Minimum requirements for instructors

[antzx6r]

Very true. I think we almost have to take GA as an example of what not to do, sort of. (Sorry if that offends anyone) I just mean in the experience department. As i've been looking at the various ways to make flying my career, I've noticed a few things. Jobs in GA are viewed as just a stepping stone to ATPL work as an hrs building exercise. Thus they work for peanuts, never get that good at it and often work beyond casa's max hrs per week. Great for building hrs, great for employers. The trouble is, this includes instructing which is the worst place for someone to be, who's biding they're time to get to somewhere else. They have no pride of being any sort of mentor. The training of new pilots needs to be a career of its own. I think one of the best things casa could implement is excluing instructing hrs from the 500 (or whatever) needed for airlines employment. Make instructing a career of its own. That way the quality of instructors would be better, they'd be payed better and people like myself who don't want an airline job but acually want to work with excited first solo students etc. and see results of building good airmanship, can choose instructing as a career and not be turned off because there's no way to earn a living doing it.

 

Its madness really. Every other "dangerous" job earns "danger money" (skyrise window cleaning for example). And pilots earn nothing till they work in the safest part of the industry. :confused: Figure that one out.

 

I'm just hopeing that by the time I get there, things are better and I can at least pay the bills as a "career" instuctor.

 

 

[Mazda]

Antzx6r (nice bike :thumb_up:) it is true, but I'd hate to see more mandatory rules!

 

Maybe if there were more instructors around (like the older guys starting up without AOCs) the competition would mean the ones waiting for an airline job wouldn't get students. I'm not talking about the younger but enthusiastic prospective career instructors who mentor their students, I mean the ones who would rather be anywhere else. You know the ones.

 

There are some good career instructors around, but sometimes they are hard to find.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The training of new pilots needs to be a career of its own. I think one of the best things casa could implement is excluing instructing hrs from the 500 (or whatever) needed for airlines employment.

This would just drive prices up further. You have to provide some sort of incentive for people to become instructors and, as you say, currently pay alone doesn't do that. So why is anyone instructing at all then? It's because of the hour incentive. Take that away and what do you have - a low paying job with not much else.

 

The pilots who want to fly in airlines have two broad choices - instruct or go outback/PNG/etc. to get hours. If you remove one of these avenues it won't change the endgame, they will still want to fly big jets. So in order to get there more of them will go via the second route creating larger supply of pilots in that market and driving down wages.

 

So the result of your suggestion would be more pilots in the outback and so forth on lower wages. Less pilots instructing making it harder for people to learn (and more expensive due to the scarcity of pilots) and no change in incentives (there would be a slight increase in instructing pay where flying schools could afford it but would it be enough to offset the hour incentive?).

 

Lose lose situation really.

 

 

[antzx6r]

I think it will force the airlines (the real 'takers' of the industry) to invest in more ATPL focused training schemes (like REX cadets) rather than just relying on self funded students strugling to get there any way they can forced to build the hours elsewhere, then when they finaly get there, put them on the bottom rung yet to prove themselves. Pilots seem to be treated like 'its a good racket so you have to go through hell to get it' Thus the reason it's seen as a rich mans game. It costs an arm and a leg to train yourself with no garantee of a good paying job at the end. Especially if your goal is just instructing. The push is toward airlines anything else is a hole in your wallet. That whole mentality needs to change. And it doesn't help that jet pilots look back at training and feel that because they worked for peanuts building hrs, everyone has to do it. Its like a disease. The pilot poachers need to practice some sustainabilty. And leave instructing to pilots who love flying, love teaching and love building pilots not hrs.

 

Sorry that soapbox is really good!!!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

But even then it doesn't solve the problem, in fact it sort of promotes it. That is, if you want to fly in the airlines then here is a ticket, no need to become an instructor. If you don't want to fly for the airlines then you are on your own.

 

In the meantime the school down the road is forced to pay their instructors more because of some government regulation that forces their wage costs up and they have less students because they are all being trained by Rex and co. We already have a pile of schools closing their doors due to increasing costs so this certainly won't help the few that are left.

 

Providing incentives is the key here, not taking them away. Maybe a HECS like scheme for training. I use a government funded loan scheme to fund my training and pay it back like a uni graduate would once I am working. I am not locked into working on a predetermined wage over a fixed period with penalties if I live early like in the case of Rex, I am free to go where ever I like, when ever I like. It doesn't necessarily reduce my costs but it does allow me to shift them into the future when I am more likely to be able to afford it. And it isn't a government handout either.

 

What's more this scheme doesn't screw those who had to do it the hard way. It doesn't diminish the value of their existing hours and it doesn't disadvantage them by allowing queue jumpers as the scheme would also be available to them to further their qualifications.

 

Of course there will always be those of the 'when I did it I had to do it the hard way' ilk but hey, they will always be around. They're even in these forums.

 

 

[antzx6r]

I see what your saying. It just seams like the the headmasters are putting the year 11 students in as teachers of the year 7's while building knowledge for the HSC, because they don't want to fork out the cash for profesional teachers. Teaching needs to be a career, not detention.

 

 

[pylon500]

While I understand all the later comments being made about the pro's and con's of GA instructors working for peanuts, and how the airlines could change their ways by training their own pilots from a lower level (hey, it works for the RAAF), these comments are an aside from the situation of creating instructors here with RAAus.

 

In an e-mail I sent recently to one of the writers for the EAA's magazines, I was discussing a certain aspect of training (dead stick landings), which led to a bit of a rant about the way that Australian Ultralighting is heading, compared to when it started back in the '80's.

 

As a recap;

 

Apart from a few odd splinter groups calling themselves 'The Authority' on ultralighting, we finally took off (so to speak) with the advent of the AUF, which from my recollection was organized by people with a close connection with the GFA.

 

Part of the 'Ethic' of gliding (apart from the flying) was the 'Club' environment, mostly because gliding requires a group of people to happen, even hot-shot solo pilots needed riggers and a launch crew.

 

In the gliding 'Club' environment a typical flying club hierarchy was created (CFI, Instructor, Competition Pilot, Passenger Rated Pilot, Solo Pilot and Student) which gave order and stability to the running of the Club, as opposed to having a system of holding people responsible for one another and shifting blame.

 

Within this order, the senior members of the club would watch and assess members, looking for likely candidates to become instructors.

 

The senior members would be looking for aptitude, interactive skills, competence in situations and even flying ability!

 

Pilots that were looking to do more flying from a cost point of view (which would also add to their hours and experience for their flying advancement) could usually get lots of free flying taking passenger rides.

 

This also had the effect of throwing new pilots into the situation of having to deal with non-flying people in a new (to them) environment.

 

The passenger rating was almost an undisclosed test for future instructors as, even though they were not supposed to let the passenger fly the glider, those that didn't give the passenger a go at the stick were thoiught of as bus drivers (or airline pilots).

 

The first step towards becoming an instructor was when it was suggested that it was time for you to be endorsed to fly your passengers from the back seat.

 

To a degree, any pilots that came up and asked to be made an instructor, would be treated with suspicion.

 

Besides, anybody that watched a gliding instructor on the field, soon realized that it was hard work!

 

My father was a gliding instructor for many years, and I could see how much work it involved, when it was suggested to me that I should look into becoming a gliding instructor, I responded, "No thanks, I want to enjoy my gliding, not work at it!"

 

Move forward twenty years, and the ultralight club that I learnt to fly with (5.4 hours to solo) was in need of instructors, and having a former GFA CFI / Competition Coach as a CFI, I was coerced into starting the training for instructor.

 

In those days most things were done by assessment (not hours) so after converting to fly from the right seat, I took my first student up after 33.5 hours.

 

The fact I had 200 odd hours in gliders beforehand (and nearly as much in Hang-Gliders) obviously had in influence.

 

Does this mean that I was 400 hour PIC (with 29 glider types) before becoming an instructor?

 

Not really.

 

My flying abilities were basically a 'given', my selection for instructor was more through my ability to converse with any of my peers as well as showing an obvious enthusiasm for flying generally.

 

Even now after twenty odd years of instructing, I still fly and instruct for fun.

 

I have my own aircraft and could fly as much as I want, but found myself (until my move) doing most of my flying as an instructor.

 

I could be in a unique situation in not having to make money from my flying to afford it, but I still feel that the 'club' environment even if in a school holds people together better, as well as teaching them more than just their hours.

 

I think we need to look at the errors made in GA and avoid them as well as moving more towards an assessment and personality based operation, not just numbers and academia.

 

Enough rant.

 

Arthur.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's always been thus.

 

The real problem is that the airlines requiring pilots, are prepared to sit back and "raid the pool" without contributing to the whole issue. Would you want a pimply-faced youth as an instructor who is only wanting to be involved in training YOU as a means of gaining extra hours to qualify for a "great " job in airlines, He or She would have minimum Hours and bugger-all experience, and the employer exploits him/ her by paying a wage that nobody can exist on. In this area NOTHING has changed over the last forty years. Till you get some structure where experienced pilots are prepared to "sit where they are and having the requisite experience, do a proper job of training," and make a career of it, then we have not progressed very far at all. Why is it that the only people who want to be instructors , have the absolute bare minimum hours qualifications. Without being personal about it , surely it is a case of the" blind leading the blind". Please note that this post was written before I was aware of the previous post, and is not in response to it . Nev...

 

 

[farri]

Recreational Instructors.

 

Providing incentives is the key here, not taking them away.

I`m only looking at Recreational Instructors here.

 

I want to congratulate anyone Instructing or thinking of instructing in Recreational aircraft, for their passion and courage in wanting to help others learn the joys of flying, because there is very little incentive to become an instructor other than the satisfaction that instructing brings.

 

Because of the high risk of litigation it is difficult for a junior instructor to find a school to employ him or her and if they get a foot in the door it may take forever to get flying hours up and at the end of the day there is very little,if any, money to be made,What are the incentives here?,it basically is a labour of love.

 

So good onya guys,we`re lucky to have you.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

[Adrian Lewer]

want to instruct for cash as any instructor would but having said that if i could affoard to do it for free i would. i love flying and could not think of a better job than instructing...

 

 

[farri]

want to instruct for cash as any instructor would but having said that if i could affoard to do it for free i would. i love flying and could not think of a better job than instructing...

Hi Adrian Lewer,

 

Are you an instructor and if so,GA or Recreational and are you currently instructing?.

 

I`m with you on the love of flying and instructing and I do miss it, however I can`t see why anyone would want to become an instructor in Recreational flying,these days,other than the fact that they have enough money to indulge their passion and afford one hell of an insurance cover,or on the other hand, have nothing to loose in the event of any litigation.

 

Any established flying school that takes on a junior instructor is putting themselves at huge risk of litigation and most won`t do it and without a start, no one is going to reach CFI level allowing them to run their own school.

 

I retired from teaching in the Cairns NQLD.area 4 years ago and there`s been no one able to replace me yet due to technical and financial requirements,several have tried.I don`t know that I`ve got many answers to the issue but I certainly know what the problems are.

 

We have mister Carlo Pretti at the Innisfail aerodrome, operating a Lightwing and doing a great job of maintaining his flying school but for how much longer?,this area badly requires an instructor as there is still a demand for good old fashioned rag and tube.

 

Keep the dream alive.

 

Regards,

 

Frank.

 

 

[bushpilot]

So, can anyone out there advise us all what the cost of insurance is for instructors? And are there different levels of cover required for different circumstances? I.e. here are some of the variables I can think of; I wonder how many of these impact insurance premiums:

 

1. Experience of the instructor, including type endorsements and other aviation experience (eg PPL)

 

2. Type of Rec. Av. instruction given - i.e. Jabiru style, rag & tube, 2-axis (trikes)

 

3. Number of instructors and aircraft in the school

 

4. The use of Junior instructors by the school

 

5. Location of the school

 

6. Associations with 'satellite' schools

 

And, maybe there are other variables.. as insurance companies are all about making the premiums match their perception of risk..

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[farri]

Insurance Cost For Instructors.

 

G`Day Bushpilot,

 

I wish I could give you a straight answer however I can`t and I doubt that anyone else out there can.

 

The cost of insurance is relative to the amount of cover that anyone can afford and is prepared to pay for.

 

As an example I was using a Maxair Drifter and working on my own,off my own property,I carried a cover of $1,000,000.00 for third party and $250,000.00 for personal injury for pilot and passenger,each, it did not cover death, this cost me $3,500.00 year,decreasing for no claims bonus, I had to pay the first $750.00 for hull damage,this cover would be very inadequate today.

 

An AUF CFI in Townsville who started teaching at the same time as I did and was our AUF area rep for some years,went and got a PPL and aerobatic endoresment and ran his own school,on his own.

 

He started with a Thruster,later got a new Skyfox,couldn`t get insurance on the Skyfox so he turned to a new Lightwing, he told me that in the end he was paying over $7,000.00. a year,This guy put a lot of pilots in the air,gues what? he quit a couple of years ago.

 

Why do you think I retired? it`s because the risk of litigation and the cost of insurance is far too high these days and the income from teaching is minimal.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[bushpilot]

Update on insurance for instructors and flying schools

 

G`Day Bushpilot,I wish I could give you a straight answer however I can`t and I doubt that anyone else out there can.

 

The cost of insurance is relative to the amount of cover that anyone can afford and is prepared to pay for..... (paragraphs removed here)

 

Why do you think I retired? it`s because the risk of litigation and the cost of insurance is far too high these days and the income from teaching is minimal.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

This is an old thread, but the discussion is still very relevant.

 

I have completed 19 hours of my work toward instructors and in the process have been asking other instructors what insurance cover they have..

 

Some avoid the 'too expensive' problem by having limited insurance cover - relying on the RA-Aus 3rd party cover and maybe hull cover. I have not found one yet that has Professional Indemnity cover, to protect themselves from an unhappy or injured (or dead) student.

 

I'm interested to know if any instructors out there have PI cover or have a view on having it?