What concerns me in these replies is that very few seem to have any thought for the drop in standards and the deterioration in terms and conditions which inevitably follow an influx of PPL instructors.
200 hours of structured training and solo work on a CPL course must surely be better than 200 hours flying to local airfields with friends for cups of tea. And CPL groundschool must give a better knowledge base than PPL groundschool even if some ofthe subjects aren't entirely relevant. If this is not the case then there is something seriously wrong with the CPL syllabus!
So why are we pushing for the reduction in minimum standards? Presumably the current standard of instructor is too high or perhaps there are too many hours builders out there? If so why has it taken so long for AOPA and others to push for this? The clubs were more than happy to take our money to qualify under the JAA CPL system. They only want to change it now because they can't find enough instructors willing to work for peanuts. Pay a decent salary and you will get the instructors you need and many will stay rather than run off to an airline to pay the mortgage.
I think that many in senior positions within the industry will effectively encourage hours building under the new system. see Beagle's quote below:
"corsair, assuming that the PPL+200 is good enough to pass the FI course, he/she can then build hours as a FI and save towards the cost of the CPL/IR later."
I have a great deal of respect for Beagle's views on most matters but I really can't see the logic of welcoming the prospect of PPL/FI, hours builders who will ultimately leave for the airlines. Lower standards...same problem.
Those of you out there who can afford to instruct for the fun of it or for a pittance are very lucky. I cannot. Money should not be a dirty word in this industry.