Yes... very much so, but not here! Simply because it would be likely that the some concepts would be taken out of context in the forum environment and this thread in particular and therefore not be seen as a "wholistic" (sp?) "solution."

An example of cost to student (Cessna 152) per hour

Aircraft hire £130
Instructor £25

So.. if the instructors fee is increased to £37.50 he/she has a massive 50% increase. The student however, has an increase in cost of only 8% - hardly noticeable. Quite possibly the club could even absorb some or all of this increase.

I feel students would also be happy to pay for briefings so long as the material was not what they would have already read in their PPL guides and was relevant to the lesson (obviously).

And that's the bit I disagreed with and thought was controversial!

Your other stuff I do agree with. The structural "problem" (if there is a problem) with PPL flight training is exactly as you describe it. The presence of a large cadre of low time instructors willing to work for unsustainably low wages has the effect of
- crowding out career PPL instructors, except those who are senior enough to make more from examining, being CFIs etc
but the benefit of
- making flight training cheaper than it would be otherwise.

I am not sure that standards suffer from a "majority" of low timers being unfit. From my experience, they are a pretty good bunch; but that is a small sample.

The problem in the UK is that no-one has managed to run a school which breaks out of the low price model that prevails. In the US, many schools have career instructors; either full timers or part-timers alongside the hours builders; my sense is that FI there get $40 or so per hour after the school takes its cut - and that this rate is charged for ground briefing as well as flight. I think this helps make the balance of flight vs ground training time better. Also, many schools have reasonably modern training aircraft (C172s with G1000, DA40s) so students have the choice between older and newer aircraft. But, in the UK it feels like the student population won't pay for the extra cost of more experienced instructors, more ground briefing, newer airplanes or post-ppl continuation training. It's a difficult dilemma, and I don't know the answer.

rgds
421C

I too would like to see experienced PPL's teaching, but I don't see it happening. (By experienced I mean people who have done lots in aviation, not just the same local burger runs over and over again). My thinking is this.

Experienced PPL's will not need the money from a second job. Their first job provides a good income, otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to get good quality experience as a PPL. So money will not be a motivating factor.

So they must want to do it for the flying. The trouble is most experienced PPL's will have little interest in flying around the circuit, or doing the (relatively local) cross countries that are involved in PPL training. So the flying will not be much of a motivating factor either.

That leaves the 'reward' of seeing someone develop and learn. Perhaps there are enough people for whom this is sufficent reward to give up their weekends/evenings, but I doubt it.

I imagine an experienced PPL would be happy helping newly qualified PPL's expand their experience and taking on bigger challenges, but not so trilled about goind around endless circuits.

dp

Not necessarily - 800 hrs built up over 10yrs+ does not, IMHO, mean they are experienced.

In those 800hrs, built up over a long period of time, many bad habits will have been devloped and from my own experience those 'experienced' PPLs with a few hours were the ones on the way to accidents.

If these types of PPLs were to then become instructors, what would the standard be then ??

Good point, perhaps tightening the hours into a smaller time frame. But also I think that a well taught FI course should knock out the bad habits but still leave behind the Private flying experience.

Ah, perhaps your sample has been better than mine. Once they get a few hours under there belt they do OK (inline with my other comments) but it is the customer who is paying for them to gain the experience (which was commented on as well).

In any industry the customer ends up "paying" for inexperienced people. Otherwise you wouldn't get anyone new in any business.

That's just how it works. New engineers, new designers, new teachers, new mechanics etc.etc.

We would all love to only have to deal with people who have been doing the same job for 30 years, but that isn't a realistic propsition, nor is it necessarily the best way to get good service.

There are PPL's out there who would make great FI's, but there are a far larger number who would be god awful.
At least with young inexperienced CPL holders, a good CFI can try and mould them into a decent FI and their recent training and capacity to learn makes them ideal candidates.

Of course there are good "hour builders" (I hate that phrase as the vast majority of FI's do an excellent job no matter what their original motivation.), there are the occasional idiots too, but on the whole, standards aren't slipping in any way.

Have pass rates changed? Are we having more accidents caused by poor training? If no, then how can you quantify a statement as open as "Instructor standards are falling". Frankly a load of bo**ocks if you ask me.

We do need to work out how to retain good FI's in the industry, but harking back to the "good old days" of PPL FI's is madness. That's what scr*wed the industry in the first place and ensured that no-one could get paid enough to even make a living wage.

So what happens, people bail as soon as they can, why? They can't afford to do anything else. End of story.

The simple answer is that people need to pay more for their training. At even £25/hr an FI is cheap compared to plumber or electrician or even a hairdresser and yet people whinge like mad when they are expected to pay a sensible amount for someone to teach them to fly.

Say Again S L O W L Y

Well said!

When Bose-X didn't know enough to know how much he didn't know he was screaming on here about how he loves instructing for free.... :rolleyes:

VFE.

SAS
The title of this thread was a question not a statement and it has encouraged some sensible debate.
As DH52,others and yourself have said we need to pay good instructors a decent wage and the difference in cost to the customer is not much.
After all many schools have smartened up their image by investing in newer aircraft and I'm sure they are reaping the benefits of lower running costs and retaining the type of customers they need who have a substantial disposable income. This is surely the way forward but paying instructors more is not as obviously a tangable benefit as shiny aeroplanes. We now need enlightened management to keep moving the image and the product upmarket.
DO.

I know my posts in this thread have been along a different line but I say again - if there any recent reduction in fresh PPL holder competence, it is quite unlikely it can be laid at the door of the instruction.

The whole training business is going about it the wrong way.

Too much emphasis on circuits (lots of sweat, brain just goes dead);
Too much emphasis on the first solo;
Old fashioned navigation skills, inappropriate to present day airspace challenges;
Training planes are mostly wreckage;
Self fly hire planes are mostly wreckage (hard to find non-anorak passengers to come along, so a big chunk of PPL utility value is lost);
Experienced PPLs strongly discouraged from hanging around schools they trained in (because they usurp instructor authority) - this touches on to the "mentoring" project which has been talked about for years, and which most schools will not touch with a bargepole for the reason just given;
Poor marketing fails to attract well funded individuals so only the really keen enter the scene (or the hopeless ones);

Etc.

800 hrs over 10 years is about 5 times UK PPL average!!! That represents a flying budget of the order of £12000/year which is hard to do unless you earn something like £50000 gross, and if you are making that much you are unlikely to have time to do voluntary work; such generosity becomes possible only much higher up the scale :)

I am not convinced that PPL instructors screwed the business. Admittedly they were around way before my time, but I have flown with a few who were such and got grandfathered to a BCPL or whatever. Some were good, some bad, but all seemed to have done a lot of varied flying. Whereas today's instructor (retired ATPs excepted) have rarely probed the nearest crease in the chart, not because they would not like going somewhere (most would love to) but simply because the syllabus does not require them to.

If there was a golden age of PPL instructors, it happened to coincide with a different era where most normal people didn't look at a 1950-design plane and cringe. Since then, society has changed and those with enough money to fly tend to do other things.

Was speaking to 2 of my 'hour building' instructor mates today. Seems this thread has generated some chit chat at the club. Not surprisingly, great offence has been taken by some of the comments directed towards the more junior FI's who seem to be regarded with such contempt by certain individuals. 'Yes' they are hour builders, 'yes' they work for pittence....no point however in having some prejudiced jibe at them re your views of instructing standards....blame the system!

Yea Mike. The Chirp report suggested "experienced" instructors.
DO.

Nothing to do with me in that respect as I am happy to Instruct for free.

However I do think that FI's are getting a raw deal. I know, how odd for you to comprehend that I am not on this crusade for selfish reasons.....

Whilst there are people who are prepared to work for free, then instructors will never get a respectable, professional wage - simple as.

Cheers

Whirls

Come on then Whirlygig, explain that one.

There is a difference from a freelancer who is prepared to give there time for nothing to people who would not go near a club in a million years in return for having the favour returned in the future to someone working for free at a club.

But I stand by to be educated by your perspective on this matter.

No, just egotistical ones. YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!

VFE.

Basic micro-economics, that's all. if flying schools (i.e. employers) know that they can get someone to work for free, then they will recruit that person. If flying schools can't get people to work for free, then they realise they'll have to pay.

I stated a basic premise of supply and demand, sorry that you can't grasp the simple concept. It's a principle that works across all markets, not just aviation.

But it's OK for you to do it, just no-one else eh? :}

Cheers

Whirls

DO, absolutely right.

Unfortunately, there is an argument that many flying school owners use (rightly as well much of the time) which is that no matter what the schools pay, then frozen ATPL holders will bail for the first airline job that comes along no matter what they are paid by a school, so why should they bother paying a decent wage?

I don't agree, but that is the mentality of many school owners.

The training industry does need to attract more people with cash. The life blood of flying is that it is open to all, but there is a shift towards microlights and a/c like the Ikarus for those of us with less disposable income and we need to attract the more affluent to the more expensive SEP machines.

Why the more affluent? Well, frankly, prices are too low to allow clubs to do anything but survive most of the time, unless they have seperate revenue streams such as mentioned by Colin at Strathaven. So if you can't get enough in to allow you to invest with some surety, then it just won't happen.

I have been in the training iundustry for a few years and I wouldn't invest one penny of my own money into as it is. Not a chance. The roi is rubbish and the risk enormous. I'd rather buy Bradford and Bingley shares to be honest.

IO makes some very good points, though I will disagree about PPL FI's stuffing things up. When people work for for free just for the "love of flying" and because they have a salary from elsewhere they don't really care, it utterly stuffs things up for anyone who relies on their profession to actually pay them.

I had a massive row with a BA training captain when he said he didn't want paying. I said, "no, you'll be paid the same as everyone else, if you want to give your money to charity then fine." He basically wanted to try and jump the queue and get more students and charge less. I even found out he had not charged certain people for his time on flights. I went crackers.

You may say "how nice of the chap, to give his time for free." However, that is utterly unacceptable in a team of FI's, it undermines everyone else and is incredibly selfish. Just because you earn £150K/year doesn't mean you can ride roughshod over others who rely on teaching to earn a living.

A good school has a core of FI's who work together. Parity of pay is an essential part of that. Start having different pay scales based on anything other than experience or subjects taught (IR, IMC, Aero's etc) and you are just asking for trouble.

I don't work for a flying school......

Wow, you really are pissed with me. Never mind you can always come and kick my ass or something to make you feel better. :p

Just for reference, any instructors making around £10,000pa might be entitled to Working Tax Credit:IR Tax Credits - Do I qualify?, What are tax credits

For single person on £10,000 worth around £600.

It doesn't matter whether you work for a flying school or not; neither do I!

The basic premise, whether it applies to you Bose-x, or anyone else, is still the same - that whilst some people (in whatever circumstances, in whatever profession) are prepared to undercut wages by working for free, then wages rates across that market will be kept lower.

Anyone who is crusading for living wages for professional instructors should not also be accepting of those who work for free.

Cheers

Whirls

You know what. You are right. In future I will ask for donations to the RAF benevolent fund. Thanks for your input.

Bose, are you saying you instruct for free? What are you, nuts?

Seriously, why would you do that? I wouldn't walk into someones office and offer to their job for naff all, so why would you do the same to other FI's?

One can only imagine it's an inherent belief in Thatcherite ideals with a superficial hint of Scargillian solidarity!

Cheers

Whirls

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! - for Pity's sake, I'd planned to start a thread on how rubbish contract domestic painters and decorators are nowadays, what with all these young hour-builders just serving time before getting a big industrial contract to paint an oil-rig or a bridge. With any luck, Bose would have been round and emulsioned the lounge and a couple of bedrooms for free before he twigged.

Sorry mate!
It won't be long until winter though and you could probably nip up to the airfield and get one of the FI's there to do it for you, probably won't cost you more than a bag of chips.

It might be their only chance of meal once the weather has turned.

I understand totally what people are saying about free instruction, but I am a PPL/FI who scraped together the funds to do CPL groundschool and FI course for the love of instructing and I can't charge for my flying (other than expenses for fuel to airfield etc..) so what should I do? Give up instructing until I've paid for a CPL when I can then charge? As a part-timer it could years to recoup the cost.

If I were to work for a school I would expect to be paid for the work and I would never take a job away from someone who is doing it or wants to do it for a living.

But there is more to life than money and I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around.

When you are doing things yourself and helping out people who never go near the schools the unexpected rewards are often worth it. I have 3000hrs of private flying and more than 120 different types in my log book and a significant number of those are a result of my belief. I have had the privilege of flying aircraft some people have laboured decades to restore and they have never let another soul fly. I have flown and taught in interesting types that most FI's won't go near because they don't have dual controls or are very difficult to fly.

There is a big world outside of the spam can trainer fleet and I am lucky enough to be trusted by people in this part of the aviation world to fly their aircraft. You also find philanthropy brings out the best in people as well, often resulting in unexpected touches. For some of us that is reward enough.

And in response to blagger - Well done - A true passion for aviation, prepared to put something in and expect nothing in return. My hat goes off to you. :ok:

Aviation is a passion for some........

Taking the kinky pills again!

VFE.

This concept of providing something for free is an interesting one.

Aviation, like a few other sports, straddles the divide between a professional occupation and a “hobby”. I can also think of sub aqua and perhaps sailing as other examples. Sailing is at the extreme given that almost no body involved with sailing makes money from the sport - yes there are delivery skippers and there are some professional race skippers but in the main it is a “hobby”. Never the less there are RYA approved schools where you will pay for a course of sailing instruction, there are “non approved” schools where you will also pay, and clubs where members will take you out for a sail and will, with any luck, teach you how to sail, usually in a “non structured manner”.

Perhaps it is “structure” that provides the key. If you pay for a course of instruction you can reasonably expect that a feature of the contract will be the course is structured - structured in terms of how standards are maintained, at what times the service will be available and how the course material will be taught. (I might add because this is what you can reasonably expect it doesn’t always mean this is what you will get).

On the other hand, certainly with free lance instructors, analogous to a degree with the sailing club member, there may be a distinct lack of structure. The member will almost certainly have other commitments so the training will only be available when it suites him. The training will not be supported by the back up provided by an organisation. If the instructor is ill the training will stop, the instructor is not in the business of providing infra structure, so there will be no simulators, no back up aircraft or boats, no briefing rooms etc.

Aviation training, unlike sailing, is regulated by law. In consequence the standards of training should always exceed a minimum standard. However, the freelance instructor and the fly training school are both capable of meeting that standard. Each is offering a different product and has very different over heads to cover.

Training schools have confused themselves. Many of the instructors accept their pay is in two parts - the first part is money, the second part is hours which they need for their future career. In exactly the same way this is why delivery skippers use to be paid a pittance. The instructors are often self employed or at least are paid as if they were. The schools make money out of the aircraft rental. If you employ a solicitor he charges solely for his time, but something like 40% will cover his salary, 30% covers the overheads, and 30% is profit for the partners. As a consequence the instructors are devalued by the schools and are “treated” as if they were self employed but enjoy few of the benefits of being self employed because it is assumed part of their pay should be in kind. The instructors generate the profit of the business but as such they are not charged out as if they were.

So my point is that the training industry has always sat at an uncomfortable crossroad - it wants to operate as a “proper” business adopting the accepted model of a commercial service providers, but it doesn’t want (or cant or wont) adopt the same business practices of a commercial service provider in any other industry. It is therefore its own worst enemy and probably has little to complain about if some freelance instructors are willing to provide their services for free.

If you paid instructors a proper wage the cost of learning to fly would go UP and the number of customers would go DOWN = less instructors and aircraft required; everyone suffers. It's the old law of supply and demand.
I did the AFI course at the same time BA was laying off pilots with the result that quite a few went back into instructing and as a result there were less instructing posts available and I couldn't afford to give up the day job. However, doing the course was interesting and educational.

JXK - I don't think that is the case. Take a look at the earlier example about the economics of raising the price. It is not difficult to absorb.

The issue revolves around how FI's are paid as well. Most get a very tiny retainer and flying pay. They majority don't get paid for the briefing time in a 2hr slot and so this is an area where the standards suffer I think. The motivation is to get into the air as quick as they can so they don't lose any precious hours or flying pay often giving lip service to the briefing. This is exasperated by students turning up late, previous lessons overrunning etc.

The briefing is an equal part of any flying lesson and as such the Instructor should be paid properly for this time.

To add to my earlier comments many of the flying schools run their businesses as if it were a hobby, not a business. The owners may make a living out of doing so, but they are unlikely to attract any investment. It is because they cant attract investment the PPL training market has remain unchanged for as many years as I can remember and will not change so long as the present regulatory environment remains in place.

That is the reason they don’t or cant pay their instructors properly and also the reason why the aircraft are poor.

A very few have tried to invest heavily themselves (where they have funds available from their own resources) but I don’t think any one has succeeded because the majority of the market is not willing to pay the prices necessary for them to recoup their investment. A few individual willing to pay an extra 10% or 20% an hour is not enough.

Take two aircraft, one new the other 20 years old in a condition that reflects its age, charge £20 a hour more for the first and watch what happens. As little as £20 is enough to ensure you have almost no takers for the first and a que for the second - extraordinary you might say, but they are the facts.

For that reason as I said earlier the business model is fatally flawed. Bose has a point that if the aim is to turn out good pilots there may be a better way in which everyone involved accepts they are running a club not a business.

The only exception are commercial training providers which is the only market where the schools can operate as a business. At this "level" the economics change. The "punters" are on a mission, the business is able to operate in almost all weathers, and must invest a considerable sum in the infra structure - which keeps the free lancers and smaller schools at bay. Schools like Oxford make money, they are a business and they are investable.

Anything else is a hobby, which as a bonus you might make a bit of money at and have a lot of fun running. It is just a shame these operations sit at the cross roads as I commented earlier - neither fish nor fowl - and it is the instructors and students that often suffer the consequence.

At the end of the day I see no statistical evidence of instructor standards decreasing from any organisational body involved with flight safety. I do however see that more GA pilots are falling foul of airspace changes, more regulations and an AIS made no easier for the majority of pilots both professional and recreational, but alas I digress...

To me this thread seems a puerile attempt by *some* to elevate their status by creating a perception that they somehow know better than everybody else. I see it all the time working at an airfield all week - everybody is an expert... it's endemic! At times I think Freud would've had a field day routing out the hidden issues behind someone who feels they have to constantly poke their head above the parapet to seek affirmation from their peers. Sadly, it's always the ones with the loudest voices which we get to hear time and time again but that's life I guess.

This thread has no grounds. In the words of Dragons Den: "I'm out!"

VFE.

Aviation is a passion for all of us, just because you are happy to prostitute yourself doesn't mean you have any right to denigrate what others do.

Hours = so what, in my book. Like any job, the longer you are in it, the more experience you gain, it's just that in flying we record things to a greater degree.

Trying to say that the hours themselves have a tangible benefit is rubbish, especially nowadays.

If an FI wants to go off to the airlines, then whether they have 1000, 2000 or 3000 hours matters very little now. Does your face fit and do you have a rating/ability to pay for one is far more important than what is in your log book.

So the old, "but you are getting hours" argument is simply out of date.

If somebody does a job, then they should be paid the market rate. You don't need the money, but are happy to take work away from someone who does, just because you are "freelance"? Whether you are associated with a school or not matters not a jot. I'll fly outside of any school association, but I preform the same job, to exactly the same standard as I would in a school, so therefore I expect to get paid for it.


I have a passion for flying, but I also have a passion for paying my mortgage. People working for naff all damage that and make it very hard for the anyone trying to earn a living from teaching to do so.

Your motivations come across as incredibly selfish. "I'm loaded, so I'm alright Jack." I'm also in the lucky situation where I have a few quid in the bank and an income from elsewhere, so flying could be just a hobby for me, but I count myself as a professional pilot who has not just my own interests at heart, but those of my students and other members of the FI community. Working for free doesn't fit any of those criteria.

I've still got plenty of hours in the book, flown some wonderful machines, met some amazing people and always done my damndest to ensure that I offer value for money, but I have never worked for free and never will. I've done favours for friends and have waived my fee on occasion
(For example I had a young student who had bags of talent, but due to some horrid circumstances couldn't afford to fly anymore. I found him a cheap machine and donated my time for free as I couldn't bear the thought of him being lost to the industry and having seen how distraught he was, I just did what any normal person would do when they saw someone working as hard as he did. I helped out in the only way I could. That is alright, doing it as a matter of course is not.)

Being "trusted" with someones aircraft.......... What are you on about? You're an FI, your job is to be PIC and teach someone. How can you do that if you aren't competent enough to be "trusted"?

You do a job, you get paid. Simple.

SAS, as you wish. I am not getting into a fight over that one. To many fronts at the same time.....

Reward does not have to be about cash, it's as simple as that. I am happy with the rewards I get for teaching so lets leave it at that.

No, reward is about getting "market rate". That = money, or at least it does to the rest of the population. Try and convince yourself otherwise, but the basic fact is that by working for free, you denigrate our profession.

Am I right in thinking that to be an instructor you must achieve at least the theory examinations at CPL level, but you do not actually need to have a 'CPL'? But without a CPL then you cannot be paid for the instruction?

If that is the case then perhaps that's why Bose-x and others don't charge for their time, because they cant?

I haven't been on this forum for a year or so now, but I caught this thread, like I tend to do whenever this subject comes up, and I feel that maybe a different perspective.You all seem to be clued up on instructing and the like, either as a professional or someone who has a lot of hours. Let me give it from my perspective (8hrs post PPL).I'm lucky to be in a very good job with good pay and conditions etc. It's nothing to do with aviation, but you'd class it as a good job. Big problem though, I have never to date woke up to my alarm and been happy about the day ahead – looking forward to my job. There is only one job in the world (so far as I know in my life to date) that I would truly look forward to going to each morning, and I believe that to be Flying Instructor. Here’s two very simple little problems: it costs a packet to train, and the wages are insufficient to live in the current era. The first problem of training wouldn’t be so much of a problem really, if I didn’t have any commitments – which I do. However, if I was to go back in time and stay single and live at home and reject any commitments, it would still take me years to build up a career to be able to afford training etc. Catch 22. Even if I was lucky to get the CPL and FI and all that, I’d still need another job to be able to afford to live. So the only other option I am left with is the PPL/FI where I can enjoy flying, and still have a career elsewhere. This is NOT a rant, but the way it IS. I am living with that, and have accepted it. I’m not going to argue about flying for free etc but I honestly have to say that if someone offered me an hour a week to do trial flights or something, unpaid, I wouldn’t say no. Bose-x, I do agree with a lot of the things you say, especiallyQuote: (button not working in works browser)"Reward does not have to be about cash, it's as simple as that. I am happy with the rewards I get for teaching so lets leave it at that."Don’t get me wrong, I’d never actively go out and seek full time free employment, because that would mean I was either rich, or had nothing better to do, in which case I like the idea of getting paid and giving the money to charity or something, therefore not undermining paid work. I do think people have been very harsh with their personal attacks (I certainly hope anyone who calls you a c*** on here never makes it to FI as I wouldn’t want them teaching me). And back to the age old argument of quality of instructors – I think it’s arrogant to pick on one particular reason why you think an instructor would be good or not. You can either teach, or you can’t – it’s probably all down to personality (but then I’m calling myself arrogant).I live in hope that one day I’ll have a PPL/FI and that I can do an hour or so here and there, passing on something I love doing. Quote:"Apprentice instructors, mentored and overseen by the professional so as to build up their teaching skills in a structured manner. These apprentices would of course receive a wage that would allow them to stay in the industry."Show me where I sign up. All the best.(Sorry for lack of formatting - works browser is junk).

An interesting post Mazzy, but you are missing one vital point, that any job eventually becomes that. A job.

I love flying, I have spent 10's of thousands on it and I am very lucky to be able to earn a living from flying aircraft, but I never lose sight of the fact that it is a job.

Sometimes it is awful, sometimes it is the best thing in the world, but flying for a living is a whole heap different from being a PPL.

An FI doesn't get the choice as to who they fly with, where they fly or when (obviously wx is a factor) and you are constantly at work in the cockpit, or on the ground.

Many people make that mistake and try to equate PPL flying with teaching. The two things are totally different, yes you are up in the air, but that is about the only similarity.

It's about as different as going for blast across a wonderful mountain pass on a beautiful day in your new car compared to slogging up the motorway driving a lorry.