PPL+CFI = why?

[Simon853]

LASORS seems to indicate that a PPL can instruct (for PPL) but not receive payment for it. It also says that instruction by a CPL+CFI is required towards the gaining of a licence. Is this a contradiction?

If someone was "taught" by a PPL, does that mean the hours are loggable as student pilot, but are not counted in the 45 minimum for a PPL?

LASORS also says that a PPL can gain a CFI qualification and can instruct (presumably if the previous answer is 'yes' then the student's hours can now be logged towards the 45 minimum), but why would anyone gain a PPL+CFI without a CPL? The only reason I can think of is to train family members, like a parent might teach their kids to drive, but couldn't take payment from the public for the same?

Am I understanding it correctly?

Si

[puntosaurus]

I think your understanding is just fine, but I can't see where in LASORS it says that instruction has to be by a CPL+CFI. Where are you looking ?

[Heliport]

I'm not sure Simon's understanding is right.
"If someone was "taught" by a PPL, does that mean the hours are loggable as student pilot, but are not counted in the 45 minimum for a PPL?"

Aren't there still PPL FI's around despite the fairly recent change in the Regs which means new FIs now have to qualify as CPLs first?
Don't hours under instruction by them count towards the minimum hours required for a PPL?

Just asking - I don't know.

[Three Blades]

I certainly know some FIs who got through before it was required to also get CPL.
Hours taught by them are just as loggable as hours taught by a CPL FI.
However, I think that they are not permitted to teach the 5hrs of instrument awareness.
That is just my experience.

[Sabre Zero 1]

So, forgetting for a moment the issue of whether the hours are loggable or not:

1. Is it legal for a PPL to let a non-PPL take control of an aircraft, say just for experience?

2. What about a PPL doing the same as above, in this case though the person taking control also has a PPL but is not type rated on that particular aircraft?

There seem to be so many 'Grey Areas' in aviation.

[puntosaurus]

Sorry Heliport I was answering the second part of Simon's question, because I can't find any reference to this CPL + CFI 'requirement'. So I thought the 'loggable' issue was moot.

AFAIK PPL instructors with grandfathered rights to charge for instruction still exist. In addition LASORS confirms that it is possible for a PPL to get an instructor rating, but since he can't charge for instruction, as Simon, says it's not clear why anyone would do that. PPL/CPL should make no difference to whether it's loggable.

While we're on the subject, can anyone confirm that the JAR to old money term mapping is as follows PIC = P1, PICUS = P1/s, and Dual = P/ut. What is SPIC (student pilot in command) then - student solo ?

Edited:

And SZ1, AFAIK it's not legal for someone who is not qualified to operate the controls, unless they are under instruction by a qualified instructor. That should rule out both your scenarios.

[VeeAny]

Puntosaurus

SPIC is where the student assumes effective command but the instructor remains onboard, required for the night rating at least.

SPIC counts as P1 hours, I imagine the point to it is if it went horribly wrong the instructor isn't going to sit there and let bloggs take them both to an early grave.

V.

[puntosaurus]

Thanks for that VeeAny. A bit of an odd and rather specialised category, but there you go.

[Simon853]

I can't see where in LASORS it says that instruction has to be by a CPL+CFI.


I meant FI, not CFI by the UK definition. But I think you're right anyway. Regardless of CPL or not, an Instructor Rating is required (Lasors H1.1) if the instruction is for the purpose of gaining a licence.

As for Heliport's point about older (pre-2000?) PPLs, as I understand it, they can instruct and get paid for it with an FI rating. New PPLs can gain an FI, instruct but not get paid. (Crikey.. I'm surprised the FTOs aren't jumping on this as a way to get free pilots in exchange for hour building!) - A PPL application still needs 200 hours PIC though.

I can't find the bit that made me think PPLs could instruct without an FI if it wasn't towards a licence. Could be I was just negating the logic quote above, from H1.1.

Si

[FixedRotaryWing]

I'm surprised the FTOs aren't jumping on this as a way to get free pilots in exchange for hour building!

JAR-FCL does not allow the employment of PPL-FIs in an FTO. All FIs of an FTO must have CPL or ATPL.

[muffin]

I think you will also find that PPL FIs have to demonstrate theoretical knowledge to CPL level - in other words pass the CPL written exams. So the only difference is whether you actually do the CPL course or not, which you might as well if you have gone that far. I considered this route a while ago but gave up the idea as I only wanted to instruct part time for interest, and decided it was all too much hassle just for that.

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Under JAR a PPL(H) can obtain a FI rating but they do have to first pass the CPL theory (As Muffin said) A PPL(H)/FI can give flight instruction for a licence but only for a PPL(H) or type ratings. A PPL(H)/FI can’t be paid for flight instruction but he can be paid for ground instruction or other non flying services.

You need to at least hold the licence or a higher licence for the instruction you’re giving, so a PPL(H)/FI can’t give instruction for the grant of a CPL(H)

SPIC or Student Pilot in Command is time when the FI is on board but does not influence the controls, SPIC can be logged in place of PIC for some professional integrated licence courses, for instance fo a intergrated CPL(H) you need 35 hours PIC but 15 hours of this can be SPIC.

[puntosaurus]

Couple of interesting facts there. The CPL exam requirement for a PPL instructor, and the ban on PPL instructors in a JAA FTO. Where does it actually say that about the exam requirement ? I'm sure I've heard it before, but I can't find it anywhere. Also, there must be an exception for 'grandfathered' PPL instructors, because I know at least one JAA FTO that has one on the roster.

[muffin]

LASORS Section H Page 5. under Pre-requisite flight and theoretical knowledge requirements.

Clause b. Must meet knowledge requirements for grant of JAR FCL CPL(H).

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

A PPL(H)/FI can instruct in an FTO but he can't give instruction for a CPL licence, so if they give PPL training and type ratings in the FTO thats ok.

In regard to a PPL/FI receiving payment a UK PPL FI can be paid but a JAA PPL FI can not.

Take a look at lasors H1.5 for FIs

[puntosaurus]

Doh ! Thanks boys.

[FixedRotaryWing]

Appendix 1a to JAR-FCL 2.055

INSTRUCTORS, OTHER THAN SYNTHETIC FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS

16 Instructors shall hold:
(a) a professional pilot licence and rating(s) related to the flying training courses they are appointed to
conduct;

(b) an instructor rating relevant to the part of the course being conducted e.g. instrument rating
instructor, flight instructor, type/rating instructor, as appropriate; or

(c) an authorisation from the Authority to conduct specific training in an FTO (see JAR–FCL 2.300).

17 The maximum flying hours, maximum flying duty hours and minimum rest time between instructional
duties of instructors shall be acceptable to the Authority.