Sorry for being a bit off-topic again, but
and I always suffered from the ego of young or part time instructors.
And those that get CFI or CFII get the false impression they are actual teachers – in reality they are just pilots trying to accrue hours.
this is exactly what the article is aiming at. I, and quite a few of my friends, are part time instructors in several aero clubs and constantly accused of:
As a “young” (34), part time, aero club instructor, I am constantly on the defense. Even in this forum. Many people seem to think they know ‘em all and don’t acnowledge, that there are different types of people in different types of aviation. Yes, Ihave had my share of contacts with bad instructors, but many instructors Ihave met were very capable, knowledgeable and nice men and women and they actually do enjoy instructing and working with people who discover their love for aviation. Yes, there is much to learn and almost all instructors I know do learn and extend their horizon on a constant basis.
The FI will set you back several thousand Euros and in a club you will spend a lot of time instructing before even hitting something like a “break even”. Many of my colleagues have become instructors because they like to pass on what they learn and teach the love of aviation they share. Many have learned a lot becoming instructors and still learn with every new student. New questions asked, new thinks whitnessed, new experiences to be passed on.
Only, an instructor can do just so much to keep the fire burning – so to speak. I agree with Peter in the notion that a working mentor system would help people to get along after initial flight training.
mh,
I would think in Europe this is less of an issue than in the US, where people become FI’s with really VERY few experience. In Europe, I have not very much come across such problems from young and hourbuilder instructors, basically because that doesn’t work very well here. Therefore most freelance instructors are actually pilots who fly something bigger in their day job or at least have quite a bit more experience.
Personally I find such “hour builder” instructors like the new ATPL rules in the USA have now produced not very good. If you want to be a good instructor, in any field, you need to love the field you instruct and you need to be settled and secure in it. I would not think that is true for people who go FI almost immediately after the PPL and without having some proper field experience first.
The fact that many clubs DO openly discourage airplane ownership and at the same time charge prohibitive taxes for longer trips with standing times in between is a problem indeed, but not one which FI’s have a lot of influence over. Of course the fact that most schools at the same time are rental agencies too helps in that. Add to that that many clubs who do these kind of things also own the airfield they are based on and very effectively hinder competition and you got what most people complain about.
I have long mused over creating a plane rental with economically interesting planes but no direct link to any school. If one did that with attractive conditions, I am quite sure it might even make money. But other than that, most people simply won’t go for longer trips of a week or two if they have to pay double the flying hours they actually use.
As for living in the past, that very rarely happens to young folks, but it does happen with the “good ole boys” who have been teaching as a self-satisfying project rather than what you rightly say is the right motivation: passing on knowledge and introducing younsters to aviation.
I would think in Europe this is less of an issue than in the US, where people become FI’s with really VERY few experience. In Europe, I have not very much come across such problems from young and hourbuilder instructors, basically because that doesn’t work very well here. Therefore most freelance instructors are actually pilots who fly something bigger in their day job or at least have quite a bit more experience.
This is different here in the UK, where most PPL instructors are hour builders. My first ever instructor had 150hrs TT when I flew with him.
I also wouldn’t say they live in the past, but one is stuck with the syllabus.
Wow. At the time I did my hour building all on my own, you needed a LOT more than that. The figure of 500 hours is in my head still, not sure though, but certainly no less than 200.
You are stuck with the syllabus because of financial considerations. If just working through the syllabus means costs beyond many normal earners capabilities you can’t really go and further. Therefore the question is, does the syllabus need updating?
Quite a few clubs even do offer navigation flights abroad as events, something which I think is good practice and they are also quite popular.
I guess he was just a PPL (min 45hrs) plus a CPL (min ??hrs) plus an FI (min ??hrs). I recall a CPL being doable back then (year 2000) on 150hrs TT so maybe just possible. Anyway, he told me “150hrs”. He was a very good instructor but for some reason I never flew with him again.
I think that if any instructor feels they are getting a bad deal here on EuroGA, they should post their point of view and explain it in detail. It is really good to hear the other person’s POV. Same with ATC; they sometimes say they get criticism, but GA pilots rarely get to hear the other side of the story.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The figure of 500 hours is in my head still, not sure though, but certainly no less than 200.
Under EASA an FI (A) needs at least 200 total and 150 PIC (CPL (A) needs 200 total and 100 PIC, IIRC). Those “150hrs” he told Peter about might have been PIC hours.
PS: There should be (A) behind that FI (different FIs have different requirements), it’s a known bug (I reported it in the past and David acknowledged it).
[ one can avoid that bug by using spaces – Peter ]
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I have not very much come across such problems from young and hourbuilder instructors
I have been very impressed by the quality of the young hour-building instructors I have come across here in France, straight out from ENAC.
Peter wrote:
Regarding the question on which pilots are asking for more regulation, you don’t meet them much face to face – except at things like CAA and ATC presentations which tend to self-select the “more regulation” types
But are they active GA pilots? Professional airline pilots live in a different world. Their job is to get people safely from A to B, that’s it. Very few private pilots see it as their mission to get safely from A to B, because if it was, they would purchase an airline tickets or go by train. I believe more and more that for GA to survive, there has to be differentiated much more clearly than today between commercial and non-commercial operations.
LeSving wrote:
I believe more and more that for GA to survive, there has to be differentiated much more clearly than today between commercial and non-commercial operations.
I think in the US private aviation benefits tremendously from FAA overseeing both and promoting the economic codependence of the two. The FAA as a single entity defends all its turf and in doing so protects the interests of GA, in particular the substantial funding for US GA infrastructure. If you don’t want money or infrastructure, only to slip under the legislative radar and avoid poor regulators, differentiation as a non-commercial activity is fine 
Commerical operations & licensing versus non-commercial aside, does the concept of ‘professional pilot’ exist in any country in terms of pilot licensing?
If GA in the US were blooming with activity like nothing before, I would agree, but that is not what seems to be the case today. What we do see is the strictly non-commercial operations blooming, like experimental homebuilds and microlight.
