Restricted Private Pilot Flight Instructor

[Jay_solo]

IF a PPL holder has an FI (R) rating, obviously they can't earn money from the flight instruction they give. So effectively you can only volunteer your services.

So is it common for flying schools or flying clubs to actually use a PPL qualified flight instructor?

Would there be any worth in gaining the qualification with just your PPL?

I'm just curious as to how it can be used in a meaningful and proactive way, even in a part time capacity, considering you wouldnt be paid. And i'm having a hard time thinking of many commercially operated flight schools that would take you on. :confused:

[Whopity]

Instructors are Instructors and you have as much chance of instructing on a PPL as a CPL, at least the school will know you are not there pending an airline job. Commercially operated flight schools probably don't do much PPL training but there are plenty of flying clubs that will be able to use you. Once EASA FCL is enacted (2112) at the latest, you will be able to be remunerated for PPL instruction on the basis of a FI rating on a PPL.

[neilr]

I understood that FI with PPL can only instruct at an RTF and not an FTO - and in addtion only up to PPL level (or in other words only up to the level of their license ... which I guess does make sense)

Neilr

[jamie230985]

you cant instruct in the UK on a PPL with an FI(r), you need a CPL to do so. In Europe it is possible however the CAA have put in a difference & opted out of the ICAO legislation to ensure Instructors have enough training as with just a PPL the experienced gained is not enough to allow you to teach effectively!!

[Islander2]

you cant instruct in the UK on a PPL with an FI(r), you need a CPL to do so
Better ask the CAA to revise the ANO then, it's presumably an oversight on their part that it states otherwise!

[Whopity]

The CAA have put in a difference & opted out of the ICAO legislation No they haven't, you have always been able to instruct on a PPL in the UK! You do need CPL level "knowledge" but that is a requirement of ICAO Annex 1.

[belowradar]

Yes but you can't be paid

If you are a PPL instructor and unpaid chances are that your student will still pay the same club dual rate for instruction.

Is this ethical or legal ? is my understanding correct ?

[chrisbl]

your point is?

[ewsd02]

I think the forthcoming EASA rules will allow PPL FIs to teach what is now effectively the NPPL. So the scope of clients will be quite limited.

There are plenty of FIs around at the moment with CPL/IRs, and granted not a lot of hrs, but at least they have passed some very difficult flight tests.

Another issue is that to pass an FI course in the UK your SEP flying needs to be 'tip top,' and unless you have a lot of hrs, you are better spending the money on a CPL to get to the correct standard.

[2close]

This is an excerpt from NPA 17b which clearly states that PPL FIs can be paid for teaching to PPL level. Of course, the jury is still out on this.

SECTION 2

Specific requirements for the PPL aeroplanes PPL(A)

FCL.205.A PPL(A) Privileges

(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as pilotincommand or copilot of aeroplanes engaged in noncommercial
operations.

(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) may receive remuneration for the provision of flight instruction for the LPL(A) or the PPL(A).

[belowradar]

chrisbl

My point is that if the student has paid the club for dual training at normal dual rate then payment has been made for the instructor

If the instructor cannot be paid then why is the student paying a commercial organisation for training at dual rates?

The club should not charge the student if the instructor cannot be paid?

What normally happens is that instructor is unpaid but club pockets a freebie from unwitting student or club pays instructor "in kin" to keep it under the table. Actually not a large problem as not many PPL iNSTRUCTORS AROUND.

[Legal Beagle]

Belowradar - well, if the EASA NPA gets put in place then PPL instructors will, once again, be able to be paid, as 2close points out, which will sort out this small difficulty.

[Whopity]

belowradar

the club is charging you for a service, what they do with the money is up to them, they do not have to charge everything on a pro-rata basis. If their charges are not competitive they will lose custom.

The PPL FI could well be a ground instructor for which he can be paid, provided it does not relate directly to hours flown. How many schools charge you for ground instruction? I know some do, but most don't. The profit margin on a PPL is small so I really can't get excited about a club making £10 because the FI is a PPL holder. The customer is still getting good value for money.

[belowradar]

Whopity

Sorry but I think that it is unethical in my opinion to charge a client not pay the instructor and pocket the difference. Why not be up front and reduce the charge to the client ?

If money is paid for dual training then instructor should have a CPL anything else makes a nonsense of the regs whatever the historical norm that prevails.

And yes I am familiar with EASA proposals but that is work in progress

Discuss ?

[madlandrover]

The problem with charging different rates is that some students will inevitably gravitate to the cheaper FI purely because they're cheaper. Is that ethical for the CPL holding FIs who are suddenly lean on work?

[belowradar]

I can see arguments both ways

1 - DONATE THE DIFFERENCE TO CHARITY

2 - FLY WITH NON CPL FI TO KEEP COSTS DOWN

Just highlighting the ethical aspect of this, no real axe to grind either way.

I Just think that the current system is unethical where client pays full whack and PPL FI fly's for free (although I suspect that clubs do pay FI regardless of CPL or PPL).

[ewsd02]

Sorry to spread yet more negativity, but I will anyway because this is pprune afterall!

Aside from of the relevant arguments, PPL holding instructors being paid is just about the last thing that flying training & therefore aviation needs just now with:

1. The MPL on the horizon possibly allowing students to bypass most of the aircraft based flight training
2. Lots of instructors chasing few jobs
3. Credit crunch economics hitting flying school bookings hard
4. Fuel costs
5. Major airports forcing out flying training with huge landing fees
6. Environmental protesters
7. Have you seen how many plane crashes there have been in the new over the past few weeks?

To those waiting with hope for the new EASA rules: If you want to instruct, do a CPL. If you are good enough to teach PPL, you'll have no issues passing the CPL.

[belowradar]

Airbus A38

Then I guess we will just ignore the regulations concerning remunerated flight instruction because it is much easier to do that ?

If a club were taken to court how would they prove that they did not charge a customer commercial rates for the services of a non commercial flight instructor.

[XXPLOD]

Belowradar - putting my police officer hat on here....

Take them to court? Under what piece of statute?

Since when has it been any kind of offence, civil or criminal to run a legit business and charge someone money for something that costs nowt?

Years ago, when working in catering if the professional qualified chef was off, I often inflicted my cooking on the paying public. They paid the same money for their meal regardless! :ok:

[belowradar]

XXXPLOD

Just because you always did it doesn't make it right. What you are saying is that if a FI who is not allowed to charge for his services operates through a third party then charges can be made.

the ANO is the legislation that applies and it is pretty clear

Now off you go to jail for poisoning half of the local community with your dodgy cooking :)

[XXPLOD]

LOL!

I reckon there's a lot of manoevering around the PPL instructors not able to be paid anyway. Most people instructing on PPL will be part time, doing it for the love of flying/satisfaction of teaching. I think most clubs probably don't 'pay' them, but I'm sure some might receive generous 'travel expenses' perhaps a meal on duty or favourable rates when they hire a plane for their own purposes.

I never poisoned anyone. That I know of! :yuk:

[boffo]

There seems to be a bit of confusion here.
If you have a pre-2000 PPL, with an FI rating, you CAN be paid.

In order to receive payment for flight instruction, an
instructor must hold a valid professional pilots licence and
valid JAR-FCL Class 1 Medical Certificate.
Instructors who hold valid private pilot licences and valid
JAR-FCL Class 2 Medical Certificate are entitled to
instruct but cannot receive payment for this service*.
* This does not apply to the holder of a UK PPL(H)
who qualified prior to 1 January 2000 under national
arrangements

Boffo.

[excrab]

ewsd02

Unpaid PPL flying instructors are just what flying training and Aviation want - they just aren't what paid instructors want.

To look at your points.

1. MPL means lesss work for flying schools, thus unpaid instructors reduce their cost base and allow them to keep in business.
2. Lots of instructors chasing few jobs, there are few jobs because of the global down turn, so flying schools are less likely to go bust if they have unpaid instructors.
3. Credit crunch hitting bookings, thus flying schools have to reduce their cost base, see 1 and 2 for the answer.
4. Fuel costs, see 1, 2 and 3 for the solution for the flying schools.
5. See 4.
6. Does a PA28 flown by a CPL holder make less noise or burn less fuel? If not then if environmental protests are reducing bookings then see 1 through 5 above for the best thing for the flying schools.
7. Aircrashes in the news recently - Turkish Airlines 737- ATPL holder in the left hand seat. Cogan Dash 8 - ATP rated pilot in the left hand seat. United (or whatever) Airbus - ATP rated pilot in the left hand seat. None of these had anything to do with instructors who hold PPLs, unless they reduce the number of people learning to fly thus schools have to reduce their cost base. In that case see 1 to 6 above.

You're right, those wishing to instruct for a PPL should be good enough to hold a CPL. They have to prove their level of knowledge by passing the CPL written tests and they have to prove their ability to instruct and fly the aircraft on the same instructor course and test as a CPL holder. However whilst they might have the ability, they may not have the money to pay for it. If someone wants to instruct one or two days a week part time why should they have to pay for CPL training on a complex type and for a flight test with the CAA in said complex type when almost all PPL training is done in fixed gear, fixed pitch singles. Being able to fly complex single, or a complex twin or a turboprop or a jet doesn't make any difference to the way I instruct on a C152 and probably wouldn't for a PPL holder with an instructors rating either.

I am, by the way, to some extent playing devils advocate here. I don't think that anyone should instruct for nothing. But I do think that PPL holders should be able to be paid to instruct, if they meet the required standard.

[AlphaMale]

If a club were taken to court how would they prove that they did not charge a customer commercial rates for the services of a non commercial flight instructor.

The way I see it you are getting a commercial service via the flying club/school.

I recently had a quote for over £25k for some painting in my apartment block along with the closest quote at nearly £26k.

I was surprised that when the Painters turned up they were Polish and their foreman Scottish. So should I complain that I should get the service cheaper due to them using Polish workers? Am I paying the Polish painters or am I paying the company based in Essex? :ugh:

I'm paying the company for a 'commercial' service, but what they do with their money is up to them. The job was carried out to a very high level and I think everybody is happy with the work.

Same applies to flying.

You pay the school for a service.

School pays the instructor for a service

If the school is restricted by law not to pay the (PPL) Instructor then I guess the school/club is doing right. But as said, the Instructor only holding a PPL might eat for free, have staff rates for personal AC rental, and maybe a discount will be given when the said PPL FI will want to do a CPL/MEP/IR etc.

Personally I'd have no issue with it.

[belowradar]

Alphamale

sounds like a reasonable argument until you realise that the painter and paint company do not have legislation specifically stating that only commercial paint license holders can be paid.

e.g. client is paying therefore it is a commercial profit driven contract, ANO regulations and definitions apply, surely ?

Analogy - If I pay an organisation (without an AOC) to get me to France in a light aircraft and they employ a PPL for free and pocket the dosh are you saying that that is fine because the poor old PPL didn't get any of the money ? I don't think that the CAA would agree.

[AlphaMale]

I can see both sides of it, but it's just easier to have a flat rate for an instructor and just change it for PPL/Night/IMC and then a different charge for MEP/CPL/IR.

After all, you could have a range of instructors on different pay i.e.

Instructor only holding a PPL but had 500hrs TT
Restricted Instructor with low hours
Instructor with 500hrs TT
Instructor with 1,500hrs TT
Instructor who's a specialists in IR's
Instructor who's also the school examinerI'd hate to be in charge of the accounts at a school where students pay different amounts for inexperienced/experienced instructors.

I've researched many schools and not come across any that state, if you use instructor XY then it'll be £30 cheaper per hour due to him only holding a PPL.

On the other hand, I'd like to become a flying instructor one day and if flying clubs start using FI's with PPL's over CPL's in order to keep their costs down then it'll make it impossible to become a full time career instructors for many. It'll be much like the gliding clubs where instuctors teach out of the goodness of their heart ;)

Interesting thread/debate all the same.

[belowradar]

Just one observation

It is fairly common practice to charge a different rate according to the qualifications of the instructor, ppl and imc rates are normally different as are cpl and ir. In the USA they have Gold Seal instructors who have demonstrated experience and they charge higher rates.

Key point though is if it is illegal then you are obliged to charge different rates by law like it or not.

[belowradar]

Airbus38

My position is that I am a freelance FI and I work independently of flying schools. I don't have any grievances towards traditional flying schools and there are good and bad schools out there and I have worked for both types.

I just think that if the club is not paying the instructor then they are not behaving very ethically if they charge the customer anyway and pocket the difference.

Do you have a problem with the cost saving being passed along to the student ?

[Legal Beagle]

Belowradar - I'm sorry, but this is a silly argument. There is absolutely nothing in law which ties the amount being charged for a service to the amount which it costs to provide the service. Like it or not that is how market forces work. It follows that a school can charge its students whatever it thinks the market will stand irrespective of what it may, or may not, pay its instructors. End of discussion.

Boffo - Just to clarify your point, both the PPL and the FI rating have to pre-date the rule change for this to work.

[belowradar]

Belowradar - I'm sorry, but this is a silly argument. There is absolutely nothing in law which ties the amount being charged for a service to the amount which it costs to provide the service. Like it or not that is how market forces work. It follows that a school can charge its students whatever it thinks the market will stand irrespective of what it may, or may not, pay its instructors. End of discussion

Legal Beagle - The ANO is a factor here so not simply market forces however I will defer to your legal knowledge Mlud ! My point was an ethical one which the letter of the law may well not give a toss about. :ok:

[bookworm]

If you are a PPL instructor and unpaid chances are that your student will still pay the same club dual rate for instruction.

Is this ethical or legal ? is my understanding correct ?

I won't comment on the ethics, just the legality. ANO Schedule 8 says:

(2) [A PPL] shall not:
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of public transport or aerial work save as
hereinafter provided:
(i) he may fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of aerial work which consists of:
(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, class rating instructor rating, flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating;

So yes, even though the flight is aerial work because the student is paying for instruction, the PPL FI may still be commander of this aerial work flight.

[chrisbl]

If you are a PPL instructor and unpaid chances are that your student will still pay the same club dual rate for instruction.


Belowradar, it is just as well with you being a freelance that schools dont reduce their prices when having the benefit of unpaid PPL instructors. If they did the students might choose the "cheaper " option. That would be at the expense of people like you.

I think the proper ethical position is to keep the prices at the same level where it is based on the value of the outcome of the service, not the cost of providing it.

[tropicalfridge]

So instructors shouldn't be paid now? Whatever will become of the profession. Perhaps instructors should go into the workplace of those who like to instruct for free now and again, and offer to do their job for free.

[belowradar]

Chris bl

Looks like Bookworm has come up with a definitive answer to this debate (well done bookworm)

[chrisbl]

Really - I thought he just stated the law? Any instructor worth their salt should know that anyway. If you are an instructor and you feel enlightened shame on you - you should be able to explain to a student what they can and cannot do with their PPL.

If you are not an instructor disregard the rebuke.

[belowradar]

Chris bl -

Why not try relaxing a little bit and taking up a hobby that will get rid of some of your anger and stress.

[chrisbl]

I thought you were the one stressed out by unpaid instructors.

[belowradar]

Not the case, you have made an incorrect assumption

[RVR800]

What is needed is an international agreement on standards that affect civil aviation worldwide - it would include training requirements for PPL, who can teach that etc.

This is not just about europe.

Most of the "port and wine by the fire" people who create all these rules are obsessed with regulation and "rule making"

What we need is a body whose mission is to remove rules and to simplify things. On the other hand we could continue to be plagued by none elected bureaocrats inventing rules that nobody voted for simply because it is their job as requlators to create more rules...

Now, where is my proposal for the ULBJ-PPL FI (Ultra Light Business Jet PPL Flight Instructor(Restricted)) ?

[igarratt]

can i ask (ignoring FCL.205.A) if you are instructing for no pay on a ppl are totally legitimate expenses like petrol able to be reimbursed without issue and also do you need a class 1 or is class 2 ok ?

are many people doing this ? I was looking at it as just a way of getting some extra P1 time while training for atpl/cpl, I wondered if FTO's would not do it due to reasons such as their insurance policy requiring CPL licence to be held ?

[chrisbl]

You need a class one, as for expenses I think the answer must be no. If you are doing for no compensation then it must be uncompensated. The danger is that it is seen as remuneration.

[BEagle]

are many people doing this ? I was looking at it as just a way of getting some extra P1 time while training for atpl/cpl......

With that attitude, your chances of working as an instructor are less than zero.

[MartinCh]

I think the proper ethical position is to keep the prices at the same level where it is based on the value of the outcome of the service, not the cost of providing it.

Some schools in the US choose to do so when paying their international student-becoming-instructors on J1 etc less than American instructors (still crap pay for what they do, but that's another debate).

I don't know that much about costing and expenses of flight school in the UK. Not many US schools would pay their instructors full 'instructor charge' paid by student on top of rental, I presume.

What cost would PPL FI constitute to flight school if it's not paying him retainer, covering housing or some side benefits? Part time FI flying for the fun/satisfaction of it. I would have mixed view on this as student in the UK, especially with small club style school. (I still am newbie in aviation world) Not likely to happen to me.

The whole thing with current UK regulations surrounding flight training and insurance requirements etc don't exactly help PPL FIs in my view/from what I've read so far.
The PPL holding microlight instructors can instruct in microlights for renumeration, but not in C152 etc? Ehm. Double standards?