Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders

[G-KEST]

What do readers think of the idea that PPL/NPPL holders should be able to obtain an instructor rating to teach PPL/NPPL students? This without the enormous cost of going through the JAR-FCL instructor requirements.

After all, the NPPL is a national licence so perhaps we could have the same for an instructor rating.

Remember that those who held a valid PPL plus instructor rating were granted an BCPL, without any further examination, under grandfather rights back in the late 1980's when the new licence was introduced.

Is it time to put the clock back?

[drizzle]

.


No, no and no again. Do you want to destroy the noble but badly paid profession of instructing ?
Would you like to see the people that instructed you and showed you how to fly cast onto the scapheap whilst non-professionals with a good heart but a 'hobby' mentality reduce the skill levels even further.



In the UK we have managed to destroy( amongst others) the steel, car, motorbike, shoe, carpet industries.....hey lets add instructing in the UK as well.


.

[excrab]

Drizzle,

Whilst you are possibly correct with respect of unpaid instructors, that wasn't (I think) what GKEST was referring to.

Like many reading these forums I started out instructing on a ppl, for which you were allowed to get paid prior to 1988 and the introduction of the BCPL. Looking back to those times and looking at what is happening now I see no real difference in the standard of instruction at the club which I was (and still am) associated with. However, I accept that others may have different experiences, of course.

Is there any evidence that the standard of instruction at PPL level in the UK is improved by the instructor having a detailed theoretical knowledge of world climatology or the workings of an inertial navigation system?

Personally I believe the answer is no, and that an instructor holding a PPL and IMC rating is perfectly capable of instructing to PPL level if they are competent in handling light aircraft and have been through a suitable instructors course - indeed for some exercises, aerobatics and tailwheel training spring to mind - the commercial written exams or flight test have absolutely no relevance.


That said I admit that for the IMC rating I probably wasn't really ready to start teaching it when I did, and for more advanced ratings an IR and some experience of IMC operations will make the instructors life a lot easier, and improve the quality of instruction received by the student.

[StrateandLevel]

Of the 1000 or so NPPLs, 50% are microlight pilots who can instruct on the NPPL albeit with an "exemption" rather than an instructor rating, becuse the powers that be screwed up the ANO amendment.

Of the 500 or so SEP NPPLs 95% are there because they can't get a Class 2 medical; a number of them are already experienced instructors! The question is, should they be allowed to instruct ab-initio students without an appropriate medical certificate?

We are now left with a handfull of ab-initio NPPL holders who supposedly took the cheap option,! The cost of gaining the relevant experience plus a FI course is the same regardless of licence type. The "enormous" financial saving by not having to pass the CPL written exams, would amount to less than 5% of the total cost.

[GT]

A couple of thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, I do think that the CPL flying training does sharpen you up post-PPL, in both skills and attiude (mental, not aeroplane!). Secondly, would there be much call for it? In my experience almost everyone opts to do the JAR PPL. At my school there is very little take-up for the NPPL.

Regards, GT.

[G-KEST]

Thanks for the input. Now for a few comments -
"drizzle" - when I did my PPL training back in 1957 all three of the QFI's held PPL's. Two RAF CFS graduates and one USAF graduate. They instruction they gave was highly professional.
"excrab" - we are on the same wavelength - thanks.
"StrateandLevel" - loved the spelling but I did not say only NPPL holders but included any PPL, JAR-FCL or NPPL so that increases the potential numbers to an enormous extent.
"GT" - Prior to the BCPL intending FIC students had to pass a pre-entry ground exam and a flight evaluation with either an FIC instructor or an FIE. Believe me that sharpened them up as they could not start their FIC without being recommended as a result of their success.
Perhaps I should give a few more personal details, I have over 9,000 hours as instructor, was an FIC instructor since 1970 and an FIE since 1972. I held a professional licence from 1969 until I had a health problem in 1999. I now have an NPPL(SEP) and just love my flying.
Remuneration was possible for a PPL instructor under the old system prior to the BCPL in 1988 - why not again?
Do please keep this thread going since I am keen to guage the valued opinions of as wide a cross section of instructors as possible. Perhaps you could draw it to the attention of other instructors.

[QNH 1013]

I don't agree with having to pass the CPL written exams before being allowed to start an instructors course. While some of the information is relevent much of it isn't. If particular knowledge is required to be a good instructor then I think this should be part of the instructors course.

The cost of the CPL writtens is no longer trivial. I took the CAA exams five years ago, and I am now taking the JAR version of the CPL writtens so I am in a position to compare the cost. The cost has risen enormously. The cheapest route (distance learning) now costs well over £2000 assuming first-time passes in every subject, and the cost of an instructor rating course has risen to nearly £5000. So the cost of the CPL writtens is now of the order of 30% of the total cost of getting an instructor rating.

[S-Works]

I think bringing back the FI rating on a PPL without doing the CPL exams (you can have an FI rating on a PPL but have to have done the CPL exams) would do wonders for the club flying scene. No longer would we have the seemingly endless lines of miserable instructors only interested in hour building for the jet job. We would have people who are career instructors interested in the students and there progression.

Having been through the CPL/IR route I totally agree that that 90% of the things learnt have no relevance on teaching ab initio adn club type flyers. When I first learnt to fly I learnt in microlights whose instructors do not a hold a CPL and the quality of Instruction was simply outstanding. I was taught by a guy who was a career instructor and his example set me up for a life of addiction to flying. On converting to SEP I flew with a bunch of different instructors and the difference in attitudes between the hours builders and the career guys was vast. The hours builders would try and make me feel that I should be honoured to sit next to an "airline pilot", the 10,000hr career instructor TAUGHT me.

It was the curiosity of seeing if these "airline pilots" were as good as they though they were that set me in on the CPL/IR road and guess what theres nothing special there!!

Before any one says anything I have no desire to teach or work as a "proper pilot"!!

[G-KEST]

Come on folks - I expected a much bigger response from the examiners and instructors than this. Or is it that many of you do remember the good old days? It certainly seems that so-called professionalism in the shape of BCPL's and now JAR-FCL CPL's have not done much to improve the salary level of FI and examiners in the last 19 years. When I left a club to join the CAA in 1984 I was on an annual salary of over £14K and many of you are still not earning this in 2003 with all the inflationary pressures since then. Putting the clock back is possible - we just have to make it happen despite the reactionary forces that will come out of the woodwork. The very future of GA depends on it.

[BEagle]

G-KEST, if you were on a salary at a club and now hold just a NPPL, presumably you are no longer able to hold a JAA Class 1 or 2 medical certificate? If you can hold a Class 2, then you could instruct without remuneration on a JAR-FCL PPL(A). But if you can hold neither Class 1 nor Class 2, perhaps the wisdom of instructing ab-initios might be open to question by some?

I too regret the passing of the BCPL/FI which only needed a UK Class 2 medical; for that you have your erstwhile fellow Belgranists to thank......

[homeguard]

Sadly the world has changed!

The current demand on an Instructor to pass at minimum the JAACPL exams which cost between £2000 and £3000 for what is now a mandatory course. The far more stringent demands of an Instructor Course Approval also means that the cost of doing an Instructor rating amounts to another bill circa £5000, on par with training for a commercial licence, has unfortunately meant the demise of the 'club Instructor' due to a total cost of £8,000 to £10,000.

The 'club Instructors' may have been, in the past, a local wanting to turn their 'days off' flying into more than just a hobby or perhaps a retired military or airline pilot. the mix was great. Even the retiring military guy must nowadays pass the CPL exams and do the full Instructor course (BEagle correct me here if i'm wrong) so they don't.

Unfortunately the young potential commercial pilot is already into so much debt by the time they make instructor that they quite understandably need more money than most clubs can pay. What a miserable state of affairs.

Like it or hate it, what can be paid to an Instructor is what the PPL student can cough up, so we have an irresolvable dilemna.

We have in the UK within Europe, other than perhaps France, the most comprehensive tradition of flying training CLUB networks. We are slowly forgetting the 'CLUB' and what that means.

In my boopk these future airline pilots with Instructor Ratings always wingeing about wages within these columns, should see the bargain. They get experience and 'hours, and their fellow club members gain the PPL. Seems fair to me.

The Flying clubs with few exceptions will never be able to pay their (the potential airline pilot) loans. Like so many are already suggesting we need dedicated instructor knowledge exams to compliment the flying course. However we cannot go back to the old requirements where thew knowledge level of the 150 hour PPL Instructor was often dreadful but we do need the dedicated Flying Instructor back to lead and enrich the team.

[BEagle]

Very true. But whilst their seems to be an emerging prejudice in some areas against 'hours builders', where else are they going to build experience unless they stooge up and down Space Coast in clapped-out C150s? However, I really question the motives behind some FIC organisations who churn out very poor FI(R)s with the minimum hours purely as a revenue stream.

The ex-mil guys with >2000 hours TT, 1000 as P1C and 500 as P1 who have been QFIs at some time can get considerable credit towards an ATPL or CPL and FI rating, depending on their background and recency. Few seem to bother due to their disinclination to pay for flying! E.g. if they're current on the VC10/TriStar/C-17/C130/Nimrod etc and have the hours I mentioned above, they just need to have their military IR observed by a CAA examiner, get a Class 1 medical, pass ATPL air law, pay the dosh and fill in the form and an ATPL/IR is theirs for the asking.....

[S-Works]

Personally I question the judegement of anyone in the current climate who gets themselves 50-60K in debt with no work out there. Isn't flying about good judegement?

I have said it before, the old school of Instructors teaching for the pleasure of teaching and not for the first opportunity of an airline job are often the better bet. So why not have "club instructors"?

[G-KEST]

Glad to see that the thread continues to attract response. All is possible given the support it deserves. The FIC for those who wish to teach for the NPPL(SEP) could be far shorter and therefor cheaper than that for the JAR-PPL. The ground subjects would be those for the NPPL, not for the JAR-PPL with knowledge indicators, remember those, set at a higher level as should be the case. The privilidges of the NPPL(SEP) are limited, so should the level of the ground exams. Make no mistake this is going to happen. Our average age of pilots in GA is inexorably rising. Why? The cost, the cost, the cost and to some extent only, the complexity.
In the mean time I would like to wish everyone a very Happy Christmas and a safe and, if possible, prosperous New Year in 2004. Cheers.
Trapper 69

[G-KEST]

Response to comment by BEagle - Not all CAA SRG FSO's get the frontal lobotomy as a part of the induction process. Often there is internal consultation where the occasional dissenting voices can be detected, often at the cost of promotion prospects. In particular the JAR-FCL process was hotly debated inside the grey walls with considerable weight given to the enormous cost increases implicit in the proposals. Nevertheless it went ahead - with considerable support from, perhaps, the leading GA representative body whose representation through IAOPA within the JAA system fully supported the inclusion of private aviation within the process when it could have been restricted to commercial aviation. Result is the awful mess we now find ourselves. just how many folk who come through the doors of your FTO's really have any ambition to progress beyond a PPL? Precious few I reckon apart from those limited number who see a vision of a highly remunerated career in the airlines and eventually find themselves up to their ears in debt or, even worse, just well paid bus drivers for the low cost airlines. Ah well - tempus fugit.
Cheers,
Trapper 69:ouch:

[BEagle]

Hi G-KEST.

Intersting that you should say "In particular the JAR-FCL process was hotly debated inside the grey walls with considerable weight given to the enormous cost increases implicit in the proposals" as many of us also pointed this out in the RIA. Quite frankly the document was utterly scandalous and contained outrageous lies - and no-one accepted our protestations. DP knew from the road shows that the GA PPL community was outraged, but had his way and forced us into the current mess. Hence the need for the NPPL - industry's way of trying to make good the enormous damage wrought by the CAA on the PPL world.

It'll be interesting to see how many people apply for PPL re-issue next year when the first of the non-lifetime JAR-FCL PPLs reaches its expiry date. Another point which DP brushed off as being of little consequence....:mad: Or perhaps they'll just go for a lifetime NPPL instead??

[G-KEST]

Response to BEagle - I had long retired when the JAR-FCL RIA was published. If you would send me a private email I will return it with my RIA response which was absolutely blistering. The guy who wrote it is a friend but he was given an impossible task by Payton who must have fumed at my demolition job. I did lay down the inevitable structure for the present NPPL(SEP) in my letter which was to some extent hijacked by a couple of associations but you can see for yourself if you would like to. Hell has no fury like a CAA pensioner spurned by his former employer.!
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - Had a gorgeous if turbulent trip today in the Skybolt. Made my best landing in 2003 so have decided not to risk another trip this year...............!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DubTrub]

<OffTopic>I can attest to Trapper's landing post script...I was in Tower at the time.

He should indeed be proud...I was also witness to his previous landing a few days before...most embarrasing! </OffTopic>

[G-KEST]

Usually no one sees the good one - but everyone sees the bad..!
Thanks for both plaudit and retribution - today is lousy outside so no chance of blotting my copybook again - just one more to go.:\
Trapper 69

[BEagle]

G-KEST - Sorry for the delay; thanks for your PM. I couldn't believe that such a fundamentally inaccurate RIA got through the system; I guess Mulley had other things to worry about?

Anyway, the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee won't be dismissing any option; however, since the 'upgrade to JAR-FCL' route requires that a pilot has had a minimum number of hours under the instruction of a JAR-FCL FI, the demand for purely 'NPPL' qualified FIs teaching at NPPL level for the SEP aircraft rating would be pretty small. As would their remuneration, were it to be sanctioned. There are a lot of FIs chasing not many jobs at the moment; were the floodgates to be opened to 'ease' instructional and/or licensing requirements, there would doubtless be a very hostile reception to the associated RIA from those already seeking instructional posts!

Currently the NPPL P&SC is attempting to unscramble the dog's dinner which is the current ANO as pertaining to the NPPL. It was the result of a mistake within the Authority; unfortunately a 'temporary' AIC will have to be released in early 2004 to cover the next few months until we get the ANO correctly amended as agreed by the Committee.

[G-KEST]

BEagle - Happy New Year - you may well be reading some papers I have written in the near future. It perhaps is time for a move away from JAR-FCL for those 90% of our students and potential students that have no interest in moving into commercial aviation. For far too long the system has forgotten that for most private flying and, in particular, sporting and recreational aviation is an end in itself. Just because there is an engine up front does not mean that the light aeroplane enthusiast must be financially disadvantaged in comparison with other aviation pursuits. We need more students - and especially younger ones. If the reactionary forces you predict do come out of the sand like ostriches so be it - they have not done so particularly in the thread despite it being dedicated to examiners and instructors. COME ON - HAVE YOUR SAY.......!!!

[BEagle]

Happy New Year to you as well, G-KEST.

The PPRuNe FI poll shows that 33% of FIs who responded are instructing only until an airline job comes along. The bitter truth is that if, all of a sudden, the route to becoming an FI became easier, then many of that 33% group would perceive a threat to their livelihood and would doubtless object in response to the mandatory RIA.

Personally I think that a lower-level commercial licence permitting remunerated instruction at NPPL level would be a start - much like the old Restricted BCPL. NO lowering of instructional standards would be acceptable, but perhaps an easing of the theoretical examinations and 'complex' aeroplane flying training might be acceptable? The difference now though is that Eurocracy would make that difficult. But would there be much demand for a licence which, by its very nature would have to be a 'National' instructor's licence with a relatively steep upgrade path to the JAR-FCL CPL? Perhaps the theoretical knowledge requirements and training for both the 'commercial' and 'instructional' elements of such a licence could be taught concurrently and examined concurrently?

Regarding medicals, perhaps a JAR Class 1 is way over the top for teaching at PPL or NPPL level. I know that's the view of a very senior medical chap at the Authority. So, if a pilot couldn't hold a full JAR Class 1 but could hold a Class 2, perhaps a suitably caveated Class 1 restricting the holders privileges accordingly could be issued?

I'm not sure that to accept anything below a JAR Class 2 medical certificate would be either acceptable or desirable.

In the big picture of things, a less expensive way of learning to fly could be to start with a NPPL taught by an enthusiastic 'National PPL Instructor', then upgrade to JAR-FCL PPL(A) with SEP Rating, night qualification and IMC Rating taught by a JAR-FCL FI?

Perhaps someone other than you or me might care to contribute to this thread, G-KEST? Or are they all reading 'Flight' from the back looking for airline FO jobs?

[G-KEST]

BEagle - Thanks for a perceptive post. You are right and yet you have touched on the absolute essence of my argument. The NPPL is a NATIONAL licence and NOT subject to JAR-FCL or ICAO Annex 1 requirements. Therefore it can be tailored as can those who instruct to the NPPL(SEP) syllabus, both flight and, somewhat revised, ground. Now you have it. Yes, those who turn to the back of Flight first, and I was one in the very distant past, have yet to be really heard on this forum but if they hide like ostriches then it WILL occur. Why should students HAVE to subsidise the mediocre remuneration levels of impoverised FI? There is another way. Let JAR-FCL students continue as at present paying through the nose and going abroad in increasing numbers. BUT let the NPPL guys benefit from a TOTALLY different cost structure with, in my opinion based on long experience, better motivated instructors. If that does not cause an explosive reaction, nothing will.
Look forward to an absolute avalanche of responses but not holding my breath...........!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Trapper 69:ok:

[walkingthewalk]

Here's one from a part-timer with a CPL no IR without ANY wish to give up the day job for an airline (not necessarily me):

Those who have spent the money on getting the required min. quals. (FI + BCPL then CPL theory) will obviously be miffed at having others alongside with lesser "investment".
In addition, I can see that FTOs will just use this as an excellent opportunity to jettison the CPL/FI types and STILL charge the same for instruction, using PPL/NPPL instructors.

I do agree that a Class 1 for PPL/NPPL instructing is onerous.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Happy new year to you all.

The current system is a shambles, with no thought being given to those whose only interest is recreational flying.

The take up of the NPPL by new students at clubs I'm familiar with has been non-existant, only people struggling for a medical seem to be interested.

Personally, I would be a bit miffed to have lesser mortals teaching at the same standard as myself!:yuk: If you want to teach a subject to any proper depth, then you need to have more knowledge than you are trying to put across. CPL teaches PPL, ATPL teaches CPL etc. etc.
Whilst parts of the CPL course aren't totally relevant to PPL instruction, so what? The more knowledge you have about all aspects of flying, the better instructor you tend to be.

In Helicopter instruction there are still a large number of PPL instructors since they were and still are able to be paid for teaching (very well compared to fixed wing FI's). Since the advent of the requirements for CPL qualified instructors and a minimum of 300hrs TT on heli's, the number of new instructors has fallen through the floor, it has simply become too expensive to bother.
Has the quality of instruction got better? It's still to early to tell properly, but I doubt it.

[walkingthewalk]

I agree with Say Again Slowly on

"...you need to have more knowledge than you are trying to put across. CPL teaches PPL, ATPL teaches CPL etc. etc."

as this is what happens in academic circles. Even without this example I also think that it is common sense to have a deeper understanding before you can explain certain concepts - sometimes having to explain in many different ways.

as for "...the requirements for CPL qualified instructors and a minimum of 300hrs TT on heli's, the number of new instructors has fallen through the floor"

I suspect that those finishing their CPL/IR (fixed wing) will take some time to realise that paying further to get the FI rating will not mean that they can earn a living whilst waiting for an airline job. If and when this happens, the f/w instructor pool may start to shrink.

[G-KEST]

Thanks for the input however you can still ensure that the knowledge level is better. Ron Campbell used the concept of "knowledge level indicators" to ensure that a potential instructor had a better, often much better, understanding of the particular subject element than that expected from an ordinary licence holder. It worked 15 years ago - why not now, or at least next year????
Trapper 69:*

[Say again s l o w l y]

Did it work 15 years ago? Not having been in the the industry then (actually still at junior school!) I can't really comment on what instructors are like compared to that time.

Why would anybody go through extra training for "knowledge level indicators" to ensure that a potential instructor had a better, often much better, understanding of the particular subject element than that expected from an ordinary licence holder rather than do extra training to get a CPL?

I know many instructors who still have the old BCPL and many are fairly good, but their view of aviation can be limited by the minimal exposure they have to the industry as a whole. Very good at the basics and the early mechanics of flying but maybe a bit limited in respect to flying outside of PPL instruction.
This is quite a generalisation, but accurate according my own experience so far.

We often forget what students want, if I was doing a PPL I'd want the most qualifed individual possible if it wasn't going to cost me any more. I would want somebody who'd proven their knowledge by not just passing an FI course, of which standards can be very variable, but who has also shown aptitude by jumping through the hoops required to pass their commercials etc.

[walkingthewalk]

Ref. G-KEST:

The bit about "Ron Campbell used the concept of "knowledge level indicators" to ensure that a potential instructor... " smacks of AOPA tinkering again.

Let's just consider what if anything is wrong with the current system:

I for on ethink that apart from the Class 1 med. (IMHO it need not be more than Class 2) there isn't anything wrong.

If the cost of obtaining FI(r) status is too much then I do hope that it is a governing feature so that the numbers of instructors do not increase on a "wish" basis and remain on a "need" basis.

That way we may one day have a career instructor market at last.

Ref. Say Again Slowly:

Personnally I think that an instructor should not only understand the theory at a level above the PPL, they should also have the perspective of post PPL flying for pleasure. If such an instructor has many thousands of hours in an airline environment but hardly flies in the post PPL environment then he has little insight into the world of PPL flying.

[Say again s l o w l y]

WTW,

Most airline pilots who instruct "on the side" do it because of the enjoyment of flying light a/c and are very likely to have a bit of experience of the PPL world from their initial training. Whilst the airline environment is very different, I know many captains and F/O's who have their own a/c just for fun.

[walkingthewalk]

SAS,

"...many captains and F/O's who have their own a/c just for fun"

Now THAT is the type of perspective that IS useful. I do however address my concerns towards the ones who are just keeping their instructor rating current :rolleyes:

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Im pretty sure that its not a Medical Issue that makes the requirement for a Class1, Its a remuneration issue.

You can teach on a Class 2 you just can't get paid.

Not 100% sure, please dont flame me.

[excrab]

Say Again Slowly,

You say that if you were a student taking a ppl you would want the "most qualified individual" as an instructor.

But who is the most qualified - a new FI(R) or whatever it's called now with 50 hrs instructional experience, a frozen ATPL and a copy of "Handling the big jets" in his flight case, or a guy (or gal) flying on a restricted BCPL/CPL with thousands of hours of instructional experience on light aircraft ?

Ability to instruct is primarily to do with experience - not just total number of flying hours but also instructing hours, time spent teaching and trying to find ways of solving students problems.

As far as an instructors view of aviation being limited - if we are talking about ppl instructing then I would suggest that the average ppl student isn't interested in an instructors experience of approved courses or instrument ratings. He is more likely to want to know (after obtaining his license) about IMC ratings, aerobatics, grass strips, how to join a group, how to fly VFR in France etc etc. I would suggest that someone who has been involved in grass roots aviation at club level is far better equipped to teach that than someone who has 200 hrs, passed all the atpl exams and is trying to pay off a 40k bank loan. And whether that instructor has in his pocket an ATPL, CPL, BCPL or NPPL is absolutely irrelevant.

Anyone who has any doubts about this should pay a visit to their nearest microlight club/school on a good flying day and see how the system works.

[walkingthewalk]

I would agree with "excarb" but would also insist that the theoretical knowledge must be thorough. The current CAA examinations are NOT the way to test ones knowledge - granted - and a more academic method of testing knowledge would be far better. The attitude of "let's see if we can fail you" must be turned into "let's see how much you have learned".

[G-KEST]

Well the hornets are finally rising. Some excellent posts for which I thank you. Remember the vast majority of those who come for a trial lesson have no earthly desire to fly as a career, Only those star struck individuals who mortgage themselves to the absolute hilt do that and become the partly disenchanted and demotivated instructors of today. Lift your eyes and see the future, not for yourselves, but for the vast increase in numbers of younger folk coming into private, sporting and recreational GA than at present with its swingeing costs that totally discourages so many. There is a better nad lower cost alternative than going to the USA as many of you must have done.....!!!! Replys please.
Trapper 69

[homeguard]

The knowledge of many Instructors including myself was so often depressingly low and the attitude of so many of the old type of instructors during the so called 'old golden days' was nothing to be proud about.

There is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to have passed the CPL/.ATPL exams and also to have completed a CPL flying course has vastly increased the current Instructors general knowledge and has standardised flying training throughout the country. All that must be a good thing.

However, the fact, is for so many PPL's, prepared to somehow find the cash to gain the CPL/ATPL; the Instructor rating is added on as an afterthought, only after being rejected by the Airlines and having been told "come back when you have at least 1,000 hours +.

If we are going to revive the PPL market it isn't by devising a very dubious licence such as the NPPL, plus an equally rather dubious Instructor designed to teach it. Nor is it by demanding the current very silly requirement of passing CPL exams in the way it is currently done and later to undertake two courses of flying flown in the main using a C172/PA28 or similar. One to teach you how to find your way about followed by a second to teach someone else to find their way about. For the Instructor, one course and one test.

We actually need an Instructor profession! We need a recognised body that will set the standards, devise the knowledge requirement and involve the flying clubs own Senior Instructors, at their club, to carry out 'on the job' training interspersed say, with any number of short weekend/midweek courses with FIC Examiners working for that recognised body, setting and maintaining the highest standards, nationally.

The current CPL exam content could be the basis of knowledge having removed those parts wholely related to heavy aircraft and airline flying. The requirement to cram knowledge and demonstrate it over a few days when confined to a sweating and smelly room should go!

A close friend, an AME/CPL/Instructor, describes the knowledge testing process well. You enter the hall. At one end of the room a line of tressle tables on which there is a line of vegetable colanders. Written on one you will find your name. Beside each colander there is a bowl overflowing at the brim. At the far end of the room there is another row of tables on which stand a line of empty bowls. Each has a white line painted 75% up from it's base. At the whistle the candidate dumps his colander into his bowl and runs bitterly to the other end of the hall and dumps his load. Should the contents now in the once empty bowl rise above the line. It is a pass! ALL CANDIDATES exhausted, some depressed, sludge back, each with an EMPTY COLANDER. The courses for all this are, from commercial need, geared whether part time correspondence or indeed full time, to be not much more than pervaders of what you need to know and exam technique.

I believe that a structured process towards becoming an Instructor undertaken in a progressive manner with the local club as the base will enable many more to participate who really want to do it. I also believe that those who may wish later to fly commercially will also see it as the first step and equally benefit. As important it will put some deperately needed cash into the clubs.

[Say again s l o w l y]

excrab, you have a very good point, but the situation I'm describing the instructor is not an 50 Hr FI who doesn't really know anything yet (I was that individual) but has a 'decent' amount of experience. A brand spanking new FI, no matter what licence they hold cannot be as good as a highly experienced person, though the learning curve is very steep.

[G-KEST]

Many thanks indeed to all who both responded and those who merely looked at the thread. My three papers on the NPPL(SEP) written for the PFA, one of which concerned PPL and NPPL(SEP) instructors are now with the NPPL steering group. A couple of organisations have commented that their relevant committees do not meet early enough for them to permit inclusion of the papers on the next steering group meeting agenda. What a shame that extraordinary proposals cannot generate an "extraordinary" committee meeting. If you can influence both AOPA and GAPAN to alter their current stance this would be a great help. Time is not on the side of GA if we are to attract many more and younger folk into our recreational and sporting passion. Thanks again,
Trapper 69 or in fact Barry Tempest MRAeS:D

[BEagle]

Barry, there is no huge urgency to rush into a decision on your papers. There are other far more important matters which the NPPL P&SC must agree on first - such as the formal ANO amendment which needs to be drafted correctly this time.

Both the GAPAN instuctor committee and AOPA's instructor committee now have copies of your papers and will study them before their next meetings, all of which are totally voluntary and unpaid. It would be a bit much to expect them to hold extraordinary meetings to discuss something for which there really isn't any huge urgency.

You've already tried to drum up support on this thread for NPPL-holders to be permitted to instruct for the NPPL. That didn't receive any overwhelming response for or against, so it needs time and detailed study. Even if a vote in favour was forthcoming, the law of the land requires that a regulatory impact assessment must be held - and you've got little chance of that being achieved quickly.

Use of permit aeroplanes for flight instruction? Some have fairly 'individual' handling characteristics and are perhaps unsuitable for training ab-initio pilots. Who would approve individual types for training? I would vote for the CAA, not the PFA. As I've said before, restrictions which currently apply to permit aeroplanes (such as not being permitted to fly over congested areas at ANY height) preclude the teaching of cetain exercises - how are you going to navigate PROPERLY if you have to keep turning off track to avoid overflight of any built-up area. Perhaps it would be better just to press for an easing of the current maintenance and inspection requirements for training aeroplanes?

Use of other than licensed or government aerodromes for certain training activities is already being looked at by the CAA; let's hear what they have to say first and then perhaps negotiate.

But general approval for NPPL-holding FIs to instruct in permit aeroplanes from any aerodrome? I doubt it; although some might be fine, the floodgates could open to dodgy operators with tatty old cloth bombers working out of muddy farm fields. That sort of thing must be resisted at all costs.

AOPA consults with industry and they started the whole NPPL ball rolling. GAPAN assists and observes, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA also consult with their industry members and speak for them on the NPPL P&SC. Let the industry bodies study your proposals and discuss them in committee when they've had a chance to do so.

One thing that most people do agree upon, however, is that there should be no relaxation on medical standards for FIs below the JAA Class 2 medical which is all a JAR-FCL PPL hodling FI(A) currently needs for non-remunerated flight instruction.

[G-KEST]

BEagle - We must agree to differ. The parlous state of UK GA demands that we have an affordable initial step into the private, recreational and sporting aviation we all enjoy so very much. I would check the threads on the Flyer and Key Publishing sites then you would see just how much real support is out there. Our future students will not thank anyone for holding up the process of a major cost reduction that would be possible for the NPPL(SEP). There are far too many folk who look at our UK prices for a PPL or NPPL(SEP) and vote with their feet in the direction of the USA. A significant loss of income to UK GA and one that could reduce considerably. READ MY LIPS in the form of my papers which took much midnight oil burning. IT IS IMPORTANT and perhaps GAPAN and AOPA (of which I have been a member for around 40 years) could call an ECM just for once. As far as the NPPL is concerned I think you will find that my own response to the appalling CAA RIA on JAR-FCL was one of the catalysts for the concept. Ask PFA, AOPA and GAMTA on that. They gave me support back then.
Cheers and out......................I hope.
Trapper 69;)

[BEagle]

Posts made in such an intemperate form will hardly endear you to those who are prepared to give up their time in order to study your papers.

I would have hoped for reasoned debate on these topics, rather than mere bombastic rhetoric.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Sorry Barry, but I can't see the logic of NPPL flight instructors stopping people training abroad due to cost. FI's don't exactly get paid a fortune now and compared to fuel cost are really quite reasonable.

If you really want to make aviation more affordable, campaign for the reduction in fuel duty and the ridiculous costs of parts.

Less people are heading over to the States for training since all the new procedures foisted by the dept of Homeland security.

This all smacks of slamming the door behind the horse. If this had been an issue before sept. 11 then I can understand your position about losing students to the states. This simply isn't happening in the same way now and I for one would be horrified to see a bunch of hardly qualifed PPL's teaching at the same club as myself. Ity would certainly be a good way of destroying what professionalism that there is left in the training industry.

If this ever gets proposed, I for one would be fighting it all the way.

[walkingthewalk]

Barry/Trapper or whatever. I totally disagree with your notion that allowing less experienced/qualified instructors to instruct would reduce costs for the market thus making PPL training more attractive to the given individual.

[DRJAD]

This is an interesting thread which has prompted some thoughts, which I venture to share with others. (Firstly, I apologize, as a non-instructor for venturing at all to post here!)

I originally went down the NPPL route, subsequently converting, after gaining the NPPL, to PPL and eventually adding an IMC rating. All this with the same school. I have no complaints, and nothing but praise, for the instruction given, and the attitude of all the instructors with whom I learnt.

I can see, however, a case for limited instruction (of certain categories of training) being given by, perhaps, PPL holders to NPPL students. I have in mind that the experiential aspects of the course (XC navigation practice after NST, for example, or circuit consolidation after first solo) may, under certain circumstances, be entrusted to a PPL holder. Provided, of course, that the PPL concerned had suitable attitude and experience, and that a properly qualified FI should deal with the requirements for deciding whether a student is competent to be sent solo in the circuit, or has passed the NST, etc..

Forgive me if these points have already been made ad nauseam, but, as I say, the discussion had prompted the thought.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Why have the added complexity of different levels of instruction, when we already have a perfectly good system at the moment?

I cannot see the logic in changing the current system. There is no shortage of FI's who have a CPL etc. why do we need more lesser qualified instructors?

What the industry really needs is to be able to cut it's costs (fuel, a/c, insurance etc.) and start paying better rates for full time professional instructors who have teaching as a career rather than a stepping stone. This would be the best route for ensuring quality instruction and keeping standards high. Not some half-baked semi pro/amateur instructor of a questionable standard which would inevitably happen if we got NPPL's teaching.

Enthusiasm is all very well, but I prefer competence any day of the week.

[walkingthewalk]

SayAgainSlowly: from what I have read here so far - and other places, it appears that those who NOW want to become instructors don't want to/do not sse any incentive in paying what it costs to get the rating under the current system.

They seem to be saying: "what's the point?"

So, some of them want to lobby for change, based on an argument which clearly fails "peer review".

[Whirlybird]

Why have the added complexity of different levels of instruction, when we already have a perfectly good system at the moment?

I cannot see the logic in changing the current system. There is no shortage of FI's who have a CPL etc. why do we need more lesser qualified instructors?


SAS, I don't think we do have a good system at the moment. We have a number of hourbuilders who don't always want to be there. We have people who've spent a huge amount of time studying for CPL exams of limited value, and not enough time learning how to teach, or learning people skills in general.

I speak from experience. When doing my PPL(A), I had my confidence rather thoroughly destroyed by a low hours hourbuilding instructor who didn't want to be instructing and had no people skills whatsoever. I changed instructors and stuck it out, mainly because the words "give up" aren't in my vocabulary. But it's left its mark. I've never had any confidence about my f/w flying. With helicopters it's totally different. Admittedly, I have far more experience on helicopters, but even I can see, objectively, that my f/w flying isn't all that bad. And plenty of instructors and fellow PPLs have told me so. But deep down I believe it is, and I can't get rid of that idea no matter what I do or how much time passes. Those early hours are extremely important; we all say that, but I KNOW it's true.

You could say I'm an isolated case, but I gather that's not true. Fairly early on I told the whole story in detail to several people. I gathered there were many cases like it, and that most people with similar experiences gave up flying I met one person in a similar situation who hadn't; he too had more or less permanent confidence problems.

What we need is a specific instructors' course. We need some theory, it's true, but not most of the stuff from the CPL exams - it is completely irrelevant. In its place we need instruction on how to teach, how people learn, and how to get on with people. I've worked with people most of my adult life, but the people skills of many instructors are woefully lacking. Instructing needs two sets of skills, flying and dealing with people; we concentrate on the former to the almost complete exclusion of the latter at the moment. On my instructors course we did have a few hours on ways of learning and ways of teaching...from someone who treated it all as theoretical, didn't show how it could be put into practice, and then proceeded to ignore it. Not enough, in either breadth or depth. I talked to a QHI recently who'd just come back from an instructors' seminar, where they'd learned about teaching the student rather than just teaching the syllabus, and how some people learn by hearing, some by watching, some by doing. We all need that stuff! I recently took a f/w pilot and teacher friend for a trial lesson, specifically to get some feedback from him on how to teach; not how to teach flying, but how to teach individuals! I shouldn't have to do that; I should have been taught. And I see the necessity for that; many instructors with far more experience than I have don't seem to.

How does this fit in with the NPPL? Well, for everything else we have to follow JAR. For the NPPL we could develop a specific instructor rating, with RELEVANT theory rather than the CPL exams, not with less qualified instructors but with differently qualified ones. That, as I see it, is what we need. But we won't get it while everyone shuts their eyes to the problems of the present system.

[G-KEST]

One last thought on this. If you are in favour of the idea, having read through the thread, and you are a member of any of the representative GA bodies like AOPA, PFA, GAPAN, BMAA or BGA then please, PLEASE write to the CEO or chairman. This to say you support the proposal. Apathy generally tends to rule in GA so get off the web and onto the PC word processing or email facility and get typing. Ever so pleeeeeeeease...........!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - I would even refund the postage in the form of a half pint should we meet. And if I am accused of bribery - so be it. I am a ruthless Yorkshire b*****d as many know already.
PPS - If on the other hand you oppose my proposal and feel the status quo - ridiculous as it is - be maintained then also write. Democracy should rule though, as above, apathy is generally prevalent in GA - we moan but do not write enough. The offer of a half pint hqwever will not apply.............!!!!!!!!!!!
PPPS - Do read the Flyer and Key Publishing forums on this to get a balanced view. At present the majority are in favour. So there.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Confidence in flying is mainly a personal thing. Whilst the instructor can help, once you have a licence it is up to you as a pilot to understand your own capabilities and to operate the a/c according to them. Self confidence shouldn't be an issue. A realistic understanding of your capabilities is far more important.

Over confidence is far more prevalent in the PPL world and I certainly feel that limited experience and over-confidence together are a recipe for disaster.

The current system does not cause the problems we are describing here. If we could have career instructors on sensible wages, then most of the issues would be solved.

We need to tackle the root causes of problems, not just tinkering about with daft suggestions such as barely licensed people training the next generation of pilots. Is GA flying too expensive? Of course, but we won't tackle it by letting NPPL's become instructors.

G-KEST, have you actually read any of the posts here? I don't think there is any support at all for your proposals. I am a member of GAPAN, RAes and BALPA and will be strenuously lobbying against any move to lessen the standards of instruction.

If we want to decimate an already undersiege industry then these proposals may be good, but nobody really wants that. If we want to fix this industry, lets have some realistic and sensible suggestions.

[G-KEST]

BEagle - Just read your item on your perception of my intemperate nature. How very true - but very little comes from whispering in the corridors of power - I know 'cos I walked those corrdors but 6 years ago. There are three aspects of the NPPL not one where my drafts are with the NPPL SG. If all come in then we will see a vast increase in new folk coming into our FTO's.
Say again more s l o w l y - Prior to 1988 the majority of instructors were those PPL's you deride........and tthey were paid. I do not think the current crop of FI are that much better than their PPL predecessors.
Trapper 69

[BEagle]

All 3 of your papers have been circulated.

I note with interest the reasoned responses on this thread.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Barry, I deride nobody. I was no where near aviation in 1988 and so cannot comment on the standards of instructors then.

I saw nothing wrong with the BCPL instructing approach, but I feel very stongly that to teach competently you must have more knowledge than you are trying to impart.

PPL instruction is not most people's goal, the airlines are. There is very little we can do about that. I doubt that there would be sufficient people to instruct and who would be willing to put up with the derisory wages if instruction was as far as they wanted to go. Current instructors put up with it because they are after a bigger prize. Where's the draw for PPL's other than 'free' flying?

Are there any statistics that show whether instructors are better/worse or the same as they used to be?

I still think you are barking up the wrong tree if this is how you wish to reduce costs.

[BEagle]

Emerging from what has been written in this thread is a growing sense of realisation that perhaps it is indeed time that the whole FI selection, training and testing system needs some re-examination.

There are those who wish to be career instructors, those who merely wish to gain an instuctional qualification in order to build up hours - and those who fall somewhere between these extremes. Not all 'hours builders' are the bored stereotypes itching for that first FO job; equally, not all 'grandfather rights' R/BCPL/FIs perhaps offer quite as much to the industry as they might think they do...

GAPAN, with the assistance of CFS, is presenting a forum for career instructors and HoTs (CFIs in JAR-speak!) at the RAF College Cranwell on 9 Mar 04. Due to the generosity of the Commandant CFS, there will be no charge for attending this. However, those wishing to fly in must have the relevant approval. Regrettably, landing charges cannot be waived for non-RAFFCA operated aircraft. If you'd like to attend, please contact the Guild on 0207 404 4032 or via e-mail at [email protected] quoting 'Cranwell Forum'. Please note that places are limited to a total of 90 and that those wishing to fly in MUST have approval from RAFC Cranwell, not GAPAN. This is a non-profit making event intended purely to benefit the future of the UK flying training industry.

[G-KEST]

BEagle - I will buy you a pint, or a coffee, whichever you prefer at Cranwell - see you there. It should be an excellent day with some great exchanges of views across the FI and FIE spectrum including an OFFA member like me.
Cheers,
Trapper 69;)

[BEagle]

Hope so. But it'll have to be a coffee as I'm intending to fly in if the Wx allows!

Thanks for the kind offer though!

[lady in red]

This is an interesting thread and I am in agreement with a great deal of what is said, but we need to remember that you cannot turn back the clock to the good old days. G-KEST is harking back to the days when it was not compulsory to wear a seatbelt in a car, motorways barely existed, helmets were not worn on motorbikes and the whole pace of life was slower. You could land your Tiger Moth in a field to check where you were and regulations were minimal. Learning to fly in the 1950's required you to learn about 90 pages of material - now there are several thousand.

Life is different now and the skies are more crowded, everyone is concerned about Health and Safety, Duty of Care, Liability for accidents. How would you feel about letting your children learn English from a 16 year old who had just taken his GCSE? What about allowing your son to learn to drive in a friend's kit car? It is simply about progress and development and rather than try to turn back the clock I believe we have to look at ways of changing the system radically.

What we need is a different method of training instructors. It should be essential that instructors have a more in-depth teaching qualification with an emphasis on psychology and understanding people and the different ways they learn. I think an element of maturity is required and rather than allowiing people to use instructing as a route to build hours for the airlines, instructing should be looked upon as a Professional job for a person with the right character and qualifications, a career path to be followed as an alternative. There should be cross-credits available for experienced pilots with appropriate teaching experience.

How should this be funded? Well, it has long seemed anomalous that the airlines, who are the net beneficiaries of the training equation, are not responsible for the funding. There should be a training levy on all airlines who do not already fund the training of their pilots and this could provide a fund to provide salaries for the Career Instructor.

If there is a movement in favour of a more basic club instructor who could only teach PPL within the club environment, then one could instigate a grading system for instructors and schools based on the instructors' qualifications and the facilities available to the schools rather like a Good Hotel Guide system. The student would then be in a position to decide whether he wanted the cheaper basic qualified instructor or the more expensive better qualified more experienced one. After all if you go to the hairdresser you pay more for the senior stylist than the junior even though it is the same haircut, but the key is you have the choice.

I would welcome any feedback on these ideas.

[BEagle]

Welcome to PPRuNe, lady in red...;)

I'm not sure about the 'grading' idea, but will happily debate any sensible proposal. Regrettably, market forces might drive schools down the route of employing the cheapest, lowest qualified FIs?

I do, however, think that the upgrade from FI(R) to FI should include some form of test rather than just the 100/25 plus sign-off? Should FI(R)s be permitted to re-validate by test only - and only FIs be given the '2 out of 3' re-validation option, perhaps? (Notwithstanding the post-03 requirements).

There is a 'sort of' 3-tier grading at the moment anyway:

FI(R)
FI
FI without IF and Night restrictions

Finally, I shall have to take your word over the hairdressing parallel - my brief trips to the local snipper involve little more than a short back and polish!

[lady in red]

Noted your comments BEagle. There may be a three tier system but unfortunately the employers do not seem to take account of the expense involved in removing each restriction as there is no discernible differential in remuneration - in fact where I work there has been no pay rise in 5 years and if we ask for one, we are told that there is a long queue of people waiting to take our jobs for less money! Surely extra qualifications and extra experience should attract higher reward?It does in all other professions

[walkingthewalk]

On the point of charging airlines a training levy, it would be interesting to look at some parallels (please bear with me):

1) Reasons why people learn to fly
2) Reasons why people set up a FTO
3) Reasons why people set up an air transport business
4) Reasons why people set up an Aviation Repair shop
5) Reasons (!) why the regulating body regulates any of above

1) Pleasure, aim to become airline/transport pilot

I don't understand the concept of anyone learning to fly so that
one day they will become an instructor.

2) Hmm, apart from the likes of CSE etc. where there is commercial
demand from time to time there seems to be very little money in it
for the typical "portakabin" club operation.

3) There is money in it (purely from a business perspective).

4) There is money in it (purely from a business perspective).

5) Obvious safety issues but the regulation itself imposes financial
burden on 1-4

We can see some market forces in this "little world":

The people in (1) depend on their financial provision to at least try for their goal.
The people in (2) "feed" on people in (1).
(3) depends on the output of (2).
(4) depends on the output of both (2) and (3).

It is interesting that (5) will control the efficiency of 2-4
and force a market change way beyond reasons of safety regulation.

We know that qualified pilots for (3) can be sourced from anywhere in the world so there isn't necessarily an interest in this
group to pay a levy or for that matter for government to intervene.

[DRJAD]

Sas, I quite agree that the requirement for the industry is to reduce costs, and to pass on that reduction to the customer.

I did not suggest that NPPLs (after their minimum 32 hrs) should take the place of more experienced instructors. (To be honest, after my NPPL I hardly felt confident enough to be in an aircraft on my own, let alone 'assisting' anyone else. Now I have some experience following PPL/IMC, I feel a little more confident, to the extent of feeling happy to accompany other PPLs and to contribute where invited. I would need a lot more experience before I would feel happy to make recommendations to a peer, let alone aspire to instruct.)

As a means to reduce costs, the suggestions on this thread do seem to merit proper examination. I hope that that consideration will take place soon: whichever way the argument goes, the airing of the ideas will represent a step forward in making the industry relevant to today's circumstances.

[Maximum]

I think Whirlybird and LadyinRed make very good points re the teaching skills involved in all this.

I agree with Whirly that there are more than just a few instructors out there who have absolutely no idea about actually teaching something.

In the airline world, before becoming a line trainer, TRI etc, the JAR's require a "Core Course" to be undertaken. This deals not with the technical and flying aspects, but with the core skills of imparting knowledge, ie, how to teach. Only a successful pass in this course will lead on to training as a TRI etc.

Beyond that, airline instructors and examiners must demonstrate a continued ability to facilitate debriefs based on human factors as well as the obviously important technical and flying side of things.

So whatever the arguments on the merits or otherwise of NPPL/PPL instructors, it seems to me a re-think is vitally overdue in how these instructors are actually trained.

[lady in red]

Walking the walk
I do not think that I am unique in having decided almost as soon as I had my PPL that I wanted to become an instructor and I actually gave up a well paid job in the City to study for CPL and AFI as it was then. Whilst learning to fly I realised I was not being instructed at all as the guy concerned was only interested in the hours in his logbook - why else did I do 5 hours of instrument flying after only one hour in the circuit??

It might make an interesting poll to ask Why do people learn to fly and why do they want to become instructors? I am sure that some are altruistic, desire to put something back into the system, have a natural affinity for teaching and helping others to learn, although I know that there are a great many self-centred ones only interested in hours building. However they cannot all be like that and all these guys in their 40s doing CPL for the first time must realise that there is no chance of ever getting into an airline? Or are they all dreamers?

Incidentally does anyone think it would be a good idea to form an instructors association?

[walkingthewalk]

lady in Red:

Personaly I think you are in the minority on wanting to become an instructor from the outset. There is very little reason at that point from both the potential financial gain and the ability to "put something back" (not a lot to put back unless you have got your licence and have flown around in different environments to gain experience).

As for "Or are they all dreamers?" - well I would say that they are.
But I also understand them and feel for them as I know that it is very difficult to "wake them up" once they have set about it.

In many ways, it is this "dream" that allows for low pay in the instructing industry AND harsh terms of employment in the airline industry.

In my view, the instructors were once mostly on their way to an airline job and the "system" provided for them to build hours towards their CPL/ATPL. That system has been abolished now so there is only the incentive of "keeping your hand in" that provides a stream of new "instructors" until they move on.

What I think we need (by we, I mean those that are in this for the long term) is teaching skills to be expected beyond just the rating to instruct.

Also it is difficult to communicate with a 20 year old instructor when you are a 40/50 year old PPL student. The older student will always suspect the maturity of the instructor regardless of his flying skills. This is were "people skills" come into play.
Thus, perhaps we need a minimum age too ;-)

I wonder how many experienced instructors here agree that
one of the most frequent questions asked on the way to the a/c
for the first time is "so...how many years have you been flying then".

[G-KEST]

Eee Bye Gum................this thread has woken up a treat. Many thanks all of you though please read the other forums as well. Lady in Red - nearly had you as my background music to an aerobatic glider airshow act once. It was but 15 years ago when the BCPL came in. We had a safe system prior to that largely where remunerated PPLs did the instructing. I do have a shrewd idea that overall safety in the private, sporting and recreational aviation field has not changed all that much but it has got ridiculously expensive. WE NEED MORE FOLK COMING INTO OUR HOBBY. It has ever been the case that the junior BALPA members have seen instructing as a route to the jet's right hand seat. Those who take up flying for a future career are a very small proportion and that MUST be appreciated by you all. Sorey if I am talking down to you but I do feel you all miss the point - or at least a fair proportion of you do. In any case I am 65 and a seniur citizen so there - a self confessed member of OFFA (the Old Flying Farts Association) - but not yet in my dotage; putting plus 5 and minus 2 on the G meter regularly. I only want what, in essence, the BGA in SLMG and the BMAA in microlights have had for the past 25 years at least. Is there some moral barrier between them and us???? I think not.
Trapper 69

[homeguard]

Listen, lets cut through the crap!

The winge'rs who rattle on about poor pay and how they are exploited are quite right, they are. But, as the saying goes, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I, like the Lady in Red, had a good career and changed it to buy a flying school. I was never under the illusion that it would make me rich or even give me the living that I was used to. It was what I wanted to do. No complaints!

I employ a number of Instructors; hour builders towards that distant airline job. Doctors and Policeman fulfilling a hobby. Retired Airline Training Captains and ex-service pilots in retirement. The mix is a concophony of backgrounds and aims.

Do I pay them enough, NO! Can I pay them more, NO! Do I want to pay these highly trained people who in the main have spent a fortune getting licences and ratings with a lot to offer, proper rates of pay that reflect their knowledge and skills, YES! Is the money there to do it? NO

Get real! As the Lady in Red has indicated, believe it or not Trapper has a point, their are other things in life, for some it is flying, don't sneer. AOC's, Operations Manuals, Pentions and the Seniority on the company ladder isn't all that can be got in life or out of flying. My school exists because of my Instructors, members and students who, whatever their means, support, help provide aircraft, garden furniture, roof repairs, time in helping to run the place and so on.

The flying clubs around the UK provide a fantistic opportunity to everyone from the van driver pooling just enough to pay for their PPL and to the potential airline pilot stepping onwards to the airline career.

I don't like the NPPL but we do need to get back to the ' flying club'. The JAA was designed to facilitate the very real needs of the airlines and has imposed a totallly wrong demand on GA. Things do need to change. People like Barry and BEagle need the support they deserve in the efforts they are giving, free of charge, and if a more realistic GA flying world can be developed out the mess, wonderful!

[BEagle]

+5 to -2 ? Didn't realise Barry's landings were quite that bad...:E

[Say again s l o w l y]

Nothing I have read here seems likely to solve the fundamental problem of cost.

Fiddling about with who can teach is unlikely to change anything. We do need to get more people involved but this will only happen if we cut costs. Tax on fuel and the sheer cost of parts and maintenance are what keeps the costs high, not who is in the cockpit.

Why waste effort on changing instructors, but use that energy to try and reduced fixed costs, then we may have something worthwile.

[walkingthewalk]

I can see how some costs can be reduced but cannot see how we can change the earning power of the potential customer.

It seems that the post PPL population is full of three types of people:

1) PPLs struggling to afford the currency of their licence.
2) Wealthy individuals who have the financial strength
to pay what it costs.
3) Mostly "unhappy" instructors !!! :rolleyes:


We cannot increase the group in (2) and we cannot help those in (1) as FTOs are not charities.

As for those in (3)......the only ones "happy" are the ones that
can afford the terms and conditions :E

It would be interesting to know if costs of parts and the hourly rate of maintenance organisations is really a "rip off".

If these costs *can* be reduced plus any future reduction of fuel duty on AVGAS (and if it is passed on to the students) THEN there may be chance of increasing the new PPL applicants.

I *still* don't see how the idea of increasing the number of instructors would do this :bored:

[G-KEST]

Still fizzing away............!!!!!!!!!!!
My paper for the PFA on PPL and NPPL(SEP) instructors for the NPPL(SEP) was not the only one.
Another proposed use of unlicensed but still suitable aerodromes for the training as was the case in the UK prior to around 1966. Something the BGA with SLMG and the BMAA with microlights have been able to do for decades. Even JAR-FCL does not require the use of LICENSED aerodromes.....!!!!!
The last was to allow CERTAIN suitable aeroplanes operated on the basis of a Permit to Fly to be used for training towards an NPPL(SEP) as with the BMAA with certain suitable microlights.
If all this came into being then there could indeed be a major reduction in the cost of the NPPL(SEP) with a consequent large increase in the number of folk from all walks of life coming into private, sporting and recreational aviation which is what probably 75% of our customers really want.
The NPPL(SEP) is a NATIONAL licence and does not have to meet ICAO Annex 1 or JAR-FCL or any future EASA requirement so the UK is at liberty to set what requirements are deemed appropriate.
Comments please.
Trapper 69;)

[BEagle]

The CAA is already looking at the current requirements for SEP training aerodromes; when they have concluded their review the NPPL P&SC will be in a better position to consider whether it meets their objectives.

But significant changes may impact adversely upon aerodrome operators' businesses. Hence, like it or not it seems that another Regulatory Impact Assessment would be required....

On this issue I consider that we should all wait until the CAA has had a chance to present its proposals. Rushing headlong at them like a bull at a gate will be unlikely to be of much benefit.

[Say again s l o w l y]

The cost of licensing a field is high, but how will it change things for clubs who don't operate their own aerodromes? Will they be put out of business by schools operating from potentially shonky little fields that can charge less?

Again this is a proposal that could have disasterous effects on the industry by taking us back to the 'olden days' when people were happy to put up with basic conditions. For the average PPL this is unacceptable. People want to feel part of a professional environment hopefully with modern equipment and facilities, taking us back to the '60's seems like a crazy idea, but what do I know.............

I agree with BEag's that we should wait and see what the CAA propose before any other ludicrous plans are put forward.

[BEagle]

At the moment an 'aerodrome' can be anything from London Airport to Farmer Giles' muddy old meadow. Somewhere in between there are 'licensed' and 'unlicensed' aerodromes, gliding sites, microlight sites.... Training can take place at some aerodromes for certain types of aircraft and certain levels of training.

My preferred term is 'approved training aerodrome'. Depending on what it has to offer, approval would be given for specific training activities at a specific aerodrome. A helicopter FTO doesn't need the runway length which a MEP FTO would need; a Microlight training school probably needs less aerodrome facilities than a school training people for a PPL. 'Licensing' is not the issue per se; ensuring that facilities are commensurate with the nature of proposed training operations being conducted probably is.

"I wish to conduct the following training from this aerodrome. It has the following on-site facilities and the nearest off-site fire and rescue services are situated x miles from the aerodrome" No need for a 'licence', surely, just 'approval' subject to whatever limitations on the nature of training, number of movements etc which the Authority are happy with?

Muddy little fields in the middle of nowhere with a couple of tatty old cloth bombers, a tacky little portakabins with a single bar electric fire, a few old armchairs, no phone, a kettle, no running water, powdered milk and a mangy old cat glaring at customers from the corner - with only a rarely-emptied portaloo out back aren't going attract many into flying in the year 2004! But equally not many will want to be greated by the sycophantic smarm of a top marque car salesman - they'll just hear the sound of cash registers ringing away in their heads!

There is a need for review; let's give the oft-maligned Belgranists a chance to do so!

[martinidoc]

I have enjoyed this thread, and would just like to make one or two observations.

I am one of the fortunate part time club instructors, with a well paid "proper" job. I instruct purely for pleasure.

I do not recognise the "hours builder" who sets out to build hours with total disregard for the quality of instruction. I have been priviledged to instruct alongside many hours builders, whos career objectives were airline jobs, but I cannot think of any of them who did not provide high quality training in a very professional manner.

Our members club flying school is presently under a much greater threat due to the expansion of commercial activities at our regional "International" airport. Landing fees have risen 10 fold over the last year and are set to double again this year so that we will be paying £30 per landing and £15 per touch and go(£230 for an hour of circuits with 6 touch and gos).

We are clearly being squeezed out of this airport by an aggressive CEO chasing his financial bonus. As things stand at present there are no viable options for our relocation, because there are no proximate licenced airfields suitable for flight training. This scenario appears to be coming more common up and down the country, and we must seek an alternative method of approving "Training airfields" if recreational GA is to survive.

As far as the knowledge base required for FI, I agree more emphasis should be placed on "teaching methods", by which I mean not only class room technique, but also the practical aspects of dealing with student landing problems for example.

Like the university philosophy however, I think that the level of knowledge should be "broadly based", but with much more emphasis on light aircraft operations. The CPL knowledge requirements are in my view too detailed in relation to commercial operations and heavy aircraft, and inadequate in relation to light aircraft operations. I imagine the reason there is not an instructor/commercial licence is because of the financial implications of set up and running costs.

Perhaps a better way forward therefore would be to take the relevant CPL modules, and substitute some light aviation ones for the unecessary modules, and integrate them into a FI course and dedicated knowledge based test, administered by the FIEs. The relevent modules could then be credited toward a CPL/ATPL for those wishing to move onward to a commercial career. This would be a much cheaper option than a whole new licence.

[homeguard]

I think the last two contributions are excellent.

The Approved FI schools being approved to conduct exam preperation courses for the appropiate 'Instructor Exams', as described, will add distinctly relevant training and as already said become credits later towars a CPL should an individual wish to go Public Transport.

I would also like to see 'Sandwich Courses fo the FI. Hands on Instructing under supervision within a flying club supervised by an experienced CFI approved for the purpose and backed up by mandatory attendance at an FI school throughout the training process.

BEagle's 'Approved Aerodrome' scenario also takes us forward and is an answer to the current impass in regard to the licencing of Aerodromes debate.

I'm holding my breath.

[lady in red]

One of the costs that surely ought to be reduced is the costs of maintenance. Here we are with instructors only making about £10 to £15 per hour, there are engineers charging a minimum fee of £60 just for basic tasks carried out by an unqualified fitter! It seems a gross disparity. May be another way of dealing with the cost issue would be for all instructors to be paid direct by the student and thus they could agree privately what they wanted to charge. Then if a student wanted to use a free of charge instructor he could but if he chose to pay a guy £60 because he really valued what he was getting then he could. Personally when I used to freelance in the old days before JAR i never had any problem being paid £25 to £30 for refresher training or IMC by private owners. (Twice what I get now working for a FTO!!)

There are some of you who will say that the ones who do it for free are keeping the pay scale down, but if it was all published in the Where to Fly Guide then everyone would know and the individuals could make their choices. Some people actually believe that if you pay more for something then it must be better etc etc. (old argument -sorry)

[walkingthewalk]

Lady in Red: I'm quite in the agreement with the concept of instructors freelancing but I also know that it cannot
be applied unless those who work as full-time instructors have their employment contracts renegotiated as such.

I know from personal experience that some people prefer to be taught by one or two particular instructors.
Your proposal makes sense for those with a CPL and with some minor adjustment for public liability insurance, it would work.

However, I suspect that given the choice between freelancers and employees, most FTOs would opt for employees
and profit from the arrangement somehow.

As for engineer's rates, it is a simple case of rarity and convenience of location. We as instructors cannot
use their model because for a start, there are far too many of us ;)

[homeguard]

Instructors are definately worth £20-£30 per flying hour and should be able to earn at least £25,000+ per annum.

Many flying schools have gone to wall in recent years and others simply survive. Certainly in the case of fixed-wing most flying clubs are member owned and subsidised or constituted as non-profit making with very few exceptions.

80-90% of income will come from pilot training with self hire being just a small part of the day to day activity. The training rate therefore is the real price from which the school/club earns it's income. The solo rates are discounted rates. The money available to pay instructors ibso facto is limited. Fifteen to twenty pounds an hour to the Instructor is a good cut. The problem is that the Instructor has to take the rub alongside the school owing to downtime for whatever the reason - and we know that in flying terms downtime is manifest due to all the obvious day to day realities including weather.

Even if there was a turnaround and we saw a doubling of business don't expect much of an increase in wages or fees, however deserved. It will mean that at long last the roof gets repaired or the ILS glideslope is fixed and the localiser become FM Immune. FM immunity like the prop shaft issue a few years ago can only be put down to yet another CAA faux pas.

Not for me to protect Engineers, however not many can afford to charge much more than £20 to £30 per hour. About the same as the one man band Car Mechanic working from an old shed in a back street.

The real answer is to see the flying club brought back into the fold of general aviation. JAA has completely sidetracked the role of the flying club from the advanced training scenario. Think back just a few years when FIC and later BCPL course were very closely alied to clubs. Even the IMC course is not recognised as a credit toward JAA professional licences. While many heavy jet pilots see Instructing at the club as recreation, the CAA say it isn't and counts instructing hours toward professional flying hours. The club has lost these contibutors as well.

[shortstripper]

Well ... I've just spent an interesting hour reading through this thread, and yes I'm not a power reader!

Firstly ... SAS, I think to deride all would be PPL instructors as "barely qualified" is an insult. Nobody is suggesting a fresh PPL should suddenly jump in the right seat and teach. If you really think that all you need to become "PROPERLY QUALIFIED" to teach is a CPL and FI rating then you are an ignorant fool.

WTW ... Why is so hard to understand why somebody might simply enjoy teaching and filling others with enthusiasm for a sport/pastime/career that they find so much fun. Everyone has different motivations and those not the same as yours are just as relevent.

OK ... rant over

I hold my hands up as a non instructor but like many I would like to be but can't afford it. I can fully understand how those now qualified feel both threatened and to a certain extent elitest. After all, you have spent out on your training and worked hard. It's only human nature to dislike the idea that others may reach a similar position with less expense or effort. The trouble is does that make the system fair or sensible? I personally think not.

Personally I have been flying since the early 80's. Firstly gliders, then onto power (flying Tigermoths and Cubs with WW2 era instructors) with a bit of microlighting thrown in for good measure. My radio is appalling and I'm sure I have many bad habits. However, these can easily be pulled up and my experience and knowledge of flying at PPL level is not always but often more in depth than quite a few CPL/FI's that I've met or read on here. I'd like to instruct mostly because I love flying, I love the idea of introducing potential flyers to the idea that flying need not be just about chasing ratings and airline jobs but can simply be about having fun. Romantic? ... maybe? Am I a dinosaur? ... maybe; but at 38 I don't think I'm just some old fool remembering the good old days and wishing. I've seen how the BGA and BMAA work and the proffessionalism of their instructors and I do remember how PPL instruction was. It wasn't perfect, but believe me it wasn't that bad either.

The Answer

I don't have it! ... but I do think that at the basic PPL level we don't need to have CPL level of knowledge in all subjects. PPL instructors would obviously need a sensible number of hours under their belts, and the FI course could make sure relevent knowledge is up to scratch along with flying skill, after all, surely that why you have to go through it anyway?

Would it not be OK to make the FI(R) this level and then insist on CPL ect for FI and beyond? ... or drop the compulsory approved course just to take the CPL exams. What was wrong with home study? if you failed you weren't good enough, if you passed you were? (well maybe not but that's always been the way with any exams).

Ivan ... ducking FLAK :uhoh:

[Say again s l o w l y]

Thanks for that shortstripper. As an "ignorant fool" who does have an FI rating, this whole debate covers the great divide between PPL's and instructors.

If you have ever read any of my posts, then you will see that I don't think that just because somebody has a PPL it makes them incompetent and conversely having a CPL is no guarantee of ability. BUT I know far more dangerous PPL's than I do CPL's and there are very few PPL's I would feel comfortable letting loose as an instructor.

Instructing is not a job to be taken lightly, a bunch of "amateurs" would be catastrophic to the industry in my opinion.

G-KEST has stated that these are measures that may help reduce the cost of flying, I will say again (slowly) for the 20th time that this is utter bunk. FI's should get MORE money not less. How else are you able to keep decent instructors? To reduce costs, let's attack the things that actually are expensive such as fuel.

Flying is great fun for most PPL's, they only go when they want to and where they want to. As an instructor, the sheer joy of flying changes fairly rapidly into a job. Sometimes it's wonderful, others sheer drudgery mixed with the occasional serving of terror. See how much enthusiasm you have on cold, wet, windy day when students don't turn up, you're drinking coffee and not getting paid. If you love flying and teaching so much, there is a route for you.

I will always maintain that a good instructor MUST be at least 10 steps ahead of the student. A PPL teaching another PPL doesn't cut it in my book.

I always try to do the best for my students and on many occasions I have had to dip into my post-PPL knowledge to either get the point across, or something unexpected has happened that I was in no way trained for during my PPL.

Most PPL's to be honest are actually a danger to themselves and others, again anyone who can be bothered to read this BB is unlikely to be such an individual. The number of times I have been lied to, verbally abused or even threatened by PPL's because they didn't like me questioning them, especially over currency, is far from funny or even uncommon.
Should these individuals be allowed to teach the next generation of pilots? What procedures would there be in place to stop it happening? Maybe I am too cynical.

What is wrong with instructing at the moment? Nobody has yet spelled out that there is a problem that needs fixing. Why go back 20 years (rose tinted specs?) and make major changes without identifying what the issues are today and trying to fix them in a constuctive manner.

Just because somebody has a CPL and an FI ticket doesn't make them any less of an enthusiast than any PPL. Infact the reverse is true. They love it so much that they are willing to remortgage their houses and work for peanuts. If that isn't enthusiasm then what is? Get a CPL and an FI rating, then you have earned the right to bitch about instructors.

[shortstripper]

SAS,

I wasn't bitching about flying instructors. I have the greatest respect for them ... but I also have respect for others who don't have the money or time to be get the bit's of paper that so many see as the only way to mark you out as worthy. I see this in many walks of life and not just aviation.

I have read quite a few of your posts and mostly I find that you make great sense and speak with clarity and knowledge. That's why I find it so dissappointing when I see people like yourself who should know better making blanket statements and belittling those less "worthy". You take great delight in pointing out that you are someone who does have an FI rating and that's fine, but I am allowed my opinion too. It may be from a different angle but it is just as relevent to this discussion. Calling you an ignorant fool was a bit over the top and for that I apologise. However, assuming that I am so ignorant to think that instructing is all fun and doesn't have it's dull, dangerous or just plain "ordinary" side is just as bad. I come from the world of agriculture where we lean against gates chewing grass in the hot sun and never get wet or cold calving cows at 2am ... so what would I know of real life?

It's a shame you weren't flying earlier as you'd realise that the world wasn't invented post JAR. Things actually worked quite well if not perfectly before. What's wrong with the present system? well quite a lot actually, why else do you think this topic keeps reappearing? The BGA and BMAA do not require CPL level instructors and if you think their standards are low then I will call you ignorant again and mean it!

I'm sure you are a very good instructor and very enthusiastic about flying ... that's great. I never said I thought CPL's FI's ect weren't, I just meant we don't all want to be airline pilots.

"Most PPLs a danger to themselves and others"? well there you go again! ... perhaps you're right (but I think not). If you are, who's at fault? maybe you as an instructor? ... or are they just the ones taught by someone else or those qualified before JAR?

If I had my own house I'd remortgage it ... but I don't. If I had no kids to feed I'd chuck every penny at doing the now very expensive CPL papers and AFI course ... but I do. There are plenty of rich kids out there (my sweeping statement and only meant tongue in cheek) who's daddy payed their way, does that mean they are more likely to be better instructors? Sob story? well to a certain extent yes, but I really think spending £8000 or so just to teack basic PPL is a bit on the steep side.

Like I said it's not so much your argument but your attitude toward "mere" PPL's that I object to. To say you don't think that way but then to go on and say the things you do only goes show you are just a tad elitest.

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

Unfortunately my attitude of suspicision is borne out of bitter experience. As I've said many times, a lot of people are very good, but there is a huge gap in competancies. Most PPL's fly 12 hours every 2 years. Does that make a competent pilot?

I don't really have a holier than thou' attitude, but it does seem to come across as that and I will apologise for it

I know and have worked with FI's who also leave an awful lot to be desired and I would rather bring them up to speed than spend time with a whole bunch of new people.

I'll leave aside the BGA and BMAA as I don't really know enough about them to comment. I only know about my sector of the industry, yes there are many issues, but this is not the way to solve the underlying problem of cost.

Nothing I have read would change my opinion of this matter, but everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint.

[walkingthewalk]

My turn shortstripper - and do let's remain detached from personalised remarks, please.

The original motion put forward was that more people would take up flying if the instructors did not have to be qualified as they are at the moment. All they needed was a PPL and the FI course.

This motion was apparently based on the cost of gaining the CPL.

Based on the above information, you can see that the motion does not have any affinity with logic.

[shortstripper]

Errr no actually if you read the original motion posted it was what do others think of a NPPL/PPL being able to teach with an instructor rateing and not having to go to the expense of gaining a CPL (or at least the CPL papers).

I'm sure if you put it to the punters that their instructors didn't have to be qualified they would say "Sod how cheap I can learn ... I'm gone!"

Based on that I'm sure there is no logic, but that isn't what is being put forward. What is has plenty of logic.

It was never my intention to get personal BTW ... I just kind of got drawn in ... sorry!


SS

[walkingthewalk]

shortstripper, you are right - but there were comments immediately after the very first post that were along the lines of what I mentioned.

Fine, so would you please explain why the basis should change.
I am not aware of any instructor shortages so that clearly cannot be the reason.

We have dozens of instructors waiting to instruct at most clubs around the country already.

[Whirlybird]

I have a PPL(H), CPL(H), and rotary FI(R).

When I got my PPL(H), I really knew very little. After spending lots of time and money doing the CPL exams and flying I knew a lot more - but most of it simply wasn't relevant to either the type of flying I was doing, or being an instructor. I learned to fly helicopters properly - or at least started to - on my FI course. And having talked to several instructors, both f/w and rotary, that seems to be the general feeling and experience.

So don't any of you think I'd have been better off spending the time and money that I spent doing the CPL, on doing some theory and practice more related to instructing, since that was always what I wanted to do? Then, SAS, maybe I wouldn't have been "just a PPL", but a PPL with a thorough grounding in advanced flying and instructional techniques, rather than a CPL who feels she's just barely scratched the surface of both of those.

My CPL may impress people. I may have done a bit more instrument flying than I otherwise would, learned how to fly and follow an OS map, and learned loads about machmeters and jet streams and all about radio waves. But when I have a student in an R22 who's hellbent on killing us both, it's really not a lot of use! That's when more actual vocational instructor training might perhaps stand me in good stead.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I personally disagree with you Whirly about learning to fly on an FI course. I'd already reached an OK standard whilst doing my CPL and especially my I/R, I don't feel the FI course changed my actual flying, but this is in relation to me rather than anyone else.
Anything you learn will be of benefit to your students at some point, therefore the more you know, the more knowledge you can pass along.

I learnt very quickly once I started with students that instructing is not just about how well you actually hand fly the thing, the psycology and how to enable people to be in a situation where they can learn is far more important. This came from me, not any course I'd been on. In this respect, the current FI courses don't prepare you as well as you really need. Though I suppose this is why you become an FI(R) to start with.

My main issue with having PPL's teaching, is the incredibly variable standard of competence. You can be far more sure of 'quality' with somebody who has reached the level of CPL.

There are of course ways and means around this problem, but all they would do is add another level of complexity (and cost!) into the system. There are already plenty of FI who have CPL's around, why do we need to add another layer?

Still nobody has identified that there is a problem with the current crop, so why change anything? Why were the 'good old days' better? Again is it a case of rose tinted specs?

I am suspicious of G-KEST's motives in all of this (this may be totally unfounded however) is it because he himself has recently lost his medical and wishes to change the system to suit himself rather than the industry as a whole?
Again, this may not be true, but if not could you lay out your case EXACTLY for why the system needs a change. With any data you have that proves whether we are 'worse' today than we used to be.

[homeguard]

whirlibird makes the valid points.

The tag on the ticket isn't the issue. Of course the standards demanded for the CPL test will ensure a higher standard of flying technique but the CPL course is very narrow in content and the training is really no more than a rehearsal toward the end performance (Skill Test).

The knowledge gained in CPL studies is illuminating, however, I think we all agree, much of it has little relevance to the basics of flying nor backs up the needs of a Flying Instructor.

A PPL should be once more able to become a Flying Instructor albiet with a much higher standard of knowledge than under the old UK system. i.e. exams dedicated to instructing.

If, Say Again Slowly, you didn't learn much more about flying during your FIC course, then I find that very disappointing. Perhaps that indicates that a number of FIC courses require review.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A bit of a sweeping statement really (I do seem to be prone to those!) what I meant was, that my actual handling skills didn't change much, but my outlook was certainly changed. At least as important if not more so.

[shortstripper]

SAS (and others)

I do see where you're coming from and I do see the need to set a standard of competance ... but why at CPL? Surely this can be achieved at the point of the FI course?

The present system has actually only been around for about 15 years so I don't really use rose tinted specs to see back that far. What I can see is the effects the new system is having now that it's starting to bite ... more on those effects in a bit.

I do wonder what will happen as our older experienced career instructors leave? Incidently, many of these where PPL instrutors who turned professional. This may be a bit of a broad statement (we're all guilty of those) but many of our present crop of instructors are simply filling a gap in their careers. What happens if the airline industry does take this promised upturn :rolleyes: ? who will be left? A few who decide they enjoy instructing and want to stay (that's good) and those who don't find the job they really want and have to stay (that's bad).

Why change?

Is the present system really that good? Let's see ...

It forces out our older very experienced instructors who fail to make the class 1 medical ... Hmmm, well we can carry passengers with a class 2, so is the risk that much greater?

It forces those who want to instruct and go no further to train to a level that is way beyond what they need or want. OK, so you do need to know more than the level you teach (we've established that) ... but I'm talking basic PPL here. Your required flying experience and FI training naturally makes you far higher in knowledge than that needed to qualify for a PPL.

Is the present system really that bad? lets see ...

In essense the present system is probably not too bad, but it is flawed. The cracks are starting to appear and I honestly think a change is needed.

Firstly, the broad aviation knowledge base is dissappearing from our clubs. A present instructor can qualify on a fast track CPL course, tag on an FIR and be instructing within 18 mths. I don't doubt he/she will be very knowledgable on the theory side, their flying will be well polished and I'm sure they will be very very good at getting their students through their PPL's. Trouble is, then what for that student? Club aircraft hire? IMC? IR? Multi? ... fun?? I see more and more PPL's emerging (or leaving) who've never heard of the PFA, of what it's like to have a group share, or own, or aerobat, or air race ect ect. They often know nothing about what it "CAN" be like to fly! Why? because their instructor hasn't or doesn't either! I know many do ... but a surprising number don't!

Secondly, the cost of becoming an instructor! It's horrendous! If you are using the FI as a means to an end, then to an extent the cost and the crap wages are kind of justified. If you just want to instructn then the cost of getting there is prohibitive. It will continue to be badly payed whatever, so why bitch about that side ... it's a fact of life even if unjustified. Far from adding another layer and adding to the costs, what is proposed will make it more accessable as it once was and bring costs (to the prospective FI) down. Also to turn upside down your "plenty of CPL/FI's around to fill posts" ... there were never thousands more unemployed instructors back then either. Plenty of unemployed CPL's and ATPL's yes ... but what's new?

The answer?

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't really know but we can all make suggestions. So what about something on the lines of ...

FI (R) = PPL + 200 P1 hrs + FI course + class 2 medical
FI = CPL + 200 hrs instructing experience.

That way those who progress to unrestricted FI or teach advanced level need a CPL or higher and will naturally demand a higher wage. Those that don't may have to live with the poor wages but like I said ... fact of life. At least they will have no illusions and stay instructing for either the love of it or to progress up the instructor ladder rather than off to be airline pilots.

Maybe G-KEST is looking at it from a selfish prospective ... but so what? is he wrong too? maybe? maybe not? and maybe those CPL/FI's instructing now are also? I can understand that ... it's human nature. But does that make it right?


SS

BTW ... Anyone who knows nothing of the BGA or BMAA system, I'd suggest you find out, because to know nothing makes you a bit blinkered ... and I mean that with the greatest respect, not as an insult.

[G-KEST]

Hello again,
Am I selfish - hard to say really. My current NPPL(SEP) is with a DVLA group 1 only so I am confined to thoroughly enjoying my one third share in a Steen Skybolt solo and as was the case this Sunday afternoon for 25 minutes of which 10 were doing aerobatics to plus 4 and minus 2 G. Bliss............!!
I really did enjoy my instructing from 1960 to 1999 with the last 31 years as a professional. The first 8 as a PPL progressing from AFI through FI to CFI and examiner, all with merely a PPL. Some of my then students graduated through the self-improver route to ATPL's and positions as senior captains with BA and other airlines. One even became a senior inspector with Flight Ops at the Authority and one with FCL6. So there.............!!!!
Should the situation change then it is highly unlikely that I would ever get a JAR-MED class 1 again however it was a mild cardiac infarction I suffered in 1999 not a total frontal lobotomy. My skills as a FI and FIE were not affected in any way so if I could get a DVLA group 2 to allow passenger carrying then why not allow me to instruct ab-initio NPPL(SEP) students since, on moral grounds, is there a difference between a passenger and a student? Not in my considered opinion. Yes I would have to retread but do you really think this would be any problem with my experience over some 44 years - if you do you must be barmy. Remember old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill....!!! Especially on instructor renewal tests.
SAS - you really do not have the depth of experience to know what you are talking about in decrying the efforts of all those PPL instructors who were presented with a BCPL back in 1988. Frankly I think you an intolerant b*****d and a reactionary individual who cannot accept justifiable change when the sense is in front of you.
GA in the UK is in an appalling situation with the average age of students going through the 40 barrier. That is all except the would be airline jockeys who are looking for a career in the airlines and see instructing as a mark time period to give time to whinge about pay and conditions. I do accept that there are dedicated and highly professional instructors out there who have gained their qualifications through a difficult and expensive process. But why should this be the case for everyone? There could be a better way however those who will not learn from history must be persuaded in the course of rational discussion.
(withdraws to place tin helmet on aged head and retreat towards but not yet inside blast shelter)
Cheers,
Trapper 69

[homeguard]

The last two contributions ( shortstripper and G-KEST ) take us forward. I've already said my bit towards this debate, but;

How about.

1) Class 2 or class 1(restricted) medical. If KEST can pull +4g, -2g quite happily at weekends he can teach my students anyday.

2) How about 100hrs P1 and 200hrs total time ( as with the JAA CPL )

3) FIC course extended to 45 hours minimum training to include much more on navigation training techniques ( currently skimped on the FIC courses ) bringing the PPL candidate to a much higher standard, before teaching the student. The 5 hours mutual bit of the FIC to be replaced by 5 hours supervised instructing within a flying school and supervised by an approved for the purpose CFI.

4) Exams geared to instructing but maybe derived from the current CPL databank as appropiate. Take away the ridiculous requirement to pass papers within just 18 months. Allow 3 - 5 years. CPL/ATPL exams can give exemptions, other than the dedicated instructing technique papers.

5) CPL/ATPL holders to gain say 12 hours exemption from the 45 hours FIC, reflecting the high level Navigation training already received during CPL training.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I may be a reactionary b*****d, but I am certainly not blinkered.

I want to see what are the real problems, yes the average age for a PPL maybe in the 40's, but is that any different from 20 years ago?

I will admit to a slight lack of knowledge about the BGA and BMAA, but I am certainly not unaware of their existance and my ignorance is compared to knowledge of current PPL issues.

My annoyance is with the peculiarily British disease of looking back with fondness and forgetting how crap things really were. If there are problems with the current system, lets find them and fix them, rather than go through the enormous hassle and expense to change a system that is working currently.

I for one am fed up with things changing every 5 minutes and having to explain these changes ad-nauseam. The change from UK to JAR being a prime example that is still causing mass confusion.

Why are there less PPL's than there were 20 years ago, simple COST.

Who is teaching is totally irrelevant. The current crop of FI's have CPL's, the last lot had BCPL's before that PPL's. So what. We all have hoops to jump through and this is just another one.

Do you need a CPL to teach PPL's, no of course not and in theory I agree that the current system is daft if all you are going to teach is ab-initio PPL, but many instructors teach at a higher level, CPL and I/R for example. How are they to get the experience if there are loads of 'cheap' PPL instructors around?

What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the whole licensing system and I don't feel it is likely or necessary.

G-KEST, you helped write the current rules, now you fall foul of them on a medical issue. It seems like bad grapes to try and change them to suit yourself, since I know plenty of others who can't teach any more for similar reasons. They understood why and accepted it.

I would NOT be happy to have somebody working for me who had had a Heart attack no matter how minor. The risk is not worth taking when you ahve a Trial lesson on board and if you were incapacitated they would have virtually NO chance. I couldn't ask someone to take that risk.

Basically you fail my Grandmother test. Would I be happy to let you take her flying? No chance. Harsh I know, but that's life unfortunately. Age and treachery may be true, but not if you are unconcious and that is the real nub of this argument for me.

If somebody wishes to risk their own neck by flying on a reduced medical, then thats fine by me, but taking a paying passenger who wouldn't be aware of the medical history of the pilot is totally a no-no. Class ones all round please.

[DFC]

The UK is a country where the Aviation Authority seems to have lost control.

Increasingly, Pilots based in the country fly on licenses from various other parts of the world meaning that the CAA is unable to directly enforce any licensing action or ensure safety standards.

These and other local pilots are flying aircraft registered in far flung parts of the world meaning that the CAA has no control over the airworthiness and equipment of those aircraft.

Pilots who can't meet the appropriate Medical standards accepted across Europe as being safe simply find another country that has lower standards and defeats the CAAs attempts to maintain it's own standards of safety.

The reason why everyone in the UK constantly complains about JARs is that the UK has made a hash of the implementation and the large Euro sceptic part of the UK views anything not wholely British in origin to be alien. Far better for the CAA to have simply published JAR-FCL unedited as a schedule to the ANO and simply said "there are the rules".

The NPPL was introduced because the aviation authority that actively encourages pilots to use facilities in other parts of the world while aviation at home suffers, had to be seen to be doing something. In doing so, it backtracked over decades of it's own medical standards and produced the NPPL - a licence that has been shown to be not for the recreational pilot but more for the pilot cut-off by medical misfortune.

There is simply not enough demand for the NPPL from abinitio pilots (other than the microlight fraternity) to justify an industry based on such poor possible return.

I have no problems with PPLs with suitable experience teaching at any level of the spectrum. There are a few PPL IR's that I know who can teach the IR better than some wet behind the ears CPL/IRs simply because thay have lots of appropriate practical experience.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that having PPL instructors will be cheaper and thus make the NPPL cheaper and thus attract some students. It simply will not work.

I would not like to be the person who must ask the CAA to lower it's standards for cost reasons because that would simply be a satatement that it is only money that counts.

From the previous posts, the debate seems to be moving from a point where the idea was that the CPL knowledge was a waste of time to a position of agreeing that some if not all the knowledge is required and that the instructor course should be extended.

Surely extending the course means extra expense for the PPL instructor who with little posibility of having any future students would see little future chance of recovering their investment and thus would be unwilling to waste the mony available for what limited flying the NPPL permits on a course with little if any reward.

The whole "Traial Lesson" operation in the UK is currently simply Public Transport (joy rides) under a poor disguise. The numbers of trial lessons compared to PPL starts prove that either this is the case - or instructing standards are so poor that lots of potential students are frightened away.

Perhaps the CAA are ignoring much of the activity because at least the operations are in Public Transport certified aircraft and piloted by Commercial pilots. Would they do the same for a fleet of C150s and PPLs giving joy rides as birthday presents every Saturday and Sunday?

What is also being ignored is the changes in society generally. Could it be that most students are 40+ years because when it comes to recreational flying only, most people will be 40 or more before thay can assign a large chunk of the family income on such pleasures (house prices, levels of debt etc).

Piloting a little aircraft in circles outside town for £100 plus per hour is not as awe inspiring today as it was 20 years ago. Most teenagers have flown B747s in virtual reality round the world at little expense.

The emergence of many a Low cost bus of the air now means that holding one's chest out at the golf club bar and stating that one is a pilot simply puts onself in the well paid bus driver category - not near as much cudos as placing one's porche keys in view!

The answer - stop drumming down and start promoting what we have got - provide a link between that teenager doing circuits at Meigs and doing something interesting at the local airfield.

Is France or Germany about to have it's own NPPL. If not then why not (unless it is a bad idea)!.

Rant over. :=

Regards,

DFC

[shortstripper]

Ok let's get away from the mud slinging ... and yes I'm as guilty as well. It doesn't help much.

If I can be permitted to address a few of your points SAS, please don't think I'm taking a pop at you. You arguments are quite representative of many of those who are happy(ish) with the present system so I'll use them as a simple reference point.

SAS ... "My annoyance is with the peculiarily British disease of looking back with fondness and forgetting how crap things really were. If there are problems with the current system, lets find them and fix them, rather than go through the enormous hassle and expense to change a system that is working currently."

No offence but as you have admitted you weren't involved back then ... how would you know it was crap? I was and I thought the system worked pretty well. It was only really changed because of the European (dis)harmonisation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

SAS ... "Why are there less PPL's than there were 20 years ago, simple COST."

Actually I don't think costs have changed much relative to average wages ect. In fact I'd say it's probably cheaper now to learn to fly than it was back then ... especially if you take NPPL into account. It's the CPL route that has become far more expensive now the "self-improver" route has gone. Again ... I stand to be corrected. I think there are less PPL's because-

1) Their are far far more outdoor pursuits, facilities ect available these days and therefore flying has more competition to compete with for punters.

2) The fun aspect is often hidden to those just qualifying and many leave in ignorance of all the options available to spice up their flying. Flying clubs are becoming too "school like" and are geared to produce potential airline pilots not recreational pilots. All the old "characters" seem to have shuffled off or gone to fly cheaply from farm strips and all that are left at "clubs" are the wouldbe ATPL's talking gadgets and IFR.

SAS ... "Who is teaching is totally irrelevant. The current crop of FI's have CPL's, the last lot had BCPL's before that PPL's. So what. We all have hoops to jump through and this is just another one."

Exactly! ... So why were you arguing so hard that PPL instructors are pretty near useless?

SAS ... "Do you need a CPL to teach PPL's, no of course not and in theory I agree that the current system is daft if all you are going to teach is ab-initio PPL, but many instructors teach at a higher level, CPL and I/R for example. How are they to get the experience if there are loads of 'cheap' PPL instructors around?"

We are talking basic PPL here, obviously CPL/IR/ ect ect will require a more qualified instructor. As I said in a previous post, AFI wages have always been crap and in reality they probably always will be. It never stopped those who were dedicated enough before and it won't in the future.Those who are just using the FI as a hours building excercise will leave anyway so what's the difference. It just means those who stay to become senior instructors will be there as always ... because they want to be. Some of these command very good wages but I appreciate, not if compared to an equivelent airline job. Like I said this is a fact of life ... market forces and all that ... :-(

SAS ..."What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the whole licensing system and I don't feel it is likely or necessary."

Maybe ... but as you know it's been done many times in the last decade to all of our disgust ... at least if was to make improvements ? Of course if you were applying it just to the NPPL then it wouldn't require much change at all. In fact all you'd be doing is bringing it into line with say microlight NPPL and leveling the pitch.

SAS ... "If somebody wishes to risk their own neck by flying on a reduced medical, then thats fine by me, but taking a paying passenger who wouldn't be aware of the medical history of the pilot is totally a no-no. Class ones all round please."

Sounds very correct doesn't it? a bit like speed cameras ... "well you can't denigh you were speeding sir!" hmmmm ? Two points here, 1) If class 2 was good enough in the past why not now? and you can take passengers up with a class 2 so what's the difference? 2) Anybody can suffer incapacitation and ECG's ect can't predict them. Ok the older you are the higher the risk maybe, but how much risk is it? I don't recall many incapacited instrucors in the past and I bet the odd cases that have occurred have no common link such as age?


To turn the never ending "what's so bad about the way it works now" question on it's head ... What is SO good about it?

SS

[homeguard]

Yes, France is proposing it's own NPPL.

Once the airline market is on the up, it is now once again showing the signs of becoming so, the flying clubs will be back in a state of chaos. As grandfather Instructors continue to retire or be retired the availablity of Instructors to flying schools will be even worse than before.

The training industry cannot continue to be held ransom to the fickle surges and lolls of the commercial transport demands.

The training industry requires a stable instructor force in order to promote itself. The current system is too often at odds with that need.

Cost isn't everything as you say DFC and that is why I suggest that the Instructing training must be thorough and comprehensive. Accessibilty and relevance are the arguements. You complain that the old boys look back through rose tinted glasses and suffer from the we no best british desease and yet seem satisfied with the notion that one should accept a 'jump through hoops' mentality which i've always considered to be a symptum of the 'british desease'.

Get rid of the awkward and pretentious hoops and concentrate on required standards.

DATA does not support the arguement that the DVLC class 1/11 medical standards are risky, far from it. A 52 ton truck is more a hazard than our little GA aeroplanes. It is the lack of DATA that the aero medics have that makes the JAA medical so restrictive. The JAA medical is no more thorough than DVLC and is done without any knowledge of the candidates medical history. The DVLC medical is as thorough and set against the background of the patients FULL MEDICAL RECORDS. Think about that and then decide who you would like your grandmother to fly with.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I have never said that the industry was 'crap' 20 years ago and to be honest trying to compare the two is spurious, so many things have changed from licensing to socio-political issues.

What is clear, is that as an industry we are too expensive, why, mostly due to interference from the Belgrano causing prices to rise because of complication and paperwork. Look at the cost of parts.

Bu**ering around and adding extra levels of complication into the licencing system just doesn't make sense. We all agree that the average PPL doesn't have the knowledge required to be an FI, so we need extra training. Why not just get a CPL, probably the same level of difficulty, time and cost and gives you so many more options than just teaching the PPL.

The market for this would be very small and probably hardly worth it compared with just doing a CPL. You can now do a CPL for 20K, thats only 8-10K more than a basic PPL. Yes an FI rating is more, but add in the 200 Hrs flying needed and you get up to 20K very easily. Where then is the advantage in getting a basic FI rating and no more, compared to getting a CPL and then having the option of flying bigger and better paying things?

Again I have never said that PPL's are useless, many are probably more competent than I am, but their knowledge and experience is not the same as mine. In this case age is irrelevant and experience is what counts. (I started instructing at the age of 22 and had to put up with a lot of age related problems, especially with middle aged men.)

The NPPL to me is an unmitigated disaster when judged against the ideals behind it. I don't know anybody who is training specifically for it unless they can't get a medical. As DFC mentioned in his excellent post, it has simply become a method for allowing people to get around medical problems.

If we want to change the licensing system, then we should do it properly and change the whole lot rather than doing it piecemeal.
This is why I don't see that it will ever be accepted by the CAA. G-KEST as you used to work for them, why didn't you propose this whilst all the JAR fun and games was going on rather than now because it inconviences you?

I don't need to make an argument about what is so good about the current system. If you want to change, you need to convince people like me with reasoned argument and proven data.

I can recall at least 3 incidents of incapacitated instructors over the years, but none since the class 1 requirement came out. Put it this way, would you be happy sending your children up with an instructor who had had a serious medical issue and cannot reach the highest standard of medical health available. I doubt it somehow.

The difference between taking a paying passenger and a friend up is that the pax is paying for the priveledge, have no prior knowledge of the instructor and are trusting that they will be safe.
It is all about duty of care. Unless somebody has the highest medical, then I would not use them to take punters up. Simple as that. I don't care a fig about the sensibilties of someone who has lost a medical compared to the responsibility we have when taking students up. An airline wouldn't accept shonky standards, so why should we, after all we are in the same business really.

The industry is in trouble because of cost, shoddy facilities and manky a/c. Until we change that, then we can tinker about with who can teach what all we like, but eventually GA will die in this country. Sort out the major issues first before wasting our time with daft proposals like allowing an NPPL to teach.

I don't want to get into personal mud-slinging either, but I want to understand where the opposite view point is coming from.

[G-KEST]

SAS -
Do you really think everyone who works for the CAA-SRG agrees with everything that is proposed? If so you could not be more mistaken. There is a robust internal consultation process which allows comment from a wide selection of highly experienced folk. It does happen to be a process where, even if you do have an excellent contra viewpoint, you do not always win your argument. There were many contra views expressed prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL but our arguments did not win the day. We are now reaping the bitter benefits in the case of private, sporting and recreational aviation in the UK. Only the introduction of the NPPL system allows us to influence matters within this country. hope you eventually come round to the views expressed by so many on other forums and quite a few on this one.
Cheers,
Trapper 69:8

[walkingthewalk]

There hasn't so far been a single convincing statement, demonstrating that the current system for producing instructors is detrimental to the market that it serves.

All that has been stated is that it is (a) Too expensive, (b) Class 1 medical is unnecessary and (c) The CPL requirement is irrelevant

Even if all of these were true, it still does not say anything about how the system adversely affects the market concerned.

The only criticism I have about it is that there isn't any provision in the FI course for teaching the many different types of personalities that a fresh FI will encounter. That would make a lot of difference in winning over more people who "walk through the door".

As for Trial Lessons being a disguised AOC operation: I firmly believe that it is inadvertent in that it largely attracts "victims" of gifts given by friends and family whilst a small percentage are the genuine 1st step to a PPL.

The business of motivation and encouragement after the PPL is missing in most "school" types of operation. This is what can and should be changed so that new PPLs know what is possible with their new PPL.

The cost is significant to most people and oddly a surprise to some when they complete their PPL and struggle to keep current.
This is a difficult one in that it takes a very honest FTO to tell someone that they should also realise how much it will cost to maintain their PPL.

[shortstripper]

SAS

Sorry to pick on you again but I do find what you say a bit inflamitory. Not your case you understand, but your seemingly arrogant attitude to anyone without a CPL, as if all there experience counts for nothing?

I'm not trying to mud sling but you really do seem to be failing to see where the opposite view is coming from ... perhaps you just don't want to see? OK, Perhaps it's me and the way I argue the case, so I'll say it again ... errrr no I won't use your phrase

£20k for CPL then an £5K for an FIR when you have no ambition to go on to fly airliners makes no sense what so ever!

There is a wealth of experience out there going to waste and it is this experience and depth of knowledge that is needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying in this country. OK I suppose if you want to consider "group A" as just an introduction to the "industry" then your approach is fine and all recreational flying should be confined to microlights and gliders ... but NO!
You harp on about your experience and knowledge and how different it is to that of an average PPL ... but what are we talking about here when we say average PPL? There are PPL's out there who've built aeroplanes, won aerobatic comps, flown around the world ect ... I'm talking about the PPL with much experience (probably a lot more than you) and a depth of knowledge that is just as relevent as yours ... maybe even more so! Perhaps someone who wants to put something back into a "sport" they love ... (it's not just an industry to some). I'm sorry if this sounds a tad romantic but it's true ... when will you understand we don't all aspire to be ATPL's but do aspire to pass on our skills to the next generation of flyers.
Yes private flying may die in this country but only if those who want nothing but commercial aeroplanes and (p)roffessional pilots get their way. The NPPL may not be the answer (I never said it was) but at least it is a licence that we may have some control over and not just one that has to abide by our ever-so efficient European politics.

I've tried to give reasoned debate as to why "experienced" PPL's are just as capable of instrution as those with CPL "experience". I've tried to say why I think at lower levels the PPL instructor may bring some of the more general aviation spirit back ... But, I'm afraid your argument and obvious vanity is getting more and more like that old "Frost report" sketch ... you know the one with John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbet. Let me remind you ...

John Cleese (high class "read ATPL") looks down at Ronnie Barker (middle class "read CPL") and says "I'm superior to you and look down on you". Ronnie Barker looks up at John Cleese and says "I am inferior to you and look up to you" He then looks down at Ronnie Corbet (working class "read PPL") and says "but I'm superior to you and look down at you" ... Ronnie Corbet looks up at Ronnie Barker and says "I know my place"!

Perhaps as a PPL I should know mine ... but I have no class!

SS

[walkingthewalk]

short stripper:

Re. "There is a wealth of experience out there going to waste and it is this experience and depth of knowledge that is needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying in this country."

You need to explain why the experience is going to waste.

Also, the notion of this experience being needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying needs explaining.

Is there a chance of "recreational" flying being a subjective concept or could one assert that it means the same to all?

[shortstripper]

Hi ... some proper questions at last and not just rhetoric !

No ... Nothing subjective meant. I was simply trying to say that the fun and recreational side of group A (old term, but the only way I know how to differentiate between classes) seems to have gone from our clubs. If you want to just fly for pleasure you are better going the microlight route. The clubs that were, have morphed into the training establishment we now see, and they are more school like in their approach to flying.

The wealth of experience I refer to is those older PPL’s who have either drifted away or been forced out. Many turned to microlights as medicals became more frequent and expensive and some simply because the bar filled up with upwardly mobile young things who preferred to talk GPS, high finance, ect than listen to some old man tell tall tales. OK much of the bullshi-t is gone but those of us with the ability to filter out the rot learned a lot by humouring them … thing is, we listened. All that experience is wasted not just because they no longer frequent the bar but they no longer have a chance to teach. It’s all very well having a generation of accelerated CPL instructors whilst there are still a few of the old school left, but what when they too are gone? I know many of the new school will have done more than I give them credit for, but the bulk won’t. A sterile young instructor who has only ever flown spam cans from tarmac airports can hardly advise his fresh PPL student on the eccentricities of a homebuilt taildragger when he’s asked.

I would welcome any way to bring back some of that less formal fun back to our clubs … or am I really a Dinosaur at less than 40 years of age?

SS

[walkingthewalk]

SS:

Now we are seeing through the "fog of emotion" a little more.

It appears that there is indeed a point of view that the new and stricter medical standards have filtered out the older (and experienced) instructors THUS removing the enthusiasm and sheer love of flying that and ONLY they had.

In addition, it also appears that there is a "generation gap" that is difficult to master.

Whilst I can see how there will be a generation gap I cannot see how it can be stated generally that only the old instructors had a passion for flying in/out of strips in whatever they could fly in.

So, I would assert that there ARE younger people with the same passion (like my good self...) and that whenever we get the chance, we do try and point out that there is more to a PPL than giving it up after a year or so.

But, I also agree that there are some FTO environments where the training can only be described as "mechanical". The sad aspect of this is that the people that gain their PPLs in this type of environment continue to han around the same establishment and as a result never really venture further than the "local area".

[Say again s l o w l y]

I don't see what my attitude has to do with the fact that the case of NPPL's teaching not being full of holes.

I can't see where your idea of me being a vain and egotistical individual comes from. For the tenth time I don't think that ALL PPL's are muppets or that all people with a CPL and above are genius'. It simply isn't true, but when you talk ingeneral terms about competancies, the simple truth is that the average standards of CPL's compared to the 'average' PPL is much higher. How many PPL's have you flown with recently? In the past few years I have probably flown with at least 500 individual PPL's, so my comments are made with some knowledge, rather than just sweeping generalisations.

My first ever trip was with a PPL who had 320hrs, so he would have qualified under this scenario and had more hours than I did at the time, but he may as well have had 0 Hrs judging by his competance. Is this arrogance on my part? No, just a realistic view of his abilities. This is a business that doesn't tolerate fools gladly, so having to knock a few egos from time to time is very necessary. I will not apologise for trying to keep standards high.

Why do you think getting a CPL is waste of time? It is far more sensible than getting a high price FI rating after having spent at least 20K on a/c hire to get there and then only be able to earn around 10/hr. Why would you do that if for a similar price you could get a full CPL/frzn ATPL WITH an I/R that would allow you to do all sorts of other aerial work and teach to a higher level if you wanted to.

Depth of knowledge is not an argument I would use about PPL's Vs. CPL's.

Trapper, if the proposals that were put forward at the time were better than the ones that were eventually made 'legal', why did the wide selection of highly experienced folk not use them instead of the current ones? Or was there another agenda that we aren't aware of?

Shortstripper, remember the Pprune rules about 'playing the issue not the person'. Writing comments on a BB is not the easiest way of getting your point across without offending people. My tone is not meant to offend and again I don't think that PPL's are idiots, far from it. The licence is not important, their currency and attitude is far more important. It just happens that Pro's often have a very different attitude to amateurs. Just look at what has happened in Rugby since the start of the professional era to see the difference between somebody who does something for a living and somebody who does it for fun.

[homeguard]

Short stripper has been eloquent in her input and very clear where she is on the issue.

If she is not understood, I would say that the lack of understanding speaks volumes. You don't have to agree with her to understand her arguement.

There has been a lot of input from myself and others also, as to what changes need to be considered for appointing Instructors and the contributions have been comprehensive and constructive.

If someone wants to become an instructor in order to build hours thats fine with me. That is their life. Many will do a usefull and sincere job of instructing. But, SUDDENLY GONE! "just had a phone call. Start my type training Monday, sorry to let you down at such short notice. I hope you understand". Of course I understand and wish all heading in that direction all the best with THEIR CAREERS. I'm usually proud to see them flee my nest.

But, I need a fair number of 'part time' and 'full time' Instructors who will be around for many years providing enthusiasm and continuity to the club. These types of Instructor also put a lot back into their clubs. In the modern world only a dedicated FI qualification which is more reasonably achieved LOCALLY! will capture an individuals willingness to do the FI training required. For many who have their own businesses and careers and a family to take into account, the courses must be available at weekends and PART TIME! Most professional schools really don't like part time students unless they're slack and will not work weekends. Strange for an industry that operates in all other respects seven days a week.

The cost is not an issue if the cost is directed at the ACTUAL NEED in meeting the requirements of being an Instructor. Spending large sums of hard earned dosh on becoming a Mini Airline Pilot is simply out of the question when wishing only to instruct ad hoc as your club needs you! It is wasted effort, an extravagant expense and also time wasting for the local pilot wanting to 'help out' and have fun at their 'club'.

Meeting the absolutely necessary minimum standards and finding only the genuine associated expenditure is not resented or opposed by anyone that I know. Wasting effort, time and hard earned family dosh is!

[shortstripper]

Oh deary me!

WTW ..

There's no fog of emotion where I'm concerned. I'm a 38 year old farm manager and in perfect health so I don't come from the angle of someone who is faced with eviction on health or age grounds. I just hate to see older more experienced people thrown on the scrap heap too soon. We live in an ageing society where minor health problems are easily overcome with drugs enabling us to be productive far longer ... is this dangerous? dunno I'm no doctor, but is it objective to on the one hand allow us to get in a lorry with a far higher chance of killing, than on the other hand ban us from a two seat aeroplane with a more likely "lower death by incapacitation rate"?

I've never meant to imply that younger instructors have no enthusiasm for flying. What I mean is, that now the self improver route to CPL has gone many (broad statement alert) CPL/FI are simply young lads with ambition and money who have qualified in 2-300hrs and maybe 18 mths. In the past this may have taken years, flying as glider tug pilots, err instructors, dropping parachutists ect to reach 700hrs. Whilst these PPL instructors may have been less technically qualified and actually working toward a CPL, their peers will have had a wide range of experience for them to draw on. When the majority of instructors are from the the accellerated CPL route I can't see how they can advise on the broader picture. Sure some will be keen and will have flown tailwheel, farm strips ect ... but many will have be too focused on their airline ambitions. Maybe I'm being sceptical ... but the evidence I have experienced of late does nothing to raise my hopes :(

SAS

£20K to a family man is a high price! I get sweaty if I pay more than £20/hr to fly. There are cheap ways to build experience and like I said what if you already have 200 hrs+? why have to pay out to do CPL if you really don't have any ambition to fly for airlines ect but do really just want to teach? You can always tag on a CPL later if you so desire, it is after all just a technical recognition of experience. Unless you use all that knowledge you've learnt, much will be forgotten in two years anyway!

I'm really not trying to be personal, it's just that you happen to be the person most knocking down my point of view and presenting your own ... I'm just answering back. I really really don't mean to be disrespectful or insulting.

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

I understand Shortstrippers argument very clearly and I agree that having full time career instructors is very preferable, but the economics of the situation will ensure that this never happens.

You can't expect ANYBODY to want to be a career instructor if they will only ever earn £10/hr. No matter how keen you are at the start this will eventually Pi** you off. If students were willing to pay £40/hr you may find that you will get som
ebody to do it as a long term job.

PPL's who teach on the side are subject to the vageries of their own jobs, I know many part-time BCPL instructors (most very good as it happens) who will work regularily, but may let down people at short notice, at least a fulltime CPL will be there everyday until they get another job.

I know many CPL FI's who would love to stay as instructors, the job is great, but they cannot afford to do it longterm.

[shortstripper]

Pay is a very emotive issue. Unfortunately market forces dictate that flying instruction is bound to be poorly payed, certainly at the lower levels. This isn't fair but it is a fact of life. Farm workers are often highly qualified (does that surprise you?) they work long hours and need a very broad spectrum of experience ... but the pay is crap. It isn't fair... but it is a fact of life.

Is there such a thing as a career in instruction? Well, those that stay tend to become CFI's, who maybe freelance or teach at higher level and get a bit better renumeration. Or they may end up as part owners of the flying school. Thing is, can an instructor ever really be payed what he/she is worth? probably not! This then is surely another argument for the amatuer instructor? At least they can afford to remain long term with a school/club unlike your CPL who needs to eventually go where the money is?

Get real lads, learning to fly in the uk is expensive. Paying FI(R)'s any more is untenable in the present climate. Thinking that new flashy aeroplanes, swanky office type briefing rooms and the like will attract more punters and raise your wages is unrealistic. I understand your frustrations and I do hope that the airline jobs you so deserve soon become available. But please let's not imagine that you are so so clever that only you can teach people to fly.

One last thought ... If you are a product of your training and you now consider yourself competent. Who taught you? Chances are that you were still of a generation that were taught by PPL instructors or by those who started off as such.

SS

[Say again s l o w l y]

Please don't confuse me with somebody who worries about pay, I make the comment as part of the argument about why there will never be any full-time career instructors at PPL level. I am very lucky as I have an income from elsewhere though I wouldn't complain if I suddenly got paid enormously.

It is possible to allow instructors to be renumerated properly, Heli instructors get paid a decent amount of money, (most of them are PPL's aswell) but it is a very small market and prices are high. People are still willing to pay for it though.

If we could attack the cost base, fuel, parts or insurance (I don't include engineers as I feel the rates aren't great for them either.) then we could start to pay people properly, but this thread isn't really about pay as a subject.

There is of course such a thing as a career in instruction, you can make a career out of anything and it is up to the individual what that is.

We can change the industry for the better, but it will take time, effort, guidance, luck and money. I would like to end up in a shiny jet for a bit, but I don't want to spend my career in the airlines.

All my instructors were CPL's at least, I have never been taught by a PPL instructor.

The comments about market forces are very easy to make and are true, but as an instructor who is also in business, The market can be changed. Eventually this will happen, but not with the most of the current crop of flying schools and owners.

[homeguard]

SAS

Take us to anywhere in the world where there is a PPL Flying Club/School that is making any money and can be ran according to normal business principles. Instructing in the USA is just as poorly paid as it is over here. But, you will find plenty of 'Career Instructors'. The reason, because there is less bull**** and it is achievable by everybody. Just the same as here in the UK there is no money to be made. Club owners in the states work 7 days a week from dawn to dusk to pay the bills like here and anywhere else in the world.

What is it about the current crop of club owners/members (clubs often owned by the members) for which you appear to have so much disdain?

In sport and in the arts, as with so many recreational/vocational ways of life that evolve later into a profession, they have at their heart, the first club which is where you start and WHERE the vocational professional LIFE blossoms.

All that many of us want to see is the heart of flying retained and it needs surgery if it is to be recovered. Fuel, insurance, maintenance even if they could be reduced is just tinkering. We need what you appear to reject.

The JAA ( the BCPL by the way was created in the knowledge of the oncoming shadow of the JAA) is designed primarily for the airlines and it is good for them. However JAA is not good for GA or the recreational clubs.

You say that you cannot make a career as a PPL Instructor. Not enough money in it. Maybe not for you. But G-KEST for whom you dismiss, 'tough' that he can no longer instruct, would no doubt have been quite pleased with a tenner per hour or the past equivelant during his CFI days. I remember him well when he was at Leicester. He in fact signed my QXC Cert. in the late seventies.

As short strip says, money isn't the only inducement. Go to many Parachute Clubs, Gliding Clubs etc. Many of the Caravans you will see are the homes of Instructors. Instructing is what they do. Some will have a private income others a pension but many will have nothing. I gave up my old profession and bought my flying club because it was what I chose to do. I earn very little, have a lot of hassle, struggle to pay the bill, often need to subsidise thye place but I love it, so eat your hat

The current demands create an impassable barrier for many, including the young, if they are without a heritage to collect or by not being able to borrow on Mum & Dads mortgage.

[lady in red]

Been away so not been able to respond sooner. Noted the point that nobody has stated what is wrong with the current crop of instructors. As I train instructors may I just point out a few perceived shortcomings and suggest improvements?
1 If they learn in the USA there is a lack of skill, total blank where briefings are concerned and no experience of short field or grass landings plus useless RT - remedy learn here.
2 The guys who take the integrated route to CPL have virtually nil experience of any of the "fun" flying elements which I consider essential for the PPL and post PPL instructor. - remedy ensure all basic PPL instructor candidates have at least 300-500 hours general experience, but include a tailwheel conversion, some aerobatics, cross channel experience and entering club competitions as a bare minimum
3 Most candidates have no experience of teaching anything and many can barely spell, have poor grammar and stutter like mad when asked to give a briefing. Remedy - ensure a minimum basic educational standard of high grades in English, Maths and science such as Physics, Geography and Biology plus some youth work experience or public speaking training. Otherwise we had better have a full teaching course.

After all the public are paying and deserve to have high standards of teaching skill including professionally delivered briefings. There is absolutely no excuse for not having gained the school qualifications even if you cannot afford the CPL!

Having gained a qualification to teach at basic level, then the restriction should not be removed for at least a year to allow experience in the vagaries of the British weather. Then an upgrade test should be passed to include the important subjects of duty of care when sending a student first solo - something that is too often completely overlooked.

I realise that my ideas are not universally popular but having canvassed a number of people in a number of countries I am aware of widespread support for change and somebody has to start the ball rolling.

[DFC]

From my reading a summary of the majority of posts since my last reads like - money, money, money, can't influence European institutions.

Last one first - one can influence European decisions just as easily as UK ones. The JAA has a well defined route for individuals to propose amendments to the JARs and for individuals to comment on future amendments. Is the UK the only country that sents people to these institutions with only a few sandwiches in their case? - I suppose it leaves room for the cheap ciggies!

Money, money, money. If PPLs want to instruct for the NPPL then by all means have a dedicated NPPL instructor course for NPPL pilots (not JAA ones) made available at clubs where the instruction for both potential instructors and future students is given for free. Remember that flying a C150 for free and thus eliminating more than the basic requirement to keep current at one's own expense must be income of a sort.

Spend 2000 on a NPL FI course and fly for free for the rest of your life would attract some PPLs.

There is of course absolutely no reason for making any form of upgrade available because these club PPL instructors are simply instructing for the fun of it and to give something back.

The self improver route may be gone in the UK mindset but it is alive and well in the rest of the JAA countries - It is called the modular route.

Very ironic that a someone suggested post PPL flying such as cross channel flying.

There was I thinking that the whole idea of having an NPPL was to ensure that the channel remained a barrier never to be crossed because the recreational PPL could get everything they ever wanted within the limits of the UK (which is all they can fly in as an NPPL).

I agree that a GP who has known a person for 20 years can make a more informed decision regarding general health of an individual presenting thmselves for an NPPL declaration medical than an AME can for a 1 off class 1 applicant. The point I made was that the CAA clung to it's high standards for decades until money became an issue and then capitulated.

Finally, remember that many of the JAA requirements are as a result of the UK proposing the UK method of doing things. The flight test for instructors every 6 years as a minimum being a good example. How can one blame that on other European countries when some had no requirement for instructor renewal tests until the UK put it's all in. Read the PPL sylabus from JAR-FCL 1.....it is a list of paragraph headings from a well known UK flight training manual.

Isn't it ironic that the UK followed ICAO decisions for over the past 50 years and nobody complained of not being able to influence ICAO!

Why didn't the CAA implement an NPPL 30 or 40 years ago to avoid maintaining ICAO standards......could it be that the problem is not what it is made out to be? :ooh:

Regards,

DFC

[homeguard]

Lady in Red.

By your contribution I'd take a bet that your an ex Roedean girl.

Presumably your FIC students nowadays will have passed, at the minimum, the CPL exams and probably the ATPL but by the sounds of it the physics, maths and science hasn't helped, has it.

We're looking for a way into the 21st century. going back into the 19th won't take us forward.

I understand much of what you say though and have also been appalled by the poor standard of breifing standards that I've witnessed at the two Instructor seminars so far attended.

What is happening at the testing standard that is not picking this fact up following Instructor courses? Instructing is also about presentation (which dosn't have to be Powerpoint - given that it is fantastic ) I agree.

From what you say - and it is my opinion - the faults show the inadequate nature of the current FIC training.

[Whirlybird]

I'm getting a bit lost in the detail here, but....

I spend a lot of time flying, hanging around flying clubs, know a lot of people. I've lost count of the number of pilots of many hours and years experience who say they'd love to instruct, maybe part time, maybe as a career change, but can't afford the time and money for a CPL etc. These are not "just PPLs". Most of them have years of flying experience, own or have owned aircraft, have done tailwheel conversions or flown out of short strips, have entered competitions and flown round Europe. Many have taught other things and have good people/teaching skills. They know anything and everything about how aeroplanes work, how they fly, met and nav in practice rather than just from the books, how to use the radio in practice rather than just what the rules say, etc etc etc etc. They fly because they love it and would like to share that love and give something back. They'd happily do a relevant and specialised vocational FI course...but not an expensive bunch of exams that they don't need. And I'm not talking about one or two; I really do mean lots of people! Instructors don't often meet them...why would they; these guys/gals don't need instruction, apart from a biannual check ride.

We need these people! Why shouldn't they instruct? They'd be an asset to GA, to flying schools, and to new students. There's must be a way.

[walkingthewalk]

Whirlybird:

I feel that there IS a way in utilising this type of resource in the form of PPL mentoring. The US AOPA have a .pilot mentoring system (http://www.aopaflighttraining.org/project_pilot/index.cfm) that appears to work very well. It doesn't appear to be a replacement for intructing

[homeguard]

Whirly bird

If we could get people like the lady in red on our side and eradicate the 'jump through a hoop' and become 'one the chaps' mentality I think she would be pleasantly surprised by the results. Mature, articulate and motivated people who are not chasing a free lunch would be attending her FIC courses, they would make her day.

But the lady in red and too many others chase the exam pundits and live with their own folly. The current FIC students are able to achieve good physics, maths and science passes at school, GCSE or A level and they have passed the CPL/ATPL exams, but it does not then follow that they are articulate or motivated and are capable of raising their eyes and talking to anyone above the listeners knee level.

The Open University has outwitted and pushed to one side the old british pompus elite attitudes, many years ago. The Open University now produce one of the most highly regarded degrees in the world. Entrance qualifications required - NIL!

I want to open the doors to more people that are not in the ques at present. I believe that as with the OU we will then induct a much more challenging, highly motorvated, articulate and mature FI back into the flying clubs.

[DFC]

Walkingthe walk,

What you are asking for is already available under JAR-FCL. It is called a Class Instructor Rating (CRI). The PFA coaching scheme has produced several CRIs who provide their services to PFA members.

If you have not come across the idea, the requirements for a single engine class rating instructor are;

Have 300 hours flight time of which 30 on the type or class of which 10 must be in the last 12 months.

Complete a 3 hour course at an FTO

Pass a skill test.

Experience gained can be credited towards gaining an FI rating.

The only instruction that can be given is to licence holders. But with checkouts, cross-channel work, IMC brush-up, 2 yearly dual flight, one can give something back at little expense and at the same time possible earn some money to pay the 1500 or so required to sit the CPL theory exams.

Remember there is no requirement to hold a CPL to instruct. Only the exams are requried. Shop around Europe and you may get the exams for 1000.

Regards,

DFC

[Field In Sight]

DFC,

The only instruction that can be given is to licence holders. But with checkouts, cross-channel work, IMC brush-up, 2 yearly dual flight, one can give something back at little expense and at the same time possible earn some money to pay the 1500 or so required to sit the CPL theory exams.


Earn money to pay for the exams! without a CPL! with my reputation.:}

That does sound like a pretty good work-around the problem with the current regulations.

Don't forget to add on approx 600 quid for the CPL exams as well as the CPL groundschool course. Oh and accomodation for the brush up courses too:ugh:

As regards to the expenditure required to get to the instructor level another possibility would be doing something similar to the FAA system i.e. training only as required and then a flight test.
I'm sure there are super/duper PPL's out there that could do the CPL test with very little or no extra training.

Personally I needed the 25 or so hours on my CPL to tidy up all the bad habits/poor instruction I had been given prior to doing the course. :{

FIS.

[walkingthewalk]

DFC:

Re. "...already available under JAR-FCL. It is called a Class Instructor Rating (CRI). The PFA coaching scheme has produced several CRIs ..."

But this is surely exclusive (to the PFA). Any existing CPL/FIs (unrestricted) cannot it seems be CRIs.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Sweeping statements here! So according to homeguard all FI's under 40 are worthless. Really? I don't think so somehow.

The current FI course costs around £5k ish. If we have to extend and change this, will the price be reduced? Of course not, the cost will rise ever upwards and then there will be even fewer people coming into instruction. A £2000 FI course will never happen.

As to the comments about the OU, we now have a situation where due to the number of people doing degrees, many have become worthless and having achieved a batchelors has become second rate. The OU is a great organisation (My mother is a lecturer for them) but most people do OU degrees as something to do once they have retired, they are using it for personal development, not really as something to put back into society or to teach with.

An FI is able to be a CRI, why not, you can do everything they do as a 'full' FI and a lot more.

A GP who has known an individual for many years is likely to be the best judge of a persons health, maybe, but if you are healthy then how often do you see your GP? I haven't seen mine for 4 years could he give a good account of my health?
Another problem is that with the wonderful health system we have at the moment, how long do many GP's stay in one post? In my local surgery they seem to have on locum after another and a very high throughput of GP's, would they be best to judge someones health properly in relation to aviation, especially as they are usually rushed off their feet?

You can easily do the groundschool for £1500, you'd be amazed how much you might learn! Nothing wrong with people having to do them in my eyes. If you are that keen it shouldn't be a problem. Once someone has passed the FI rating, then they should be paid even if they do still have a PPL, but to be honest the difficult part of the CPL is the ground school, so once you've passed the ground school why not just do the flight test?

[shortstripper]

Hi All

Nice to see a few more ideas being thrown into the melting pot and not just the blanket of NO’s we saw earlier.

The mentor idea is OK but the AOPA one is basically just a talking shop and any enthusiastic PPL probably does this already. It’s not a lot different to writing on here, and thus it is a very limited way of passing on your experience. You only have to look at some of the questions asked on the PPL forum. With all those varying opinions given, think how hard it is to disseminate the good from the bad advise if you are a student or fresh PPL. Now ask who they should be going to for advice on say “what’s the best way to land a taildragger in a crosswind”? IMHO, it should be someone they’ve learned to trust, someone they have flown with and learnt from already … yep! their instructor! The PFA coaching scheme is a good one but it’s almost like preaching to the converted. Yes it is a way to pass on your knowledge and I’m not knocking it, but I for one would like to have some influence earlier on in a pilots training.

Lady in Red kind of summarises what I think may be a problem with many of the integrated CPL type instructors, although I know they are not all like she describes. Experienced PPL’s must be just as “qualified” to teach as these fresh CPL/FI once an FIR course is completed? I’m not so sure about her call for educational qualifications to prove you are articulate. After all, many many non-qualified millionaires and successful business people have proved this.

Whirlybird is obviously on my wavelength … Thank God someone is!

Homeguard is at the front-end as an employer of instructors, so surely his opinion on what he’d like to see must hold some water … even if he does think I’m a woman :hmm: lol

True you don’t actually need a CPL to instruct but just getting the ground exams is prohibitively difficult now. You used to be able to study until you were confident and go take them. Now you have to do an approved course with minimum study times. Even with distance learning this means at least two fortnight college sessions and that’s not even talking about the cost. For a family man like myself with work commitments, this makes it virtually impossible. I can see you are now thinking that I can’t be that dedicated if I can’t commit to doing “just” that … but the point is, just at the moment I simply can’t … and if I could, why should I? I’m still not convinced I need to study to that depth in subjects I will very likely never need for basic instruction. I have held a licence for 15 years, flew gliders before that, built my own aeroplane and worked on many others. I would guess that I might just have a more in depth knowledge in some areas than someone who has simply completed a course of study. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way fit to instruct at the moment anyway as currency, finance ect are all stacked against me. I’d need to get back up to speed, and save up enough to do the FI course but I’d have to save for ever to add a CPL as well! However, that’s not the point … The point is, that I’d like to think that what I know isn’t dismissed as irrelevant as it seems to be by some? I’d also like to think that people like me have a chance to once again to do what they always used to, that is instruct on a PPL … even it is just to NPPL level.

To paraphrase some on here … I still haven’t seen a decent argument why not.

There’s been plenty of blah blah! About adding levels, changing the system again ect ect … but I bet if the system had to be changed to favour your opinion you’d be jumping up and down for it!

We have created (for better or worse) a National Licence with different standards. The Americans are doing similar with their “Sportsman” PPL and there are at least a couple of European countries studying our NPPL with a view to replication. At the moment it is only the “group A” class of this licence that requires (p)roffessional instructors. It would be very easy to rectify this in favour of PPL instructors just for NPPL. If this was coupled with voluntary instruction like BGA/BMAA and the use of unlicensed airfields, the take up of NPPL at group A might improve. We might then create a natural progression up from microlights and gliders to NPPL group A and then up to JAR PPL thereafter. This may even increase the number coming to you for tuition albeit as an upgrade? We might even start to see the end of bomber circuits as the microlight good airmanship takes hold ... errr sorry, I couldn't help not slipping that bit in :E

That last bit is all speculation but anything is possible … isn’t it?
:ugh:

SS

[walkingthewalk]

short stripper:

Re. "The mentor idea is OK but the AOPA one is basically just a talking shop ..."

I suggest that you take a closer look at the US AOPA Mentor programme. Perhaps you can illustrate what makes it a talking shop.

[shortstripper]

WIW

"But this is surely exclusive (to the PFA). Any existing CPL/FIs (unrestricted) cannot it seems be CRIs."



I don't think there's any reason a CPL/FI (restricted or unrestricted) can't be a CRI. You'd have to be a PFA member and have a sensible amount experience on type, ie taildragger ... that's all.

SS

WIW

I coudn't see anything on the site that advocated that those mentor PPL's play any part in actual hands on training? It looks more like they are asking you to take a perspective PPL, student or whatever under your wing to encourage them, answer their questions ect ect. All very good, but like I say ... don't most pilots do that anyway but without the hype?

I might have missed something on the website about actually taking those fledglings up with you ... if I have then I'm mistaken and I apologise. However, I'd personally prefer to be there from the start in a more proactive role.

SS

[walkingthewalk]

SS:

Yes, the idea is to take a prospective PPL "under ones wing"
and to mentor them from the perspective of an experienced
pilot,Just like the "old" instructors who cannot qualify to instruct any longer under the new rules (medical etc.).

There is no hype - just good old passion for flying and wanting to give something back.

Yes, you can be there from the start, in a proactive role.

So, there we are all the benefits of getting involved in a real way, without being "conferred" the title of instructor BUT giving that "boost of enthusiasm" back to PPL training that some would say is missing ;)

I invite you to discuss why this system would not encourage all those "old timers" back into involvement with PPL training.

[shortstripper]

Well simple really .. they don't get to fly with them.

I don't mean it from a selfish, "I want to fly but not pay for it angle" (PFA homebuilt is cheap enough for that) I mean I want to actually show what I mean ... not just talk about it.

I know that right from the start when I was learning to glide, an on, the biggest influences on the way I fly and what I've learned was by those who actually taught me. I've had plenty of "advise" from well meaning individuals but until you fly with somebody and realise what they have said actually works in practice (by demonstration) you can't always believe them.

SS

[walkingthewalk]

SS:

This is just not going to happen unless you convince the regulating authorities that things are in need of change. So far the argument for change doesn't appear very convincing:

1) Make it cheaper
2) Reduce standards for medical fitness
3) Make it more relevant

Why should the CAA make it cheaper - you need to convince them.

Why should the CAA accept Trial Flights carried out with a reduced medical standards - how could they handle the media frenzy if there was a fatal accident involving such a flight.

"Relevant to what ?" you will be asked. The syllabus contains all the basic elements required to attain a PPL.
Any enhancement of what is observed to be inadequate can only increase the cost to the PPL attainment (Catch 22).

Mentoring:
There is nothing stopping anyone from enjoying a flight in their J3 with a fellow pre-PPL just to show them what "real flying" is all about. The joys of strip flying, the marvel of stop-watch and map navigation etc. etc. It would not cost them a penny since the seat would be spare anyway.

[shortstripper]

Perhaps you feel the same about me ... but I feel that when presenting the case to those of you who don't like the idea, I might as well bang my head against a brick wall!

The CAA have no interest in costs other than how much they can charge for a licence.

Only market forces and a reduction in direct costs will make learning to fly cheaper. This probably won't happen but might if training from unlicenced airfields by volunteers is allowed?

Medical standards are already "lower" for microlights or gliders. They can give trial flights ... so tell me how the position for GA is different if we are talking same licence (NPPL)? Double standards? The media could have a field day there as well then surely?

The last bit about relevence is subjective and was more aimed at the later arguments of how to try and breathe new life into our clubs. Of course at the CAA level all they want to know is that students learn to fly to a required standard. It is up to us all as "flyers" and not just "pilots" to want to encourage those new entrants to enjoy their new found talents to the full. A new PPL will soon become bored flying the local area in a spamcan if he/she doesn't want to follow the ratings path many of his/her instructors advocate through lack of awareness of the wider picture.

Mentoring .... nope you're quite right, but like I say it's your tutor who really influences your perspective on things .... and we all like to be influentual!

SS

[G-KEST]

Some great submissions and the weight now seems to be on the side of change on the lines of my proposals written for the PFA and now with the NPPL steering group. Delaying tactics are being used to put back the next meeting of the SG which is now scheduled for the end of March - it was to have been late January. Some organisations are playing a dangerous political game and the folk out there just waiting for a lower cost NPPL(SEP) will not forget the procrastination. Perhaps the PFA will see a significant rise in membership at the expense of AOPA? For some "urgency" is a word unknown in the English language - more tea vicar???
Cheers,
Trapper 69

[Say again s l o w l y]

G-KEST, The take up of new NPPL students has been virtually zero, the only people who have taken advantage of it are people who cannot get a class 2 medical. There isn't anybody 'waiting' for a low cost NPPL, simply because doing any licence in 32 Hrs just isn't feasible.

Most people take around 60hrs to get a licence so why go for an NPPL? The cost is virtually the same, since the a/c hire costs are the same.

The difference between medicals and licencing requirements between the different forms of flying is ridiculous.

'New life' does need to be breathed into GA, I just don't think that these proposals have any chance of delivering that.

[lady in red]

A lot of what has been said here makes a lot of sense. But I am not a Roedean Girl!! Far from it!!
I do believe that we have to have measures to assess ability and performance. Tick tests show nothing at all. I think there is a lot of nonsense promulgated about the CPL and ATPL exms. yes, I agree that they are largely irrelevant to the instructor and the reason I can say that is that I have passed them. First CPL and then the ATPL upgrade and that is why it is a load of nonsense. All the people who had tried to put me off taking the exams were sensationalists as they were not in the slightest bit difficult and I got pretty good marks with only two weeks' work.
It is for that reason that I think that a good basic education is essential. The only people I have encountered who found the groundschool hard were those who did not have any basic qualifications.

Any kind of studying is something that is learned young and as an instructor you harness the inate ability of a person to learn. If someone has never studied then you have a bigger challenge and that is half the satisfaction of instructing. I would far rather teach the older less qualified student than the youngster who presents no challenge because he learns so quickly. Same with training instructors. One of my early instuctor students was nearly 60 and only had a PPL (having passed the CPL knowledge) and he was far harder to teach than any of the younger ones with frozen ATPLs but a great challenge.

What I want to see more than anything else is a raising of standards not an erosion of them, plus a standardisation of training so that eveyone gets a better deal. At present the range of standards is far to wide to be fair and some people are really missing out. What we need is a Central Flying Instructor Training school run by the best FIC instructors and that would be the only place that could train instructors.

[G-KEST]

Lady in Red,
Always did think that ladies were pricey and if red was there colour - even more expensive which is why I have been maried to a brunette for some 38 years. Your ideas are utopian and would escalate the FIC cost out of sight - are you really serious. When I was appointed an FIE back in the dark ages of 1972 I thought I really ought to get some formal teaching qualification despite having been a fairly effective instructor for 12 years plus an extra two in gliding. I looked at what might be available and settled for the City and Guilds Further Education Teachers certificate course done on a part time evening basis at a venue some 10 miles from home. It lasted for around 36 weeks - one evening a week plus homework and at the end I was assessed by an evaluator in my ability to teach while I conducted part of an FIC for three potential AFI's. I passed with distinction and really learned a lot from it since vocational FE teaching covers a far wider age spectrum than education of the 5 to 18 age group. That course is still available right round the country and I do feel it should be mandatory for those who wish to gain FIC approval. It is not expensive - mine cost £150 some 30 years ago and well worth it. If you are interested why not give your local FE college a call to see if they do it and what the current cost is.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - I do see red sometimes but always doff my bonedome to the fair sex.

[walkingthewalk]

"...folk out there just waiting for a lower cost NPPL(SEP) ..."


Where are these folk I wonder. In the past year only a single NPPL trainee has materialised at a local FTO and that person happens to be an "expired CAA PPL" who just wants to "save" money on the medical. They will have to complete the same flying tests NFT/GFT GST etc. when they are deemed ready for test.

It would be interesting to see the data that G-KEST has on the number of people just itching to start NPPL training and why ***exactly*** they are not doing it now.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Lady in Red has come up with a very good idea, one that does merit further discussion.

Flying needs to get MORE professional not less. People are put off by the 1950's a/c and 2004 prices. Why would you pay over £100/hr for a machine that compared to a modern car is as antiquated as a square rig sailing ship compared to an aircraft carrier?

Ideas and individuals such as a certain poster here are the very reason the industry is in deep s**t. No investment, no new technology and kafkaesque beauracracy have stifled the GA scene. Turning back the clock will just start the downward cycle again, but this time with an even worse consequences for us all. We need to look forward, not back into the dark ages, with all due respect it is pilots such as myself (age 26) who are the future of the industry, NOT people in their 60's. We will have to deal with the consequences of any decisions that may fundamentally change the GA scene.

If we look at other industries that attact similar type of customer (sailing for example), people are willing to spend vast sums on their 'lifestyle'. Flying is no longer a lifestyle activity and has become a hobby populated by the terminally obsessed to whom money is less of a barrier. It doesn't have any draw for the average person, why is it that the vast majority of new PPL students fall into two categories- wanabee Commercial pilots and dinner party pilots? (those who fly not for the love of it, but for the kudos they think it will bestow.)

The numbers of enthusiasts is dropping, but that is mainly because they have been priced out of the market somewhat. How can we drag in young enthusiasts when there is no way most can afford to do it?

G-KEST you have not answered any of the criticism or refuted any of the very valid points that have been raised by many people here. Get your facts and figures here to show us and could you please explain EXACTLY how your propsals are likely to change the major problems that we face CURRENTLY, specifically the issue of cost base.

The £150 that it cost to do a formal teaching qualification has grown to be higher than the cost of getting a FI(R). The idea of doing a 36 week course is again not sensible. For some people it may be of benefit, but at what cost and it would just put even more people off getting into instructing.

Let's have some common sense here, we start off with a proposal to reduce the cost of getting an FI rating and reduce the cost of flying overall and then the same person then advocates doing a multi-thousand pound course???? Am I missing something?

Actually I am not sure if the course still exists, formal teaching qualifications have changed hugely over the last few years.

[Whirlybird]

I learned to fly (f/w) at a school where most people seemed to be there for the three week courses and then the airlines. Most of the instructors seemed a little unsure even about crossing the channel, never mind any real long distance stuff. Short strips? When, as a newish PPL, I asked a group of pilots and instructors for hints about landing on grass, NONE OF THEM HAD EVER DONE SO!!! And no-one mentioned that maybe it wasn't so great an idea for a new PPL to fly into Derby's 500 metres with obstacles at both ends when the grass was wet and there was no headwind, though I managed OK....well, probably didn't know, did they? Taildraggers? I asked about those, and everyone looked blank. So after a year or so and wanting a new challenge, and not really fancying an IMC, I found helicopters, and they all wondered why. And when I said they were a bit expensive, but I liked rotary flying, and did anyone know about gyroplanes...woohoo, you'd think I'd asked about piloting Leonardo da Vinci's first aircraft design, the reactions I got! As for microlights, which I considered at one point, you'd think every other microlight pilot had engine failure on every flight, the way they're considered. So I tried all these, and decided to do what I did, but I'm glad of the experience. And I went to other clubs and schools, who all have instructors who are equally inexperienced in the wider scheme of things, and not keen to impart their knowledge of them even if they have any in case the student goes away.

My experiences are fairly typical. I could have given up these ideas, but I found out about these things myself. But my point is, we need a place in the schools for the real flying enthusiasts, who have so much to pass on, that the average FI at present simply doesn't. Yes, they could pass all the CPL exams, but why should they? And they're not going to hang around and just mentor (ie chat), they want to instruct. And it's not that these people need the schools, since they're flying anyway. it's that GA needs them!!!!

[lady in red]

I am sure it has been said here or on other fora, but the number of NPPL new licence issues for ab initio has amounted to approx 60 out of a total of 1800 odd. That surely shows that there is not a great rush of youngsters desperate for a cheap licence and as others have pointed out, the majority of NPPL seekers are the older, medically compromised, trying to get back into their hobby.

In order to attract the youngsters in you will have to make flying more exciting and thrilling than it currently seems - they are put off by the prospect of studying for 7 exams and most of the training aeroplanes are less exciting than an ancient Morris Minor. I have found that the youngsters are the thrill seekers who are going for the 30 minute aerobatic trial lessons rather than the conventional sort these days. And I did manage to convert one to learning to fly, but normally they prefer to go and do more aeros in a Pitts or glamorous aerobatic type after experiencing the basics in an Aerobat.

In view of this where is the need for the NPPL instructor??

[Whirlybird]

Don't any of you ever tell prospective students on trial lessons what they can do with a PPL? I tell mine they can hire a helicopter and land with a friend at a hotel (in front of an admiring crowd) and have lunch, then fly back again, for the price of a day trip to France. I tell them they can go land in a friend's field or large garden at the weekend, and only pay for the actual flying time. OK, f/w pilots can't do those things, but do you ever tell them they can buy an aircraft share, and go touring on the continent? Or fly themselves to France for lunch. Or go and fly in the US, or Oz, or South Africa. Or air race, or enter the Dawn to Dusk and fly flat out all day, or enter some of the European air rallies. Or even graduate to that flash looking modern twin, once they've got a PPL. Or....how do I know; I'm a helicopter pilot, but there must be loads more.

Don't you ever tell people how exciting flying can be? Or is it that you've all spent so long trying to pass all the exams, and then make a living out of flying, that you can't even remember, or never knew?

[BEagle]

G-KEST - you are being very economic with the truth when you say that your proposals are being supported by most people. They are not, if this thread is anything to go by.

Turning back the clock is not always the right answer. In fact it's rarely ever the right answer.

The papers you put forward are not being subject to what you claim to be 'delaying tactics' and your rant about urgency is merely alienating you from the support which you might otherwise receive. The NPPL P&SC meeting date had to be changed in order that everyone could make it - and the change of date will give more time for your ideas to be considered.

However, there are plenty of current FIs around looking for jobs as it is; I fail to see any 'urgent' need to add to their numbers.

[walkingthewalk]

Whirly:

I have no doubt that ALL instructors talk about those things during a Trial flight (TF).

However, I don't think that the TF conversion rate (to PPL training) is an accurate pointer to any reluctance for learning to fly.

The reason IMHO is that that most people can afford the half hour cost of a TF as a present/a treat or whatever but they cannot necessarily afford the whole course or indeed may not have the life style that could accomodate it.

I think that the more useful pointer could be the numbers giving up after starting a course and more importantly those that give up AFTER gaining their PPL. If this group can be encouraged and accomodated more by the infrastructure of private flying then that would improve things.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Whirly, why should people know about other forms of aviation than their own? How many purely rotary pilots know much about fixed wing flying and especially gyro's. I fly both F/W and Rotary, the 2 skills are different and are often not complimentary.

With the safety record of gyro's, you wouldn't catch me going near them. I don't know a huge amount about microlights either not being involved in them. Does that make me a 'bad' instructor? No. A wide range of experience is fine, but it is not a pre-requisite to being a good instructor.

Ther is always a bit of rivalry between F/W, Rotary, microlighting etc. Planks, Angry palmtrees, paper aeroplanes. We all have derogatry comments for things we don't understand. If somebody wants to try something else, then go for it, but don't expect someone who knows nothing about a subject to be much use to you, to be honest, what do you expect?

Very few people have experience in all sectors of the industry, especially instructors, as they are usually skint and simply haven't got the time to go and jump into other things. I don't fly just for pleasure anymore and very rarely get to fly many 'interesting' types. I love it when I get the chance, but that isn't very often unfortunately.

When you went off to Derby, you had a licence. Therefore as PIC the decision to go was up to you. If you felt unsure, you shouldn't have gone anywhere near the place. You cannot blame an instructor for decisions you make as a licenced pilot. We can advise you but at the end of the day it is up to you. If I break an a/c, I can't blame anybody but myself, I certainly can't start having a go at my instructors from years ago.
How would you like it if in 3 years time a student of yours hurt themselves in a heli and then slapped a courtcase on you because they felt you 'missed' something during training? The simple fact is that an instructors responsibilty is removed once the test is passed.
Will we still try and guide you and keep you safe? Of course, we don't want anybody to hurt themselves, but cutting someone loose is the point of getting a licence. Do they still need supervision, yes, but we cannot enforce anything on somebody if they are unwilling to accept it.

[walkingthewalk]

BEagle:

From what I have read so far, it appears that G-KEST and some others are advocating a "change of type" of instructor.

It appears that from a certain point of view, there isn't any enthusiasm demonstrated by instructors and this is putting people off ?!??!

Without wishing to change the subject, nobody has so far touched on the potential for eveb MORE high-tech knowledge being required by more and more standard training a/c manufacturers producing almost "all glass" cockpits.

[shortstripper]

Sighs deeply and shakes his head in despair!

Ok here we go again as for the umpteenth time the point has been lost.

We now have a new licence in this country called the NPPL … it’s not perfect but it’s here and that obviously bugs some people. It hasn’t had much of a take up at SEP level for the reasons SAS has stated. Why should it? The SEP part is far too unequal to the other parts, ie TMG and Microlights. Why are they so popular and increasing in popularity? Simple, they are cheap and they are fun. The BGA and BMAA are stuffed full of voluntary instructors and enthusiasts who are there for the love of the sport and they can train from unlicensed airfields. If SEP at NPPL level could work at the same level it too would see an increase in popularity. Costs could be reduced quite significantly if training was allowed away from expensive airports with their high landing fee’s and hangarage. Voluntary PPL instructors could be used to further reduce costs and hey presto we have a “sport” licence that would work. This wouldn’t take any great change in licensing, it’s just a matter of bringing NPPL SEP into line with the other NPPL categories.

Is anyone seriously suggesting the above isn’t at least a reasonable idea worth debate? Shiny new aeroplanes are very nice but will only result in even higher prices and will do nothing to attract anyone but those with commercial aspirations?

If any of you really think the majority of PPL’s fall into the two categories SAS describes and the latter are only there for the kudos then you really have missed out somewhere. I’d suggest that you go to a few more fly-ins or perhaps to the PFA rally. Undoubtedly there are some like that, but the same can be said of many chasing the coveted left hand seat of a 747.

Lady in Red, Your idea of a central instructor school is interesting but unrealistic. For a start … bang would go more of the work coming into the struggling flying schools and so too would the work for those higher qualified instructors who teach instructors. All this talk of minimum educational qualifications is daft. It will just put the barriers up to more and more potential CPL’s The cost and effort already involved is enough of a hurdle to ensure the floodgates aren’t opened to all. As someone with a degree, a lifelong interest in aviation and light engineering I’m certainly not frightened of the exams. However, I know from experience that there are many out there with no formal qualifications who would run rings around many very high qualified graduates. I’m sure the CPL exams in themselves they are not the main hurdle for others like me … it’s more the cost and time involved now that you are required to do attend minimum hours of ground school. Fine if you want to become an airline pilot … but too instruct at basic level? I just don’t buy it.

It’s funny that someone who insists that standards need to be raised to bring in new life, then goes on to compare aviation to sailing. You need no formal qualification to sail a boat. You can buy one for the cost of obtaining your PPL and you can use wind or red diesel to propel yourself. The costs are far lower, you don’t have to pay potential super tanker captains to patronise you and you can have a lot of fun. If you want to blow a fortune on a plush yacht you can … but you can easily start very cheaply indeed.

I’m not sure if the “certain poster” is me? … If it is, then I don’t care if you do think I’m harking back to past times. I don’t think I am! I just think that often the only way to move forward is to look back and learn. I’d love to see more investment, perhaps a softer tone by the CAA on allowing new aircraft design in and other forward moving steps. However, don’t dismiss how things worked in the past, and don’t forget that a retreat often wins a war!

SS

[walkingthewalk]

short strip:

Let's imagine that what you are hoping for is accepted by the regulating authorities. What resistance do you envisage from nearby home owners when the "explosion" of new NPPL training strips arrives.

[shortstripper]

What explosion? ... There are plenty of unlicenced airstrips being used by the microlight fratenity. I'm not talking airstrips without planning permission here ... just unlicenced ones. Some of us are happy to co-exist with other forms of aviation all on the same site.

SS

[walkingthewalk]

OK, I think we have finally arrived at a clear definition of what the regulating authorities are to consider:

1) Allow NPPL training in SEL a/c beyond the weight limits of
microlights from unlicensed airstrips.

2) Allow such training to be carried out by a new class of
instructor, just like those operating within the BGA system.

3) Prevent such instructors as in (3) from charging any fees
and promote volunteer instruction - to keep costs down.

Am I right that there is also to be no minimum standard for these NPPL FTO premises - to keep costs down.

Am I also right that when a given NPPL holder who has trained at such a facility will not require any training in operations at full ATC airports.

[Say again s l o w l y]

SS, the 'certain' poster is not you.

Why are microlights popular? Cost. In comparison the machines themselves are dirt cheap to buy, own and run. Microlight instructors actually get paid far more than your average PPL instructor, yet the per-hour cost is much less.

I don't believe anybody should work for free, it raises too many problems, for example places like Duxford have found that using volunteers causes more problems than it is worth. You can't ask a volunteer to do tasks that they won't enjoy and if you do they can easily say no and walk away.

Sailing is something that is as close to me as aviation and the two draw some very close parallels. Yes you can do it for relatively little money, but most people spend a large amount of money, especially where Yachts are involved. No you don't need a licence as such, but most people do take courses such as Day skipper and Yacht master as well as the RYA levels for dinghy sailing.

You don't agree that PPL's often fall into 2 categories, fine, but this has come from being around various school for a few years. The cost is now high enough that the demographics of people coming through the door is not very varied. Look at the average school/club and the vast majority are middle aged men earning £40K plus. Not many obsessed teenagers unless their parents are very wealthy.

Is that healthy for an industry? No. We need as wide a range of people as possible; men, women, kids, pensioners etc......

[shortstripper]

WIW

Pretty well summarised although the instructor class is not exactly "new" but more an old class resurrected. I suppose it could be a paid class of instructor if just at NPPL level to bring it into line with microlights … but I prefer the BGA volunteer style.

No the airfields used would be just as microlights use … with a bit of common sense applied to cover the different performance requirements.

As for training to ATC standards … Microlighters manage OK don’t they? and of course you still need to pass a radio licence to use one.

SAS

Cost … Like I said this is mostly because of the need to operate from licenced airfields. Fuel prices ect, we are pretty well stuck with, although diesel engines may help. Your idea of new aircraft would be OK if the CAA were to allow some of the new futuristic designs to be more easily granted CofA’s or allow permit aircraft to be used for NPPL training.
Your observation on the PPL candidates is very broadly based on your own experiences. Ever been to a microlight or gliding club? There are loads of old farts too … but also a very healthy smattering of youth … and not all rich kids (not that there’s anything wrong with them either)

I worked as a professional fisherman with my father for a couple of years out of St Ives in Cornwall … I’ve seen many of those RYA yacht masters … Oh yes! ;)

SS

[DFC]

Small clarification - A CRI can not be "paid" unless they hold a CPL. The payment I referred to was the "income" from not having to pay for flying - £1500+ per year at least.

An FI has the same privileges and more as a CRI in the same class of aircraft thus an FI does not need approval to act in the capacity of a CRI.

There is no requirement under JAR-FCL for training to be completed from a licensed airfield. JAR-FCL specifies the basic minimum requirements. It is the CAA that makes a licensed airfield mandatory. Simply removing this local UK restriction would give "sport aviation" a large financial boost. However, AFAIK, no person or organisation has put forward any sensible criteria for the standards at such unlicensed sites. The BMAA has certain minimum standards for microlight training sites.

There is no requirement for a licensed aerodrome to have ATC. Under present rules it is entirely possible to gain a JAA PPL without ever having used the radio or operated in controlled airspace. However, instructors recognise the problems with such training and in many cases ensure that the relevant experience is gained.

Taking this point further, a JAA PPL holder can legally fly round the world the day after gaining their licence. There has to be a sensible limit on the abinitio training provided along with a big dose of AIRMANSHIP training.

Whe it comes to PPL training can everyone stop mentioning FTOs. FTOs are for commercial training and must have certain accomodation standards. For PPL training only, RTFs are more appropriate and the accomodation requirements are more appropriate (basic).

People complain about not being able to give up time to complete the CPL exams. How do those people propose to provide suficient time to complete even a free FI course? Then having qualified, how to those "short of time" instructors see themselves being able to prepare for lessons and provide proper prepared and unrushed tuition?

----

SAS,

You have made me laugh.

You can't ask a volunteer to do tasks that they won't enjoy and if you do they can easily say no and walk away

Are we not trying to get away from instructors who "do it because they have to and not because they want to"? Many countries in Europe have legions of PPL instructors who instruct for the enjoyment.

What is the UK problem with voluntary work within one's own club?

How many football coaches in the local park on a Sunday morning are paid?

Perhaps this overriding desire for profit is limited to aviation? - I hope so.

Finally, of those few abinitio NPPLs, how many were microlight ratings?

No sane person pays for and completes 40 to 60+ hours of training to get a very restricted licence when an unrestricted licence can be obtained for the same effort and price (less if one goes elsewhere in Europe).

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

It would be nice to have totally commited people who do it because they love it and it is probably the way forward, but if you have a totally volunteer based instructor group, you are subject their whims. What if they are sent away for work, last minute changes to their schedules etc. With employees this is far easier to control, volunteers (unpaid obviously) are doing you a favour, with human nature being what it is, that is a fact a flying school will be reminded of regularily.
The idea of having volunteers is great, but you cannot rely on them totally. I suppose it's like communism, great in theory but pretty lousy in practice!

[Whirlybird]

SAS,

You've missed my point. I know that majority of present day instructors don't know about all those things I mentioned. However, a large number of very experienced, very enthusiastic pilots, who are "only PPLs", do. At present they're quite useful to the new PPL, who might want to try something new, or might want some friendly advice, if and when he/she bumps into them. How much more useful they'd be if they could instruct. They might prove to the new PPL who's fed up with just boring holes in the sky in their local area, that there's a lot more they could do. They could tell from experience. Which you, and other present day instructors, can't do, as you said. In fact, you were agreeing with me, but still didn't get my point

I think I'm talking round in circles here. I give up. :(

[Say again s l o w l y]

But why would these people want to be instructors? A mentoring program using this experience would be great, but having them as instructors....

I do talk to people I fly with and find out what they want from flying, aswell as what they can get from it. That's all part of the sales pitch, give them a reason so that they can justify the expense.

Enthusiasm is great, but it doesn't make a good instructor, it helps certainly but it is not the be all and end all.

We mustn't forget that aviation is a business, so all the wonderful ideas of having highly experienced folk sitting around, but the reality is that there aren't that many highly experienced PPL's out there who would be willing to do this out of the kindness of their hearts.

How many PPL's with >1000hrs and experienced in all sorts of different flying are there? I can't think of more than 2. How many FI's can I think of like that? At least 30 and most have experience of airlines, air taxi, instruction, rotary, PFA and occasionally microlights.

Who would you rather have teaching?

[walkingthewalk]

SAS:

Re. "But why would these people want to be instructors? A mentoring program using this experience would be great, but having them as instructors...."

IMHO these people are just a few as you say. However, the recent discussion seems to confirm that some people want to create an exclusive NPPL training tier, complete with instructors who have a different set of qualifications.

[shortstripper]

Hello again,

Ok ... as we are going round in circles let us just clarify a few things.

A PPL can be an instructor anyway ... but he/she needs to pass the CPL papers.

We have a whole new structure for the licensing of pilots in the "sports" category exclusively for this country ... the NPPL.

We have JAR that is internationally recognised unlike NPPL and requires its instructors to either have a CPL or have passed the CPL theory papers.


So ... The first bit.

As a PPL can instruct (but not be paid) the original question must be asking what everyone thinks about this. The debate then moved toward what we all think should be required, why and what effect our proposals might have. It then moved on to put to right all that is wrong with GA and how to entice more entrants. This progressed to the NPPL and pure PPL FIR. An outcry! “How dare a mere PPL think he is qualified to instruct, it would mean a whole new structure!”

So …the second bit.

The whole new structure. Those in the know have thankfully recognised the failings of JAR with regard to recreational flying and have fought tooth and nail to address the issue. They won the battle to get a more relaxed nationally restricted licence but so far have lost the war to allow a level playing field between classes and remove many of those very restrictions that JAR placed on SEP. This two tier NPPL is bound to fail at SEP level because the restricted NPPL virtually replicates JAR in cost with the only benefit being the less stringent medical. It does however, appear to be working just fine for the other classes and could for SEP if the same rules were followed. This is down to the CAA and us to convince them of a need. Unfortunately it seems that only those with vision and the ability to look outside their own small sector want or see the need to revitalise the system. An insular approach will IMHO never win you friends and will ultimately bring about no good to those who are blind or look but don’t see (hmmm! sounds like a country or two fall into this group?)

So … the last bit.

JAR is fine but it’s done B..all for me. Sour grapes? Maybe, but it hasn’t done me much harm either so I’m not that opposed … EASA might be different of course?
If JAR/EASA want to structure the “business” side of aviation that’s fine if they don’t forget the freedoms that we as Europeans are entitled to. If they want to insist that FI’s have CPL’s or whatever then fine if they are aiming at taking students toward commercial aviation. I really don’t see the need for this at a recreational level though and I have not seen one reason yet why it “should” be required.

So we come back to present requirement for PPL’s to pass the CPL papers to be able to instruct. This is unique to SEP and quite different to the microlight and glider requirements … why? DFC chipped in and suggested if you don't have time to do the papers how can you expect to devote enough time to instructing? Well the answer to that is not very hard to figure. It now requires at least two lots of two week sessions at ground school and a weeks consolidation to be allowed to sit the papers. Providing you pass you then need at least another 3 weeks to do the FIR course. Most of the people I’m talking about get 3-6 weeks holiday a year. They also have families who require a bit of their time. This is quite different to giving up weekends or one day a week which is what they will probably be doing once qualified. Using one years holiday to do an FI course is one thing … but two years holiday? Try getting that pass the other half!

SS

BTW … I know many 1000 hr PPL’s … your really must circulate in a very small part of the aviation community SAS.

[DFC]

SAS,

volunteers (unpaid obviously) are doing you a favour

No. they are doing themselves a favour. They get free flying. They also ensure that the costs of recreational sport aviation are kept to a minimum.

In a club, more PPls and students flying more hours per year reduces the hourly cost of the aircraft.

Instructor availability and student availability needs to be matched. People working M-F, 9-5 will only be available Sat and Sun to instruct. Students with the same work pattern will likewise only be available at those times to learn. If the instructor is away for a few weeks holiday then the student gets a holiday (or another instructor).

If the instructor regularly is away with work or is generally unreliable then don't give them students.

We mustn't forget that aviation is a business

Now I see where you have a problem.

Professional Aviation is a business.

Sport aviation is not and that is where the UK will always fall down.

People can not envisage the true meaning of a flying club - a not for profit organisation operating for the benifit of the members. It is only by embracing the true concept of not for profit operation that the sport aviation NPPL can survive.

I was instructed through PPL, IMC, CPL and Instructor rating by instructors who were not paid a cent for their time. That vastly reduced the cost to me. In turn, I provide the instruction to new students for free also. Why can UK people not understand this concept. French training has relied and benifitted from it for years as do many other European countries.

Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a not for profit training establishment in the UK..............and that is the crux of the problem. it also leads us back to why ther is an NPPL - not to make things easier - not to make things cheaper - not to make it more fun - not to open flying to more people. The NPPL is a CAA supported marketing device that money making organisations thought would attract people to prop up their profits druing the post 911 hard times.

A not-for-profit club operating as an RTF or from an unlicensed airfield meeting JAR-FCL requirements and volunteer instructors teaching JAA PPL would have plenty of business. So where is the problem with JAA training and why bother with NPPL?

Regards,

DFC

[Say again s l o w l y]

The French have a much healthier attitude to aviation than we do here. Most of the towns I have visited seem proud to have an air field, even if they aren't involved directly.

There are a few not-for-profit clubs around the country, Glasgow for example, and they do find it difficult to get full time instructors, they have many part-timers however.

The idea of students and instructors matching schedules is great in principle, but apart from weekends many students book at short notice and trial lessons do the same. Having full time instructors is necessary to ensure continuity of training and flexibility for the customers.

There is no getting away from aviation being a business. I certainly don't fly for altruistic reasons. I provide a service and expect to be recompensed for it. Why is flying any different from other industries? You don't expect a plumber to work for the love of it, why should any pilot?

Having unpaid individuals in any business destroys it for all the others who try to make a living from it. Why should I have to work for free just because a PPL with a highly paid job decides to teach 'for fun'? If they want to fly, hire or buy an a/c. Don't put people out of work for a selfish reason. How will that help the industry as a whole, you won't have any professional instructors left and we'll be back to the original problem.

SS,
I know plenty of PPL's who have far in excess of 1000hrs, but none are interested in instructing at all. My experience of the industry is pretty broad since you ask.

As a blinkered and insular individual I can obviously only see the issues that effect me, my students and the clubs I teach/have taught at.
Why do I have to know what is going on elsewhere to be able to recognise issues that stare me in the face everyday?

We are talking specifically about SEP machines here, the issues that affect microlights etc. are very different.

In this country we do like to indulge in a bit of JAA-bashing at every opportunity, but to be honest it hasn't been that bad at all. The revalidation requirements have been a great start despite some people's confusion.
Most of the problems come direct from Gatwick when the CAA change meanings and refuse to confirm meanings in documents. How many times have we asked for clarification only to be told "oh it'll be in a GID. It's just being proof read at the moment." Utter nonsense, they've only just noticed something and they're scrabbling to find an answer that won't drop them in the poo.

[homeguard]

The majority of flying clubs in the UK are non-profit making. The greatest number will be owned by the members who belong to it and operate the club on behalf of the members. In most cases it will be amateurs ( members) providing paid work for some and unpaid work for others. In other cases, to a lessor extent flying clubs have been founded by professional people ( not always wealthy ) who are enthusiastic flyers funding the club, that they own, through subsidy or from very little profit.

The Instructor Rating is NOT a professional rating. It is attached to whatever licence that you hold; PPL/CPL/ATPL, it matters not.

Holding a CPL allows you to ring the till, that is all. The CPL is NOT a qualification to instruct ( a CPL is not allowed to do such ) nor a qualification that entitles you to be trained as an Instructor to any greater or lessor extent than a PPL may be.

To be an Instructor you require to hold only a PPL, a Class 1 medical plus 150 hours PIC and are currently required to have passed the CPL written papers. The purpose, to demonstrate to the authority ( CAA ) that you hold sufficient knowledge, prior to commencing the FIC course, to be an Instructor.

You may gabble on as much as you like about being paid or not and how much that pot of gold shall be. While a PPL may not be paid, holding a CPL allows you to be paid. Whether you are paid is between you and an employer, no one else. Neither the CAA or the JAA is a union. They do not care if you are paid. But if you are they, the CAA, only care that you are lawful in being so.

In a perfect world there would be no legislation at all. The Department of Transport or it's agencies such as the CAA are charged only to achieve a minimum level of safety and to be practical. Remember this, the department within the CAA that processes your licence is not called the Loads of Dosh or Free and Gratis Department. It is appropiately called the Safety Regulation Group of which licencing forms a part!

Will some of you get real ( if I may qoute my daughters vocabulary) the issue here is not about reducing safety by cutting corners. The arguement is whether the examinations, currently being required, go beyond the issue of saftey in their extent and also whether the medical standards demanded by the JAA/CAA are too restrictive for some of the kinds of activity for which the medical is required.

The minimum knowledge required to be a Flying Instructor can be defined quite easily in relation to what is to be taught. Medical standards are more difficult to decide upon. Statistics become, in many medical issues but not all, the only guidance. Instructors had for many years instructed on variously Class 1(r) or class 11 ( when a PPL flew on Class 111) without issue.

The JAA regulations have only sought to remedy the Commercial Public Transport Operations and as yet have not really got to grips with the very different safety requirements of GA. The CAA Licencing and Medical Departments are quite open about this problem.

Those who campaign here are not trying to re-invent the wheel but like me simply want to repair it. It is square at the moment.

[BEagle]

As a PPL/FI, currently you only need a JAR Class 2 medical to instruct for non-remunerative flight instruction.

About the only thing that the NPPL P&SC do currently agree upon is that whatever changes might eventually come to the FI SEP requirements, the absolute minimum medical standard will not be less than a JAR Class 2.

Which would mean that those NPPL holders who cannot hold a JAR Class 2 medical would not, even if the FI rating requirements were to change, be able to hold an FI rating.

[shortstripper]

OK ... I'm done with arguing my case, those who still think everything in the garden is rosey are far to reticent to even listen anymore. If I didn't enjoy aeros I'd be dizzy by all the going around in circles.

So just a few general questions as some here seem to be far more in the know about what CAA/JAR/EASA are planning...

Does anyone think there's likely to be any softening on the approach to the CPL exam side of things? I wouldn't mind doing them (I did actually start with PPSC before they went belly up) it's the required groundschool I can't manage. As I said in an earlier post you are looking at 2x2week college sessions + 1 week refresher and exams ... and thats' before taking the FI course. If I got the papers I probably would want to go the whole hog but that's at least another couple of weeks tagged as well. Beats me why the cumpulsury minimum hours study and groundschool was bought in at all? ... you're either good enough to pass the exams or not and everybodies study needs will vary.

Is there likely to be an "all in" FIR course without the need to hold the CPL papers?

Is the SEP side of the NPPL ever likely to be treated fairly by bringing it into line with the other groups?

Does anybody know the winning lottery numbers and care to pass them on? That way I can get around the feeding of a family whilst getting the bits of paper that are mostly (not all) irrelevent, but that are needed just to train to perhaps one day teach some of what I already know?

SS

[walkingthewalk]

short striper:

I would be surprised if there is any softening at all.

As it stands, the existing FTO/RTFs have a glut of instructors available so they will not be knocking on the regulatory authorities doors.

How about this for a scenario (let's do some blue-sky thinking here): :)

From now on, there will always be a glut of instructors IMHO and what better than gaining an FI rating to "keep your hand in" whilst waiting for that shiny jet job (these are in the majority, the full-time instructor types, who don't have any other way of earning a living).

As for those part-timers, their make-up will be largely made up of off-duty airline pilots with an FI rating.

In the end there will be so few airfields/airports available (don't you know that there's a housing shortage in this country...) that the whole industry will be off-shored to Florida. :ok:

[homeguard]

You can only live in hope!

[Say again s l o w l y]

BEagle, that's good to hear. I found the idea of people teaching on a self-cert medical extremely distrubing.

I actually do think that the CAA does give a monkey's about pay. Not in the sense of a union, but in that they would prefer if everybody was at least able to be renumerated. Yes of course you can teach on a PPL, but why, if you have gone through all the hassle of the groundschool, would you not do the CPL flight test?

Why are the safety needs of GA different from commercial ops? Do we accept a higher mortality rate? I don't think anyone at the CAA would ever admit to that and I certainly don't think it is acceptable.

I don't think there ever will be a 'softening' of exams, especially in relation to commercial groundschool.
Though why they don't make the CPL exams more GA specific (whatever that is?) and have the ATPL's more in relation to the airlines. The CPL is not taken by 'potential' airline pilots at all since they prefer the ATPL.

There is no doubt that are many problems that need fixing in the GA world, but allowing NPPL's to teach is not going to help, but this is a very interesting discussion and hopefully a few good ideas may come out of it.

[BEagle]

Personally I consider that an 'all-in' FI(R) course incorporating everything which used to be in the old R/BCPL theoretical knowledge requirements, plus everything needed to become an instructor would be fine. But candidates must first pass an assessment for suitability to teach - and demonstrate acceptable flying skills including IF. The resulting restricted licence would not be a CPL - hence 'hours builders' would still need to go by the current route having first passed the assessment tests - but would be available as an alternative 'professional instructor's licence' for PPL, Night Qualification and IMC Raing instruction only.

That is a personal view, not to be taken as representing the view of the NPPL P&SC.

[shortstripper]

Oh well ... back to the Frost report sketch then :(

... I'll just toddle off back to the PPL forum and leave you to your brave new world :yuk:

SS

Beagle ... our postings collided :uhoh:

Nice idea and just the kind of thing I'd like to see ... doesn't stand a hope of course, far too sensible!

Bye all

SS

[DFC]

I have yet to see anyone come up with any significant proposal that can't already be done under JAR-FCL.

There is absolutely no reason why the CPL exams provided via the modular route could not have their mandatory classroom and refresher time completed on Saturdays only. Simply nobody has bothered to do it because the only providers of the ground training are doing it for professional pilots who are instructed by professional instructors who want the weekend off.

Of course, a saturday only route would take much longer but what PPLs are in a big rush to do PPL flying.

What must be remembered is that currently there is an upgrade from NPPL to JAA PPL available provided allt he instruction provided was in accordance with JAR-FCL. Receiving instruction from an NPPL instructor not only restricts the NPPL holder to the UK but does so forever unless they repeat the whole PPL course with a JAA instructor............try selling that to the young pilots of today!

-----

SAS,

I am very willing to pay for a plumber who is a professional and for whom plumbing is their livliehood. I am not willing to pay a similar rate to the Scout Master for leading my child's scout group....they are doing what is essentially a hobby and a recreational activity. That is not to say that the Scout Master is not very professional, reliable and good at what they do. So too are the other unpaid volunteers who assist him.

Unpaid NPPL club instructors in a volunteer not for profit club will have no impact on today's professional instructors because they will have totally separate and unrelated customer pools. As I said above, no one in their right mind will pay thousands for a restricted licence that costs twice as much to "upgrade".

---

BEagle,

Agree totally that all instructors (even NPPL ones) must be able to fly accurately and confidently prior to completing the course. However, why do they need to be capable of IF flying when the licence they hold and want to teach for prohibits such flying and has no criteria for the lifting of that restriction.

---

There is one piece of irony in the JAR-FCL requirement regarding instructor knowledge. To teah for the PPL one needs CPL knowledge. To teach for the CPL one needs CPL knowledge. To teach for the ATPL, one needs ATPL knowledge.

Why is it that the PPL is the only licence wher the teacher must have knowledge at a higher level despite it being the least significant licence?

Could it be that JAR-FCL could not come up with any other agreeable criteria when the original draft was circulated?

Perhaps insted of wasting time and effort on the NPPL instructor rating some committee could formulate an amendment proposal for the JAA to rectify that situation. If that had been dome 3 years ago, we could have a simpler route to PPL instructors today and this whole long thred would not exist.

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

Because, DFC, there is some IF instruction required for both the NPPL and PPL. If the person wanting a 'professional instructor licence' holds a NPPL only, then upgrade to JAR-FCL PPL with IMC rating should form part of the 'all-in' course.

I've even heard of current FIs with a 'no IF instruction' restriction applying to be FEs. That should, in my view, never be allowed.

[Say again s l o w l y]

DFC, are you seriously suggesting that instructing is on par with being a scout master?

Does running a scout group need specific qualifications that take vast amounts of time and money to complete?

Just because I have been lucky enough to find a job that I love to do, doesn't mean that I shouldn't be paid for my time, training and experience.

I understand that you are differentiating between 'sport/recreational' flying and getting a JAA licence, I just can't see that we could get the fundamentals of cost down so that a 'sport' licence is a feasible goal using the current crop of a/c.

BEagle your idea sounds very sensible, how much chance is there of something like this ever occuring? It would be good as there would be a decent mechanism in place to ensure standards are high enough.

SS, you are very welcome in this forum, whilst I don't agree with a lot of what you say, doesn't mean it is invalid. I am just trying to pick holes in the arguments against my own point of view, please feel free to do the same to me. I certainly don't have all the answers even though it may sound as if I think I do at times!

[homeguard]

SAS it dosn't have to be as depressing as you seem to see it.

The PPL who has qualified as an Instructor wiil have the same skills and required knowledge to instruct as a CPL. They will have passed the dedicated Instructor exams and have completed the same Instructor training.

The CPL may be issued on a pilot having gained 200 hours which may include the Instructor Rating course hours. The PPL will, if my ideas were to be taken up, have achieved the same level of experience. i.e. 45hrs PPL, 15hrs IMC, 5hrs Night, 100 hours PIC, 45 hours Instructor training, plus tests say 6 hours = 211 hours ish.

I have suggested that the Instructor course should be 45 hours in order to ensure that the navigation knowledge and skills were as thoroughly covered as those demanded of a CPL candidate.

Should you after gaining the CPL wish to undertake an Instructor course then an exemption of the exams (but not any papers dedicated to Instructing) should be given. A further exemtion of say 12 hours off the navigation elements, reducing ( for the CPL ) to a 33 hour course.

The option for the PPL candidate to sit the CPL/ATPL exams + specific Instructor exams should be in place for them. Should the PPL Instructor wish to obtain a CPL at a later date then they would still have to do CPL training as considered appropiate and be tested.
All the above is possible under JAR. The NPPL issues do not have to come into it.

As for the medical, well all I can say to you is the CAA medical staff are not of the same rigid point of view as you and thay have the expertise. The CAA already may as it sees fit grant exmptions if it so wishes.

[DFC]

BEagle,

There is no IF instruction included in the PPL. There is however instrument appreciation. Very big difference.

The ability to teach that exercise is part of the instructor course.

If you think that the IMC qualification is required to teach for PPL then explain how pilots in the other JAA countries manage to teach JAA PPL.

What is even more ironic is that a French JAA instructor can instruct for the UK IMC rating in the UK without any further checks or tests beyond the FI rating - their licence does not have the local CAA restriction placed on UK FI's

Not only that but a non-UK JAA FI with an IR can teach the single engine IR without having completed any form of upgrade either.

Why make things difficult and hand the upper hand to competitors in the rest of Europe?

Why make the JAA system harder and more expensive than necessary? By doing so it makes the NPPL more attractive. Is that the idea?

Regards,

DFC

[Polly Gnome]

Personally I would prefer to pay to have a professional instructor who teaches regularly rather than an inexperienced volunteer who teaches once a week.

I have only flown with one 'hours builder' (who actually was very good), but all other instructors have been career instructors or airline pilots. They have all been excellent in different ways.

In my opinion most PPLs do not have the wide variety of experience needed (regardless of hours). I keep meeting people who think they could make good instructors, but I don't think most have the experience, and therefore the judgement, needed.

They definitely need a current IMC to get their students home if the weather turns. Stranding students at airstrips miles from home will soon put them off!

I do agree with the suggestion that FI's could do with more training on how to actually teach.

To be a good FI you need to be a good, experienced pilot AND be able to teach AND be able to get on with people. It isn't a very common combination.

I don't think saving £10 per hour's lesson by using an unpaid instructor will make much difference to most people wanting a PPL or NPPL. £5900 or £6500 seems equally expensive. If you want to fly you will pay it, if you don't you'll do something else.

If you want to do something interesting and glamorous and money is no object you'll take up helicopters or speed boat racing.

I am a PPL by the way.

[BEagle]

DFC - what utter rubbish. Where are all these French FIs teaching in the UK?

PPL applicants have to demonstrate the ability to fly a 180 deg level turn on instruments as part of their PPL Skill Test. To do that, they must have received at least some instruction.

I will never employ a FI who does not hold at least an IMC Rating.

[alexcrwfrd]

so here's diverse thought to cogitate on

* the best **ppl** instructors are the ones that show endless
enthusiasm and a great deal of skill.

* perhaps we should stop *all* pilots on the commercial
track from instructing. some of them are not very good
instructors, and many dont have enthusiasm for the work,
other than accruing hours.
the ones that manage to politic themselves into good
positions are often worked too hard and die of exhaustion
in the summer heat (!).

so now what's remaining?

* ppl-f.i.'s with perhaps lots of hours showing the newbies
how to do it with enthusiasm and gusto and skill (in the
nppl zone).

* lots of commercial boys/girls working in mc.donalds

although i have a preference towards seeing the more
enthusiastic and capable ppl's instructing, our current
system just would not cope with the numbers of even-
more-depressed commercial wannabees waiting around on the
dole and queueing to get work, so i accept that our standards
in the uk will be lower than they could be, but that the
suicide rates of commercial wannabees is lower, and
that nhs drug costs stay lower due to less
anti-depressants being prescribed by doctors.

i do hope 'someone' finds a way to get rid of the
incapable instructors out there though, there's a need
for that, as just one bad apple in the barrel taints the
whole industry with thoughts of going to america to
get cheaper and sometimes better instruction than
can be obtained here.

we have excellent instructors in the uk industry,
we just need more of them, and less of the cruddy ones.

isnt that a question that should be addressed before
we talk of ppl-f.i.'s or at least discussed concurrently ?

no apologies for making the argument swerve a little
off course, i think its all part of the same universal
questioning that has to be made...

bluskyz, alex

[Whirlybird]

Alex,

Glad you're still around! :ok: I'm sure you can work out who I am - PM me if you can't.

[DFC]

BEagle,

I know of at least 8 instructors working in the UK who don't have UK issued licenses.

When I do some part time work, that jumps to 9.

I don't have an IMC rating. I do have an IR but that has nothing to do with teaching PPLs.

The basic instrument appreciation and the ability to do a level 180 deg turn in simulated imc is well covered by every instructor in Europe...99% of whom don't have an IMC.

Why do you require an instructor to hold an IMC rating? holding a rating has no relation to being able to teach instrument flying.

Polly Gnome:

They definitely need a current IMC to get their students home if the weather turns. Stranding students at airstrips miles from home will soon put them off!

Good instructors check the weather and should not get caught out except of the very very very rare occasion.

That is why if I got caught out by the weather like you describe, I would put my student up in a good hotel at my expense. After all it is my mistake. That would hold true eventhough I hold an IR and we fly an IR equipped aircraft.

A recent accident near the South of England with an instructor CFIT caused the CAA to question the adviseability of instructors using IMC ratings to push the limits for VFR students.

Of course to get back on track, what BEagle is really saying in his last post is that he can never see the posibility of having NPPL instructors because they could never have an IMC and thus could never be safe. :)

Regards,

DFC

[homeguard]

I agree with Beagle

We operate from an International Airport. RADAR, ILS, DME and NDB approaches are always available.

All my Instructors have eigther an IR or IMC Rating and I expect them to be current and able to exploit these qualifications when required.

The school is able to continue flying on top in clear air so often when otherwise visibility or low cloud would prevent training. With the support of ATC we are able to do this within safe, professional parameters.

[Polly Gnome]

Where are all these terrible commercial instructors? I have never met one (although I know Whirly has).

I have flown with lots of instructors. (I've been flying for nearly 10 years, and have an IMC and night rating. Whenever I'm on holiday in the UK I go flying at the nearest airport with an instructor.) They have all been good to brilliant - regardless of whether they were young/old, men/women or airline pilots/career instructors/hours builders. Every one of them has had an IR or IMC.

I have met PPLs who think they could instruct, but I, personally, would not trust their judgement in most cases. I wouldn't trust my own, I haven't enough CONCENTRATED flying experience.

Enthusiasm isn't enough on its own to teach anything.

I am very wary of getting into a discussion on an instructors' forum when I only have a PPL, but I can put forward the point of view of an ordinary potential customer.

[DFC]

Homeguard.

Interesting point about climbing on top when the weather prevents basic PPL flying. However, like I said in my last post, I teach PPL students PPL flying.

Do you start charging the student from the usual chocks to chocks and have them pay to be a passenger for some of the time they pay for or do you only charge them for the usefull instruction period i.e. the bit during which they receive appropriate instruction?

Regards,

DFC

[shortstripper]

Hello again …

Well I wandered back to the PPL forum and found little of interest there, so I sauntered back to see what had been said in my absence. Therefore, as SAS kindly welcomed me to pick holes in his argument, I will

You say none of your instructors were or ever were PPL instructors? … I find this very hard to believe as the usual way to CPL before JAA was via the 700 hr self improver route. To build hours once reasonably experienced, you would normally either go glider tugging or dropping parachutists unpaid, or do an AFI course and instruct for remuneration. The CPL virtually always followed the FI not the other way around as it is now. Unless all your instructors were ex mil or part time ATPLs, I really can’t see how you figure what you say? Whatever, I’m just being pedantic :E

So … What are we calling for now? Even more qualifications than are needed at present …:rolleyes: hmmmm! That makes sense uhhhh! The IMC is unique to the UK, if the FI rating is JAA and Euro wide then the nearest equivalent needed to be fully instrument proficient is the IR rating … do you seriously mean that all instructors should have an IR as well? If you do then you can write off half those that teach now! That’s progress!

Polly … Believe me there are some very good and some extremely terrible instructors from both camps out there!!!

Now we come back to the nitty gritty … cost! By my reckoning it would cost me as a suitably qualified perspective PPL instructor (that is that I meet the flight time pre-requisites) somewhere around £2500 to get the CPL papers (course + test fees) and a further £5k for the FI, just to be allowed to instruct for free. To get payed I’d probably pay another £3k for the CPL flying part, if a certain amount of cross over flying time could be wheedled out of the training school. For microlights it would cost around £2500 all in to get the FIR to be allowed to teach and get payed. This is to teach NPPL in an aircraft a few pounds lighter and often more capable (these days) than SEP. Sorry but there really does seem a certain disparity there?

I can see there are some on here that will never agree but once again I say … The CPL exam pass requirement to be allowed to teach is a new and wholly OTT requirement at PPL level. If SEP wants to attract the same enthusiasm as microlights or gliding it needs to become more accessible by reducing costs on the recreational side. It can do this at entrance NPPL level by incorporating many of the suggestions mooted. JAR SEP would then be a natural step for those who decide they want bigger or want to go commercial.

SS

[BEagle]

Until not so long ago, it seemed highly likely that the 'not much difference between Microlight and SEP' would be used to the Microlighters' disadvantage. A CAA high-up tried to get many of us round to his view that all 3-axis devices should be SEP, leaving just flex wings, foot launched and powered parachutes to the BMAA.

At the time we were having a difference of views with the BMAA; however, despite that no-one supported the CAA person's view and the threat receded.

But don't make too many waves about 'SEP being almost indistinguishable from advanced microlights' in case someone takes it the wrong way. What we've got now isn't perfect, but it could be an awful lot worse!

[DFC]

I think that the CAA have recognised the link between the SEP rating and a microlight rating. Holders of an SEP rating can fly microlights with only differences training according to the CAA.

Of course the NPPL does not have an SEP rating so that won't work for NPPL holders :(

Who is the genius that came up with that little gem!

Regards,

DFC

[BEagle]

DFC - the NPPL doesn't have a 'SEP rating' only because of an error on the part of the CAA - hence this confusing 'SSEP' and 'SSEA' nonsense.

The NPPL P&SC agreed NPPL revalidation proposals have just been sent to the CAA so that they can work on unbug.gering the ANO. The P&SC consider that distinction between aircraft classes is clearer and the method of revalidating SEP, SLMG and/or Microlight aircraft ratings better defined. It is proposed that you'll be able to count hours in any combinations of aircraft for which NPPL aircraft ratings are held towards revalidation of all of them, subject to a minimum time in each class. Also there will be simpler requirements for periodic refresher training - and an opt out for those who only ever wish to fly single seat aircraft.

Hopefully the CAA will agree to it......

[Deneb]

Having followed this thread for a while, I thought it worth contributing as one who would instruct as a PPL FI......were it possible.

I find myself in a very similar position to SS, and but for the onerous time constraints of the CPL theory exams would have an FI rating by now.

I am one of the many/few(?) multi-thousand hr, ex mil pilots, but only hold a PPL. Unlike many of my contempories I chose a career outside professional aviation after the military, but still have a deep love of flying.

Having chosen to return to the GA/enthusiast side of flying, I would love to be able to give something back to that community. However the sheer time committment to theory exams and residential phases is extremely difficult to reconcile with a full time career.

With a military background, which included being an instructor both on the ground and in the air, I sense another element to this thread. This quite rightly higlights the inability of many to transfer their technical proficiency across to others through the medium of teaching. Lady in Red proposes a Central Teaching Establishment, well proven in CFS(Central Flying School) guise, beloved of many in the military. Perhaps it is an opportunity for yet another MoD PFI to run courses for civilian instructors at CFS(rw & fw). But I digress?!

I support Beag's position on minumum skill levels absolutely - and I, like many experienced PPLs are keen to feed back professional experience into ab-initio PPLs. I wouldn't even consider presenting myself to be an FI without having had an IR at some stage. I would also strongly support the concept of comprehensive instructional course - but many of us have had instructional backgrounds anyway, and would expect no less.

So what? Well I for one, and I know a number of others too, would welcome a relaxation in the CPL theory examination position that currently discourages us from giving back to our hobby what we gained as professionals.

[DFC]

How long since you retired form military aviation. If not too long then have a good look through LASORS and forulate a nice letter to the CAA asking if you could have any exemption or relaxation of the requirements.

If you have previously demonstrated an acceptible standard then I think you could be considdered to be in the same situation as a JAA FI who has allowed their rating to lapse by a similar time and thus could take the same route back into instruction possibly under an exemption which is permitted under JAR-FCL.

You say that you would never become an FI without first holding an IR. How do you explain how the 99% of European instructors teaching at PPL, CPL and FIC level ever manage without holding an IR?

Wouldn't a silly requirement to hold an IR simply bring a full stop to PPL training in Europe?

However, having held an IR and with plenty of IFR experience the route to an IRI is short and simple provided you add an IR to your PPL. You could even add a CRI very easily with little effort in time.

I can see how people trained in a system that required an IR to be held before doing an FI course to feel that it was necessary. But is it really when no instruction is going to be provided for the IR?

Would I be correct to say that the RAF train FIs to teach both the visual and IR elements from the start and their entry requirements reflect that?

Regards,

DFC

[Deneb]

DFC

Thank you for your comments, and guidance.

My reason for mentioning the IR was to illustrate the point that there is a pool of people who have held higher levels of qualification, but in current circumstances simply want to return to giving ab-initio instruction. It was certainly not intended to imply that all instructors should be so qualified.

I completely agree with you, in that there are situations where no IR is allowed or taught, and IMC/IR rated instructors are not required. It is exactly for this reason that I am pondering microlights and microlight instruction.

Best wishes

Deneb

[Mike Cross]

Thought I'd chip in my twopenn'orth.

A commercial license is not required in order to instruct. The only privelige conferred by the commercial license in the context of instruction is the ability to be paid. Are the exams and the expense necessary solely in order to run a bank account?

Whether or not a commercial license is required has nothing whatsoever to do with instruction. It is solely to do with whether or not the purpose of the flight is Aerial Work.

With minor exemptions if money is paid for the use of the aircraft or for the services of the instructor the purpose of the flight becomes Aerial Work and the instructor requires a commercial licence and the aircraft requires a Transport Cat C of A. If the flight is not Aerial Work you don't need a CPL or a Transport Cat C of A. If the instructor is not paid and any payment for the use of the aircraft falls within the exemptions of Article 130 it is not Aerial Work.

This whole sorry mess arose out of a need to prevent abuses that saw members of the public being taken on illegal joyrides or charters. Public Transport rightly requires the vehicle's maintenance regime and the licensing of its driver to be of a higher standard than that for Private Transport. It's the same with buses and ships as it is with aircraft.

However training is not Public Transport any more than driving instruction or seamanship training is and it would have been far better to use the existing law to bring the culprits to book rather than change to a more restrictive regime that simply had the effect of imposing Public Transport standards on all.

The pool of instructors who were given their BCPL's on the strength of their PPL/FI's is dwindling and we are seeing the results. The costs of obtaining and maintaining a FI rating are higher because the requirements have rightly been raised in order to raise the standard of instruction. However you can't recover those costs without a commercial license.

Having been forced to get the commercial license you're far better off using it for something other than instruction, with the result that instruction becomes a "fill in" job between commercial contracts and the standard of instruction received by students suffers.

If instruction were taken out of the Aerial Work category it would open the way for the employment by FTO's of instructors with PPL/FI ratings, who are every bit as qualified under the current rules to instruct, but who do not aspire to a commercial job and will not leave as soon as one comes along.

Mike

[BEagle]

G-KEST - No doubt you'll have heard the interim response which the NPPL P&SC recently gave your papers as presented by the PFA?

On the approval of non-PT CofA'd aeroplanes and revised requirements for training sites, we are waiting for the CAA's internal views, not forgetting EASA's policies, of course. Not just at NPPL level, but also for JAR-FCL PPL(A) training.

Re. the idea of non-CPL holding pilots with FI ratings, let's just say that it certainly wasn't dismissed out of hand. One of the organisations is waiting for a written reply from the CAA on a fundamental key issue; when they've got that they'll be able to formulate a consolidated view. The European way of doing things will feature strongly in any UK proposal - for example, if a Franciwegian is permitted to teach PPL flying for remuneration without holding a CPL, then why shouldn't a Brit?

Regarding medical standards, we need a response from CAA medical as to the lowest acceptable medical requirement for any future FI.

Thus it's not inconceivable that, in the future, a PPL-level flying club could have a mixture of enthusiastic part-time PPL holders happy to give some time up for the benefit of newcomers - but who don't have the time or money to commit to 14 Eurocratic CPL exams - as well as the traditional CPL-holding 'hours builders'. The advantage to the club would be that they'd have less chance of suddenly losing FIs when the FO jobs loom - and a very good chance of keeping a number of sound, reliable and ultimately experienced FIs happy to be part-timers.....or perhaps 'career' FIs?

Never say never is the name of the game!


Edited to add: No-one is prepared to accept any lower standards from future FIs, no matter what. In fact if anything there are calls for more rigorous selection and testing standards for new FI(R)s!

[Sally Cinnamon]

I imagine that being trained by a ppl licence holder would scare a lot of new students, not something I would fancy. The CPL licence holder has proved him/herself able to fly at a competent level for public transport with a CAA examiner. I also agree that an Instrument Rating should be mandatory for every flying instructor. The student should feel confident in his/hers instructors ability. I never used to enjoy flying with a fair weather only flying instructor, until I got my own IR.

[BEagle]

Sally - sorry, but that's nonsense.

An experienced PPL holder who has spent many years in a club environment and has passed the FI(R) course will be far better equipped to teach PPL flying to newcomers than some minimum-time yoof with his/her shiny new CPL, desperate to grab sufficient hours to enable him/her to fly a people-tube as soon as he/she possibly can.

It's the quality of the individual which matters - assuming that he/she's successfully graduated from the FI(R) course. Having passed 14 exams and obtained a CPL/IR is nihil ad rem when it comes to being an effective instructor. No - what matters is the right personality, experience and skill. All of which can be assured by proper selection and testing of the FI(R) applicant in the first place.

[lady in red]

Returning from a round the world trip where I have talked to instructors in Singpore, Oz, NZ and the USA one of the things that strikes me is the varying standards and requirements tolerated in other countries. But the point that I do not remember seeing on this thread is the one that the guy who does the ab initio to fATPL route integrated (what used to be a 509 course) is least qualified to go on to basic PPL instruction as he never actually holds a PPL and does not really know what PPL flying is all about. I still believe that we need well-qualified and well-experienced enthusiasts to be PPL instructors and that about 500 hours of varied flying is a good start. Then a "Teaching course" where the candidate learns HOW TO TEACH including the ground school. We need to have ground school made compulsory (as I have said before) as it benefits everybody.

As an aside, in the USA it is legal to instruct without a medical at all if you are instructing a PPL who holds a valid rating but is eg. out of currency.

Keep up the good work everyone...

[homeguard]

I agree with the full gist of what you have said bar this;

500hrs would be too excessive for too many and is not therefore realistic.

The high average for a PPL per annum is unlikely to be more than 25 hours. Take off say a hundred hours; PPL training, Advanced ratings, differences training etc and your left with 400 hours to achieve which would mean in the region of 16 years experience.

Perhaps 300 hours to include 200 hours PIC and with prescribed experiences such as Aerobatics, Tail wheel, Complex, IMC, Night and extensive X/Country to be included, or at least an appropiate selection from the list. An experience norm would then be in the region of 5 - 10 years as a Pilot.

I wholely agree that teacher training in addition to instructing is a must. I've found the Phsycology contibutions at recent seminars fascinating. Malcolm Hunt applied such knowledge brilliantly at the GAPAN Forum.

[lady in red]

Yes, I suppose 500 is a bit high but the point I was trying to make is that the PPL instructor should have a fair bit of varied experience and if anything, holding a licence for a longer period is part of gaining that experience especially in this country. Not only does one need the weather understanding that comes from flying through several seasons but the maturity from dealing with a variety of problems. I am very suspicious of the type of instructor who has done everything from ab initio to instructing within 15 months and a lot of it in another country. UK experience is essential.

As an aside, I think that if a PPL is only doing 25 hours a year max he may not have enough consolidated experience for instructing. My own example is that I went from starting to learn to fly to becoming an instructor within 4 years, but at the time of the rating being issued I had 370 hours including landing at 70 different airfields in 14 different countries, flown 10 types including 3 twins (over 90 hours multi) and 4 tailwheel types, some aeros in a Stampe and was working on the aerobatics certificate. And I felt I was only just beginning!! Contrast with the guys today who have 200 hours virtually all on PA28s and have hardly ever landed anywhere away from base other than on their QCC - they have no experience to offer prospective PPLs!

[wilsonalec]

I am an FIC authorised Instructor - and my expeiences of FI(R) students who have passed the ATPL exams & flight tests are as follows:

Many have no idea whatsoever about basic physics - eg's: don't know the difference between thrust & power; assume that forces, componts & resultants are all synonyms etc, etc. However, they have all been given enough practice papers to pass the exams - possibly without any real understanding?

A considerable proportion of what is taught on approved ground-school courses is 'simplified' - eg's:

Coreolis force - only ever explained N/S. That's because the conservation of momentum arguement falls flat on it's face E/W - and for good reason - because it's wrong. Sad, because the real explanation isn't really that difficult;

Compass errors - have you ever noticed the compass card 'dipping' when flying N or S? - me neither, and that's because it doesn't - oh dear - another wrong 'explanation';

Lift - the usual diagrams miss out the most important part - the starting vortex! Can you believe that the vast majority of the worlds' professional pilots have no idea of the basic principle that keeps them airborne? Unfortunately they don't! - it's the effect of viscosity.

But it doesn't stop there - now we come to flying training. CPL students are taught to fly in a commercially expedient fashion, which is sometimes inappropriate to SPPL instruction eg. - it is not appropriate for a 10 hr first solo student to lower the flaps in a final turn, or to use the power - roll - pitch recovery when the a/c stalls from the inevitable pitch-up. Yet many CPL graduates assume that what they were taught on their course was 'gospel' - having not understood that the techniques they learned for the CPL were appropriate for a higher level of experience.

In conclusion I can see no reason why a good PPL should not be allowed to teach to PPL level without passing the CPL/ATPL exams and flight test, provided the FIC ground-school is carried out properly.

[lady in red]

I have been advocating the passing of a pre-entry written examination for FI candidates as well as an interview to assess suitability plus the flying pre-entry test, purely because this would assist in assessing aptitude and character, the hours in the logbook and ticks in the boxes not being a reliable indicator of suitability or aptitude for FIs.

To add to the last posting, how many FIs are aware of the insurance requirements for SEP aircraft and the intricacies of pilot warranties, usage and liabilities of instructors? How many know anything at all about the validity of a Cof A and what a check 'A' constitutes? Where to find the rules on Pilot maintenance? What "straight oil" is for and why it is important to know? How many know the legalities of instructional flying in aircraft with private C of A and what they should ask the owners?

Yet they still fly and take the risks...if commercial pilots do not know basic aspects of Air Law and still go flying (with expired ratings, medicals, without proper concern for insurance) how can we expect PPLs to understand their responsibilities?

I believe that we have to construct a different type of course for instructors and it has to be focussed on teaching ability not jumping through the hoops required for an ATPL. Anyone who is interested in these ideas should send me a PM and also let me know if they are interested in joining an International Instructor Association to take these ideas forward.