Should CPLs need 500 hrs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should CPLs need 500 hrs.
All
This came up because of a 'discussion' on another thread re PJE pilots getting paid.
One of the big problems I see is that there are very few opportunities for CPLs with 150 hours. So, to build time they work for free. I know of many doing this now.
However, CPLs with 500 hours are more employable and don't come with associated insurance problems.
So .. what if a CPL required the 150/200 hour course AND additional experience up to 500 hrs before the licence was valid.
This would weed out a lot of marginal wannabes cos the couldn't afford it. Reduce the 'product' numbers on the market and thus increase demand for individual services. Increased demand with reduced supply = more pay.
This is NOT an attack, I am fishing for opinion, so please keep it clean and no below the belt attacks o anyone.
AK
This came up because of a 'discussion' on another thread re PJE pilots getting paid.
One of the big problems I see is that there are very few opportunities for CPLs with 150 hours. So, to build time they work for free. I know of many doing this now.
However, CPLs with 500 hours are more employable and don't come with associated insurance problems.
So .. what if a CPL required the 150/200 hour course AND additional experience up to 500 hrs before the licence was valid.
This would weed out a lot of marginal wannabes cos the couldn't afford it. Reduce the 'product' numbers on the market and thus increase demand for individual services. Increased demand with reduced supply = more pay.
This is NOT an attack, I am fishing for opinion, so please keep it clean and no below the belt attacks o anyone.
AK
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day snarek,
Interesting point of view you raised. A lot of pilots can easily achieve the theoretical and flying standard under the current CPL syllabus. But as you already aluded to, issues such as insurance cover for low time pilots is the problem. Having said that though I know of some very good CPLs who have gone through in between 200 and 300 hrs, have been picked up for charter work and done very well. Most of them though had gained a good broad range of experience in those hrs since PPL flight test.
Not sure about the idea of using the financial filter idea of weeding out the marginals based on their ability to pay over the exteded period to get their hours. To me this is something of a double edged sword as it unfairly penalises those who have very good skills and abilities but lets those with mummy and daddy's financial backing to slip through.
I didn't do my CPL until I had about 600 or 700hrs up. That included a fair bit of jump flying, a couple of SE and ME ferries across Oz and some other very worthwhile experience. With that, I managed to do my CPL without too much difficulty. I know I was damn lucky though, right place right time and a lot of good contacts. Unfortunately a lot of pilots aren't so lucky and many would find it difficult if not impossible to get those sort of hours up before getting their unrestriced/unfrozen or whatever CPL.
I had a couple of good gigs flying C210s in charter for a while but the oversupply of pilots meant the work was too unreliable to try and make a living out of.
I think GA is just one of those professions where we will always have an oversupply of pilots. Working for free is the real killer, not the fact that someone has more hours than someone else. As soon as this practice is stopped, the result will be less opportunities and then we might see the numbers of CPLs come down to a more realistic level.
Interesting point of view you raised. A lot of pilots can easily achieve the theoretical and flying standard under the current CPL syllabus. But as you already aluded to, issues such as insurance cover for low time pilots is the problem. Having said that though I know of some very good CPLs who have gone through in between 200 and 300 hrs, have been picked up for charter work and done very well. Most of them though had gained a good broad range of experience in those hrs since PPL flight test.
Not sure about the idea of using the financial filter idea of weeding out the marginals based on their ability to pay over the exteded period to get their hours. To me this is something of a double edged sword as it unfairly penalises those who have very good skills and abilities but lets those with mummy and daddy's financial backing to slip through.
I didn't do my CPL until I had about 600 or 700hrs up. That included a fair bit of jump flying, a couple of SE and ME ferries across Oz and some other very worthwhile experience. With that, I managed to do my CPL without too much difficulty. I know I was damn lucky though, right place right time and a lot of good contacts. Unfortunately a lot of pilots aren't so lucky and many would find it difficult if not impossible to get those sort of hours up before getting their unrestriced/unfrozen or whatever CPL.
I had a couple of good gigs flying C210s in charter for a while but the oversupply of pilots meant the work was too unreliable to try and make a living out of.
I think GA is just one of those professions where we will always have an oversupply of pilots. Working for free is the real killer, not the fact that someone has more hours than someone else. As soon as this practice is stopped, the result will be less opportunities and then we might see the numbers of CPLs come down to a more realistic level.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, I don't think this is the way to do it. I don't think working for free gets the dedication of a pilot compared to one that does. I also don't think it viable to weed out certain people just because they cannot afford to pay for extra hours, then you will just get less pilots and you will still get the same percentage that won't cut it in the real world; besides it was hard enough paying for 200 hours!!
I have flown with few guys with fresh CPLs that jumped on turbine Multi crew freighters as FOs. In my eyes this is a great place to start. They get a good knowledge, understanding and skill base for IF/IFR flying and pick up good techniques and tips from much more experienced pilots. They tend to be night operations so it also builds up the train of thought needed for night flying. Then after 500 hours or so of this, they need to go out and get some single pilot command to build on this. I think it provides a good solid base, and gives them a good understanding of IFR and night ops before being thrown into the 'soup' by themselves. The single pilot (IFR) that follows is a must. It really teaches them to learn to manage when they havn't got more experinced help, which they will need to become Captains themselves one day!!
I have flown with few guys with fresh CPLs that jumped on turbine Multi crew freighters as FOs. In my eyes this is a great place to start. They get a good knowledge, understanding and skill base for IF/IFR flying and pick up good techniques and tips from much more experienced pilots. They tend to be night operations so it also builds up the train of thought needed for night flying. Then after 500 hours or so of this, they need to go out and get some single pilot command to build on this. I think it provides a good solid base, and gives them a good understanding of IFR and night ops before being thrown into the 'soup' by themselves. The single pilot (IFR) that follows is a must. It really teaches them to learn to manage when they havn't got more experinced help, which they will need to become Captains themselves one day!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK
OK
How about 300??? 250 is kinda a famous insurance line for CS and retract, so 300 should find most employable, lift the standard, string out the training line to balance supply and demand.
Also, PJE is PPL. Since I (and most of AOPA) abhor regulation as a solution to pay issues (like the AUF issue), that is unlikely to change. HOWEVER, if PJE stayed PPL that is a way of building the 300???
Could also allow a Inst rating at CPL=150 and allow them to work as Gd 3's to build time (with pay).
Comments???
AK
How about 300??? 250 is kinda a famous insurance line for CS and retract, so 300 should find most employable, lift the standard, string out the training line to balance supply and demand.
Also, PJE is PPL. Since I (and most of AOPA) abhor regulation as a solution to pay issues (like the AUF issue), that is unlikely to change. HOWEVER, if PJE stayed PPL that is a way of building the 300???
Could also allow a Inst rating at CPL=150 and allow them to work as Gd 3's to build time (with pay).
Comments???
AK
snarek
Dont think raising the CPL hour requirement is the answer. We have really got to keep it in line with international standards. I personally feel that raising the hours required to obtain an instructors rating is the more appropriate way of going. If you raise the standards of instructors you will see an increase in wages. This will in turn over a period of time reduce the number of flying schools to a more sustainable number with a lower total output of CPLs. Some in the flying school industry may not like what I have said but the reality is there is an oversupply of flying schools, particularly in the capital cities.
Dont think raising the CPL hour requirement is the answer. We have really got to keep it in line with international standards. I personally feel that raising the hours required to obtain an instructors rating is the more appropriate way of going. If you raise the standards of instructors you will see an increase in wages. This will in turn over a period of time reduce the number of flying schools to a more sustainable number with a lower total output of CPLs. Some in the flying school industry may not like what I have said but the reality is there is an oversupply of flying schools, particularly in the capital cities.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raise hours?? That's crazy. It's hard enough to find time building experience between 200-500 hours. You'll end up with the idiotic system they have in the states where you can't fly charter until 1200 hours.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would weed out a lot of marginal wannabes cos the couldn't afford it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tobzalp
This was a genuine question looking for a genuine answer to low time pilot unemployment and people working for free. I am not suggesting anything, rather seeding a discussion. But you wouldn't understand the difference now would you???
Having seen your posts in other arenas I doubt you have anything positive to add, so please go away.
AK
This was a genuine question looking for a genuine answer to low time pilot unemployment and people working for free. I am not suggesting anything, rather seeding a discussion. But you wouldn't understand the difference now would you???
Having seen your posts in other arenas I doubt you have anything positive to add, so please go away.
AK
Moderator
When I started my training long ago and far away you needed 700 hours for a CPL. The determined ones still got through, often by holding down several jobs simultaneously to get the money.
Then they changed the rules so that you could get a restricted one at 250 hours and instead of building up to the magic 700 by instructing on a PPL, you got your BCPL earlier and then built up to the 700 to remove the restrictions by instructing or doing very restricted commercial ops.
Did this weed people out? Not really, most of the weeding was done by negative marking and only three attempts allowed at the exams.
The number of hours is not neccesarily an indication of someone's suitability to fly commercially. Nor is thier ability to pass exams. This is a function of ther attitude, the quality of their basic training and the experience and habits gained while building hours. For some, no amount of training and hours will make them suitable. They will usually be weeded out by Chief Pilots not giving them jobs, but they've already wasted their, or their Daddy's money.
I'm a strong believer in self-improvement as opposed to spoon feeding unless the student is a cadet and already has the airline job nailed. Anything else can lead to a lot of wasted money and disappointment and doesn't really prepare people for the rigours of single pilot GA ops.
With instructing, I reckon that the hours before you start sohould be higher. Instructing should not be viewed as an easy way to get experience. It's a job that requires experience. Otherwise again a lot of disappointment and wasted money results, this time on the part of the student.
Also, if someone wants to be a career instructor, the dumb barriers CASA have a "policy" on to approve someone for CFI mean that you will need to get a whole lot of other experience before getting stuck into instructing if you aspire to the joys of being a CFI...
Then they changed the rules so that you could get a restricted one at 250 hours and instead of building up to the magic 700 by instructing on a PPL, you got your BCPL earlier and then built up to the 700 to remove the restrictions by instructing or doing very restricted commercial ops.
Did this weed people out? Not really, most of the weeding was done by negative marking and only three attempts allowed at the exams.
The number of hours is not neccesarily an indication of someone's suitability to fly commercially. Nor is thier ability to pass exams. This is a function of ther attitude, the quality of their basic training and the experience and habits gained while building hours. For some, no amount of training and hours will make them suitable. They will usually be weeded out by Chief Pilots not giving them jobs, but they've already wasted their, or their Daddy's money.
I'm a strong believer in self-improvement as opposed to spoon feeding unless the student is a cadet and already has the airline job nailed. Anything else can lead to a lot of wasted money and disappointment and doesn't really prepare people for the rigours of single pilot GA ops.
With instructing, I reckon that the hours before you start sohould be higher. Instructing should not be viewed as an easy way to get experience. It's a job that requires experience. Otherwise again a lot of disappointment and wasted money results, this time on the part of the student.
Also, if someone wants to be a career instructor, the dumb barriers CASA have a "policy" on to approve someone for CFI mean that you will need to get a whole lot of other experience before getting stuck into instructing if you aspire to the joys of being a CFI...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of principle I am totally opposed to Snarek's suggestion.
The requirements for a CPL should be based on standards only, not on providing economic regulation for the aviation industry.
If a candidate meets the standard at 150 or 200 hours they should be granted the licence.
I think the last thing you want is CASA trying to become some sort of economic regulator as well. It is hard pressed to be a competent safety regulator as it is.
Ditto with instructing. If you meet the standard you should be awarded the qualification, not prevented from obtaining the qualification because the employment market might be weak.
As an industry we should be encouraging as many pilots as possible to upgrade from PPL to CPL and ATPL whether they fly for recreation or for employment. It can do no harm to aviation safety to have as many PPLs as possible upgrade their skills. I think the last thing we want to do is put any more arbitrary impediments in their way.
The requirements for a CPL should be based on standards only, not on providing economic regulation for the aviation industry.
If a candidate meets the standard at 150 or 200 hours they should be granted the licence.
I think the last thing you want is CASA trying to become some sort of economic regulator as well. It is hard pressed to be a competent safety regulator as it is.
Ditto with instructing. If you meet the standard you should be awarded the qualification, not prevented from obtaining the qualification because the employment market might be weak.
As an industry we should be encouraging as many pilots as possible to upgrade from PPL to CPL and ATPL whether they fly for recreation or for employment. It can do no harm to aviation safety to have as many PPLs as possible upgrade their skills. I think the last thing we want to do is put any more arbitrary impediments in their way.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFI, why is instructing seen as a means of hour building at all?
Could that be one reason why a desirable PPL punter is turned off, when they are confronted by an 18 year óld 'instructor' who is only there waiting for the often elusive airline job?
Flying schools need to attract people with a bit of dough - it does not help when the upwardly mobile 30 something comes in and is confronted by an incredibly keen, but green instructor. (not to mention of course heaps of flying crap that do not compare with the Beamer )
Surely, hours building is much better done in a Charter or PJE environment anyway - and whilst we are on the topic, it is high time the airlines took much more responsibility for their CPL pilot training anyway!
Could that be one reason why a desirable PPL punter is turned off, when they are confronted by an 18 year óld 'instructor' who is only there waiting for the often elusive airline job?
Flying schools need to attract people with a bit of dough - it does not help when the upwardly mobile 30 something comes in and is confronted by an incredibly keen, but green instructor. (not to mention of course heaps of flying crap that do not compare with the Beamer )
Surely, hours building is much better done in a Charter or PJE environment anyway - and whilst we are on the topic, it is high time the airlines took much more responsibility for their CPL pilot training anyway!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours are not the issue, but only a guide.
The real issue is the standards that we see of new CPLs these days. As said above, instruction standards need to be increased, but even more than that the standards of testing need to be raised. (so as to ensure the standards of course)
Someone passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 15+ years ago. Look at what has changed in that time, and that in part is your answer.
The real issue is the standards that we see of new CPLs these days. As said above, instruction standards need to be increased, but even more than that the standards of testing need to be raised. (so as to ensure the standards of course)
Someone passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 15+ years ago. Look at what has changed in that time, and that in part is your answer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey!!!
Citation.
It wasn't an 'idea' or anything I support, it was a seed for discussion.
I now see that:
1. We need to give CPLs out based on a standard. OK, is that standard high enough??? What should it be/include???
2. Instructors need more hours. OK how many.
3. A CFI should only have to meet a standard, not do CASA hoop jumping.
How am i doing so far??
AK
It wasn't an 'idea' or anything I support, it was a seed for discussion.
I now see that:
1. We need to give CPLs out based on a standard. OK, is that standard high enough??? What should it be/include???
2. Instructors need more hours. OK how many.
3. A CFI should only have to meet a standard, not do CASA hoop jumping.
How am i doing so far??
AK
Lifting Standards - not Creating Barriers
1. CPL
Have to agree with triadic's post re the relativities of CPL 's, now and yesterday. Maybe it's whether the current CPL has an over emphasis on procedural matters, and not enough on actual flying skills?
If the CPL is going on to instructing, and for outback charter jobs, then it seems to me that they are better served by having a breadth of flying skills.
These skills could include:
NVFR on all the aids
low level course
tailwheel
aerobatics
some 'heavy' single time, eg 206/210
2. INSTRUCTORS
Lift, and spread the pay scale, so that Gr1 is paid much, much more than Gr3 - perhaps double.
Lift the standards for Gr2 and Gr1 -
almost a return to the old A, B, and C levels
This would mean hours of perhaps 500-1000-2000 instructing for the grades 3,2,1, but the pay scales would/should, reward this.
3.CFI's
There seems to be some agreement that there are ' too many flying schools' - but if so, why? Could it be related to the numbers of enthusiastic, ambitious, but low experience, CFI's available to begin new schools?
If the above is evn partially correct, then it leads on to the question of whether the bar has been set 'too low' for CFI's in terms of flying and other skills?
Should the bar be tinkered with anyway? The market will usually sort it out, albiet sometimes at great expense to many.
See also the thread :
there has got to be a better way , in D & G Questions
cheers,
1. CPL
Have to agree with triadic's post re the relativities of CPL 's, now and yesterday. Maybe it's whether the current CPL has an over emphasis on procedural matters, and not enough on actual flying skills?
If the CPL is going on to instructing, and for outback charter jobs, then it seems to me that they are better served by having a breadth of flying skills.
These skills could include:
NVFR on all the aids
low level course
tailwheel
aerobatics
some 'heavy' single time, eg 206/210
2. INSTRUCTORS
Lift, and spread the pay scale, so that Gr1 is paid much, much more than Gr3 - perhaps double.
Lift the standards for Gr2 and Gr1 -
almost a return to the old A, B, and C levels
This would mean hours of perhaps 500-1000-2000 instructing for the grades 3,2,1, but the pay scales would/should, reward this.
3.CFI's
There seems to be some agreement that there are ' too many flying schools' - but if so, why? Could it be related to the numbers of enthusiastic, ambitious, but low experience, CFI's available to begin new schools?
If the above is evn partially correct, then it leads on to the question of whether the bar has been set 'too low' for CFI's in terms of flying and other skills?
Should the bar be tinkered with anyway? The market will usually sort it out, albiet sometimes at great expense to many.
See also the thread :
there has got to be a better way , in D & G Questions
cheers,
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I have a lot of problems with the training system today.
My PPL instructor did it for free (shock horror!!!). I paid the school and the school paid DCA for his services (as a 2nd div Public Servant this was required). I don't know what his instructional experience was although I recently read a book about the RAAF in Russia which referred to him having previous instructional experience 30 yrs before. Pretty demanding eg IF was triple check DG backtracking, line up hood down, flog around then verbal GCA stop and hood up, this is for RPPL.
No point in airlines as there was an age limit in those days
CPL theory I did on a bet that I could do them all first up (before I knew Neros and that was in another context). Not difficult then if you had a degree in hard science, now the problem appears to be, can you understand the question?
CPL trivial after PPL but with a different school (I couldn't say no to their offer to use my C150).
Sooo after a 20yr gap how impressed was I with instructors at Melbourne schools, how impressed was my younger wife.
We went with a UL school with a ex RAAF CFI instructor.
My PPL instructor did it for free (shock horror!!!). I paid the school and the school paid DCA for his services (as a 2nd div Public Servant this was required). I don't know what his instructional experience was although I recently read a book about the RAAF in Russia which referred to him having previous instructional experience 30 yrs before. Pretty demanding eg IF was triple check DG backtracking, line up hood down, flog around then verbal GCA stop and hood up, this is for RPPL.
No point in airlines as there was an age limit in those days
CPL theory I did on a bet that I could do them all first up (before I knew Neros and that was in another context). Not difficult then if you had a degree in hard science, now the problem appears to be, can you understand the question?
CPL trivial after PPL but with a different school (I couldn't say no to their offer to use my C150).
Sooo after a 20yr gap how impressed was I with instructors at Melbourne schools, how impressed was my younger wife.
We went with a UL school with a ex RAAF CFI instructor.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current state of training already requires ridiculous amounts of cash to become a pilot; anymore training would just widen the gap making those who are not as financially blessed as others, ineligible for training. Superfluous training such as aerobatics, etc. just for the sake of increasing flying hours for instructors is a little parochial minded IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tonga
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What The ????
Quote "This would weed out a lot of marginal wannabes cos the couldn't afford it."
A measure of a reel driver is not one who can afford to PAY for their experience!
(as the above was your parting statment and not your discussion) i feel it best people who think like you F#$% Off and buy a 737 rating, as this would cost less than padding to 500hrs
This would allow the reel workers among us to do the hard yards and get our experience and hence a jet command the old fassioned way
Good Night.
A measure of a reel driver is not one who can afford to PAY for their experience!
(as the above was your parting statment and not your discussion) i feel it best people who think like you F#$% Off and buy a 737 rating, as this would cost less than padding to 500hrs
This would allow the reel workers among us to do the hard yards and get our experience and hence a jet command the old fassioned way
Good Night.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: earth
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont agree with raising the hrs to 500 total for cpl,however for another point of view maybe if the industry placed more value on flying instructors and paid them a good living wage maybe more people would be attracted to this career and the industry may be able to hang on to some of the good instructors rather than the ones who are just trying to get their hrs up to move on.
i myself have a fair bit of experience in various ga roles including chief pilot operations and check/training.i would love to do an instructor rating and teach as it is something that i enjoy and is very important to pass on good information(not just the stuff you read in a book)
however after doing a rating as a grade 3 instructor(assuming i could get a job)i wouldnt be paid enough to feed myself and live,let alone look after my family and pay my house payments etc.
until the industry as a whole wakes up to placing the correct monetary value to instructing.it will in general always be a stepping stone to something else.
having said that there are some very good instructors out there.good luck finding them though.
i myself have a fair bit of experience in various ga roles including chief pilot operations and check/training.i would love to do an instructor rating and teach as it is something that i enjoy and is very important to pass on good information(not just the stuff you read in a book)
however after doing a rating as a grade 3 instructor(assuming i could get a job)i wouldnt be paid enough to feed myself and live,let alone look after my family and pay my house payments etc.
until the industry as a whole wakes up to placing the correct monetary value to instructing.it will in general always be a stepping stone to something else.
having said that there are some very good instructors out there.good luck finding them though.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxx:
I hear you!. The industry can well do with experianced people turning to instruction and bringing cross-experiance into a flight school.
As for a living wage - it's a catch 22.
A proper living salary for an instructor (with family etc) would result in dual rates of $80-$100 plus aircraft.
With some schools in YSBK charging $45 dual plus aircraft - I can not see a livable salary in those rates.
Maxx; All is not lost - The proposed licence changes and Instructor grading changes may allow for your current talents to be charged out at other than a mere grade 3.
I hear you!. The industry can well do with experianced people turning to instruction and bringing cross-experiance into a flight school.
As for a living wage - it's a catch 22.
A proper living salary for an instructor (with family etc) would result in dual rates of $80-$100 plus aircraft.
With some schools in YSBK charging $45 dual plus aircraft - I can not see a livable salary in those rates.
Maxx; All is not lost - The proposed licence changes and Instructor grading changes may allow for your current talents to be charged out at other than a mere grade 3.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
Maxxx
You are competing with the AUF at the bottom end of the market. They can put out a 'dual' product for as little as $90 all inclusive!!!
If an instructor were paid $50, add on costs, (Sick leave, rec leave, compo insurance, and mark up) and you get $100 without an aircraft!!!!
Perhaps we can reduce on costs, but essentially the market wont bear more than $40 - $50 an hour for a VFR instructor.
Suggestions anyone???
AK
You are competing with the AUF at the bottom end of the market. They can put out a 'dual' product for as little as $90 all inclusive!!!
If an instructor were paid $50, add on costs, (Sick leave, rec leave, compo insurance, and mark up) and you get $100 without an aircraft!!!!
Perhaps we can reduce on costs, but essentially the market wont bear more than $40 - $50 an hour for a VFR instructor.
Suggestions anyone???
AK