Instructors disadvantaged

[stick_&_rudder]

Is it true that, instructors are disadvantaged when looking for work with charter operators in the search for multi time?
Even if the instructor is getting reasonable variety between instructing and charter with the operator he/she is with!

[flipside]

most yes, some no. TOO MANY instructional hours is not a good thing in general.

[compressor stall]

IMHO it is an interwoven issue.

There have been a few "high" houred instructors who have gone north and been hopeless in the real world of charter flying - schedules, decision making, etc. and they have tarnished the reputation of the majority of instructors in the eyes of a FEW operators.

You will generally find the operators who don't like instructors are the operators who are not all straight down the line. They like 250 hour pilots as they are often more malleable, more willing to work for less $$, to fly dodgier aircraft, to push further, to sweep hangar floors, you name it.

That is because a 250 hour CPL in his/her first job is a lot more fearful of losing it than a 1000 hour instructor.

The "no-instructor" policy is nothing more than a poorly disguised "we do not want to employ pilots with your experience as you know what is right and wrong and will stand up for it".

[Mainframe]

Stick N Rudder Mate, a little of what Comp Stall says may be true someplaces, but there is a a huge learning curve to get onto to make the transition from instructing to charter pilot. The more hours instructing, the harder it will be to make the jump. Let me try to explain some of the disparate tasks between the two career paths (instructing is a career path and you should not really embark on this unless you really feel it is a vocation, even so, you will at some stage advance in your vocation by entering the GA charter world, and possibly the airline world to get to a higher stage in your career, Check and Training.) As an instructor, you get to do a lot of flying and have a lot of responsibility, however you do not get much hands on in other than training aircraft. You don't usually fly at or near gross weight or at a performance limited weight in medium and heavy twins. You normally operate in and out of bitumen runways in a controlled airport, not some muddy and boggy clay strip with trees at each end and in a remote area. You don't have to fly in marginal weather and you don't get to make lots of decisions to ensure the safety of your flight. You don't have a mountain of paperwork to complete enroute (and this often has to be done in a stressful single pilot IFR flight in solid and turbulent IMC). You probably haven't even heard of a deck log, never mind using one on every leg, as well as using it as an entry point for weight and balance calculations, as well as calculations of V1, VToss and Vref for each leg. You probably haven't even used HF radio, used on most legs of a charter flight. OK, so there are differences and you can adapt, but with several thousand hours of doing it your way there is some inertia involved to change over to being a working pilot. Even fuel loads have to be calculated because fuel and payload are often mutually exclusive, and when the weather goes bad (or is wrongly forecast to be so, the fuel calcs take on a special meaning). You will have levels of expectations and initially you will be miles behind the working pilot with probably only half or a quarter of your hours. You will need lots of help and guidance from your Chief Pilot / Senior Base Pilot AND your Peers and you need to be humble and recognise the need for help from these pilots, even if you are a grade one with thousands of hours. You need to adjust your personal attitudes to reflect that, for a while, you are a new kid, out there trying to catch up with everyone else. Nothing in your instructing will have prepared you for the normal day to day tasks and responsibilities of a charter pilot, it is really tough until you get up to speed. The more hours you have, the harder it is to swallow your pride and accept that you do indeed have a steep learning curve ahead of you. I have seen some instructors not make it in charter, but most just knuckle down, grit their teeth and meet the challenge. If you come with the right attitude you will probably have a lot to offer an employer, if you don't, you just won't last. So, if there is a reluctance to take on an instructor, you need to understand that the employer is taking more of a chance hiring you than hiring someone who's been out in the bush on 206's,207's. 210's and finally BE58,C310, PA31. The guy that went bush has had a lot of character building along the way and has learnt and assimilated a staggering amount of experience to enable him to not only get the job done safely, but efficiently as well. Taking on the instructor is by contrast, a gamble, but usually it pays off. As mentioned, a lot of instructors have cruelled for their mates in the past. I hope this helps a lot of you out there because I see this point raised often. Either career path is quite noble, neither is better or worse than the other, but, they are totally different career environments and work environments and have different aptitude challenges and skill requirements. I've given this my best shot and trust you read it in the spirit intended.

[flipside]

Mainframe,
From someone who had a lot of instructional hrs and went to charter, all I have to say reference the difficulty WHAT A CROCK OF ****

[Icarus2001]

Mainframe some of what you say has an element of truth, eg Instructors often operate from bitumrn strips. However most of what you say shows a complete lack of experience. Have you spent much time instructing?


Who do you think teaches the "charter pilot" how to do all of the things you mention?

Teaching students to use HF? Every navex I do uses HF.

Teaching students how to operate on boggy, wet, narrow, short strips is part of the syllabus.

Teaching IFR students how to cope with the workload... Hmmm all this paperwork you mention whilst flying in IMC, why not turn on the required auto-pilot? Oh it isn't working? Then do the right thing and put it in the MR.

I could rant forever but the bottom line is the "charter" pilot doesn't turn up knowing this stuff, he or she is taught. Now if your experience of instruction is otherwise that does not mean that the whole of the country is the same.

I too have come across many instructors who should not have held a CPL let alone be allowed to instruct. Thankfully they appear to be in the minority.

Compressor Stall got it right, the owner or CP of a small charter outfit does not want someone who can quote the rules back at him. Perhaps someone who actually waits until 500' until turning after take-off, or who fills in a F&D sheet correctly.

[Hugh Jarse]

Nice wind-up, Mainframe...

I know of many people who have gone straight from instructing to an airline, with no more or less difficulty completing training than someone from a so called "charter" background.

Coming from either path has advantages and disadvantages. I could go into specifics, but really can't be bothered...

Having had a small part in recruiting pilots over the last couple of years, I think I can speak from first-hand experience.

[flyby_kiwi]

Seems to me that arguing instructing vs. charter is like arguing that black is white.............. Makes a good read tho - some points I had never thought of. As this topic could almost cause the introduction of a fourth sub-forum Ill keep my opinion to myself but still very interesting points from both sides of the field!

[Tempo]

Really the only people who can comment on the transition from Instructor to Charter pilot are those who have done both. Nothing s*&ts me more than those who bag instructing but have not done it themselves.

[kavu]

Mainframe

Nice piece - liked it a lot and it's true. But then saying that employing an instructor is like hiring a brand new 200hr pilot. They have to be shown the ropes and over time they will learn the process. In the case of the high hour instructor he/she should come up to speed quicker than the fresh new pilot. Still a huge learning curve but the instructor should be adaptable to new things. If he/she doesn't want to learn then they need to rethink about applying for the job.

I didn't go the instructing way and am looking at doing a instructors course in the future. Not to take a job from someone but to help get a better understanding of the whole process. (So I can see where the instructors are coming from). Also to help in the long term plans of my career.

The question then arises, what to do after the CPL? GA or instructing? Many a debate has probably been raised about this already and will not start it up again.

But I believe in hands on flying and not sitting on ones hands. So even if you are instructing, get a few mintues of hands on in all your flights.

[Mai Dong]

Compressor Stall, you have it spot on mate.

Malleable is the key word when it comes to 250 hour pilots being employed straight into a charter job.

I don't think it is an issue for instructors being able or not, like any job, aviation related or not, it comes down to the person.

I think that Mainframe took a little too much from his thesaurus when describing the rigorous and demanding pinnacle of aviation we call 'charter flying' in this country.

[shaablamm]

My background is instructing, however I now do both. Some weeks more instructing, others more charter. I've been working within these realms for over 10 years. In my humble opinion I believe that many instructors will find the transgression from the teaching realms to charter easier than the charter pilot undertaking the instructor rating.

Overall experience counts for everything. A charter pilot in a PA31 in the Kimberley will never have the experience of his/her counterpart based in ML. etc etc. The variables are endless.

It's always the charter pilot who doesn't have an instructor rating that seems to bring this topic up.

[Sheep Guts]

I wish I had an Instructor Rating!

I have missed oportunities, because I didnt have check and training or MULTI-ETR. To become an instructor for the first time, would be as hard as going the other way as this topic is showing. I would definitely have to learn how to fly again, "Shake up wouldnt hurt though ".

I bet Stallie you are happy you have METR under your belt, as it would enhance your career prospects. For those of you who are Intructors going the direction of Charter Pilot, keep your ratings current, as you will benefit in the long run.

I am now thinking of joining your clan myself .

I thought I would support our instructing colleages!Keep at it your country needs you.


regards
Sheep
Charter Pilot (doesnt have much of a ring to it)

[Mainframe]

Hang On !
This post started with a query about whether an instructor might be disadvantaged getting into GA charter.

Most of you already know the answer from bitter experience. I did not set out to denigrate Instructing or Instructors, I am one myself.
I have also been a CP in many places "up North" and as a result shared some of my observations as a recruiter.
Let me clarify and agree with those who have undertaken Instructing after some years in GA, YES, it's tough gaining an instructor rating, probably the toughest task you can set yourself in GA (at least it was for me and the other highly experienced pilots attempting it with me).
The disadvantage of experience is that you are not as "malleable", you have to unlearn some of your experience because you need to instruct to a clearly laid out and regulated syllabus.

So, just as an experienced GA charter pilot will have some degree of difficulty changing over to instructing, so will a very experienced Instructor have some initial problems adapting to the other side of flying.
No-one said neither can make the transition, just in both scenarios,experience can be a HANDICAP.
Experience helps shape our attitudes as well as our capabilities.

A fresh CPL more easily transitions (not "transgresses" as
postulated in this thread) to the rigour and study required to gain an instructor rating.

Likewise, a fresh CPL will adapt easily to charter as both are still malleable.
I have recommended to many of the pilots working with me to consider an instructor rating after gaining some experience purely because in doing the rating, you have to set personal standards that are probably higher than you accepted prior to becoming an instructor, this to polish them prior to their airline careers.

Because an instructor leads by example, he will normally fly +/- zero feet (near enough is no longer good enough), while trying to coax a student to at least achieve +/- 100 feet.

On this note, those that aspire, if they haven't already got one, should consider a rating and M/E training approval (yes I've got that as well) because amongst other things, check and training is going to be legislated into even the smallest operators in the future.

SO WHY MIGHT AN INSTRUCTOR BE DISADVANTAGED IN SEEKING EMPLOYMENT WITH A CHARTER OPERATOR ? , the original theme of this thread.

Attitude comes to mind as one of the handicaps experience can bring with it. Ex YMMB instructors seemed to have had more of a problem with this a few years ago, although that appears to have moderated in recent years.
Kimberley and Darwin operators became cynical and yes, some of those guys did cruel it for those to follow, for a few years after, YMMB resumes went straight to the circular filing cabinet with a lot of operators.

A willingness to listen and learn will shape the right attitude, and the transition to charter is not as difficult as the transition to instructing for experienced players on both sides.
There are differences in flying, whether it be instructing, flying in PNG, our toughest and most unforgiving school, flying in the Straits, our most challenging flying in this country, flying outback Qld, the Territory and the Kimberley have their own special quirks, and the mission intensive RFDS landing by headlights at night on a strip that would have your full attention in daylight.

Then there's regional airlines and airlines, each with their own challenges, but hopefully by the time you get to airlines the only challenge is your own performance, not that of the aircraft or the airstrip.

Hopefully S+R, I have answered your question, as well as unintentionally inflaming some who may not have seen both sides or have not yet been "up North" or PNG.

(Mainframe old chap, I enjoyed your post but had to take a Disprin for the headache afterwards
I have taken the liberty of having a bit of a dash at making it easier to read.
The "Enter" or "line break" is the BIG key is towards the end and in the middle of your keyboard.
It's frequent and intelligent use will make your excellent posts even more excellenter. cheers W)

[High Altitude]

Haven't read all of the posts but here's my 2 bobs worth...

The 200-300 hour pilot that gets here has little to no experience. The majority wouldn't know what a HF was if it fell on them. Next point is getting better but what are flying schools doing? A majority of CPL's get up here without even having the DG awareness??? The advantage with the 300hr pilot is that they can be taught how to operate, just like a GRIII is taught how to operate at a flying school. 2 very different fields.

On the V's question...

800 hour pilot that has been meatbombing, driving 206's in the bush, v's a Grade II that has been instructing since CPL. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The bush pilot will blend in immediatley however the GRII will offer more down the line. To hold META is an absolute advantage and any Ins out there should look at getting it as it puts you above the field when looking for pilots.

Really it all boils down to ones personal ability. I have seen many a 300hr pilot fly a plane better than a 700hr pilot??? It is a generalisation that instructors do not make good charter pilots, it is the few who haven't that have set the precedent fairly or not.

Generally speaking though I think alot of flying schools have to be answerable to the quality of pilot that gets turned out....... (seems to have been on a decline).

HA

[Hugh Jarse]

Urban Myths Dispelled

Sorry Mainframe. I see your point. You were writing about GA.

However, there is no requirement for an instructor to go through GA charter in order to get an airline job.

Let's face it, few instructors OR GA charter pilots aim to make that their career. They seek better rewards, so why take an unnecessary step from instructing to charter?

We have many former instructors working at my place of employ with little or no charter experience. Really, it makes little difference. They were employed because they met the employment criteria and passed the sim ride and interview.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I'm just trying to dispel the myth implied by some on this thread that unless you've done charter you are a lessor pilot.

That is simply not true.

[Mainframe]

Woomera and Hugh Jarse

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, I will make better use of the ENTER KEY to provide easier reading.

However, the spelling and grammar police will have to work hard to catch me out !!

Hugh J, agree with you re background for Airline flying, doesn't matter that much because the newly initiated will be under direct supervision vis a vis 2 crew and CRM for the rest of their career.

In GA charter, the ops are single pilot and the supervision is indirect.

Attitude is a very definite factor in the safety equation, when dispatching some-one on a flight it's nice to know that they're not going to do something deliberately dumb or dangerous.

Yes Woomera, "OLD CHAP" is close, I'm in the twilight of my career but I'm still passionate about safety, check and training and about guiding the wannabes on their way to airlines and having the intense satisfaction of seeing them get there.

Unfortunately this side of the industry in Oz sees several pilots depart forever to the higher levels each year, and in PNG even more frequently. Hugh, in your side of the business, that sort of attrition is rare and usually not flying related.

Unfortunately attitude is often an indirect contributing factor.

We, and the paying passengers, like to see a competent and confident pilot. Sadly, in our formative years we all succumb to 'over- confidence" as our experience builds.

Statisticians tell us this is most likely at around 500hrs, 1,000 hrs, 1,500 hrs and 3,000hrs. Hopefully we either get a small fright or get reprimanded and are jolted back to the straight and narrow again.

That sad fact motivates me to seek answers and remedies, but until that becomes simple, my intuition has to act as a screen.

NO-ONE COMPLAINS OF QF's SCREENING, and the filter process does help to get the right ones. It has been my observation that I have usually been uncannily accurate in predicting which ones will make it to Airlines and which ones won't.


Sometimes the vitriole that honest opinion and advice attracts is nearly enough to make one wish not to post anymore, but I get over that when I realise it's often just the impatience of youth coupled with the frustration of stalled careers. When I think I can contribute something meaningful I do and will continue as long as I care..

[flipside]

Mainframe
Read your 2nd post and I see your point, fairly valid. Generalisation though is a dangerous thing, there are those that will fit into a certained defined category and those that will not ( I think I have just found my pet hate). Your 2nd post, edited,was easier to read than the first but not really my place to comment as writing is definately not my strong suit.
Please do keep contributing as everyone has something to add, some will agree and some won't, that is life.

[Coastal]

How much is too much?

OK,

So the common theme seems to be that an Instructor with lots of right-hand-seat hours is less 'malleable' than a raw CPL pilot, and as a result, is viewed by some to be less employable. So how many hours in the training circuit is too many? (Forgetting my physical condition for a moment - I don't know how many more 'circuits' my heart can take!).

For arguments sake, consider Joe's situation. Joe has been instructing for almost a year after completing all of his neccesary training last year. Work has been limited and Joe has roughy 150 hours instructing. Joe's total time is, say, 400 hours.

Joe wishes to venture into Charter next year, particularly the Kimberley region. Would Joe be considered to be just as non-malleable (is that a word?) as the 2000 hour Instructor?

[Mainframe]

COASTAL

Joe, with 400 hrs, is unlikely to get to fly in command on Charter ops in the Kimberley when he gets there.

He is, however, a contender for scenic flights in the Kimberley region. When he builds hours sufficient to satisfy either the minimum hour requirement of either the operator or the operator's insurer, he will probably be considered for a command in charter operations.

The scenic flight routine is regimented, documented and will entail some icus. This is a standard route, with standard fuel load and a standard passenger load. There are no outlandings involved. The pilot flies from Kununnurra over a designated route in accordance with a standard procedure and returns to Kununnurra without landing. Consequently the planning requirements, in flight navigation and fuel management are all SOP. The flight effectively is conducted "under supervision".

This is not quite the scenario of a typical charter flight.

However, the insurance company is happy because the risk factor is minimal.

Joe will probably conduct 500 hrs of this, maybe with some freight runs to Kalumbaru, ICUS again, thrown in.

Next year, if Joe's performance, work ethic, PR skills were ok, he'll be invited back and be introduced to S/E charter ops. He will now have at least 750hrs. Now he gets to fly somewhere with passengers (in a CAO designated remote area) land at other places (ALA's, not usually licensed aerodromes) and generally make command decisions.

When he cracks 1,000hrs he may be considered for M/E flying.

Even with these tedious precautions, accidents still happen out there, though I don't recall them killing anyone out there yet.

Coastal, what your CPL needs to have explained to him/her, when their training is completed, is that. although legally licenced to do so, they are NOT GOING TO BE FLYING IN COMMAND IN CHARTER OPS until they have consolidated their experience. That experience may be "Scenic Flying", "Meat Bombing", Glider Towing or whatever else some company and their insurer are prepared to permit. They also need to understand that they will most likely have no use for a M/E CIR for quite a long time after graduating from CPL.

The newly graduated CPL is not likely to
(i) go straight into the right hand seat of a jet,
(ii) go straight into M/E IFR passenger carrying charter,
(iii) go straight into S/E passenger carry charter in remote areas

Sorry, these are realities, and if the fresh CPL understands that then there would be less disappointment and frustration.

Quite a lot of instructors have not yet been "OUT THERE" yet so they cannot advise from personal experience.

Having said all that, yes, it is tough out there, yes you're going to have live in some downmarket residential areas with socio-economic problems, yes you may even choose to be exploited in those places, BUT nearly everyone goes through it and most eventually makes it further up the tree.

Unless you go through the Military or a cadet scheme, you are going to be taking on a really tough, financially challenging, couple of years to become qualified enough for the Airlines or whatever it is that motivates you.

The Flying School Sells:
the Dream,
the CPL training,
the initial M/E rating,
the command instrument rating and maybe an instructor rating,

then the CPL has to live the interim reality.

Maybe you can convince the Insurers that they are unduly harsh and that the accident statistics don't really apply. I think NOT.

Don't Give Up, just try to understand how it actually works, rather than how it might in an idealistic world. Go and fly your heart out, indulge your passion and get on with it !