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 and
AIC White 125
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