I can't understand the low pay

[surfnole]

Bobby, thats a lot of profit they are making off you! Perhaps you should go to law school.

It there any market for independent paralegals or temp/hired gun workers?

At one time I worked for a Big 8/6/4 consulting firm. I viewed it as a huge Ponzi scheme. You had two partners making hundreds of thousands+ a year (back in late 80s) and roughly 60-80 people below them. Those below were billed out to clients at outrageous rates and paid slightly below market wages so they could gain that precious experience and hopefully grab that pot of gold after 12 years. To get that pot of gold, you had to sell your soul. Long hours, Non stop travel, no say in where you lived eventually, weekends away from home. The odds were one in forty and the competition was pretty tough too. I'd never make it all the way and that's the only reason to stay there. I got my experience and left.

I felt for the partners at Arthur Andersen, many who had much of their life savings and retirement invested in the partnership. Most slaved away and lost it through no fault of their own.

 

[bobbysamd]

Law school and independent contracting

Bobby, thats a lot of profit they are making off you! Perhaps you should go to law school.

No way, Jose. The boss in my last office thought I should and she intimated that I could work for her as an attorney when I finished. But that would have been a bad decision and bad psychology. How would I know that she would have a job for me after three years? You cannot count on such things, nor can you hold someone to such things. Moreover, it's hard to receive the respect you should receive if you come up through the ranks. Though I might have been an attorney licensed to practice law I know I would have still been treated as a paralegal. It would have been tough to get a job on the outside. Although I would have had several years of legal experience as a paralegal and would know the nuts and bolts, I would have been an inexperienced attorney. Besides, age discrimination exists in attorney hiring. It would have been a bad decision for me to go to law school. There comes a time in your life where you should stop going to school and concentrate on doing what you're currently doing.

It there any market for independent paralegals or temp/hired gun workers?

There is. There are any number of temp agencies. Many paralegals gain experience through them, make contacts, and work on a contract basis for several attorneys at at time. The problem with that is there are no fringes or important benies, such as health insurance.

Which brings up another point about independent contracting. You still don't get to keep the entire $35 per hour! An independent instructor's overhead should include a good professional liability policy and maybe a basic aviation policy. You still have to pay self-employment taxes. You also might have to pay business and local taxes, and consider becoming a corporation or LLC to minimize personal liability. You have to market yourself, which will cost a few bucks. Your cut at the end might be more than the typical $14-$18 per hour, but you are still not taking home the entire $35!

 

[Whirlwind]

Re: Law school and independent contracting

Which brings up another point about independent contracting. You still don't get to keep the entire $35 per hour! An independent instructor's overhead should include a good professional liability policy and maybe a basic aviation policy. You still have to pay self-employment taxes. You also might have to pay business and local taxes, and consider becoming a corporation or LLC to minimize personal liability. You have to market yourself, which will cost a few bucks. Your cut at the end might be more than the typical $14-$18 per hour, but you are still not taking home the entire $35!

Insurance will depend on what you're worth... Some CFIs I know are so poor, they don't need insurance because there is nothing to take.

As for taxes, lets be real here... There just aren't any real taxes to be paid here. You can even ask to be paid in cash if you want, but a few checks here and there won't raise any eyebrows.

I personally see no need to form a LLC or corporation for your average CFI, they simply don't have anything of any real value to protect. One cannot squeeze blood from a turnip.

Just make sure that any plane you fly in has insurance. That gives everyone someone to sue if something goes wrong.

Jason

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: Law school and independent contracting

Insurance will depend on what you're worth... Some CFIs I know are so poor, they don't need insurance because there is nothing to take.

As for taxes, lets be real here... There just aren't any real taxes to be paid here. You can even ask to be paid in cash if you want, but a few checks here and there won't raise any eyebrows.

I personally see no need to form a LLC or corporation for your average CFI, they simply don't have anything of any real value to protect. One cannot squeeze blood from a turnip.

Just make sure that any plane you fly in has insurance. That gives everyone someone to sue if something goes wrong.

Jason

Jason, The poor CFI may not currently have a pot to piss in, nor a window to pour it out; BUT I'm sure that he intends to have material worth at some time in the future. Remember that we live in a litiguous society and that some people will sue anyone who has money. If a pilot kills himself in an emergency and the survivors think that the CFI (who has since acquired wealth) could be possibly held liable, you'd better believe that the CFI will be targeted with a suit.

regards,
enigma

 

[Whirlwind]

Re: Re: Re: Law school and independent contracting

Jason, The poor CFI may not currently have a pot to piss in, nor a window to pour it out; BUT I'm sure that he intends to have material worth at some time in the future. Remember that we live in a litiguous society and that some people will sue anyone who has money. If a pilot kills himself in an emergency and the survivors think that the CFI (who has since acquired wealth) could be possibly held liable, you'd better believe that the CFI will be targeted with a suit.

regards,
enigma

That is all true...

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. I can only offer my own thoughts and opinions here...

I think the risk is there even if you work for someone else however. What if you train someone who then crashes a year later, but you've moved on to the next job and are not covered by the FBOs insurance anymore? Then what?

Maintain personal liability insurance forever?

Do I have the answer? Heck no! But I do know that at some point, you have to accept there are risks in doing this, and that it isn't reasonable to believe you can protect yourself from all of them.

Anyway, that misses my point. My point was just that a lot of independant CFIs give instruction, are paid in cash, and keep all of it without those other expenses.

Jason

 

[Airpiraterob]

admittadely there is the 2 year window between flight reviews, after that i'd say the initial CFI is absolved from any case once that 2 years is up. why? well the instructor that does the 'flight review' is who gives permission to keep flying with that endorsement saying that so-an-so is tilll good in his/her eyes as the CFI administering that review. therefore its on the 'review given by (insert name)' instructor that has to most likely endure the lawsuit if any.

thats what i would think about it.

but if you have a bad lawyer defending you (the CFI) that might not know anything about aviation law...well...yeah theres money in aviation law.

PM bobbysamd about this one. he might have a good response.

 

[bobbysamd]

Aviation law

This thread has certainly taken a few doglegs.

First of all, let's define what we mean by aviation law. We, as pilots, believe it means assisting pilots who've allegedly run afoul of the FAA. This is FAA administrative law practice, and is very much a niche practice. Most aviation lawyers I've heard of are sole practitioners. Yodice & Associates in DC may be a larger office.

Aviation law can also mean going over to the other side by being an attorney for the FAA or NTSB. These are great jobs, but are the same as having your own lawfirm.

Finally, "aviation" law can be a litigation practice, meaning you represent plaintiffs who file claims stemming from aviation accidents, or insurance defense for aviation accidents. There is great earning potential as a plaintiffs' attorney, but you're dealing more with tort and negligence and less with flying airplanes.

There are plenty of lawyers who are pilots. Check out the Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association for more information.

 

[KickSave]

admittadely there is the 2 year window between flight reviews, after that i'd say the initial CFI is absolved from any case once that 2 years is up. why? well the instructor that does the 'flight review' is who gives permission to keep flying with that endorsement saying that so-an-so is tilll good in his/her eyes as the CFI administering that review. therefore its on the 'review given by (insert name)' instructor that has to most likely endure the lawsuit if any.

thats what i would think about it.

but if you have a bad lawyer defending you (the CFI) that might not know anything about aviation law...well...yeah theres money in aviation law.

PM bobbysamd about this one. he might have a good response.

Using that logic, why isn't it the DE who gave the pilot his/her checkride who is liable, and not the CFI who prepared him for it?

A serious question for any of you experienced pilots out there - how many CFI's have you known or heard about who have been sued over a former student having an accident and been found liable? How frequently does this happen, and/or how frequently does that CFI's insurance have to save his butt?


/Dave

 

[avbug]

I was.

I was asked as a courtesy to give a cursory flight check to an individual. He wanted to fly a club's 172. He had 172 time, and had been checked out in their 150, 152, and 182. The company needed a 172 ferried to another point, and asked this individual to do it, for no cost, with the added benifit that his checkout would be conducted at the same time. I was asked to go along.

I required the normal things, and with the exception of an actual crosswind landing, he executed them all satisfactorily. (There was no wind that day). No logbook signature was required, instruction was not provided. However, I made a note in his logbook showing that he had satisfactorily demonstrated competency in the 172, and the circumstances of the flight. The only thing required was a note in the company roladex that he had demonstrated competency in the 172. I initialled it.

A year and a half later, he totalled one of that companies 172's in a crosswind landing at a remote airstrip. He was flying out of currency. He did not have his 90 day currency, nor did he have a current flight review. He did not have a current medical certificate. He was flying in conditions beyond his capabilities, and did unwise things to cause the accident.

The company contacted me and told me that the insurance had refused to pay. They asked me to falsify a log entry, and backdate it showing that I had given this pilot a flight review on the day in question. I refused. I was told that the matter would be suborogated to me, as mine was the last signature in the logbook. Tough cookies.

I was successful on all counts, largely because of very detailed record keeping on my part, both in the form of student records, and comments and notes in my own logbook. Among those notes, I was clearly able to recall the language used when I specifically informed the NIQ (nimrod in question) that he would still require currency in landings and a flight review, as well as a current medical certificate to act as pilot in command of the 172.

After presenting my documentation, the legal beagles went sniffing elsewhere, and I never ended up in court. However, had they decided to do so, I'm guessing there would easily have been a good chance that my sorry hide would be tatooed to the courtroom door for inability to make payments the size of the titanic.

Is there liability in instruction? You betcha. It doesn't end with the next flight review, or the next practical test, either.

 

[bobbysamd]

Bizarre . . . .

A year and a half later, he totalled one of that companies 172's in a crosswind landing at a remote airstrip. He was flying out of currency. He did not have his 90 day currency, nor did he have a current flight review. He did not have a current medical certificate. He was flying in conditions beyond his capabilities, and did unwise things to cause the accident.

(emphasis added)

What was the club doing letting this individual take one of its airplanes when he was out of license? No wonder the insurance refused to pay. The club was clearly at fault here.

 

[Airpiraterob]

The flight review is commonly mis-informed as a bi-annual flight review cause its good for 24 months. but in fact its still officially called standardly as 'flight review'.

cool things about this that saved your butt:
1. you checked him out in the plane but DID NOT give him a flight review. therefore you were not responsible for any of his actions after.
2. its up to himself to keep himself current.
3. his bad judgement is all his own fault.

bad things that didnt save HIS butt:
1. outside of 90 days all he can fly is himself. read closely to carry passengers as PIC you need the 3 TO and LDG in 90 days, but if youre not taking passengers, you dont need any of that. you can sit around for 15 months, then decide to do a cross country and do it solo without the required TO and LDG's.
2. he was totally responsible for his own actions, even if lawyers try to show its someone elses fault for him acting stupid, its still the PIC of the airplane thats responsible for all safety of the flight.

i wonder if you could go and find out the last person to give him a 'flight review' and see if that person was tortured in the court?


oh yeah, and why is there brail on the ATM machines at the DRIVE THROUGH?

 

[KickSave]

Avbug, that story sounds to me as if it's the way things -should- work (with the exception of the company asking you to lie for them). Sounds like the insurance co went sniffing for who was to blame. They sniffed the co that owned the plane first, they deflected blame, and the insurance co came and sniffed around in your direction to see if you had screwed up. They got turned away because you had done your job properly, and they went sniffing elsewhere. Strikes me as the NIQ was totally at fault, as is frequently the case with this type of situation (pilot error, poor judgement), and that's where the real liability was.

Of course I'm not suggesting there is no liability in being a CFI. What I'm still wondering is how often does a CFI actually get sued (not just questioned) for an accident that was a students own fault in spite of his training.

If the CFI and the Student discuss ADM, establish realistic personal minimums, practice in sim or real IMC for the purpose of making that 180 deg turn if they ever do accidentally get into IMC, and 2 years later the student goes out and flies into Mt Baldy on a day when the weather is well below VFR, then it would strike me as if the CFI would need to produce his detailed training records to show that he did his job, and the NIQ screwed up on his own accord.

My own instructor has driven home the need for a CFI to CYA with complete records of the training he/she provides, above and beyond what the FARs require.

 

[A Squared]

re: NIQ

Nimrod in question? that doesn't really make sense. "Nimrod" means hunter. I think that it comes from Greek mythology

 

[Bluto]

Nimrod:
2. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid
Of course, I could care less about this argument.

 

[A Squared]

Hmmmm, my dictionary doesn't include this definition, but then, it is about 25 years old. I guess that newer dictionaries have included this misappropriation of the word. James Kilpatrick would *never* approve. I'm sure that the British Nimrod aircrews will be quite dissapointed to see their airplane describes this way....... or maybe they could care less

 

[jarhead]

nimrod

Although I never looked the word up in a dictionary, common usage of that term around folks I frequent with, use the word commonly to describe an inexperienced, rookie type, in any field, who seems to think he knows it all, when he's still wet behind the ears.

 

[A Squared]

Re: nimrod

Although I never looked the word up in a dictionary, common usage of that term around folks I frequent with, use the word commonly to describe an inexperienced, rookie type, in any field, who seems to think he knows it all, when he's still wet behind the ears.

I think that it's only recently that it's been popularly used like that. My theory is that the word just *sounds* like it should mean that ... kinda like dimwit, nitwit, ninny, so people just started using it that way out of ignorance ... eventualy enough people were misuising it that it is has been included in the more liberal dictionaries.

 

[jarhead]

A Squared

I believe you are correct about that. There are many more words in the dictinary now, than there were a few decades ago. Common usage, slang, and new jargon relative to new technology, are the birthplace of new, officially recognized words.

I would venture to say that "Internet" was not in the dictionary before Al Gore was born.

 

[Long Time Gone]

Yet another long, drawn out thread that has lost it's topic meaning at the end...............

 

[CFI'er]

So, what you are saying is the FBO and school has no profit built into solo rental? They do make a profit with solo rental. Again, I agree, there is nothing wrong with profit, just don't try to hide it with charging phony rates.

I think one trend might be in the works for aircraft rental, cash vs credit card. There is a gas station in the area that gives a $.05 credit per gallon for paying cash. Now this is a great idea. Maybe it will get us back to a cash society rather than a plastic society.