JAA instructor on PPL (A) license??

[Jay_solo]

Can anyone explain the relevance of obtaining a JAA instructor rating on a PPL (A)? For the FAA regs, you must be commercially qualified with an instrument rating i.e a professional pilot. And for the JAA you need to study all the ATPL's before you even get the instructor rating. I haven't met anyone who has a JAA Instructor rating on just a PPL (A). I guess I'm thinking, whats the point if no flying school will "hire" you?! And I'm sure there may be issues with "flying for free" which could undermine some currently employed (over worked and underpaid) flying instructors.

Does anyone know of any flying clubs, organisations or schools that use flight instructors who just have PPL's?

And does it make any sense considering you have to study the same ATPL ground school? (And for the cost of a Instructor rating, you could just get your CPL anyway) :confused:

Any thoughs or links to previous threads are welcomed.

[BEagle]

Yes, some do instruct on a PPL.

1. Those who cannot hold Class 1 medicals, but just enjoy instructing.

2. Those who have military exemption from some of the CPL exams, but don't want to bother with the cost of the CPL when they're happy to do a bit of part time instructing.


You can expect a lot of pressure to bring back the old PPL/FI who may instruct for remuneration; typically, the experienced hand who can give a day or two per week as he/she has another income.

Which would mean that, with fewer opportunities for 'hours builders' as FIs, the airlines might have to start taining their own pilots again. About time too!

I can think of no other industry which relies upon using apprentices as teachers.....

[unfazed]

Beagle has firm views on this subject

I think that you are no longer an "apprentice" if you have passed ATPL exams and gained a CPL/IR

I think that a 1 day a week part timer is more of an "apprentice"

But then I am not looking for cheap labour to run a flying club into profit and subsidise the operation for somebody elses commercial gain

Just another perspective

[FlyingForFun]

I know someone who used to have a PPL/FI, and it worked very well for him for a short while.

He was an experienced PPL and a full-time ATCer. He fancied doing a bit of part-time instructing in order to get some free flying and improve his own skills. He arranged with my boss at the time to work part time for the school I worked for at the time.

It worked very well. My boss was switched-on enough to realise that if he gave all the work to the "free" part-timer, his full-timers would soon start getting upset, so having this guy working part-time didn't affect the amount of work I or my colleagues got at all. He got to fly for free on his days off. He was certainly not considered an "apprentice" - he had held a PPL for many years, and had vastly more experience than a lot of newly-qualified FIs.

After a while, he decided that the extra effort to get his CPL was well worth it, since getting paid for instructing would soon pay for the cost of the CPL. But, for the short time in which he instructed without a CPL, it worked very well for everyone concerned.

FFF
---------------

[Whopity]

Look at some of the traditional flying clubs, Armstrong Whitworth at Coventry, Sherwood at Nottingham, where you will find FIs with only a PPL there. There are quite a few such FIs, nobody will employ them because they can't be remnunerated but they can still instruct.

[RVR800]

Yes I think the return of the none "professional" pilot (the CAA term for those with a PPL) teaching students is being debated as part of the usual "port-and-wine-by-the-fire" meetings at the Belgrano driven by those with a vested interest (e.g. school owners seeking to reduce costs)

That will make those planning to complete a fATPL more likely to contemplate the MPL which puts you directly onto the flight deck rather than being paid peanuts as an FI building hours in the flooded market of PPL/FI.

:sad:

[S-Works]

I agree completely with Beagle.
Passing a few ATPLS exams does not in anyway make you an experianced pilot or teacher but obviously breathtakingly arrogant! You are an apprentice for a VERY long time after passing the exams. Personally I did an Instructor Course after 2000hrs and still think of myself as an apprentice.
I pray for the day that we get rid of the airline hour builders from PPL training and go back to the old days of EXPERIANCED pilots handing on the knowledge gained by experiance.

Thankfully the return to renumerated PPL/FI's is on the horizon.

[RVR800]

BOSE..... Why exactly is an PPL/FI more experienced than a fATPL/FI?
What you are saying is that there should be an hours requirement in excess of 200 hours? - there will be no such requirement by the CAA
Most of this as we all know is an argument about money - reducing labour costs dressed up as quality of training.... which it certainly isnt - it actually reduces the amount of training required and keeps hours the same:ugh:

[gijoe]

Bose-X wrote 'Thankfully the return to renumerated PPL/FI's is on the horizon'
Bose-X, or BEagle is it?
I'm sorry if I have missed it but could you point me in the right direction of the where the debate is or put a summary up here.
Many thanks

[S-Works]

It is being discussed within EASA at the moment. Are you a member of AOPA? They have representation on the discussions.
RVR800 - First there is no such thing as a Frozen ATPL it primarily exists in the mind of wannabee airline pilots who think it puts them a notch over others!! Secondly I was not saying that a CPL/IR holder with an FI rating was an better or worse than a PPL FI. What I was saying is that it is bloody arrogant of someone thinking because they have completed the ATPL exams they are somehow no longer an apprentice. Exams do not make a good Instructor or a good pilot, experiance does. The problem with a lot of hour building FI's is that they are only interested in the hours and not the student.

They don't sit there and think about the student they sit and think about when they are going to get a break so that they can leave the crappy spam can behind and fly a chav transporter.

The PPL FI gets into it because they want to put something back and generally are of the experianced nature as Beagle points out. Don't get me wrong there a lot of very good dedicated FI's out there some career others more transient. But the standard varies greatly. But don't ever tell me a young kid with a few hundred hours and an FI is not an apprentice.
And before anyone starts I passed all those exams and with 2000hrs still consider myself to be an apprentice.

[BEagle]

The old sage PPL/FI who would quite happily bumble about instructing for a few days per month for next to nothing - apart from his/her own enjoyment of escape from the drudgery of his/her 'day' job.

The spotty little git who cannot be trusted to do anything except fly so-called 'trial lessons' and, even then, only until he can escape at the first opportunity to work the wireless in the right hand seat of some people tube.

Two extreme stereotypes.

In fact the PPL world actually needs to keep costs down to attract people into flying for pleasure whilst Bliar's surveillance society still allows it. 'Hours builders' are driven to it out of desperation - there is no other way for them to get the first foot on the ladder. If any blame is to be attached, it lies squarely with the utter, abject failure of airlines to invest in the training of their future pilots.

AOPA does indeed have a position paper on solving the future FI shortage. I wrote it for them. Basically, there are 3 principles:

1. The level of theoretical knowledge required by a FI shall consist of teaching and learning requirements, together with a sound knowledge of the subjects at the level which the FI seeks to teach.

2. The FI shall only conduct instruction to the level of his/her own licence and ratings.

3. The right to give remunerated instruction shall be an inherent part of the FI rating privilege.

'Hours builders' should also note that the major airlines consider some 50% of 'frozen ATPL' holders to be virtually unemployable due to their personal qualities and team skills. Sad, but true. Which is why airlines need to invest in sponsoring aptitude tested pilot cadets.

[gijoe]

BEAgle,

Many thanks.

So where does the debate sit now and what is the next step?

G

[RVR800]

Any such change may well just mean that those destined for the airlines go in order - PPL FI CPL IR ATPL.

That sequence will simply mean that they arrive at the flying school without as many exams and flight tests.......

This is all abour reducing labour and training costs - nothing to do with quality

[S-Works]

It is about both. You are being very naive if you think that flight training can survive with the endless rise in costs. If training organisations can bring the cost of flying down by using PPL FI's then we might attract more people in and retain people for longer.

I also still think that an experianced PPL FI brings more to the table than an inexperianced hours builder regardless of the number of exams they have sat in the same way as a career instructor does. Also bear in mind that the majority of career instructors are ex PPL FI's that got a BCP through greandfather rights.

The number of exams you have sat counts for nothing it is the experiance you bring to the table. I have sat all of these wonderfull exams and gained high 90 passes in them all yet if I sat them tommorrow I bet I would not pass them again and anyone who tells me they would is either a liar or an ego maniac. I have no desire to drive a chav transporter but I do like part time teaching, tail wheel, Instrument rating etc. and I certainly don't need free hours. This means that I may be able to give a better level of consistancy.

Also again as beagle points out the standard of the vast majority of wannabee airlines pilots means they will never get a job. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who put themselves through the mill to fill the dream of being an airline pilot yet will never have the skills to do the. Airlines are not interested in the hours you have in the RHS of a spam can they are interested in your management skills. My friend is flying Dash 8 for BA and has just passed the 500hrs TT as a PILOT. BA don't want hours they want CRM etc.

Airline pilots should be apptitude tested and sponsored this would stop people deluding themselves!

[MIKECR]

Lets not tarr all hour builder FI's with the same brush. Two very good friends of mine are airline pilots but also still teach at weekends on their FI tickets. Both are still using it as a means to build hours yet both are highly thought of by club members and their flying/teaching skills respected. Neither of them are a day over 30 and have been teaching for a couple of years. I would happily fly with them any day of the week, probably more so than some hoary old instructor who who's got all the bad habits under the sun.

[RVR800]

Improvements in quality are NOT achieved by reducing a training reqirement - the hours building will just start earlier in the chain after PPL - these guys wil still need the hours - they will just start earlier - as they did in the past with the old system....

The main reason PPL training is done in the USA is because aircraft hire costs are too high in the UK. This is partly to do with regulatory overkill and taxation......

[S-Works]

Lets not tarr all hour builder FI's with the same brush

Mike, we are not tarring them all with the same brush, I was very carefull to point out that there are a lot of good hour building instructors out there. And as you point out these are people who have an airline job and have come back to teaching. I know a lot of first class instructors who do this.

However my experiance which is quite extensive and apparantly that of many other people looking at the forums is the the sub standard far outweighs the high standards.

RVR, you are still missing the point, hours building as an FI gives you diddle advantage in getting an airline job. It is a myth perpetuated by those who don't get a job as a reason for not getting one. FI work for those who do get a job is just marking time deluding themselves that working in aviation is going to give them an advantage. They don't want to be there. Read my comment about my 280hr friend who got a job with BA. Never worked in avaiation and not an FI, but a professional manager and a 1st class team worker.

[MIKECR]

Bosex

I have to disagree with your comment about FI's hours giving you "diddle advantage" in getting an airline job. My two friends, as previously mentioned, would not have got their jobs had it not been for their instructor time. Both airlines made it quite clear they needed 1000 hours total time, for insurance purposes. There was no other way they could have amassed those hours otherwise. The friend that you are referring to im afraid doesnt seem anything special, he obviously flies for BA connect or Cityexpress, not BA mainline. There are loads of low hour 200/250 hour guys that fly on the Dash.

[S-Works]

Mike, we are agreeing violently here! My point is that my friend is not special he is a low hours pilot that had the right attributes to work in a multi crew environment. If there is that much work out there for low hours pilots why do we have hour building FI's and not hour building on the Dash? After all 1000hrs on a dash Multi-Crew has to be more attractive (and better paid) than 1000hrs RHS of a Cessna.........

Like I said there are a lot of wannabee airline pilots out there kidding themselves that they have the right stuff to get a job.....

[MIKECR]

Yes, your absolutely right, there are a lot of wannabees who deap down just arent made of the right stuff and will undoubtedly fail an airline interview because they dont have the necessary life skills/character/management/team working abilities etc etc etc. My point however was more geared towards the fact that instructing hours are the only option in many cases for 'suitable' people to get that first airline job. Many airlines have minimum hours requirements for a reason and the only conceivable means for some people to get those hours, is to instruct. In other words, it is just like the old self imrover route. So, unfortunately I have to disagree with the comment about "diddle advantage".

[gijoe]

So has the debate been documented somewhere?

G

[S-Works]

Which debate joe?

If you mean the PPL FI debate? It currently resides with the various working groups of which I sit on a couple and I believe Beagle sits on many.

[gijoe]

Bose,

Sorry , I should have been more specific. I was just interested in reading where the debate with the CAA/AOPA and/or the JAA was going as an aside from what is very elqouently being said by you, BEagle and others on here.

I take it that aside from BEagle's paper nothing else has been written?

G

[S-Works]

Joe,

No there is plenty written about it and more than just Beagles proposal. They are sat with EASA at the moment. I am not sure on the progress as they are on the periphary of the things I am dealing (Intrument Rating) but I am happy to enquire and provide you with more information.

[RVR800]

Yes MILECR I know of many also who are flying for various airlines after having got 1000 hrs plus flying single crew. Some got their hours under the old PPL FI BCPL CPL IR ATPL others more recently.
In the future under this proposal they will just pitch up at the flying school earlier with PPL FI rather than CPL FI...... i.e. less exams passed and then do the exams/flight tests whilst working at the school

[gijoe]

....and stay longer at a given school.

So surely this would be a good thing?

[RVR800]

Possibly but will they have as much knowledge, skill and experience?

[S-Works]

Possibly but will they have as much knowledge, skill and experience?

there you go again assuming that schools want hour building FI's! I assume you are one yourself?

Schools want continuity, they hate the short term hours builders and the PPL FI route suits them. So they will be able to choose from the experianced guys.

[BEagle]

EASA requies instructors to have theoretical knowledge and experience requirements '....appropriate for the instruction being given'.

So it is highly likely that the PPL/FI will have several hundred hours of relevant personal experience of grass strip operation, navigating around the UK under VFR and experiencing UK weather over a few years as a PPL holder, probably one who has used an IMC Rating. Which will be of a lot more use than someone whose sole experience amounts to minimum time beacon-bashing under the hood or a handful of hours staggering around the sky in a Seneca on one engine wth an instructor in the other seat.

Own flying skills, ability to impart instruction and knowledge of the exercises to be flown, plus appropriate theoretical knowledge will be no lower than the present 'standard' - and hopefully the focus will be on the ability to impart instruction.

Additionally, it could well be a less expensive, albeit slower route to the airlines for those who yearn to fly people-tubes. Obtain PPL, IMC Rating and Night Qualification and build up flying time. Apply for FI course. Apply for job as PPL/FI. Get paid - and save pennies towards CPL/IR. Meanwhile, network with others and perhaps get noticed and accepted for full airline sponsorship - which will have to come as the pilot shortage is unlikely to be met any other way.......

[gijoe]

Thank you BEagle - I couldn't have said it better.....even in Pashto :ok:

[RVR800]

----> highly likely that the PPL/FI will have several hundred hours
But there isn't any such hours requirement on the proposal :confused:

[BEagle]

No - because the key requirement is for 'appropriate' experience. Rather than some meaningless hours figure gained flogging up and down the East Floridian coast, the intention is for competency-based assessment.

'Hours' prove NOTHING!