New instructor rating

[maxdrypower]

I raised this a while ago with no real knowldgeable replies
It was stated in one of the piloty type mags that considertaion was being given to a Instructor specific licence . That is to say that a special rating will be invented for want of a better word so that a person can be an instructor without a CPL and get paid for it , paid only for instruction . I know that you can technically be an instructor without a CPL and I know that to be paid you need a CPL . Thisw rating was discusssed as almost a professional instructors rating .
Does anyone know of this ? the magazine gave the gapan site as its reference but I cannot find anything on it .
Anyone heard
Please dont respond wioth what lasors or the CAA say about CPL FI(R) etc etc I know all that i am specifically asking in relation to this supposed new rating/licence

[Whopity]

There was a conference at Cranwell a couple of years ago attended by arround 100 senior FIs where this topic was discussed. It was more concerned with raising the standards of instruction and generating a specific licence for instructional purposes rather than generating a cheap route to instructing. A lot of good ideas were discussed however, they were rather utopian. The idea was to have a centralised flying instructor school along RAF lines. Detials of the conference were reported here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-122171.html

[apruneuk]

You wish! Go on, do those nasty exams like the rest of us. You never know, you might learn something.....

[BEagle]

Some advocate the 'Instructor Licence' - I do not.

However, I do support a return to the old 'PPL/FI' type rating and there is work going on behind the scenes to achieve this at some stage in the future. Many in the industry would be glad to have more part-time PPL/FIs whose experience and teaching skills would probably be higher than many low-time hours builders with their shiny new CPLs.

There is a need for a mix of both; however, currently the 'part-timers' are more or less restricted to CRI(SPA) instruction - for which they cannot be paid on a PPL - unless they do all those exams about how many megaphones are needed on a 747 or how wide the stripes have to be on the streamers flown beneath tethered kites.....:rolleyes:

But if you want to be paid for instructing without needing a CPL, you would have to convince the BMAA of your worth!

[unfazed]

Many in the industry would be glad to have more part-time PPL/FIs whose experience and teaching skills would probably be higher than many low-time hours builders with their shiny new CPLs.

And many of those would be owners and CFI's who don't wish to let market forces decide how much a flying instructor is worth

Less FI'S = more in demand and in a free market = more worth

[BEagle]

And then the FIs will price themselves off the market and all UK-based training will cease.

Which will mean the hours builders will have nowhere to gather hours without paying for them.

The 'professional' FI is a myth - unless he/she is an airline or ex-military retiree.

Most CFIs want FIs with skill and experience - not some hours builders who think that they are worth more than they really are.

[A and C]

This hurts but I have to agree with BEagle the industry WILL DIE if something is not done to enable PPL instruction to be done with a PPL & instructor rating.

The switch to EASA gives the industry the chance to re write the the rules for "recreational" licences .... it is time to do so.

[apruneuk]

Cart, Horse, Horse, Cart...?
At my school (London area) a full-time FI is lucky if they take in 12,000 pa; some have other businesses on the side, some drive cabs in the evenings etc. to make ends meet. The main reason for this is that the same school will happily take advantage of part-time weekend instructors who are content to work for nothing. However, nobody can live on fresh air, and the result is that many schools find it hard to operate profitably on weekdays because few can live on the meagre wages on offer.
If the industry paid living wages then young wannabes would stick around and older, more experienced instructors would be able to afford to offer their services full-time. And I don't buy the argument that if instructors were paid more the industry would suffer. I know what it costs to operate a C152 and I know what the lessons are charged out at - the margin is well over 100%. I don't think the hourly pay rate at my school has gone up in the past 10 years but the price of lessons certainly has.

[Gugnunc]

Consideration should be given to how the £100-£150 per hour training rate is divided up. If £35-£50 of this is going on Avgas no wonder there is little money left for the FI.
The answer is not to get the Instructor flying for free. Most of us only get paid £10-£15 per hour anyway. If profit needs to be made, invest in newer more efficient machinery that won't need expensive ongoing maintenance and doesn't burn outrageously expensive fuel at a ridiculous rate. Please don't tell me the only aircraft suitable for ppl training is a shagged 152.
Oh, and while you are at it, manage and sell the school/club/business effectively so you do make a profit. There are too many well intentioned but inept amateur owners/operators out there. If the instructor rate was £25-£40 per hour lots of CPL's would stay instructing, and the long term experience gained would enhance the business.
It is a shame there isn't the Flying equivalent of Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares - ie succesful CFI/FTO owner goes into struggling FTO's/clubs and turns them around. great viewing on Discovery Wings!:)

[unfazed]

The 'professional' FI is a myth - unless he/she is an airline or ex-military retiree

Absolute Bo@;ocks !

There are many professional civilian trained FI's out there doing a great job all around the country, you don't have to be ex-military or ex airline to pass on knowledge and experience. In fact I would argue that some of the crusty old ba£trds who are ex military and ex airline are miserable sods who screw people over just to top off their pensions, their attitude is often arrogance mixed with contempt for the poor sod in the other seat.:}

[apruneuk]

BEagle

I found the CPL theory a little bit more relevant and useful than you espouse. I studied 14 subjects including navigation, meteorology, aircraft general knowledge (technical) and flight planning to name but a few. Indeed, some aspects of ops/procedures and air law are a bit like learning for the sake of learning but the practical subjects were highly relevant to basic flying instruction.
Furthermore, the current FIC consists, in addition to the flying, of a pre-entry flight test and 125 hours of structured ground study, including the preparation and delivery of many 45 minute classroom lectures on anything from High Lift Devices to Weather fronts. The bull**** stops when you are standing in front of a white board being asked "WHY, Sir?"
As any teacher will know, it is important to have a reserve of knowledge in the bank in order to handle the more probing questions that get asked from time to time and the CPL level of knowledge is, in my opinion, just about right.

[Whopity]

Has anyone ever asked FIC Instructors if they would like to teach students who don't have CPL level knowledge?

The CRI qualification does not require CPL level knowledge and depending upon the candidates background there can be an awful lot of homework to do above and beyond the basic course if the candidate has only bare bones PPL knowledge.

The old FI Course used to include 56 hours of teaching that basic level knowledge. Since the intro of JAR-FCL the course emphasis has changed to a teaching and learning course and then using previously gained CPL knowledge as the basis of giving briefs and lectures. Only 40 hours of the 125 hours is tuition fom the FIC instructor.

Interestingly, the 300 hour PPL probably makes a beter candidate on a FI course than the shiny integrated course graduate with ATPL groundschool 12 months behind them.

[apruneuk]

Whopity

My FIC involved more than 40 hours with the instructor. 40 may be the minimum but the actual will depend very much upon the individual course operator. In any case, without CPL level knowledge it would be extremely tough to pass - hence the requirement.
Another point to bear in mind is that the "money" in flying training is really in commercial licences. As far as I am aware, an instructor cannot teach for a rating or licence that they don't hold; it is therefore more sensible for a school that offers PPL-CPL courses (which is the case with most of those in the London area) to employ instructors who can do both.
The ideal would be to have experienced pilots with CPL/FI but that would involve the schools taking a giant leap of faith and actually investing in their staff. Merely lowering the academic pre-entry requirement might help small clubs to some degree but will in no way improve the long term prospects for the training industry in the UK.

[unfazed]

Interestingly, the 300 hour PPL probably makes a beter candidate on a FI course than the shiny integrated course graduate with ATPL groundschool 12 months behind them.


ATPL graduate has passed 14 very intense exams which require a great deal of effort to pass so how would a 300 hour PPL make a better candidate ?

[maxdrypower]

Sorry unfazed I cannot see your point , I can see how someone with theoretical knoweldge of atpl could make them a better theory instructor but may not make them a good practical instructor and perhaps vice versa . I have met and had many instructorsw through my courses some good some bad , now without tarring everyone with the same brush which certainly is not the case I have found those with an exteremely good knowledge of thery have never been the best instructors . The best instructor i ever had (PERSONALLY) when asked a question quite often said "hang on ill find out " and he did and explained it perfectly however on the flying side he was spot on he was a career instructor and very good and possibly well known to a lot on here , You cannot say that just because someone has studied hard for a group of exams that they are better qualified to teach a subject involving practical applications . Take engineering graduates , highly qualified , show them a spanner and see what happens . In this game there is a place for everybody with all manner of skills and the students will be the ones who ultimately decide whether the instructor is a good one whether he be 500hrs ppl or 18 yr old fauntelroy with a frozen atpl

[apruneuk]

maxdrypower

If the powers-that-be were to follow your argument then those same PPLs should be just as capable of flying an airliner as a 200hour newbie with a CPL/IR and a type rating (almost certainly true). The fact is that if you want to be be a professional pilot then you need to pass the relevant exams; it's not that hard and should only take you about a year if you do them via distance learning. Then you can strap on your stripes, push your chest out and give it the big "I Am" for £15.00 per hour.
The thing to remember is that not all commercially qualified instructors are hour building airline wannabes. In fact, that is becoming less and less the case as there is no real advantage to be had in building SEP time any more; it's just not that relevant to multi-crew nintendo jet operation. The difficulty is that those pilots who have hours and a CPL with FI can't make a full-time living out of instruction while well-meaning part-time PPL/FIs offer their services for next to nothing at the weekends.

[BEagle]

"The fact is that if you want to be be a professional pilot then you need to pass the relevant exams; it's not that hard and should only take you about a year if you do them via distance learning. Then you can strap on your stripes, push your chest out and give it the big "I Am" for £15.00 per hour."

Oh dear.......

[unfazed]

Hey Guys how about this

Lets scrub all of the exams and just let anybody instruct

In fact we could carry this over into all walks of life

Cardiac surgeon? Why bother ....they know all the theory but they wan't too much money.....I know that my local butcher is pretty handy with a knife and he will do the work for a couple of quid and a free beer

Accountant?....my auntie daisy is good at figures.....why pay those guys with the qualifications they are simply hiding behind fancy certificates


Come on lets be realistic :)

[apruneuk]

Most CFIs want FIs with skill and experience - not some hours builders who think that they are worth more than they really are

No, BEagle, that happens in Utopia. In the wild and whacky world of business, most CFIs want the cheapest FIs they can get with all the right boxes ticked - bit like the airlines, really.

[maxdrypower]

So in short to my original question , no one knows ? ????

It is not my argument I was just enquiring . i am quite sure if there was to be an instruictors only rating there would be an adequate amount of theory training involved relevant to the role

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I would just like to agree that instructors Should have CPL knowledge to teach PPL's.

Try asking an old timer PPl who fancies doing "a bit of instructing" about a drag curve or any fundemental POF subject and I bet the conversation will last about 15 seconds and then knowledgeable PPL person becomes a mumbling blagger.

Remember these people last studied technical PPL knowledge many years ago, probably to a syllabus that is probably not taught any more and havn't done any structured flying for ages prior to starting a course.

Top teach at a level you need to surpass your students level of knowledge and be able to answer the awkward questions. Thats why people with degrees teach high school students, would you wish to have your sons and daughters taught by 6th form graduates?

At least a newbie CPL/FI has had to demonstrate a good standard of accuracy and flying TWICE fairly recently to get where he's at.

There is a country mile between how seriously a CPL skills test and an FIR test are taken by examiners there certainly was with both of mine (Both CAAFU).

Just my £0.02 worth, that said, the old BCPL type scheme should be brought back and a training credit given for the IR after 6 or 700 hours, this would settle down the instructor market and get rid of this phenomena of people instructing until the 737 job turns up

[RVR800]

At the end of the day its all a matter of economics and professionalism.

If we want a cheaper faster route to train PPL Flight Instructors then the quality will be affected

Some guys who support the hobby FI era will look back wistfully back to those days when they could tip the balance back to paying the aircraft owner a greater percentage of the overall fee.

That said I think the content of the CPL exams and flight test could be looked at with a fresh eye.

[BEagle]

Which is the wholepoint. EASA requires appropriate knowledge whereas JAR-FCL requires commercial level knowledge.

No-one will accept any reduced FIC output standards, of that you can be sure.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

RVR

Good point well made, lest we forget that to make any changes to the exams and test format would involve ALL member states, being as the UK is the only country to be more or less fully JAR compliant.

It is unlikely that the UK would make changes on their own.

Im almost sure instructors in the USA have to do 2 CFI exams, one of which is about the method of teaching and getting the message across and the other a technical paper that deals with issues pertinent to the kind of aircraft you will instruct upon.