Under the wonderful EASA proposals there are two levels of instructor, the new LAFI and the traditional FI. Both will have the privilege to train ab-initio students from zero to licence issue allbeit for different licences but, both will entitle the licence holder to fly throughout Europe with passengers.
The LAFI does not need CPL knowledge, completes a shorter course and guess what, can get rid of the restriction after supervising only 50 student solo flights.
The FI in contrast requires CPL level knowledge, has to complete a longer course and then has to supervise 100 student solos before they are deemed to have the judgment necessary to authorise a first student solo. The total privileges of the FI are greater but, the fundamental privilege to train a non pilot to a licence issue standard is very much the same.
How can anyone justify such nonsense on safety grounds? Obviously they can't and won't even try to; its simply a bureaucratic exercise being run by a bunch of lawyers who haven't got a clue what they are doing.
All the debate about what level of knowledge instructors should have is rather pointless with this two tier system just over the horizon. Suffice it to say the LAFI will become a much more popular rating because it will be cheaper and easier to achieve. Does this mean that the standard of instruction will fall, or does it mean that the extra qualifications demanded of an FI are pointless?