I am seriously considering going back to doing some flight instructing.
I was talking to my friend who is finishing my PA 11 clone for me and have decided to use it to teach tail wheel flying as a part time hobby.
It will be back to basics flying with a Cub mostly off runway stuff.
Retirement for me is not working as I still feel I am in my twenties physically and mentally so why not do something I enjoy.
Do you girls and guys think there would be a market for that kind of flying?
I want to go back to work.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
It depends a bit upon where you are, but ...
I think "stick & rudder" flight instruction is definitely in demand!
The FBO at my airport has, in addition to the usual Cessnas:
CITABRIA 7GCAA ULTIMATE ADVENTURE (160/hr)
SUPER DECATHLON 8KCAB (175/hr)
PITTS S-2C (285/hr)
EXTRA 300/L (385/hr)
Prices are USD and are for aircraft only - instructor is another 100.
They've been doing that for decades, so presumably there is some
money to be made, doing it!
I think "stick & rudder" flight instruction is definitely in demand!
The FBO at my airport has, in addition to the usual Cessnas:
CITABRIA 7GCAA ULTIMATE ADVENTURE (160/hr)
SUPER DECATHLON 8KCAB (175/hr)
PITTS S-2C (285/hr)
EXTRA 300/L (385/hr)
Prices are USD and are for aircraft only - instructor is another 100.
They've been doing that for decades, so presumably there is some
money to be made, doing it!
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
A hundred US dollars per hour for an instructor? That'll leave a mark. I suppose if you can afford it, it beats waiting for several years to do it at the Calgary flying club.
Set up at Bieseker Chuck there are a bunch of guys on a waiting list at springbank. You could set a fee to fly over to pick those guys up. You could take them to CuNim or a few other nearby grass fields and it's game on.
Set up at Bieseker Chuck there are a bunch of guys on a waiting list at springbank. You could set a fee to fly over to pick those guys up. You could take them to CuNim or a few other nearby grass fields and it's game on.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
I might humbly suggest not offering solo rental. So,
if you only offer dual, people will only see the combined
rate of aircraft and instructor.
You want to integrate under the price-elasticity curve,
starting at the right hand side. Otherwise you are leaving
money on the table.
Let's say you have a dual hourly rate of X which results
in Y hours of demand for dual per week.
If X was ridiculously low, say X=$50/hr (for aircraft and pilot),
you would probably have demand for Y=100 hours per week.
While this is very egalitarian, you probably wouldn't want
to do that. You would lose money on every hour flown,
you wouldn't make it up on the volume, and it's not practical
to fly 5,000 hours per year anyways. People would be happy
to pay much more than $50/hr, and that should make the light
bulb go on.
If X was higher, say X=$300/hr (for aircraft and pilot) you
might end Y=5 hours per week, which for a part time
operation, might be the right number. You don't need to
teach every pilot in Canada - only the ones that are willing
to pay a premium price. And you don't need very many of
them to keep you busy.
I'm just pulling numbers out of the air to discuss the theory.
You need to figure out how many hours of dual you want to
offer, and increase the price until the demand drops to that
number. Then, look at the difference between that number
and your costs, and see if think your time is worth it.
I haven't a clue what flight training costs in BC - all I know
is that they sure have unique parking skills:
It would make a lot of sense for that guy to get some driving
lessons at $500/hour. That sounds like a lot, but it would save
him a lot of money.
if you only offer dual, people will only see the combined
rate of aircraft and instructor.
You want to integrate under the price-elasticity curve,
starting at the right hand side. Otherwise you are leaving
money on the table.
Let's say you have a dual hourly rate of X which results
in Y hours of demand for dual per week.
If X was ridiculously low, say X=$50/hr (for aircraft and pilot),
you would probably have demand for Y=100 hours per week.
While this is very egalitarian, you probably wouldn't want
to do that. You would lose money on every hour flown,
you wouldn't make it up on the volume, and it's not practical
to fly 5,000 hours per year anyways. People would be happy
to pay much more than $50/hr, and that should make the light
bulb go on.
If X was higher, say X=$300/hr (for aircraft and pilot) you
might end Y=5 hours per week, which for a part time
operation, might be the right number. You don't need to
teach every pilot in Canada - only the ones that are willing
to pay a premium price. And you don't need very many of
them to keep you busy.
I'm just pulling numbers out of the air to discuss the theory.
You need to figure out how many hours of dual you want to
offer, and increase the price until the demand drops to that
number. Then, look at the difference between that number
and your costs, and see if think your time is worth it.
I haven't a clue what flight training costs in BC - all I know
is that they sure have unique parking skills:
It would make a lot of sense for that guy to get some driving
lessons at $500/hour. That sounds like a lot, but it would save
him a lot of money.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
re: making it up on the volume ....
For completeness I would like to mention that your costs can
be divided into two groups: [u]fixed[/u] and [u]variable[/u].
[u]Fixed[/u] costs are what you have to pay, regardless of whether
or not the aircraft flies. This includes the cost of capital, hangarage,
insurance, NavCan fees, ELT check & battery, transponder/encoder
checks, annual inspection, etc. A pile of coin, when you add it up.
[u]Variable[/u] costs are directly incurred by each hour of operation.
This would include gasoline, oil and various maintenance costs such
as tires, brakes, engine, prop, avionics, interior, exterior (paint), etc.
People tend to really underestimate this, in my experience.
If you only fly one hour per year, all fixed costs (say $10,000)
are attributed to that one hour.
If you fly 1,000 hours per year, the fixed costs drop to $10,000
divided by 1000 hours = $10/hour. Hence the term, "making it
up on the volume" which in the case of aircraft, generally results
in decapitalizing it, because of the high and hidden variable costs.
Note that people whom have been operating aircraft for a long time
have learn to allocate variable costs per hour to try to offset the
decapitalization. For example, for every hour flown you might put
into a reserve account:
X dollars for the engine
Y dollars for the prop
Z dollars for the avionics
A dollars for the interior
B dollars for the exterior
and then when these large expenditures (like an engine overhaul)
occur, the money has already been accumulated to pay for it.
However, all of this does not compensate for the fact that a 10,000
hour airframe simply isn't worth as much as a 1,000 hour airframe,
even if it is well-serviced.
For completeness I would like to mention that your costs can
be divided into two groups: [u]fixed[/u] and [u]variable[/u].
[u]Fixed[/u] costs are what you have to pay, regardless of whether
or not the aircraft flies. This includes the cost of capital, hangarage,
insurance, NavCan fees, ELT check & battery, transponder/encoder
checks, annual inspection, etc. A pile of coin, when you add it up.
[u]Variable[/u] costs are directly incurred by each hour of operation.
This would include gasoline, oil and various maintenance costs such
as tires, brakes, engine, prop, avionics, interior, exterior (paint), etc.
People tend to really underestimate this, in my experience.
If you only fly one hour per year, all fixed costs (say $10,000)
are attributed to that one hour.
If you fly 1,000 hours per year, the fixed costs drop to $10,000
divided by 1000 hours = $10/hour. Hence the term, "making it
up on the volume" which in the case of aircraft, generally results
in decapitalizing it, because of the high and hidden variable costs.
Note that people whom have been operating aircraft for a long time
have learn to allocate variable costs per hour to try to offset the
decapitalization. For example, for every hour flown you might put
into a reserve account:
X dollars for the engine
Y dollars for the prop
Z dollars for the avionics
A dollars for the interior
B dollars for the exterior
and then when these large expenditures (like an engine overhaul)
occur, the money has already been accumulated to pay for it.
However, all of this does not compensate for the fact that a 10,000
hour airframe simply isn't worth as much as a 1,000 hour airframe,
even if it is well-serviced.
-
BCPilotguy
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 9:56 pm
[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=9406.msg26024#msg26024 date=1544416931]
I am seriously considering going back to doing some flight instructing.
I was talking to my friend who is finishing my PA 11 clone for me and have decided to use it to teach tail wheel flying as a part time hobby.
It will be back to basics flying with a Cub mostly off runway stuff.
Retirement for me is not working as I still feel I am in my twenties physically and mentally so why not do something I enjoy.
Do you girls and guys think there would be a market for that kind of flying?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. Especially if you can supply an airplane.
There's a guy over in Chilliwack who teaches off airport/STOL/slow flight/mountain/tailwheel flying, he seems to be fairly busy. People speak very highly of his training, but it's strictly Bring Your Own Airplane. I've heard a fair number of people who are not airplane owners express interest in taking that sort of training. I think that there's a pretty good pool of people who want something better than what the local class 4 instructor can give them (especially in BC where you can use some more advanced skills to safely operate into some more interesting places).
I doubt you'll get rich, but if you do a little marketing and as word gets around I'll bet you'll stay fairly busy.
I am seriously considering going back to doing some flight instructing.
I was talking to my friend who is finishing my PA 11 clone for me and have decided to use it to teach tail wheel flying as a part time hobby.
It will be back to basics flying with a Cub mostly off runway stuff.
Retirement for me is not working as I still feel I am in my twenties physically and mentally so why not do something I enjoy.
Do you girls and guys think there would be a market for that kind of flying?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. Especially if you can supply an airplane.
There's a guy over in Chilliwack who teaches off airport/STOL/slow flight/mountain/tailwheel flying, he seems to be fairly busy. People speak very highly of his training, but it's strictly Bring Your Own Airplane. I've heard a fair number of people who are not airplane owners express interest in taking that sort of training. I think that there's a pretty good pool of people who want something better than what the local class 4 instructor can give them (especially in BC where you can use some more advanced skills to safely operate into some more interesting places).
I doubt you'll get rich, but if you do a little marketing and as word gets around I'll bet you'll stay fairly busy.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Free advice for giving tailwheel (or type famil) training:
1) ensure that the aircraft is not registered in your name, and
2) offer dual to licensed pilots only
These two tiny details relieve you of the requirement to
hold an FTU OC and all the paperwork insanity that goes
with it. See CAR 406.03(3)
[quote]Bring Your Own Airplane[/quote]
While from a regulatory standpoint that might be encouraged,
in my experience that can get pretty dangerous unless you
really know what you are doing.
Someone can show up with perfect paperwork from TC for
something which is a real deathtrap.
It takes a special kind of guy to be able to look at a strange
airplane, figure out how the systems should work, then figure
out how it actually works - it's probably broken, and you will
have to fix it - then jump into it and offer safe, competent dual
instruction on a type he has never flown before.
I did that for many years, and all it got me was shit on by TC,
and I can't live in (or even visit) Canada any more.
Keep in mind that a 1000TT class 3 instructor at my airport
was afraid to fly a Piper Cherokee. Fire breathing dragon.
He's an airline pilot now, naturally. I'm sure TC loves him.
I remember being asked to give some dual on a Maule, a
type you might say I'm pretty familiar with. This one had a
"fresh annual" - stop laughing - and in 60 seconds of walkaround
I had squawked:
1) ASI was reading 20 mph instead of zero
2) stall warning tab was missing and hence inop
3) tailwheel was broken. I could grab the rudder and
wiggle it back and forth full travel with the tailwheel
trailed - it did not stay in the detent. This would have
made it impossible to control while taxiing or landing.
Now, I'm not very bright, but I spotted those three snags
right away on an aircraft with perfect paper, which you
might begin to suspect, is pretty much worthless.
Another time, I was asked to give dual on a Sonerai II
and the first thing we had to do, was design a new rudder
pedal linkage. The one it had was insane.
1) ensure that the aircraft is not registered in your name, and
2) offer dual to licensed pilots only
These two tiny details relieve you of the requirement to
hold an FTU OC and all the paperwork insanity that goes
with it. See CAR 406.03(3)
[quote]Bring Your Own Airplane[/quote]
While from a regulatory standpoint that might be encouraged,
in my experience that can get pretty dangerous unless you
really know what you are doing.
Someone can show up with perfect paperwork from TC for
something which is a real deathtrap.
It takes a special kind of guy to be able to look at a strange
airplane, figure out how the systems should work, then figure
out how it actually works - it's probably broken, and you will
have to fix it - then jump into it and offer safe, competent dual
instruction on a type he has never flown before.
I did that for many years, and all it got me was shit on by TC,
and I can't live in (or even visit) Canada any more.
Keep in mind that a 1000TT class 3 instructor at my airport
was afraid to fly a Piper Cherokee. Fire breathing dragon.
He's an airline pilot now, naturally. I'm sure TC loves him.
I remember being asked to give some dual on a Maule, a
type you might say I'm pretty familiar with. This one had a
"fresh annual" - stop laughing - and in 60 seconds of walkaround
I had squawked:
1) ASI was reading 20 mph instead of zero
2) stall warning tab was missing and hence inop
3) tailwheel was broken. I could grab the rudder and
wiggle it back and forth full travel with the tailwheel
trailed - it did not stay in the detent. This would have
made it impossible to control while taxiing or landing.
Now, I'm not very bright, but I spotted those three snags
right away on an aircraft with perfect paper, which you
might begin to suspect, is pretty much worthless.
Another time, I was asked to give dual on a Sonerai II
and the first thing we had to do, was design a new rudder
pedal linkage. The one it had was insane.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
