You’re right, the number of CFIs bottomed out because a growing number of pilots didn’t it to get an airline job. But it bottomed, give or take, in 2000, and the number of CFIs has been climbing since then, as I pointed out in my post.

What I really can’t put my finger on is why the number of CFIs is increasing. There are just as many direct-to-the-airline training programs as there was before, probably more. So it seems logical that pilots are earning a CFI, even though they don’t have to. And then they are not teaching.

One guess for this might be that collegiate programs are getting so expensive that aspiring airline pilots are returning to the traditional CFI time-building path. Another, and this one is out there, is that the baby boomers are starting to retire from airline cockpits and they are looking at part-time retirement jobs as CFIs?

With many college aviation programs no longer requiring students to earn a CFI–and some no longer *offering* instructor training–this number now will trend downward, perhaps dramatically. With minimums as low as 200 or 250 hours, instructing is no longer required. Only a sustained decrease in hiring, and the accompanying increase in hiring minimums, will reverse this.

I agree with the comments above that many of the CFIs at FIRCs want that certificate current, but they’re not instructing (at least not regularly)–if they were, they probably wouldn’t be at a FIRC. How do you bring these teachers into active instruction? Some are prohibited by their employers; others are concerned about potential liability. Others may just not have the time or need the income…

For one thing, it’s a lot easier to get your CFI certificate than it used to be. You can get the double-I and multi instructor , too, and do it in less than 2 weeks. I’m not saying this is necessarily a good program, but it can be done. Also, there are a lot of college programs now which turn out instructors en mass.

Instructing has also become a more interesting profession of late. In 1997 there was not much new stuff out there. Now we have Columbias, Cirruses, Diamonds, glass panels, better training tools, and a wide range of experimental aircraft out there. Instructing also seems to be an ideal second career for those who are retired but still want to stay in aviation.

Finally, I believe with online FIRCs and other such tools, it’s easier for instructors to renew their certificates, even if they don’t use them.

I think the ratio of Master CFIs to non-Masters is a lot lower than 1 in 10. It’s probably more like 1 in 100, but I’m just guessing of course.

$100/hr rates as an instructor can be obtained. You simply need to branch out into areas where the demand exceeds the supply of instructors. The 250 hour wonders probably aren’t going to be teaching in the Cessna/Columbia 400, SR22, or TwinStar. Likewise, someone has to teach the aerobatics, tailwheels, and check out pilots in the Pitts, Extra, Eagle, and other fun airplanes. Once you have a reputation for solid instructional capabilities and the hours to get on the owner’s aircraft insurance, word will spread.

As for the schools, that’s a “sticky wicket”, as the Brits say. I know they provide insurance coverage, office space, supplies, and do the necessary advertising and such to get people in the door. They’re entitled to something, I think. But I do agree that they take much to big a chunk of the pie. Perhaps as an instructor grows in hours and experience, the chunk should get smaller. They bring more to the table, so they should get more compensation as a result.

There are a lot of good comments and thoughts here, many that have run through my mind in recent months. Flight schools have long been “flight time factories” for newly minted pilots. They don’t care so much about the pay, they just need the flight time to be hired somewhere else. That has never produced longevity as an instructor.

Today’s environment is different in that the newly minted pilot can be hired by a regional with almost no experience beyond certification. So, flight schools are beginning to seek more experienced pilots to fill the position of CFI. That is not always a smooth transition for the professional pilot that hasn’t taught weather or aero in many years. But the test will be in keeping the experienced pilots in a teaching position. As pointed out by several writers so far, more expensive CFI’s often attract more customers. Certainly, it has a lot to do with their ability, but often it has more to do with their experience.

Just as we see with West Valley, the schools that attract be best instructors with pay and benefits will like-wise attract the best customers and keep those instructors.

It will be interesting to see if the US aviation industry follows Europe in the adoption of mult-crew training to place pilots in the cockpits of heavy 121 aircraft with minimum experience, but more training.

At the flight schools I teach (all of which use mostly independents), the CFI’s are all named on the flight school’s insurance. Some instructors also choose to buy CFI insurance so they’re covered when they fly with owners.

Most instructors want to fly, they don’t want to sell services. Max Trescott obviously understands that part of the equation.

And Max, how do you cope with the liability insurance issue as an independent or do you have yourself named to the policies?

Rob

The missing link in his piece–and I’m not sure where to find it–is the airline take on all of this.

The regionals, especially, should be shaking in their boots–are they, or are they clueless?

I’m hearing about regional carriers that can’t fill new-hire classes, but with some having already lowered their minimums to 250 hours–how much lower can you go?

Aggressive recruiting CFIs from Part 61 schools (I know first hand that it’s happening) might fill a classroom seat today…but what about the five or 10 students that CFI “should” have taught before moving on? The best analogy I can come up with is that they’re rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Flight school relations with independent CFIs is a separate story with long IRS-related chapters about their working relationships. One example is that schools can only mandate specific hours and duties for employees, not independent contractors.

A student of the flight training industry, you’re correct that it is behind the curve. The good news is that the few newcomers to the industry have more modern business sense. Unfortunately, they are still in the minority.

But schools are really the least of our problem. Getting people interested in learning to fly is the real challenge. And you’re right, we do need to change the dialogue. Over the past several decades, the industry efforts to entice people to fly, Learn to Fly, Be-A-Pilot, prove that what we’ve been doing has had little lasting effect.

Scott

Flight schools have always (well, at least my concept of always) been behind the power curve when it comes to common business sense, and I don’t expect that will change anytime soon. So, as you suggest, maybe we should change the dialogue the other direction.

One that stands out heard about my experience - not my experiences mind you - and offered me a solid $15 an hour. I laughed and he raised it to $18.

Obviously we got no where and the guy later told me that he can find people to fly for free so he doesn’t need to pay well.

I don’t think that’s even Aviation 1.0. Sounds more like a Beta to me.

For me at least, the problem is finding an owner with an airplane at a reasonable rate that is willing to simply make money on the airplane.

At our end of the world, that’s not so easy.

Rob Mark

Interestingly, change in CFI compensation is occurring. I received a postcard a few days ago offering “starting salary of $45,000 - $56,000 per year as a Flight Instructor” which is probably a livable wage in Bakersfield, CA. It came from http://www.ifta.aero, in case anyone wants to apply. Note that the same qualifications would get you a job that pays less than $20,000 per year in the right seat of a regional jet. I hear that many of those right seat guys work a second job–no surprise.

As for West Valley, the independent flight instrutor model works very well, and it attracts the very best instructors. There are 60 instructors there, and for many of them it’s their only job. Virtually everyone is there because they like teaching, not because they’re building time for the airlines. A few do move on to the airlines–but a number of them give that up and come back after they’ve experienced it.

Yes, many independent CFIs make a good living because they charge what their time is worth. I know one NAFI Master CFI who was so busy he rasied his hourly rate to $100–and his business increased.

The shortage exists primarily at schools still operating on Aviation 1.0, where you pay CFIs didley and tell ‘em to suck it up because they’re paying their dues.

Flight training operations, like West Valley, that recognize the value of teachers and enable them to make a living wage will continue to prosper in Aviation 2.0 because they are not stuck in the past, where all that mattered was the price. People today are more interested in quality and efficient use of their time, and they are willing to pay for it.

You’re right, it is simple, but not when you live by yesterday’s values.

Scott

How and why is Max able to carve out a living teaching flying? Maybe the answer would be interesting and useful for your readers.

I don’t know if Max is an independent CFI or works at one of the schools at Palo Alto, but it may interest you to know that many CFIs who fly at that airport do quite well.

At West Valley Flying Club at PAO, where I used to be a member, instructors were all independent and therefore could charge whatever they wanted.

The newbies started out at $25 to $30 and the really good ones who could teach effectively and efficiently were charging $60 or more and flying like crazy and banking tons of moolah. And the club> took not one dime of their money, except they had to be members.

Bottom line, the solution to the CFI shortage is dead simple. If all schools would simply allow CFIs to earn the full amount that the school charges, CFIs would make it a career or at least stick around longer.

The schools should simply charge what they need to make the aircraft pay for itself, then let the CFIs charge appropriate fees or pay the CFI the full amount charged for.

If the market doesn’t bear the cost of aircraft rental at high enough rates to make it profitable, then the schools need to figure out how to do so by adopting LSAs, figuring out how to do maintenance more efficiently (been there, done that, whole ‘nother long story but it can be done) or leave the business to youngsters who aren’t burdened with “that’s the way we always do it.”

This is so simple. I can’t understand why more schools haven’t figured it out.

Matt