Flight instructor Class 4 pay. Salary? Hourly? or Both?

[5x5]

You are stuck in a mindset where only a "pilot" (by your definition of a pilot) can teach people to fly. That's wrong.

I never made any definition of "pilot" and you absolutely do need to be a pilot to teach people to fly.

That's nonsense. And a bit condescending I might add. I know lots of people who have made a career of being a flight instructor, albeit at the subsidized colleges. But it goes to show, $80k+pension does a lot to help with retention.

Not sure what kind of flying you've done but new pilots severely underestimate the BS involved in airline flying. In May, I'll be going back to my job as a captain on a jet. Since Covid I've been instructing. Yes the pay is not as good but it's been way more fun- especially the float instruction.

I anticipate my BS pail filling up real soon. When I pull the pin I'll get some aerobatic or float plane and do specialized training until I die.

Can you define "lots of people" in a hard number - 5, 10, 20, ? - and over what time span. Besides, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison due to the subsidization aspect that you mentioned.

And perhaps what's condescending is comparing post-retirement, part-time advanced training (aerobatics and floats) which you can quit at any time after you've made the big money as captain in a jet to basic PPL, CPL and MIFR on a full-time basis that you have to perform to make your way through life.

[photofly]

You are stuck in a mindset where only a "pilot" (by your definition of a pilot) can teach people to fly. That's wrong.

I never made any definition of "pilot" and you absolutely do need to be a pilot to teach people to fly.

Here's what you said:

There are very few pilots I've ever met that want a career of flying, (actually monitoring someone else flying), light singles in the same 25 mile radius over and over again. Or monitoring other pilots flying the same 1 or 2 routes and approaches in clear weather "IFR" flights.

That you haven't met many pilots who want to do those things is perhaps more of a comment on where and how you meet pilots, but there are a lot of people who are able to fly airplanes who would love to do those things. I don't care what you call them.

[digits_]

Of course it exists. A dollar an hour more isn't going to prevent someone from leaving, but paying 100k a year instead of 30k most definitely would. And you might attract pilots leaving from other jobs.

Tripling your biggest expense without altering income or the potential for income isn't going to fly in any business, let alone flight training. And you might keep someone around a while longer, but they would still leave. There are very few pilots I've ever met that want a career of flying, (actually monitoring someone else flying), light singles in the same 25 mile radius over and over again. Or monitoring other pilots flying the same 1 or 2 routes and approaches in clear weather "IFR" flights. Also, doing it so you "might" attract other pilots is an extremely high risk and not one any prudent owner would take. And the reality is that a lot of experience in some other type of aviation doesn't automatically make someone a good instructor.

Imagine a world where airline captains make 40k/year and flight instructors would make 150k+ after 5 years of seniority.

How many airline captains do you think would want to switch to instructing?

Create a profitable position with a nice schedule for instructors, and it has the potential to become the most coveted job. But not in it's current shape or form. The heli world, while different, does seem to be able to charge significantly more for instructors.

[rookiepilot]

Create a profitable position with a nice schedule for instructors, and it has the potential to become the most coveted job.

Are you volunteering, with your $$$?

[Squaretail]

There are very few pilots I've ever met that want a career of flying, (actually monitoring someone else flying), light singles in the same 25 mile radius over and over again. Or monitoring other pilots flying the same 1 or 2 routes and approaches in clear weather "IFR" flights.

That you haven't met many pilots who want to do those things is perhaps more of a comment on where and how you meet pilots, but there are a lot of people who are able to fly airplanes who would love to do those things.

Its also a lack of understanding about what is bad about being a flight instructor. News flash to 5x5, lots of pilot work is doing a lot of the same things over and over. I mean my boss talks a big game about how our company has a global reach, but I spend probably 90% of my time flying into a place that name starts with "Fort" and the other place's name ends in "Lake".

The worst part of being a flight instructor has nothing to do with the flying. Sure it can suck when your students are all at the same phase and you do circuits for an entire week. But the job of flight instructor isn't just flying, but you're generally the booking agent, dispatcher, customer service rep, help desk guy/gal, and add to that any other tasks you might have like ground school teacher, airplane fueler, airplane groomer and janitor. Now the school can give those jobs away to other people so you can strictly "flight instruct" but that's going to mean less money for you.

Create a profitable position with a nice schedule for instructors,

Good luck with that. While it can be profitable, the schedule is like a lot of flying jobs, which is to say terrible. Someone needs to do night ratings - and you'll get asked to do those in the summer. If you run a flight school that doesn't fly weekends and stat holidays, you're losing out on a good chunk of your potential revenue. Its a job where you have to make hay when the sun shines.

Now given the above, its hard to find people who will want to do that for any length of time. Line instructing is a job for the young. Anyone who says they enjoy instructing hasn't cranked out PPLs repeatedly for years. They're either new to it, have gotten out before burning out on it, or are of the level where they can dictate their terms to avoid lots of the worst parts. The latter of course aren't numerous enough to meet the demands of the flight training industry. The current model depends on fresh recruits to throw into the grinder.

[photofly]

The worst part of being a flight instructor has nothing to do with the flying. Sure it can suck when your students are all at the same phase and you do circuits for an entire week.

You're still stuck in the mentality that primary flight instruction is for pilots. This is not surprising, given that you are a pilot, and this is a forum for pilots. Do you think grade 1 teachers think it "sucks" that they have to teach the three times table to their whole class at once because the whole class is at the same phase?

Flight instruction isn't about flying. It's about teaching. It's a job for teachers who can fly. Not for pilots.

[flyingcanuck]

The worst part of being a flight instructor has nothing to do with the flying. Sure it can suck when your students are all at the same phase and you do circuits for an entire week.

You're still stuck in the mentality that primary flight instruction is for pilots. This is not surprising, given that you are a pilot, and this is a forum for pilots. Do you think grade 1 teachers think it "sucks" that they have to teach the three times table to their whole class at once because the whole class is at the same phase?

Flight instruction isn't about flying. It's about teaching. It's a job for teachers who can fly. Not for pilots.

well said

[Squaretail]

You're still stuck in the mentality that primary flight instruction is for pilots. This is not surprising, given that you are a pilot, and this is a forum for pilots. Do you think grade 1 teachers think it "sucks" that they have to teach the three times table to their whole class at once because the whole class is at the same phase?

Your comparison isn't accurate though. Teachers by and large don't do the same things repetitively. For example, while the teacher may be working on the times three table and probably reviewing it in successive classes, At most they may have to go through that lesson with 4 sets of kids a day if a teacher taught a specific subject, but tomorrow's lessons are going to be different. An appeal to instruction is seeing progress in students, but as an instructor, you may see no progress - you might not see your students for a length of time - the more accurate equivalent would be if school teachers had to repeat the same classes, with different students every time on a more frequent basis. In some ways line instructing is more akin to assembly line work. If we are going to keep up with the comparison between teachers and instructors though, there are some critical differences. How would most grade school teachers feel if at the end of each class they then had to sell the kids on returning for the next class? How would many feel if three quarters of each class of kids randomly quit?

The point being that the profession of "teacher" isn't the same as "instructor". They are of course very similar and there's a lot of overlap.

Flight instruction isn't about flying. It's about teaching. It's a job for teachers who can fly. Not for pilots.

Well I can agree on that, the main problem being that the venn diagram for those two pools of talent is small. I would argue its for both. I mean you don't have to be a novelist to be an English teacher, but it makes a difference if you are also knowledgeable in and have a love of the subject matter. I mean we've all probably remember a day when the Gym teacher subbed in. I don't recall it being terribly productive.

[photofly]

You're still stuck in the mentality that primary flight instruction is for pilots. This is not surprising, given that you are a pilot, and this is a forum for pilots. Do you think grade 1 teachers think it "sucks" that they have to teach the three times table to their whole class at once because the whole class is at the same phase?

Your comparison isn't accurate though. Teachers by and large don't do the same things repetitively. For example, while the teacher may be working on the times three table and probably reviewing it in successive classes, At most they may have to go through that lesson with 4 sets of kids a day if a teacher taught a specific subject, but tomorrow's lessons are going to be different. An appeal to instruction is seeing progress in students, but as an instructor, you may see no progress - you might not see your students for a length of time - the more accurate equivalent would be if school teachers had to repeat the same classes, with different students every time on a more frequent basis. In some ways line instructing is more akin to assembly line work. If we are going to keep up with the comparison between teachers and instructors though, there are some critical differences. How would most grade school teachers feel if at the end of each class they then had to sell the kids on returning for the next class? How would many feel if three quarters of each class of kids randomly quit?

You raise a lot of valid downsides, but like some of those in your previous post, those are to do with individual environments. There's no law of flight instruction that requires you to need to "sell" the next lesson. There's no law of flight instruction that says any students have to quit, randomly or otherwise. Your teaching environment meant you had to spend time doing customer service, pumping fuel, and answering the phone. If your teaching environment means you don't get to see students progress - that's 100% your FTU's fault. It's not inevitable in the endeavour of teaching people to fly. It sounds like you taught in a shitty environment. I'm sorry about that - but don't generalize from it. Treat it instead as impetus to change your environment to get rid of the things you don't like.

Flight instruction isn't about flying. It's about teaching. It's a job for teachers who can fly. Not for pilots.

Well I can agree on that, the main problem being that the venn diagram for those two pools of talent is small. I would argue its for both. I mean you don't have to be a novelist to be an English teacher, but it makes a difference if you are also knowledgeable in and have a love of the subject matter. I mean we've all probably remember a day when the Gym teacher subbed in. I don't recall it being terribly productive.

Let's share a little secret, shall we? Flying a 172 isn't difficult. When taught right people can do it tolerably well with 50 hours of training, and can charge the public for it at 200 hours. The pool of talent of people who could fly a 172, if they wanted to, is nearly unlimited. It's a lot easier than driving, and waaaay easier than riding a motorcycle well. That's why teaching it is like grade 1, rather than college level English Lit. Everyone knows - or could know - the subject matter for teaching basic flying.

Some people would find it difficult to review the three times table for the seventh time in a week. No criticism is due to them - but they shouldn't teach grade 1. Some people would find it challenging to fly the circuit for the seventh time in a week, and I respect that, but they shouldn't be teaching ab-initio flying. In both cases it's an indication you're in it for the subject matter, not the teaching, and therefore in the wrong job.


Here's something Richard Feynman said about teaching. I submit it applies to flying circuits in a 172, just as much as it does to teaching elementary quantum theory:

If you're teaching a class, you can think about the elementary things that you know very well. These things are kind of fun and delightful. It doesn't do any harm to think them over again. Is there a better way to present them? The elementary things are easy to think about; if you can't think of a new thought, no harm done; what you thought about it before is good enough for the class. If you do think of something new, you're rather pleased that you have a new way of looking at it.

The questions of the students are often the source of new research. They often ask profound questions that I've thought about at times and then given up on, so to speak, for a while. It wouldn't do me any harm to think about them again and see if I can go any further now. The students may not be able to see the thing I want to answer, or the subtleties I want to think about, but they remind me of a problem by asking questions in the neighborhood of that problem. It's not so easy to remind yourself of these things.

[Col. Panic]

Richard Feynman is my hero!

QED

[Bede]

Can you define "lots of people" in a hard number - 5, 10, 20, ? - and over what time span.

All the college instructors that are 50 years old and have been instructing for 20 years.

Besides, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison due to the subsidization aspect that you mentioned.

No it's not. You said:

First of all, there's hardly an instructor in Canada who is going to stay instructing when a multi-engine opportunity comes available regardless what the school's paying.

The fact that the school is subsidized is relevant from a business perspective, but not relevant for determining instructor mobility as a function of wages.

Essentially you're saying that the wage supply curve for flight instructors is infinitely inelastic, that is, that the price of flight instructor wages has no bearing on the supply of instructors, which is simply wrong. It may not be linear, but it certainly is positive.

And perhaps what's condescending is comparing post-retirement, part-time advanced training (aerobatics and floats) which you can quit at any time after you've made the big money as captain in a jet to basic PPL, CPL and MIFR on a full-time basis that you have to perform to make your way through life.

I don't think you understand what condescending means.

You're proving my point. Yes the reason I can do it is because I've made my money. If I made enough money instructing I may that instead of living out of a suitcase.

[Bede]

Some people would find it difficult to review the three times table for the seventh time in a week. No criticism is due to them - but they shouldn't teach grade 1.

Glad we agree on something.

As part of a 2019 plan to improve Ontario students’ dismal scores on standardized math tests, the provincial government instituted a mandatory math proficiency test for new teaching graduates. The test didn’t require teachers to be serious mathematicians, but they did need to get 70 per cent on the test, which measured math knowledge and teaching strategies and covered Grade 3 to Grade 9 math.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/randal ... competence

[Squaretail]

You raise a lot of valid downsides, but like some of those in your previous post, those are to do with individual environments.

You're right they do, I have just found them common enough at schools that one could consider it endemic to the flight training world. You're right, you don't have to "sell" that may be more common to smaller schools. I would say that a lot of flight instruction has to do with customer service - you're telling me you managed to get away with being a flight instructor and never fielding questions from students? I mean after all, how many grade one teachers are going to get asked by their charges when they are going to become a "real" teacher? You may or may not get to see progress from your students - depends on the size of your school. I've run into instructors who - in assembly line fashion only did a handful of lessons with students. Indeed there is no law about students quitting, some contracts are going to force them through, or wash them out depending. But students run out of money, have life changes, lose interest, whatever.

I mean consider that there are no freelance grade school teachers. Flight instruction encompasses a larger variety of circumstances, from one instructor one plane (or a customer's plane) to schools with veritable air wings worth of aircraft and dozens of instructors. The job may have any or all of the negative features - a list which isn't exhaustive I might add. It may have none - though I have yet to speak with an instructor who has come from this mythical place.

Let's share a little secret, shall we? Flying a 172 isn't difficult. When taught right people can do it tolerably well with 50 hours of training, and can charge the public for it at 200 hours. The pool of talent of people who could fly a 172, if they wanted to, is nearly unlimited. It's a lot easier than driving, and waaaay easier than riding a motorcycle well. That's why teaching it is like grade 1, rather than college level English Lit. Everyone knows - or could know - the subject matter for teaching basic flying.

You and I can agree that it takes no special talent to fly a 172, but that said, I have run into enough that have no business doing it 200 hours or 2000 hours. Just like there's a lot of people who while they know the subject matter, shouldn't be teaching grade one. No matter how much they love teaching.

Some people would find it difficult to review the three times table for the seventh time in a week. No criticism is due to them - but they shouldn't teach grade 1. Some people would find it challenging to fly the circuit for the seventh time in a week, and I respect that, but they shouldn't be teaching ab-initio flying. In both cases it's an indication you're in it for the subject matter, not the teaching, and therefore in the wrong job.

Maybe? I still don't think teachers may be subject to the level of repetition instructors might be. But that said, I think its the pool of people who love teaching to the degree you specify who are the rare bird in the equation. The pool of people who have the reasonable level of skill (as low a bar as that may be) of airplane flying also isn't as large as you think. The resulting venn diagram overlap area is smaller than the pool of instructors the flight training world requires.

[photofly]

I mean after all, how many grade one teachers are going to get asked by their charges when they are going to become a "real" teacher?

That's hilarious.

The only reason a grade one student is going to ask a their teacher when they're going to be a "real" mathematician is if that teacher pretends to be one. Unless that teacher is misrepresenting themself, it's perfectly clear that they're a teacher, and not any kind of mathematician at all.

Clearly the student can see what the instructor can't, that being a flight instructor in a C172 isn't being a real pilot. If that instructor wants their students to stop asking that, the instructor should stop pretending that they are being a pilot: they should take off the gold bars, real or imaginary, ditch the airline uniform, stop asking the student to call them captain. Instead, they should grow some self respect and recognize the job they're actually doing - teaching.

[rookiepilot]

I mean after all, how many grade one teachers are going to get asked by their charges when they are going to become a "real" teacher?

That's hilarious. Even the students can see what the instructor can't, that being a flight instructor in a C172 isn't being a real pilot. If that instructor wants their students to stop asking, the instructor should stop pretending that they are being a pilot: they should take off the gold bars, real or imaginary, ditch the airline uniform, stop asking the student to call them captain. Instead, they should grow some self respect and recognize the job they're actually doing - teaching.

What then does the instructor then wear to the fast food court in the mall?

Doesn’t every ambitious instructor have a closet full of uniforms with gold bars on them?

[airway]

Let's share a little secret, shall we? Flying a 172 isn't difficult. When taught right people can do it tolerably well with 50 hours of training, and can charge the public for it at 200 hours. The pool of talent of people who could fly a 172, if they wanted to, is nearly unlimited. It's a lot easier than driving, and waaaay easier than riding a motorcycle well. That's why teaching it is like grade 1, rather than college level English Lit. Everyone knows - or could know - the subject matter for teaching basic flying.

I have years of flight instructing experience. Comparing that to teaching my kids how to drive, learning how to fly a 172 is about twice as hard as learning how to drive.

It doesn't take 50 hours of training to teach somebody how to drive or ride a motorcycle.

[scdriver]

I mean after all, how many grade one teachers are going to get asked by their charges when they are going to become a "real" teacher?

That's hilarious.

The only reason a grade one student is going to ask a their teacher when they're going to be a "real" mathematician is if that teacher pretends to be one. Unless that teacher is misrepresenting themself, it's perfectly clear that they're a teacher, and not any kind of mathematician at all.

Clearly the student can see what the instructor can't, that being a flight instructor in a C172 isn't being a real pilot. If that instructor wants their students to stop asking that, the instructor should stop pretending that they are being a pilot: they should take off the gold bars, real or imaginary, ditch the airline uniform, stop asking the student to call them captain. Instead, they should grow some self respect and recognize the job they're actually doing - teaching.

I really really hope you’re joking, and there are no flight schools where students have to call their epaulette wearing instructor captain. If such a place exists those instructors deserve everything coming to them from the avcanada instructor bashers…

[Squaretail]

That's hilarious.

Maybe the first few times.

Clearly the student can see what the instructor can't, that being a flight instructor in a C172 isn't being a real pilot. If that instructor wants their students to stop asking that, the instructor should stop pretending that they are being a pilot: they should take off the gold bars, real or imaginary, ditch the airline uniform, stop asking the student to call them captain. Instead, they should grow some self respect and recognize the job they're actually doing - teaching.

Or it could be that unlike the blank slates that grade one teachers get, an instructor gets students who have preconceived notions about how flight training is to be conducted, and what the objectives of the training are. Its common I have found that students view instructing as a hobby pilots do rather than a job. You do it for fun. It beats doing real work right? Right. Maybe that wouldn't have happened if I had a pilot costume all those years. I don't discount the cosplay aspect that appeals to some students in training. After all, its not real training unless you're doing it airline style. Don't discount the market there is for that. Right? I mean we've all seen the student who's first move is to buy a big watch and some aviator sunglasses. And we've seen the instructors who encourage them to do so.

That does turn it around and make it more similar to teachers. If you think they're doing it because they love doing it you can pay them less right? Lots of the general public don't put a lot of value to what the "teacher" provides, and that carries over to how they receive instruction. I always got a kick out of how when I taught ground school people stuck to their old habits, like they were still in high school. You people are paying to be here, right?

Now I will say though that things are changing and have changed since I was a full time instructor. The supply of instructors for people who want to fly recreational has decreased so the market value of my time has increased a lot - in the odd occasion when I agree to do freelance work. That's due to lots of schools no longer taking students outside of their contracts or at the least placing those students in a distant second priority. Maybe things are different there.

I really really hope you’re joking, and there are no flight schools where students have to call their epaulette wearing instructor captain. If such a place exists those instructors deserve everything coming to them from the avcanada instructor bashers…

They do exist.

[photofly]

If a student doesn’t pay attention to the teacher, or think it’s done for “fun”, the teacher isn’t charging enough. If you want students who listen, double your rates.

[PhilT]

I own Adventure Aviation in Grande Prairie. We pay a base salary of $1,000/mos plus $27 per billable hour (flight and PGI) for class 4 and $29/hr for class 3. Most of our instructors bill out 600-800 hrs in an average month. More when its busy.

I think the hourly wage has very little to do with employee retention, but more to do with employee attraction. From what I have found, we are slightly above average wage but we also charge slightly more than some schools. We also provide onsite houseing for students for no charge if they fly 40 hrs per month so that is an extra cost to us as well.

We also have a charter company (which we just got operational) which may have more of an impact on retaining quality instructors than paying them more. They can get experience in a Navajo or C90 which sets them up even better when they want to move on and advance their career.