CFIs

[fredsez]

Where are the CFIs?
Without enough good CFIs... the number of new soaring pilots will
decline.
A potential CFI asked me what is the first requirement to become a
CFI? Perhaps I didn't think of the FARs, but my answer was; "You need
a strong desire to teach".

Some CFIs need to build flying time to get an ATP job. Some cannot
afford to fly at all, so they fly as CFIs just to enjoy the life of
flying. Most glider sites are remote from city life, and offer less
attractions to young pilots as a full time job.

Glider sites cannot afford the real estate costs of nearby city life.
Most cannot offer housing that is affordable. A well paid glider CFI
earns more per hour than a comparable SEL instructor is paid, but
where can he live? Where is life?...(females)

Instructor pay is the smallest part of a students cost to learn to
fly. Good clubs, for example; TSA south of Fort Worth, seems to have
solved the problem.

The top pay or cost to the student for an instructor runs about $57
per hour. A popular instructor, flying at a good operation may earn
about $32,000 per year. An Auto mechanic at a dealers shop will do
much better.

Where are the instructors? Fred

[Bill Daniels]

"fredsez" > wrote in message
...
> Where are the CFIs?
> Without enough good CFIs... the number of new soaring pilots will
> decline.
> A potential CFI asked me what is the first requirement to become a
> CFI? Perhaps I didn't think of the FARs, but my answer was; "You need
> a strong desire to teach".
>
> Some CFIs need to build flying time to get an ATP job. Some cannot
> afford to fly at all, so they fly as CFIs just to enjoy the life of
> flying. Most glider sites are remote from city life, and offer less
> attractions to young pilots as a full time job.
>
> Glider sites cannot afford the real estate costs of nearby city life.
> Most cannot offer housing that is affordable. A well paid glider CFI
> earns more per hour than a comparable SEL instructor is paid, but
> where can he live? Where is life?...(females)
>
> Instructor pay is the smallest part of a students cost to learn to
> fly. Good clubs, for example; TSA south of Fort Worth, seems to have
> solved the problem.
>
> The top pay or cost to the student for an instructor runs about $57
> per hour. A popular instructor, flying at a good operation may earn
> about $32,000 per year. An Auto mechanic at a dealers shop will do
> much better.
>
> Where are the instructors? Fred
>
>
Fred, I think I know part of the answer.

There are many pilots who hold an instructor certificate and for whom the
pay is not an issue but they don't teach. There are many reasons but one
that comes up a lot is that they absolutely hate the back seat of a 2-33.
I'm no longer willing to risk my back in one.

If there were a more attractive, more comfortable trainer, at least some of
these instructors would become active.

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

I think the problem goes all the way back to manufacturers and cost of
soaring as it is not ´paid´sport and FAI. As Bill said lot of
instructors would fly more, if the óffice´ is nicer. But cost of a
desent (good) 2-seater is huge. Not many operation can buy those
(except Gavin ;). When you take the cost of glider and try to add
instructor´s salary on top of it, the formula is pretty impossible
(except for Gavin ;). And soaring is not a ´top´ sport which draws new
young students. Can anyone think another sport that the cost of
equipment is as high as in soaring and if you are world number 1,
you'll be paid NADA :) Hopefully this new GP format will turn the next
page. Finally a good desision from FAI side. Finally...

PS



On 29 joulu, 17:13, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "fredsez" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Where are the CFIs?
> > Without enough good CFIs... the number of new soaring pilots will
> > decline.
> > A potential CFI asked me what is the first requirement to become a
> > CFI? Perhaps I didn't think of the FARs, but my answer was; "You need
> > a strong desire to teach".
>
> > Some CFIs need to build flying time to get an ATP job. Some cannot
> > afford to fly at all, so they fly as CFIs just to enjoy the life of
> > flying. Most glider sites are remote from city life, and offer less
> > attractions to young pilots as a full time job.
>
> > Glider sites cannot afford the real estate costs of nearby city life.
> > Most cannot offer housing that is affordable. A well paid glider CFI
> > earns more per hour than a comparable SEL instructor is paid, but
> > where can he live? Where is life?...(females)
>
> > Instructor pay is the smallest part of a students cost to learn to
> > fly. Good clubs, for example; TSA south of Fort Worth, seems to have
> > solved the problem.
>
> > The top pay or cost to the student for an instructor runs about $57
> > per hour. A popular instructor, flying at a good operation may earn
> > about $32,000 per year. An Auto mechanic at a dealers shop will do
> > much better.



>
> > Where are the instructors? Fred
>
> Fred, I think I know part of the answer.
>
> There are many pilots who hold an instructor certificate and for whom the
> pay is not an issue but they don't teach. There are many reasons but one
> that comes up a lot is that they absolutely hate the back seat of a 2-33.
> I'm no longer willing to risk my back in one.
>
> If there were a more attractive, more comfortable trainer, at least some of
> these instructors would become active.
>
> Bill Daniels

[Bullwinkle]

On 12/29/07 9:16 AM, in article
,
" >
wrote:

> I think the problem goes all the way back to manufacturers and cost of
> soaring as it is not ´paid´sport and FAI. As Bill said lot of
> instructors would fly more, if the óffice´ is nicer. But cost of a
> desent (good) 2-seater is huge. Not many operation can buy those
> (except Gavin ;). When you take the cost of glider and try to add
> instructor´s salary on top of it, the formula is pretty impossible
> (except for Gavin ;). And soaring is not a ´top´ sport which draws new
> young students. Can anyone think another sport that the cost of
> equipment is as high as in soaring and if you are world number 1,
> you'll be paid NADA :) Hopefully this new GP format will turn the next
> page. Finally a good desision from FAI side. Finally...
>
> PS
>
>
>
> On 29 joulu, 17:13, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> "fredsez" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Where are the CFIs?
>>> Without enough good CFIs... the number of new soaring pilots will
>>> decline.
>>> A potential CFI asked me what is the first requirement to become a
>>> CFI? Perhaps I didn't think of the FARs, but my answer was; "You need
>>> a strong desire to teach".
>>
>>> Some CFIs need to build flying time to get an ATP job. Some cannot
>>> afford to fly at all, so they fly as CFIs just to enjoy the life of
>>> flying. Most glider sites are remote from city life, and offer less
>>> attractions to young pilots as a full time job.
>>
>>> Glider sites cannot afford the real estate costs of nearby city life.
>>> Most cannot offer housing that is affordable. A well paid glider CFI
>>> earns more per hour than a comparable SEL instructor is paid, but
>>> where can he live? Where is life?...(females)
>>
>>> Instructor pay is the smallest part of a students cost to learn to
>>> fly. Good clubs, for example; TSA south of Fort Worth, seems to have
>>> solved the problem.
>>
>>> The top pay or cost to the student for an instructor runs about $57
>>> per hour. A popular instructor, flying at a good operation may earn
>>> about $32,000 per year. An Auto mechanic at a dealers shop will do
>>> much better.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Where are the instructors? Fred
>>
>> Fred, I think I know part of the answer.
>>
>> There are many pilots who hold an instructor certificate and for whom the
>> pay is not an issue but they don't teach. There are many reasons but one
>> that comes up a lot is that they absolutely hate the back seat of a 2-33.
>> I'm no longer willing to risk my back in one.
>>
>> If there were a more attractive, more comfortable trainer, at least some of
>> these instructors would become active.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>

My own view only, everyone else may have a completely different perspective
for which I have enormous respect.

I am in a club which bends over backwards with incentives for the towpilots
(and are discussing more incentives), but gives no incentives at all for
instructors. I am a CFIG who chooses to donate the instructor fees to the
Club, but I get no break on dues or personal tow fees. I also pay to attend
FIRC's and if I want instructors insurance, that's out of pocket, too.

No offense to the students, without whom our sport wouldn't survive, but for
the CFIG getting a student is like acquiring the Albatross from Coleridge's
Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Naturally the student wants to fly, and the
student wants to fly during the good times of the year, and at the good
times of the day (when thermals are likely). Thus, the CFIG's personal
flying in their own ship becomes either very limited (when the student is
not available), or guilt-ridden.

So, in the zero-sum game of investing of the limited time I have available
for soaring, I lose in multiple ways when I am an active instructor.

So, personal opinion only, I am very selective about what instruction I will
provide, because I like to fly. Does that make sense?

Respectfully,
Bullwinkle

p.s. By the way, I also hate the back seat of the 2-33, for the same reason
Bill does. Some of us aren't getting any younger, any more limber, or any
lighter.

[Bill Daniels]

So, what are the options? Continue the death spiral we're in or work toward
a solution?

Modern glider trainers are hideously expensive compared to anything that
preceeded them but not so much so when compared to the airplane trainers on
the other side of the airport. A big difference is the training airplanes
get in more revenue hours per day so their capital costs can be spread
across more hours reducing the rental rate.

The solution for gliders is the same. Increase revenue hours by using
winches. This re-jiggers the finances so some of the cash flow that went
to the tug goes to support expensive trainers. This opens the door to
digging out of the hole we're in with decades old, worn out, ugly trainers.

Winches increase flying by reducing student costs yet provides cash for new
trainers.
New trainers and winches attract instructors and new students.
Increased activity pays for the new gliders and the winch.
The beauty is that if done right, there is no net increase in costs.

As many will hasten to point out, this is not a instant 'magic' solution but
is is a path that leads to one. It requires re-thinking of how we do
things. It requires a lot of work. It requires some faith that it will
work out for the better.

This can't be implemented instantly. It's a journey more than a
destination. But the first step is to begin the process by shifting some
training to winch launch. Even this is a process. We have to train
instructors in winch launch. We have to find airfields, we have to buy or
build winches...

If we are going to save this sport, we have a lot of work to do. We're
going to have to re-invent ourselves.

Bill Daniels


> wrote in message
...
I think the problem goes all the way back to manufacturers and cost of
soaring as it is not ´paid´sport and FAI. As Bill said lot of
instructors would fly more, if the óffice´ is nicer. But cost of a
desent (good) 2-seater is huge. Not many operation can buy those
(except Gavin ;). When you take the cost of glider and try to add
instructor´s salary on top of it, the formula is pretty impossible
(except for Gavin ;). And soaring is not a ´top´ sport which draws new
young students. Can anyone think another sport that the cost of
equipment is as high as in soaring and if you are world number 1,
you'll be paid NADA :) Hopefully this new GP format will turn the next
page. Finally a good desision from FAI side. Finally...

PS



On 29 joulu, 17:13, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "fredsez" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Where are the CFIs?
> > Without enough good CFIs... the number of new soaring pilots will
> > decline.
> > A potential CFI asked me what is the first requirement to become a
> > CFI? Perhaps I didn't think of the FARs, but my answer was; "You need
> > a strong desire to teach".
>
> > Some CFIs need to build flying time to get an ATP job. Some cannot
> > afford to fly at all, so they fly as CFIs just to enjoy the life of
> > flying. Most glider sites are remote from city life, and offer less
> > attractions to young pilots as a full time job.
>
> > Glider sites cannot afford the real estate costs of nearby city life.
> > Most cannot offer housing that is affordable. A well paid glider CFI
> > earns more per hour than a comparable SEL instructor is paid, but
> > where can he live? Where is life?...(females)
>
> > Instructor pay is the smallest part of a students cost to learn to
> > fly. Good clubs, for example; TSA south of Fort Worth, seems to have
> > solved the problem.
>
> > The top pay or cost to the student for an instructor runs about $57
> > per hour. A popular instructor, flying at a good operation may earn
> > about $32,000 per year. An Auto mechanic at a dealers shop will do
> > much better.



>
> > Where are the instructors? Fred
>
> Fred, I think I know part of the answer.
>
> There are many pilots who hold an instructor certificate and for whom the
> pay is not an issue but they don't teach. There are many reasons but one
> that comes up a lot is that they absolutely hate the back seat of a 2-33.
> I'm no longer willing to risk my back in one.
>
> If there were a more attractive, more comfortable trainer, at least some
> of
> these instructors would become active.
>
> Bill Daniels

[Steve Davis]

At 17:06 29 December 2007, Bill Daniels wrote:
>So, what are the options? Continue the death spiral
>we're in or work
toward
>a solution?
>
>Modern glider trainers are hideously expensive compared
>to anything
that
>preceeded them but not so much so when compared to
>the airplane
trainers on
>the other side of the airport. A big difference is
>the training airplanes
>get in more revenue hours per day so their capital
>costs can be spread
>across more hours reducing the rental rate.
>
>The solution for gliders is the same. Increase revenue
>hours by using
>winches. This re-jiggers the finances so some of the
>cash flow that
went
>to the tug goes to support expensive trainers. This
>opens the door to
>digging out of the hole we're in with decades old,
>worn out, ugly
trainers.
>
>Winches increase flying by reducing student costs yet
>provides cash for
new
>trainers.
>New trainers and winches attract instructors and new
>students.
>Increased activity pays for the new gliders and the
>winch.
>The beauty is that if done right, there is no net increase
>in costs.
>
>As many will hasten to point out, this is not a instant
>'magic' solution
but
>is is a path that leads to one. It requires re-thinking
>of how we do
>things. It requires a lot of work. It requires some
>faith that it will
>work out for the better.
>
>This can't be implemented instantly. It's a journey
>more than a
>destination. But the first step is to begin the process
>by shifting some
>training to winch launch. Even this is a process.
> We have to train
>instructors in winch launch. We have to find airfields,
>we have to buy
or
>build winches...
>
>If we are going to save this sport, we have a lot of
>work to do. We're
>going to have to re-invent ourselves.
>
>Bill Daniels

The 2-33 doesn't have to die. In a well marketed winch
launch
operation a 2-33 could be used as a single seat fun
ride for
experienced pilots, especially if you have a winch
launch
operation that can do very high launches. A new pilot
with low
flight time could take a friend for a thrill ride and
let them use
the back seat. Just do introductory rides and flight
training
in a nice glass ship.

[Shirl]

Steve Davis > wrote:
> The 2-33 doesn't have to die. In a well marketed winch
> launch operation a 2-33 could be used as a single seat fun
> ride for experienced pilots, especially if you have a winch
> launch operation that can do very high launches. A new
> pilot with low flight time could take a friend for a thrill ride
> and let them use the back seat. Just do introductory rides
> and flight training in a nice glass ship.

I learned to fly in a 2-33. I was only rode in the back twice but didn't
find it uncomfortable. The 2-33 gets so much bad press. Why? I flew the
Grob, too, but always felt more "at home" in the 2-33. Maybe it's just
what you get used to? Took my sis-in-law for a ride in the 2-33 after
getting my license, and she said it was an "E-ticket ride", so I guess
you're right, but I was never that uncomfortable in it.

[Dan G]

Slightly O/T but I'm curious: in the UK all instructors are volunteers
and instruct for free. The courses required to become an instructor
are cheap so there's little cost (if any if the club pays, which they
often do) involved in becoming one.

Is it different in the states? How does it work over there?


Dan

[Papa3]

On Dec 29, 4:30*pm, Dan G > wrote:
> Slightly O/T but I'm curious: in the UK all instructors are volunteers
> and instruct for free. The courses required to become an instructor
> are cheap so there's little cost *(if any if the club pays, which they
> often do) involved in becoming one.
>
> Is it different in the states? How does it work over there?
>
> Dan

Hi Dan,

By and large, glider instructors over here (in the States) earn their
CFI-G on their own. By that, I mean there are very few organized
"instructor training" courses. Some of the larger clubs have the
resources and talent to provide formal training, but at most
locations, it's up to the individual. The existing instructors will
help with the requisite dual and sign offs for written and practical
tests, but the costs (tows, testing, books, etc.) are typically born
by the aspiring instructor. Note I said "typically"; I'm sure there
are a few good exceptions.

One other big difference is that some fairly significant percentage of
the soaring done in the States is done from a commercial operation.
In these settings, there's very little incentive for the new CFI-G to
emerge. They have to pay for tows and rent the glider to build up
hours, and they would have to pay the existing CFI-G for the
instruction toward the rating. Despite the glamorous lifestyle and
high pay, it's not something that most young guns would go after. If
they're interested in an airline job, they'll get their ASEL followed
by their Instrument and Instructor ratings and build up hours that
way.

Thinking in terms of the club/commercial operation where I fly, I can
think of only one new CFI-G being minted in the last 10 years, and
this is at a moderately large operation. Obviously, it's not a
sustainable model...

Erik Mann

[Cats]

On Dec 29, 9:30*pm, Dan G > wrote:
> Slightly O/T but I'm curious: in the UK all instructors are volunteers
> and instruct for free. The courses required to become an instructor
> are cheap so there's little cost *(if any if the club pays, which they
> often do) involved in becoming one.
>
> Is it different in the states? How does it work over there?
>
> Dan

The BGA courses might not be very expensive but the necessary flying
beforehand almost certainly is.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

I guess if I look at this issue from the perspective of supply and
demand, the problem is not a shortage of CFIGs, it's a shortage of
students. If there were a long line of students outside the flight
lounge every day waiting for training, CFIGs would come. The cost of
training might go up (due to the initial shortage of CFIGs) and that
would shorten the line of students a bit, until a new equilibrium was
struck. But in that new balance, CFIGs would be compensated enough to
sustain them, and much needed cash and pilots would flow into the
sport.

That's why I am personally excited about the Grand Prix racing format
raising the profile of the sport. The fact is that the vast majority
of people on this planet don't know that soaring exists, or at least
don't know enough about it to give it a second thought. And of the
pool of people that do become aware of soaring, some (probably very
small but constant) percentage decide to give it a go. If 10X more
people are made aware of our existence, then the number of people
willing to try it will go up by 10X (or something close) as well and
the whole economics of the game changes. I believe the key to turning
the sport around is positive, high profile exposure. And not just for
the sport itself, but exposure for the personalities involved. People
follow car racing for the drivers, not the cars. Can we agree there
is no shortage of eccentric personality in our sport?

As the stakes go up, the media is more likely to pay attention too.
If someone walks away with $150,000 in first prize money for winning
the GP, guess what? There are going to be more interviews of the
winner, and more coverage of the event by the media. And of course
sponsors start to get interested in the media coverage and
participation. We still have the chicken/egg problem that keeps this
sort of thing from ramping up quickly: Exposure takes money before it
can create money. But what if Fossett's estate were to sponsor a
prize? Or Hilton (I know he does this now with the Hilton Cup, but
it's a very private affair, isn't it) There are plenty of high
profile people involved in the sport that could stir things up if they
wished.

It would also be wonderful if the SSA could turn outward and be the
true ambassador of soaring it aspires to be. How many 14 year old
boys or girls know they are already old enough to fly a real plane by
themselves? (Oh, but what if the wind dies? Will I crash?) Educate
them! I love soaring enough that I would happily pay double my SSA
dues if I know the money was going toward informing and engaging
potential new pilots. I will always take time to sit a curious kid in
the cockpit and try to inspire them, and I know almost every other
pilot will too, but it's a woefully inefficient way to get the word
out. Reactive rather than proactive. Thanks to politics, PR, and
advertising, getting your message across is now a precise science,
with measurable results. Surely we can communicate the joy of soaring
more effectively and efficiently than we do today. And just as
surely, more people will join us.

Matt Herron Jr.

[Mike Schumann]

Our club has minted two new CFIGs last year, with more people in the
pipeline. I don't see us turning away new member prospects because we don't
have enough CFIGs.

Mike Schumann

"Papa3" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 4:30 pm, Dan G > wrote:
> Slightly O/T but I'm curious: in the UK all instructors are volunteers
> and instruct for free. The courses required to become an instructor
> are cheap so there's little cost (if any if the club pays, which they
> often do) involved in becoming one.
>
> Is it different in the states? How does it work over there?
>
> Dan

Hi Dan,

By and large, glider instructors over here (in the States) earn their
CFI-G on their own. By that, I mean there are very few organized
"instructor training" courses. Some of the larger clubs have the
resources and talent to provide formal training, but at most
locations, it's up to the individual. The existing instructors will
help with the requisite dual and sign offs for written and practical
tests, but the costs (tows, testing, books, etc.) are typically born
by the aspiring instructor. Note I said "typically"; I'm sure there
are a few good exceptions.

One other big difference is that some fairly significant percentage of
the soaring done in the States is done from a commercial operation.
In these settings, there's very little incentive for the new CFI-G to
emerge. They have to pay for tows and rent the glider to build up
hours, and they would have to pay the existing CFI-G for the
instruction toward the rating. Despite the glamorous lifestyle and
high pay, it's not something that most young guns would go after. If
they're interested in an airline job, they'll get their ASEL followed
by their Instrument and Instructor ratings and build up hours that
way.

Thinking in terms of the club/commercial operation where I fly, I can
think of only one new CFI-G being minted in the last 10 years, and
this is at a moderately large operation. Obviously, it's not a
sustainable model...

Erik Mann




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com