Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1876092
When I looked after a small airfield between 2011-2017, with a CAA Registered Training Facility flying club on it, there were 3x FI(R)s that arrived to build up their hours at separate times. They all got jobs with various commercial air transport companies having made themselves more employable through their time gained. However, in more recent times, as the shortage of FIs started to bite and the airlines expanded pre-COVID then ‘hours builders’ were certainly a thing of the past - with more and more taking loans to pay for Integrated ATPL(A) training rather than the old Modular Training route. However, that was pre-COVID, and it will be interesting to see if the ‘hours builder’ or ‘self improved’ starts to be seen again as the job market changes again.
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1876115
I know there are a lot of young FI's in the system whose career path is on hold since the COVID restrictions murdered the airline business. I also know of several who will chuck in FI work the second someone dangles a shiny Airbus key in their face.
I wonder if there is such a thing as a career flight instructor anymore. Anyone who started working as an FI in their early 20's and made a career out of it until retirement. Someone who didn't have another job in-between or before?
By avtur3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876129
MattL wrote:@Paul_Sengupta I get your logic, but honestly as @lobstaboy says, this is probably the worst reason anyone can become an instructor. Flying is actually a tiny part of the skill set and commitment required of instructing.


In the mid 70's, still living with parents, I spent every last penny on flying instruction, but unfortunately I was in the hands of an hour builder .... at the time I thought lessons were fun, but in truth we weren't following a program and I'm not sure how much I really learned. The instructor, 'Clive' was an amiable chap, but he really wasn't interested in my learning, it was all about flying and hours of his experience clocking up at my expense.

Arriving into the control of Manchester approach (for 24 as it was at the time) we were asked if we had a transponder ... Clive responded 'yes ... do you want to buy one'

On another occasion we set down before the numbers of 24 (before the hump on 24 was ironed out) and then ballooned up to land halfway down 24 ... we ended up with a full emergency services arrival .

And then there was the low level flight over a naturist resort somewhere out near Blackpool, we were down to 250 feet and he was holding a huge degree of slide slip, saying have a look, they wont be able to see our reg ...

So I spent, what at the time, was a huge amount of money and didn't really learn from it.

A couple of year later I thought I'd bite the bullet again and went across town to Barton. I was met with the most indifferent response, I did three hours which left me feeling I was simply wasting my money, for some reason it appeared that no one was interested in really teaching me .... I gave up.

I have a very good understanding of flying, I became a very competent RC model flyer, but I lost my confidence in anyone trying to teach me full size. There is only so much money one can afford to waste.

I'm 65, there is nothing in this world that would give me the satisfaction of completing just one solo circuit, the reality is it will not happen.

I have several PPL friends, so I've spent many hours in the air, but my own experience of the 'tuition' system is that it was cr@p for me.
By pullup
#1876141
Avtur3’s experience rings so true.
Those sort of Flying instructors ( with some exceptions) have never created a good impression.

For different reasons neither have some of the latest “redundant” airline pilots.

The airlines know who to make redundant when the opportunity arises.
User avatar
By VRB_20kt
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876147
I wonder what is the age distribution of new FIs.

And how many do it for the love of teaching flying.

If it requires a second income stream to make ends meet then a pension would do the trick nicely.
By A4 Pacific
#1876148
The airlines know who to make redundant when the opportunity arises.


Yes indeed they do. It’s by aircraft type. By aircraft base. Or by juniority. Making any other ‘characteristics’ virtually irrelevant.

So is it their base, the type they flew, or the fact they were new to the airlines that has the chips on your shoulders all a quiver?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ben K liked this
By pullup
#1876149
A4 Pacific wrote:
The airlines know who to make redundant when the opportunity arises.


Yes indeed they do. It’s by aircraft type. By aircraft base. Or by juniority. Making any other ‘characteristics’ virtually irrelevant.



There is more to it than the factors you mention.

At least one operator I know of works on a points system. In addition to gaining “credits” they deduct points for criteria such as Sim performance, Chief Pilot “interviews” etc...

Some now populate the Flying Schools.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876150
pullup wrote:
A4 Pacific wrote:
The airlines know who to make redundant when the opportunity arises.


Yes indeed they do. It’s by aircraft type. By aircraft base. Or by juniority. Making any other ‘characteristics’ virtually irrelevant.



There is more to it than the factors you mention.

At least one operator I know of works on a points system. In addition to gaining “credits” they deduct points for criteria such as Sim performance, Chief Pilot “interviews” etc...

Some now populate the Flying Schools.


@pullup if that is the case I am completely astounded. My experience of any largish company (basicly any company with an HR dept) is that the criteria for laying someone off is in no way at all connected to how good they are at their job, and if you believe it is, then you are badly mistaken.

I would certainly believe what @A4 Pacific says...

Regards, SD..
A4 Pacific, F70100 liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1876160
pullup wrote:
A4 Pacific wrote:
The airlines know who to make redundant when the opportunity arises.


Yes indeed they do. It’s by aircraft type. By aircraft base. Or by juniority. Making any other ‘characteristics’ virtually irrelevant.



There is more to it than the factors you mention.

At least one operator I know of works on a points system. In addition to gaining “credits” they deduct points for criteria such as Sim performance, Chief Pilot “interviews” etc...

Some now populate the Flying Schools.


I’m afraid you have an unusually prejudiced view and biased opinion.

There may well be a points system in any large airline to establish vulnerability for redundancy. Notionally it may include any items the employer can legally justify. However as I explained to you, The big ticket items will be aircraft type, aircraft base or juniority. As these are easiest to justify. Making the correlation (weighting) of any other selection criteria virtually irrelevant. (If those you mention are even included, as they will be difficult to justify.)

Essentially having a points based system is little more than window dressing.

Sorry to burst your bubble of callous prejudice.

I should add that, unpopularity with the management (requiring ‘interviews’) is often not the sign of a ‘poor’ pilot. Indeed it’s often precisely the opposite!! Pilots are very frequently the only thing that stand between the travelling public and the accountant’s latest money saving wheeze. An airline that has no place for dissent in it’s workforce is not an airline I would wish to fly with. You don’t have to look far!!
Ben K liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1876170
As a passenger, I would sincerely hope all airlines weed out the poorest performing pilots using whatever methods they can. I'd me much happier knowing my pilot was "the wheat" rather than "the chaff".
By A4 Pacific
#1876174
Sooty25 wrote:As a passenger, I would sincerely hope all airlines weed out the poorest performing pilots using whatever methods they can. I'd me much happier knowing my pilot was "the wheat" rather than "the chaff".


Me too. I’m simply saying, waiting until the next black swan event to select the ‘chaff’ for redundancy is probably the very worst way to ensure your safety in the meantime! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1876183
Redundancy and removing someone due to poor performance are very different things, with different processes and legalities. Jobs are made redundant, not people.
Businesses that have repeated redundancy exercises tend to get left with the chaff because they can’t get rid of poor performers simply on that criterion and, seeing the writing on the wall, the wheat leave anyway.
A4 Pacific, gaznav, AndyR and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1876203
lobstaboy wrote:Businesses that have repeated redundancy exercises tend to get left with the chaff because they can’t get rid of poor performers simply on that criterion and, seeing the writing on the wall, the wheat leave anyway.


This is just soooo true...

My industry is decidedly hire and fire and always has been. There is an irony that in the past local managers used to have alot of discretion to offer alternative positions, often in other countries, to guys that knew what they were doing so they stayed within the company and would get asked back when things picked up. Thanks to modern legislation, those days have gone and now HR lays off employees directly to reduce headcount often without a local managers knowledge of who will be axed. Too many times I have had conversations with colleagues along the lines of"why on earth did they lay off xxx, he knows his ****, couldnt they have fired that dikhead yyy?"

Regards, SD..