A question about teaching flying.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Can you Brits do training with licensed pilots on a private registered airplane without having to go through the mind numbing B.S. that is required to get a flight training operating certificate?

Here in Canada we can do this as long as we are not giving instruction towards PPL's and a few other licenses.

For instance can you use something like a Cub and give skills upgrading to licensed pilots without an OC?

[3 Point]

This could turn out to be a long thread but let's start with this.

Broadly speaking yes we can!

For training towards the issue of a new licence or qualification the instructor, the aeroplane and the organisation all need to be authorised. But, to teach a Cessna pilot to fly a Piper, a runway pilot to use grass airstrips, a domestic pilot to fly to a foreign country, an old fashioned guy to use a GPS, (a modern pilot to use a map!) etc etc you don't.

Happy landings!

[DFC]

If I may add something to that response;


go through the mind numbing B.S. that is required to get a flight training operating certificate?


How hard is it to fill in a simple form with the details of instructor(s), aircraft and insurance and wait for the free certificate?

I feel that it is only right that the Authority responsible for oversight has atleast a note of who is doing what in the area of training.

Don't forget that the local personal supervision of every pilot that you may be familiar with on the west side of the Atlantic is not done in Europe. i.e. there is not an official person located on (or very close to) every reasonably sized airport watching what you do.

These is also a different culture (in the UK especially) with regard to flying. By this I mean that while in the US if a PPL is seen by a CFI to be doing something stupid, the CFI will have a word with said PPL. In the UK, there is lamost zero chance of that happening with an FI and PPL.

In other words, in the US, the CFI will take action because they kow if they don't the FAA will take action and ask why the CFI did not. Hence lots of people very worried about certificates being suspended, the feds catching them if they do something wrong etc. In Europe the FI's will ignore most of what goes on and the CAA are not there to see it anyway so there is a greather posibility for stupid things killing people. Ergo the common statement on sites such as this (Private Flying Forum) that "it may be breaking the rules/ the law / not 100% safe but who is ever going to see you do it".

Sending the form off at least gives the Authority the ability to pretend to be surprised if they turn up at a muddy field and find a non-licence holder training another non-licence holder.

[Cows getting bigger]

DFc, good point. There's a hint at greater regulation of RTFs in a recent AAIB report (the Hungarian registered Gazelle).

[maxred]

'These is also a different culture (in the UK especially) with regard to flying. By this I mean that while in the US if a PPL is seen by a CFI to be doing something stupid, the CFI will have a word with said PPL. In the UK, there is lamost zero chance of that happening with an FI and PPL.'

In my experience, 'at certain airfields'. it is quite often an instructor doing something stupid.:eek:

[Duchess_Driver]

Not unheard of for an FI to have a 'quiet word' with a PPL for being a knob.

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Hi Chuck,

We have a qualification over here (UK) called the Class Rating Instructor (CRI). This allows an instructor to do the things mentioned above, i.e. tailwheel conversions, BFRs* etc. One of the great advantages of this ticket is that the CRI can work independently of a Training Establishment. The potential disadvantage is that you can’t charge for your services as a CRI. However most of the people I’ve encountered who have the CRI are doing it to put something back in to flying, so the financial side doesn’t worry them.

The Light Aircraft Association, our equivalent of the EAA, has a network of Coaches. These people are available to help someone who wants to transition to a different type of aircraft, such as a homebuilt, or operate from a farm strip if they have been used to long hard runways. LAA Coaches are all CRI qualified.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.


* We don’t have BFRs as such, but the rating renewal / revalidation process requires an hour’s flight with an instructor during the second year of the two year validity of the rating. If the rating has expired, due to insufficient hours or lack of an hour’s instructional flight, the rating has to be renewed by a check flight with an examiner. This is beyond the remit of the CRI.

[S-Works]

The potential disadvantage is that you can’t charge for your services as a CRI.

Only if the CRI is a PPL and not a CPL, just the same as a PPL FI.

If the NPA on re-numerated flight training for PPL Instructors goes through then that will change as well.

LAA Coaches are all CRI qualified.

Many of us are also FI's and Flight Examiners.......

[Chuck Ellsworth]

So in England if one wants to do training on private registered airplanes you basically need to have a valid instructors rating if you plan on charging for your time?

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Hi Chuck,

If you want to charge for anything in the UK flying world you need a commercial licence of some sort. If you want to do any training, you will need an instructor rating of some sort. Obviously with more advanced instructor / examiner ratings you can do more. I find it safer not to charge anyone for anything.

The CRI is a relatively accessible instructor qualification for a humble pilot such as myself. Entry requirements are a minimum of three hundred hours of flight time and a current PPL. The course consists of three hours of flight instruction and twenty-five hours of ground / self-study. The check ride is with an Instructor Examiner.

The category of the aircraft is another minefield. Most training has to be done on a Public Transport category aircraft. There has been much discussion about training people in their own (Private Category) aircraft. Yet another can of worms gets opened up when you have aircraft which are operating on an LAA Permit to Fly (similar to Experimental Category). Microlight aircraft over here operate on a different system again, this time administered by the British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA). Microlight flying instructors have their own ratings, which allow remunerated instruction without a commercial pilot’s licence. As you can see it’s all a bit of a muddle. Bose-x will be along in a moment to explain it much better than I’ve done.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.



Ps.
Steve,
The remuneration for PPL instructors sounds interesting. I’ve heard vague rumours from various sources, but would be interested to hear more. Will catch up at the AOPA MWG if you are going.

Cheers,
Richard W.

[S-Works]

Hi Richard, yes I will be at the MWG!

OK to clarify the CRI rating a bit to hopefully give Chuck a better understanding.

Historically in the UK flying Instructors were PPL's who were able to be paid for teaching. When JAA came along the rules changed and a CPL was required. To ensure that the old Instructors did not lose out they were all given a Basic CPL which pretty much only allowed them to teach flying. There is currently an NPA (18, I think although a regulation nut like DFC will be better placed to answer that one) that is going through to return to the old days of PPL's being able to teach for renumeration.

There are plenty of Instructors out there who currently hold PPL's who teach but are not able to be paid for the flying element.

We then have multiple classes of Instructor. The Flight Instructor (FI) is the most common and that is the rating that most full time instructors in flying schools hold as that allows to teach for the initial PPL as well as advanced stuff. It is also comes as standard restricted and so the Fi can't teach, night, Instrument, aeros. To get it unrestricted the FI must do things like sending 25 students solo, etc.

We then have the Class Rating Instructor - CRI, this Instructor can't teach the ab-initio PPL but can teach just about everything beyond (no night flying) it such as Tailwheel, complex, turbo chargers etc. A CRI may than add things like Instrument (IRI) and specialist class ratings such as floats, turbine etc.

in real terms a CRI is actually the best option for a freelance Instructor as the PPl can only be taught through a RTF from a licensed airfield and the bulk of training is differences etc.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

WOW....how did you Brits get so swamped with rules and regulations?

Reading all that makes me wonder if one has to go to school to learn all the different kinds of licenses you need over there.

Thankfully we here in Canada have not been driven down to that level of regulation yet, mostly because of the inherent inertia that is the corner stone of bureaucracy which prevents our drones from making changes to anything in their world.

Here I can teach things such as sea plane ratings, instrument ratings, multi engine ratings and of course tail wheel flying and type ratings without having to spend the money for the frontal lobotomy I would need to go through the process of renewing my flight instructors rating.

I worked for some years in England but I was insulated from all the stuff that you people are bent over with by your regulators because I was flying a US registered airplane and only had to worry about flying.

By the way bose-x I note you mentioned DFC, I kind of wondered if he was your benchmark for slavery to rules over there because in another thread he got all bent out of shape about hand held GPS's and the rules on how to mount them...sad really because it makes me nervous wondering how many more there like that out there that have that gene in their make up.

Anyhow thanks for the info bose-x it makes me feel that Canada is not all that bad a place after all.:)

[DFC]

Here I can teach things such as sea plane ratings, instrument ratings, multi engine ratings and of course tail wheel flying and type ratings without having to spend the money for the frontal lobotomy I would need to go through the process of renewing my flight instructors rating.



There is no difference between Europe and the UK /Canada in that respect.

In both cases, your "instruction" would count for zero against the minimum instruction required to be received from a qualified instructor before being allowed to take the test for the IR.

The difference comes in other areas - like the minimum training requirementas to get an IR and how flight time can be logged.

Just like in Canada, Mr A (a PPL) can have Mr B another PPL with zero other ratings teach them how to fly on instruments. They can do as many hours training they like. At the end, Mr A might be able to perfectly meet the requirements in terms of skill, they can fly all the procedures etc etc (all under the hood of course).

However, just like in Canada, Mr A is going to have to go through the legal minimum training with a qualified instructor before they can do the test and get the rating.

So the difference is not really in instructor qualifications / approvals - it lies elsewhere in the overall system.


because in another thread he got all bent out of shape about hand held GPS's and the rules on how to mount them...sad really because it makes me nervous wondering how many more there like that out there that have that gene in their make up.



Please read what I said again.

I never said that I personally had an issue with GPS's floating round the cockpit. I did say that should the Aviation Authority be invited to sit in the cockpit for a demonstration of GPS use using a handheld then for a number of reasons (one being a basic airworthiness rule) they could find a problem. Therefore as I very clearly pointed out, what might be thought of as solving one problem could actually create a bigger one. i.e. let sleeping dogs lie!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

DFC your statement that one must be a qualified instructor to teach for the instrument rating needs to be more clearly explained.

Here in Canada the requirements are plainly outlined in the CAR's and are experience related only, there is no requirement for one to hold a certified flight instructor rating, however you must hold a commercial pilots license or higher.

Actually if one looks at it logically it makes perfect sense to learn from someone who has actually been flying airplanes for a living IFR for thousands of hours rather than some newly minted flight instructor who has never been in a cloud in his / her life and their only qualification is they have been programmed as a " flight instructor " by someone who has never flown in an cloud either.

The way I look at it getting my flight instructors rating renewed would be counter productive for me as it would be getting something that would only qualify me to earn lower wages for my instructional skills.

[DFC]

Actually if one looks at it logically it makes perfect sense to learn from someone who has actually been flying airplanes for a living IFR for thousands of hours rather than some newly minted flight instructor who has never been in a cloud in his / her life and their only qualification is they have been programmed as a " flight instructor " by someone who has never flown in an cloud either.




That I basically agree with.

I would however point out that many PPL/IR holders / CPL/IR holders who have never worked in aviation (but have enough relevant experience) prove to be better instrument fliers and teachers than pilots who have spent the last 20 years following a flight director and with 95% of their 10,000 hours spent watching the autopilot fly the aircraft in VMC.

Unfortunately, in Europe and elsewhere, working as an instructor uses up duty time and flight hours which are limited if not by law then by company SOP. Companies often do not approve of their pilots flying outside work other than in a recreational capacity for a number of reasons the most common being every hour instructing means 1 hour less for the company.

As for renewing the rating, how can that "be getting something that would only qualify me to earn lower wages for my instructional skills. " ?

Worst case - you are in the same position you are in now but with the opportunity to teach in a broader number of areas.

Perhaps if you choose the trainer wisely you might learn something!!! :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I can see that you and I are a little apart to say the least in our visions of flight training DFC and it is very unlikely any further discussion will lessen the chasm between our ways of perceiving the general world of flying.

However I would like to point out that I have come to the conclusion that renewing my flight instructors rating would not be worth the effort for the simple reason that the only area of flight instruction that would be opened up to me would degrade my pay to a point that it would not be financially viable.

I am sure there would be things I would learn should I choose to go the renewing process, the real question that I had to answer was do I really need to know those things?

Somehow I am not convinced that one of those never done it types really do know what they are teaching......I see their product and am not impressed.

[DFC]

I have come to the conclusion that renewing my flight instructors rating would not be worth the effort for the simple reason that the only area of flight instruction that would be opened up to me would degrade my pay to a point that it would not be financially viable.



I can't understand your position Chuck.

From my reading of what you are saying -

You are making say $100 per hour teaching ab-initio IR with no qualifications. Teaching PPL / CPL etc will pay only say $25 per hour.

How does gaining an instructor rating limit you to only earning $25 per hour for instrument rating instruction?

I see the situation as gaining an instructor rating will not only teach you a few things but also give you the posibility to fill those hours where you earn nothing with 25$ income.

If you are too busy doing IR training then where is the problem and why even ask about becoming an instructor?

There must be some fuzzy loigic in there somewhere. :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

DFC we are entering a no win circular mode of discussion.

I do not recall ever stating I am conducting instrument training, where did you get that idea?

As to my having no qualifications I guess that all depends on what one considers qualifications.

Just to clear up my present position license wise I received my certified flight instructors rating in 1957 and also did my instrument rating training in that same time period.

I no longer have any need for either rating and have let them lapse.

Were I to consider returning to flying commercially I of course would renew my instrument rating as it would enable me to fly in a sector of aviation where I would be able to receive a livable pay scale.

Conversely renewing my flight instructors rating would be of no value to me personally as it would only open up a sector of flying where the pay is sub standard to working at McDonalds.

I quit flying as a career mainly because I could no longer tolerate the mindless cretins that have taken over a large part of aviation and churn out never ending rules and regulations that are reflective of their myopic view of the world around them, the hi vis vest is a typical example of their mindset and their vision of the world around them. :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Something just occurred to me DFC, with regard to this instrument flying thing and being qualificatied, I learned the trade in the high Arctic in the days when we routinely did ADF approaches to ice runways in IMC flying DC3's and DC6's before we had turbine airplanes to drive.

And ended my career with the glass cockpit stuff.

Oh, by the way I am probably one of those " anti authority " types so maybe that makes me substandard as a pilot? :ugh: