Changes To Nppl Instructor Requirements

[BEagle]

I would like to seek people's views on the requirements for flight instruction at up to NPPL level. For example, would you be happy if it was possible to receive payment for instruction so long as you'd completed an appropriate course? Or should there be no changes to current requirements? Remember that there used to be a PPL/FI rating, a Restricted BCPL/FI rating and the BCPL/FI rating - all of which disappeared under JAR-FCL. But the requirements for instructing might not be the same as those for the CPL - so even if instructors were being paid to instruct at NPPL level and were building up their hours as a consequence, they might then still have to do the full CPL course to move on to commercial flying, IFR instructing, multi-engine instructing etc?

[DB6]

A return to a BCPL/FI-type rating would seem appropriate as the current requirements (particularly the ground school) for the JAR FI rating are farcical; it could be argued that the current situation prevents a good many 'career' instructors from entering the field and effectively prohibits anyone but hours-builders on their way to an airline career. After all, do you need to know about the weather between Recife and Dakar to teach circuits in the UK?:rolleyes:

[cesspit]

Is it not the lack of a livable wage which puts many would-be career instructors off?

[idle stop]

If you have a system whereby all FIs have to hold professional licences you will have an instructor body top-heavy with hours builders. They are not necessarily (careful use of word!) the best teacher material.
Let's have PPL + Suitable Experience + Entry Assessment + FI Course = some sort of (N)CPL(Restricted to FI privileges) / FI (R) with a similar upgrade path from (R) to full FI as currently exists.

[Hanger from Pans]

Just a thought, if there suddenly became a NPPL FI rating then us mere mortals who need to build hours by instructing would find a FI job even harder to come by and so getting to the airlines even harder than it is now.
I vote “no change” as this would probably reduce the only route that we have at the moment to gain hours.

HfP

[BEagle]

Thanks to all who have responded to the poll. Interestingly, in only a few posts I've seen precisely the cross-section of replies I expected. If the total of poll responses gets to over 50, I'll forward this to certain interested parties for their information.

[excrab]

A very interesting poll. I notice that an equal number of respondents think that there should be no change or that NPPL instructors should be allowed to earn money, and only a very small proportion think that no renumeration should be allowed.

It is also noticeable how few can be bothered to vote!

What is also interesting is that the responses from instructors seem to be concerned not with the effects that the rating might have on the standard of training offered to the student, but the effect on the instructors ability to hour build and move onto the airlines as quickly as possible.

I would suggest that the best thing would be a return to the old system of PPL instuctors and not being able to sit the ATPL writtens until you had obtained 700 hours. As I recall from my formative years in the right hand seat of a C152 the students learnt just as much (as has been mentioned the study of climatology is not required to teach VFR cross-country planning), and it used to mean that most instructors stayed for at least two years whilst working through CPL writtens, CPL flight tests and eventually the IR.

Historically, introduction of the BCPL, frozen ATPL and 250 hour modular CPL route has made no difference to the standards of instruction, and little difference to instructors salaries, at least not at the club with which I have been associated for the last 20 years.

If you really want to encourage career instructors the answer is to say that hours obtained instructing shouldn't count towards the issue of a CPL or ATPL. This would result in only those interested in instructing starting the course, with eventually less low houred pilots prepared to instruct for nothing thus forcing clubs to increase salaries. At the same time the lack of self-improvers would force airlines to offer more sponsorships, to the advantage of those airline wannabes who have no interest in teaching.

This is only an opinion - hopefully it may stimulate some discussion!

[BEagle]

Many organisations have demonstrated that those of most value to an airline are those who have been correctly identified as having the necessary aptitude. But this is expensive for an airline; first you have to run a selection process and then you have to fund a training programme. Much, much cheaper instead for the bean counters to rely upon a queue of pilots who have obtained CPLs and FI ratings and then worked for a few years teaching at PPL level - even though they may not succeed at Jet training, there'll be other aspirants to take their place..... Some of whom might even have paid for their own type ratings - a very good deal for the airline and an extremely poor one for the struggling newcomer.

Airline training, with a very few exceptions, is in a pretty poor state right now. But with more schools requiring aptitude selection, better quality candidates will ultimately emerge. What is perhaps needed is for the airlines to invest far more in their own futures by committing to funding their own cadet training progrmmes for which they themselves must carry the financial risk; however, such risk would be minimal given proper selection in the first place.

Flying instruction should not been seen as a 'necessary' route to the airlines; it is right now though, simply because there is no alternative. Having paid for their own qualifications, 'hours builders' are struggling to repay their costs and build their total time. Hardly surprising then that these folk wouldn't be terribly keen on seeing their only chance taken away by a flood of other FIs entering the arena who won't have had to invest anything like the time, effort and hard cash as the current crop (c.40%) of FIs have had to.

[Another_CFI]

It is interesting that almost all of the comments in this thread concern themselves with the effect on instructors if a separate NPPL instructor rating were introduced. What about the effect on students and FTOs? I am not concerned about the quality of instruction from an NPPL instructor since a suitably structured NPPL FIC course could make that a non-issue.

I am concerned about the effects on a student who initially embarks on a NPPL course taught by an NPPL instructor and subsequently decides to obtain a JAR-PPL. How would any FTO explain to the student that the hours which he has flown count for nothing towards a JAR-PPL since all of the required instruction for the JAR-PPL has to be conducted by a JAR qualified instructor?

As a CFI I would dread having to tell a student that the hours he flew with Instructor 1 (an NPPL instructor) do not count towards his JAR-PPL but had he flown with instructor 2 (a JAR instructor) he would have been taught exactly the same things in the same aircraft at the same cost but the hours, even although the student had originally intended gaining a NPPL, would count towards his JAR-PPL. Do you wish to have that conversation?

[BEagle]

A very valid point. But if there was only 1 type of PPL, remunerated instruction for which might be given by non-commercial licence holders, how would that change your view?

I suspect that most opposition would come form current CPL-with-ATPL-knowledge 'hours builders' who are hoping for the airlines as soon as possible?

[DFC]

I have voted for the current system to remain.

The reasons are as follows;

1. It is possible to add an instructor rating to a JAA PPL. The only reason why it can't be added to a NPPL (SEP) is that there is no system in place for the training and qualification of instructors.

2. The only issue regarding instructor training is the requirement for prospective instructors to demonstrate a level of theoretical knowledge that is above the simple basic PPL level.

This is in keeping with almost every other training system. How many people would spend money sending their children to a school if the teachers were only educated to O level standard?

3. There is a clear upgrade system from NPPL to JAR PPL. This would dissapear if instructors were not JAA qualified.

IMHO, within 5 years, the majority of new NPPLs who are not medically restricted will have either upgraded to JAR in oprder to expand horizons or stopped flying because the back yard is boring.

So the only "problem" is the amount of knowledge that an instructor (teacher) must have.......OK......if school leavers start complaining that University education is too hard do we consider making it possible for school leavers to sit a short course before returning to teach students at their school?

It's not about money. It's about quality.

DFC

[cessnababe]

This is an interesting discussion. In my view, everyone is a little off the mark. Really what is needed is a completely separate and discrete licence purely for instructors. It would not depend on having CPL or ATPL knowledge, since there is a lot of material in those ground exams which is not relevant to instructing. Instead it would contain a very large core of teaching techniques and development of presentation skills, combining the relevant parts of the ground school material with a proper teaching qualification.

There would be no route from this licence to an airline licence as it would be purely a teaching qualification. In my view this is the only way forward to establish the serious career instructor as a true professional not an hours builder. Hours building by instructing should be completely abolished. As one post stated, we would not allow the holder of O levels to return and teach at a secondary school. I am constantly disappointed by the total inability of FIC candidates to spell even basic words such as aileron or longitudinal, to write a well-constructed sentence or even to write in a straight line on a white board.

If the route to instructing was only by way of a "teaching diploma" we would weed out all of the hours builders and perhaps begin to gain credibility within the aviation community. Such an enhancement of status might even lead to increased rewards (heaven forbid!).

[BEagle]

cessnababe - very good points as one would expect! The question was posed mainly because of certain ideas mooted by the Authority. Under EASA it's likely that there will only be a single type of PPL, a CPL and an ATPL. Whether a different type of Instructional Licence is needed or whether exisiting methods should be amended are questions which can't be answered without also holding a Regulatory Impact Assessment - and that would attract criticism from current 'hours builders' who, rightly or wrongly, would probably allege that change could threaten their livelihoods.

Regarding your FIC experience, I would certainly agree. What other profession is content to allow its least experienced members to instruct others? In the RAF, instructors are selected and only the very talented are 'creamed off' at an early stage of their career to become QFIs - the vast majority have several years of broad experience behind them before they start their CFS training. That training includes much of what you recommend with regard to the 'teaching and learning' process.

But how would a 'career' FI be attracted by the salary levels paid by flying schools? If schools employed FIs on a 1:1 ratio to aeroplanes, a training organisation with 6 aircraft employing 6 FIs at even £30K per annum would need to find £180K from somewhere. Let's say that each ac flies 600 hours per year, then that would mean an extra £50 per hour just to pay FI salaries alone - assuming that everyone shares the cost of training. In an era where we face increasing competition from overseas training providers, the idea of paying an extra £2000 - £2500 for a PPL course would be unlikely to succeed. But 3600 hr per year means a fuel bill (PA28) of around £98000. Of which over half goes to swell George's sporren.... The one single thing which would bring down UK training costs substantially would be a cut in fuel tax - perhaps RFs and FTOs could then afford to pay their 'professional' FIs rather better!

Perhaps the only way of achieving a sound standard of instruction is to make the selection and training of civil FIs far more rigorous than it is today. For it is seen by many as merely a way of building hours before they join the airlines - a fundamentally unsound concept. The airlines have a big part to paly as well - they must take a much bigger role in selecting and training their new pilots; the current, highly flawed system is, of course, very cheap for them as they can rely on increasing numbers of ex-FI 'hours builders' beating a path to their door - and who are then selected largely by psychobabblers. But better the ex-FI with a little experience than someone whose entire aviation experience consists of hours achieved by flying up and down the East coast of Florida in the cheapest C150 they can find!

I certainly share your opinions - but I just can't see a simple solution whilst the airlines show seemingly no intention of running their own training programmes and the cost of flying remains as high as it is in the UK! Perhaps aptitude selection should form part of the CPL/ATPL course and only those with sufficient skill sets rather than just money and patience should be permitted to start CPL training? Then a 'standalone' FI licence such as you propose would be appropriate for those who also have the skill sets needed for flying instruction - and who would also be selected for training only after having passed aptitude testing and assessment?

Incidentally - did you see 'Flying School' on TV yesterday? Some very interesting examples of 'instructional technique'.......

[Another_CFI]

My only concern about having a seperate NPPL and JAR PPL instructor rating is as stated in my previous post.

I would be totally happy to see a change which permitted renumerated instruction given by the holder of a PPL, as used to be the case prior to the introduction of the BCPL. Indeed a number of the instructors who taught me during my PPL training in 1987/8 were PPLs and three of them still instruct and examine with a restricted BCPL. The fact that they have never passed the ground examinations for a BCPL/CPL/ATPL has no effect whatever on their instructional ability.

I have instructed full time for over eleven years and hold a CPL/IR and I fail to see how that makes me any better or worse an instructor than those of my colleagues who hold a restricted BCPL. For those who dont know the restricted BCPL was issued without formality to those who used to conduct renumerated instruction on a PPL.

[idle stop]

Just off the top of my head, the JAR principle is that instructors should have a knowledge/qualification equal to or greater than the standard for which they are instructing.
Why can we not have a Restricted CPL for FIs, limited to instruction only? I guess it would have to be JAR, but I suspect that vested interests in other JAA states wouldn't want it.
Yes, we should have stricter entry criteria and screening. And yes, the FI course might need to be expanded a little, with a formal written exam appropriate to the required skills.
This will increase the expense of the FI qualification itself, but be offset by the reduction in expenses compared to gaining a full CPL.
And finally, FI (A)s should be better paid. As an FI (A) and (H) I am constantly amazed at the differential between (A) and (H) pay per flying hour. If the market will stand it for rotary, which is already v.expensive before you add the FI's whack, why not for fixed wing too?
But if all the FTOs increased their training rates together somebody would complain of cartels etc.
You just can't win!

[DFC]

I agree totally. Part of the problem is that while the principles of teaching, learning and presentational techniques are included in the instructor course, very little time is spent on these important areas.

I disagree that the airlines are at fault. They simply pick what they consider to be the best of what is available. In the current UK system more hours = more chance of a RH seat job with an airline. If there was no easy method of hour building via instruction, the airlines would still take the best of the available pilots but these pilots will have less hours. No problem.

In dealing with the PPL (JAA or NPPL) one must at all times remember that it is a recreational licence.

In order to support the recreational aspect of the PPL, the JAA place few restrictions on organisations providing training. There is no need for them to be approved. All they have to do is send in a form to the CAA and get a free certificate in return.

Pre-JAR, many flying clubs could train their own instructors. Now unless they are an FTO, thay can not. Unlike many flying clubs, FTOs have an objective of making as much money as possible. Nothing wrong there since that's why they are in business. Consequently, the costs of courses are high and will remain so as long as there is sufficient demand.

If the CAA assisted flying clubs (RTFs) in obtaining limited FTO status for the purpose of training instructors, the cost of training and maintaining future club instructors could be reduced.

People in aviation for recreation could then quite easily obtain instructor qualifications on their PPLs and put back in something in return for what they got out.

There is nothing to prevent a flying club providing sponsorship for a suitable candidate to undergo an instructor course in house or at another FTO.

Should a club sponsor a member through a FI course, they could bond that instructor for a certain period if required. However, they are guaranteed to get at least 100 hours because until the restrictions are lifted the instructor is not attractive to any FTOs.

As with every voluntary recreational activity, not everyone will be willing (or able) to put something back in but in many cases, people who have not paid for their flight instruction will be more willing to provide the same service to newer members of their club.

Recreational instructors who don't get paid are getting free flying which is a nice saving when log book experience is cross checked against bank balance.

Could it be that a culture change is required with more true flying clubs at PPL level and fewer flying schools making money from PPLs.

Regards,

DFC

[Doghouse]

Great thread. Two points here.

1. At small clubs even having a restricted FI can be a major problem in administration. I personally like to have an FI(R) on the books as I enjoy the freshness they bring, BUT...my workload increases dramatically: having to come in on days off, check flights, taking them up in poor wx, etc. On top of that is the difficulty of explaining the FI(R) system to students, taking them for their first solos, etc. As I said, at a small club making that all work can be a nightmare. Imagine how difficult things would be if you had instructors that could only teach NPPLs. The situation would be ludicrous: a plane available, a PPL student available, good wx but only an NPPL instructor available, so no lesson. Even if the regs changed, I can't see myself employing, in effect, a seriously restricted NPPL instructor. Why wouldn't I continue with PPL instructors so that I had the flexibility to allocate them to any student? What's more, I think a split in the NPPL/PPL instructor system would worsen instructor salaries as a whole. Less instructor flexibility means more instructors would be needed to cover the same student base. An increase in instructor numbers with no increase in club revenue can only mean reduced pay for instructors.

So logistically and financially I think two instructor types would be a bad idea.

2. I totally agree that the ATPL written exams are entirely unsuited to PPL instruction. And given that the exams are called 'commercial' I don't recall a single subject being devoted to the pilot's role in making the organisation 'commercial'. Even my IR instructor tried to persuade me that piston engines were more efficient the lower you were! Subjects that are key to the commercial operation of GA just weren't covered: selecting the most appropriate heights to benefit from/avoid the winds, leaning off with no fuel flow or EGT gauge, dead reckoning in IMC to go direct route instead of beacon bashing; the list is endless. Still at least I remember that those stupid haboobs come out in the Summer.

Exactly the same inappropriateness applies to student learning methods. Basic psychology or education theory should be part of the ATPLs. Surely the ability to adapt instructional style, to recognise resistance to instruction, to learn to confront constructively, to understand different learning styles, etc, etc, etc should be part of our theoretical training. I know these can be covered in the FIC course but not in the same systematic fashion as ground exams. I thought the commercial written exams were supposed to equip pilots with the skills for all aspects of commercial flying, and yet they are so clearly designed for airline work and that alone. If the CAA treated flight instruction as an equal with airline flying and set the syllabus accordingly then these discussions about different instructor types wouldn't be needed - you'd need a pro to teach and that would be the end of it. That pro wouldn't need an IR or an MCC, so they could be a decent PPL, but they'd know about teaching theory. And if you think that this is only useful for PPL instructors, what about all those frozen ATPL's who eventually become TRI's. Commerciality and instructional behaviours should be an integral part of a pilot's training.

Therefore, I think there should be no change in the current system for instructors, but I would like to see the content of the theoretical exams changed.

Sorry for the rant, folks, a bad day I guess. Anyway, a very interesting thread.

[CoJoe]

Is this not a matter of building experience?

Now that we have NPPL - Could all new trainee's not start with the NPPL with an NPPL Instructor to qualification, and then train up to JAR standard if and when required with a JAR Instructor? This would create a definate need for both sets of career instructors, and a defined route to licences and qualifications.
NPPL(SEP) - build experience and have fun - JAR upgrade - twin, IMC, foreign travel etc.

Of course, the only stumbling block currently, is the lack of credits toward the JAR PPL if the NPPL instruction has been with an NPPL FI.

Hour builders - history has shown that the Airlines will take the best they can get at any particular time, be it a 250 or 2500 hr pilot. If the Frozen ATPL's wish to instruct to build hours, then perhaps they could work for the Approved Integrated schools from where the Airlines could hire.

Let's have a course for NPPL FI's that focuses on flying skills, teaching, and having fun within recreational aviation.

[Loony_Pilot]

Hi,

I've been reading this thread with interest and would like to make a few points.

I dont think that having separate instructor qualifications for NPPL and PPL will work at all. It will be divisive and completely fail to achieve the desired result.

Also, instructing generally should not be separated from those wishing to progress to the airlines... I do wish to fly for airlines, but that doesnt mean I dont instruct properly, nor do i "use" students just to build my hours. Instructing is a stepping stone in my career, but I hope to continue it when I get to the airlines. The vast majority of my friends and colleagues in the industry are "airline hours builders" and I'd say that for the most part we are good instructors, there are always bad egss in every basket and its frustrating to be tarnished with the same brush purely because my career aims are different to flying C150's around for the next 20 years.

If you want someone to do a good job, you have to motivate them... low pay, crap working conditions do very little to help.

I enjoy instructing, I'd consider doing it as a career if I thought I could make than £25,000+ a year doing it and not the current £6,000 if I'm lucky. If you want people to become career instructors.. you have to pay them enough money to live on.That would add £40 an hour to the current rates tho.... however I do think instructors should be paid more than the current £12 or so per flying hour. However.. if heli instructors make enough money.. why cant FI(A)'s??.
I do also accept that while the airlines want 1000hrs.. and there is no possible way in the UK to go from 200 to 1000 hours without instructing (sicne we basically have no GA industry other than air taxi work.. which is harder to break into than the airlines) then there will always be a large number of people instructing for the hours.. this in itself drives down FI(A) salaries... for every person that will work for £15.. theres one that will do it for £10.. one that will do it for £5.. and so on.
There needs to be a much improved structure for getting people from 0 to an airline... at the moment FTO's pump out 500 new CPL's a year.. there simply arent jobs available,, and with the market being flooded by experienced pilots from all over the place its tough hetting that first break.. always has been.. always will.. until there is a better structure in place.

Hour's building instructors.. career instructors... who cares.. so long as the instructor is good at it, and has sufficent degree of motivation to do the job well. There are good and bad instructors out there regardless of background or long term career aim, the same way there are good and bad students. I've flown with some students that have become good friends.. and some that are so competitive/confrontational that they are close to being impossible to teach. Most cases where a student says their instructor is crap is purely a case of personality clash.. simple solution is to change your instructor!

The current FIC course I think provides well for teaching someone to teach.... you want pilots with a good level of knowledge and experience (and 200 hours with a CPL and FIC course is sufficent to teach someone to a decent PPL standard) to pass on their knowledge and skills to someone else. The difference in ability and experience between CPL/IR/FI and 250hours to PPL with 55 hours is enormous.

This all comes down to money and self interest... you want to fly as cheaply as possible while getting the best instruction possible....unpaid instructors.. non-profit making flying clubs and so on. What you're really asking is for other people to subsidise your flying with their enthusiasm! there is actually a flying school in the UK that offers dual instruction for £85 an hour .... the school is non profit making and run by aviation enthusiasts to try and get people into flying......

The NPPL itself in my opinion is a slightly false economy.. I cant see many people being safe pilots at 32 hours... very few people pass the PPL within the miniumum 45 hours as it is.. the NPPL is only skimping on the important parts of the course.. less stall training, less Nav training and so on. What is taught is exactly the same as in the PPL... only slightly less of it......

Having NPPL instructors with a "lesser" instructional qualification.. teaching pilots to a "lesser" standard... I'm not comfortable with that. Flight safety will not be improved.

Sorry if I've repeated my self or waffled a bit!!

LP

[BEagle]

Thanks for your intersting and well thought out post. I've come around to thinking that FTOs are generating CPLs and FI(R)s at a rate which the market simply can't absorb at present. That's mainly due to the despicable lack of invesment in ab-initio training by the airlines........

If this was an honest industry, airlines would select future pilots after extensive aptitude and academic testing. They would then take them from PA28 to A320 in a properly structured training programme. But they don't - they rely on mainly self-funded pilots who have slaved, scraped and scrounged their way to the airline. Hardly an honest professional training methodology....

Regarding the NPPL, quite honestly I've flown quite a few JAR-FCL PPL Skill Tests on pilots with the minimum hours and, if they were well trained, then they passed. No problems. The NPPL is about the same as the UK PPL which I did in 1968 - I don't foresee any significant problems, but Examiners are agreed that they won't lower their standards in the NPPL NST or GST........

[Whirlybird]

I didn't vote...because I really didn't understand the three options, and I suspect I wasn't the only one. Were you talking about separate instructors for NPPL, or simply about being paid, or what? Having read the responses, I'm still not voting, because the issues are for more complicated than the poll allows for.

Although having an easier route to instructing for NPPL is a nice idea, it would indeed cause more problems than it would solve. Cessnababe's suggestion is absolutely spot-on. I only ever wanted to instruct (on helicopters), but nearly abandoned the whole idea as I didn't want to jump through the CPL ground school hoops. Now, around two-thirds of the way through an FI course, I wish the time I spent learning about machmeters and jet streams had been spent on something more useful to a new FI(R). So the whole system needs changing. And if I wait long enough, I suppose I might see a flying pig out the window too.

[BEagle]

Personally I found the ability to spot illegally moored airships at night or to tell when the streamers suspended beneath a tethered kite were of incorrect dimension to be jolly useful when instructing at PPL level..........NOT!!

Apologies for the confusion with the poll - I meant 'FIs who hold no higher licence than the NPPL' in my options. I.e.- NPPL plus appropriate hours plus some form of NPPL-level FI course.

[RobinHood]

I agree with Looney_Pilot

The whole idea of JAR was to tidy up the licencing system. Private pilots operate privately, commercial pilots may operate commercially, simple!

Here we are again "doing our own thing" and re-inventing the old Private Pilot's Licence as the National Private Pilot's Licence.

I think there are one or two issues here:

Firstly, if we revert back to the National licencing system then JAR has failed - at least in Private Pilot licencing terms.

Secondly, the NPPL is hardly what the old PPL used to be. It is in every sense a recreational licence only.

Thirdly, persons undertaking training with an NPPL licenced instructor WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UPGRADE TO A JAA PPL AT A LATER DATE, since their instructor's licence and qualification is not recognised by the JAA. The point here is that it would be wise for someone learning to fly to steer clear of NPPL instructors because if they do wish to step up to a JAA PPL their initial training won't count.

Finally, knowing the general standard of some of our PPL's I run cold at the thought of them becoming instructors. The blind being led by the partially sighted is a chilling prospect!

I'm ok with the NPPL - it gets people flying and thats great for GA, but I say we keep instructing professional.

[sethdg360]

I agree with Robin and Looney, well put both of you

Cards on the table, I am one of those horrible hours building Instructors who doesn't give a sh*t about my students or care at all about my standard of teaching....not

Sorry, rant over but I do find it slightly offensive that because I'm hours building some people assume that I'm not professional in my approach to instructing...what a load of BS.
Yes I am hours building
Yes I am looking for a commercial flying job
Yes, all my students are aware of this
No I will not take students up in unsuitable conditions in order just to get an extra hour in my log book
As instructors we regularly fly with each other to check each other out, and iron out any inconsistencies/errors

I fully intend to continue instructing if possible when I finally get that commercial job. I took up instructing as a method of hours building because I wanted to do it, wanted to give something back, and instil my enthusiasm of aviation into others. I could have looked at para dropping, banner towing, or Aerial photography but chose to instruct. Ultimately I want to instruct with an airline but that is a long way off yet.
The other reason I took up instructing was to improve my flying, not simply gain free flying. I looked at my instructor, his approach, professionalism, ability and thought to myself, I want to be that good.
I'm certainly not there yet (and I now realise he wasn’t either), I still make mistakes, but I'm learning and getting better every time I fly.

I like to believe that through a professional approach I instil enthusiasm into my students and instil that same professionalism into them.
In every profession you get those that take it seriously and give their best and those that don't. I work in IT, which is probably a classic example of this. Changing the system will not change that.

On the contrary I believe that by changing the system and dumbing down the instructors you risk dumbing down GA in general, lowering the standard of students which is ultimately to the detriment of GA. If it is made easier and cheaper to become an amateur instructor then more people will do it unpaid just to get the free flying...is that really what we want to achieve? Also, echo’ing Robins comments, we then run the risk of having the partially sighted leading the blind!! Leave instructing professional, its not perfect, but it’s a darn sight better then the alternatives.

As it is, PPL's can instruct albeit with CPL theory knowledge. I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone here, but the only people who I have heard complaining about studying for the theory exams are those that would struggle to complete them. I’m not claiming to be mastermind, but lets face it, the ATPL theory exams are not exactly rocket science are they, and if you can’t hack them then I really don’t think you should consider instructing either.

I do agree that maybe the FI course ought to be changed to include more focus on teaching techniques, and possibly be more stringent on the minimum hours requirements and have a more challenging entry test similar to the CPL skill test, but that’s about it. Personally I’d also get rid of this revalidationl by seminar nonsense and make an instructor revalidation with an examiner compulsory (yes I know it puts the cost up but it would help keep us on our toes).

I have to also disagree with excrab's comment about saying instructional hours shouldn't count. Apologies excrab,no doubt you are far more experienced than myself but I think that is a ludicrous suggestion. Although much of the time I am not actually hands on as the student is flying, I am watching him/her like a hawk, whilst maintaining situational awareness, looking out for other aircraft, monitoring the radio, planning ahead for the next part of the lesson and generally trying to ensure that he/she doesn't kill us. But I guess that really shouldn't count for anything and doesn't improve my ability or airmanship qualities in any way, nor will it benefit me when I finally work in a multi-crew environment.

Anyway, apologies for rambling on, and please no comments regarding any smelling pistakes etc, it's been a long day and I am shattered. I realise I have echo'd Looney/Robins points just less eloquently, but if I re-write what I have written I'll probably tone it down too much.

;)

[BEagle]

Thanks for your reply sthdg360. Please don't think that every 'hours-builder' is tarred with the same brush. Yes, I've known some who would get airborne in poor Wx with a student who hadn't even gone solo in order to 'teach' IF......or who wouldn't bother to supervise their students' solo circuits if there was a chance of going off on a navex with another student in order to grab another hour or two....

The modifications you propose to the FIC entry requirements seem very sensible to me - as does your idea of including methods of instruction during the course. Having to learn how many cabin crew are required on a 145 seat airliner is perhaps less important to a FI than knowing HOW to teach!!

The FI re-validation requirements have recently changed as I'm sure you're aware; from now on the first re-validation must be by flight check - as must every alternate re-validation for existing FIa after the next re-validation. So, if you've just re-validated, you still have the '2 out of 3' option for the next re-validation, but if you choose a seminar then the re-validation after that must be by test - for many that will mean no mandatory test needed for the next 6 years!

After some pretty 'robust debate' recently at CAA HQ, the Authority very graciously gave ground and now changes are afoot for PPL-holding SLMG and Microlight instructors; really all this will do is to protect their existing practices and privileges in a change to 'same thing but under a different name'. The Authority tried to persuade the NPPL Policy & Steering Committee to consider changes to SEP instruction as well, but the committee considered that there were far too many issues at stake to accept such proposed changes at this stage and that considerably more debate is needed. Plus there is no current shortage of FIs; in fact there isn't even enough work for those already qualified right now. Personally I doubt whether that will change until airline recruiting starts ramping up again, so why do we need any 'easing' of current requirements, one might well ask.

[RVR800]

Why not have an

NPPL
NCPL
NATPL
NIR

I know lets just revert back to the way things were..

[mad_jock]

Is going to the seminar cheaper?

140 quid for the test and 35 for the airplane for an hour.

much cheaper than taking 2-3 days off work BnB near where the seminar is etc etc.

Fair enough its 4-5 hours of hard work but its not something you have to relearn you should be doing it as standard everyday.

For what i have heard what the examiners get charged for the renewal of there FIE, I don't begrudge them a penny of the test fee. In fact with the new rules i don't see how most of them can justify holding a FIE from a financial point of view.

As for NPPL instructors I don't think it will work. Most of the NPPL's we have done have been for failed medicals. Even if the student intends to only hold a NPPL, all that have been medically capable have been doing the JAR ppl first then will apply for a NPPL when the class 2 is next up. As long as they keep there SEP current they can get there JAR ppl current again if they choose they need to exersice those rights.

What the NPPL has been good for is quick medical certs. Most of the GP's round us are doing them for free, and yes BEagle there have been quite a few signed in pubs over a wee dram and god knows if the certificate was signed by the pilots GP (or even if the bloke that signed it was a doctor at all).

And i have sent off my form for the NPPL 2 weeks ago. As should everyone on a JAR license before they realise that its going to cost them lots of money to administrate this lot for a one off fee.
Get both medicals done for your next class 1/2 my AME couldn't see the problem if i had just passed the class 1, then if your class 2 runs out and you won't be needing the JAR rights just fly on the NPPL rights.

I can see the AME's kicking up a stink soon as well as their revenue drops off bet that isn't cheap keeping it current either.

Hows things getting along with adding night and IMC rights to the NPPL?

MJ

[BEagle]

Easy answers first - NO NIGHT OR IMC ON THE NPPL (SEP). It is a basic Day VFR licence.

Your allegations of fraudulent practice by local GPs are most worrying. Perhaps I should ask you to contact Simon Janvrin (Head of CAA Med) at the CAA and outline your experiences.

Regarding FI revalidations, until comparatively recently I was highly sceptical of the FIEs' concerns about the previous revalidation requirements. But having seem how minimal both the knowledge and interest were from some FIs at a recent seminar, I now have to concede that the dismal standard of some makes a requirement for alternate mandatory revalidations by test inevitable. But the test fee, aeroplane hire charge and FIE's expenses won't make that cheap for some.

[mad_jock]

I have brought it up with a medical officer when chatting to him about someone with a restricted medical.

But then again if they let it run for a few years with no increase in the accident rate it proves the medical hurdle is pretty much a load of tosh.


MJ

[Croqueteer]

I have over 15000hrs, RAF, 1200 instructing, a long civil career and still freelance for my company on the 146, own my own aircraft (a Jodel) and have I hope at least 10 useful years ahead, and yet it is impossible for me to instuct again without a considerable and on-going expence. I could encourage the young with wild and hairy tales in the bar, but no, it is just not possible to easily pass on my experience. I think the present system is bollox.

[excrab]

Sethdg360,

My apologies - I never intended to suggest that instructing should not be counted towards unfreezing an ATPL because the instructor was not handling the aircraft all the time - after all in a two crew airliner the pilots are only handling the controls directly for a small part of each alternate sector (assuming that the auto-pilot is functional, of course).

The point I was making was that if time spent instructing could not be counted towards the hours required for a CPL/ATPL it would prevent people becoming flying instructors purely to build hours. If you think about it that is not the same as saying that instructing does nothing to improve your airmanship, or flying ability, or lookout, or RT or anything else and is therefore worthless.

Whilst I agree that it would be almost impossible to introduce such a scheme in reality, if it was the case that there was no route from instructing to commercial flying then the results would be :

1. Higher instructor salaries as there would not be a huge supply of people prepared to work at flying clubs for low wages.

2. More airline sponsorship and/or airlines willing to hire newly qualified graduates of modular or integrated courses, as there would be no 2000 hour ex instructors looking for commercial jobs.

This would be of obvious benefit to both career instructors and those aiming for the airlines - and of course is purely hypothetical, as it would be totally unfair to anyone already in your situation.

[Irv]

Beagle wrote:
Regarding FI revalidations, until comparatively recently I was highly sceptical of the FIEs' concerns about the previous revalidation requirements. But having seem how minimal both the knowledge and interest were from some FIs at a recent seminar, I now have to concede that the dismal standard of some makes a requirement for alternate mandatory revalidations by test inevitable.

Sorry if this is a bit of a sideline off topic, but I'm not sure the solution addresses the problem! What you 'saw' surely isn't automatically 'fixed' by revalidation by test! It's better fixed firstly by having better FI initial courses, and revalidation seminars with a genuine pass/fail element rather than the ability to stay in one location for 2 successive days!
What you 'saw' surely should be sounding alarm bells that the genie is probably out of the bottle with instructors moving out of 'restricted' category as almost an automatic right.
I think the time and effort put into arguing the case for re-introducing testing would have been far better spent arguing for a proper course and promotion test for FI upgrades!

[BEagle]

...........all of which I proposed! I certainly feel that there need to be stricter entry criteria for FI courses and my proposals also included a mandatory first FI revalidation by test. Which is being introduced.

It is in the commercial interest of most clubs to get their FI(R)s upgraded as soon as possible to reduce the supervisory burden on the organisation. But since the first re-validation will soon be done by test, I certainly won't be just 'signing-off' FI(R)s once they get their 100/25 without flying with them as well - I don't want some FIE saying that I accept weak standards!

But the FIEs got their way regarding the re-introduction of the test. I agree wholeheartedly that a course and test for FI(R) upgrade would have been a better course of action.

[mad_jock]

What is the definition of being supervised?

1. Is the supervising FI on site?

2. Are they near by say within the circuit

3. Are they on a local nav ex.

4. They are on the ground close enough that they can get in before the police arrive.

6. Out shopping.

I must admit i had my restriction removed in 1 month and the only thing my boss wanted was 2 students getting trained by me and being put forward to him for first solo. But as he was off on holiday leaving me to run the place I was pretty much assured of the sign off.

Thinking about it could actually be possible to get the resriction removed without ever having to teach someone to land. Something which was extremely lacking in method in my FIC.

MJ

[RVR800]

Now that we are implementing

NPPL
NFI

when will we get

NIR
NCPL
NATPL

ie revert back to the way things were

before JAA-FCL which

meant

1. More Cost
2. More Time
3. More Money
4. Oh and half of the redundant pilots in the EU able to take
the few jobs that exist (in the UK) so REDUCED job prospects

This whole FCL implementation is a bureaucratic shambles
and will result further contraction of the flight training sector
post PPSC SFT etc etc..

This whole JAA-FCL thing is politically driven - a pathetic attempt
to undermine the world dominance of the FAA = ICAO
licencing system. It's so typical of Europe with all its inefficiencies.

[jsf]

RVR800

>ie revert back to the way things were before JAA-FCL which<

and would there then be a route to a national ATPL from the JAA ATPL which currently does not exist?

>Oh and half of the redundant pilots in the EU able to take
the few jobs that exist (in the UK) so REDUCED job prospects<

and all the Kiwi's at BMI!

[G-LOST]

JSF

That's the kind of talk that ensures your job prospects deteriorate.

LOST no longer.

[jsf]

G-LOST

You know I don't mean it seriously. If you've got an edge you use it.

As the old saying goes, it's not what you know but who you know.

Deck-Cam

Which bit of land do you want to reclaim first.

Let me know I'll get the photo-exclusive to sell to the tabloids. Anything for a few bucks!!:ok: ;)

jsf