How employable are Instructors?
 

Surrounded by excellent Multi IFR instructors, I like my collegues demonstrate enroute IFR navigation and instrument approaches to a high degree of accuracy. Yet when applying for an illusive twin Charter job, whether it's at Skippers or the low end RPT services, we are hounded by our lack of Charter time.
I realise instructors wouldn't have delt directly with passengers, I realise instructors do have more of an option whether to go, or, not to go - but, at the end of the day, employed on a full time basis flying Multi IFR, surely Instructors would be a valuble asset to charter companies out there... future check and training perhaps?

by the way, I'm talking about guys with 2000hours, 600 multi, 300 planned IFR ~ roughly,

so why aren't we being considered more seriously?

2b

Ignorance is bliss!

I am sure that there is many more than just myself that know of pilots that hold instuctor ratings getting into these positions.

Instructors are very employable..

It just depends on the individual him/her self that dictates whether or not they're going to get a job outside of instructing..

I've seen it where myself, and others that were VFR single engine instructors get multi crew multi engine turbine jobs as F/O while the IFR instructors are still IFR instructing at the same company to this day. (To be fair they get paid a fair wage for their services) 4 of us left as VFR single instructors to become F/O s on turbines...

It definely helps to have experience other that instructing. Whether it be single or twin commercial experience. It is very obvious once training starts who has commercial experience and who has only instructing experience.

Instructing itself is not bad.. it just helps to have something else with it.. whether it be a squirt of commercial/survey experience as well into the mix..

From my own experience, I've seen a few instructors with purely instructing time come through thinking they're God's gift to aviation and expect a command in a few months compared to that of many that have instructing time but also a bit of commercial time of sorts who have a more keen and willing attitude to learn than their instructing only counterparts..

Instructors are indeed very employable... just look up "McDonalds" in the phone book...


Seriously though, few charter companies need more than one or two check and training guys, and virtually all their pilots have probably instructed at one time or another... besides, the charter companies know that most of their new hires are just using them as a stepping stone to something else, so why invest the money in training them up?

Charter and instructing are two different things, being good at one doesn't make you good at the other. You think in different ways, and apply different criteria. For example, very few instructors have any experience in bad weather, because they don't fly when the wx is crappy. Same goes for experience flying an iced-up twin with marginal instruments and cranky nav kit. And then there are real-world command skills, like knowing when to divert and when to press on... few instructors do that for real with any regularity. And what squawks you can carry safely, etc etc etc.

Not that it can't be learned quite quickly... but employers like you to have it at the start.

Good question, but my question is this;

If a charter guy with 2000hrs and 600multi (all IFR) decided that he wanted to start instructing, could he walk into the flying school and expect to teach multi IFR from day one (since he was experienced in this area), or would the school expect him to get some instructional experiencefirst? The reality is that he probably wouldn’t be considered much more employable than the 250hr jnr grade 3.

I think it goes both ways. No-one disputes that a pilot with instructor only experience can fly an aircraft, but being able to fly the aircraft is only one of many skills required for scheduled charter/RPT.

It is expected that everyone who meets the minimum requirements can fly an aircraft, so I think it comes down to what other skills you have accumulated over your flying hours. If an RPT operator is looking for a pilot, they will probably consider someone with 600hrs RPT over someone with 600hrs instructing. It does make sense.

With regard to future check and training, there are plenty of guys out there with instructional and charter experience that are capable of filling those slots.

If you want to fly charter, why don’t you get some charter experience?

One point that needs to be highlighted here, many aviation companies in the Low RPT / charter world generally do not employ instructors, because in the past have had many bad experiences.

This is not to say that there are not good people amongst the instructors, but the small number of terrible pilots with instructor backgrounds that have gone before you have caused irrepairable damage in the mind of the employer.

For many pilots in the charter world, packing all of your personal possesions into the sigma and heading to YPKU/YBAS/YPDN or similiar is a required pilgrimage and an automatic brotherhood of sorts.

It takes a fair amount of courage to step out of ones comfort zone and " go bush " and is a great experience that no amount of aeroclub flying can emulate.

wouldn't the real world command skill tell you not to go in an iced up twin with ****e instruments?

this "real world" attitude really annoys me. ask the families of any dead instructor if they think their relative was in the real world when they bought it.

i think CPs are more likely to hire non-instructors because such people are less likely to tell them where to stick it when they are asked to fly an iced up twin.

I agree about the sticking it part to the CP, but there are ways that you learn to do it when you go bush if you want a job/or want to keep the job.

You do learn very quickly that most CP have been around for many years and although you are pressured to earn them the money, there are ways you can speak diplomatically to resolve any situation.

As an instructor, it is part of your approach to be more abrupt. This can sometimes cause you a problem in the charter industry. There are many great instructors in our industry. However, many are absolutely pathetic!
This can often be seen from individuals in the circuit flying so far away from the circuit they should call it a nav exercise instead.
Remember, your students actions reflect your own. If they are ****e, generally you are too and probably won't make it in the charter industry.

Your job as a pilot is to work efficiently and safely for the business that you work for.
As a charter pilot, you learn to tread the line very quickly and how to deal with this pressure.

Many CP want the best for their pilots, it reflects their actions also.

Too bad Kendells aren't around anymore.
They employed only the best pilots and most of them were instructors..... Just ask SOME of them!

bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I am just curious. What is a "charter frame of mind?" I see basically that a flying instructor deals with customers every day, their students. They need to get them to their destination (their licence) in the shortest period of time (cheapest) and at a time that suits them (when they can come in for training). Why do you need to do single engine charter to be able to do multiengine charter? What difference does it make if your multi hours a logged up by doing IFR teaching? When you are trying to get your required lesson plans synchronised with ATC requirements and other commercial pressures of the flying school. How is that different to charter pilots getting their pax from A to B when they want to? There seems to be so much "my d :mad: k is bigger than yours" syndrome between the two groups when quite simply there seems to be stuff all difference between the two!

Charter frame of mind, its hard to explain. But I will give it a shot, well as you said its all about customer service, getting them from A to B in the cheapest (for your boss), most efficient way. Its different to instructing, as getting a student to their "destination" does not depend on you (well in a way it does, in terms of your teaching method and how well the student reacts to it), it depends on the students learning rate, adaptability and the amount of money they have to spend (i.e. a student PPL that can only afford 2hrs every fortnight, as opposed to a full-time student CPL that can fly 5hrs a week). With a charter you get the PAX there regardless if there is a personality clash, a student will not learn if there is a personality difference in the learning environment (cockpit and classroom),

My point was that some META IFR instructors want to go for the larger charter gigs, yet they seem to get declined most of the time. Due to "lack of charter experience", so if you cant get those jobs, why not start off at the bottom, or close to it, doing basic charter, gain that experience and then move on to larger charter gigs. If there was a position advertised for a job that needed 500hrs multi for a charter gig, then the pilot with 500hrs multi charter time will most likely get it as opposed to the IFR instructor with 1000hrs multi instructing. Plus the argument goes for instructors telling the boss where to stick it in "marginal" weather. I remember a time when I was doing my ME_CIR and we flew into a cloud and got very mild icing as a result of it, the instructor was crapping themselves, "Oh my god, we are icing up!" this resulting in a decent to LSALT, for most of the flight we were in and out of ST cloud and it was no more than SCT on the day, so it wouldn’t be long until we were out of it, didn’t really see a point in descending (in my opinion anyway)

And with being synchronised for ATC, im not too sure what that means? You decide to go flying, so you put in a flight plan (both charter, if CTR and instructing). Give ATC as much notice as possible and then you go flying, they are there to help you out?

This isn’t a stab at you almostthere, just elaborating on my previous post.

And as for my d*ick is bigger than yours, I guess im in the middle as I did both??? But I do see the difference in ego's and frames of mind from both sides of the coin. Instructors think they are king sh1t, flying those C152s and all! Charter pilots think they are kind sh1t too, flying those mighty C210s. At the end of the day an aeroplane is an aeroplane. Both C152 and C210 time gets logged in the same column (SE), both pilots will most likely have the same long term career goals: Airlines. Finally, both pilots are doing their bit for Australian aviation...making the boss money and working their arse off to keep food on the table and a roof over their head.

Keep up the good work boys and girls; there is light at the end of all tunnels (even if its a train for some of you!):E

Gidday :ok:

CMN

Quote" Why do you need to do single engine charter to be able to do multiengine charter? What difference does it make if your multi hours a logged up by doing IFR teaching? "end quote.

Either you do not know what the difference is or you do not think it is a justified attitude.

If it makes you happy to get all worked up over it great, but, irrespective of what you think, it is the opinion of just about every Charter/Low capacity RPT orgainisation, why do you think that is ?.

Best advice, deal with it, go do some single engine remote locality charter, and find out how much you didn't need to learn from that experience, or continue moaning about it on pprune.

I have done both, there is a very very big difference between the two worlds.

That´s easy. It is the proven ability to cut corners, never write up defects, taxi like the clappers doing engine runs on the run, pretending that mag drop is NOT that bad, etc. But as soon as that charter pilot gets a job with a big airline like Virgin Blue and Qantas, he becomes a model citizen sticking strictly to flight time limitations, insisting on writing up a maintenance snag, taxiing ever so slowly so as not to upset the flight attendants and never going below the minima "to have a look."

That, my son, is the difference between charter frame of mind so beloved by charter chief pilots and the true blue professional airline pilot.;)

Believe you left out the word "un-reputable" a few times :ok:

As ContactMeNow said - it has a lot to do with the right frame of mind.

It also has a lot to to with 'commercial pressure experience', not just aeronautical experience.

Admittedly, a lot of instructors land good charter jobs, but for those finding it hard, it could be advisable that just 6 months in a 206 and a good reference is enough to prove your ableness to cope with the new mind set.

Time is money is time is money.

I remember my first ever joy flight costing ME $50! Every 0.1 of a tacho hour costing in the order of around $45 :bored: Once you give a customer a quote, you generally adhere to it, whereas if a student's training flight blows out by an hour, they just pay for it.

(we all know instructors can fly!):ok:

Spot the PPL... :rolleyes:

But to answer your question... the twin doesn't start out iced up, it gets that way during flight, and it is the management of that situation that is likely to be unknown territory for an instructor, but commonplace for the charter guy.

I can't think of many instructors that have died instructing, but if they have, they either suffered a structural failure or did something unwise. I can't think of any training manouever that is inherently dangerous, if you stick to the rules. There is absolutely no need to deviate from the rules, ever, when instructing.

Charter is a different situation, you can find yourself in a tight spot that is not of your own making, and it is how you deal with it that determines whether you survive the experience or not. You may well have to break a rule or two to get out of it, and it is that level of judgement that is rarely necessary for an instructor.

The world of an instructor is exceedingly simple. If the weather is crap, you stay on the ground. The "sensible" minima for instructing are way higher than those required for charter - in the charter world, if the weather is at or above legal minima at your destination and alternate, you would normally expect to depart (and your CP would certainly expect you to). What happens after departure is where the problems lie.

I did both charter and instructing before moving into the airlines, and I would have to say that charter is amongst the most dangerous and unforgiving paid flying that you can do, particularly if you are pressured - or pressure yourself - to break the rules. That pressure is virtually non-existent in instructing.

What is a "charter frame of mind"? Well, it has nothing to do with dicks. In instructing, your aim is to impart knowledge and skill. In charter, you aim is to exercise knowledge and skill. The two are quite different.

You probably only get HOW different they are, when you have done both. CPs know, hence their preference for guys with charter experience.

Quick story... back in the day, when I was doing charter, one of the other pilots got a job ferrying some trawler crews around. One of the crews had a (pretty rough) woman amongst them, so my colleague puts her up the front - I guess she smelled nicer than the others. She decided that he wasn't paying enough attention to her endless chatter, so she reached across, stuck her hand in his nether regions and started fondling his wedding tackle. This gave our guy a bit of a surprise - he ballooned about 500 feet before he got it all back together again (fortunately outside controlled airspace). He pleaded with her to stop, but she wasn't having any - she carried on with her "activities" for the entire flight. Of course, the aircraft had no autopilot so he had no choice but to let her continue, whilst completing an NDB/DME to minima.... "charter frame of mind", see? I wonder if any instructor ever had that happen to them... :p

True story, BTW.

remoak...ditto on your comments and couldn,t agree more .....and until one has 'been there,and done that" the differences in these operations are truley unique,and become an individuals true test of their flying and managment capabilities.......

Another,would be to compare going from single pilot operations to 2 and 3 pilots cockpits,and the changes that take place in CRM.This for many is quite easy,some difficult and some just never get it(military pilots for me)... defined tasks and working as a crew....for those of us that do it on a daily basis will agree that when 2 pilots are working together and well....it makes for great flying

.....on the subject of the woman(and I,m still cracking up:} :} bloody funny mate)....do you happen to know her telephone#????......kindest kapai,s
PB

that's probably why you weren't a good instructor - the way to impart knowledge and skill is to demonstrate it.

depends on the instructor

doesn't mean its not the real world.

fully feathered approaches are within the rules, so they must not be dangerous, right?

i could go on, but i've gotta go get my CPL and all......

....here we go!!! hang on,let me go get my helmet and gumboots......ITS GOING TO GET THICK AND DEEP!!!

WDN....mate,if in fact you dont have a CPL(as of yet)I take it then you have a ppl and if thats the case,for me,you are indeed uniquely qualified to make these comments......its like my 15yr old boy....if I ever need to know anything I go ask him as teenagers know everything......

not blowing smoke up remoaks tailpipe,but I think youll find his comments are professionally qualified....PB

I remember many years ago a 1500hr Instructor having a go at me on CTAF.

Yes, I was the only aircraft in the circuit and because us charter guys are so shonky, I was landing an empty C182 onto a 1,000m + strip with 3-5kts tailwind.

Living on the edge eh????

pakeha, are you refering to the previous post :E

Wdn, no offence, but if you are yet to gain a CPL, then this fight is not yours :ugh:

I've done both, and consider myself reasonably experienced at both. When I started charter after instructing, I thought I new it all. My work colleges, most of which were a third of my age and a third of my experience (total time) quickly taught me otherwise. I actually learnt something from someone who was once MY student. I made a few mistakes that someone with my time should not have and after a little bit of ridiculing and a few beers, I think I became a better Charter pilot for it. I also know that some of these Charter pilots learnt something from me.

The two are worlds apart, but also very similar. If you play by the rules neither are as dangerous as the other. Point in case:

(nothing personal ContactMeNow, just an example)

As someone doing a rating, you don't yet have the experience to make a differant call to the instructor. You may question him in my opinion. You may request a differant instructor if you dont have confidence in him, however as an Instructor I to would have descended. Most light GA twins don't have any anti icing gear, therfore the AFM states flight in KNOWN ICING conditions are forbidden.
Ok, it may have seemed excessive at the time, and in hindsight you may still think it's excessive, but an Instructor has to impress the student with the rules and regs aswell.

I really cant swallow this one. I have never found myself in such a spot. I have never, and I dont think anyone should have to break a rule to get them out of trouble (unless you are trying to hide your mistake). That being said I found myself in a bit of a spot the other day, but I dealt with the problem (by the rules) and noone is any the wiser. Another lesson learnt that has made me a better pilot.

Instructing has its moments as does Charter, but remember
1000 hours of CCTS = the same hour 1000 times, but
1000 hours of scenics = the same hour 1000 times also :E

Mono

wdn

Good idea... come back when you have even a slight idea what you are talking about.

The way to impart knowledge and skill is NOT in the demonstration... it is the subsequent coaching of the student, while he or she is flying, that does that (as you will find out if you ever get as far as an instructor rating). Motor skills, judgement and so on can only be achieved by practice on the part of the student, not watching an instructor do it.

The rest of your post is, well, nonsense.

And if by "fully feathered approach" you actually mean an approach with one propellor feathered... that is about the safest assymetric manoeuver, if carried out correctly... and if you go around from a safe height.

from somebody flying charter in the north of our fine country, who has no instructing experience whatsoever, here is my two cents worth.

the organisation that I work for currently have on the books approx 25 pirates...of which 4 are from instructor background.

They are worlds apart.

First, anyone who bad mouths instructors needs to take a good hard look at themselves and ask "who was it that taught me to fly?"
Unless you are gods gift to aviation (as some of you think you are := ), somebody out there at one point in time taught you how to fly an aeroplane, you didn't teach yourself.

Secondly, instructors from my perspective have a better understanding of the rules and regs, capabilities of the aircraft (you cannot teach anybody else to fly an aeroplane and the complexities associated with rules and regs unless you have a thorough understanding of them yourself),

on the charter side of the coin, instructors have very little experience trying to fit 5 pax plus 100kg luggage into a 210 or 206 whilst also requiring inter or tempo fuel. Only one pax, the student and fuel required for the flight.

time restrictions on charter, instructors fly when the student is ready to fly. student does the planning, refuelling etc. Somewhat different to a charter flight that comes up that should have taken off 10 minutes ago and you still need to plan, refuel.

A little bit of respect on either side of the fence is required, appreciate each aspect of aviation for what it brings to the industry. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones...or bricks.

Thats my rant.

dd

remoak
go around from an asymmetric approach with a propeller feathered in training? come on, no one here can seriously suggest that that method is safe, or even demonstrates that remoak's comments, as PB says, are

coaching while they're flying? demonstration doesn't help? i'll quote form the recently revised CASA flying instructors manual, p vi

not listening to some snide comments while the students are trying to practice fault corrections for themselves

and, p vi again

the demonstration of the instructor's high standard of airmanship is critical in developing the same in the student. i note, remoak, that you only mention knowledge and skill as important for a charter pilot.

why am i not surprised by that?

in general, good instructors make good charter pilots, very few pilots make good instructors.

Depends what you are training on. When I was involved in airline check and training in the UK, an asymmetric approach and single-engine landing was a certification requirement. That was on turboprops of course, with plenty of excess power - if you do it on a piston twin, you don't EVER feather the prop... you simulate zero thrust. Even safer.

Leaving aside that I don't use an Aussie publication to refer to when instructing, it is pretty obvious that rebriefing is not the same as coaching, which you manual does not refer to. What do you do, sit there silently while the guy screws up? Have you ever even instructed? Doesn't sound like it.

You don't have to handle the controls to "demonstrate a high standard of airmanship". The student learns by doing, not by watching the instructor doing. This is instructing 101.

You may care to note that, in the airlines, the instructor or check pilot virtually NEVER handles the controls, whether in the sim or the aircraft. He or she does not usually occupy a crew seat, either. You will learn the reason why if you ever progress to airline-level flying. It is the same reason why an instructor in GA should handle the controls as little as possible. Sadly, many instructors just can't help themselves, and feel that they must demonstrate their superior skills (or rhather, their planet-sized egos) far more than is necessary.

Not what I said at all. Read it again...

Errr... yeah. Right. Whatever...

You need demonstrations to help the student visualise what you are talking about. Imagine an ab-initio student attempting to land for the first without ever seeing it done before.

Hands up how many instructors use:

Demonstrate

Direct

Monitor?

Not many:uhoh:

Sure, but only once, then let the student try a few times, if he or she has obviously not got it, demonstrate again and then let the student do it a few more times until they have got it.

The only way to learn complex motor skills, and the judgement that goes with them, is by actually performing the task, not watching someone else do it. Most of what an instructor does when demonstrating a manouever is completely lost on a student as they cannot feel his or her inputs - they are simply observing the expected visual cues.

And even if all that wasn't true, the student is paying money to fly, not to watch an instructor fly.

This yet another reason why sensible CFIs try to find a few older, experienced heads for their team. The older ones generally get it.

Remoak I agree with you. One of the best instructors I ever had was an was an old DC3 pilot. His knowledge was valuable and his explanations were easy to understand. It's difficult to find a truly experienced instructors like that these days.

Ummmm………….ADF instructors?
I hear what you're saying Jarse, and I thoroughly agree. A good demo is worth a thousand words. This is hammered into every ADF QFI on instructors course.


True. The instructor flies the aircraft to demonstrate a sequence and/or to pre/de-brief the student. However you must agree that because airmanship permeates everything we do with aircraft, airmanship is being taught indirectly (at least!) anyway when the instructor is handling the aircraft. Bloggs will learn lots by the example (good or bad - up to you!) being set.


Back to the original title of thread though…………………IMHO a pilot with a pre-dominantly instructional background will make themselves as employable (or not!) as they want to be. Resting on your laurels is not a good idea.

I certainly do agree.