Should CPLs need 500 hrs.
snarek
Despite being able to do it cheaper in AUF/Sport Aviation, there is still a perception in the public's mind that training is not of the same standard as in GA. All the dire forecasts that they would swallow up GA, in terms of training, just hasn't eventuated. So, I don't beleive that GA is 'out of the race'. It seems that we have to make do with the current system, and probably the rates are also at a ceiling.
For a GA instructor to survive on current award rates, they need about 20 hrs per week - @ $45/hr. Note that this comes in at just above the average weekly wage in Australia - not just reward for what you have to outlay to become an instructor! How many instructors fly that many hours consistently over 11 months of the year?
Part timers would seem to be one way, but then you need to remember that 95% of them could only fly weekends. Retirees could fly anytime - but there are not that many over 60's who want to fly instruction, or indeed, who can keep their medical in order to hold their CPL. Sure, there are dozens of ex airlines crew who are highly qualified, but do they really want to instruct?Most certainly don't need the money - so a school might negotiate a 'love' job with this group - but there would be no certainty they would show up every day. (Vinyard may need pruning, or the yacht slipped).
Maybe it comes back to supply and demand. Do we have too many flight schools, churning out too many Gr3 instructors? Are the overheads at GAAP airports just over the top - I think yes, especially the last.
If we have too few customers, being divided between too many suppliers, all of whom have too high overheads....... the inevitable must happen!
I guess that means more of the same, and it certainly doesn't seem like an appropriate time to raise the bar on new aspirants - no matter how we incumbents think.
cheers,
Despite being able to do it cheaper in AUF/Sport Aviation, there is still a perception in the public's mind that training is not of the same standard as in GA. All the dire forecasts that they would swallow up GA, in terms of training, just hasn't eventuated. So, I don't beleive that GA is 'out of the race'. It seems that we have to make do with the current system, and probably the rates are also at a ceiling.
For a GA instructor to survive on current award rates, they need about 20 hrs per week - @ $45/hr. Note that this comes in at just above the average weekly wage in Australia - not just reward for what you have to outlay to become an instructor! How many instructors fly that many hours consistently over 11 months of the year?
Part timers would seem to be one way, but then you need to remember that 95% of them could only fly weekends. Retirees could fly anytime - but there are not that many over 60's who want to fly instruction, or indeed, who can keep their medical in order to hold their CPL. Sure, there are dozens of ex airlines crew who are highly qualified, but do they really want to instruct?Most certainly don't need the money - so a school might negotiate a 'love' job with this group - but there would be no certainty they would show up every day. (Vinyard may need pruning, or the yacht slipped).
Maybe it comes back to supply and demand. Do we have too many flight schools, churning out too many Gr3 instructors? Are the overheads at GAAP airports just over the top - I think yes, especially the last.
If we have too few customers, being divided between too many suppliers, all of whom have too high overheads....... the inevitable must happen!
I guess that means more of the same, and it certainly doesn't seem like an appropriate time to raise the bar on new aspirants - no matter how we incumbents think.
cheers,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV6
I wasn't arguing that GA wasn't making it, although they have been hurt. I was saying that because of the competition GA can't sustain a price hike to cover the wages.
Perhaps the answer, as suggested above somewhere, is to lift the requirements for instructors and, at the same time, increase participation in GA.
AOPA is planning an advertising campaign, it isn't coming along well beacuse two members inside the Board and two outside (one not a member) are holding up the process by contantly niggling at the edges and calling for EGMs. One we have that under control we will have an ad campaign and we hope we can pump at least another 1000 students per year into GA.
(for an idea of the white anting, see www.aimoo.com/agaf )
AK
I wasn't arguing that GA wasn't making it, although they have been hurt. I was saying that because of the competition GA can't sustain a price hike to cover the wages.
Perhaps the answer, as suggested above somewhere, is to lift the requirements for instructors and, at the same time, increase participation in GA.
AOPA is planning an advertising campaign, it isn't coming along well beacuse two members inside the Board and two outside (one not a member) are holding up the process by contantly niggling at the edges and calling for EGMs. One we have that under control we will have an ad campaign and we hope we can pump at least another 1000 students per year into GA.
(for an idea of the white anting, see www.aimoo.com/agaf )
AK
