cfi minimum time = 500?
- Thread starter E_Dawg
- Start date
RiddlePilot
New Member
Haven't heard a thing. But seriously though, where are people supposed to get 250+ hours before they can get a CFI certificate?
The idea has come up from time to time. I believe NAFI is a big proponent. The idea is to produce more professional, career-type instructors, possibly leading to higher pay since CFIs would become a scarcer commodity. It would be interesting to see what a change like that would do the academies and a lot of the FBOs...
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't heard a thing. But seriously though, where are people supposed to get 250+ hours before they can get a CFI certificate?
[/ QUOTE ]
The same place we get 250 hours!!
Haven't heard a thing. But seriously though, where are people supposed to get 250+ hours before they can get a CFI certificate?
[/ QUOTE ]
The same place we get 250 hours!!
Stone Cold
Well-Known Member
if they want more professional, career type CFIs, they should look at the FBOs/academies/mom & pop shops and get them to pay more. I realize the flight school business has an extremely small profit margin, but when you have a school that charges $44/hour for an instructor and pays $15/hour, (and some even lower that number for ground school, like your knowledge level changes then), then you are going to have a high turn-over.
The school I work for charges $40 and pays $25/hour, which I realize is probably some of the higher-end pay in the market. I also get privately-owned instruction and set my own price, which at most schools doesn't happen. I still couldn't live off this, since I don't get enough flights to be full time at this. How in the world would I look my wife in the eyes and say, I've decided to do this for the rest of my life? I would be divorced in minutes.
Anyways, enough of my soap box. All they're going to get out of this is even more renters building flight time, since very few people will hire a 250 hour pilot.
The school I work for charges $40 and pays $25/hour, which I realize is probably some of the higher-end pay in the market. I also get privately-owned instruction and set my own price, which at most schools doesn't happen. I still couldn't live off this, since I don't get enough flights to be full time at this. How in the world would I look my wife in the eyes and say, I've decided to do this for the rest of my life? I would be divorced in minutes.
Anyways, enough of my soap box. All they're going to get out of this is even more renters building flight time, since very few people will hire a 250 hour pilot.
Ralgha
Well-Known Member
I'd support that. I didn't start using my CFI certificate until I had about 550 hours anyway. I think a higher time requirement would at least lead to instructors with a bit more experience, if not ones who are more dedicated.
Many of the 250 hour CFIs have probably flown very little outside a training environment, and requiring an extra 250 hours may kick them out of the nest for a while so to speak.
Many of the 250 hour CFIs have probably flown very little outside a training environment, and requiring an extra 250 hours may kick them out of the nest for a while so to speak.
jonnyb
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'd support that. I didn't start using my CFI certificate until I had about 550 hours anyway. I think a higher time requirement would at least lead to instructors with a bit more experience, if not ones who are more dedicated.
Many of the 250 hour CFIs have probably flown very little outside a training environment, and requiring an extra 250 hours may kick them out of the nest for a while so to speak.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't say I disagree with you. What you say is true, however, not for every young instructor. Ed is a perfect example of why they shouldn't change the rule, however, I have known several CFI's in the past with 2000 hours who shouldn't have been teaching. It all depends on the ability and maturity level of the individual. I think the FAA should just leave the decision in the hands of the examiner.
Only thing is, the domino effect will cause huge changes across the board. I doubt the FAA wants to deal with the red tape and headaches that will come with the change. Like I said, we shall see.
I'd support that. I didn't start using my CFI certificate until I had about 550 hours anyway. I think a higher time requirement would at least lead to instructors with a bit more experience, if not ones who are more dedicated.
Many of the 250 hour CFIs have probably flown very little outside a training environment, and requiring an extra 250 hours may kick them out of the nest for a while so to speak.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't say I disagree with you. What you say is true, however, not for every young instructor. Ed is a perfect example of why they shouldn't change the rule, however, I have known several CFI's in the past with 2000 hours who shouldn't have been teaching. It all depends on the ability and maturity level of the individual. I think the FAA should just leave the decision in the hands of the examiner.
Only thing is, the domino effect will cause huge changes across the board. I doubt the FAA wants to deal with the red tape and headaches that will come with the change. Like I said, we shall see.
BoilerPilot2007
Well-Known Member
Jonnyb hit it right on the head. In my opinion, its the knowledge you know, and your ability to convey the correct knowledge to the student that really determines a good CFI, not the number of hours.
Of course, experience is something that cannot be taught, and must be gained through one's career. But its not fair to say that a 500 hour CFI has more "experience," "skills," or "professionalism" to teach as opposed to a 250 or 300 hour student.
Personally, I couldn't support the change, but I guess with the pass rate at FSDO's nationwide, they must think for some reason its beneficial...
...... if the rumor's true at all
Of course, experience is something that cannot be taught, and must be gained through one's career. But its not fair to say that a 500 hour CFI has more "experience," "skills," or "professionalism" to teach as opposed to a 250 or 300 hour student.
Personally, I couldn't support the change, but I guess with the pass rate at FSDO's nationwide, they must think for some reason its beneficial...
...... if the rumor's true at all
ClipperPilot
New Member
I dont even want to think about it.
E_Dawg
Moderator
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe it Ed. It's not logical. In other words dude, I'll believe it when I see it. I guess we shall see. *(in subliminal man's voice), AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.*
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I hadn't heard of it before either... just wondering if you guys had; I would be very opposed to that change, look at all the pilots who would not be able to afford 500 hrs of flight... it would really hurt the industry: there'd be lest people training, less pilots, more guys who are successful in other professional jobs switching careers and buying a pilot seat.
Anyway a local examiner was talking about it, saying the faa would try to make the change within 2 years... until I hear more I don't think it'll happen.
I don't believe it Ed. It's not logical. In other words dude, I'll believe it when I see it. I guess we shall see. *(in subliminal man's voice), AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.*
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I hadn't heard of it before either... just wondering if you guys had; I would be very opposed to that change, look at all the pilots who would not be able to afford 500 hrs of flight... it would really hurt the industry: there'd be lest people training, less pilots, more guys who are successful in other professional jobs switching careers and buying a pilot seat.
Anyway a local examiner was talking about it, saying the faa would try to make the change within 2 years... until I hear more I don't think it'll happen.
Icelandair
New Member
If people were required to get the extra 250 hours somewhere else, where else would that be??? Who is going to hire a guy with just 200 hours fresh out of flight school? Unfortunately CFI'ing is one of the most practical ways to build hours and experience.
How would such a change affect part 141 schools?
How would such a change affect part 141 schools?
[ QUOTE ]
If people were required to get the extra 250 hours somewhere else, where else would that be??? Who is going to hire a guy with just 200 hours fresh out of flight school? Unfortunately CFI'ing is one of the most practical ways to build hours and experience.
It is unfortunate that CFI'ing is the most practical way to build time and experience because flight schools, for the most part, are staffed with instructors who have little desire to be instructors. Understandable, since the pay is low. I think the FAA's concern is quality of instruction overall. If you're just a right seat timebuilder, how dedicated can you be to teaching safe, proficient pilots? I could see this leading to 2 "classifications" of instructors, with some sort of apprentice instructor able to build the additional time in a sort of SIC way. I don't know...SkyGuyEd is right, this would definitely lead to turmoil in the industry!
If people were required to get the extra 250 hours somewhere else, where else would that be??? Who is going to hire a guy with just 200 hours fresh out of flight school? Unfortunately CFI'ing is one of the most practical ways to build hours and experience.
It is unfortunate that CFI'ing is the most practical way to build time and experience because flight schools, for the most part, are staffed with instructors who have little desire to be instructors. Understandable, since the pay is low. I think the FAA's concern is quality of instruction overall. If you're just a right seat timebuilder, how dedicated can you be to teaching safe, proficient pilots? I could see this leading to 2 "classifications" of instructors, with some sort of apprentice instructor able to build the additional time in a sort of SIC way. I don't know...SkyGuyEd is right, this would definitely lead to turmoil in the industry!
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Two years, eh? That gives me two years to get grandfathered in... Im up to the challenge /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/argue.gif
GregCollins2
Well-Known Member
I haven't heard any mention of an increase in hours to qualify for the CFI rating at the Atlanta FSDO. I've got a safety counselor class in a couple of weeks, and I will ask. Any change like that would require an NPRM and comment period. AOPA would fight against it (they like cheap instructors for their members). The up side for those of us already there, is that it would go a long way toward increasing instructor pay, and make CFI jobs more plentiful.
Your DPE may be confusing the change with the FAA's Aerial Tour NPRM which would require that Flight Instructors providing sight-seeing flights be Part-135 VFR qualified. That is in the works right now, and may very well pass in a year or two.
Your DPE may be confusing the change with the FAA's Aerial Tour NPRM which would require that Flight Instructors providing sight-seeing flights be Part-135 VFR qualified. That is in the works right now, and may very well pass in a year or two.
G
Guest
Guest
It is a shame how low the pay for pilots are. So much responsibility, yet so low pay. Other job that don't require as much of a responsibility pays more.
Grabo172
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It is a shame how low the pay for pilots are. So much responsibility, yet so low pay. Other job that don't require as much of a responsibility pays more.
[/ QUOTE ]
Garbage men ("people" for those who need political correctness) get paid Much Much more than I do as a CFI. I had a friend in HS that his dad worked as a collector for BFI and made somewhere in the ball park of $50K... but alas, thats another topic all together!
It is a shame how low the pay for pilots are. So much responsibility, yet so low pay. Other job that don't require as much of a responsibility pays more.
[/ QUOTE ]
Garbage men ("people" for those who need political correctness) get paid Much Much more than I do as a CFI. I had a friend in HS that his dad worked as a collector for BFI and made somewhere in the ball park of $50K... but alas, thats another topic all together!
Cosmo1999
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If they rasied the pay then people would stay around longer, which means less jobs to go around to new CFIs. It's lose-lose no matter what happens.Get to 1200TT and then get as far away from flight instructing as you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everytime someone trys to take a step forward this type of thinking causes two steps backward /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif This doesnt apply to instructing alone either
If they rasied the pay then people would stay around longer, which means less jobs to go around to new CFIs. It's lose-lose no matter what happens.Get to 1200TT and then get as far away from flight instructing as you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everytime someone trys to take a step forward this type of thinking causes two steps backward /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif This doesnt apply to instructing alone either
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they rasied the pay then people would stay around longer, which means less jobs to go around to new CFIs. It's lose-lose no matter what happens.Get to 1200TT and then get as far away from flight instructing as you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everytime someone trys to take a step forward this type of thinking causes two steps backward /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif This doesnt apply to instructing alone either
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup.
[ QUOTE ]
If they rasied the pay then people would stay around longer, which means less jobs to go around to new CFIs. It's lose-lose no matter what happens.Get to 1200TT and then get as far away from flight instructing as you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everytime someone trys to take a step forward this type of thinking causes two steps backward /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif This doesnt apply to instructing alone either
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup.