The reason I have a CPL is that I was told by the aviation establishment that it was essential to have a CPL to be good enough to work as an instructor.
Pringle 1,
I don't believe that this was the case. My take on it was that 'if you're being PAID for flying, then you must have a COMMERCIAL qualification'. I don't recall anyone saying it had anything to do with proving you could teach anyone how to fly - that's what the FIC has always been about.
If I may draw a comparison:
I think it's perfectly legal for you to go out and buy a bus and give your friends free rides in it. However, to charge anyone for a ride, you must have a PSV licence.
The CPL course is partly about learning more about the weather and aircraft performance, so that you can make more considered decisions about whether or not to fly when faced with commercial pressures to make money (either for yourself or someone else). Along the way it also attempts to hone your personal hands-on flying skills. The FI course does FAR more in this regard, of course.
Would you be content with a FIC that was expended to include more on this commercial decision-making if the candidate didn't have a CPL?
Cheers,
TheOddOne