Freelance instruction hookup website?

[KK7]

Due to the difficulty in controlling, enforcement and the legal issues regarding this website providing a guarantee, perhaps it can switched around to arming students with the tools and information to ensure they are getting a quality product. So rather than the site saying that instructors should provide such ans such level of service, it can inform potential students what to look for and ask from an instructor to ensure they get quality instruction. In this case it puts the onus on the student, not the website, that the instructor-student pairing is the right one.

For example, there can be a section called "Things to ask the instructor", listing things like A) How many hours, what kind of experience does he/she have? ... etc.. Then have a listing of the answers the student should be expecting to get. Over time, if the website works, these questions would become so standard that perhaps instructors will have all the answers for them right up front if they wish, saving everyone a lot of time.

It just keeps the website simple as a place for information, and a listing of instructors, merely encouraging instructors to guarantee a level of service, but not having the website guarantee the level of service that advertising instructors will provide. Sort of like Ebay, you can buy a product from someone advertising on the site, but eBay is just an arena to do business. It doesn't take responsibility for the sales, but it strongly encourages its buyers and sellers to follow a certain code. Rather than guaranteeing it, it uses the feedback system we're talking about.

[Cat Driver]

Come spring I may move to Vancouver to set up a hangar for a friend at the Pitt Meadows airport, I am planning on finishing my Cub in said hangar.

If you guys get this idea off the ground and need some help I am willing to spend time with you and if you want I will give you a check out in a training method called " High command control "

I will donate my time you just pay the expense of running the Cub......say $75.00 per hour to make it simple.

The course can be completed in around ten hours...if you have above average hands and feet.

Once you can fly an airplane competently you can then spend more time learning to think ahead of the thing.

[gaamin]

I live and work in Pitt Meadows. I'll gladly come to say hello and learn from you.

[Pirate Pilot]

Assumably most of the instructors involved in this venture would own and operate their own aircraft. Would you want to publish a "I come to you....You come to me" kind of price structure for a clear picture of costs? e.g. "our guy" flys a super cub...not a big deal to pay him $75. each way to come out to our little airport. If he was flying a more expensive aircraft to operate we might meet him half-way or come to his home airport for training. This is for after PPL training of course.... For initial PPL training I would guess a deal would have to made regarding where the training aircraft would be situated?

[Av_Av]

Assumably most of the instructors involved in this venture would own and operate their own aircraft.

Not likely. CAR's forbids freelance instructors from supplying the aircraft (unless they're training their own family member):

Requirement to Hold a Flight Training Unit Operator Certificate
406.03 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall operate a flight training service in Canada using an aeroplane or helicopter in Canada unless the person holds a flight training unit operator certificate that authorizes the person to operate the service and complies with the conditions and operations specifications set out in the certificate.
(2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if
(a) the person holds a private operator certificate or an air operator certificate, the aircraft used for training is specified in the private operator certificate or air operator certificate, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational, a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating; or
(b) the trainee is
(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,
(ii) a director of a corporation that owns the aircraft used for training, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational or a private pilot licence, or
(iii) using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational or a private pilot licence.

Frankly, I think we should have a lot more leeway due to 406.03(2)(b) and it's reference to "owner". CAR 101.01 defines "owner" as:

101.01 "owner" - in respect of an aircraft, means the person who has legal custody and control of the aircraft; (propriétaire)

And the Act defines "registered owner" as:

3(1)“registered owner”, in respect of an aircraft, means the person to whom a certificate of registration for the aircraft has been issued by the Minister under Part I or in respect of whom the aircraft has been registered by the Minister under that Part;

This distinction between "owner" and "registered owner" should make freelancing much easier. But I've had this conversation with TC, and they're on record as viewing "owner" and "registered owner" as the same thing, despite the clear difference in their own documentation. It would be tempting to fight it out in court, but my pockets are nowhere near deep enough!

[gaamin]

As mentionned by other posters, the website would be just a meeting place with some basic info, plus whatever information each instructor want to put about him/her.
Specific arrangements would be left at the users' discretion.
A student finds a potential instructor, contacts him or her, and if they find an agreement the training happens.
Some guidelines, what to ask, what regulations apply to this training, would also be on there.

On another note, an instructor charging for training in his/her own aircraft is operating commercial flights on said aircraft. For that, the instructor would need a private operator certificate or an air operator certificate.

If it's not in a FTU, CARs 406.03(2) says you can't train someone towards RPP, PPL or CPL unless the aircraft belongs to the trainee or a member of his/her family.

Edit : heh, Av_Av beat me to it

This raises an interesting though far-fetched thought: if there were a case where an instructor is an FTU all by himself/herself, did everything to set up his FTU but is the sole instructor, should or shouldn't that person be listed as a "Freelance" Instructor? Do you think someone who goes through the expensive (time and money) hassle of setting up an FTU to provide training on an aircraft he knows, to people who do not have an aircraft, possibly in a place where there is no FTU, should be listed? The day the FTU has more than just one instructor, this instructor could be unlisted.

Yet another thought (thoughts are running loose after a day of no-flying ) : why not include other experienced instructors, who work at FTUs, some of whom are able to provide quality training too. I don't know much yet about aerobatics, but whatever I know I owe it to Andrew and MichaelP, both work at an FTU. BPF mentions he is busy enough as it is, and I know of excellent instructors working at FTUs, Alex my CFI for instance is fantastic. If good instructors working at FTUs were in high demand, there might be hope that the supply/demand would help the instructor's pay in the right direction instead of dragging it down, it might even create some emulation to become better at instructing among some who didn't intend to.

[DaveC]

Alright - since Shiny has given us his blessing, lets pursue this idea.

If interested in helping out, contact me ( dave@davesnetwork.ca ) so we can get the ball rolling here.

[wowo]

I also think a feedback mechanism would be important. When I was in university I used a web site, http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ to help me decide which courses I should register for. If there was more than one class for a course, I would make sure I chose the one with the best professor. I think the same logic applies in this case, so perhaps this new web site could incorporate some of the ideas from ratemyprofessors.com and allow students to post feedback about instructors. Obviously, steps would need to be taken to prevent abuses by either party (instructors leaving fake feedback for themselves, etc). BTW, there is also a similar site for Doctors, http://www.ratemds.com/.

[Pirate Pilot]

Sorry, I worded my questions awkardly. I realize freelance instructors cannot use their own aircraft. I was referring to the freelance instructor travelling with his own aircraft to an airport somewhere where the student has his airplane parked. i.e. if the freelance instructor had a Navajo and was going to teach a PPL in a C150 1 hr. airtime away there would be significant costs involved before the lessons started. This would need to be discussed?

[gaamin]

I understand better now. Any arrangement on how the training would happen, including the logistics side of things, should be left at the discretion of the instructor-student discussion. They make an agreement that is suitable for both, and if no agreement can be found the training doesn't happen between these two, end of problem.
The general idea though is that the instructor should not have to bear logistics expenses to provide the training.

[Av_Av]

I was referring to the freelance instructor travelling with his own aircraft to an airport somewhere where the student has his airplane parked.

Ah. This makes more sense. As gaamin says, this would be a negotiated point. Personally, I don't have an airplane, so I can only teach those I can drive to (or they can fly to me). Rather than charge for the transport, I would set a minimum time per lesson. For example, $60/h for at least 3 hours. Anything beyond 3 hours would be a bonus for me, but the initial 3 hours would make the trip worthwhile. Other people might have other arrangements that they would prefer.

[DaveC]

To the gents who have contacted me, please check your email.

Cheers.

[PAJ]

Been watching this thread from the beginning and I find it very interesting.

For what it's worth:
I have a PPL,
I own an airplane,
I will be looking for instruction soon,
I definitely would use a resource such as this.

PAJ

[Cat Driver]

I live and work in Pitt Meadows. I'll gladly come to say hello and learn from you.

When I make the move there I will be easy to find.

[Beefitarian]

In my opinion there's two preffered ways to go here.

A - Small site where you personally know enough about each instructor to confidently recommend each of them.

B - Giant site that may become profitable. You let everyone you can find that's willing on it. Ratings will be important or a couple of bad instructors could undermine the whole thing.

You could have ratings based on feedback but you need to control it to make it usefull and accurate.

Either you let the instructors respond to feed back to keep it fair.
For example I go on Hedley's page and complain. "This guy is mean and couldn't help me improve crosswind landings."
He can respond, "Beef seems mildly retarded, I'm sorry if I offended him by calling him an idiot but it's true."
That way there is discourse instead of just vindictive slandering of the instructors out of anger.
Further they can apply to have malicious false feedback removed and the member who left it blocked. For Example "This guy gives his students herpes. I wouldn't trust him with my goats."

Or all feedback is monitored. You send it to an e-mail account where it's veiwed before it goes on the page.

[gaamin]

It's impossible to personally know enough of all the good potential freelance instructors, option A would be too restrictive and miss the point of providing a good search engine for anyone looking for an experienced instructor near him.

I'd like us to go with option B with a twist.

I don't expect it to become GIANT. But if it does we'll deal with it. We want to make it functional, easy-to-use, not a cumbersome bureaucracy-administrative thingy. If it can eventually generate revenue to pay for its own expenses (domain+hosting), it'll be a good thing. So far all it costs is our time. If it does more than that, my idea would be to use whatever excess revenue is generated towards something that improves instruction. I know it's vague and it's only my idea, but so far there is no "generating revenue" scheme so I haven't given it too much thought. And I don't know what others think.

One comment/rating per student to one instructor, and one reply by the instructor if needed.
Moderation a posteriori if needed, not a priori (abusive comments, false ratings, wrong person, etc...). a priori moderation would take too much time, but we'll do it if there are too many people misusing the system.
Abusive people blocked/banned from commenting.
Real names for everyone who is on the website : instructors of course, and students who comment.

I know I might sound senile by mentioning this again, but this system works pretty well on TripAdvisor (only they don't have real names there).


Now just for an update so far on the project : Dave has gathered 3 instructors from here including myself. We've based our brainstorming on what is in this thread (so keep the good ideas coming!) and are starting to work on the static content that should be there, while at the same time defining the core of the website more precisely such as :
- who are the different users?
- what do we need to know from them? what is not need-to-know but still good-to-know?
- how do they interact with the website and with each other?
- what information do we want to provide as static pages (recommendations, guidelines, etc...)?
- ...
Once that is done, Dave will put these ideas into practice and we'll polish it before opening the doors to the website.

We will keep you posted and might ask for input on some of the topics. Bear in mind that we aim for something with a lightweight, user-friendly front end, however keep the good ideas coming, anything relevant might feed our work on this.

[Beefitarian]

Real names for everyone who is on the website : instructors of course, and students who comment.

I know I might sound senile by mentioning this again, but this system works pretty well on TripAdvisor (only they don't have real names there).

Using real names may help immensly in regards to policing the comment sections.

If using my real name I won't have that internet courage to put. "Hedley sucks whale nuts and can't fly worth a sack of warm dog droppings."

It will also somewhat reduce the chance I'll post unrealistic high praise if I'm pals or he bought me a bottle of single malt. "Hedley may infact be the best flight instructor alive!!"

I think the best way to go about that is to get a real phone number with a new account so you can call them to conferm it's a real person and ask why they are trying to start a new account when the system flags a repeat number. Yeah I know they might be one of those people that have a new number every six month but after a while you'll know their voice. "Come on Beef, I know it's you."

[200hr Wonder]

Have a form that a new listing must fill out with name license number etc. that says something like:

I John Q. Instructor Lic number 711111 release all of my flight test and written tests results up to Todays Date to be sent to Bob Site Administrator Lic number 711112.

Yours Truly

John Q. Instructor

The admins can then send that form to TC with a request for the flight test records. Quick easy and TC turn around is usually pretty quick. That is of course one of many steps I think that would be required.

Additionally having each instructor pay small fee would certainly stop people who where not committed to the site. Though having them provide a TC file number is a big start.

This could be a great resource as well for committed flight instructors, to share ideas and keep learning and improving them selves. The biggest thing with sites in their infancy are as follows. Note I spent well over 10 years in IT and work on projects of a somewhat similar nature.

Which comes first the chicken or the egg? Instructors or students? Hard to get students involved if there are no instructors and vice versa if there is a fee.

How do you get word out? Clearly there is not a big budget here but the fees and some investment could be used to get word out via COPA, EAA, etc.

If you charge money how do you do it? One time fee, monthly fee, fee per hour worked through the site? How do you track it and prevent fraud.

Quality has been batted around enough

The underlying IT concerns of running the site.

There are quite a few more but clearly there would be some issues if we want to prevent an AvCanada type of situation from developing. Not that AvCanada is not a valuable resource but as we have all seen free to all brings the wackos. I would suggest the following be required for an instructor to be listed:

Name
Telephone Number
Email Address
License #
Hourly Rate
Instructor Rating Held:
Instructor Since:
Types of aircraft flown w/ hours
Types of instruction w/ hours for each
Home Airport - No fee to show up to
Away Airports and there associated travel fees
TT
Hour Breakdown
Cover Letter to prospective student
Resume

[Cat Driver]

The admins can then send that form to TC with a request for the flight test records. Quick easy and TC turn around is usually pretty quick. That is of course one of many steps I think that would be required.

Well that would guarantee I would not be part of the group......

......however you could check with the Australian CASA, JAA in Europe ( Now EASA ) I believe, and of course the FAA as these regulatory bodies will confirm that I am in good standing to teach flying in the countries they regulate.

Weird that as a Canadian I am blacklisted in my home country, hell I even meet the requirements to be a status Indian which makes me even more Canadian than most people in TCCA.

Weird huh?

[Cat Driver]

The admins can then send that form to TC with a request for the flight test records. Quick easy and TC turn around is usually pretty quick. That is of course one of many steps I think that would be required.

Well that would guarantee I would not be part of the group......

......however you could check with the Australian CASA, JAA in Europe ( Now EASA ) I believe, and of course the FAA as these regulatory bodies will confirm that I am in good standing in the countries they regulate.

Weird that as a Canadian I am blacklisted in my home country, hell I even meet the requirements to be a status Indian which makes me even more Canadian than most people in TCCA.

Not to mention I have never had either a regulatory infraction nor an accident in the past 58 years as a pilot.

Weird huh?

[Av_Av]

I John Q. Instructor Lic number 711111 release all of my flight test and written tests results up to Todays Date to be sent to Bob Site Administrator Lic number 711112.

Yours Truly

John Q. Instructor

The admins can then send that form to TC with a request for the flight test records. Quick easy and TC turn around is usually pretty quick. That is of course one of many steps I think that would be required.

I hadn't thought of that. Certainly worth considering, but I wonder how many good instructors would be turned away by the requirement to reveal confidential information publicly? There is also the problem that the flight test record is sometimes (often?) a poor indicator of quality. Take me for example. My FT record is "satisfactory", and with the exception of the CPL it's well beyond satisfactory. But it's worse than it should be because as a senior instructor I get to take on the "problem" students that junior instructors can't handle. Statisticians call this "selection bias", and it can be a big problem (in both directions) when using FT records to judge someone.

I think the quality issue is addressed reasonably well (not perfectly, but adequately) with the feedback mechanism(s).

Additionally having each instructor pay small fee would certainly stop people who where not committed to the site. Though having them provide a TC file number is a big start.

I think fee-based service is a non-starter. Maybe down the road when there is a track record of success. Then there will be confirmed value for your money. Until then, I think fees would drive many people away.

There are quite a few more but clearly there would be some issues if we want to prevent an AvCanada type of situation from developing. Not that AvCanada is not a valuable resource but as we have all seen free to all brings the wackos.

The wackos concern is a legitimate one. But I think wacko-ness on the internet is encouraged by anonymity (real or perceived). The confirmed real name should solve the wacko-ness problem.

[Cat Driver]

The wackos concern is a legitimate one. But I think wacko-ness on the internet is encouraged by anonymity (real or perceived). The confirmed real name should solve the wacko-ness problem.

Exactly.

[200hr Wonder]

Av_Av I agree with what you say, though the license number would be kept confidential to all but the admins as part of the vetting process. I still think that just providing it and using it to simply prove that yes they do have a valid license with TC is good enough.

[Cat Driver]

And it might be a mistake to exclude people who are not licensed flight instructors.

Remember there is more profit in recommending pilots for lower insurance premiums than teaching basic PPL / CPL's.

That is assuming you can convince the underwriters you are acceptable...which is not a simple thing to accomplish.

Personally I couldn't care less if I do not meet the requirements of such an organization as I am basically retired anyhow.

[Av_Av]

Av_Av I agree with what you say, though the license number would be kept confidential to all but the admins as part of the vetting process. I still think that just providing it and using it to simply prove that yes they do have a valid license with TC is good enough.

Good point, but the vetting process can be done with a photocopy of the license (subject to a confirmation phonecall to TC to help prevent fraud). We don't need the FT record.

And it might be a mistake to exclude people who are not licensed flight instructors.

I think it would be a mistake. At the very least, we need to be open to current and former instructors. But I would suggest that we should also be open to the non-instructor-rated folks who nonetheless are qualified and competent to teach various courses or course components. All we have to do now is figure out who they are:).