What if TC raised experience requirements?

[jjal]

What if TC were to change the requirements for a class 4 instructor rating to 1000TT and a commercial licence? Obviously there are big pros and cons and would likely bugger things up in the industry until it adjusted, but wondering what people think?

My reasoning is that if you needed 1000TT to instruct, fewer would enter the instructing profession (those who *wanted to* would, it just woundn't be a "start here and see what happens" job) thereby hopefully raising some of the pay and quality of flight instruction - it would also make for no more 200hour wonder flight instructors - i.e. blind leading the blinderor, in some cases, the blinder leading the blind.

Other major pro/cons? It would be a big step, forsure. I suppose you could say the same thing about bush/float, multi, etc. but let's restrict this to instructing only for the sake of argument. Just a thought - fire away.

[No Brakes]

I agree and I would even put it at 3000hrs. You should aspire to, one day, become an instructor and share your experience and not be an instructor to get time and experience.

I was an instructor myself right out of school and as I was trying to teach some cadet how not to kill himself, I thought to myself that this was completely wrong and that I had no business being there. I tried to teach as best as I could but what can you teach when you have no experience but TC's way of doing things? I suppose it's their way of ensuring a servile pool of instructors who won't challenge the system.

The way I see it, it should be the pinnacle of your career, as a lot of very experienced captains seem to long to come back to the basics, where all the fun is. The problem is that the more time passes, the more all the experienced ones decide to retire and they're replaced by a new batch that is gradually coming from the TC school of thought. We're losing precious knowledge that is NOT passed on properly.

It is a shame.

Hey Cat, when are you planning to finish that airplane? Can I pay for training, err.. consulting in food stamps?

[Blue Side Down]

I agree and I would even put it at 3000hrs. You should aspire to, one day, become an instructor and share your experience and not be an instructor to get time and experience.

The thing is that the market isn't there.

Things are pretty much the way they should be, when looking at things realistically- the lowest paying jobs appeal only to those with few or no qualifications. Granted there are few exceptions, but in those exceptions, individuals have other options for income.

You could potentially make instructing a high paying job to attract instructors who have experience. To do that, owners would raise rental and instructor rate. Now what you'd get is a school with good instructors, but few customers... and something new to complain about: flight training made more 'exclusive'.

[grimey]

I agree that the market probably isn't there (do you want to pay even more than you did for your flight training?), but it's a sad commentary that some of the training sector of the aviation industry is in the same boat as alot of other schools with respect to staffing: Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach.

There are obviously exceptions, of course, but someone who has just learned how to fly (or how to do anything else) usually isn't qualified to teach it, regardless of what regulators want to say.

Instructing, in any field, probably shouldn't be something that's seen as "go do this until you know what you're doing".

[Hedley]

the lowest paying jobs

There's the core of the problem right there. As long as everyone thinks that an instructor is worth $20 per flight hour, well, a 200 hr wonder is all you're going to get for it.

I know flight schools that pay more than that, per hour, just for insurance, and everybody is happy about that.

Don't know too many people in the insurance industry that are eating KD, though. Last I heard, the president of March (COPA) Insurance was forced to resign because he took hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks. Hopefully he went to prison, but don't hold your breath.

Flight schools also pay much more than $20 per hour for avgas, and everybody's happy with that, too. The money goes over the Saudi Arabia and the princes spend billions on toys and gold-plated toilets and whores and financing terrorists, and everybody thinks that just great, too.

Meanwhile, an instructor is earning less than poverty level wages, and everybody's happy with that.

Clearly, the world is insane.

[Cat Driver]

" I tried to teach as best as I could but what can you teach when you have no experience but TC's way of doing things? I suppose it's their way of ensuring a servile pool of instructors who won't challenge the system. "

What I put in red is 100% the reason flight training is of such a low standard in Canada.

It would be beyond reason for anyone to argue that those with very little knowlege and experience can produce a high quality product.

You only have to examine the mentality of some of TC's flight training inspectors to understand where the problem lies.

For instance we have one here on the west coast who is detested by everyone I talk to and yet he remains in the same position year after year......

" Hey Cat, when are you planning to finish that airplane? Can I pay for training, err.. consulting in food stamps? "

At the moment I am sort of at a stand still until I can sell one of my other airplanes to get more money to continue.

However, eventually I will get it finished if for no other reason than to offer training based on reality and airmanship rather than patterened after the TC system which is far below an acceptable standard......

...and I would love to have J.D. show up so I can throw the coc.sucker in the ocean.

Cat

[trey kule]

You know, I never thought about it, but maybe this is not a bad idea. The question is that to teach the basics, which is what they should be teaching, do they really need all that world experience?

Having said that, if flight schools, particularily the CFI, would spend time actually monitoring their instructors and students, I think they could bring the quality of instructors up.I have seen over and over, someone get an instructors rating and then just given students and off they go.
Other than the required checks to get them to a class 3 (if they still have those), very few CFI's ever look at them. So, how about we see management doing some actual managing here. Then maybe we wont need to raise the minimums. ...but it still is not a bad idea.

[planett]

Imagine the minimum to instruct was 1000 or 3000, what pilot in Canada would then leave whatever job got him those hours to instruct for current wages?

1. Those very dedicated to instructing.
2. Those that were fired.
3. Those that were layed off.
4. The seasonal guys.

Options 1,3 and 4 would be desireable if they had the aptitude for it, but many would find it more lucrative to work at a gas station, so wages would have to come up to really attract the talent.

(Theorectically option 2 might reveal someone with some backbone and integrity as much as not.)

[Orsen Madjeans]

I like this thread, I was musing much the same just recently. In another thread in this section of the forums there is a discussion about some operators and their training bonds and their low respect for pilots. It is sad but funny to read job postings that actually refer to pilot applicants having to do work for the company in addition to flying duties. I.e “We don’t really consider letting you fly our airplane as work and in order to justify the money we pay you, you must do some real work” It’s like doing two jobs and getting paid for one.
So how do the two threads relate?
If flight instructors were paid $100/hr and were experienced pilots, the cost of flight training would go up, pilot supply would fall far behind the demand and the operators would have to change the way they attracted and compensated their people. That would put the cost of flying lessons out of the reach of the masses. It already is in Europe and elsewhere and how do they deal with it? The operators have to participate in the training process either through in house training or subsidizing schools. The government needs a spine replacement and to stop being coerced by the ATAC lobby. Pilots need to unite and demand safer duty time regs and even application of training and checking standards.
In addition to flight instructors the government needs to attract and keep (ie pay) more qualified and even tempered staff. This is not to denigrate those good ones but we all know some who really shouldn’t be there.
With the government offloading checking duties to the operators themselves there is more of an incentive for the operators to look the other way as long as they have an occasional failure. It’s a conflict of interest and a short term budget solution that will have long term ramifications.
I lament how our profession has decayed over the years from one of honour to largely being laughed at and considered a liability and necessary evil by our employers.
Instructing should be the pinnacle of our profession, as teaching is a noble endeavour. It passes the accumulated knowledge to the next generation. Sure, we don’t all care, reading the paper at 36,000’(RVSM) is a hell of a lot easier than talking your way through an incipient spin.
Ok maybe it’s just me but I swear they raised the runway a foot….

[Cat Driver]

" If flight instructors were paid $100/hr and were experienced pilots, the cost of flight training would go up,"

That is not completely true.

Top notch " teachers " will bring the student to the required level of performance in far less time than incompetent " instructors ".

Grab a calculator and do some math on the total cost between a PPL attained at 45 hours and one attained at 75 hours.....

......get back to me and let me know what a " Teacher " can be paid per hour for a 45 hour PPL versus a " Instructor " who grinds 75 hours to do the same PPL.

Cat

[Hedley]

total cost between a PPL attained at 45 hours and one attained at 75 hours

Exactly! Esp when you consider that many people consider 80 to 100 hours normal (!) for a private licence ....

Back when I was instructing full time, and the rec permit had just come out, I took great pride in sending a student for his rec flight test with 25.2 hours in his logbook (he passed).

Many instructors these days "milk" their students, to multiply out their $20/hr that they get paid ... but the (literally) poor student is paying $150/hr!

What happens all to often is that a new class 4 instructor, who is learning to instruct, will go around and around and around the circuit with a student who is having trouble with his landings. Lots of money is spent, and lots of frustration. Then the student does one flight with a senior instructor, and is sent solo.

[Lurch]

" If flight instructors were paid $100/hr and were experienced pilots, the cost of flight training would go up,"

That is not completely true.

Top notch " teachers " will bring the student to the required level of performance in far less time than incompetent " instructors ".

Grab a calculator and do some math on the total cost between a PPL attained at 45 hours and one attained at 75 hours.....

......get back to me and let me know what a " Teacher " can be paid per hour for a 45 hour PPL versus a " Instructor " who grinds 75 hours to do the same PPL.

Cat

Cat you believe you can get a student to pass their PPL flight test with 45 hours of flight training when they only fly once to twice a month.

I have sent student to flight test under 45 hours when they train at a reasonable pace.

Yes the level of instruction is a huge factor but the students level of dedication is also a factor.

[sky's the limit]

Until the standard to which instructors teach changes, you could have a 10,000hr instructor and it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference.

People on here are posting that $100/hr for an instructor is exorbitant, not the case. I have several friend teaching for $140/hr in Canada as we speak - in helicopters. So what's the difference? The general quality of flight instruction in Rotary in Canada is extremely high, and that's including the "Puppy Mills," even they employ very high time and broadly experienced staff.

I just wonder why all the flight training I did in FW, whether in Canada or the U.S., was so poor, and all the flight training I've done in RW is so good??? That includes Company recurrent training.

STL

[Cat Driver]

STL, exactly, if it can be done in the fling wing business it can be done in the rigid wing business.

I wouldn't even think of doing flight instruction in light aircraft for under $100.00 per hour and I X 4 that for large aircraft.

Cat

[Wacko]

Being a student I would be happy to pay double for an instructor who actually wants to be there, and not just time building. It would also weed out (some of) those who are doing it just because they can. In my opinion aviation should be at least a diploma or some form of higher education.

Fact is that with 200 hour wonders outnumbering jobs 500 to 1 it’s easy to see why everyone is jumping on the instructor bandwagon.

It is obvious that TC doesn’t give 2 sh!ts about the current status of the industry so it’s up to Chief Pilots to step up. A phenomenal step in the right direction would be for the industry itself to come up with some guidelines for us. Problem is that everyone wants guys with 1000 hours for “insurance” purposes. It’s time to step up CP’s! Hire guys on character and work ethic rather than hours in a plane.

Just my two cents.

Wacko, 200 hour wonder.

[CARS 602.03]

Imagine going from flying something like an otter, beaver, dh6, pc-12, metro, etc... to jumping back into a 172. No one would do it.

I see your point, it's just not something that would ever happen.

[Cat Driver]

" Imagine going from flying something like an otter, beaver, dh6, pc-12, metro, etc... to jumping back into a 172. No one would do it.

I see your point, it's just not something that would ever happen. "

You are assuming far to much CARS 602.03.

The airplanes you listed are at the lower end of the scale industry wise.

I am looking foward to going back to teaching on a couple of Cubs because I want to teach on them.

I can't even remember all the stuff I flew in over half century of flying both fixed wing and helicopters, but I do understand the value of proper training at the level of basic aircraft, hense my desire to return to basic aircraft.

And I can make $100.00 per flight hour for my effort.

What do you think of that?

[trey kule]

Just to add a little to your argument cat, I dont know if they still do, but up until a few years ago, the Israeli Air Force used cubs for ab initio training. They believed it gave their future jet jocks a better skill level and understanding of flying.

I think you are on the right track for teaching new students, it is just to bad that you have to wait until they have a license.

[Cat Driver]

" I think you are on the right track for teaching new students, it is just to bad that you have to wait until they have a license. "

Yes, that is a bit if a problem for those who are learning to fly, however the reality is I do not meet the standards to teach as far as Transport Canada is concerned. So for me it is a real plus to be able to teach without having to answer to someone like Jim Dunn at TC to be allowed to teach.

I would like to point out that two of the most sucessful and well known schools on planet earth use Cubs for training...

..Jack Browns Seaplanes in Florida and Aero Club Como in Italy.

Cat

[sky's the limit]

Imagine going from flying something like an otter, beaver, dh6, pc-12, metro, etc... to jumping back into a 172. No one would do it.

I see your point, it's just not something that would ever happen.

And with that type of thinking, the industry stays the same. On many levels.

The type of a/c you fly in doesn't matter. How you fly it, what you get paid to fly it, and a satisfactory lifestyle are what matters. Wouldn't it be nice to earn $90k/yr to be home every night instructing after a career spent away from wife/husband, kids, and life? You bet.

There are many heli instuctors that have come from logging in the Sky Crane or S-61 back to the venerable Bell 47 or R-22 because of precisely those things. The quality of instruction they provide goes without saying. They left very high paying, very highly skilled jobs that had them away, for a more acceptable lifestyle. But they still make near on $100k/yr.

STL

[Cat Driver]

The problem STL is that most pilots do not understand the difference between flying a point and power fixed wing compared to the skills level needed to accurately fly a helicopter.

My guess is heli instructors get paid more due the insurance costs when you wreck a helicopter.

Fixed versus rotary are two seperate cultures and there is very little interaction between the two.

Me I'm a fling wing fan.

I used to be chief pilot chief flying instructor for a company that operated a real mixed bag of airplanes single and multi engine and two Hughes choppers.

I choose to fly the Hughes and then the Beech 18 for the simple reason they were the best to fly.

Cat