Multi-engine and Multi-IFR Freelance Training Instructor (with aircraft)

[digits_]

Someone tried this stunt with me on FaceBook, was thoroughly embarrassed by his lack of knowledge and deleted his claim. Will Bede do the same?

Bede's usually spot on, and he was trying to save you a bunch of punitive penalty fines and headaches. You could simply enjoy the fact that he's wrong and you are right. Is taking a tone with someone for misreading a sub-sub-sub-clause of a regulation a good advertisement for your teaching?

You beat me to it. Yikes.

@DAC: like it or not, you are advertising a flight training service without holding a flight training OC. I agree it is perfectly legal, but it obviously raises some questions. If Bede and the guy pulling the 'stunt' on facebook question you, then you can be sure that other people are wondering the same thing. Maybe even prospective students?

If I am considering signing up with you for some multi/IFR training, and I see how you handle critical questions/statements, and I read things like that you can't be bothered to get a flight instructor rating, or getting an FTU OC, then the whole picture doesn't look as good as you would probably like.

You could have conveyed the same message a tad more graceful. There is more to instructing than being an experienced pilot. Communicating with students or people who may annoy you or ask critical questions, is a big part of that.

You write that students who want to get 'cheap and quick' training are not for you, yet you skip the instructor rating and the FTU OC. One could say that this might sound a bit like the 'cheap and quick' alternative on the instructor's side... You are obviously proud of your 1.7 million dollar aircraft, and you should be, but one could wonder if a 10k instructor rating is a dealbreaker then?

[Diamond Air Charter]

Someone tried this stunt with me on FaceBook, was thoroughly embarrassed by his lack of knowledge and deleted his claim. Will Bede do the same?

Bede's usually spot on, and he was trying to save you a bunch of punitive penalty fines and headaches. You could simply enjoy the fact that he's wrong and you are right. Is taking a tone with someone for misreading a sub-sub-sub-clause of a regulation a good advertisement for your teaching?

I began this string innocently and in good faith; I now find myself having to defend false and arguably libelous assertions that what DAC is doing is contrary to CARS, the Aeronautics Act and is illegal. That deserves an aggressive response as it is potentially harming my business and my reputation.

[Diamond Air Charter]

[/quote]You write that students who want to get 'cheap and quick' training are not for you, yet you skip the instructor rating and the FTU OC. One could say that this might sound a bit like the 'cheap and quick' alternative on the instructor's side... You are obviously proud of your 1.7 million dollar aircraft, and you should be, but one could wonder if a 10k instructor rating is a dealbreaker then?
[/quote]

I am not going to waste a lot of time defending not getting a FTUOC nor instructor rating but I will offer the following:
- not having a FTUOC is a) perfectly legal, and b) the aircraft is maintained to commercial standards and thus a FTUOC adds no value whatsoever.
- not being an instructor - my background is a RCAF Qualified Flying Instructor (QFI), a pretty demanding, three month, full-time course equal to and likely superior to a civilian flight instructor course. Plus over 1,100 hours of jet and simulator instructing time. If TC recognized that training, like they do for ATPL's, etc. for military pilots, then I would do the paperwork and get it. Dropping $10K would be a total waste of time and money with no practical benefit.

[Bede]

Diamond Air Charter,
Not trying to get into an argument, just a heads up. I stand corrected on my second post. All the best.

[photofly]

That deserves an aggressive response as it is potentially harming my business and my reputation.

…and by chewing him out you can avoid the doubt of potential harm and be certain to achieve it yourself

@bede: 20-whatever hours in the right seat of a C172 is a lot of humble to ask of OP for, as he points out, not a lot of reward.

[digits_]

Someone tried this stunt with me on FaceBook, was thoroughly embarrassed by his lack of knowledge and deleted his claim. Will Bede do the same?

Bede's usually spot on, and he was trying to save you a bunch of punitive penalty fines and headaches. You could simply enjoy the fact that he's wrong and you are right. Is taking a tone with someone for misreading a sub-sub-sub-clause of a regulation a good advertisement for your teaching?

I began this string innocently and in good faith; I now find myself having to defend false and arguably libelous assertions that what DAC is doing is contrary to CARS, the Aeronautics Act and is illegal. That deserves an aggressive response as it is potentially harming my business and my reputation.

Not really. You began this topic to advertise your flight training service. Both me and photofly were and are convinced what you are doing is legal. I was very curious to learn more about your operation and was intrigued by your business plan. It took one more post from you to destroy that positive rose colored image I (we?) had.

[tsgarp]

- my background is a RCAF Qualified Flying Instructor (QFI), a pretty demanding, three month, full-time course equal to and likely superior to a civilian flight instructor course. Plus over 1,100 hours of jet and simulator instructing time. If TC recognized that training, like they do for ATPL's, etc. for military pilots, then I would do the paperwork and get it. Dropping $10K would be a total waste of time and money with no practical benefit.

Couple of points for your consideration.
-TC and RCAF syllabi and instructional philosophy differ a fair bit from each other.
- A low power piston engine twin without auto-feather handles a lot differently than a Hornet with an engine failure.
- The things doing the most damage to your reputation on this forum are your own posts.

[photofly]

-TC and RCAF syllabi and instructional philosophy differ a fair bit from each other.

Looking at the website, one USP here may be more military-style training. It does say "The program itself has been developed using airline/military training models". (So more saluting, perhaps?) Also, the primary flight training in the RCAF now is done, under contract by Kelowna Flightcraft (or whatever they're called at the moment), by TC-certified civilian instructors with regular instructor ratings to an (I'm told) modified syllabus. They advertise the instructor positions on here, every now and then. They can't change the philosophy that much.

- A low power piston engine twin without auto-feather handles a lot differently than a Hornet with an engine failure.

Not to argue with the thrust of your point, but the diesel engines on the DA42 do have auto-feather, and I'd expect the DA62 to have it too. RCAF multi-engine conversion courses are taught in a King Air, according to the government website, so perhaps a Hornet isn't the best comparison for this.

[photofly]

Uh oh.

I see this, on the DAC website:

Aircraft upsets and the subsequent loss of control of the aircraft is one of the major sources of aircraft accidents today. While not part of the formal instrument rating requirement set forth by Transport Canada, upset maneuver training is part of this program both on the ground and in the air. Included in this is a complimentary one-hour aerobatic flight in a Nanchang CJ-6A aircraft.

I sure hope the CJ-6A is operated on the AOC, or else you are sailing very close to the wind. Is it? What does your insurance on the CJ-6A say about using it for reward?

[digits_]

Uh oh.

I see this, on the DAC website:

Aircraft upsets and the subsequent loss of control of the aircraft is one of the major sources of aircraft accidents today. While not part of the formal instrument rating requirement set forth by Transport Canada, upset maneuver training is part of this program both on the ground and in the air. Included in this is a complimentary one-hour aerobatic flight in a Nanchang CJ-6A aircraft.

I sure hope the CJ-6A is operated on the AOC, or else you are sailing very close to the wind. Is it? What does your insurance on the CJ-6A say about using it for reward?

I suspect that's why it's "complimentary"... Hope they can make that work. Too bad Bede probably won't chime in anymore with any tribunal examples of people attempting this to see what the outcome would be.

Although I would fail to see the relevance for upsets happening in a twin. Still nice though, and I wouldn't turn down such a flight!

[photofly]

The "complementary" thing will never fly, pardon the pun. Bede can point out the tribunal case where a lodge was punished for operating a "free" air transfer service for its guests, sans OC. It's "free" said the lodge. "The passengers are your paying customers, under no circumstances is that 'free'", said Transport. Transport won.

Look at it another way: if I, not being a paying customer for a multi-engine rating, rock up and ask for my "complimentary" aerobatics flight, what do you reckon my chances are?

[tsgarp]

Looking at the website, one USP here may be more military-style training. It does say "The program itself has been developed using airline/military training models". (So more saluting, perhaps?) Also, the primary flight training in the RCAF now is done, under contract by Kelowna Flightcraft (or whatever they're called at the moment), by TC-certified civilian instructors with regular instructor ratings to an (I'm told) modified syllabus. They advertise the instructor positions on here, every now and then. They can't change the philosophy that much.


Not to argue with the thrust of your point, but the diesel engines on the DA42 do have auto-feather, and I'd expect the DA62 to have it too. RCAF multi-engine conversion courses are taught in a King Air, according to the government website, so perhaps a Hornet isn't the best comparison for this.
[/quote]

I’m very familiar with PFT, Multi Engine and QFI courses at Portage and also very familiar with the TC ME and IR courses. While Allied Wings does require new hires to have a TC IR, they put their instructors through a Military QFI course. Among other key differences, military instructional philosophy is based on programmed learning while TC is based on mastery learning.
The military ME course focuses on crew operations; i.e. during an engine failure one pilot flys while the other does the gear and FXs the failed engine. This differs vastly from the TC ME syllabus which deals with single pilot operations, generally without an auto feather. The upshot is that someone trained to fly ME using the military course will be just fine if they transition straight into a two pilot operation with an auto fx. That same person dumped into a single pilot Navajo or Aztec is not going to fare so well.
I used the Hornet example because the OP’s description of his experience sounds like he was a Moose Jaw instructor and then flew Hornets (fighter guys tend to refer to their aircraft as ‘Jets’ while transport guys tend not to). I might be wrong. Either way, I’m sure he’s a good pilot and a good instructor. I only brought up the points that I did because I think he might benefit from getting more fully familiar with the system in which he intends to teach and the environment in which his students will find themselves when they get their first jobs or (in the case of the affluent target clientele) when they buy their first private multi engine aircraft.

[photofly]

military instructional philosophy is based on programmed learning while TC is based on mastery learning.

Oohh... say more! Can you give some f'rinstances?

[CpnCrunch]

The "complementary" thing will never fly, pardon the pun. Bede can point out the tribunal case where a lodge was punished for operating a "free" air transfer service for its guests, sans OC. It's "free" said the lodge. "The passengers are your paying customers, under no circumstances is that 'free'", said Transport. Transport won.

What is the difference between this and the multi training itself? As long as the aircraft is obtained at arm's length from the instructor, and is used for training, what CARs does it break?

One other question comes up: is it still "arm's length" if the freelance instructor works for the company that operates the plane? (I apologise in advance if I've interpreted the situation wrong).

[digits_]

The "complementary" thing will never fly, pardon the pun. Bede can point out the tribunal case where a lodge was punished for operating a "free" air transfer service for its guests, sans OC. It's "free" said the lodge. "The passengers are your paying customers, under no circumstances is that 'free'", said Transport. Transport won.

What is the difference between this and the multi training itself? As long as the aircraft is obtained at arm's length from the instructor, and is used for training, what CARs does it break?

One other question comes up: is it still "arm's length" if the freelance instructor works for the company that operates the plane? (I apologise in advance if I've interpreted the situation wrong).

There have been quite a few examples posted here about tribunal decisions that a freelance instructor operating a company airplane is most certainly not at arm's length.

You would need for example a situation in which the student genuinely shows up with a rented airplane and asks the instructor to teach him on it.


A difference with the lodge example mentioned would be that to access a lodge, a flight was required. In this case, hypothetically, one could get a multi ifr rating without flying a Nanchang. So it is optional. Still a weak argument though.

[photofly]

The "complementary" thing will never fly, pardon the pun. Bede can point out the tribunal case where a lodge was punished for operating a "free" air transfer service for its guests, sans OC. It's "free" said the lodge. "The passengers are your paying customers, under no circumstances is that 'free'", said Transport. Transport won.

What is the difference between this and the multi training itself? As long as the aircraft is obtained at arm's length from the instructor, and is used for training, what CARs does it break?

One other question comes up: is it still "arm's length" if the freelance instructor works for the company that operates the plane? (I apologise in advance if I've interpreted the situation wrong).

There are no commercially registered CJ6's in Canada, according to the TC registry. So the plane isn't on anyone's OC. It's not listed on their website as part of the fleet, either.

Next, It's billed as "included" in the multi-engine rating. I know it's not required hours, but that's how it's advertised. And it's obviously not free. Nor is the plane being provided at arm's length from the instructor. So arguably it's training towards a rating in a plane that's not included in the AOC of the person operating the training service, so the exemption in 406.03(2)(a) doesn't apply.

Then you could have a discussion about the insurance status of the airplane used for for-profit training.

Could you argue your way out of the objections? Maybe. But why would you spend $1.7m on a plane, and go to all the trouble to set up a proper charter and training outfit, and then tack on something that so obviously doesn't pass the sniff test? It's really inconsistent with the professional, high quality, no expense spared positioning.

[Bede]

One other question comes up: is it still "arm's length" if the freelance instructor works for the company that operates the plane? (I apologise in advance if I've interpreted the situation wrong).

See the previous TATC case I posted. The "freelance instructor" was an employee of the company.

There's a bunch of cases on the TATC website involving that flying school as well as the owner personally. In one case the pilot was a TC inspector moonlighting for chisel charters

[digits_]

The "complementary" thing will never fly, pardon the pun. Bede can point out the tribunal case where a lodge was punished for operating a "free" air transfer service for its guests, sans OC. It's "free" said the lodge. "The passengers are your paying customers, under no circumstances is that 'free'", said Transport. Transport won.

What is the difference between this and the multi training itself? As long as the aircraft is obtained at arm's length from the instructor, and is used for training, what CARs does it break?

One other question comes up: is it still "arm's length" if the freelance instructor works for the company that operates the plane? (I apologise in advance if I've interpreted the situation wrong).

There are no commercially registered CJ6's in Canada, according to the TC registry. So the plane isn't on anyone's OC. It's not listed on their website as part of the fleet, either.

Next, It's billed as "included" in the multi-engine rating. I know it's not required hours, but that's how it's advertised. And it's obviously not free. Nor is the plane being provided at arm's length from the instructor. So arguably it's training towards a rating in a plane that's not included in the AOC of the person operating the training service, so the exemption in 406.03(2)(a) doesn't apply.

Then you could have a discussion about the insurance status of the airplane used for for-profit training.

Could you argue your way out of the objections? Maybe. But why would you spend $1.7m on a plane, and go to all the trouble to set up a proper charter and training outfit, and then tack on something that so obviously doesn't pass the sniff test? It's really inconsistent with the professional, high quality, no expense spared positioning.

There are exemptions for warbirds to do aerial work without an AOC https://www.warbirdscanada.ca/news

[tsgarp]

military instructional philosophy is based on programmed learning while TC is based on mastery learning.

Oohh... say more! Can you give some f'rinstances?

Programmed learning is a system where students advance through the syllabus according to a preset schedule. Students whose rate of learning does not match the rate of advancing difficulty in the syllabus are removed from the program. The military used to make this system work by recruiting significantly more applicants than they had space for at the end of the line and screening out the excess as training progressed. From an instructor’s stand point, what this boils down to is that the students you are getting all have very high levels of natural aptitude so they essentially teach themselves. The occasional student that doesn’t have much natural aptitude is selected out, and hence ceases to be a problem for the instructors.

Under mastery learning, the student does not advance in the syllabus until they have shown a sufficient level of skill in the current exercise. Couple this with the fact that there is no screening in civilian pilot training (and hence a wide variation in the innate aptitudes of the students) and you are looking at a very different environment. The wider range of student aptitudes and personality traits requires the instructor to have a much more attuned ability to read a student’s needs and to have a larger range of teaching techniques at their disposal if they are to conduct the training efficiently.

[photofly]

So what you're saying is that Ed might not be used to teaching slow learners, as his military instructional training won't have equipped him to advance students who need to be presented with extra training and/or unusual teaching methods.

I guess he could simply fail them out of the course!