Initial CFI failure rate

hindsight2020 said:
That's because you've never had to confront Maslow's Hierarchy of needs when proffering those signatures, by your own admission (my emphasis). Or as we call it, speaking from the cheap seats. It's ok to have a hobby, but you don't get to chastise (not without pushback that is) those trying to make a living whereby your very presence as someone who can afford to do it for play money, undercuts their ability to derive a livelihood.

Don't misunderstand, it's not unique to flight instruction, I can say the same thing about airline pilots protective of their job space against military retirees, visa holders, and things like the repeal of the Jones Act or the introduction of cabotage.

In short, we're all rent-seekers in life. Which is why you're not gonna catch me finger wagging at anybody who may be accused of "quiet quitting" over low pay. Rational incentives do exist, the "Needs-Poor" (in the context of Maslow) don't owe anybody prompt service.
Click to expand...
I have never tied the quality of my work with the rate of my compensation and my needs have always been met.

If I wanted more money I found a way to earn more money.

I feel working down to a compensation is self limiting and with flight instruction it puts the clients and the flying public at risk.

Most of the CFIs I know do their best and may be limited by the quality of their own instruction or their limited experience as a flight instructor.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Perhaps CFIs who need to get paid more in order to do their job properly should go to work at McDonald’s.
Click to expand...
Don't look now, but your binary breeds outcomes like Renslow and Shaw.
Vance Breese said:
I feel working down to a compensation is self limiting and with flight instruction it puts the clients and the flying public at risk.
Click to expand...
And the money-stoic alternative is better? Renslow and Shaw would like a word with you about that.
 
How is the current aviation training environment using brand new inexperienced CFIs working their way up to airlines much different than universities using TAs to teach basic calculus, chemistry, physics, computer science, engineering courses for future engineers and scientists? That model seems to work fairly well. No one expects TAs to earn a living teaching.

Better universities produce better engineers and scientists . Just as some flight programs produce better pilots.


Seems like a bunch of geezers here grousing over nothing.
 
hindsight2020 said:
And the money-stoic alternative is better? Renslow and Shaw would like a word with you about that.
Click to expand...
In my life it has not been one or the other.

In my opinion I would not have a positive outcome if I told the learner that unless he pays more money I will not do a good job as his flight instructor.

I feel knowingly abusing a client because of his ignorance about what constitutes quality flight instruction is unprofessional.

I feel lowering my standards because I am dissatisfied with the compensation diminishes the quality of my life.

I took the job knowing what the compensation was and it is my obligation to perform to the best of my ability even if I regret the decision to accept that amount of compensation.

I will learn more and get a greater benefit from my efforts if I do my best.
 
CFI aiming towards airlines:
+$15 hourly rate (or whatever)
+$125 hourly Hobbs rate that student pays for your logbook hour
= $140/hr equivalent compensation

It’s even more if you consider that the $140 is post-tax. But maybe less if you consider ground time, meetings, admin work, etc.

Not bad, if you’re a 22 year old time builder for eventual ATP.

Yeah, I get that you can’t eat or buy gas or pay rent with it…yet.
 
noahfong said:
I think people who use the excuse that they will do a better job if they got paid more will continue to do a lousy job no matter how much they got paid.

My observation aligns with the OP...I can't help but feel there is a huge percentage of flight instructors that just aren't any good. And it explains why so many students take 100+ hours to get their private pilot certificate. Many of them try hard but can't seem to teach; many are really incompetent and don't know much; some can't fly any better; many just don't care. Just about all of them are airline bound.

I spoke to a few recent CFIs who told me they did not have to teach during their practical. It was mainly flying scenarios and testing judgment. I was amazed. Within the last month, I had a chance to speak with a DPE who told me that the PTS doesn't require the CFI candidate to teach anything except for a single in-flight maneuver. The rest is evaluation of "instructional knowledge". I told him that he could evaluate that by making them teach. And to use teaching scenarios instead of ordinary flying scenarios. But he didn't want to do anything the PTS doesn't require.

During my CFI checkrides I had to teach no less than 3 ground topics. I taught or demonstrated all the maneuvers. Now, it seems, which the exception of teaching one maneuver, all the candidate has to do is to do the equivalent of a commercial checkride.
Click to expand...
PTS clearly and unambiguously states “possesses instructional proficiency” on every single area.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
This 100%.

It's also troubling that someone wouldn't realize the value of their non-cash compensation as a CFI, particularly if this brand new 250h CFI fancies themselves a future professional airline pilot that needs 1500h.

Stiffing your unsuspecting student with shi**y quality instruction because you're not incentivized enough with your take-home pay just showcases your own ignorance. You should recognize that poor sap student is the only reason your broke as* has a chance in hell of achieving your dreams of reaching the airlines, because without their financial subsidy of paying for the plane and your hourly-rate you wouldn't be able to make it on your own. Making a poor job of it and shafting the student just illustrates your own immaturity and a lack of awareness about the situation.

Coincidentally such work ethic would feel right at home at McDonalds.
Click to expand...
You might believe pay is the issue, but in the college setting pays >$35 an hour and this crowd is the worst CFIs on the planet.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
It's true that a CFI can't really support a family on typical pay. I am not full time, but if I were, I would make about 60K a year. For me it is a great retirement job, and I can work as much or as little as I want.

But I am bothered by your comment that the amount we are paid would make a difference in providing valuable instruction. My signature is in more than 600 logbooks. I sure hope every single pilot I trained found the instruction valuable, and that it has contributed to safe flying.
Click to expand...
I think that a person’s pay is a reflection of their value. My babysitter charges $35/hr. Most CFIs with $100k+ in flight training debt can barely make that much.

A person’s pay is a direct reflection of their value and experience.
 
noahfong said:
I had a chance to speak with a DPE who told me that the PTS doesn't require the CFI candidate to teach anything except for a single in-flight maneuver.
Click to expand...
Maybe this is the real reason CFI quality is bad. Seems every time I turn around I'm reading a story online about some mixed-up DPE who has bizarre, novel thoughts about how things are supposed to be done. Perhaps the FAA needs better oversight, or a better selection process of its DPEs.
 
Instructors here in Florida are getting $60-$70 an hour.
 
Some of the best cfi’s I’ve flown with are independents that don’t charge anything but paying for the gas and buying them lunch.

Unfortunately, most of them avoid primary training. I do think it’s a rare person that’s both good at it, and also willing to do primary training over and over as a career - even if the pay was good. So you’re stuck with those willing to work for peanuts to build hours without having to pay for them.
 
Last edited:
Walboy said:
Seems like a bunch of geezers here grousing over nothing.
Click to expand...
Yeah...I see a whole lot of former students who once had tens of thousands of dollars in savings and left with practically NOTHING. Not even a certificate or even close to checkride ready. Having been "taken" by CFIs who merely go through the motions of teaching and taking the money by the hour...having no concern whether the student progresses or not. But it suited them to have gotten the $80 to $100+/hour (yes...you heard that right; also ground time is another $80-$100/hour) plus the flight hours. Lots of unproductive and unnecessary flights just to "have fun". One student was taken to the tune of 200 hours! Most just gave up the dream.

Some would be tempted to conclude those just weren't cut out to be pilots. Not so fast. I worked with some of them afterwards and within just a few 10s of hours got them checkride ready and they passed their checkrides (including the 200 hour one who got her PPL at around 230). They just need some real instruction. I didn't charge many of them much because I felt badly for them.

Plus I felt I needed to restore some integrity in aviation. I'm glad to see so many on this forum who also really cares. Thank you!
 
Gordon Freeman said:
PTS clearly and unambiguously states “possesses instructional proficiency” on every single area.
Click to expand...
Yeah...so let them demonstrate it by effectively teaching something on the practical.
 
Like it or not, flight instructing is considered an entry level job.

A retired CEO that made millions, if after they retire choose to work at McDonalds, will make close to minimum wage.

It’s the way it is.
 
Mikey52 said:
Instructors here in Florida are getting $60-$70 an hour.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The schools may charge that amount, but it isn't all going to the instructors. The only time I received all of the hourly rate was when I worked as an independent CFI, and my rate was substantially lower than what the FBO was charging.
 
What value do brand new CFIs really think they provide?
If you put it in college terms they're already getting the equivalent of a full scholarship (their flight hours/education are being paid for by the student's they're teaching -- AND they're collecting a wage on top of that). They're like a grad student TA. Why would they expect with their whopping 250h of experience that they would command "good" money on top of that so they can live a more comfortable lifestyle? That is just not many flight hours.

College BA/BS students pour 4 years of their life and about 4500-5500h class+study time to get their degree, and they only make 50-60k on avg out of the box. Thinking you should be making anywhere close to that, in addition to your subsidized PIC hours, with a whopping 250h investment is kind of silly. Gotta rack up more hours and build a track record or develop a specialty to demand more pay, and even then you will have to contend with competition.

Gordon Freeman said:
I think that a person’s pay is a reflection of their value. My babysitter charges $35/hr. Most CFIs with $100k+ in flight training debt can barely make that much.

A person’s pay is a direct reflection of their value and experience.
Click to expand...
I recommend you look at @455 Bravo Uniform math above. If you think you're making less than a baby sitter, you're doing the math wrong. Your all-in comp is multiple times that of a baby sitter. It's just not in cash paid directly to you. But it's cash that would have to be spent in order for you to ever get that PIC.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
I doubt it. The schools may charge that amount, but it isn't all going to the instructors. The only time I received all of the hourly rate was when I worked as an independent CFI, and my rate was substantially lower than what the FBO was charging.
Click to expand...

I was making $50/hr in MS and I'm fairly certain I was the lowest paid instructor at the time. There are some sweetheart deals out there if you're lucky enough to find one. Just happened to have the right connection at the right time in my case.
 
Just as another data point on what we’re talking about here, I observed an instructor today. At one point he indicated that the pilot needs to wait until x speed is achieved after an approach to landing stall before retracting the flaps because it what “the examiner wants to see.”

No. The reason you wait is so that during the recovery from an approach to landing stall is so that you don’t get a secondary, full, stall and crash. What the examiner wants to see doesn’t mean ****. And I’m the examiner.
 
Yeah that's definitely a failure of instruction :frown2:
 
I have flown with 5 instructors/CFI's like the ones described as just getting the 1500 hours in their log books.

Only one of them flew with me more than once. I did not waste my hard earned cash on poor instruction.

I think that all my good instructors had another job, they were willing to go the extra effort to have a living wage, plus an entry to airline pilot. Others did it as a hobby, in their spare time, because they simply loved to fly, and hang out with pilots.

10 of us sitting down at a table with such a man, and thrashing out the real meaning of the FAR's, or why a plane performs as it does at near stall speeds, is eye opening for some, as they did not read that up yet. Once a month our flying club did that, and donated twice his regular instructing rate for the session.

That man was an engineer by profession, made good money, and liked being home at night, every night. Airline, especially the early years did not offer that perk.

When I retired from my regular job, I considered CFI for aa short time, dropped the idea when I realized how much I would have to study to be a GOOD CFI. I was not willing to be just good enough.

One of the outstanding instructors that advanced my skills was a full time Delta Captain, taught multiengine ground school, for free, just so they would be better pilots. Informal classes around a picnic table at the airport. His fun plane was a J 3 Piper, and he flew some instruction in the school plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top