Teaching On A PPL

[robinpiper]

I seem to remember that an instructor once mentioned to me that is was possible for a PPL to teach somebody to fly as long as is was for free.

Does anybody have any experience or know the rules?
Can I log the hours as P1 & the student log the hours as P U/T

[Whirlygig]

I think you would have to have the required hours (250 for heli, not sure about fixed wing) and complete the CPL theory exams plus FI course. Even then, I think you could only be an FI(R).

Not sure that would give you any advantage.

Cheers

Whirls

[Halfbaked_Boy]

As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I am wrong, anybody), the 'teach for free' concept is applicable if you have just a PPL and an Instructor's Rating, albeit without holding a Commercial Pilot's Licence which is required if you are to fly for reward.
I also believe that you may charge your 'student' anything up to half of the price of the cost of that flight under CAA regulations - cannot remember the section but that which states that each pilot/passenger on a Private flight (or instructional without a CPL) may pay up to his share of the cost.

Hope this answers your question,

Jack.

[Whirlygig]

There are different regulations depending on whether the PPL is JAA or CAA.

Cheers

Whirls

[robinpiper]

I've got a CAA PPL issued in 1994. Does this put me in a better position?

[Mike Cross]

There's nothing I've found anywhere that says you can't teach your granny to fly if you want to. The problem is none of it counts towards license requirements unless you have an FI rating.

If you have a PPL with an FI rating you can teach to PPL standard. Full stop, end of story.

If however you want to be paid it then becomes Aerial Work (unless it's a Microlight or SLMG) for which you need a professional license. And of course if you have a professional license you need a Class 1 medical to go with it. This has sweet fanny adams to do with the fact that you are instructing. It is simply to do with the fact you are being paid.

The exemption for Microlight & SLMG instruction is in the licence privileges in the ANO.

There are additional exemptions that allow you to do Aerial Work in the form of Glider Tugging and Parachute Dropping these are in the "Public Transport and Aerial Work" section.

Given that instruction is given in benign conditions (students don't fly in bad weather) I don't see any reason why there should not be a similar exemption for instruction. The instruction is equally valid if given by a CPL or a PPL so what's the point of the CPL requirement? The notion that the paid instructor needs a Class 1 to ensure that he won't overstrain himself carrying the loot to the bank is laughable.

It would be a great benefit to all to simply make an exemption. It would reduce costs and encourage PPLs who want to instruct to do so because they would be able to recover the cost of obtaining and maintaining their FI rating.

It would defer entry on to the CPL course for those wanting a career in commercial aviation. When they eventually went for the CPL/ATPL they would be more experienced with the extra hours under their belt and get more benefit from the course, and it would do away with the situtation where their expensively earned multi & IR's lapse while they are still building up experience. They could arrive at their interview with freshly minted ratings.

It would give the FTO's reduced costs and less staff turnover.

It would force the hours-builder to raise his game to meet the competition from PPL/FI.

It would reduce the cost of learning to fly because the student would not be forced to meet the cost of the CPL and Class 1 held by the instructor.

Mike

[BEagle]

To instruct for the PPL whilst holding a PPL on SEP Class aeroplanes, you will need:

1. To have passed the CPL exams.
2. To hold a FI Rating.
3. To work at an RF from a licensed or government aerodrome.

Some of this may change; in particular the requirements to have passed the CPL exams and to work from a licensed or government aerodrome. But not for some years, I would guess.

PPL, then experience, then FI Rating, then instructional expereince.....and then CPL and IR is the way ahead as Mike says. But tit can't be done with just an exemption, there would need to be an ANO change.

[IO540]

I think the only way to understand a lot of these apparently silly restrictions (like having to sit the massive ATPL ground school, just to be able to be a paid PPL instructor) is that they are in place to keep a lid on what the CAA sees as rogue operators.

If you make something more difficult, there will be fewer people doing it; it doesn't matter that the extra difficulty is not connected with the actual requirements of the job!

[Whirlygig]

like having to sit the massive ATPL ground school, just to be able to be a paid PPL instructor
A paid PPL instructor is an oxymoron like Fun Run or Military Intellligence! :}

A instructor holding a PPL only cannot be paid (unless they are one of the few left who still have the grandfather rights from the olden days of CAA).

You do not have to sit the 14 ATPL exams; you can sit the 9 CPL exams.

Whilst the old CAA system (as noted by BEags and Mike) was much simpler, there is no advantage to going that route at the moment.

Using helicopter requirements ('cos that's all I know but fixed wings is similar), one must build one's hours up to 250 in order to be able to take an FI course. In the meantime, one must pass 9 (or 14) exams. However, at 155 hours, one is eligible to take a commercial flight course thereby gaining a CPL. Since the hours for the CPL count towards the 250 for the instructors course, one might as well do the CPL (the only difference in cost would be the dual hours with an instructor and licence issue) and then you could be paid.

However, I do think that if one can only get a Class 2 medical, then one can instruct without renumeration on a PPL.

Cheers

Whirls

[IO540]

instructor holding a PPL only cannot be paid (unless they are one of the few left who still have the grandfather rights from the olden days of CAA).

Didn't all those get a honorary BCPL, enabling them to receive money?

Another nugget (not sure if it's true) is that such an instructor, having got his BCPL, now has a "CPL" for the purpose of having an IMC Rating (every UK - not JAA - CPL or ATPL has automatic IMCR privileges) so he can teach the IMCR without ever had any instrument training himself. I am pretty sure I had one such instructor - he had never held more than a PPL.

Instructors can make money - it comes down to utilisation. In Arizona they get to fly 8 hours a day. They could fly 16 hours a day but would be even more knackered than they are already. The problem is the UK weather, and far too few students for the # of schools (or the # of instructors in a given school).

[PantLoad]

Robinpiper,

As far as the U.S. is concerned, the answer is a flat and simple "NO". Don't know about the rest of the world.

FAR Part 61 defines the requirements for 'learning to fly'. Many of the requirements for a 'student' cannot be met without a Certified Flight Instructor.

Now, having said that...you, yourself, as a private pilot, can take a friend along with you on a flight...and 'teach' some things about flying...but, as far as the FAA is concerned, your friend is not officially being 'instructed'.

Any FAA FSDO office can answer any of your questions.


PantLoad

[IO540]

Unfortunately this is mostly a UK forum.

[Whirlygig]

There's nothing I've found anywhere that says you can't teach your granny to fly if you want to. The problem is none of it counts towards license requirements unless you have an FI rating.

Yes but it might invalidate the insurance!

Cheers

Whirls

[IO540]

I don't see how. The insurance company won't know anything about it, and in a dual-control plane the PIC can sit on either side, so the position of the two bodies in the wreckage won't reveal anything :)

Personally I wouldn't do it without disclosure to the insurer however, because if there was an incident and the "student" was injured, and his lawyer found out that going after the pilot for negligence will result in a bigger payout, then has an incentive to at best spill the beans and at worst tell a few lies. One cannot rely on "friends" in a situation like that. Might backfire though, because of the insurance was voided he won't get anything at all, short of driving the "instructor" into bankrupcy.

[Whirlygig]

Eh? On the one hand IO540, you've said that you can't see how the insurance is invalidated and, on the other, you've described a situation where it could.

Insurance MAY be invalid in the event of accident. Not all policies will cover instruction. Whether the insurance company finds out who was in control at the time is irrelevant; it MAY be against the terms of the policy.

Cheers

Whirls

[RodgerF]

Quote

Another nugget (not sure if it's true) is that such an instructor, having got his BCPL, now has a "CPL" for the purpose of having an IMC Rating (every UK - not JAA - CPL or ATPL has automatic IMCR privileges) so he can teach the IMCR without ever had any instrument training himself. I am pretty sure I had one such instructor - he had never held more than a PPL

It's not true. Anyone who qualified under the 'old' rules would have needed an IMC rating to have the AFI rating issued.

[Mike Cross]

Whirlygig
Why is a paid PPL an oxymoron?

If I'm paid to teach someone to sail or to drive a motor boat I don't need a Master's ticket, nor does the vessel need to be licensed for Public Transport as a Passenger Carrying Vessel.

If I'm paid as a Driving Instructor I don't need a PSV licence and the car doesn't need to be plated as a commercial vehicle.

I can be paid to drop parachutists or tow gliders with a PPL so why do you think it's an oxymoron to be paid to instruct?

The answer is in the "purpose of the flight" as the ANO puts it. Public Transport requirements (be they land sea or air) exist to protect the fare paying passenger on a public transport undertaking. PPL instruction is not such an undertaking.

Why not go the whole hog and get a CPL? Well how much does the CPL course cost and why spend it if you have no need of it? How much does it cost to maintain a Class 1 instead of a Class 2?

And do you not concede that it would be beneficial for the aspiring CPL/ATPL to defer the expenditure, i.e. do the FI rating at 200 Hrs and then do the CPL/ATPL when he/she needs it and will gain greater benefit as a result of being more experienced.

There's a lot of dogma in this argument I'd sooner see a good case than dogma. Show me the difference in validity between:-

1. Instruction given by a PPL/FI
and
2. Instruction given by a CPL/FI

Beagle

While a change to the ANO would eventually be required it could be done pro-tem by publishing an exemption, as done in AIC White 128 (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W128.PDF) and AIC White 125 (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W125.PDF)

Quite why some exemptions are in the ANO, some are in the License priveliges, and some are in AIC's is a bit of a mystery to me. I suppose it gives the legal branch something to do.


Mike

[foxmoth]

I also believe that you may charge your 'student' anything up to half of the price of the cost of that flight under CAA regulations

This implies that the instructor would be paying for half the aircraft cost! AFAIK there is no problem with the student paying for all the aircraft costs but the instructor cannot charge for the instructing element if he only has a PPL (not sure about expenses though).

[Whirlygig]

Mike Cross, my understanding is that (apart from the few who have the old rights conferred on them by the CAA) a PPL holder cannot accept remuneration for instructing, or anything else. Now when somebody refers to a "paid PPL instructor" it is not entirely clear whether they are referring to a instructor who teaches to PPL standard or an instructor whose qualification is PPL! I took it to be the latter.

I am not disagreeing with you in what should be the case and what is fair but, under the current rules, I cannot see the point of going straight from PPL to FI without doing the CPL flight course in between. The difference in cost would be the cost of an instructor for the CPL course (given that you would have to pay for self fly hire for hour building to whatever hours are required for an instructor rating). The exams still have to be written.

However, if you are to be paid as a driving instructor you should have a PDI or ADI licence!!!

Cheers

Whirls

[Mike Cross]

Whirls

We agree. I was proposing an amendment to the existing regime.

Mike

[172driver]

To take this one further:

Assume you hold a FAA CPL/FI and a CAA/JAA PPL. All flights in the scenario below take place in JAA airspace. Can you:

a) instruct and do BFRs (FAA) in a N-Reg a/c ?

b) instruct and do BFRs (FAA) in a G (or other JAA) reg a/c ?

The FAA part is clear, as you hold the requsite license(s). But can you do it in JARland ?

Discuss.

[Whirlygig]

What's a BFR? And then one may have a stab at an answer!

Cheers

Whirls

[Mike Cross]

Biennial Flight Review, the FAA's equivalent of our 1 Hr with an instructor every 2 years.

[172driver]

BFR = Biennial Flight Review, i.e. the checkride you have to do every other year for your FAA license to remain valid. This has to be done with a CFI who then endorses your logbook. Consists of the usual check procedures, steep turns, stalls PFLs, some landings / go-arounds, slow flight, etc.

[Whirlygig]

Sorry, as a helicopter pilot I have to have an annual skills test so I didn't know that!

I would say a) yes and b) no but LASORS and FAA equivalent should answer that one.

Cheers

Whirls

[IO540]

a) instruct and do BFRs (FAA) in a N-Reg a/c ?
b) instruct and do BFRs (FAA) in a G (or other JAA) reg a/c ?

An FAA CFI can do BFRs in any aircraft reg.

However:

Under the UK ANO, Article 36, any instruction in UK airspace requires a JAA instructor rating - unless the instructor doesn't get paid - regardless of aircraft reg. There's also 26(4)(a)(ii) which applies to the use of foreign licences in G-reg planes. Any instructor getting paid in an N-reg also falls foul of Article 140 (this applies to a pure JAA FI too; no reason why you could not do your whole JAA PPL training in an N-reg otherwise).

My understanding is that this means that:

An FAA CFI can do a BFR in an N-reg if he doesn't charge for it (or, if he does charge, does it in airspace outside the UK ANO jurisdiction*). The student is normally PIC but the instructor can be PIC instead.

An FAA CFI can do a BFR in an N-reg if he does charge for it but then he also needs a JAA FI rating (which nowadays means sitting the CPL exams, etc, as discussed in another thread) in order to legally receive the money, and the aircraft owner needs DfT permission under Article 140. The student is normally PIC but the instructor can be PIC instead.

An FAA CFI can do a BFR in a G-reg but he also needs the JAA FI rating regardless of whether he charges for it. The instructor is always PIC on any training flight in a G-reg. This is true in any airspace, UK or foreign.

In all the above, a BFR is just the same as any other sort of flight training.

Practically, you can get DfT permission (Article 140) for flight traning in a foreign reg plane, subject to the ownership rules specified on the DfT website. Basically this means you have to a part owner, with under 5 owners in total. Then you can get a BFR with an FAA CFI, but he still needs the JAA FI rating if he takes money from you. Unless he does it outside the UK airspace*

* this obviously means abroad, but the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are interesting possibilities to look at - they have their own ANOs.

It's quite a mess. In practice, the charging issue (i.e. avoiding the need for a JAA FI rating, and/or avoiding the need for the DfT permission if say there are 5+ owners) is done by flying (with the instructor as a mere passenger) outside the UK FIR and then doing the training. Or (rather less legally) by a charge for "ground school".... just like training in Private CofA G-reg planes has for decades been done in the UK.....

I think the above is right. Would appreciate references if not.

[Mark 1]

I did it on a PPL/FI for a while before doing the CPL. You have the same privileges as the CPL/FI except for getting paid.

Of course, the PPL/FI can get paid for doing ground briefing and instruction, not that I'm proposing any abuse of the system of course.

[172driver]

IO540, sounds more or less like my understanding of the situation, but there are two snags (hence my question in the first place):

[I]An FAA CFI can do a BFR in a G-reg but he also needs the JAA FI rating regardless of whether he charges for it. The instructor is always PIC on any training flight in a G-reg. This is true in any airspace, UK or foreign.

This is interesting, as under FAA rules the student on a BFR is PIC. Reason being, that he's already got a license, hence is technically not a student any more (same, btw applies on a FAA PPL checkride, although in this case you don't yet have a license). Is this valid for all JAA regs in all JAA airspace? Where it gets even more interesting is:

In all the above, a BFR is just the same as any other sort of flight training.


Is it really ? In this scenario, the FAA CFI doesn't give any training but merely certifies that the pilot he's checking out is competent to fly. Somewhat splitting hair, I know, but that's what law is all about, isn't it :E ?

In addition to this, mind that in my orginal scenario the FAA CFI also holds a JAR PPL. Earlier in this thread it's been established that a PPL can indeed instruct (leaving the remuneration bit aside for the moment). Now, if this same chap is

a) allowed to instruct on the basis of his/her JAA PPL (no remuneration)
b) allowed to give a BFR (and get paid for it) under FAA rules

what's him/her to stop doing so in a G-reg? Flies as PPL w/o remuneration, gets paid under FAA rules. Very fine line, admittedly, but legal ?

PS: can any FAA CFI comment on wether a BFR constitutes training ? I don't think so, as for example you don't need a visa for the US if you do a BFR,, whereas the rules clearly say you need one for flight training....

[IO540]

You got me there, c172driver.

Obviously there are several interacting considerations:

1. Under the FARs, as a BFR "training"? I think every flight with an instructor is, but it may indeed depend on what purpose.

2. Can a pure JAA PPL really instruct at all (i.e. provide instruction which can be logged in any way)? I am not convinced that comes out of the debate in the other thread. If this were legal, there would be positively loads of PPL "instructors" freelancing all over the UK, charging for "ground school".

3. The requirements of the ANO for foreign reg planes, and what sort of stuff the DfT will allow.

[Mike Cross]

In the UK anyone can instruct (I can show my daughter how to fly the aeroplane) but in order for the instruction to count it has to be given by the holder of an FI rating. That rating can be attached to any license so long as the license is equivalent to or higher than the one being instructed for (JAR).

A professional license is only required if its paid for. Absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with instruction being given by a PPL/FI.

If you are instructing for PPL(M) or PPL(SLMG) you can be paid, even if you only hold a PPL. (have a look at the PPL privileges in the ANO)

There are of course additional requirements that come into play regarding the aircraft (suitability as a training aircraft, registration, certification etc)

[WestWind1950]

in Germany it is absolutely illegal to give any kind of instruction without having an FI rating! And you better not fly in the right seat with a guest in the left or you'll lose all insurance coverage (assuming here a "standard" SEP, there are exceptions to seating like with helicopters). AND, the instruction must be in a registered school, except by transition training.
You can also receive payment in Germany for instructing any time! Many clubs reinburse their instructors perfectly legally... without a CPL. But you do have to report earnings for taxes, but that's a different story.
So, the story is here...
1) instruction ONLY with FI rating!
2) payment permissable with JAA-PPL FI or CAA-PPL FI
3) FI's are always PIC when flying as an instructor, i.e. required training flights, etc. Flying just along for the ride then usually not.
So, that's the way it is here... so I guess this is another area where there is NO European harmony! :ugh:
Westy

[172driver]

Westy,

OK, so in my scenario this would be perfectly legal in Germany, provided the instructor in question holds a JAA FI (PPL or otherwise). This would make him legal from a German point of view and the BFR/training (whatever it then is) would of course be legal from an FAA point of view, as he holds the FAA CPL/CFI. Correct ?

To keep splitting hair, one could argue that he's not instructing to any JAA license (as the BFR is irrelevant for this), so again: is this instruction/training ?? Guess at the end of the day it comes down to an insurance thing.

Would still be interested to hear from some FI in the US as to BFR being training or not.

And no, I won't go into the European thing :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[IO540]

On a related topic, what are the rules for "freelance" PPL instructors in the UK (G-reg)?

My understanding is that this is not illegal, although training flights in Class A airspace (obviously this would be instrument training of some sort) must be done through a flying school.

Any references for any of this?

[Mike Cross]

JAR–FCL 1.125 Training course
(See Appendix 1, 2 & 3 to
JAR–FCL 1.125)
(See AMC FCL 1.125)
(a) General. An applicant for a PPL(A) shall
complete at an FTO or an accepted registered
facility the required instruction in accordance
with the syllabus as set out in Appendix 1 to
JAR–FCL 1.125. The requirements for
registration are set out in Appendix 2 and 3 to
JAR–FCL 1.125.

It depends on what you're doing. If it's PPL initial issue it's what it says above.

Mike

[stiknruda]

The current situation really makes no sense.

I have a long-held ambition to teach ab-initio boys and girls how to fly a Cub from a grass strip and to also teach basic aerobatics.

Albeit only a humble PPL, I believe that my experience, in excess of 500 hours in sexy sports biplanes and 200 hours in vintage taildraggers would make me better qualified than a youth with a frozen ATPL and the same hour in a 152 two hundred times.:)

So why don't I do it?:ouch:

Well an FIC costs circa £6k fully funded.:ugh:

My ambition is genuine but not fully altruistic, so I'd need a CPL to start recovering costs - 9 months of study and a further £6k.:ugh:

Twelve grand to pursue an ambition, not exactly a huge amount of money but I'm sure that I'd derive more enjoyment from pursuing a different ambition, learning to fly a helicopter!:cool: :cool:

[IO540]

Very true Stik.

Incidentally, can freelance instruction (still G-reg) take place for the IMCR or the IR? (I know about the "mandatory" ground school for the JAA IR, but I am thinking of whether flights logged with a freelance IR instructor would count)

[172driver]

While we probably have quite different approaches to flying ;), I really have to agree with stik here. This whole FTO business is absurd. Why can't you just do it like in the US, where you can home-study the whole theory, sit the exam, and if you pass - well, you're away! In any case, over there, you then still have the oral exam prior to the checkride (something a lot of people commenting on the 'ease' of an FAA license either don't know or conveniently omit....), so you get quite thoroughly tested, poked and tweaked before being let lose on the unsuspecting public.

Anyway, this gets away from my orginal question - and I'm still waiting for some input from an FAA instructor re the finer points raised in this thread.

[Flyin'Dutch']

The current situation really makes no sense.

I have a long-held ambition to teach ab-initio boys and girls how to fly a Cub from a grass strip and to also teach basic aerobatics.

Albeit only a humble PPL, I believe that my experience, in excess of 500 hours in sexy sports biplanes and 200 hours in vintage taildraggers would make me better qualified than a youth with a frozen ATPL and the same hour in a 152 two hundred times.

So why don't I do it?

Well an FIC costs circa £6k fully funded.

My ambition is genuine but not fully altruistic, so I'd need a CPL to start recovering costs - 9 months of study and a further £6k.

Twelve grand to pursue an ambition, not exactly a huge amount of money but I'm sure that I'd derive more enjoyment from pursuing a different ambition, learning to fly a helicopter!

You can do the CRI course.

Core course (1 week) and 5 hours flight training. Allows you to do differences training and the bi-annual training flight.

Can not be paid to do this instruction but capital outlay a fraction of the figures you quote.

[Mike Cross]

Well you can.......but

The market for that doesn't work. The PFA coaching scheme continues to languish in the doldrums.

So the freelance CRI can't charge anything but has to get himself trained and then find people who want his services. That involves advertising and marketing, more irrecoverable expense. Club pilots will continue to do their revalidations with club instructors, which leaves private owners, not the easiest people in the world to market to, and given the choice would you prefer to spend your hour with an experienced FI or a CRI?

The answer's not to fragment training more and to introduce dumbed down ratings (what next, Daily Inspection Instructor's Rating?) but do away with dogma so people who want to instruct (rather than use it as a stepping stone to something else) can recover costs without the expense of acquiring licenses and medical certificates that they neither want nor need and which confer no tangible benefit to the end customer.

Mike

[Flyin'Dutch']

Mike, I fully agree with you.

Just pointing out another virtually unknown route to do some instructing/mentoring for people like Stik (and myself).

Current system smacks of protectionism.

[unfazed]

Show me the difference in validity between:-

1. Instruction given by a PPL/FI
and
2. Instruction given by a CPL/FI

When you instruct you will meet lots of members of the public (some who shouldn't be anywhere near an aircraft) and you will often be working to commercial pressures for a commercial organisation. You may also have passengers on a trial lesson. When the weather is throwing you a curve ball that is when you MAY well see a difference.

Like it or not the CPL license sharpens up your skills and forces you to fly to tighter tolerances, it also provides excellent training for weather or passenger diverts.:)

[Mike Cross]

Not sure its protectionism Frank, just ill-judged regulation.

My reading of it is that the CAA got worried about 30 years ago as a result of things like amateur flying displays, joyrides, illicit charter, and a general carefree attitude with an unacceptable accident rate. As a result there was a tightening up of which the BCPL was a part.

Unfazed
You haven't answered my question. What is the difference in validity? None.

Mike

[G_STRING]

I'm curious, (or ignorant)...

What's a 'CRI' course??

[172driver]

Like it or not the CPL license sharpens up your skills and forces you to fly to tighter tolerances, it also provides excellent training for weather or passenger diverts

The FAA have got it right(er) here. Over there you also need a CPL to instruct, HOWEVER, you DON'T need a first class medical and, more importantly, you don't need to do something like 70% of the ATPL with all the time and cost associated. It's fine to hold instructors (or people doing sightseeing flights, etc) to a higher standard than PPL, but this has to be done within reason. As usual, in Europe it is not :ugh:

[WestWind1950]

a CRI course is a "class rating Insturctor course" i.e. a course for only class rating instruction of pilots already holding a PPL but NOT for instructing of beginners.

Mike, why advertise? This would be good for someone in clubs that have planes other then the usual C 152. It's good for someone who just wants to do it on the side for fun.

[Mike Cross]

why advertise?

I think you'd have a problem with the clubs. The paid instructors get paid little enough already and they'd be up in arms if they saw others doing "their" jobs for free. I suspect you'd also have a problem if the PPL/CRI was doing it for free and the club was charging for it (which they would be entitled to do as they would be providing the facilities behind it). There can't be a huge demand either for the services of CRI's. If you have a club with 500 members and they each need a revalidation flight every 2 years that's 5 flights a week to be shared out betwen the FI's and the CRI's.

Details of the PFA Coaching scheme are here. (http://www.pfa.org.uk/education_how_to_apply.asp) I believe the take-up has been disappointing.

The cost seems to be around 30 pounds per flying hour for the coach, quite how the legalities over payment are met I don't know.

You can also do the revalidation flight with a PFA Coach, details here. (http://www.pfa.org.uk/education_bfr.asp)

Interesting that they say the coaches and assitant couaches can sign the C of E, as my understanding was that it had to be signed by an Examiner.

Mike

[WestWind1950]

Mike, ok, I guess you have a point with some clubs, but the CRI can do transition training outside of schools and clubs. Like I mentioned before, in Germany it is legal for instructors to be paid without a CPL, except in regards to the tax declaration perhaps.

But this would cover stiknruda's problem! He wants to teach people to fly a cub, a taildragger... with a CRI he could... legally!

One weird thing.... a FI without a CPL (still some around from the old pre-JAR-FCL days) can fly around with a beginning student (with or without pay) at a commercial school, yet this same person cannot do sightseeing flights for the same commercial operation!

Most of the regulation are supposed to be "harmonised" within the JAA community, but I don't see much harmonization at all! :ugh:

Westy