Instructor Shortage.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up them selves!
Not a bad call schoolboy, but you need to look at the whole picture.
You obviously have a vested interest in this thread, but having acknowledged this, I can see where you are coming from.
There are companies that do pay the right salaries (wages), and they do offer the right conditions.
Sure there are those who don't!
Can any one tell me what is the going rate for a Grade 2 Instructor, with all the right boxes ticked? I don't mean what you think you are worth, I mean what you are worth.
Be real, there are companies out there who want grade 1 instructors and are prepared to pay the odds, but in most cases, the applicants are to frightened to commit!
"Instruct or fly big jets", that is the question."
Get real you pussies! Stop procrastinating and having a go at those who are for real.
DO IT!
W##k as P##S
You obviously have a vested interest in this thread, but having acknowledged this, I can see where you are coming from.
There are companies that do pay the right salaries (wages), and they do offer the right conditions.
Sure there are those who don't!
Can any one tell me what is the going rate for a Grade 2 Instructor, with all the right boxes ticked? I don't mean what you think you are worth, I mean what you are worth.
Be real, there are companies out there who want grade 1 instructors and are prepared to pay the odds, but in most cases, the applicants are to frightened to commit!
"Instruct or fly big jets", that is the question."
Get real you pussies! Stop procrastinating and having a go at those who are for real.
DO IT!
W##k as P##S
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We advertised for a CFI over the last 4 years and got 1 applicant in Melbourne. We were specifically looking for someone who was possibly semi-retired, part time or similar with a view to have someone say grade 2 run it when they were out of town, however they appear to be as rare as hens teeth these days. Every younger instructor wanted 500 twin hours in 1 year and usually moved on.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Temporary?
Most GA pilots do not want to be in GA. They should not be. There should be another way to get airline jobs.
GA is too important to have uninterested, temporary pilots and operators. If we had permanent pilots and operators, we would have "permanent" salaries.
GA is too important to have uninterested, temporary pilots and operators. If we had permanent pilots and operators, we would have "permanent" salaries.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bushy
GA is too important to have uninterested, temporary pilots and operators. If we had permanent pilots and operators, we would have "permanent" salaries.
Suggestions for how that might be achieved?
Last edited by kiwiblue; 19th Aug 2007 at 03:10. Reason: quote added for clarity
[B]From a 'Grey' Perspective - Part-time Instructing is Great !/B]
I'm 66, retired, and fly about 250 hrs annually instructing here in a smallish city. The local GA flight school find it a great thing to have a 'local' G1 available to step in when things get busy. I also do RAA instructing for the local school.
Both schools find it satisfactory because I'm not about to move on with a career, and I'm not dependant on instructing for living.
And, before you ask, I don't do it for nothing. RAA pays $40/hr, GA pays $50/hr for general work, $60/hr for specialist instruction such as low level, tailwheel,formation.
The cost of maintaining a G1 and Class 1 medical isn't cheap - I reckon that it can cost me up to $700 each year - so I need to be paid. Throw into that the CASA requirement that I undergo 6 monthly proficiency checks with my CFI, and I guess that it costs over $1000 annually.
From my point of view - it's good because it keeps me sharp, and I feel needed - an important consideration when you age. But, if they could get younger, career aspiring instructors - who needed the work, then I'd step aside willingly.
There are several other ex airline, ex instructing retirees living round here, but they have no real desire to re-enter the GA scene. Some have expressed interest in RAA instructing - which might just suit them, but even that involves an ever increasing level of upskilling.
I'm not surprised that the ' Royals' are seeking older instructors to re-enter the profession. I think it's a classic win-win approach.
happy days,
I'm 66, retired, and fly about 250 hrs annually instructing here in a smallish city. The local GA flight school find it a great thing to have a 'local' G1 available to step in when things get busy. I also do RAA instructing for the local school.
Both schools find it satisfactory because I'm not about to move on with a career, and I'm not dependant on instructing for living.
And, before you ask, I don't do it for nothing. RAA pays $40/hr, GA pays $50/hr for general work, $60/hr for specialist instruction such as low level, tailwheel,formation.
The cost of maintaining a G1 and Class 1 medical isn't cheap - I reckon that it can cost me up to $700 each year - so I need to be paid. Throw into that the CASA requirement that I undergo 6 monthly proficiency checks with my CFI, and I guess that it costs over $1000 annually.
From my point of view - it's good because it keeps me sharp, and I feel needed - an important consideration when you age. But, if they could get younger, career aspiring instructors - who needed the work, then I'd step aside willingly.
There are several other ex airline, ex instructing retirees living round here, but they have no real desire to re-enter the GA scene. Some have expressed interest in RAA instructing - which might just suit them, but even that involves an ever increasing level of upskilling.
I'm not surprised that the ' Royals' are seeking older instructors to re-enter the profession. I think it's a classic win-win approach.
happy days,
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MCPL
The multi crew pilot's licence may be the way.
If the airlines use that as a requirement, then those who put in the time and money to get one will know they are going to be qualified for airlines, not GA. There will be two different streams, one for airlines, and the other for GA, and both will be seriously interested in the future of the industry they are in.
Australian GA has been almost destroyed, firstly by a flood of tax dodgers many years ago. They were not interested in the future or soundness of the industry, but only interested in their own tax accounting. They bought thousands of aeroplanes, and thousands of unsustainable charter companies started up.
Secondly by a flood of airline wannabies in recent times who had been persuaded by flying schools to spend big dollars to chase the very few airline jobs that were sometimes available.
The airlines did not bother with recruit training, or do much planning. There was always a big pool of wannabies available, far more than they needed. They liked it that way, and are talking to the govt now to try and make it continue despite the damage it does to GA. They can usually scare the pollies.
There is also the psychological aspect, which the airlines and the military use. "Only the best are good enough for us - many don't meet our standards."
This builds their image at no cost to them. The poor wannabies pay.
It will take some time to get dedicated airline training going, and hopefully the many pilots who have been "parked" in GA for all those years wil finally get what they want in that time.
If the airlines use that as a requirement, then those who put in the time and money to get one will know they are going to be qualified for airlines, not GA. There will be two different streams, one for airlines, and the other for GA, and both will be seriously interested in the future of the industry they are in.
Australian GA has been almost destroyed, firstly by a flood of tax dodgers many years ago. They were not interested in the future or soundness of the industry, but only interested in their own tax accounting. They bought thousands of aeroplanes, and thousands of unsustainable charter companies started up.
Secondly by a flood of airline wannabies in recent times who had been persuaded by flying schools to spend big dollars to chase the very few airline jobs that were sometimes available.
The airlines did not bother with recruit training, or do much planning. There was always a big pool of wannabies available, far more than they needed. They liked it that way, and are talking to the govt now to try and make it continue despite the damage it does to GA. They can usually scare the pollies.
There is also the psychological aspect, which the airlines and the military use. "Only the best are good enough for us - many don't meet our standards."
This builds their image at no cost to them. The poor wannabies pay.
It will take some time to get dedicated airline training going, and hopefully the many pilots who have been "parked" in GA for all those years wil finally get what they want in that time.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grade 2 Instructor Wages on the way up!!!
I hear from a mate the new people on the block, fast track pilot training, just took on a Grade 2 and are paying him 55k a year!!!
This company, for all its flack, seems to be improving flight training on all fronts - and for the better!!
Good instructors are probably worth more than 55k but at least its a positive move in the right direction!!!
I hear this is at least 20k higher than what most other schools are paying Grade 2's!!!
http://www.ftpilottraining.com/
This company, for all its flack, seems to be improving flight training on all fronts - and for the better!!
Good instructors are probably worth more than 55k but at least its a positive move in the right direction!!!
I hear this is at least 20k higher than what most other schools are paying Grade 2's!!!
http://www.ftpilottraining.com/
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know if the company advertised in the Australian takes people without their Instructors rating and trains them from scratch? I just have a twin CPL and was considering applying but the paper advertisment just said
"Rusty Instructors"
"Rusty Instructors"
It's simple really,
Flying schools that fail to remunerate their instructors accordingly will die!
Those that appreciate the worth of of an ever dwindling resourse will survive.
What does ab-initio cost the student these days? When I started it was approx $65 per hour. From what I have seen the same old sh!t box C152's are flogging around. The cost of a second hand one 22 years ago was between 35-45 G's. has the relative cost of the industry gone up that much. I know that flying training is 3 or 4 times more expensive.
So who's making the money?
Not the instructors methinks!
Flying schools that fail to remunerate their instructors accordingly will die!
Those that appreciate the worth of of an ever dwindling resourse will survive.
What does ab-initio cost the student these days? When I started it was approx $65 per hour. From what I have seen the same old sh!t box C152's are flogging around. The cost of a second hand one 22 years ago was between 35-45 G's. has the relative cost of the industry gone up that much. I know that flying training is 3 or 4 times more expensive.
So who's making the money?
Not the instructors methinks!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dwindling?
There will always be plenty of grade three instructors, as long as wannabies are gullible enough to believe the sales pitch without doing some research.
But they won't stay very long if they do not soon progress to better wages.
It seems that no-one tells them that employment is often on a casual basis, with payment by the flying hour, and often only a few hours a week.
But they won't stay very long if they do not soon progress to better wages.
It seems that no-one tells them that employment is often on a casual basis, with payment by the flying hour, and often only a few hours a week.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea Krusty, I used to pay $50 per hour in a C150 that I still see in the circuit area on a regular basis.
As for where the money goes, well there are many places but the largest percentage of todays increased cost is to the AD operator and ASA. These are charges that did not exist in our day and have now been added to the cost of training.
Just about all the other costs have grown fairly well in line with the cost of living index. Maybe someone like CFI can give you some better figures.
But I feel you are right on the money about the the instructor wages. It looks to me that they have remained behind the CPI and have lost ground over the years.
richo
As for where the money goes, well there are many places but the largest percentage of todays increased cost is to the AD operator and ASA. These are charges that did not exist in our day and have now been added to the cost of training.
Just about all the other costs have grown fairly well in line with the cost of living index. Maybe someone like CFI can give you some better figures.
But I feel you are right on the money about the the instructor wages. It looks to me that they have remained behind the CPI and have lost ground over the years.
richo
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private Instructors
I'm probably stepping into the lion's den by putting this one up on a commercial pilots' forum, but what the hell!
What impact, positive or negative, do we think the introduction of a Private Instructors' Rating would have?
Mostly they would work on weekends and only teach to PPL level without any testing authority. It would mean that schools would have a weekend cadre of permanent instructors with the "passing through" types working on the weekdays (and with some weekend work where needed). I see it like this.
Positive: students don't lose trusted instructors, so their training progresses uninterrupted and therefore costs them less.
Positive: private instructors would be less likely to run to other companies for better money because they aren't commercial and wouldn't be in the program for the $$. The result would be a stable school environment.
Positive: the private instructors are more likely to be experienced pilots (because the schools wouldn't take on a PPL with very little experience), which partly solves the problem of inexperienced instructors teaching inexperienced students.
Negative: the young instructors with twins in their eyes would have a reduced avenue for building hours.
Negative: the reduced number of CPLs within a group would also reduce the number of available pilots for charters, joyflights and so forth.
Let the cudgels be drawn.
Walrus
What impact, positive or negative, do we think the introduction of a Private Instructors' Rating would have?
Mostly they would work on weekends and only teach to PPL level without any testing authority. It would mean that schools would have a weekend cadre of permanent instructors with the "passing through" types working on the weekdays (and with some weekend work where needed). I see it like this.
Positive: students don't lose trusted instructors, so their training progresses uninterrupted and therefore costs them less.
Positive: private instructors would be less likely to run to other companies for better money because they aren't commercial and wouldn't be in the program for the $$. The result would be a stable school environment.
Positive: the private instructors are more likely to be experienced pilots (because the schools wouldn't take on a PPL with very little experience), which partly solves the problem of inexperienced instructors teaching inexperienced students.
Negative: the young instructors with twins in their eyes would have a reduced avenue for building hours.
Negative: the reduced number of CPLs within a group would also reduce the number of available pilots for charters, joyflights and so forth.
Let the cudgels be drawn.
Walrus
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: unsure
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that you VH-BCY???!!!!!
Seriously though why don't we introduce "Private RPT pilots" for all of the aforementioned reasons? An idea like this would have many flying school operators, Dixon, Westaway and Godfrey et al salivating as we speak!
Quite seriously now though if these Private instructors are so experienced and keen to teach surely they could spend a bit of time and pass seven easy exams and a flight test? Then they could be paid for doing the same thing and everyone (except the paymaster) would be happy. Although doesn't a system like this operate in the UK?
The Comet
Surely that is you Bernie?
Seriously though why don't we introduce "Private RPT pilots" for all of the aforementioned reasons? An idea like this would have many flying school operators, Dixon, Westaway and Godfrey et al salivating as we speak!
Quite seriously now though if these Private instructors are so experienced and keen to teach surely they could spend a bit of time and pass seven easy exams and a flight test? Then they could be paid for doing the same thing and everyone (except the paymaster) would be happy. Although doesn't a system like this operate in the UK?
The Comet
Surely that is you Bernie?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they can fly the sequences to demonstration standard, then they can fly to the standard required of a Commercial Pilot.
If they know their theory in enough depth to answer PPL students' questions, then they know their theory in enough depth to pass the CPL exams.
A CPL is an evaluation of their ability to operate at this level; an Instructor Rating is an evaluation of their ability to teach while doing so.
If they can't fly to demonstration standard, or they don't know their theory well enough to answer students' questions, then they shouldn't be instructors.
Instructor should mean CPL.
If they know their theory in enough depth to answer PPL students' questions, then they know their theory in enough depth to pass the CPL exams.
A CPL is an evaluation of their ability to operate at this level; an Instructor Rating is an evaluation of their ability to teach while doing so.
If they can't fly to demonstration standard, or they don't know their theory well enough to answer students' questions, then they shouldn't be instructors.
Instructor should mean CPL.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
There used to be instructors in the UK with PPLs. However, they could only instruct to the PPL level.
This system was in place for the "improver" route as you needed 700hours for the CPL.
It's now been scrapped since the JAA license has come in.
This system was in place for the "improver" route as you needed 700hours for the CPL.
It's now been scrapped since the JAA license has come in.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up to yourselves and be realistic, you are only pilots!
Last edited by kiwi chick; 21st Aug 2007 at 22:44.
Standards, Standards !!
This PPL 'instructor' stuff has been done over well on this, and the instructing thread. I'm with Unhinged on this - we really need a single, high, standard in the industry, and that's CPL.
Sorry, Walrus7, it won't ever get up while we have most of the industry already complaining of perceived declining instructor skills. Anyway, isn't there a 500hrs minimum experience requirement in the UK just for starters? CFI might care to comment?
The original thread referred to the retraining of instructers who have been out of the industry for some time, which looks to be intended to increase G1 numbers...not G3 or G2. If this is what it achieves, then maybe this will bring back more experience to the upper instructing ranks, and might not be a bad outcome?
happy days,
This PPL 'instructor' stuff has been done over well on this, and the instructing thread. I'm with Unhinged on this - we really need a single, high, standard in the industry, and that's CPL.
Sorry, Walrus7, it won't ever get up while we have most of the industry already complaining of perceived declining instructor skills. Anyway, isn't there a 500hrs minimum experience requirement in the UK just for starters? CFI might care to comment?
The original thread referred to the retraining of instructers who have been out of the industry for some time, which looks to be intended to increase G1 numbers...not G3 or G2. If this is what it achieves, then maybe this will bring back more experience to the upper instructing ranks, and might not be a bad outcome?
happy days,