Instructing vs Charter
 

Hi,
I am only about to start my initial training and by the end I will have CPL and ATPL theory. I also have the choice between a multi engine gas turbine rating, or an instructor rating or both. Both cost about $18k. Which would be best?
I know the pay isn't so good in instructing, but I could live with that for a year or so. If I did, how many hours do you reckon a newbie G3 instructor would clock and is it worth the low pay.

Or is charter the better option? If so, does any one know how many hours and how much a rookie charter pilot will get? I've looked at so many charter companies and they all require ATPL's and atleast 1500h PIC.
If I were to go charter, can anyone give me the names of some charter companies that would hire a rookie; Preferably in Regional Victoria, Melborne or Adelaide.

Seriously, any advice I am grateful for; your going out of your way to answer and its all helping me.
Thanks heaps.:ok:

I hear there's a job ferrying Jabirus, pretty relaxed, you can get there when you get there ;)

Geez which charter companies have you been looking at??

If you are serious in your inquiry then I make two points:

Firstly, don't go instructing - you will have only the barest knowledge to impart to a student and will only be regurgitating what you have been told, most of which your instructor learnt from his instructor. :yuk:

Secondly, the charter job you seek does not exist. If you want to go down that route (and there is a lot to commend it for a variety of reasons) then go north. Darwin, Kunners, anywhere where there is a heap of GA going on. Give up the comfortable life, cut the apron strings and build up a bank of stories with which you will be able to bore a first officer witless in the years to come. :E

But, if after a few years of GA charter, airlines don't appeal then consider instructing. You will at least know what works and what doesn't in the real world of flying. :ok:

Make sure you start a thread asking which is better, Bose X or Lightspeed zulu next.

:ugh:

Instruct. That's what most guys do who have things tying them to capital cities, like 'real' jobs or families.

What do instructors get paid these days an hour? A junior grade three for example

From what I've gathered a GD3 wage can depend very much on where you fly. Taking BK as an example as it' an airport I know, a GD3 at Clamback & Hennessey will earn I understand $27.50 an hour, where as if they fly at one of the more 'ethical' paying schools then that's about double. For full time you're looking in the region of $36,000 a year I believe.

If you were looking for an employee at your airline, and they had 1500 hours instructing or 1500 hours charter, who would you be after? Is there any difference? Really.. And I'm not talking about A 500 multi /night / IFR, I'm talking about a day Vfr joyflighter vs typically qualified instructor?

Apart from the fact that the instructors liver may be in better shape by not being in the ... err warmer climate .. is there any difference:}

With those kind of hours angel, airlines will not be looking so is a moot point (unless you want to buy a job at Jetstar and they won't care either!)

Reference the original question, do whatever you think suits your life/goals best. They both have pros and cons.

Instructing
Good if you want to stay in a major town.
Good for basic knowledge (read and learn things yourself, don't just blindly believe what you are told. So much rubbish gets recycled in flying schools because many don't know any better)
Bad if you want to earn a living (I had 2 separate jobs and lived at home with mummy and daddy!). Some places are better than others at bringing in work.
Bad if you want to fly something other than a 152.
Bad for basic stick and rudder skills although you will get proficient at saving bad landings etc.
Bad for any kind of commercial awareness.
Will not be exposed to very challenging conditions as a gd 3 because most ab initio needs favorable weather.
Slow progression onto multi.

Some of these things vary depending on who/where you are employed.

Charter
Good for learning how to actually fly and make decisions (no standard lesson plans)
Good for learning to deal with commercial pressures.
Good for operating into different aerodromes and marginal weather, can range from departing an international airport and landing on a dirt track.
Generally pretty good for progression onto bigger and more complex machines including twins.
Bad if you want to live in a big city.

I have done both and got far more from the charter/RPT stuff than instructing, but I had to leave my home city and haven't been able (nor want) to go back in over 10 years. If you can, go north and you will have a great life and career, just be open to it.

Spot on! :D:ok:

That's a nice list travelator.

I'd correct one thing though - stick and rudder skills equally good in either area after five years' experience. Charter wins that comparison only in the junior ranks I think, where charter pilots are building the first 1000 hours much faster and in more "realistic" conditions.

If you enjoy instructing & if your friends & family think you'd be good at a teaching job, go for it. If not, you'll probably hate it.

Grade 3 approx $35k award. G2 around $40k. G1 around $50k

Instructing is great fun, you will learn a lot.. If your good at it you will acquire a strong following of students, which means plenty of flying for you.

Having said that charter is also very rewarding. You will also learn a lot, very quickly. To get a start in charter you would be better off heading up north. Go with at least 5-10 hour on 200 series cessna.

Goodluck!

Would the best bet be 1-2 years or so of instructing then charter? That way you at least heave a couple hundred hours under your belt whilst door knocking up north? Or the rating is not worth the short instructing stint? Cheers

Do you want to teach? Do you enjoy teaching? Do you want to make a career out of teaching?

If the answers to all three of these questions is yes, then get an instructor rating and instruct.
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then do not get an instructor rating. Go north and fly something, charter, skydiving, survey, anything that is not instructing.

Instructing is not "hour building". You have a duty and responsibility to teach a paying student, and if you aren't going to do this properly, don't waste their money.

The helicopter world has a minimum of 400 hours in a helicopter before being eligible to even hold an instructor rating. The aeroplane world needs some similar restriction as well, to be a disincentive for instructors who are only there to "hour build".

Lasiorhinus......amen to those thoughts.

Second Ravan's motion.

Without this there would be a shortage of aeroplane instructors and reduced flow on into higher licensed instructing positions.

Many of the schools earn their bread and butter from the student to CPL to instructor to employee cycle. The ones that survive and end up grade 1s keep slogging it out as it would be a pay cut to head north and try their luck at charter.

I'm not saying this system is a good thing, quite the contrary. However it is required to keep instructors in the system.

Do you think someone who has got a 1000 plus hours up north, probably flying a twin or looking at a CIR would come back and fork out the money for an instructor rating and start off on reduced pay as a casual grade 3? I can say after flying Airvans, 210s, Barons, Navajos, Chieftains, Partenavias, 402/404s I wasn't overly enthused about watching a foreign national fly a Cessna 152 :ok:

Dreaming :ok:

Is there a shortage of helicopter instructors? No. The helicopter instructors have, by definition, been out in the real world and are making the choice to come to instructing. It would certainly mean less aeroplane instructors, but that does not equate to a shortage.

And many schools earn their bread and butter from using their experienced staff to train students.

Requiring instructors to have real-world experience first would dramatically improve the quality of instructors, and therefore the quality of pilots coming out of the schools. If you already have a few hundred hours of charter experience, and then decided to instruct, that would only be because you actually wanted to do so, not because it was an easy way to "hour build" while living with mummy and daddy and not having to move to Kununurra.

They would if they genuinely wanted to instruct. Youve described something quite similar to what I did before getting an instructor rating. One side effect youd find if all instructors were experienced pilots, is that instructors would no longer be willing to accept crappy pay and conditions in the hope of getting some hours - because getting hours would no longer be the aim of the game.

I cannot see any reason why requiring instructors to have genuine experience first before instructing would negatively impact the industry.

I agree with your assessment, but it's not an ideal world and unless CASA mandates minimum hours then it is what it is.

What would happen IMO if there was a minimum hour requirement, is the same guys that drag the T&C down for instructing would hang around the charter operators in the cities doing things for less. Some would head north and do the same thing to get a quick couple of hundred hours to get home.

They would beg scrimp, cheat and steal the hours until they could fulfill their requirement to stay home.

So really nothing would be achieved, nothing at all.

Provided they pass the same flight tests and exams, they have a licence to scare. Perhaps the regulator needs to increase the flight test requirements or change the training syllabus?

Just a thought.