Would you pay more for better instruction?

[Arnold]

Reading the thread Ken posted about the quality of pilots/training, got me to thinking thoughts I had put out of my mind many years ago.

Would you pay more for better training?

The aviation industry is crazy because we have the least experienced people teaching others to engage in an activity with severe penalties for mistakes. The newly minted comm pilot should be sititng in the right seat of a caravan getting paid min. wage to learn how to be an aviator, and not sitting in the right seat of skyhawk passing on his/her lack of knowledge to the next generation of pilots and getitng paid min wage. The whole system is, as I said above, crazy.

I used to quite enjoy flight instructing. I did not enjoy airline flying so much and left it for another career. But I would have gone back to flight instructing if I could make a good middle class living at it.

Not a barely getting by can't afford to put gas in my car living, but a good middle class living. Nice home in a good school district and able to put some bucks away for my kids' college and my retirement.

Here is how I figured the math.

Assume it will take the average person 60 hours to get their private license if they have a good instructor working with them, 80 hours with a novice who is just building time.

Assume a/c rental is $80.00/hour
Novice costs $35.00/hour
Professional costs $70.00/hour

Here is the cost analysis:

Novice instructor:

50 hours dual @ 115.00/hour = $5750
30 hours solo @ 80.00/hour = $2400
Ground - minimal one on one pre/post fligh + a class = $500.00
Total - $8650.

Professional Instructor:

30 hours dual @ 150.00/hour = 4500.00
30 hours solo @ 80.00/hour = 2400.00
30 hours grnd @ 80.00/hour = 2400.00
Total - $9300.00

Oh yeah, one last thing, I need to have a family life as well so I'm not working every weekend. I'll give you early mornings and evenings (but not on the same day) and maybe two weekend days a month, but if you want professional flight instruction you will need to allow me to live the lifestyle of a professional.

At the time I figured the deal breaker was the weekend limitation and so I did not pursue this line of work.

What do you think?

For those who don't know me - my qualifications for making this suggestion: ATP ASMEL, COMM ASES, CFI IA & ME, SD-3, AT-42, AT-72. Total Time > 7,000 hrs (not alot for an airline pilot but not too shabby either). I've worked in many civilian aviation jobs including flight instruction, freight at night in beat up old twins, pax charter in semi beat up old twins, turbine multi freight pilot in beat up old trubine twins, regional air carrier 121 f/o and captain in large multi-engine turboprops. I left the career in '96 just before the regional jets replaced the turbo props.

 

[woodstock]

I pay 109 an hour for a 35 yr old plane. 50 an hour for my CFI who is the chief CFI - was an Independence Captain until they went under. My backup CFI is an ex-fighter pilot. I think I'm getting top notch instruction and were I to go to a newer plane my plane costs would jump 30 bucks and hour or so...

I'll definitely have more than 80 because I've farted around for 3.5 years now... my "time off" is longer than my "time on" alas...

 

[jesse]

There is no way I'd pay $70 per hour for an instructor. Maybe if it was some *really* niche training that required a lot of skill in a rare aircraft or scenario. But not for primary or any standard training.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I think you get what you pay for, Arnold, and I don't mind paying for quality instruction.

For example, when we did our R22 to R44 transition, we used two senior CFIs from the Robinson dealer, and a local DPE. Each had some things to teach us that a low hours CFI could not have.

Locally, for recurrency, we trade stick time in our helicopters for instruction by an ATP (RH and AMEL) rated CFI who has around 6,000 hours in helicopters.

 

[Arnold]

There is no way I'd pay $70 per hour for an instructor. Maybe if it was some *really* niche training that required a lot of skill in a rare aircraft or scenario. But not for primary or any standard training.

Why Not?

 

[ScottM]

All I want to say is I have paid for better instruction. When you find a well qualified instrucotr I will pay him what he asks. If that is the same rate as the regular novice 30 day CFI academy wonders then I will tip the more experienced guy.

 

[jesse]

Why Not?

Because I feel that is way over priced and would increase my flight costs and training substantially.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I have and I will. The guy who trained me in tailwheel charged $50/hr. He also did my IPCs. He was worth every penny. I learned far more from him than any other instructor I've ever had.

My Pitts transition also was expensive, per hour, but Keoki is so good that I felt comfortable in the airplane in less than 4 hours; I was expecting more like 10.

 

[SkyHog]

I don't want to sound cocky, because I know that it will get me killed, but I gotta say it.

I taught myself ALL of the ground material by reading books. To this day, if I really need to know the answer to a question, I'll look it up in a book. For hypotheticals, or something I'm curious to get opinions on, I'll post here, knowing people with more experience will answer (some CFIs too).

When it comes to ratings like the IR and Comm, a good CFI is definitely necessary, and for the basic maneuvers, I'll concede it as well, but for anything beyond the sheer basics, a pilot should be willing to learn what he wants/needs to know.

And no, me knowing what a longeron is (dunno), or a wing spar (dunno), or how many bolts hold a 152's wings on (didn't know), is not necessary knowledge, nor is it anything that someone who doesn't want to know should be required to know.

Flying is too expensive as it is. There's no need to pay more for a CFI when the CFIs we have now are doing their jobs very well.

edit: on the Instrument written, I took a class at the community college in which I learned next to nothing from the instructor. That was also all done on my own, reading the Jeppesen Instrument/Commercial book, and taking practice exams until I got consistantly high scores. Knowing that, I would not recommend to anyone that is capable of basic intellect to take a ground school course, and instead to do it themselves.

 

[GaryO]

I've stated my opinion many times. I firmly believe that flight instruction needs to be a desired proffesion, and a job as a flight instructor needs to be a goal, not a stepping stone to a better job.

In order to accomplish that, an instructor's pay must be enough to make instructing a desirable career.

 

[Dean]

Because I feel that is way over priced and would increase my flight costs and training substantially.

I think what Jesse is trying to say is that salaries are different in all areas of the country. So to pay $70.00 an hour for flight instruction in the Mid-West would be like a police officer making $100K a year. Most Mid-West flight instructors charge between $25 and $40 an hour. So I would agree with him that $70 an hour here is way to high.

 

[Dean]

Reading the thread Ken posted about the quality of pilots/training, got me to thinking thoughts I had put out of my mind many years ago.

Would you pay more for better training?




Here is how I figured the math.

Assume it will take the average person 60 hours to get their private license if they have a good instructor working with them, 80 hours with a novice who is just building time.

Assume a/c rental is $80.00/hour
Novice costs $35.00/hour
Professional costs $70.00/hour

Here is the cost analysis:

Novice instructor:

50 hours dual @ 115.00/hour = $5750
30 hours solo @ 80.00/hour = $2400
Ground - minimal one on one pre/post fligh + a class = $500.00
Total - $8650.

Professional Instructor:

30 hours dual @ 150.00/hour = 4500.00
30 hours solo @ 80.00/hour = 2400.00
30 hours grnd @ 80.00/hour = 2400.00
Total - $9300.00

What do you think?


Are some of you really paying this much to get your PPL? I think the average here in the Mid-West is $4,500.00 total. My instructor was an ATP that flies charters and does instruction on his off time. I would put him in the professional catagory and he only charged $25.00 and hour back in 2004, He charges $30.00 now.

 

[SkyHog]

The flaw in the math, IMHO, Dean, is that it is not really up to the skills of the CFI how many hours are necessary to get the PPL except in extreme cases of poor CFImanship. For the most part, if the student wants to learn, has the ability to learn and the time to devote on flying VERY regularly, then he'll do it on time. It took me longer than average, but I also only flew once a week for a while, and sometimes less, and I moved from New Hampshire to New Mexico halfway through. Had I been more focused all the way through (and had the money necessary to do it all in one throw), I would have done it much sooner, because once I flew regularly, I got it done.

 

[SCCutler]

For my $0.02:

The notion that you can simply ignore the immutable laws of supply and demand in flight instruction is silly.

Basic flight instruction is (for the most part) low-paid, and will remain so, as long as there are lots of tons of time-building professional pilot aspirants, and there is nothing at all wrong about that, so long as they do a sound job of flight instructing.

I went through my private and instrument with what I now know to have been excellent instruction, with an instructor who was paying his dues (so to speak), on his way to a professional piloting career. He is now a Captain for a large commuter-type carrier, and I fully expect that he will be flying for a major carrier which flies cargo all over the world in colorful airplanes at night, very soon.

While he was instructing me, and others like me, he was earning a living wage, but not much more. He was also young and had no kiddoes.

Since then, I have flown with some other instructors whose seasoning and skills were greater, and whose instruction cost more money, and I also think that is just fine.

There is a place for each kind of instructor, and I have not noticed higher-cost instructors going without students, either.

 

[JRitt]

The real problem here is that you are asking the wrong group. The average person who is interested in flying has no idea about the value of a good instructor. Joe Sixpack goes to the airport and sees a flight school (or two) talks to a CFI (maybe) at the front desk and is told that his training is going to cost $6500 plus $90 per hr over 40hrs and the average student takes 60hrs. Joe Sixpack has no idea how to shop for a good instructor and there is really no way for him to find out.

 

[flykelley]

I have and I will. The guy who trained me in tailwheel charged $50/hr. He also did my IPCs. He was worth every penny. I learned far more from him than any other instructor I've ever had.

My Pitts transition also was expensive, per hour, but Keoki is so good that I felt comfortable in the airplane in less than 4 hours; I was expecting more like 10.

Same as Ken
I have and would do so again. I would rather have a guy who is not looking to build hours. I want a guy who is a teacher not a instructor. There is a big difference between the two. I was blessed to have found a guy like that.

Regards Mike

 

[Arnold]

The real problem here is that you are asking the wrong group. The average person who is interested in flying has no idea about the value of a good instructor. Joe Sixpack goes to the airport and sees a flight school (or two) talks to a CFI (maybe) at the front desk and is told that his training is going to cost $6500 plus $90 per hr over 40hrs and the average student takes 60hrs. Joe Sixpack has no idea how to shop for a good instructor and there is really no way for him to find out.

Point taken, and I am not at all interested in starting the business proposed, but I have always been curious as to what would happen if flight instruction was treated like a profession instead of a job.

 

[Arnold]

For my $0.02:

The notion that you can simply ignore the immutable laws of supply and demand in flight instruction is silly.

Basic flight instruction is (for the most part) low-paid, and will remain so, as long as there are lots of tons of time-building professional pilot aspirants, and there is nothing at all wrong about that, so long as they do a sound job of flight instructing.

I went through my private and instrument with what I now know to have been excellent instruction, with an instructor who was paying his dues (so to speak), on his way to a professional piloting career. He is now a Captain for a large commuter-type carrier, and I fully expect that he will be flying for a major carrier which flies cargo all over the world in colorful airplanes at night, very soon.

While he was instructing me, and others like me, he was earning a living wage, but not much more. He was also young and had no kiddoes.

Since then, I have flown with some other instructors whose seasoning and skills were greater, and whose instruction cost more money, and I also think that is just fine.

There is a place for each kind of instructor, and I have not noticed higher-cost instructors going without students, either.

Point 1. Yes, whenever there is no restriction on the law of supply/demand the wage rate will settle at a relatively low level, as there is generally more supply than demand when wages are higher.

There are of course methods to reduce the supply of instructors - a) regulatory - no CFI without n thousand hours experience + serious testing to weed out the unsuitable, or b) self regulating ala ABA/AMA - strict standards for entrance to the profession and restrictions on the supply by strictly limiting the number of seats available in the professional schools. Has the effect of (a) wihtout direct government inovlvement.

Point 2. It is not my contention that all low time instructors are poor instructors, it is simply my contention that the system provides no incentive for a high time pilot to engage in instruction.

 

[flykelley]

Same as Ken
I have and would do so again. I would rather have a guy who is not looking to build hours. I want a guy who is a teacher not a instructor. There is a big difference between the two. I was blessed to have found a guy like that.

Regards Mike

I have also given him a $50.00 gift card to a local restaurant. I have also let him use my house up north. If you can find a great teacher it is a good idea to take care of them.

Regards Mike

 

[Ken Ibold]

I have also given him a $50.00 gift card to a local restaurant. I have also let him use my house up north. If you can find a great teacher it is a good idea to take care of them.

Regards Mike

Agreed. I would let said instructor use my Lance for the cost of fuel. And when he got around to taking his honeymoon (after 5 kids) the fuel was on me, too.

 

[Arnold]

I don't want to sound cocky, because I know that it will get me killed, but I gotta say it.

I taught myself ALL of the ground material by reading books. To this day, if I really need to know the answer to a question, I'll look it up in a book. For hypotheticals, or something I'm curious to get opinions on, I'll post here, knowing people with more experience will answer (some CFIs too).

When it comes to ratings like the IR and Comm, a good CFI is definitely necessary, and for the basic maneuvers, I'll concede it as well, but for anything beyond the sheer basics, a pilot should be willing to learn what he wants/needs to know.

And no, me knowing what a longeron is (dunno), or a wing spar (dunno), or how many bolts hold a 152's wings on (didn't know), is not necessary knowledge, nor is it anything that someone who doesn't want to know should be required to know.

Flying is too expensive as it is. There's no need to pay more for a CFI when the CFIs we have now are doing their jobs very well.

edit: on the Instrument written, I took a class at the community college in which I learned next to nothing from the instructor. That was also all done on my own, reading the Jeppesen Instrument/Commercial book, and taking practice exams until I got consistantly high scores. Knowing that, I would not recommend to anyone that is capable of basic intellect to take a ground school course, and instead to do it themselves.

You are not alone in your method of self instructing for ground school, but you are also probably the exception.

Flying is too expensive, but your seem to be saying that because it is already too expensive the benefits of quality instruction are outweighed by the cost. I think lawyers are too expensive, but when I need one I think I'd rather pay for the expert. Most legal issues only cost money, most aircraft issues deal in lives. BUT, this is why I asked the question. I was curious as to how folks here viewed it.

I tend to agree that if you as a pilot cannot evaluate the system/structure/control, that it seems it could be left out of the curriculum. However, I find that I am most comfortable when I know all there is to know about my ship. If the indication of an electrical fault is simply a light, then I do not need to know the details of voltage and amperage that caused the issue, but if I have a meter to measure it, then I need to know. In my case I like to know so I dig a little more into the systems. I feel the same way about limitations. If the limitation is marked on the gauge then I don't think it is important to memorize it. On the other hand, I will probably learn it because I want to know that info.

 

[Bill]

Point 2. It is not my contention that all low time instructors are poor instructors, it is simply my contention that the system provides no incentive for a high time pilot to engage in instruction.

Unless you market yourself properly. The guy I did acro with charges about $70/hr for all training. He's ex Navy, flew A-4's, F-4's, and then 727 and L-1011 for Eastern. 20,000+ ATP

He markets himself towards professionals, doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc. Professionals who desire to train with an experienced professional and not a young kid looking to move on.

He flies 7-8 hrs/day, 5-6 days a week, loves to teach, loves to fly, and makes enough to live a decent life. He constantly has a waiting list 35-40 people deep wanting to fly with him.

 

[gismo]

The real problem here is that you are asking the wrong group. The average person who is interested in flying has no idea about the value of a good instructor. Joe Sixpack goes to the airport and sees a flight school (or two) talks to a CFI (maybe) at the front desk and is told that his training is going to cost $6500 plus $90 per hr over 40hrs and the average student takes 60hrs. Joe Sixpack has no idea how to shop for a good instructor and there is really no way for him to find out.

I was thinking along the same lines. I voted yes to the poll, but that's the "now" me who values and appreciates a good CFI. When I started flight training in 1977, I had no idea that most of the instructors at the local Cessna Pilot Center were barely able to eat and just putting in their time on the way to an airline job. And given my budget, I probably would have gone with the "lowest bidder" if I realized I had a choice with the (somewhat mistaken) impression that every CFI was adequately qualified. The "1977 me" would have been thinking like Jesse, and concerned about every dollar"wasted" on a "super CFI".

 

[tonycondon]

Unless you market yourself properly. The guy I did acro with charges about $70/hr for all training. He's ex Navy, flew A-4's, F-4's, and then 727 and L-1011 for Eastern. 20,000+ ATP

He markets himself towards professionals, doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc. Professionals who desire to train with an experienced professional and not a young kid looking to move on.

sure its not that these are the only people who can afford 70 bucks an hour for instruction?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Because I feel that is way over priced and would increase my flight costs and training substantially.

And there, sports fans, is the problem with the system. The consumer (student) is not able to actually assign true value to the product (the instruction received) until many, many hours (and in most case many years) later. Until that point the consumer views one product as identical (or nearly so) to the other product and is therefor not willing to pay a premium. Furthermore, nether flight time collected nor CFI hours given really directly correlate to the product you will receive so there is no easy indicator.

Personally, I heartily endorse EdFred's answer: Remove the CFI may log PIC time rule. If that were to happen the problem will instantly disappear. The time builders will go elsewhere instantly, CFI supply will drop substantially, and CFI price (salary) will rise accordingly.

 

[Areeda]

I have paid up to $100/hr for instruction (not very much at that price) and believe that quality instruction at whatever price is a better value than lousy instruction for free.

Personally, I heartily endorse EdFred's answer: Remove the CFI may log PIC time rule. If that were to happen the problem will instantly disappear. The time builders will go elsewhere instantly, CFI supply will drop substantially, and CFI price (salary) will rise accordingly.

I agree people who instruct soley to get PIC time should not teach. My worst instructor once told me "I can't wait to get enough time to stop teaching and get a real job". Now the feeling is one thing but the lack of common sense he had to have to tell that to one of his students, WTF? That one only got enough lessons after that (I think it was 2) for me to find another CFI.

However I have a problem with that suggestion in that for much instruction the CFI is PIC. Maybe the ATP should be required for a CFI or the flight time required be similar.

Joe

 

[Ed Guthrie]

However I have a problem with that suggestion in that for much instruction the CFI is PIC.

I don't see the problem. I have flown across the entire US twice, ~20 hours each time, both as legal PIC, and I was unable to log a single minute--that fact didn't bother me a bit either time.

The problem is that too many CFIs are gathering logbook time rather than teaching. I have no problem at all removing the incentive completely.

 

[Areeda]

The problem is that too many CFIs are gathering logbook time rather than teaching. I have no problem at all removing the incentive completely.

I agree it would be better than what we have now but won't go as far as having "no problem at all". Maybe when I have as much PIC time as you I'll look at it differently. Right now I do value the time in the dual given column more than the PIC column.

It wouldn't change the way I fly.

Joe

 

[Arnold]

And there, sports fans, is the problem with the system. The consumer (student) is not able to actually assign true value to the product (the instruction received) until many, many hours (and in most case many years) later. Until that point the consumer views one product as identical (or nearly so) to the other product and is therefor not willing to pay a premium. Furthermore, nether flight time collected nor CFI hours given really directly correlate to the product you will receive so there is no easy indicator.

Personally, I heartily endorse EdFred's answer: Remove the CFI may log PIC time rule. If that were to happen the problem will instantly disappear. The time builders will go elsewhere instantly, CFI supply will drop substantially, and CFI price (salary) will rise accordingly.

Thak you Ed and Ed, or is that Ed ^ 2?

 

[jesse]

And there, sports fans, is the problem with the system. The consumer (student) is not able to actually assign true value to the product (the instruction received) until many, many hours (and in most case many years) later. Until that point the consumer views one product as identical (or nearly so) to the other product and is therefor not willing to pay a premium. Furthermore, nether flight time collected nor CFI hours given really directly correlate to the product you will receive so there is no easy indicator.

I paid $25 per hour for my instruction. $70 would have outpriced aviation for me. It comes down to the fact that I wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Could I afford it now? Maybe..But probably not.. It'd still really reduce the number of hours I fly..The instructor would cost about the same as the plane. Cut my flying in half.

 

[Bill]

sure its not that these are the only people who can afford 70 bucks an hour for instruction?

Well, that is the whole idea towards marketing towards these people. They do have the bucks.

 

[tonycondon]

right, its not necessarily because they value the high quality instruction. i have flown with several of the businessman/doctor/lawyer types who just want to get the license finished, dont care about anything but the PTS etc. the only difference is they dont care how much it costs either.

 

[Bill]

right, its not necessarily because they value the high quality instruction. i have flown with several of the businessman/doctor/lawyer types who just want to get the license finished, dont care about anything but the PTS etc. the only difference is they dont care how much it costs either.

I think a lot can be perception. Surgeons are used to going into the Lexus dealer, and having a suit wait on him hand and foot. Same for high end clothing retailers, etc etc etc.

This CFI recognized this type of person, markets towards them, gains customers and good word of mouth, and lives a good living.

He is also strict and turns out good pilots. It is his way, or the highway, and he has enough people in line that it doesn't bother him when someone does choose the highway.

 

[Graueradler]

I answered "No" because I've seen too many examples, in various areas, where making something cost more , supposedly to achieve better quality, did not achieve better quality. However, in light of the above discussions, I'd say - Yes, I'd pay more in specific instances. I think the killer, as you indicated, is not being willing to work weekends. Too many of your potential customers probably can't take lessons except on weekends. Set aside two other days of the week to be your "weekends".

 

[Dave Siciliano]

My insurance agent tells me I'm one of the top five of his insureds as far as getting good training. I strongly believe in it, but there are times I would pay more for a good instructor and times a top instructor may not be necessary.

For doing some instrument approaches for practice, doing a BFR and some other routine things, I have several very capable CFIs that will ride with me to log the Baron time. For advanced training, honing specific skills and working on things like annual recurrent training, I've either used a top instructor where I paid more or gone to an approved course. Some beneficial courses are free like the High Altitude Chamber in OK City. Some are quite expensive like SIMCOM (not only the course fee, but transportation, food and lodging for several days).

So, it all depends. I hit the books pretty hard myself. I constantly try to improve. When I moved to the P-Baron, I went up with a top instructor, went to SIMCOM and hit the books hard. Now that I have over 200 hours in the plane and understand the systems very well, annual recurrent training and a flight review/IPC six months later keeps me comfortable with my training level. Still, I attend a lot of other training sessions, for instance, this year so far: Operation Rain Check at Fort Worth Center; High Altitude Chamber at OK City; FSS briefing at Flying Club; SIMCOM; Advanced Maneuver Training (unusual attitude recovery) and several lectures/discussion.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

There are many new CFIs out there that are fantastic flight instructors both the books and on the stick . It's a reflection mostly of the individual, their attitude and overall motivation. Time building and good to superior flight instruction are not mutually exclusive nor have they ever been.

High and low rates are generally more a reflection of the overall market in a given locale rather than actual quality of flight instruction, with obvious exceptions for highly skilled CFIs, so as long as they can afford not to have to whore themselves out regularly at street walker prices just to make ends meet.

 

[gismo]

Personally, I heartily endorse EdFred's answer: Remove the CFI may log PIC time rule. If that were to happen the problem will instantly disappear. The time builders will go elsewhere instantly, CFI supply will drop substantially, and CFI price (salary) will rise accordingly.

I don't know if I agree. Since the flying jobs up the food chain seem to accept PIC/"dual given" time as valuable experience they might continue to accept "dual given" in addition to PIC time for instructors if "dual given" was no longer included in the PIC column. What makes you think the behavior of the folks doing the hiring would change in terms of what they'd accept as "experience"?

Certainly if there was no intrinsic value of time spent instructing to a CFI, the time builders would have to look elsewhere for marketable experience, but changing the column that such time is recorded might not have much effect on that.

 

[Chache]

I'm a student right now, with 35+ hrs.
Would I pay more for basic Instruction? Hel* No!
The belief that "Only the rich can afford to fly" is propogated by these inflated prices, and the reason that GA
is on the same perceptual level as lepers, and crazies, by the general public.
("You gotta be crazy to spend that kind of money just to fly")

It's "costs" that have kept me out of aviation for the past 44 years!
As I believe from talking to other students, it's their reason too.
Only now, can I afford to complete basic training. My kids have grown,
and I'm on my own.

As "Skyhog" reported, I too, have taught myself all the groundschool required elements, and I acheive mid to hi 90's on the written practice tests.
I do well, in the practical, in the air, eye/hand/foot coordination skills because of Microsoft, without whom, I would have no "Flight-time", in the past 15-20 years.
I have also qualified for "wings" credit on AOPA's site, taken every free (and some paid) course available, do the ASA safety quizzes.
You get the idea, so I won't bore you with the rest....

IMVHO, It's definitely a case of: motivation = success.

Does a "richer guy" learn any more from an expensive Instructor, if he doesn't have the motivation to study, and practice??
My mantra is "You get out of life, what you yourself, put into it".
And I don't mean "buy" into it...

As far as a decent living..... Where is $30.00/ hour not a liveable wage?
I know people, with families that live on less than half of that, in one of the most expensive states in the nation.

I also know good Instructors, that put in 8 hour days, in the air, six days /week.
And not so good ones, that complain that they work too much,
with a 20 hr in the air work week.
Ok.... so when it's crappy they don't fly.. they hold ground classes instead., and the FBO is the one that loses rental time.

What are basic instructors.....? akin to "Surgeons" who make $150K+/yr, where they hold life in their hands from moment to moment, and if a mistake is made it can't be corrected, cause you can't yet, bring back the dead?
I don't think so...
When was the last time you heard of a CFI being sued for malpractice???

Isn't that the reason for the PTS? Keyword here, being "Standards"...
everyone being given "equal" minimal proficiency training?
and the final checkride: " can safely operate the aircraft", for an hour or so, on a day when someone is watching very, very closely...

Then perhaps the PTS should be more precise, and have tighter tolerances, and your next BFR should cost triple what it does now...
due to the extra time getting you to the level of proficiency, it is intimated
that these higher paid folks produce.

No, ............you want 100K+/year??
Go to medical/law school for four years,
work for peanuts for another five or six years, and maybe.......
if you're good........................................
................become a Senator, or a Surgeon.

A Future CFI

 

[rcaligan]

Reading the thread Ken posted about the quality of pilots/training, got me to thinking thoughts I had put out of my mind many years ago.

Would you pay more for better training?

The aviation industry is crazy because we have the least experienced people teaching others to engage in an activity with severe penalties for mistakes. The newly minted comm pilot should be sititng in the right seat of a caravan getting paid min. wage to learn how to be an aviator, and not sitting in the right seat of skyhawk passing on his/her lack of knowledge to the next generation of pilots and getitng paid min wage. The whole system is, as I said above, crazy.

I used to quite enjoy flight instructing. I did not enjoy airline flying so much and left it for another career. But I would have gone back to flight instructing if I could make a good middle class living at it.

Not a barely getting by can't afford to put gas in my car living, but a good middle class living. Nice home in a good school district and able to put some bucks away for my kids' college and my retirement.

Here is how I figured the math.

Assume it will take the average person 60 hours to get their private license if they have a good instructor working with them, 80 hours with a novice who is just building time.

Assume a/c rental is $80.00/hour
Novice costs $35.00/hour
Professional costs $70.00/hour

Here is the cost analysis:

Novice instructor:

50 hours dual @ 115.00/hour = $5750
30 hours solo @ 80.00/hour = $2400
Ground - minimal one on one pre/post fligh + a class = $500.00
Total - $8650.

Professional Instructor:

30 hours dual @ 150.00/hour = 4500.00
30 hours solo @ 80.00/hour = 2400.00
30 hours grnd @ 80.00/hour = 2400.00
Total - $9300.00

Oh yeah, one last thing, I need to have a family life as well so I'm not working every weekend. I'll give you early mornings and evenings (but not on the same day) and maybe two weekend days a month, but if you want professional flight instruction you will need to allow me to live the lifestyle of a professional.

At the time I figured the deal breaker was the weekend limitation and so I did not pursue this line of work.

What do you think?

For those who don't know me - my qualifications for making this suggestion: ATP ASMEL, COMM ASES, CFI IA & ME, SD-3, AT-42, AT-72. Total Time > 7,000 hrs (not alot for an airline pilot but not too shabby either). I've worked in many civilian aviation jobs including flight instruction, freight at night in beat up old twins, pax charter in semi beat up old twins, turbine multi freight pilot in beat up old trubine twins, regional air carrier 121 f/o and captain in large multi-engine turboprops. I left the career in '96 just before the regional jets replaced the turbo props.

Let's start here:

Assume it will take the average person 60 hours to get their private license if they have a good instructor working with them, 80 hours with a novice who is just building time.

I think this is a bad assumption. You are assuming that a good CFI = lower training time. The CFI can only do half of the job. The rest is up to the student. Pair up a student who always runs out of money with a great instructor and it still may take 80 hours.

Next part:

Oh yeah, one last thing, I need to have a family life as well so I'm not working every weekend. I'll give you early mornings and evenings (but not on the same day) and maybe two weekend days a month, but if you want professional flight instruction you will need to allow me to live the lifestyle of a professional.

At the time I figured the deal breaker was the weekend limitation and so I did not pursue this line of work.

What do you think?

I think you should ask our resident professional cellist what would happen if he decided not to work nights & weekends.

For those who don't know me - my qualifications for making this suggestion: ATP ASMEL, COMM ASES, CFI IA & ME, SD-3, AT-42, AT-72. Total Time > 7,000 hrs (not alot for an airline pilot but not too shabby either). I've worked in many civilian aviation jobs including flight instruction, freight at night in beat up old twins, pax charter in semi beat up old twins, turbine multi freight pilot in beat up old trubine twins, regional air carrier 121 f/o and captain in large multi-engine turboprops. I left the career in '96 just before the regional jets replaced the turbo props.

Then you certainly have a lot to contribute! Why not teach in a university?

Now, to answer your poll: It depends. What do I want to learn? Let's say I just bought an airplane with a G1000 and I get 8 hours of instruction for $800 to learn it inside and out. Would I pay it? Absolutely!

But $80.00 per hour for a flight review? Fugeddaboutit!

 

[infotango]

I answered no as well.
For me and most of my friends, flying is already close to being unaffordable and an increase in the cost of flight instruction by the amount being proposed would make it an unavailable luxury for many of us. Yes there are some abysmal flight instructors out there, I had one in a PA-28 checkout who didn't know the engine type in the airplane. This is crazy, and I was also paying the school 50 bucks an hour for his time.
But there are also a ton of amazing instructors out there who charge pretty low rates, either because they just do this for fun, or because they work for schools which don't skim 50 percent of their proceeds off. While I've found that total time tends to insure more uniformly good instructors, I've also flown with good instructors who were just building time for the airlines. Maybe my experience is just tainted because my local FBO has always had quality CFI's.
I think that quality instruction in more a result of the student's drive, both to learn more, and request instructors who know their a** from a prop. If you don't think your instructor is a good instructor, its on you to request better. The student in the other thread who didn't know a wing spar didn't know that because he was lazy and never bothered to learn, the blame shouldn't fall only on the shoulders of those who endeavoured to teach him how to fly. There are too many good webboards, good aviation books and good magazines out there about flying to blame only his CFI. You learn what you want to, and flying, like most disciplines gives you back what you put in.