Flight Instructors (job-career?) - why so negative?

[Shady McSly]

I speak through the lens of being a long time business owner, FWIW --

us business guys

Quit your job and start a company.

Starting and sustaining any small business is brutally hard. Brutal, like 14 hour days, sleepless nights. Trust me, I know.

My own small business,

Soooooo, what you're saying is you own your own small business?

[7ECA]

And that success comes to those who work the hardest...



Sure, because pure, dumb, luck doesn't play any role whatsoever in a businesses success (or any type of successful venture).

[C-GKNT]

For a different perspective look at the helicopter training in Canada. I did my CPL-A to CPL-H conversion a few years ago, throughout the process I had 3 different instructors. The AVERAGE flight time of my instructors was on the order of 15,000 hours. The level of instruction that I received was unlike anything I ever experienced in the fixed wing world. I happily paid $250/hour dual JUST for the instructors. They figured that they were still responsible for you when solo so I also, less happily, paid $250/hour for the instructors when solo (but that's a another discussion).

Different world, different experience and different cost.

Glenn

[Rookie50]

And that success comes to those who work the hardest...



Sure, because pure, dumb, luck doesn't play any role whatsoever in a businesses success (or any type of successful venture).

Over the long haul; No it surely does not.

Yep I think we're done here.

[SuperchargedRS]

That's the trouble with becoming a socialistic country.

I do believe flight instruction is covered under NAFTA, could possibly set up shop down in the states.

[photofly]

In the US you can buy your own airplane, get 100hr inspections, and set to finding customers to teach. I don't see any evidence that the increased government regulation leads to higher quality training in Canada; if anything, the opposite.

Blame ATAC.

[PilotDAR]

For a different perspective look at the helicopter training in Canada. I did my CPL-A to CPL-H conversion a few years ago, throughout the process I had 3 different instructors. The AVERAGE flight time of my instructors was on the order of 15,000 hours. The level of instruction that I received was unlike anything I ever experienced in the fixed wing world. I happily paid $250/hour dual JUST for the instructors.

This was my experience too. The training was expensive, but worth it every dollar.

That leads me to a recurring theme for me - student pilots are a part of the problem, as they seem to look for the lowest cost instruction, and then sometimes complain about the quality of that instruction. Newly trained instructors are a vital element of our industry, and should be encouraged and supported - to become better instructors! Whether working toward the important role as a life long instructor, or as a stepping stone toward right seat in something with pax in the back, Instructors need to be paid for the value they bring to the student. A new student will get little more benefit from a very experienced instructor, but I feel that as that new student progresses, they will come to need mentoring which could exceed the capacity of very new instructors. The why we do and don't do type training.

I don't wish to knock new instructors, I wish to knock a system (which includes their clients) which pays them poorly, yet expects superior training. I am not an instructor, despite being asked many times. I do provide limited type training. I have found that the pilots I train value the experience I offer, and willingly pay accordingly. Several have remarked to me that they want to pay well, to receive experienced [type] training, as they consider that to be their greatest safety asset. If only ab initio students were of the same frame of mind!

Our industry could not survive a requirement for an instructor to enter the role with thousands of hours already. New pilots could never afford to get themselves there, and too few pilots who could meet such an experience requirement would want the work. But, when I flew with each of three helicopter instructors, of experience of 12k, 22k, and 26k hours, there was always a "why" associated with the lesson, and a "let me show you..." of high relevance. Helicopter training demands this skill in training, just for where the pilot is going to be expected to take it on the job.

If we were training new fixed wing pilots with the expectation that fresh out of PPL, they could skillfully take a Cessna 206 in and out of a 1200 x 50 foot turf runway consistently, in varying conditions, PPL training, and the instructors providing it, would be a bit more experienced - out of necessity. But students generally are not asking for that level of training, and are not willing to pay for it. Then they could begin to think that they should have received it, and complain because it was not offered. With no market (and an appropriate rate, there is little supply - no surprise there!

It would be terribly unfair to generalize new instructors as being "not very good", and I would never want to leave that general impression. But I have flown with newer instructors on a number of occasions, who very certainly did not know what they did not know, and that would be passed along to their students. If those instructors were better paid by students eager to pay for skill and experience, at least later in their training, everyone would be more happy....

[photofly]

So why has helicopter training turned out so different to fixed-wing training, in your opinion?

There are still ten times more wannabe helicopter pilots than jobs; and I don't believe for a second that the average person seeking a PPL(H) deliberately shuns $25/hr instructors in favour of $250/hr ones - I think there just aren't any $25/hr instructors in rotary wing. Why not? Why is the pool of 200hr wannabe ATPL(H) candidates not being tapped to pad their logbooks with ab-intio (H) instructing time for peanuts? Has the greed bug not bitten the people who run rotary wing training? Are people who like helicopters simply more generous spirited? Are they not attuned to their profit margins? Why aren't they raping instructors with low salaries like in fixed wing?

[FenderManDan]

For a different perspective look at the helicopter training in Canada. I did my CPL-A to CPL-H conversion a few years ago, throughout the process I had 3 different instructors. The AVERAGE flight time of my instructors was on the order of 15,000 hours. The level of instruction that I received was unlike anything I ever experienced in the fixed wing world. I happily paid $250/hour dual JUST for the instructors.

This was my experience too. The training was expensive, but worth it every dollar.

That leads me to a recurring theme for me - student pilots are a part of the problem, as they seem to look for the lowest cost instruction, and then sometimes complain about the quality of that instruction. Newly trained instructors are a vital element of our industry, and should be encouraged and supported - to become better instructors! Whether working toward the important role as a life long instructor, or as a stepping stone toward right seat in something with pax in the back, Instructors need to be paid for the value they bring to the student. A new student will get little more benefit from a very experienced instructor, but I feel that as that new student progresses, they will come to need mentoring which could exceed the capacity of very new instructors. The why we do and don't do type training.

I don't wish to knock new instructors, I wish to knock a system (which includes their clients) which pays them poorly, yet expects superior training. I am not an instructor, despite being asked many times. I do provide limited type training. I have found that the pilots I train value the experience I offer, and willingly pay accordingly. Several have remarked to me that they want to pay well, to receive experienced [type] training, as they consider that to be their greatest safety asset. If only ab initio students were of the same frame of mind!

Our industry could not survive a requirement for an instructor to enter the role with thousands of hours already. New pilots could never afford to get themselves there, and too few pilots who could meet such an experience requirement would want the work. But, when I flew with each of three helicopter instructors, of experience of 12k, 22k, and 26k hours, there was always a "why" associated with the lesson, and a "let me show you..." of high relevance. Helicopter training demands this skill in training, just for where the pilot is going to be expected to take it on the job.

If we were training new fixed wing pilots with the expectation that fresh out of PPL, they could skillfully take a Cessna 206 in and out of a 1200 x 50 foot turf runway consistently, in varying conditions, PPL training, and the instructors providing it, would be a bit more experienced - out of necessity. But students generally are not asking for that level of training, and are not willing to pay for it. Then they could begin to think that they should have received it, and complain because it was not offered. With no market (and an appropriate rate, there is little supply - no surprise there!

It would be terribly unfair to generalize new instructors as being "not very good", and I would never want to leave that general impression. But I have flown with newer instructors on a number of occasions, who very certainly did not know what they did not know, and that would be passed along to their students. If those instructors were better paid by students eager to pay for skill and experience, at least later in their training, everyone would be more happy....

Igree somewhat. I recently had a conversation with a two freshly minted PPLs and they spent 17-18k on their training. Me thinks too much money. So if their instructors are the most valuable in this transaction and got paid lets say 10% of the total, 90% went to FTU. What is wrong with this picture?

I don't blame young people for not doing this.

[photofly]

I don't think their instructors are the most valuable in this transaction. The costs of keeping training aircraft going and an operations base - including all the non-flying days of a Canadian winter, both to meet TC requirements, are horrific.

[PilotDAR]

So why has helicopter training turned out so different to fixed-wing training, in your opinion?

Helicopters and amphibians have something in common away from nearly all wheel planes: The helicopter/amphib will regularly be taken from an aerodrome to a place which is certainly not an aerodrome for its next operation(s). That will require a great deal more pilot awareness and decision making to assure safe operations. So it's more than just how to operate the aircraft, but also where and what environments and conditions will be acceptable. Thereafter, there will be many more what if's and what to do if's for those operations. Determination of wind will be different, and considerations for a forced approach will be different. When I think back to my helicopter training, and water flying mentoring, there were a lot of "this happened to me, so I reinforce this... during training" moments from the instructors. That mentoring is really uncommon from new instructors. It's not their fault at all, they just have not been there yet. Those who have the experience value their time.

A [hopefully] rare example of the reality of low instructor experience was put right in front of me years back during a special maintenance flight test I was flying in a 172, at a well known GTA area flying school, during which the rather senior instructor they sent to "check me out" for the test flight asked me to demonstrate a roll. I declined - he seemed honestly disappointed. He did not have the experience to be dabbling in the flying I could (but would not) do in that aircraft.

New PPL's have only scratched the surface of what an aircraft can do, and not yet what different types of aircraft can do beyond that. The basic PPL skills are vital, and can be taught by an instructor of modest skill. The "beyond" skills vary considerably, and you have to find the right mentor pilot. Likely, a basic instructor won't even be accepted to be insured on some of those types, without the training themselves. The needed mentor pilot might be a very experienced instructor, or just another pilot with considerable experience.

[photofly]

I don't think you answered the question.

I'm pretty sure the answer lies with the insurance companies. I don't believe a 200hr CPL(H) is insurable as an instructor. I think it's a simple as that.

And the difference has nothing to do with a 200hr CPL(H) being magically able - by the sheer brilliance and virtuosity of their ab-initio instructor, obviously - to step straight into a long-line logging gig, or fly twin turbine SAR missions to sinking ships. Even worse than the fixed wing world anyone getting their helicopter first job needs a type rating, unless they're flying sightseeing in the same R44 they trained on.

[C-GKNT]

So why has helicopter training turned out so different to fixed-wing training, in your opinion?
...

Note that this is a Canadian thing. Although it maybe true other countries, it is certainly not in the US where helicopter pilots follow the same route as fixed wing instructor here i.e. CPL-> Instructor resulting in lots of low time instructors.

I believe that this is due to the fact that most helicopter work here is both remote and seasonal. For a helicopter pilot with a family, instructor jobs are at a premium as they can be home every night. Many instructors also teach off season. This is where insurance likely comes into play. If there are 10,000+ hour instructors on the market, why would you ever insure a 200 hour instructor? If only 200 hour instructors were available, somehow they would get insured like they do in the US.

Glenn

[photofly]

If there are 10,000+ hour instructors on the market, why would you ever insure a 200 hour instructor? If only 200 hour instructors were available, somehow they would get insured like they do in the US.

Why? Because 200hr instructors will work for $20/hr. That there aren't any, suggests that rotor training operators can't insure them, otherwise they would appear, and the high time instructors would be sent to hell in a hand basket because they'd be too damn expensive.

A lot of experienced fixed wing pilots would appreciate being home every night, too. And they would be instructing if well paying jobs were available.

[SuperchargedRS]

So why has helicopter training turned out so different to fixed-wing training, in your opinion?

Helicopters and amphibians have something in common away from nearly all wheel planes: The helicopter/amphib will regularly be taken from an aerodrome to a place which is certainly not an aerodrome for its next operation(s). That will require a great deal more pilot awareness and decision making to assure safe operations. So it's more than just how to operate the aircraft, but also where and what environments and conditions will be acceptable. Thereafter, there will be many more what if's and what to do if's for those operations. Determination of wind will be different, and considerations for a forced approach will be different. When I think back to my helicopter training, and water flying mentoring, there were a lot of "this happened to me, so I reinforce this... during training" moments from the instructors. That mentoring is really uncommon from new instructors. It's not their fault at all, they just have not been there yet. Those who have the experience value their time.

A [hopefully] rare example of the reality of low instructor experience was put right in front of me years back during a special maintenance flight test I was flying in a 172, at a well known GTA area flying school, during which the rather senior instructor they sent to "check me out" for the test flight asked me to demonstrate a roll. I declined - he seemed honestly disappointed. He did not have the experience to be dabbling in the flying I could (but would not) do in that aircraft.

New PPL's have only scratched the surface of what an aircraft can do, and not yet what different types of aircraft can do beyond that. The basic PPL skills are vital, and can be taught by an instructor of modest skill. The "beyond" skills vary considerably, and you have to find the right mentor pilot. Likely, a basic instructor won't even be accepted to be insured on some of those types, without the training themselves. The needed mentor pilot might be a very experienced instructor, or just another pilot with considerable experience.

Well said

[C-GKNT]

If there are 10,000+ hour instructors on the market, why would you ever insure a 200 hour instructor? If only 200 hour instructors were available, somehow they would get insured like they do in the US.

Why? Because 200hr instructors will work for $20/hr. That there aren't any, suggests that rotor training operators can't insure them, otherwise they would appear, and the high time instructors would be sent to hell in a hand basket because they'd be too damn expensive.

A lot of experienced fixed wing pilots would appreciate being home every night, too. And they would be instructing if well paying jobs were available.

I'm actually agreeing with you on the insurance issues. When I said "why would you ever insure a 200 hour instructor"...I was actually thinking about the insurance companies not the flight schools. I think that a 200 hour helicopter is a terrible actuarial risk but they somehow manage to get insured in the US. BTW, I saw what my flight school paid for insurance, I don't remember the exact number but remember thinking it was reasonable.

As for fixed wing pilots wanting to be home every night, sure but I think that in Canada they have more family compatible options than helicopter pilots.

Glenn

[Shiny Side Up]

What's wrong with ab initio?

Actually there are several problems. First, if you're engaged in it for any length of time, or in the volume required to make money as an instructor, its exceedingly repetitive. People just aren't designed to stay engaged that way.

Second, if you're starting with new students all the time, you're subjecting yourself to way more of the customer service aspect of the job. You're delivering more sales pitches, and often grin and bearing a lot of the layman's questions about flying. This is also very wearing since only a fraction of people who start flying continue with it. For the most part its of no fault of the instructor, school or even the whole FTU thing. Lots of tire kickers, dreamers and outright crazies. But also lots of people who are usually under some misconceptions about flying on the large scale or small. This magnifies the effect of the first problem, as an instructor who takes on ab initio students, you repeat many of the first lessons. It can be very disheartening when in spite of your best efforts someone decides they'd rather spend more time golfing than flying. Often you don't get a reason, they just don't come back.

Thirdly, the crazies deserve special mention, since if you end up sharing a cockpit with enough of these it makes you pretty wary of your fellow human beings. In my experience when you think to yourself "wow, that guy was just plain nuts!" someone is going to come along to make that guy look normal. So far the top contender for me is either the guy in his fifties who rode a skateboard everywhere, drank too much knock off red bull and wore earplugs all the time since "noises startle him"... or maybe it was the guy who insisted he was most focused to study while he was driving his 18 wheeler. I haven't decided, but I'm worried about what's coming next.

So my advice to anyone wanting to make a career out of instructing is to make sure you progress with it. Ab initio is fun and interesting for a while, but you're going to need to get into something that breaks it up. CPL training, IFR training, specialty training, other flying jobs. Have something you're working on to keep yourself learning.

[photofly]

That's a very interesting set of objections - and what's funny about them is that almost every one can be viewed as a bonus. Some people love (and make a career of) sales and customer service, love dealing with a wide variety of new people, helping the dreamers achieve their dream and getting people with crazy ideas to really understand what makes an airplane (including the big ones they take to their holidays) stay up in the air. Here's a job when you can do all that and fly at the same time.

I also disagree that early lessons need to be repetitive. There's always a new way to teach something and understand something. Feynman never got bored with teaching basic physics because he loved the subject so much. I don't see that a flight instructor who loves flying can ever get bored teaching "straight and level".

There are about a bazillion different ways safely to pilot a single engine piston aircraft - and like driving, every one learns to fly in their own style. There's a huge amount of variety in helping people to do that. By contrast, the more regimented multi- training (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 7-1942.htm) seems to be very repetitive, to me.

Recall that DanWEC's idea of progress in flight instructing is having to do "no ab-initio" - at all. Well, if banging through the same seven hours of multi-engine training with a precession of cookie-cutter 20 year old cadets with imaginary airline stripes on their sleeves day after day floats anyone's boat, then frankly they're welcome to it.

[Shiny Side Up]

I also disagree that early lessons need to be repetitive. There's always a new way to teach something and understand something. Feynman never got bored with teaching basic physics because he loved the subject so much. I don't see that a flight instructor who loves flying can ever get bored teaching "straight and level".

I would argue that 1) Feynman did other things besides strictly teach physics, and 2) That the realm of physics is a larger more expansive interest than any of the individual flight exercises. I doubt that Feynman ever had to teach the same class on physics six times in a day, every day for weeks. That's the part to avoid, since its easy for a new instructor to set them selves up for burnout in such a fashion. My advice would be to make sure you get to switch it up. It depends on your audience as well. What really hurts is to get a string of disinterested students, there's been a lot of times where I've been like " I want to teach stalls, but I'm not looking forward to teaching stalls to these guys." There are of course lessons I like to teach more than others too. Slips is my personal favorite, probably followed by slow flight. I despise doing intro flights since its like having to go on a first date. YMMV.

getting people with crazy ideas

You're not understanding the level of crazy I'm talking about, but that's ok.

Either way, there's different views on the subject. I would still maintain that the customer service aspect of it is the part that tires me the most, and the main reason I've chosen largely to depart from it.

[digits_]

The most fun are students who don't ever want to fly after getting their license but they are doing the flight training because "they have to" to get a promotion/non-flying job at a company that requires them to have a CPL or similar. Every remark / suggestion for improvement is met with "but I am never gonna fly anyway". The fact that they can still kill themselves in the first 200 hours they fly, eludes them. Fun fun fun !

[Beefitarian]

getting people with crazy ideas

You're not understanding the level of crazy I'm talking about, but that's ok.

He has several dual entries in my log book. That should help paint a Picasso like picture.

This just in.

Forget all about that macho shit and learn how to play guitar!

[DanWEC]

Recall that DanWEC's idea of progress in flight instructing is having to do "no ab-initio" - at all. Well, if banging through the same seven hours of multi-engine training with a precession of cookie-cutter 20 year old cadets with imaginary airline stripes on their sleeves day after day floats anyone's boat, then frankly they're welcome to it.

Seems that others still agree about the effort of ab initio. I also said I do enjoy it, but if you're doing it 6 days a week the dynamic is very different then a weekend gig. Small doses and variety is best. I would love to still instruct maybe 5 hours a week for the enjoyment and to give back, and likely will pick it up again at some point. Didn't you do part time? That really keeps it fun and fresh. Also really depends on the sort of FTU and what management mentalities are trickling down.

For me, (From the perspective of a career program style of FTU, not a flying club, unfortunately) probably the biggest factor in the effort between ab initio and advanced instruction such as MIFR is the commitment of the student. After the novelty of their first few flights wear off and the learning workload starts building, the student is at the very start of a path that will see about 80% abandon it before getting a CPL for various reasons. When you're an instructor investing 100% to each and every student- night time phone calls before flights tests, hourly texts to help with things, making sure each second of a lesson is enjoyable yet valuable, it's really taxing to know that your effort could be pointless the next day, the odds actually favour it, yet if you're a committed instructor, you can't just give 50%. It's 100% to every student.

By the time they're up to MIFR, they've much less likely to abandon it and you know your investment in the student will pay off for them.
Ah well, I suppose teaching in any field will have the same issues, it's just the nature of the business, and why it takes oodles of patience. Every teacher wishes they could choose their students- and often the more experienced in a field get to do just that.

Then again, without Ab Initio we would never have the 6pm beers at Moxie's, discussing who wins the daily award for almost getting killed in the most unique and hilarious way! Good times....

[mayfleur]

I have several thoughts about this. The first is the person I run into with the worst attitude towards instructors is my own CFI. In his words "instructors are a dime a dozen". It blows my mind how badly he treats his instructors and one cannot be surprised if the head of the school thinks so badly about his staff, others will too. The second thing is - and I'm being a bit whiny but it's still my pet peeve - we have no currency training or extra training, ever. New equipment is put in our plane and I have to figure it out. I don't mind doing that (and I do learn it), but so much time would be saved if someone would show me! I could then use that time for other subjects. For everything it's a case of use it or lose it, and we receive very little mentoring or direction in my school so consequently it is much more difficult than it should be to advance and improve. The class 4s at my school - well you have to figure it out for yourself. Any mistakes (no matter how minor) will be held against you in some really passive aggressive ways.

There is more of course but these are the main things that are bothering me. I am good at instructing but I could be better. I try to be better, but I am burning out quick.

After the novelty of their first few flights wear off and the learning workload starts building, the student is at the very start of a path that will see about 80% abandon it before getting a CPL for various reasons. When you're an instructor investing 100% to each and every student- night time phone calls before flights tests, hourly texts to help with things, making sure each second of a lesson is enjoyable yet valuable, it's really taxing to know that your effort could be pointless the next day, the odds actually favour it, yet if you're a committed instructor, you can't just give 50%. It's 100% to every student.

Yes, this! So this.

[costermonger]

So if their instructors are the most valuable in this transaction and got paid lets say 10% of the total, 90% went to FTU. What is wrong with this picture?

Those darn notoriously profitable FTUs.

A lot of experienced fixed wing pilots would appreciate being home every night, too. And they would be instructing if well paying jobs were available.

To be fair, those jobs exist. Problem is, I'd wager there's less than 100 of them.

[single_swine_herder]

So .... become one of those 100.