There are people who rather instruct than fly for some airline… I personally think instruction is far more interesting and flying an Airbus from A to B doesn’t remotely catch my interest. A dedicated instructor is so much more valuable to a student than someone who just sits there and waits for the next airline gig… So the notion of instruction as somthing to “park” unemployed airline pilots is dead wrong in my view.
Ok, I am answering as a personal point of view about getting a FI is a good investment or not for someone who has a goal of getting a job in the airline.
IMHO, as an investment in the short term is very bad. You pay 10k for forcing yourself to do something is not your vocation (teaching) and the return is very bad initially (being restricted and as an unexperienced FI is hard to get a job) with a low salary.
If you are in the early 20´s and your goal is to get your nose in RYR or Easy or Norwegian, with those 10k you can do a full motion JOC MCC with their SOP and get closer to their profile.
Unfortunately, is not the ideal world but the sad reality.
If you are in the mid 20´s and you like teaching and passing your knowledge and you want to instruct before jumping to the big one, is a wonderfull thing to do, and a good investment if you plan to do so for ideally 2 years or more as you can get nice returns afterward from it.
I hope I am not creating a confusion about the FI job which is great thing to do (I am saying as an investment for a short term return is bad).
Thank you very much for all your replies.
I was lucky to do my flight training ab initio at an airline run flight school and I’ve been “flying the line” for a good 10 years now. I know both perspectives. From the young student pilot starting out who is looking up at every ATP and now the other way as well… stepping out of a widebody after 15 (or more) hours and just wishing to fly something that has very limited range ;) and remains within one timezone. I do not enjoy the airline gig anymore and am looking to keep flying by instructing. Over the years I have (as much as my off days made possible) kept interest in GA and especially instructing, for instance collecting teaching materials from my own first flight hour on up until today. In my airline years I have learned that there are two kinds of instructors: 1) Those that tell you something because it’s good for them 2) Those that tell you something because it’s good for you. I plan on being the second type.
I agree that it makes sense to do the FI rating at the school where one plans to work. It makes even more sense if you can negotiate some kind of deal and maybe offset some costs. I am already in talks with local outfits.
On the other hand I want to get this project started quickly, and I know from my layovers in the US that flying there is a tad, lets say, easier than over here.
In the end it is quite a significant sum and I want maximum return. If I can combine a few weeks “flying vacation” in the US with getting the FI rating, why not? Or is this totally unrealistic? I have flown a lot around my home airport. I think a change of scenery is experience I could benefit from.
I also plan on converting my EASA ATP to a standalone FAA ATP CTP course – something I could do simultaneously during the FI course.
Airgus wrote:
If your goal is to go for Airline or Corporate, you will be wasting your money, the FI rating is slightly cheaper than a Citation TR or a B737-A320 TR and as hour building it wont be good.
RobertL18C wrote:
For Part 121 where you need an ATPL, the main route is still being an FI followed by Part 135 when you have sufficient hours.
what_next wrote:
They rather take a 21 year old rookie with 200 hours total time than a 25 year old with 1000 hours instructing. Adding an FI rating to beef up your CV can actually have the opposite effect right now.
Concerning 200 hour wonders: Labour nowadays is just another resource. If you can source it cheaply that is what you do. The “better” airlines’ pilots protect against that by enforcing sustainable longterm employment (and even they are under a lot of pressure) whereas the cheapo airs of this world “mop the floor with their pilots” and then throw them away. Sad. Experience is nothing that turns up in accounting excel spreadsheets.
what_next wrote:
Going to the States will save some pennies initially, bit the extra cost and paperwork and lost lifetime (we don’t get an infinite supply of that!) is not worth it.
I found this list:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/download/ato/List-of-ATO-certificates.pdf
Anybody have information or local contacts?
Cobalt wrote:
Two thoughts on doing the instructor course “elsewhere”.A lot about the instructor course is doing / developing the briefings, and the “patter”. I am bilingual, but I would not be able to instruct in German, my native language, since I learned to instruct in English;
Also, starting to teach at the school where you learned is a tried-and-tested route to then actually getting a job; even if not the schools, more likely than not, will call up each other and ask “hey, how is this Snoopy chap”, which can help.
Of course if there is an instructor shortage at schools in your area, and/or you do the training elsewhere with their support when they don’t have an FIC instructor, the above does not apply.
Thanks, good points raised.
There is not a shortage of instructors but there is indeed a shortage of instructors that have commercial experience and time to instruct.
mh wrote:
So the notion of instruction as somthing to “park” unemployed airline pilots is dead wrong in my view.
To sum it up:
Either I will do the FI at a local outfit or I will invest some more research into doing it in the USA and combining it with getting an FAA ATP.
Thanks again to all for chiming in!
Snoopy
Snoopy wrote:
Could you elaborate about the negative aspects of training at an EASA approved ATO in the US?
Those of course have no negative aspects. If you can find one in convenient distance to your layover stays (and at competitive prices), why not. The only thing to keep in mind is that in difficult times in terms of employment (and those are far from over yet here in Europe!) flying schools tend to offer lots of FI courses themselves to keep their own instructors and aircraft busy. Usually the FI course includes a deal that the new instructor can teach his 100 hours under supervision (of FI applicant or assistant hours or whatever they call them now) at the same school. This of course takes students away from the regular instructors and is not really what a flying school needs… Therefore I guess that it can be quite difficult to find a flying school around here who will let you do those 100 hours if you did not do your FI training with them. (At “my” school that would be impossible!)
Snoopy wrote:
…how is Vater and Unser, still there? Your post motivates me and I agree I think instructing can be a very worthwhile aspect of aviation.
Vater and Unser are firmly cemented into our ILS approaches 
(For the non German speakers: “Vater Unser” is the beginning of what the English speaking call the “Lord’s prayer” – so someone in DFS or ICAO or whoever invents those waypoint names must have been deeply religiuos…). And thanks for appreciating my post. You will love instructing, I guarantee!
Thanks.
“Usually the FI course includes a deal that the new instructor can teach his 100 hours under supervision (of FI applicant or assistant hours or whatever they call them now) …. same school”.
Thanks, good point!
In the UK you also need 25 supervised student solo sign offs to be de-restricted, these tend to be harder to collect unless working at a busy school.
RobertL18C wrote:
In the UK you also need 25 supervised…
Is that still so since EASA rules were implemented? I have been a flying instructor since 1992 or 1993 and I doubt that I have those 25 student solo signoffs. I quickly moved to CPL, IR and ME instruction where there is no solo flying any more.
what_next wrote:
Is that still so since EASA rules were implemented?
Very much so. FCL910 (c):
I have been a flying instructor since 1992 or 1993 and I doubt that I have those 25 student solo signoffs.
FCL.910 asks for solo flights though and not 25 first solos.
The 25 solo signoffs are not too hard if you instruct a few PPLs end-to-end, rather than just fly “trial lessons”.
A single student flies between 10 and 15 solo flights, depending on how things are done at your school (solo circuit consolidation, solo cross-country with no landing, at least one solo land-away, and the final triangle). As long as each leg counts as a “flight” (but not each circuit) having taught two students end-to-end gets the restriction removed.
