Freelance

[loopa]

While it might not make much economical sense to the FTU, is it possible for a student to rent a plane from a school and bring their own instructor? Would that be considered "at arms length" for freelancing?

Cheers!

[Colonel Sanders]

I highly doubt you could find an FTU that would permit
this - it would be economic suicide for them. There's
a fantastic margin between what an FTU charges for
flight instruction, and what it pays the instructor. They're
not about it give that up!

If you did find an FTU willing to go along, remember that
CAR 406.03(2)(a) requires that the training is NOT toward
obtaining a pilot permit - recreational, a private pilot licence,
a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating.

[. ._]

Here's what I found:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#406_03

So CAR 406.03 (2) (b) (iii) says the instructor can't be associated with the aircraft, and the instruction can't be for a recreational or PPL. That's the part after the "or".

Of course, I could be interpreting that wrong. I'm fortunately not as much as an expert on the CARs as the good Colonel.

This would be a good thing to clear up though. Any Transport Canada employees out there wanna shed some light?

[Colonel Sanders]

istp - you are right! I cut & pasted too early, too fast

[Shiny Side Up]

I highly doubt you could find an FTU that would permit
this - it would be economic suicide for them. There's
a fantastic margin between what an FTU charges for
flight instruction, and what it pays the instructor. They're
not about it give that up!

Well aside from greed which is my primary motivator in running an FTU, there are a lot of other problems with having an instructor who isn't employed by me giving out training on my aircraft. For example, my OC actually does have provision for subcontracting out flight training services when appropriate on my aircraft - but it does specify that any subcontracting personell be subjected to the same training program that any regular personell be subjected to - aside from the ground training required includes 3 hours of flight training (the expense of which the company eats when it comes to its own employees - though I'm aware that there are even eviler FTUs that make their employees pay for this). Off hand I can't think of a reason I might need to do this, and even less reasons why I should give out such training to a freelancing instructor for free, regardless of how noble said freelancer might be. That's not even delving into issues of operational control and insurance problems. I know, I know, I should just do some of this stuff out of the goodness of my heart to help some poor soul achieve his dream of flying airplanes at a low price. After all, us people in the flight training business are just doing this as sort of a hobby.

[Big Pistons Forever]

While it might not make much economical sense to the FTU, is it possible for a student to rent a plane from a school and bring their own instructor? Would that be considered "at arms length" for freelancing?

Cheers!

This does happen with schools, usually crappy ones, that will employ any instructor who brings their own students to the school. Of course the student will get to pay the full FTU instructor rate and the instructor gets "as per the company pay scale ".

I do some freelancing through a couple of different FTU's. Part is IFR instruction with guys who know me and want me as their instructor and part is Flight instructor training for FTU's that do not have a Class 1. All of this instruction is done with me either on the books as a part time employee or as a contractor and is under the auspices of the FTU OC.

[wotai139]

I've never heard of anything like that. Now that is really going the extra mile to learning on a budget!

[loopa]

Thanks for the response you guys - I will call TC on this. The reason I ask is I have several students from the former FTU I used to work at who are not really enjoying the instruction they are getting and have requested for me to teach them, but they don't have a plane. Maybe I should go back to where I used to instruct to see if they will take me on as a contractor? lol... Probably won't happen because it would cost them more than making them more

[Colonel Sanders]

several students ... have requested for me to teach them

The market has spoken! Time for you to start raising your rates. After
you have some experience, you should expect to get the entire amount
that the customer is paying for instruction, unless the FTU can claim that
they lose money on every solo flight.

[Shiny Side Up]

The market has spoken! Time for you to start raising your rates. After
you have some experience, you should expect to get the entire amount
that the customer is paying for instruction, unless the FTU can claim that
they lose money on every solo flight.

Yes, because FTUs provide nothing for their instructors.

[Colonel Sanders]

And then there are Designated Pilot Examiners,
who pocket the entire $300 fee for the test.

Funny how the FTU doesn't keep 80% of that

A DPE is a great part-time gig. Two tests a day,
$600 net, virtually zero costs.

[. ._]

I wonder if they can deduct their gas money for driving out to the airport.

Mental note: ISTP, start a new thread about what can be deducted if you're working as a pilot, or use the Search function. Also, ISTP, don't forget to include the question about the employer tax form thingy that allows employees to deduct transportation cost as "part of the job".

Sorry folks. I'm thinking aloud again. I'm dehydrated from the lack of a Water Cooler, but am trying to survive.

[ahramin]

Loopa, obviously the FTU is not going to hire you in as a contractor and lose money because of it without a reason. In this case, the students could give them the reason. It's up to the students to get together and explain to the owner of the school that they want you to teach them. Once they have convinced the owner that they are serious and are going to get what they want or go somewhere else, the owner may (or may not, long story) give you a call. At this point you will have to negotiate a rate. You can't get the full rate because the FTU has to make money as well. After all the FTU has all the overhead expenses which need to be paid.

In negotiation the rate you may find that you just can't agree on a rate. In this case hopefully the disparity in the two positions isn't more than $10 and hour and you can suggest to the students that if they want you to teach them instead of the other guy, they need to pay more.

[ahramin]

Istp, if you work as a contractor and register a proprietorship, you will be able to write-off an insane pile of stuff. Unfortunately getting from home to the airport and back home again is not one of them.

[LousyFisherman]

Istp, if you work as a contractor and register a proprietorship, you will be able to write-off an insane pile of stuff. Unfortunately getting from home to the airport and back home again is not one of them.

It is if your office is in your home, and the business is registered to the address. At that point your "regular business location" is your
home and you are travelling offsite to the airport. The big thing is you MUST HAVE multiple clients otherwise Revenue Canada will consider you an employee.

HTH
LF

[Genetk44]

Ok, so I've just read http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#406_03
And it reminds me why I hate the way the CARs have been written.....but am I correct in interpreting it as that a student can hire an instructor to teach him/her if the student owns the aircraft that is being used for flight instruction?

I ask because I'm following the blog of a US student pilot who bought his own 172 to learn in....and I'm confused as to if our system is that much more restrictive than the US system.
Cheers
Gene

[Colonel Sanders]

(in Canada, can) a student can hire an instructor to teach him/her if the student owns the aircraft that is being used for flight instruction?

Yup - for any licence or rating - even ab initio (rec/ppl) since the student is the owner of the aircraft. It's a little unusual that someone who doesn't have a pilot's licence owns an aircraft - most people do it the other 'way 'round - but it does happen every now and then.

Since the student owns an aircraft, he is no longer one of the "unwashed masses" that Transport wishes to protect, with respect to commercial air services such as flight training.

As a rough rule of thumb, if a person owns an aircraft, or already holds some pilot qualification, Transport deems them to no longer be one of the "unwashed masses" that need to be protected, and you don't need an FTU OC to train them. That is the intent that I read from CAR 406.03, but I might be mistaken.

Note the exemption for the family of the owner. For example, you own a 172. You can hire a freelance (class 3 or higher) to train your wife or son or daughter to fly your 172. Transport deems your wife, son and daughter to not be one of the "unwashed masses" because you own the 172.

[FenderManDan]

How about if the friend owns an AC and wants to rent it to you with the proper insurance backing and you as a student bring in the class 3 or higher instructor?

Or how about if the student is a partial owner? Is he still in the "unwashed...." territory?


Cheers,

Dan

[RenegadeAV8R]

How about if the friend owns an AC and wants to rent it to you with the proper insurance backing and you as a student bring in the class 3 or higher instructor?

Or how about if the student is a partial owner? Is he still in the "unwashed...." territory?

Unfortunately, the training cannot take place on a rented aircraft, even if it is rented from a friend.

As Colonel Sanders and others have stated before, the Student Pilot has to train on an aircraft that the Student Pilot owns. The Student Pilot has to be the *owner*. It is sad, but it is the truth.

The last time I called TC to book a flight test for a Student Pilot that had received training on his own aircraft, the guy at TC asked for the aircraft registration letters and he punched, right away, the letters in his computer to check if the Student Pilot was the owner of the aircraft. I am afraid there is not a lot of workaround this.

Partnership owner would work, as long as the name of the Student Pilot is registered as one of the owners.

[Colonel Sanders]

I know a flight instructor that was always on a temporary C of R.

He owned a buck fifty, and for $200 you would buy a fraction of
the buck fifty, which you could sell back to him any time. Then
he could give you instruction on "your" airplane.

Transport hated him, because he obeyed the letter of the law. He
had 10 or 15 students on the C of R at any one time.

After a while, they wore him down, and he got an FTU OC. The
thing is, he was able to earn money with his aircraft in the year
or two it took him, to get an FTU OC.

You can't do that, if you do it straight up. You have to spend
all the money, get everything you need, then sit and wait for
the years it takes for Transport to finally issue you an FTU OC.

Recently, it took me six years to finally get an MCM approved
for an FTU - which did NO MAINTENANCE!!!! I had to go to
the wall on that one - it was not very pleasant for anyone
involved. There's a reason Transport detests me so, I guess.
Other people would have just walked away, and let them win.
They really don't like people who know the regs and stand
up to them.

[Shiny Side Up]

He owned a buck fifty, and for $200 you would buy a fraction of
the buck fifty, which you could sell back to him any time. Then
he could give you instruction on "your" airplane.

This is actually more feasable if you have a longer term arrangement between yourself and the other owner(s) of the airplane. It would be quite reasonable to teach some of your fellow owners, though TC will get bitchy and start to give one grief about the whole reregistering process if one had a revolving door of owners. It should be noted though that this arrangement still only really allows you to instruct, it doesn't allow you to make money on the airplane itself, the other "owners" only pay for their operations costs - I suppose if you were also the AME who maintained the aircraft you could make an extra buck on that side. In the end it is a go no where situation for anyone seriously contemplating making a business of it. You need to make some money off that airplane to really make it worth your while to get something going. Add to this the problems of insurance - with new student pilots on the bill, you might as well be paying commercial rates.

[Beefitarian]

Pffft. Ownership cost is a non refundable $130 per hour that goes into the account that stays with the plane. You sell your share of the plane back to him for $7 and he even makes a profit there too. If you quietly upgrade the plane everytime you can afford it you eventually end up with a factory new C-182.

That way you don't even have to pay income tax on all that cash flow and you're still making more money "Freelance instructing" than you would trying to run a flight school.

It's almost like you're not a crooked bugger shiney.

Of course the house of cards comes down if someone gets a lawyer and lays claim to their share of the new C-182 or that huge pile of cash in the "maintanence" fund. But in these scams there's a little higher risk to go with the higher reward if you pull it off.

[Shiny Side Up]

It's almost like you're not a crooked bugger shiney.

What can I say? I've only graduated to the "I want to make money from flying airplanes" level of evil rather than full blown corporate shyster.

[Beefitarian]

That's what keeps you and I in stuck in the 99%.

[shitdisturber]

It's almost like you're not a crooked bugger shiney.

Pfft, if he says "good morning" I check my watch.