Does a car mechanic have another job so he can fix your car at a discount rate? Or does your osteopath work in a bar part time so that he can drop the price of fixing your back?

When an FI goes to get the qualifications he needs, he pays professional rates. But when he charges himself out to the student he recieves less than half what he should be earning.

My suggestion then, is on each hours flying, the FI should give the student about 20 minutes on the controls and only give half the available information in his briefings and general patter.

See how long it takes and how much it costs to learn to fly then.

Flight training is a job. Cut it with rose tinted specs if you want but it's a job. And it's a job that few can do well and requires tremendous commitment

So why are today's crop of instructors hell bent on giving those skills away so that tomorrow's instructors never even step forward?

Do you really want to fly that much? While you try to shove wet spaghetti up a cats behind?

Interesting thread, I recently approached AOPA about renewing my FI certificate and they were very helpful but frankly after looking at the requirements I was discouraged. Aged 62 I was originally an RAF Instructor on the Hawk with a ppl from a Flying Scholarship so did my first civil instructor training at Coventry with Piers and was tested by Hector Taylor at Nottingham in 1987. Piers was a first class trainer, Hector a very sharp old man who missed nothing and the CAA a sensibly run regulator.

I trained pilots at a variety of flying clubs while in the RAF, last renewed my FI with Ted Girdler down at Manston in 1995 and then dropped it as I progressed into civil aviation. I did my first Airbus Tour at Excalibur later in 1995 and flew with Hector's son. In 2004 I briefly renewed my rating at Humberside but did not instruct as I was busy and did not want to steal time off new pilots running through the self improver/modular route.

I have been a QSP on the Tutor since 2011 and for a number of years owned and flew my own tail-wheel aircraft. Today, on a 50% airline contract I was tempted to re-qualify but the process is a pain, the costs are irritating and the flying schools often badly run and exploitative. I love flying but the industry is ugly and the over regulation of everything associated with GA extremely tiresome.....just not worth it.

In similar vein, the economics of being an FE at PPL level don't look very appealing given the cost of obtaining the rating and the renewal costs. Does the income cover these?

Maybe this is a UK only problem?
In Germany there is still a high demand of FIs.
I am myself the Head of Training of a big german ATO.
We pay 60k Euro plus for qualified instructors (CPL/ IR / CRI MEP).

Are we talking about the UK only or do you see it as a European problem?

Is this thread aimed at somebody whose only aim is to teach?

If so, there is a bit of a worry attached. Such a person has just finished his/her basic licence, and then does a further 40(?) hrs of flight training to qualify as an instructor of the lowest grade. This instructor requires a lot of supervision from the start, and only after a number of hours, is allowed to teach with minimal supervision.

But what is he teaching? After a basic licence, all he has done is cover each flying sequence in detail ONCE, with some further revision before the test. He knows the syllabus, having seen it all in a canned situation, under the watchful eye of an instructor, and has most likely never been in a situation where some real piloting skill and decision-making has been needed.

Where is the depth of experience? It ain't there, so the partially blind lead the totally blind around the circuit or the canned nav trips or the few permitted confined areas again and again. He might build some hours, but they are not particularly worthwhile hours, and if the blind student puts the half-blind instructor into a real pickle, there might be a little whoopsie.

To be an instructor, one should first have flown in the real world, on your own, no Grade 1 watching and correcting, and where your dumb decisions have to be lived with. Do your apprenticeship properly.

There are a lot of good instructor jobs around, I was paid around $750 per hour of flight (not counting the endless hours of long briefs, debriefs, class lectures and simulator time). Only real reason to leave was my inability to tolerate the attitude of the foreign students, who had paid their money and expected the knowledge to be poured into their heads and never required to show that any of it stayed there.

I'd be interested in some of that :). What would be your suggestion, experience wise then?

Get your 15000 hours up, and the job is yours for the asking.

I wasn't asking what your experience was, more what experience you think a (say) PPL instructor should have?

Mr Proach, take an annual salary, divide it by the hours flown, and you get a number.

I have an FI renewal coming up, either a flight test of a seminar.
The examiner knows his stuff, it is a worthwhile lesson as well as a test.
The seminars are generally hosted by some very very skilled and knowledgeable people.
However by the second day they are tiresome. After doing two of these they are irksome.
I am looking at a third one shortly, I am thinking of letting my rating go than spending £450 on the course, hotel, food, fuel etc.
Really, is that the best way to keep an instructor interested? Especially when they are on £20 an hour, before tax.
Some of the lectures in the seminars are just completely pointless.

So why not every year an examiner comes to the school, sits through a couple of lessons, gives the blurb that the CAA want you to know and then picks a couple of names out of the hat and do a flight test with them.
Then get the school to cough up, or better still the CAA.
As you can bet your next pint, they are not going to charge their staff to do a career development course or a personal growth retreat.

Seminars are ok for someone that's been out of instructing for quite a few years, but if current a waste of time.
The written stuff they provide should be provided by the CAA, even if it's a pdf online.
Just do the flight with the FIE instead.

The latest Part FCL amendment, yet to be ratified, proposes a change to the Seminar requirement:
and for Renewal:
There is no indication of what that refresher training might consist of or its duration. No doubt it will be for the ATO to decide.

Looking forward, say 10 years - will there be a shortage of MEP instructors? (if not one already).

More than likely there will be an accompanying AMC laying out the broad structure of refresher training, as there is currently for the content of the seminar.

It is interesting that the EC have changed the wording (and effect) of this amendment from the original EASA Opinion. In its Opinion, EASA made clear that the change in wording was simply to align the requirement with other instructor ratings [sic] and that the wording in the associated AMC would indicate that the refresher training should be held as a seminar. There was also a requirement that, should the FI certificate have lapsed by more than 3 years the instructor should undergo training following a syllabus established by an ATO, implying that this training was distinct from the seminar.

The EC have now removed the link between the training and the seminar and have also removed the 3 year cut-off between the two types of refresher training in the event of renewal, consequently confusing the issue. However, since the declared intention of EASA is that the term 'refresher training' should be synonymous with 'refresher seminar' unless specifically stated otherwise, it would seem logical that the seminar will survive in all cases. The again, when was logic or common sense ever of value in dealing with the EU?

The actual text from Opinion 5/2017 is:

All you need to renew at the moment is a Assessment of Competence and a Seminar in a 12 month period. The refresher training at a trainng organisation has not been with us for some time. Training as required to pass the test and can be done with the examiner. If your FI rating is still in the front of the licence the FIE or Seminar provider can sign you up, or if not the FIE can give you a temp certificate..

I have only just stumbled upon this and the "worst decision" thread, and I empathise with a lot of blastcalvey's sentiments.

I have been an FI for over 30 years and thoroughly enjoyed it, but part-time only because I needed the day job to keep me afloat. I am now 'retired' from the day job and would like to contribute to relieving the apparent 'shortage problem', but have been unable to secure any part-time work at my local aerodrome (which has three fixed-wing schools). For me the problem seems to be 'part-time' and, dare I say, age. One of the schools emphasised that they needed full-timers continuously on-site, and had no need for part-timers. Another has kindly 'kept' me on their books' for part-time work, but not called me since my previous renewal. I have been offered work, but some significant distance away where commuting costs render that as totally impractical. There are limits to how much of my own funds I am prepared to spend to teach wealthy students, therefore I have accordingly allowed my FI rating to lapse. If there really is a 'shortage' then it's more the industry's loss than mine.