2) Before you decide that international flying is the easiest segment of aviation I suggest that you read AC 91-70A, Oceanic and International Procedures.

Capt Mark McCormick
ORD 777

You are giving me some excellent material as we look to preserve the future of GA. This is a big challenge – not impossible but seriously big to use today’s jargon!

I’ll look to you all as a sounding board – many thanks.

I think the question being asked is an interesting “what if” experiment, but ultimately not the optimal one to gain insight to the crux of the issue of lack of adequate pay and quality flight instruction. In my thinking, the question to ask would be: “WHAT are the forces that led to this inverse-reasoned pay scale and can they be CHANGED / ADDRESSED”? The pay and reverence scales didn’t get to where they are at through random happenstance; they were driven there by market, regulatory, and actuarial forces. Let’s look at each individually.

Market: While much discussion could be had on how pilot skill and experience should translate in pay scale, in the end, the driving force of pay will come down to how many net-profit dollars are available for a given rendered service. Flight instruction typically has a one-to-one mapping between service and revenue source: One plane and instructor to one student, who is the only source of revenue for the flight. There is NOTHING stopping flight instructors from setting their hourly rate at A380 captain rates, but whether the student can afford those rates is another question. Given how much students already feel the financial pinch during training, my guess is that meaningful increases for instructors are not in the offing unless an equivalent reduction in hourly costs on trainers can be had. Conversely, while the cost per seat-mile on an A380 is orders of magnitude greater than an instructor-laden C172, the revenue per seat-mile is also much greater as well, thus providing additional revenue margin to pay for said piloting skills.

Regulatory: Given the hour requirements for ATP and even SIC ratings, a basic requirement to fly for any 121 operation, the only flying job open to aspiring professional pilots is instructing, regardless of their interest, or ability, to be a competent instructor. Indeed, many instructors are not only not interested in teaching, but they are often resentful they have to do such “scut” work before getting a “real” flying job… and that attitude is often reflected in their instruction (or lack thereof). And with the Colgan-driven legislation to increase the hour requirements even further, that will simply push that mentality and the situation deeper into “flying behind the power curve”.

Actuarial: Even when FAA-mandated hour requirements are met, insurance companies will add their own additional hour requirements, driven by the well-intentioned but misguided notion that number of hours is equivalent to quality of hours, a myth repeatedly debunked. I’d rather fly with a mature pilot who has been slogging through low winter IMC at night in single pilot operation in a marginally IFR equipped C414 for 500 hours, than a newly minted 121 captain whose sole professional experience is 1500 turbine hours flying from Phoenix to LAX in summertime.

While there have been numerous efforts to jumpstart pilot starts and GA growth and participation, they have fallen short because they fail to adequately and meaningfully address the biggest issue facing GA: exorbitant costs. As it turns out, its a tough problem to solve owing to a confluence of issues: lack of economies of scale, combined with high costs associated with entry, consumables, and regulatory compliance, work to maintain the status quo of flying as a mainly “affluent” luxury, as opposed to a affordable, practical hobby. Throw on some sensationalistic fears about “little plane safety”, the never-ending quest of the non-flying public to shutdown GA ground resources and airspace access, and it’s little wonder that the pilot population continues to dwindle, and certainly no wonder as to how the inverted pay-scale came to be. Until we can make meaningful in-roads on these issues, GA pay scale and pilot population growth will continue to languish.

I believe Canada has a tiered system of CFI certification; and I don’t know if the different levels have different responsibilities or privileges. But perhaps they should. There is much to be said for allowing a “300-hour wonder” to instruct beginners; anyone who has taught a subject recognizes that one only truly begins to understand a topic when one begins to teach it. As a forty-year veteran of classrooms at high school and college level, I can verify that.
BUT, (and that is a big but), there is also a place for the “grizzled veteran” who has been around and done a good bit, and can tell me what it’s like to be in a thunderstorm and get through it. We have all read “Stick and Rudder” and “Fate is the Hunter”, but it is different to hear it from the other seat, especially as the lightning is flashing about in the sky.
After about 2,000 hours of dual given, and dozens of successful trainees, I am confident of my ability to teach someone how to fly. But I have not been through that mill of night icing, or 12-hour fatigue, or holding in turbulence, enough to tell some future USAir captain what to expect.
I do think I earn the pay I charge private clients, and I know I give the flight school customers more value than I get paid for; but I am willing to “fly for fun” and the pay is a good side effect. I have another job and a pension to feed & house me, so this is gravy. How do we resolve this conundrum? If I charged every student the fee that my credentials and experience warrant, I would find my schedule empty; if I had to feed myself and my wife (let alone kids) on what I can make as a CFII, we would need food stamps.
Maybe the requirements for CFI need revision; maybe the pay is not the only metric. I don’t know. But you are right about one thing: something is out of whack here. I hope there is an answer.

As an engineer, I had to work under a licensed engineer for several years after graduation before I coudl become licensed. I know we have to work a lot with our CFIs to get to be a CFI (I’m in that process now), but if new CFIs aren’t being mentored and watched then we are doing them and their students a diservice. My CFI, who helped me finish my licensing after a long haitus and then encouraged me to go right to work on my intrument rating, is there mentoring now as I work on preparing for Comm, and CFI, and has made a commitment to work with me as I start to teach.
Hopefullly that is happening everywhere, but I fear it isn’t. It is where we need to go though. Oh, and higher pay for more experience wouldn’t hurt either.