photofly wrote:I've met nobody in Canada who looks at a successful business and says either you're lucky, or corrupt.
Even as an avowed socialist I don't even think those things, but then I've discovered that a lot of people think a lot of weird things. That said, I have to point out the delicious irony in that Rookie continually will have determined that all flight schools are also corrupt...
I've never said that Every flight school is corrupt. I've disagree with the practice SOME have of taking pre PPL students on long X - countries for "experience reasons".
I can immediately name, without looking up a thing, three fatal accidents directly tied to this practice.
photofly wrote:It's hard to s̶t̶a̶r̶t̶ run an FTU essentially because TC has a mandate to prevent the public being "harmed" by flight training that doesn't meet the relevant standards, and doing so by zealously making sure that the paperwork surrounding the training is perfect. It's a classic case of measuring what is measurable rather than what is important.
Other than my little edit, I don't believe a truer statement has been made on this forum.
---------- ADS -----------
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
Rookie50 wrote:
I can immediately name, without looking up a thing, three fatal accidents directly tied to this practice.
Go on ...
Pennsylvania just happened, east of YKZ few years back, talked about here, and one I read in flying mag think California, one plane in a line of students hit a mountain, didn't know where they were.
Assuming you mean the Algonquin Park crash in the rented 150, how was that tied to "of taking pre PPL students on long X - countries for "experience reasons"? The pilot wasn't a student, and hadn't been taken on any long cross countries pre-PPL.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly wrote:Assuming you mean the Algonquin Park crash in the rented 150, how was that tied to "of taking pre PPL students on long X - countries for "experience reasons"? The pilot wasn't a student, and hadn't been taken on any long cross countries pre-PPL.
Not that one. TO Airways (I think them) crash near Peterborough. Night, rainy IMC. Low time instructor.
Ring any bells with the Pennsylvania crash now? Almost indentical in many respects.
photofly wrote:Assuming you mean the Algonquin Park crash in the rented 150, how was that tied to "of taking pre PPL students on long X - countries for "experience reasons"? The pilot wasn't a student, and hadn't been taken on any long cross countries pre-PPL.
Not that one. TO Airways (I think them) crash near Peterborough. Night, rainy IMC. Low time instructor.
Ring any bells with the Pennsylvania crash now? Almost indentical in many respects.
Not really identical: The purpose of the flight was to fly at night under visual flight rules (VFR) to the Kingston Airport (CYGK) to practise instrument flight rules (IFR) approaches before returning to Toronto/Buttonville Municipal Airport (CYKZ) later in the evening. It was planned that one student would fly from the left seat to CYGK while the other was seated in the back. They would switch at CYGK and the second student would fly simulated instrument approaches. The students would switch seats again for the return flight. The instructor was the pilot–in–command and was seated in the right seat.
These weren't PPL students getting "experience", they were commercial pilots working on their IFR. Still, not a good situation but doesn't really fit the others you mentioned.
photofly wrote:Assuming you mean the Algonquin Park crash in the rented 150, how was that tied to "of taking pre PPL students on long X - countries for "experience reasons"? The pilot wasn't a student, and hadn't been taken on any long cross countries pre-PPL.
Not that one. TO Airways (I think them) crash near Peterborough. Night, rainy IMC. Low time instructor.
Ring any bells with the Pennsylvania crash now? Almost indentical in many respects.
Not really identical: The purpose of the flight was to fly at night under visual flight rules (VFR) to the Kingston Airport (CYGK) to practise instrument flight rules (IFR) approaches before returning to Toronto/Buttonville Municipal Airport (CYKZ) later in the evening. It was planned that one student would fly from the left seat to CYGK while the other was seated in the back. They would switch at CYGK and the second student would fly simulated instrument approaches. The students would switch seats again for the return flight. The instructor was the pilot–in–command and was seated in the right seat.
These weren't PPL students getting "experience", they were commercial pilots working on their IFR. Still, not a good situation but doesn't really fit the others you mentioned.
That's the one, and I stand corrected on the student status. Some disturbing similarities though, in terms of the PIC experience, weather, night, risk management decisions applied, pressure to return, etc....
I have read a number of the threads and many speak about the pro's and cons of instruction.
My question is, is there a demand for instructors in Canada? Asking in terms of a career instructor, not as a stepping stone for hour building.
Regards
Why not? There are few career instructors out there, so I'd imagine there being a lot of opportunities for you. I'm going to start my FI rating soon. Looking forward to seeing what doors open ahead!
Is there more demand for instructors and being a fairly newly hired class 4 instructor I don't have any students yet. Is it normal for new class 4s to start off slow.
Like to hear from other new instructors and how long did it take them to get going?
