Lets have a think tank on improving flight instruction.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Cat, why don't you just register your 150 in the USA and offer training under part 61. You can do all the training and provide a US Private. A simple written test and your students can have a Canadian Private.

Why should a law abiding Canadian citizen be forced to work under a foreign government license?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As for finding/generating them, most folks that could teach
(presumably those with CPLs/ATPLs and years of service in the industry)
aren't willing to invest 8,000$+ for the rating and/or have to jump through TC's hoops
in order to receive a minimalist pay.

This situation exists because the people in TCCA who are responsible for flight training are idiots.

[Lurch]

This thread went on a tangent for a bit on how to improve the CPL and I just want to ask a question

How can TC/DFTEs preform a CPL flight test in 3 hours 1 hour on the ground 2 in the air?

Why don't we/TC change the CPL exam requirements?

Bare with me for a second

What is the CPL flight test? A PPL with a couple different maneuvers and you write one 100 question exam

How does this prove to TC that you are prepared for the "real" world of flying

Why don't we make the CPL harder

Make the exam more like the JAAs 6 ground exams, advanced met, flight planning, aircraft systems, air law, Weight and balance, General
when I wrote the ATPLs I was quite surprised how easy they are, the questions asked on the SAMRA and SARON are basic questions and are more the types of things a CPL should know

The flight test should be more of a real world experience not a bomb around the practice area and show me you can stall and airplane. the test should take an entire day and include an in-depth ground session, charts, planning, W&B, Performance 2-3 hours. Then off for a practical flight test including some of the situations a CPL pilot gets into daily, short grass strips with obstacle, gravel strips, off fields landings, etc.

The CPL should also require different requirements. You shouldn't be able to teach a CPL student unless you have a Class2. The license requirements should have more areas of experience, remote flying, northern trips, actual IMC, most CPLs only go 300nm max from base and have no experience flying outside of their own "sand box". Make tail dragger time mandatory, I know I learned four times more flying tail draggers then I did flying tri-cycle.

Now your asking how does this help?

Well the instructors would also have some "Real World" experience to pass on. How many instructors teaching IFR have any IMC time or grass strip time. Higher quality training to start transfers into when they become instructors themselves and have some experience to actually pass on to their students.

This wouldn't directly increase instructor pay but would limit the number of schools that are able to offer CPL training would be cut down, in turn the need for higher time instructors would increase and the desire for schools to hold on to these instructors would mean an increase of pay for the higher time instructors.

Unfortunately this would require TC to make changes to the system

Lurch

edited to appease meatservo

[Bede]

My dad did his commercial in Australia about 40 years ago. I looked at his old books-it's about the same as a Canadian ATPL.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The CPL should also require differant requirments. You shouldn't be able to teach a CPL student unless you have a Class2.

Unfortunately having a Canadian Class2 does not mean much.

I had class 2's and 1's working for me who couldn't find their asses with a set of Moose Antlers and a flash light.

The whole system needs to be overhauled......but the dumbest of the crop are in TC so you are screwed.

[MichaelP]

Today I went over to do three circuits with my student in the Citabria at the other school; I was collared to sign another student out and did so...
The training system is in dire straights.

800 class 1 and 2's in Canada... It's probably a lot less taking into consideration the ones who fly commercial aircraft now and are no longer in the system.

Perhaps like Mexican builders and greenhouse workers, we can import some instructors from elsewhere.
TC will have to make it easier for experienced instructors from the rest of the World to come here.
Canadian schools will have to pay them a global standard salary as well.

I failed to get any Class 2s or 1's and so we'll go on a reduced working week for the time being.... Not good.

[Lurch]

The CPL should also require differant requirments. You shouldn't be able to teach a CPL student unless you have a Class2.

Unfortunately having a Canadian Class2 does not mean much.

I had class 2's and 1's working for me who couldn't find their asses with a set of Moose Antlers and a flash light.

The whole system needs to be overhauled......but the dumbest of the crop are in TC so you are screwed.

Cat you missed the point

By raising the CPL requirements you will have better instructors starting out. Then by limiting who can teach what you raise the need for instructors, with only 800 available to teach CPL/Instrument you will then in turn raise instructors pay because the schools will have to pay more to keep them.

Lurch

Also edited to appease Meatservo

[Cat Driver]

Lurch. I am in agreement with what you are saying, but the point I am trying to make is there can be no real change unless TC decides to come out of the seventh century mindset they have with regards to how the industry is run.

I have watched these idiots sitting in their taxpayer guaranteed retirement cubicles for over fifty years and the only change I have seen is the flight training industry standards have been progressively going down hill,

There was a time when I owned some OC's and believed I could make suggestions to TC's flight training managers in Ottawa but the only results I got was arrogance and rejection of every suggestion I made.

Believe me they do not care about anything except their own self interest, and they have zero incentive to make changes because they are unaccountable to anyone.

One of the best suggestions made in this thread was there should be some way for high time pilots from industry to be given the authority to teach without having to submit to a frontal lobotomy to memorize and regurtate all the crap their inspectors want to hear to get a Class 4 instructors rating.

I got my instructors rating in 1957 and the quality of instructors was better by far in those years.

Oh, I still teach flying and am basing my opinions on what I have observed over the decades.

[Meatservo]

I really, really agree with Lurch about upping the requirements for CPL. I think this would result in a better class of pilot all round, which would ultimately enhance everyone's bargaining position, like MichealP was saying. Why should it be easy to get a CPL. A shortage of pilots is not my problem. More people might actually be interested in becoming professional pilots if the whole thing was a bit more of an accomplishment. People seem to want everything to be easy. When . was a kid, every movie hero was a pilot. People looked up to pilots because they were an example of a strong, intelligent, competent member of society. There was still a little "hero" smell about them left over from the war. That's over now. How many people have asked me what, really, is the difference between what you do and what a truck driver does? People used to understand. Now they don't want to. And to add insult to injury, every change that gets made in the curriculum seems designed to make it less challenging, easier for people to master. Let's do away with spin training. Let's stop teaching how to find the sun's true bearing. Forget about tailwheels, basic airmanship, technical theory. You can see it all around you even outside aviation. Any kid from the fifties could build a steam engine from tin cans, or a crystal radio from a razorblade and a safety pin. What do ten-year-olds do now? I sound old even to myself. I'm only thirty-six. Some of my co-pilots don't even know who the Fonz is.

I forget what I was getting at. Oh, yeah. Improve the quality of a pilot's education. Make it something you can be proud of for the rest of your life. Put some actual effort and backbone into getting those fancy three stripes on your shoulder. The respect, and the pay, will probably go up from there.

I know Lurch agrees with me. If you can't master a tailwheel, you don't belong in the air in any capacity whatsoever. It's not a case of needing to know about tailwheels at your next job. It's about having a way to weed out the retards who can't figure it out before they get pilot's licences and make us all look bad.

By the way, Lurch, your spelling is terrible.

[trey kule]

It is always nice to place the responsibility for failure on others. TC is a bunch of idiots. Class fours, and some others dont know the proper use for moose antlers, even if they have a flashlight to help them. More experience is needed by CPL instructors. So what constructive can we learn from all this?

Well, here is my thoughts. First of all, if you have an instructor rating right now, you have a job. No screening on your suitability to teach...just walk in the door , my old salt , and ye shall start logging hours.

I, for one, do not think you need any changes in the present system, as it relates to PPL training. What we do need is CFIs who do their bloody job. Monitor the progress of students and instructors. Instructors, in my opinion, and particularily new ones, really dont know how to integrate the syllabus, thus you see them doing "an exercise" without including all the previous instruction. Flying to the training area and sightseeing on the way instead of holding a heading, making corrections, discussing emergency failures. Or marathon sessions of circuits, completely forgetting about the student's ability to actually be learning. The syllabus is not a series of independent "lessons", but a building block towards a license where each lesson should build on the previous one. I am going to say it again. It is up to management (CFI) to monitor this and bring the instructors up to speed, and keep them there.

Now, with regard to the CPL, I agree 100% that they should increase the requirements, particularily with regard to cross country time. I used to be shocked when I saw pilots with 240 hours TT and about 10 of it on cross countries. There is time in the 200 hr (is that still the number?) for the commercial to structure better training. The instrument portion used to be losey goosey, but then it could be taught by non-instrument rated instructors. How about this. Structure the 20 or 25 hours of instrument time from the PPL to the CPL and have it taught by instrument rated instructors. with a more stuctured plan. I have seen all sorts of wannabe airline pilot instructors taking pilots up with about 2 hours under the hood and doing holds, approaches etc. Students didnt have a blue's clue what was happening.

so, my thoughts, in conclusion are as follows.

1. Instructors teaching ANY instrument flying must be instrument rated.
2. The instrument portion of PPL and CPL should be structured on a more progressive level to proceed towards an IF rating
3. The requirements for a CPL should include more X-country time PIC, including specifications. ( I once met a pilot who had logged over 100 hours of PIC X country between Calgary international and Springbank!) ferrying planes for a flight school.
4. And lastly, and most importantly, there needs to be changes in mangement approval by TC through audits etc. It seems that as long as the paperwork is good, then TC is satisfied, and that simply is not an accurate way to determine the management ability of a company, or the supervisory ability of a CFI)

Anyway, its Sunday morning, and I am full of coffee, so I had better quit before I start ranting.

[Lurch]

I once met a pilot who had logged over 100 hours of PIC X country between Calgary international and Springbank!) ferrying planes for a flight school.

WTF You can't be serious? What the entire 0.5? That is a lot of ferrying flights

By the way, Lurch, your spelling is terrible.

Sorry I forgot the spell check police frequent this site.

Here is the "corrected" version just for meatservo

This thread went on a tangent for a bit on how to improve the CPL and I just want to ask a question

How can TC/DFTEs preform a CPL flight test in 3 hours 1 hour on the ground 2 in the air?

Why don't we/TC change the CPL exam requirements?

Bare with me for a second

What is the CPL flight test? A PPL with a couple different maneuvers and you write one 100 question exam

How does this prove to TC that you are prepared for the "real" world of flying

Why don't we make the CPL harder

Make the exam more like the JAAs 6 ground exams, advanced met, flight planning, aircraft systems, air law, Weight and balance, General
when I wrote the ATPLs I was quite surprised how easy they are, the questions asked on the SAMRA and SARON are basic questions and are more the types of things a CPL should know

The flight test should be more of a real world experience not a bomb around the practice area and show me you can stall and airplane. the test should take an entire day and include an in-depth ground session, charts, planning, W&B, Performance 2-3 hours. Then off for a practical flight test including some of the situations a CPL pilot gets into daily, short grass strips with obstacle, gravel strips, off fields landings, etc.

The CPL should also require different requirements. You shouldn't be able to teach a CPL student unless you have a Class2. The license requirements should have more areas of experience, remote flying, northern trips, actual IMC, most CPLs only go 300nm max from base and have no experience flying outside of their own "sand box". Make tail dragger time mandatory, I know I learned four times more flying tail draggers then I did flying tri-cycle.

Now your asking how does this help?

Well the instructors would also have some "Real World" experience to pass on. How many instructors teaching IFR have any IMC time or grass strip time. Higher quality training to start transfers into when they become instructors themselves and have some experience to actually pass on to their students.

This wouldn't directly increase instructor pay but would limit the number of schools that are able to offer CPL training would be cut down, in turn the need for higher time instructors would increase and the desire for schools to hold on to these instructors would mean an increase of pay for the higher time instructors.

Unfortunately this would require TC to make changes to the system

Lurch

[2R]

You asked for a think tank and got a septic tank

[BoostedNihilist]

I wasn't going to post because its not at all related, but the point was made in this thread twice and I have a feeling I might be missing something important

I had class 2's and 1's working for me who couldn't find their asses with a set of Moose Antlers and a flash light.

Class fours, and some others dont know the proper use for moose antlers,

Since the usage of moose antlers seems to be an important pilot technique, I was wondering if one of you guys could enlighten me as to the proper, TC approved usage of moose antlers to navigate ones way to ones rectum.

Also... can you tape the flashlight to the moose antlers as long as it is not a permanent modification?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am not surprised at the low level of flight instruction quality in Canada given the lack of reading and comprehension skills so evident in the pilot pool.

I clearly stated::::

I had class 2's and 1's working for me who couldn't find their asses with a set of Moose Antlers and a flash light.

But somehow this statement got turned into my saying class 4's.......

.....then again I will admit under the present requirements to progress from a class 4 to a class 1 the only way to determine the class held is to read their license.

Many here do not like my attitude and that is just fine because I truly don't care what you think.....so enjoy the industry as it spirals downhill.

[MichaelP]

What we do need is CFIs who do their bloody job.

Spoken like an Englishman...

I am trying to do my job... I just wish I had more people to do it with.
When I were a lad I learned to fly in the C150 RAF style, I had to know my checks before I could solo, they're easy TTMMCPPFFGGHH, and BUMMCPFFGGHH, not to forget FREDA and HASELL.
Later when I checked you out in a Condor, Jodel, Tiger, or Stampe.., if you didn't know your pretakeoff checks we'd taxy back!
The word was discipline.
Yes, today we use checklists and miss the occasional line... Checklists are good, but a checklist and a quick run through of the memory checks as a backup is better.

Discipline...
I'm bored, I've got two hours of solo circuits to fly... I'd been taught the departure and the rejoin, so I decide to take a leave of the circuit for a few minutes to do some turns.
I'm called back... I'm on the carpet in front of the boss, he has a stern expression on his face, I was in for an RAF style bollocking... If I do not do exactly what I am told to do I will not be welcome to do any more flying training at Exeter Flying Club!
From then on I did exactly what I was told.
Do I take such an attitude myself? Yes, I try to... Sometimes it's unpopular and the student will go elsewhere, so be it!
We have to have standards, but high standards might be unpopular.
High standards might ensure a safer operation in the future for whatever airline the student might fly for.

[trey kule]

WTF You can't be serious? What the entire 0.5? That is a lot of ferrying flights

Alas, Lurchrick, I am serious. guy worked for a flight school called Calgary Flight (if there is a company with the same name in Calgary now, it is a different company). School had about a dozen trainers and their AMO was in springbank.
Flew planes daily back and forth. As to the time. Maybe .5 to you or me or flying in a straight line, but I suspect he was logging about .8 each way flight time. I really dont know. Two trips a day. Only takes a few months. And I am not sure he was the only one logging these flights as x-country. I do remember that when he went for his commercial license he had only the required x-country distance flights. And he did that with another commercial student. One flew out and one back...to Tisdale Saskatchewan or someplace like that...about 301 nm from CYYC.

I think the average new commercial pilot does not realize when they send their resumes out that there are about a brazillian others doing the same things and companies pick up on little discrepencies like this, particularily if the pilot is a new commercial

Just as an aside. We had a resume not to long ago that went something like this in the cover letter. " I have extensive cross country, mountain, and tail wheel experience.....tt 245hrs. You would simply not believe some of the things pilots either actually believe, or think employers will believe. Anyway, I am off the topic.

As to the moose antler and flashlight question...Geez, what are they teaching you guys in flight school these days?
Back in my day we could find our rectum with a moose antler 3 out of 4 times WITHOUT using a flashlight....I am sure it was part of the flight test. Or maybe it was part of the northern line indoc. Or maybe it was at a party and just for fun.

[MichaelP]

They have moose antlers in Sweden as anyone who has seen the historic documentary: Monty Python and the Holy Grail will know well.
The real men of the Canadian north can guide a live Moose to stick it's antlers up their never regions... and then they sing their lumberjack songs and hang around in bars before flying the next morning!

What the above has to do with flight training anyone knows!

How about some sensible non critical positive ideas for solving Canada's terrible shortfall in aviation training?

[BoostedNihilist]

Edited due to poor taste

[trey kule]

You are quite right Michael P.We should be treating this as the serious subject it is, Despite your anti-moose, pro-CFI agenda, and your obvious lack of understanding of true Canadian aviation culture, I will try and address the issue much more diligently.

First of all, I sympathize with you. I read your posts regularly, and I get the sense that you are trying to do a first rate job. Your problems, from my perspective is trying to find qualified people. The industry problem, on the other hand is trying to find qualified CFI's.

The bottom line, is that student pilots are going to have to accept that licenses are going to cost more. And that would be a good starting point. Education as to the value of quality instruction. And then get FTU's to focus on giving quality instruction and not just fleecing students.

As to the requirements, I did post my thoughts on the subject. I would be more than willing to read your criticisms, thoughts, etc., on my posted thoughts. You may of course ignore the portions you feel unimportant. I was going to paste them, but I think you can scroll back if you are interested. I did not give my thoughts as to how it should be accomplished or that it should be considered to make the "training" portion a bigger part of the required 200 hours. (If that is still what it is). Unfortunately, I am not familiar any more with the personnel requirements and you and many others are in a better position to consider additional training as part of the CPL

[Chuck Ellsworth]

trey kule, I also have followed MichaelP's posts here on Avcanada.

I was curious enough to stop by his school in Boundry Bay and meet him.

What he is trying to do has sparked my interest and I hope he is successful in getting it working.

I also am able to relate to his background and culture for the simple fact that my aviation business has been located in England for the past ten or so years and I am familiar with how things are done in England.

Can he succeed in Canada????

Only time will tell.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

To fix the CPL two things have to happen

For the student: Completely revamp the CPL sylabus from the current model of essentially repeating PPL training, to a sylabus that provides training on the skills/knowledge specifically required to be a line pilot in a day VFR commercal operation anywhere/anytime in Canada.

For the instructor: For all training towards a CPL, require the instructor have at least a Class 3 instructor rating and 500 hrs PIC flying for a commercial operator (not a FTU)

[Hedley]

BPF writes of increasing the minimums for flight
instructor qualifications. Many times I have been
attacked here for suggesting this very same thing.

My idea was 1000TT (some experience) before
you started teaching at all. The newbie pilots are
dead set against this, because it makes it much
tougher for them to build time as flight instructors.

I keep forgetting that the primary point of flight
instruction is to build time for the instructors, so
that they can move on.

Anyways, back to the idea of increasing flight
instructor minimum qualifications. If we scoot
over to the "help wanted" forum, just today
I see three NEW postings from operators wanting
flight instructors. I am not making this up. Click
on:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... =7&t=41610
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... =7&t=41602
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... =7&t=41603

If anything, what is going to happen in the
future is that flight instructor minimums are
going to be LOWERED by Transport, to allow
operators to continue to offer flight training,
which is the economic reality. I am sure that
as we type, ATAC is frantically lobbying Transport
to reduce minimum instructor qualifications.

[BoostedNihilist]

man, I have WAY too much time on my hands...
Not like anyone takes what I have to say seriously due to my lack of experience, but I'll put this out there as an opinion with the disclaimer that I really don't know anything.

Hedley

My idea was 1000TT (some experience) before
you started teaching at all. The newbie pilots are
dead set against this, because it makes it much
tougher for them to build time as flight instructors.

It's a tough one eh. As a potential newbie pilot, I have to admit that this does scare me. What does this mean to the new pilot, what does this mean for the industry?

Well, for the new pilot it means that he no longer has a viable flying option, where he can build time at a rate better than 0.5. Also, it sorta railroads the newbie pilot into working the ramp and hopefully getting an entry level f/o position for that company after not flying for however long he/she/it has been working the ramp! Now, once in the right seat, you're building time at 0.5 per hour!!! so now it's going to take 2000 hours to build 1000 hours and be able to teach people how to fly a 172.

Just think about how painful this conversation would be

Me: Hey, can I buy you a drink
Hot Chick: Okay
Me: heres your tequilah
Hot Chick: Thanks, so... what do you do?
Me: Im a pilot (puts on aviators, shows off piloty watch with custom flip out moose antler with L.E.D. flashlight)
Hot Chick: Ohh really? I've always wanted to join the mile high club.. lets go flying.
Me: sorry babe, can't help you there, I'm not actually allowed to FLY the plane yet, but if you have any bags you want me to load...
Hot Chick: Bye, thanks for the drink loser.

Funny how the conversation ends the same way every time.. anyways.

What does this do for the industry.. well at this point in time, there is a lot of competition for a 1000 hour pilot.. with FTUs already having a problem finding instructors this would add another roadblock. as an aside, with the current supply and demand shortfall of flight instructors, you would assume that the wages would be going through the roof no?

Also, what about the newbie pilot who wants to become a career instructor? There is money to be made in this sector. Subtract the multi-time and you got a 250 hour pilot with around 200 current hours flying a 172... now, take an airline pilot who has 10k+ flying heavy and put him in that 172... Personally, I would feel safer with the guy who has 200 current hours in the 172 actually flying, but I would definitely take the guy who flys heavy out for coffee to find out certain other realities the inexperienced instructor would not know.

Personally, the thought of flying something large with 100's of people on board does not appeal to me whatsoever, but the thought of working with an excellent team of instructors, potentially young/not as experienced as some but still delivering an excellent product really appeals to me. The key is, when you find a good FTU advertise by word of mouth for them. There are some excellent opportunities to learn to fly out there, once you discern the wheat from the chaff.

I interviewed a few FTUs before I made my choice. What attracted me to the current FTU I train at was not the level of experience their instructors have, because all totalled they probably have less airtime than chucks left boot, but their owner was an ex military pilot, and his FTU sylabus was extremely well developed and based on a military model. I could have gone to another ftu with an instructor with 1000s of hours, but in the end I chose this way because of a. the machinery; top notch freshly restored citabria (spooge) and a few 172s in good condition. b. the owner genuinely gives a shit about flight training, c. the program has been developed and thought out... d. the facility is perfect for this kind of operation (in my limited experience)

I keep forgetting that the primary point of flight
instruction is to build time for the instructors, so
that they can move on.

This is the main problem. Noone sticks with it. The pay sucks. For me to become an instructor I have to take a 20k a year hit on my income!!! hahaha. The sick part is I am totally willing to do it.. but my strategy is slightly different from most of the puppies out there.

I can speak from the point of view of a student who is happy with his FTU, and who is happy with his 'low time' instructor. Bottom line is, educate yourself before you pick your facility. Join avcanada, read a little bit, talk to some people, talk to a lot of people, join your local pilots association, trust me, they will tell you who is good and who is bad. Go out and look at the fleet. Basically, there are good sites out there, you just have to find them, and if more people find the good ones, it stands to reason that less people will find the bad ones.. which will eventually weed out the crap. This is why, rather than changing everything from the ground up, I advocate an independant agency who rates and reviews ftu's and college programs. This strategy will serve to educate people about the good under the current system versus the clusterfuck which would ensue if we let TC revamp things....

[Hedley]

BH: a very thoughtful post. And, I'm glad
that you chose an FTU that suits you. Obviously
you put a lot more effort into choosing your
FTU. Most people don't - they just choose
the closest, or the one with the best paint
jobs on the airplanes.

A nationwide rating of FTU's is an intruiging
idea, similar to Maclean's Cdn University
ranking. I wonder what magazine in Canada
could tackle something like that?

Free advice: please don't take the salary
hit to instruct. Instructors should be paid
more than the pitiful amount that they
currently get. And that won't change, as
long as new instructors are willing to
work for poverty-level wages. My
suggestion to require 1000TT to instruct
would get ride of most of the time-builders
who are willing to work for nothing while
they live in their parent's basement.

As long as flight instruction is viewed as
the best way for newly-minted commercial
pilots to merely build time before they move
on, it's going to suck.

The economic reality of a shortage of
instructors may cause some surprising
changes from Transport. With virtually
no class 1 or 2 instructors available, will
we start to see class 3 instructors as CFI
at larger schools? How about class 3
instructors teaching new instructors?

[tired of the ground]

Boosted, you should be scared about this industry. Where we are going, we are going to be in a world of hurt. When I was doing my training the average hours of the instructing staff was probably in the 1000+ hr range. When I was instructing, at 600hrs I was the senior instructor with only the CFI having more time. There were 6 of us. Now a days the class 3 instructor is well outnumbered by the 4. 2's and 1's are few and far between.

I was once a 200hour Pilot looking for that first job and turned to Instructing. I enjoyed it until I left and tried to do the best I could and turn out a pilot with real PDM, hands and feet and could adapt to real situations. Did I do that with my first few students? Not really, they were competant pilots and passed. I had no failures on my record. I most certainly produced better pilots at the end of my full time instructing career. Would I have produced better pilots if I had 1000 hours before I started instructing. You bet. I changed how I flew while I instructed which not only benefited myself but my students as well. Had I been flying a 206/185 on wheels or floats for those hours, I would have figured it out for myself while my employer made the same amount of money. This way, my students paid for my learning and the initial ones were definitely at a disadvantage in terms of the money spent, instruction received. I did what I could to the best of my abilities.

If we restrict the flow of pilots by making it more difficult to enter (no 200 hour instructors) we will do 2 things. Make better pilots as the poorer ones will be washed out or not be able to get a job and increase wages for the rest of us.
Win, Win unless you are a crappy pilot trying to break into the industry.