Hobbs/VDO, tach time and airswitch?

[Okihara]

Originally Posted by Aussie Bob

Stewth

I run a flying school, have done on and off for years, decades even. How about we charge VDO. It starts when the oil hits the switch and ends when the engine stops. For that you get me sitting next to you, a heap of free time briefing and debriefing and the use of my facilities, can't come much simpler than that.

Plus I charge flight test fees and flight review fees. Simple really, nothing hidden. Feel free to bring your own aircraft even.

Aussie Bob, I understand the simplicity, seen from your angle. As a student a little so. The flight instruction revenue with the highest financial margin is the lapse of time between engine startup and aircraft take-off. Yet during that time, the student doesn't learn much and the instructor doesn't teach much either. Additionally this time can be highly variable at busy airports, eg. 1.0 dual lesson on circuits with 0.3-0.4 spent on ground.

All I'm saying is: I would find it more rational to charge for effective instructor time separately from aircraft time.

[Clare Prop]

So if the day comes when you become an instructor, you'll be happy to only be paid for the time your student deems to be "effective instructing"?

It would be an interesting experiment, to see if all the students really decided they only wanted to fly with you because you were on a different pay scale to your colleagues and didn't get use of the briefing room or any other school facilities as a result, or is there more that matters than the finer details of the hourly rate? As I've said by all means start your own school and give it a try and let us all know how you get on.

[jonkster]

Do you really spend 18-24 minutes on the ground due congestion? If that was me as a student I would be seriously considering another school/aerodrome as that is clearly a busy show.

Re paying the instructor... the instructor logs instruction time from time the aircraft moves until it stops at the conclusion of the flight (and you log that time in your log book as flight time).

You seem to be saying you should get that time for nothing because the instructor is not effectively working.

Even on the ground the instructor is in command of the aircraft and hopefully from their employers and customers perspective, actively involved in the flight and lesson's progress.


If the student stuffs up on the ground (and it can happen) - clips another aircraft's wing, misunderstands an instruction from ATC and infringes a clearance limit, takes the wrong taxiway, misses a radio call, damages the aircraft from mishandling, doesn't detect a fault, flicks the mags off in run up then flicks them back on a second or two later with a loud bang, misuses the radio and clogs up a busy situation, misses completing a pre-take off action or sets the aircraft up for flight incorrectly or whatever... the instructor is the one who wears the blame. He or she is in command of the aircraft and should not allow it to happen and is the one liable. Are they really not being effective? Would you take that responsibility without pay?

I work out of a moderately busy class D aerodrome and I average 0.2 (12 minutes) per flight for ab initio students on the ground. Early ones are longer mainly because they are slow and wobbly doing checks, make mistakes and are clumsy and nervous with RT and need time to practice and discuss what is happening but they usually speed up to average a little over 6 minutes out a little under 6 in.

That time is not wasted as far as I am concerned, it involves me monitoring them safely preparing the aircraft for flight, safely and appropriately handling the aircraft on the ground, correctly interacting with ATC, polishing their R/T, building up their situational awareness and actively teaching them things and reviewing their performance and looking out for gotchas (some that could strike after take-off if I wasn't on the ball on the ground).

I think I deserve to paid for that.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
This thread started out as a question about recording "engine" time, mostly recently it has become a slanging match about flying school billing.

So, just a quick summary --- if you are doing business with a flying school or someone who hires aircraft, caveat emptor, particularly the fine print, INCLUDING insurance --- before you get a very nasty twist of the hip pocket nerve. And they do have to make a buck to stay in business.

As to times to be logged as Flight Time and Air Time, the regulatory requirement is clear, and not subject to "opinion".

As a final comment, "customers" are not always paragons of virtue, an old mate of mine, and I am certain he is not the only one, had to fit his aircraft with hidden time recorders, air switch activated, after he found more than one instance of tachos /VDO/Hobbs being disconnected by customers.

Tootle pip!!

[Aussie Bob]

Yet during that time, the student doesn't learn much and the instructor doesn't teach much either.

Strewth

You should be learning and I should be teaching efficient pre takeoff checks, getting underway with a minimum of fuss and getting airborne as soon as possible. I would encourage you to learn your pre takeoff checks by rote and know what you are doing these things for and why without referring to a printed checklist (this does have its place too).

You may be learning at an airport that requires taxy time and clearances etc. Where I teach there is no unnecessary waiting.

I mean no offense when I say this but your comments show me, as an instructor, that you are a difficult student.

[Clare Prop]

Perhaps the easiest solution is for the OP to buy their own aircraft and hire an instructor by the hour, engine start to engine stop of course.

[mikewil]

Originally Posted by jonkster

Do you really spend 18-24 minutes on the ground due congestion? If that was me as a student I would be seriously considering another school/aerodrome as that is clearly a busy show.

This happened to me multiple times at Parafield when the planned lesson included a departure directly into the adjacent class C and we were informed of a 20 minute delay due to inbound jet traffic at Adelaide.


I was paying close to $500 per hour to sit on the ground at the hold point (this was a turbocharged C206).


Flying schools really should arrange their fee structure to prevent unforseen ATC delays on the ground from costing the student a fortune. I'd happily pay a higher hourly air switch rate than a 'lower' rate where I am charged $200 for sitting on the ground waiting for ATC.

[Okihara]

Perhaps the easiest solution is for the OP to buy their own aircraft and hire an instructor by the hour, engine start to engine stop of course.

That is actually a wonderful idea. Actually, I might as well go the extra mile and build a whole airport. I hear Australia has land to spare and could use some foreign funds. I'll make sure to revise my economics 101 to fully grasp the complexity of variable vs. fixed costs beforehand.

Flying schools really should arrange their fee structure to prevent unforseen ATC delays on the ground from costing the student a fortune. I'd happily pay a higher hourly air switch rate than a 'lower' rate where I am charged $200 for sitting on the ground waiting for ATC.

Thank you for breathing some common sense into this thread, at last! Instructors here seem to take the view that I am a forceful defendant of cheaper lessons for students. That couldn't be further from the truth. I am actually quite happy that they are able to make a living out of flight instruction, and by all means, go for it. But like you mentioned and I experienced too many a time by now, I find those delays on ground at the student's expense just preposterous. Yesterday was a great example: although run-up bays are packed, the instructor tells the student to make a start. They carried out their run-ups cornered in the least crowded bay only to taxi to the holding point and and find themselves 4th in line for take off. They ended up waiting for 20 minutes to their clearance. No wonder, all the previous aircraft had done their run-ups and were all lined up for take off. And that's an airport that operates two parallel runways but where instructors always want their students to take-off from the eastern one. No student at this stage will have the awareness or working knowledge to request the western one.

I mean no offense when I say this but your comments show me, as an instructor, that you are a difficult student.

That's rather sticky. What for exactly? Asking questions, is it? Or maybe just wanting to go to the bottom of things or requesting a clear answer? Sorry mate, you and others seem to perceive my post as an attack on your business while this really isn't one. No one gave a constructive answer yet, that's the startling fact. If anything, you should be flattered that a student sees more to those meters than mere numbers. So I'm left guessing that the reason you're all defending yourselves so vigorously is that there might indeed be a little bit of arbitrage in your system, that maybe a few schools are taking advantage of.

Again: not and never against instructors making a living, quite the opposite: go for it and get fat. Just wondering if there's a better way to use those meters that will earn schools equally as much financially and maximise students actual flight time for their money.

Assumption: a flight instructor is happier in the air than on the ground (@Clare prop: in economics term, they have a higher utility function in the air)
Observation: some flight instructors clearly don't seem to have much of an incentive to minimise time spent on the ground, nor minimise ground time for the student
Suggestion: charge flight time separately from ground time, ie. at different rates, the former obviously at a higher rate than currently to even things out
Expectation: more actual flight time for each dollar spent by students, less unnecessary ground time and frustration with ATC

[jonkster]

FWIW, I think it is a fair question to ask, why is the charging done the way it is and also to question whether you are getting value for money if you spend a lot of time held on the ground awaiting clearances.

My comments would be firstly - busy airports will have delays on the ground. You book an hour flight at one of those you are not going to get as much airtime in that session as you would at a less busy airport.

That is a downside of training at schools at busy aerodromes. (There can be upsides as well - you get exposed to a busier traffic environment and may have access to organisations with a wider variety of more advanced aircraft).

Originally Posted by Okihara

Again: not and never against instructors making a living, quite the opposite: go for it and get fat.

just for reference, instructors are the lowest paid pilots in the industry. They are at the bottom of the heap. It is not a way to make a good living.

Originally Posted by Okihara

Just wondering if there's a better way to use those meters that will earn schools equally as much financially and maximise students actual flight time for their money.

You want schools to make the same money. You want to pay less because you are not getting enough air time.

The only way that can happen is how? The only way I can see is they pay instructors less. Ask an instructor what their average annual income is and if they would be happy taking a rate cut.

If you want to get more airtime for logged hour I would think you should consider training at a less busy aerodrome.

Like I said, legitimate to ask the questions, worth looking at how aircraft are charged when hiring aircraft later on.

When training, worth shopping around schools to see what they offer - a smaller school at a less busy aerodrome can give you potentially great training and individualised service but may not have the glitz and glamour.

[Clare Prop]

Flying instructors on the whole want to do a good job, be safe and keep body and soul together, just like real people. What you are suggesting is that the instructor should take a financial hit if you get stuck in a queue for the runway, something the instructor has absolutely no control over.

My staff have the option of knocking off a couple of decimal points from the lesson time when were are stuck behind someone bringing the whole airport to a halt, I usually do, but I wouldn't force the staff to. We don't like being stuck in a queue in 40degrees plus either, while someone sits at the holding point waiting for an IFR clearance from the ATC guys sitting in their air conditioned comfort.

So lets use an analogy. If you were having professional driving lessons, would you want the instructor to "clock off" every time you were at a red traffic light or in heavy traffic? Or do you think the instructor could also use that as a teaching opportunity?

Building these things into the hourly rate is reasonable, using averages from several years operating experience. There are plenty of charges and gimmicks schools have introduced in recent years that I don't think are reasonable and need to be challenged, but paying for engine start to engine stop time isn't one of them.

[mikewil]

Originally Posted by Clare Prop

Flying instructors on the whole want to do a good job, be safe and keep body and soul together, just like real people. What you are suggesting is that the instructor should take a financial hit if you get stuck in a queue for the runway, something the instructor has absolutely no control over.

No one is saying they expect an instructor to take a financial hit from changing the way in which time is recorded for billing purposes. You can still pay your instructor from engine start to shutdown even if you aren't charging the student on that basis.


A pre-determined air switch rate which approximates the 'average' Hobbs recorded time would yield the same result to your bottom line (and what you pay your instructor), whilst not making every lesson a lucky dip for which student will get a raw deal due to ground based delays.


You could even charge the student a separate hourly rate for the instructor and an air switch rate for the aircraft.


I assume you aren't paying your instructors $300 an hour while the student sits at the hold point....

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by mikewil

No one is saying they expect an instructor to take a financial hit from changing the way in which time is recorded for billing purposes. You can still pay your instructor from engine start to shutdown even if you aren't charging the student on that basis.


A pre-determined air switch rate which approximates the 'average' Hobbs recorded time would yield the same result to your bottom line (and what you pay your instructor), whilst not making every lesson a lucky dip for which student will get a raw deal due to ground based delays.

So the instructor is charged by the hour logged (ie hobbs time) and the aircraft is charged by airswitch time? (the new rate will be more than current hourly rate but calculated so the school will average the same income for hour the aircraft is being used).

It certainly could be done. Would be a bit of a pain in the bum to administer but certainly could be done.

Some issues:

1. you would need pilots to make sure they brought back both hour times from the aircraft after each flight (so the school can work out your hire charge and record the time for paying the instructor and so the student/pilot/instructor can enter the correct time in training records and log books). Not a real biggie but the back of my hand only has so much real estate

2. Your invoices would list the air-switch time, you should not log what the invoice says (good reason to fill in your log book after each flight rather than leaving it a while and using invoices so actually a positive incentive I guess)

3. You *will save* some money on a log book hour if you have a delay on the ground - eg if you are slow doing checks, get held up by others/ATC, (what I assume is the problem you want to solve).

4. You will however *pay more* for the same log book hour if you are efficient doing your checks and don't get held up by others/ATC. Then again you are paying for 'quality' airtime so this not necessarily a problem for you.

5. You will have to *pay more* when you do nav or longer flights, you are being charged at a higher airswitch rate and the percentage of the flight spent on the ground when doing navs drops a lot so you will pay more for nav training, CPL hour building etc than you would now (potentially several hundred dollars more per flight).

I can imagine the arguments from nav or CPL students building hours asking why they get penalised for doing nav flights or being polished and efficient getting into the air.



Personally I still would say you would be wiser to look at another aerodrome if you are regularly spending 24 minutes/hr on the ground rather than ask a school to create a messy charging system that penalises those doing longer flights but you could always discuss it with your school.

[kikatinalong]

Remember an old baron in the 80s where the vdo/hobbs was on a gear switch. Gear up it was recording, down it wasn't. Fastest baron in oz, it could complete a lot of its flight at supersonic speeds if you believed the meter.

[Judd]

without referring to a printed checklist (this does have its place too).

In days of yore the student was required to learn the checks (Called Vital Actions Before take Off) by heart and the Before landing drills and others.
Checklists were for airline pilots.
Now we have airline cadets using airline type checklists for a Cessna 172 and without these checklists they are stuffed. Reading checklists that are usually lengthy and have superfluous content costs money and it all mounts up.

[Okihara]

Very good inputs, thanks. I'll take up the point to my school and discuss what can be done.

There are a lot of valuable skills to acquire when learning at a busy aerodrome. It's a little daunting at first, esp. radio calls and keeping a good listening watch but that's good experience that pays off in the long run.

For what it's worth, here's what I learned to minimise ground time (@MS: tell me this didn't make you smile when you read it ):
0. Get the ATIS before starting your engine. That's especially useful early in the training when you need to listen to it three times to get all those nitty-gritty details. That might sound obvious to many, but consider this: the whole ATIS is around 30 seconds. Some kids will need to listen to it up to three times. If you're in the run-up bays, that's 1.5 min that your aircraft is occupying space unnecessarily. At my aerodrome, there can be up to 5 light aircraft in the bay, so that's anywhere between 7.5 and 10 min saved when done beforehand.
1. Still before starting your engine, take a good look at the run-up bays to ensure that you'll get room or else you might well end up waiting with propellers on on a taxiway while others carry out their checks (or get the ATIS).
2. Don't get yourself stuck in the middle of a run-up bay (actually not so obvious until it happens). Do your run-ups where you can leave without obstruction when done.
3. Know your run-up checks by rote. As long as you do them correctly, there's no extra value to be slow.
4. Take-off and safety briefing while taxiing to the holding point.
5. If your aerodrome operates multiple runways simultaneously, and if you're anyway departing, don't be shy to request take-off clearance from a less popular runway. There's no point being 4th for takeoff with three blokes before you doing circuits.
6. Ditto when inbound, think about which circuit to join to minimise taxi time and holding short of other runways while others are on approach. Listening to tower communications also gives indications of just how busy one circuit or the other might be. To that end, this is where it pays off to have a good mental map of your aerodrome taxiways and runway exits. This may also be an incentive to work on those tight short field landings. At my aerodrome for instance, if you miss the first two exits, you're in for a lot of taxi. You can also request taxi via specific taxiways
7. When inbound, if the busy side won't let you taxi to the apron without delay, just request to join circuits. It's still more valuable to spend those 6 minutes in the air than on the ground holding short of a runway.

[Aussie Bob]

If an up and coming private pilot can’t complete their checks without a checklist I am inclined not to pass them. What I say is this, the last pilot to fly this aircraft went home with the checklist. Are you going to embarrass yourself and grab the book of instructions and thumb through it, or are you going to have a go without it? Or are you going to abandon the flight?

[jonkster]

Originally Posted by Okihara

For what it's worth, here's what I learned to minimise ground time
...
...

I don't know if you are looking at CPL but it is the sort of organisational and thinking ahead mentality that an examiner will look favourably on when doing your flight test.

[Okihara]

Originally Posted by Aussie Bob

If an up and coming private pilot can’t complete their checks without a checklist I am inclined not to pass them. What I say is this, the last pilot to fly this aircraft went home with the checklist. Are you going to embarrass yourself and grab the book of instructions and thumb through it, or are you going to have a go without it? Or are you going to abandon the flight?

Surely there can't be anything wrong with having your own checklist on your kneeboard? Just to double check that you didn't skip an important item. I don't mean in the air but on the ground.

[Bend alot]

Okihara,


Your proposed method of charging lacked a cost "admin charge" for doing the calculations for the invoice to give to you.

This while you might think simple would actually take time to work out, confirm, enter and review. (All parts of it must be individually audited and costed to be in a positive income field and on a daily basis in most cases).


The current systems that flying schools have, are based more on a average based of yearly costs. So on average your flying cost of training will equal the same air time as others in the year you are being trained and the school will make an average profit based on hours charged on a meter.


So if you wanted a more detailed invoice of charges.
a) The hr rate will increase.
b) The admin fee will be introduced.
c) Contingency costs will probably be introduced to share the holding cost risks.


So it would in my opinion cost you more to do your training.


Any Jabiru engine done TBO without a Top? (honest question, think I only heard of one doing TBO with head work done).

I think CAsA do have a set of limits for chock to chock and wheels off to wheels on differences.


Now as for what you record for MR time, if a watch can be used - work out if you need a fast one or a slow one! never heard of CAsA inspectors requesting a calibration cert for a wrist watch yet! - no doubt this will be a Monday ramp check item.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Aussie Bob

If an up and coming private pilot can’t complete their checks without a checklist I am inclined not to pass them. What I say is this, the last pilot to fly this aircraft went home with the checklist. Are you going to embarrass yourself and grab the book of instructions and thumb through it, or are you going to have a go without it? Or are you going to abandon the flight?

I'll concede that I've not been involved in primary instruction for quite a while, but I think that if a US PPL candidate "had a go without it" on his PPL checkride, he wouldn't pass the ride. Certainly the FAA's Airman Certification Standards has "Complete the appropriate checklist." sprinkled liberally throughout. Could you pass a checkride without a checklist in Oz? I'm asking. I don't pretend to know what goes on over there, but I'm not left with the impression that CASA is more flexible and understanding than the FAA.

For the record, I don't use a printed checklist in my personal flying. I use a combination of flows and mnemonics. But I think I'd be doing a PPL a disservice training him that way. I believe that a single engine Cessna may be saffely flown without using a printed checklist, but I don't think that belief is shared by the people who will be issuing the certificate.