GAPAN proposes new Instructors Licence

[Ian_Wannabe]

Hi guys - Forgive me if this has been covered before, a search brought up nothing for me.

I was just looking through the news bit on Flyer and read this....

"The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN) Instructor sub-committee has been looking at various issues relating to flying instruction.

One of their major proposals is the creation of a new Instructors licence, which would focus on training specifically for the purpose of teaching flying.

A CPL would no longer be a prerequisite.

They recomend flying training should have far more emphasis on safety, safe standardised techniques and recognition of potentially hazardous situations and should include analysis of accident reports to learn how to avoid repetition of such errors.

And they say the some instructors leave a lot to be desired - there is no place in a cockpit for aggression, bullying, bad language; nor is it pleasant to share the confined space with the heavy smoker or garlic chewer!

A CPL would no longer be a prerequisite"

What does this mean in terms of going commercial?

As I understand, you need a CPL to instruct because you're getting paid for your teaching.... would this new licence come in as a quick (maybe less expensive) route for instructors and then maybe appeal to Career Instructors?

Any thoughts?

[BEagle]

1. It is not official GAPAN policy, merely a suggestion from the Instructor sub-committee which reports to the Education and Training Committee.

2. The concern is over the quality of flight instructors and the desire to open a career path for professional flight instructors.

3. Some feel that 'here today, going asap to the airlines' hours-builder FIs lower the status of flight instructors.

4. Several organisations are considering proposals to include the right to give remunerated flight instruction as part of the FI Rating privileges (as it currently is for certain aircraft), not simply part of the CPL privileges. Hence a PPL/FI might one day be permitted to give remunerated flight instruction as was once the case. The GAPAN instructor committee are thinking of proposing a different licence rather than modifying FI Rating privileges.

5. There is absolutely no intention of reducing the standards required of a flight instructor. The content of the FI training course would need to be increased to cover relevant technical and regulatory knowledge, but not the entire CPL theory knowledge. There would be a much greater emphasis on personal qualities, the ability to impart instruction and instructional technique than there is at present - the course would certainly be 'harder' but the end product would be a sound FI whose ambitions lie in the field of flight instruction.

6. Were this to come about, we would hopefully have some sound PPL/FIs back, many of whom would have other day jobs, perhaps choosing to instruct one or two days per week or at weekends. The number of hours builders whose life consists of a series of 'trail lessons' whilst they build up hours in order to run off to some airline, never to instruct again, would reduce significantly. The PPL training world would end up with a larger number of FIs who actually want to instruct, rather than FIs who are using their ratings for 'free' hours building. But, of course, having spent a few years instructing, there would be no reason why a PPL/FI couldn't then embark upon CPL qualification.

[GT]

It still begs the question, though, where would the 'career' wage come from for the 'career' flying instructor? Don't get me wrong: I think the idea's worth looking at, but I think remuneration will always be a problem.

Regards, GT.

[porridge]

The 'career wage' would presumably come from the same source as the microlight & helicopter instructor benefits from?

[RVR800]

Will GAPAN be paying compensation to all those who had to jump through all these uneccessary hoops in order to be JAA instructors?

If this proposal was implemented the CPL exams may well need to be scrapped. There would be no little point in them as most of the jobs for CPL exam candidates come from the instructing sector.

On that subject of wasting money jumping through unneccessary hoops: Of course we still are waiting for the European response to the impending ICAO Multipilot licence that will soon put PPLs straight into airline training - this will reduce CPL and ME IR training in those countries as those equivalent bits would be covered in the multi pilot rating in the context of the airliner - no need to bother about PFLs or single pilot ops when you dont need these skills?

We should all know a lot more next year about the next raft of changes that are being proposed when the Freedom of Information Act comes into force and the CAA will be required to reveal all its minutes on these matters if asked....

Effect of JAA implementation on UK (CPL) Pilots

1/ Increased Cost
2/ Increased Difficulty
3/ Increased Time
4/ More competition for jobs from English speakers in EU

BUT NO ACCOUNTABILITY - NOBODY VOTED FOR ALL THIS

And now what is planned next?
Oh; lets relax all the rules again; so youv'e wasted all that cash!
We have wasted your time and money but we dont care...
:ugh:

[rotavator]

Re. "to open a career path for professional flight instructors"

The interesting thing is that such a career path exists for professional flight instructors in the 1-2 commercial training establishments in this country.

I find it difficult to see a business case for the suggestion as the commercial realities are somewhat different from the well-intentioned aspirations involved in the suggestion.

As for the comments on yet another raft of changes to the regulations....well, let's be honest: isn't that the only "refreshing" aspect of light GA flying in the UK :-(

[RVR800]

Yes the 'Port and Wine by the fire' brigade at it again.

Of course regulatory bodies think they have done a good days work by introducing yet more new regulations....so the CAA will love this.. opportunity for an all expenses paid trip using the exam revenue they've collected...'

Amsterdam anyone?

I think we should propose a 'national' CPL and 'national' ATPL and 'national' IR and 'national' FI rating in fact............

'Now where is that CAP54'

:uhoh:

[King Kenny]

The 'career' wage is definitely a factor in retaining instructors, but if, as suggested by GAPAN there is a career instructor rating instroduced where are all the young PPL instructors sourced from? Surely there would be a shortage.

To defend the current non-career instructors, a letter was also posted in either Flyer or Pilot a few months ago from a CFI regarding his current commercially orientated FI's, saying they are the best he has worked with in a long time. At least they have a wider respect for aviation than just C172, PA-28, AA5-A.....:hmm:

[DFC]

I know lots and lots of professional pilots. People who decided to make their living flying aircraft.

They are "Career Pilots".

Most of them started off earning by providing instruction and when career progression came along, they took the oportunity presented to them.

From experience, most "career instructors" are people who have started out as "career pilots" but have not made any progression beyond PPL flight instruction..............in some cases that is because they are not the type of pilot/person that one wants to sit beside in a Commercial Jet.........and in at least one case, I would not sit next to them in any aircraft!

Is career stagnation realy a good thing?

If it is then obvously we will have the following;

Good pilots who teach will be stuck teaching.
Good teachers will never become Head.
Good a&e doctors will never progress to department heads or consultants.
Good bobbys will never progress from the beat to plain clothes
......now would that be good?

Regards,

DFC

[RVR800]

Still cannot understand why we need to make the route to FI status easier given that the over-supply of FIs currently has the effect of setting the market rate for instructors at around the national minimum wage?

:sad:

This is the real issue; one simply cannot build a career on such a poor wage - that situation will be made worse by this proposal...
The reason people NEED to move on in their 'career' is partly because of these low wages not just because they have a need to build hours...

:confused:

One other issue is that of what precisely is the reason why anyone would want to do the CPL exams if this was
implemented - one assumes they would be scrapped?

:\

[BEagle]

I don't think that the intention would be to make the re-emergent PPL/FI the sole route in the future; rather it is to facilitate the aspiration of part-time FIs who are happy to teach for a couple of days per week at a RF but don't want to become full-time commercial pilots.

It's up to those who want a PPL/FI back to propose a suitable course - I doubt whether it would ever be any 'easier' though!

[mikeo]

Well I don't want a change!

After a few years trying to decide what to do I have recently taken the plunge and started my CPL theory course in order to be a career FI. I'd be a bit gutted if the rules were changed now.

:{

[RVR800]

NOT having to do the CPL in my book is EASIER...

Will they have to do all this?......No

http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/jar-fcl/jar-fcl_cpla_frame.html

or Section D in this?....................No

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS.PDF

IF they are exempt that training its got to be easier....?

Any compensation for the people like mikeo that have wasted their time and money if it all reverts back...? :{

The fact that people elect to do this part-time (like myself)
is largely due to the fact that the 'profession' of flying instructors is currently very poorly paid and this propsal will just exacerbate that problem by increasing the number of instructors....

One assumes that the CPL exams will stop if it is implemented?

[Whirlybird]

Well, I did the CPL, when all I ever wanted to do was instruct. And I would be ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED if a more relevant course purely for FIs was introduced.

I learned all the CPL stuff...and I've forgotten at least half of it, because it was irrelevant. An instructor on R22s doesn't need to know about machmeters and jet streams. OTOH, the very little bit I learned about how to teach, and how people learn, and that sort of thing, was glossed over at high speed on my FI course, with the implication being that we needed to get on to the Real Thing, ie flying.

I suffered as a PPL student from hourbuilding instructors who knew little about teaching and sweet bugger all about people, and who couldn't wait to get an airline job. I ended up traumatised and lacking in confidence, and the fact I didn't give up is down to my sheer stubbornness, nothing else. And I'm not unique. And now, as a newish FI, I struggle to teach my students, because while I had loads of facts thrown at me during all that studying, they weren't the facts I needed.

Yes, if things change, a lot of my time and money doing the CPL will have been wasted. But so what? If something better comes along, am I going to stand in the way because it's too late for me? How dog-in-the-manger-ish can you get? And ultimately, nothing in life you do is really wasted anyway.

Whether this will work or not I don't know, but it's a bloody brilliant idea, about time it came along, and why don't you all stop whinging about oh-dear-it's-unfair-cos-I-did-the-exams and all that crap. If you've got a reason against it, it ought to be better than that. And it won't be any easier, just different. Anyone who thinks instructing WELL is easy has never done it, or certainly never done it right! And I've done enough other jobs to have some idea what I'm talking about here.

Oh, and as for pay....as someone said, helicopter and microlight instrutors make a living, and so will f/w ones, once we remove the hourbuilders.

[BigEndBob]

The GAPAN article seems to suggest the stanadard of instructors is falling.

No, the experience level is falling. Nearly gone are the instructors who benifitted from HMG paying for their excellent training.

Who wouldn't have given ther right arm to fly tiger moths, stearmans, early jets and later jp's and lightnings.

The modern instructor is self finnaced and is just as dedicated
as any past instructor, its just they have a lower experience base to call on.

Modern instructors haven't experienced spinning a Harvard for instance. What confidence builders these could be.

You don't become a good driving instructor by only ever having driven a mini.

[RVR800]

Its true to say that the need for hours building will always exist in an enviroment where fATPL supply exceeds demand so this proposal will not affect that problem at all.

What happens is that Johnny gets his fATPL sends off his CV can't get a job and needs to build hours .. so then becomes an FI .. that won't change.. all that will happen is that there will be more instructors cos it will be cheaper and quicker that the existing route...so the average wage will reduce.. supply/demand

It will attract many hobby weekend pilots back to the profession..

Also BigEndBob makes a good point about the retirement of many HMG types.. I was trained by ex RAF pilots with load of different types in their log book and excellent instructors they were too.

Sad to say this proposal will not address that issue.....

Professional people need a professional wage thats the real issue
- you Helicopter types are loaded anyway!:uhoh:

[rotavator]

Whirlybird

I agree with a lot of what you have stated. The one thing that I fear is the difficulty in enforcing what GAPAN propose. If it cannot be enforced then at worst, there will still be a variance in the teaching quality and at best, the FTOs will go for the cheapest option.......I will leave you to guess what that would be.

IMHO the reason heli instructors can make a living is because of short supply. That sortage is due to cost of becoming a heli instructor.


BigEndBob

A lot of the older generation of instructors had military experience and could offer insight into spinning the bigger and
different (Tigers etc) types. This is not an option for the new non hourbuilding instructors. I would say that if I am to teach the spinning characteristics of a C150 then I would make sure that I was competent as a teacher and a pilot in doing so.

[Ian_Wannabe]

Rotavator - You say there are:

"1-2 commercial training establishments in this country".

I dont really know much about the entire instructor situation in the UK.....what are these establishments? Are they 'sausage factory' type instruction centres for GA?

Also, Porridge - You say that:

The 'career wage' would presumably come from the same source as the microlight & helicopter instructor benefits from?

Once again, with the little knowledge I have - what is this benifit that mircolight and helicopter instructors see? Is it just down to there being so few instructors for this kind of flying?

Cheers

Ian

[lady in red]

BigendBob and Whirlybird make good points. You cannot buy experience and what we need are instructors who (a) can teach and (b) have experience. The proposals include the ability to credit other teaching experience as well as aviation knowledge. The worst candidates for instructor courses are those straight out of fATPL courses who have never even held a PPL so how can they know what it is like to be one and how hard it is for the average person to achieve?

[ENG]

Thats a very unfair statement. The same could be argued that a straight PPL instructor doesn't have what it takes to get the best from a student because he lives in his own small bubble (the local area) and hasn't got what it takes to progress. The present system works and in my view allows the students to see that a PPL is just the first rung on the ladder. GAPAN should be left to do what they do best sponsor TALK ALOT.

[RVR800]

If an FI was paid well - then there would be no need for many guys to trade up to that better paid job

The reason why they get paid poorly? - cos' there are so many of them....

There will be even more FIs - if this proposal comes in and many will be hours building for a better paid (none instructor position)

People will always want to progress... Its just survival... Many
instructors only get paid the national min. wage..........

I was told by an instructor that between the wars it was quite a well paid job being an FI - then came WW2...:{

Anyway If this proposal comes in then NOBODY will do the CPL exams - why would they?

[Whirlybird]

I think (though I'm not sure) that the proposal means that we have a distinct instructor qualification, and that the hourbuilders can't instruct if they don't have it. So there will actually be LESS instructors, and those that there are will want to be instructors. The hourbuilders will have to hourbuild some other way, and the instructors will be better paid...law of supply and demand. The students will be taught be instructors who want to be there, who are trained to teach, and who will probably stay for longer. So they'll probably complete the course in fewer hours, costing less for them overall.

At least, that's how it would be if I was responsible for it.

[P.Pilcher]

The reason fixed wing instructors remuneration is so poor is market forces, pure and simple. I have been in aviation since I lerned to fly in 1970 and then instructed for 25 years. During all that time, there have always been plenty of instructors because, for one reason or another, instruction could be used for hour building which either helped to get that CPL or made it easier to get that job because there were more hours in your logbook.
In the early days, you either forked out an arm and a leg to do an approved course to get a CPL/IR with about 250 hours experience, or gained 750 hours somehow and then you could take the tests. Pass them and your licence was issued. The hours could be gained (unless you were wealthy) by either para dropping, glider towing or - instructing - .
The aim has always been to get "career" instructors for the reasons stated in other posts. I obtained my rating by doing a course once I had achieved 150 hours P1 on my PPL. I never thought of gaining my CPL (the old way) until I has amassed over 1200 hours - but then I enjoyed instructing and it was my weekend hobby. During that time I crossed the path of many an hour building instructor and had to sort out the problems that they left behind. Then, to overcome this problem, the powers that be introduced the requirement to gain a BCPL before gaining an FI rating, now it is a full CPL. What has also happened is that it is much easier to borrow money for training than it was 35 years ago, and as plenty of people want to become airline pilots, they are not restricted by a lack of funds in the way we were previously, never mind the cost of the loan - live today! So now, to make themselves more attractive to employers, such people borrow even more to gain their FI ratings and then bump up their hours.

The ONLY way to gain career instructors is to make it impossible for such people to use the position to further their career with the airlines. Then the only people who gain such ratings will do so because they really want to instruct. This will cause a shortage and the pay will increase to make it worthwhile for such people to gain their ratings. It will also increase the cost of learning to fly.

P.P.

[homeguard]

I really cannot believe that having a dedicated Instructor Rating should affect anyone other than those who are not really bothered to do and know the job well.

Any qualification required by law should not be to protect anyones interest other than the recipients training. It certainly should not be designed to provide a path to other things.

However, should a potential 'Airline Pilot' believe that it is in their interest to gain an 'Instructor Rating' , building hours and life experiences to enhance their chances to find work such as flying a Heavy Transport then thats OK with me.

But! Why the hell should someone who wishes to instruct be it full time or part time - for that is a choice - have to first qualify to be a 'Heavy Aircraft Public Transport Pilot', as now? That makes no sense.

As to a regime; selection of the right types of chaps to be Instructors. God forbid that the Stalinist/Social Elite, those who advocate that they know best, should be allowed to vet the types of people who should be Instructors. No! No! What a disaster that would be.

[excrab]

Apologies to those who knew the old system if this is a bit long winded.

I'm afraid I would agree with lady in red - to give value to a flying club a ppl instructor really needs to know about things that your average ppl holder is likely to want to do - VFR flying in UK and across the channel, air rallies, flying into grass strips, and possibly a working knowledge and experience of pfa type aircraft and maybe even some microlight flying thrown in.

Most graduates from abinitio CPL courses have little or no knowledge of any of these things. Most likely someone who has held a ppl for years and wants to instruct part time at weekends because flying is their hobby will have a better knowledge of such subjects. So what if they cannot fly complex singles or twins and don't hold an instrument rating with an MCC certificate and a jet orientation course completed. The average PPL has only a passing interest in such things and is more likely to want to know about flying into Little Snodgrass than Heathrow.

Conversely an instructor instructing at a school offering commercial training is going to need CPL/IR/ATPL knowledge.

In the good old days there was a distint split. Club instructors had a ppl/imc/night rating and an instructor rating (either AFI or QFI) and they taught for those ratings. A CPL was only required to teach commercial/FI or IR. Clubs were well served by these ppl instructors, most of whom tended to instruct for longer just because it took longer to get qualified even if they were hours building. Most would get their CPL at about 800 hours and then scrape together the money for an IR which they would have with about 1500 - 2000 hours of instructing at which point if they were lucky they might get a job on an SD360 or something similar.

At the other end of the scale the few commercial training schools were staffed mainly by instructors who were ex military or ex BA, who having retired at 55 didn't have the option of flying for easyjet or ryan air and handed their skills and knowledge back to the next generation of pilots. Because the vast majority of CPL candidates were only doing enough training to pass the CPL and IR (the 700 hours exemted you from any formal course) there was no need for huge numbers of CPL and IR instructors - many of whom nowdays have little more experience than their students in actual commercial/IFR operations.

So really the system today doesn't work - you have a lot of FI(r)s at flying clubs who never bother to become IMC or night instructors and have probably never been inverted in an aircraft in their lives so definately no aerobatic instructor rating. Perhaps they have better theoretical knowledge from the ATPLs but 90% of that isn't even relevant to operating commercially on a day to day basis.

If you really want to solve the problem then just stop hours logged as an instructor being allowable to unfreeze an ATPL, obviously with some lead in time for those already in the system.
Anyone who wants to be an airline pilot can then get the multicrew license when it is introduced.

[Whirlybird]

excrab,

I couldn't agree more. When I got my PPL(A), I remember asking about landing on grass, and no-one was really very familiar with it! Later I asked about taildraggers, and they looked at me as though I was some kind of loony!!! The school was almost totally geared up to getting people through the PPL, then possibly IMC, and maybe then going commercial. Anything else seemed to be a complete blank to them - they didn't know about it and didn't want to.

[RVR800]

This GAPAN legislation will not solve any of the above issues

I reckon it will be solved when airline pilots do almost all of their training on airline sims as they will shortly be able to do........under ICAO

The GA sector will then be separate as on Page 8

http://www.faa.gov/avr/iasconference/documentation/Licensing%20&%20Operations/Agenda%20Item%2015%20%20and%2016%20-%20PEL_ICAO.pdf

[BEagle]

RVR800 - the MPL proposal is not making much progress, thank heavens. Only 10 hours solo time ever? The airlines are getting cold feet not because they have the safety concerns which wiser heads have, but because they're worried that they may have to start paying for training. Bean counter concern, not safety culture concern. Speaks volumes about current airline decision makers, in the view of many.

There is NO 'GAPAN legislation'....

Minor changes to the existing FI rating privileges are all that would be needed to achieve the Instructor Sub-Comittee's aims - together with a more appropriate FI course.

The prospective airline 'hours building FI' currently goes down a PPL, CPL/IR, FI, hours build sequence - the intention is to change that to PPL, FI for those who want it. The prospective people-tube person then continues with hours building followed by CPL/IR. And why not?

[RVR800]

Yes re:MPL isn't it all signed off for go live in 2007 under the FAA?
Think that link (above) shows that date.

But in Europe it isn't agreed: suppose there are so many folks willing to stump up £100K incl 737 type ratings in EU that there is no need for the airlines to bother.....Suppose it would be good for Ryanair if those same folks paid the airline the same cash though then they could train them in-house-That would be a nice additional income stream for them..


:eek: