Costs during solo (Instruction)

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 4...
[...]
For example, a physician can charge more for performing surgery
than for a routine office visit, even if both tasks involve the same
length
of time.

Because there are physicians unqualified for surgery competing with
the office practice.

Another example, I am a professor, and I charge more for
consulting work than for teaching.

Because there are teachers unqualified for the consulting work
competing with the classroom practice.


I agree. And this is part of the reason why CFI pay is so low. If you
can go from student pilot to MEI in 4 months without even a high school
education, it is not surprising that the wages are low. Some CFIs I know
probably won't even qualify for a cashers job at Walmart.




I get paid more for teaching graduate
students than for undergraduate students.

I find this bizarre, but then...practically everything about the
"business" of higher learning I find bizarre.


I don't see why that is so bizarre. If you have multiple skills, each
skill is worth different amount. As you said, the going rates are set by
the competition. I know people who wear different hats - MD's when they
are at the hospital, professors when they are in the classroom, and CFIs
when they are in the flight school. They charge different rates for the
job they are performing at the time, not what their highest paid rate
is. I also know a 747 captain who gives instruction in a 172. He doesn't
bill his students the same hourly rate that he gets when flying a 747.



Our FBO charges more for
instrument instruction than primary instruction, even if it is the
same instructor teaching both.

I've never heard of an FBO with a fee structure like that. I would
probably avoid such an FBO, unless they were the only choice
available. However, the difference is still explainable by the same
thing I said earlier: the fee difference exists because there are
flight instructors unqualified for the instrument training competing
for the primary instruction.

I know several FBO that do this, and I don't see why you would avoid it,
as it supports your own theory for the rate structure. The rate is set
by CFI's who are not qualified to teach instruments (ie they don't have
a II).







Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 4...
I agree. And this is part of the reason why CFI pay is so low. If you
can go from student pilot to MEI in 4 months without even a high school
education, it is not surprising that the wages are low. Some CFIs I know
probably won't even qualify for a cashers job at Walmart.

I can't even imagine that you could find an unqualified CFI that completed,
from zero, training to their MEI in just four months. It may be
theoretically possibly, but that doesn't mean that idiots are capable of
doing it.

As far as "without even a high school education" goes, no the FAA doesn't
require a high school education. But someone without the equivalent
knowledge of a high school education won't get far in aviation.

All of the CFIs I've ever flown with have been reasonably bright people.
Only one was entirely unacceptable, and that had to do with his personality,
not his lack of intelligence.

I get paid more for teaching graduate
students than for undergraduate students.

I find this bizarre, but then...practically everything about the
"business" of higher learning I find bizarre.

I don't see why that is so bizarre. If you have multiple skills, each
skill is worth different amount.

The part I find bizarre is that I don't see what the difference between
teaching a graduate student and teaching an undergraduate student is. You
need to know the material. You need to be able to teach. It's the same
job, just different students.

But whatever...it's not germane to my point, and I accept that I don't know
enough about the university business to make claims about what's reasonable
and what's not.

Our FBO charges more for
instrument instruction than primary instruction, even if it is the
same instructor teaching both.

[...]
I know several FBO that do this, and I don't see why you would avoid it,
as it supports your own theory for the rate structure. The rate is set
by CFI's who are not qualified to teach instruments (ie they don't have
a II).

I would avoid it because I can. But even if I accept that it's a reasonable
practice, it has nothing to do with an instructor performing identical
duties for different rates, as would be the case for an instructor charging
different prices for ground, supervised solo, and dual instruction.

Pete

The part I find bizarre is that I don't see what the difference between
teaching a graduate student and teaching an undergraduate student is. You
need to know the material. You need to be able to teach. It's the same
job, just different students.


Teaching a graduate student, you are presumably teaching to a higher level of
accomplishment. You need to know the material better. You need to be able to
get more subtle points across. You are also teaching students who are doing
their own research and are looking no only for course material but for research
resources, of which you are one (even if the research is different).

IT is in many ways similar to the difference in teaching college and teaching
high school.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 4...
I agree. And this is part of the reason why CFI pay is so low. If you
can go from student pilot to MEI in 4 months without even a high
school education, it is not surprising that the wages are low. Some
CFIs I know probably won't even qualify for a cashers job at Walmart.

I can't even imagine that you could find an unqualified CFI that
completed, from zero, training to their MEI in just four months. It
may be theoretically possibly, but that doesn't mean that idiots are
capable of doing it.

Actually, I do know one person who went from student pilot to MEI in
four months. He went to some academy on Florida. Did the whole thing in
one summer. He is an average person, not particularly bright or stupid.



As far as "without even a high school education" goes, no the FAA
doesn't require a high school education. But someone without the
equivalent knowledge of a high school education won't get far in
aviation.

All of the CFIs I've ever flown with have been reasonably bright
people. Only one was entirely unacceptable, and that had to do with
his personality, not his lack of intelligence.


I agree. Most CFIs I interact with are reasonably bright people. But I
have come across many that are simply a danger to aviation. I know one
who was responsible for the death of a student, and a few others who are
simply waiting their turn for something bad to happen. Interestingly,
the most competent CFI's I have come across are the ones who do flying
as a hobby rather than as a profession. They are the same ones who
'undercharge' for their services. I know of an outstanding CFI, a
retired person with plenty of time on his hands, who loves to talk about
aviation. If you ask for a ground session, you will get three hours of
talk and he charges for only one. Is it ethical? You decide that, but he
is a far greater asset to aviation than many other instructors who
charge for every minute they spend with the student. However, I do see
your point. We just have to agree to disagree.



I get paid more for teaching graduate
students than for undergraduate students.

I find this bizarre, but then...practically everything about the
"business" of higher learning I find bizarre.

I don't see why that is so bizarre. If you have multiple skills, each
skill is worth different amount.

The part I find bizarre is that I don't see what the difference
between teaching a graduate student and teaching an undergraduate
student is. You need to know the material. You need to be able to
teach. It's the same job, just different students.

teaching graduate courses requires a far more indepth understanding and
knowledge than undergrad teaching. I can teach many areas of undergrad
courses, but I can only teach my area specific area of research when it
comes to graduate teaching. It is a very different job.








Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
IT is in many ways similar to the difference in teaching college
and teaching high school.

Frankly, it seems to me the main problem with teachers is that they don't
know much about *teaching*. I'll agree that teachers of different levels
probably need to know the material to different details, but in truth, if I
had to choose between an excellent teacher with a less-than-perfect mastery
of the material, and a poor teacher with premium master of the material,
I'll take the excellent teacher every time.

But it's a moot point. I already granted the point of grad versus undergrad
to Andrew.

Pete

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 4...
I can't even imagine that you could find an unqualified CFI that
completed, from zero, training to their MEI in just four months. It
may be theoretically possibly, but that doesn't mean that idiots are
capable of doing it.

Actually, I do know one person who went from student pilot to MEI in
four months. He went to some academy on Florida. Did the whole thing in
one summer. He is an average person, not particularly bright or stupid.

So, he's not an idiot. Did he have a high school education? I already
agreed that it's theoretically possible. I'm not sure what this one example
of yours is supposed to show.

I agree. Most CFIs I interact with are reasonably bright people. But I
have come across many that are simply a danger to aviation. I know one
who was responsible for the death of a student, and a few others who are
simply waiting their turn for something bad to happen.

Q: "What do you call the bottom 5% of a graduating class of medical school?"

A: "Doctor."

An old joke, but a completely true and telling one. I have yet to see a
single profession where there aren't incompetent people *who are not
summarily rejected from the profession*. That is, they are permitted to
continue practicing long beyond any sort of probationary period one might
grant the average idiot.

I really don't see how the presence of idiot instructors has anything to do
with this particular discussion.

Interestingly,
the most competent CFI's I have come across are the ones who do flying
as a hobby rather than as a profession. They are the same ones who
'undercharge' for their services.

I have seen every combination. Excellent time-builders, poor hobbyists,
vice a versa, and career instructors of all stripes. I really doubt that
there's any significant correlation between the reason the instructor is
instructing, and how they perform. The two things that will matter the most
are experience, and dedication to the profession of *teaching* (and not in
that order).

I know of an outstanding CFI, a
retired person with plenty of time on his hands, who loves to talk about
aviation. If you ask for a ground session, you will get three hours of
talk and he charges for only one. Is it ethical?

Ethical? Assuming he charges what he thinks is fair, it's fine with me.
Unlike some folks, I'm not going to go around denigrating instructors who
choose to charge less than they have a right to. Some people say that those
instructors devalue the profession, and I tend to agree with that. But
inasmuch as there are people willing to do that, the profession IS valued
less.

Beyond that, you won't ever see me complaining about receiving a discount.
I regularly get "freebie" time from instructors. I try to compensate with
things like rides in my plane, lunches, and the like, but the truth is I
never feel like I've ever quite made up for the imbalance. But I didn't ask
for the imbalance either, so I don't worry about it too much.

Pete

Q: "What do you call the bottom 5% of a graduating class of medical school?"
A: "Doctor."

An old joke, but a completely true and telling one. I have yet to see a
single profession where there aren't incompetent people *who are not
summarily rejected from the profession*.


The fix for this is easy. Simply raise the standards so that the bottom 5% of
the graduating class won't graduate. Iterate until there =is= no bottom 5%.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Andrew Sarangan wrote
Actually, I do know one person who went from student pilot to MEI in
four months. He went to some academy on Florida. Did the whole thing in
one summer. He is an average person, not particularly bright or stupid.

Actually, right here in Houston we have an operation (AllATP's I think
- anyway, ATP is part of the name) that takes you from private (I
think they require about 80 hours) to CFI/CFII/MEI in 90 days. I know
many gradutaes of this program. They all have 260-280 hours when they
are done (and over half of that is multi time) and as far as I know,
washouts are rare.

I've seen the graduates range all the way from very bright to total
idiot. So what do you call the total idiot after he graduates?
Instructor.

Most CFIs I interact with are reasonably bright people. But I
have come across many that are simply a danger to aviation. I know one
who was responsible for the death of a student, and a few others who are
simply waiting their turn for something bad to happen. Interestingly,
the most competent CFI's I have come across are the ones who do flying
as a hobby rather than as a profession. They are the same ones who
'undercharge' for their services.

The most dangerous CFI I ever met was a hobbyist (lawyer in real
life). He was an aviation safety counselor and a local tailwheel
instructor. By the time I met him, he had already crashed three
tailwheel airplanes (none due to mechanical issues - all skill
problems). In the time I knew him, he put the wing of one into the
trees (while checking out a student) and then wrecked one on his own.
That last accident put him in the hospital and out of instructing.

On the other hand, the very best CFI (and damn near the best pilot) I
ever met instructed because he liked it. In real life, he trained
astronauts to fly simulators at NASA. Right behind him, as second
best CFI and best stick-and-rudder pilot I've ever flown with was a
retired test pilot. Neither one instructed in GA for career reasons,
so I guess you would call them hobbyists.

The best flight instructors are generally those who are most
experienced at flying AND instructing. There is nothing that
inherently makes a hobbyist a better instructor than a career-tracker;
it's simply that a hobbyist has the luxury of becoming good - and a
career-tracker doesn't. A hobbyist also has the luxury of
undercharging for his services - and a career-tracker doesn't. The
two pretty much go together.

The typical career-track instructor has NO experience instructing.
Neither will he get it in the process of becoming a CFI because, for
reasons I fail to understand, even at the big flight schools where
there are always students in abundance, working with live students
under supervision is NOT part of the process for becoming an
instructor. Note that this is NOT normal for any other kind of
teacher that I can think of. When I learned to skydive, there were
always trainee instructors around working with students under
supervision - and when I became a skydiving instructor, working with
students under supervision was a big part of my training. I've see
the same process in scuba diving, and of course we all know that
school teachers spend time as student teachers in the classroom.
AFAIK, only in flight instruction can you become a full-fledged
instructor qualified to take a student from zero to checkride
unsupervised without ever having worked with an actual student under
supervision.

The typical hobbyist instructor has instructional experience going in
- and as a minimum, he has quite a bit of experience letting non-rated
people fly. Every hobbyist instructor I know let an unrated pilot fly
the aircraft long before becoming CFI - and because it was all
happening on his time and on his dime, he had the luxury of working
his way up to it - starting with level flight, then maneuvers, and
maybe landings. The career-tracker has no such luxury. In fact, he
only rarely flies with a passenger - usually he's solo, with an
instructor or safety pilot, or, after getting the CFI, with a student.
He will learn to teach on the job, mostly by trial and error.
However, since he will be teaching, he will eventually learn how to
teach. But what about WHAT to teach?

Most career-track instructors don't know much about flying. Oh, they
have skill and knowledge consistent with their experience - but what
is their experience? It's typically significantly less than 300 hours
in which time they must, as a minimum, pass the private, instrument,
commercial, comemrcial multi, cfi, cfii, and mei. Assuming the most
efficient track and no busts, that's seven rides - or, at best, an
average of less than 40 hours per checkride all-inclusive and it may
be less. When has there ever been time to do anything but learn
maneuvers, practice for checkrides, and take checkrides?

Don't get me wrong - there is a skill to taking checkrides, and it's
one that the hobbyist instructor may not know much about. First off,
he may have taken fewer checkrides than the career-tracker - maybe
only the private, instrument, commercial, and CFI. Second, his
checkrides were probably quite far apart in time. And lastly, he
probably had a skill level way in excess of what was necessary.
There's no challenge to taking a checkride when you have way more
experience than needed, know the material cold, and can fly the
maneuvers in your sleep - the challenge is doing it when you just
barely meet minimum standards in minimum hours. This is an area where
the career-tracker is likely to be way ahead of the hobbyist -
unfortunately, it's not a skill particularly relevant to flying an
airplane and getting utility out of it.

Much as I believe in training and ratings (I certainly have more dual
received logged and more ratings and operating privileges than most
peope I know) I actually recommend that those choosing an instructor
and left with a choice of typical career-trackers choose the one with
the FEWEST ratings - all else being equal, he will have had more time
to do something other than training.

Compare this with the typical hobbyist instructor. While the typical
career-tracker is already instructing at 300 hours, the typical
hobbyist isn't even seriously thinking about getting his CFI. He may
not even have an instrument rating. But he's flying - going places,
doing things, getting stuck, scaring himself - accumulating
experience. That gives him a huge advantage. It's not that the
average career-tracker doesn't want to accumulate experience or
doesn't think it's important - he just can't afford it.

The typical hobbyist instructor is also much older. He not only has
more aviation experience - he has more life experience. He has
probably found himself in a position where he has had to teach - if
only to train a subordinate or replacement on the job.

And the final nail in the coffin - the thing that most limits the
competence of a career-track instructor - is the fact that he is
career-track. With time, he may overcome all the disadvantages that
lack of experience brings by accumulating experience - but as soon as
he acquires a clue, he's gone (barring exceptional circumstances).
The airlines will hire him, and he's out of instruction for a long
time. One day, when he is at the major airlines (or retired) he may
return, very possibly as a great instructor. But he will at that
point be doing it for a hobby.

The flip side is that a a career-tracker is going to meet a certain
(very) minimum standard - whereas a hobbyist may not. A
career-tracker who has crashed three airplanes is off the career
track. In fact, it's not likely that any flight school will hire him.
A hobbyist may have connections that let him get on with a flight
school and/or the money to buy his own airplane to put on the line.
The particular instructor I metioned above had tried to get on with a
local tailwheel school, but the flight school owner, after checking
him out, told him that his skills were not up to taildragger
instruction. So he bought a taildragger (actually a share of one) and
put it on the line. A career-track instructor can't do that.

Basically, what I'm saying here is that your observation that the most
competent instructors you see are hobbyists is of course correct - and
unsurprising. Also the least competent, scariest instructors are
going to be hobbyists (though they are a rarity).

So are these hobbyist types hurting the market? Artificially lowering
the price of instruction? Let's get real.

The reality is that the primary compensation the CFI gets is logged
flight time. At a flight school where he can count on routinely
logging 100+ hours a month without having to hustle for students (most
of the big commercial flight schools) the salaries are in the
$6-$12/hour range. As you go to flight schools that are less busy,
you make more per hour. You can easily charge $35/hr as a freelancer
(more in the more expensive parts of the country) but you will
typically find yourself instructing 10 hours a month.

You don't ever find the hobbyists at the big commercial flight
schools, and when you go to the smaller local ones you find that the
flight instructors generally have other jobs to make the money (or are
being supported by parents/wives/etc) and are there to log the hours.
The fact that the hobbyists might be undecharging for their time at
such places (or as freelancers) really has no impact.

Michael

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
The fix for this is easy. Simply raise the standards so that the bottom
5% of
the graduating class won't graduate.

Don't you think that educational institutions already believe that they have
set their minimum graduation standards high enough to eliminate incompetent
graduates?

I expect that they do believe that. Same with the FAA. They obviously
believe that they have standards that prevent incompetent people from
qualifying as pilots, mechanics, instructors, etc. But somehow incompetent
people still get through.

Iterate until there =is= no bottom 5%.

Uh, right.

Pete

Iterate until there =is= no bottom 5%.

Uh, right.

That's my point. No matter what your standards are, there will be those who
are "just squeaking by above" those standards. They are way below average -
and may even be called incompetent. But they are above the standards.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)