FI market in UK [Archive]

A and C

3rd Apr 2007, 07:33

For years in the UK you could instruct with a PPL and an instructor rating, when the Europeans demanded that instructors have a CPL we were all told that the money would increase to match the "new" status.

The fact of the matter is that we are now short of instructors and I can think of at least two guy in my club who would make great instructors.
However with years of safe private flying and aged 50+ they are not going to get a CPL just to get paid a few pounds an hour, but they would do an instructor rating and do a much better job than a spotty youth CPL who spends all his time trying to get a jet job.

It's high time that AOPA and the PFA pushed this point at EASA (if they are not already doing so)

mikeo

3rd Apr 2007, 08:54

I don't think you can say that all instructors with a CPL are trying to get a jet job. Two of us from the CPL theory course at GTS had no intention of getting an ATPL because we are in our 40s and calculated there was no point in the extra expense.
I have been aiming to become an FI for years and slowly progressed through all the exams and tests - and am now within 6 hours of the end of my FI course. I have worked out that I can only afford to teach full time until October - as I'll run out of money by then. So it will then be weekends only as I will have to go back to my IT job to save up for the next summer!
I'll be after a job from 1st May onwards - if anyone knows of any :ok:

RVR800

3rd Apr 2007, 11:32

Yes I think that if they do away with the CPL licence requirement for FIs then they may as well bin the CPL exams. (NO one would bother)
It will go back to just needing the PPL exams in order to teach the PPL - exams done locally at the club house (no need to worry about all the hassle of the doing a formal exam) - you would just have to have a chat to the FIE after doing the FI course
Most of the money in flight instruction at PPL level goes to the person that owns the club and aircraft - the return of the PPL/FI is a must for them - they resent shelling out to people for instructing and they hate the idea that someone may want a career with decent money in flying - its this group of people so called 'industry stakeholders' that form the bulk of the lobby groups wanting to return to the old days - its vested interest dressed up dont be fooled...

flying jocks

4th Apr 2007, 09:04

VFE,
Sorry for the late reply - Yes is the answer. My advice would be to make sure you have the various instructor add on ratings. You should be unrestricted with the ability to teach instrument flying. Having a ME instructor rating is a bonus.
Lifestyle wise, Jerez is quite different from the rest of the costas. Although there are quite a lot of other Europeans living in this region, its style is completely Spanish (culture, cuisine and language).
If you are a career instructor where lifestyle is the most important thing, then it would be worth getting in contact.
www.flighttrainingeurope.com
FJ

Ex Oggie

19th Apr 2007, 19:47

Within my club, at a busy GA airfield in south Warwickshire, this is really becoming an issue. There are very few potential FI(R) who come our way and are considered the 'right type' for our training ethos.
We could easily take another 2 or 3 instructors on a full time basis doing approximately 100 hours per month. Add to that, excellent conditions and good money, we really are wondering what else we can do to attract them. Interestingly, we have virtually no applications from female instructors, making it even more difficult to recruit them, despite trying to do so pro-actively.
Experience has shown that a raw restricted instructor is preferable, allowing us to develop their skills more to our needs.
XO

rusponge

20th Apr 2007, 02:56

If your an experienced FI with multi IR experience then you name your price!!!!! fact!!!

lplpa28driver

20th Apr 2007, 08:34

I agree there is a cronic shortage of the right kind of instructor, I have just heard my school is looking for another full time unrestricted instructor to join a small but busy club in the NW. PM for more details.

bolty_1000

20th Apr 2007, 12:04

Im thinking of doing my FI rating (Im currently CPL/IR).

Anyone able to give me an indication of the payscale I can expect in the South East. Are you paid by the hour or is it possible to secure a salary??

BEagle

20th Apr 2007, 13:45

"The fact of the matter is that we are now short of instructors and I can think of at least two guy in my club who would make great instructors.
However with years of safe private flying and aged 50+ they are not going to get a CPL just to get paid a few pounds an hour, but they would do an instructor rating and do a much better job than a spotty youth CPL who spends all his time trying to get a jet job.

It's high time that AOPA and the PFA pushed this point at EASA (if they are not already doing so)"

Well, we're hoping to start by introducing an NPPL FI (SSEA) and a working group is being formed. The concept has been accepted by the NPPL P&SC and by the CAA; however, the devil will be in the detail and we must consider EASA's thoughts for the future European Light Aircraft Licence.

The 'experienced private pilot instructor' such as you describe is precisely what we hope to achieve.

But we must also accept the reality of 'hours builders' and not tar them all with the same brush.

G_STRING

20th Apr 2007, 14:18

Beagle

How long do you think it will take before the NPPL FI concept is introduced? This is something quite a few people I know would love to do, (but at the moment, as you know, are constricted by the requirement for the CPL writtens).

BEagle

20th Apr 2007, 15:39

Sorry, I can't possibly say. For the following reasons:

1. Agreement between the industry bodies proposing the idea is needed. Nothing will happen until this is secured.
2. Knowledge of EASA's concepts will be required.
3. A formal industry proposal would then be put to the CAA.
4. The CAA would then need to decide whether a Regulatory Impact Assessment is needed.
5. Consultation with all interested parties may be needed.
6. Amendment to the ANO would be needed.

None of the above have any sure timescales.

mikeo

20th Apr 2007, 22:30

Being new to the flying instructing market (having been in IT for many years) I am quite puzzled why some people seem to be pushing to have non-professional pilots as instructors (experienced PPLs). I'd have thought that everyone would have been trying to raise standards and have minimum qualifications and can't see why someone wouldn't be able or willing to get a CPL enroute to being an instructor.
Every other industry I can think of is trying to professionalise and set standards - even Financial advisors now have to be qualified! The teaching profession has qualified teachers - would it be the same to have experienced amaters in schools? Perhaps we could envisage experienced but unqualified doctors operating on people to cut waiting lists?
Perhaps I'm missing the point bit it would seem to me that the only benefit will be to the flying school owners. If you allow experienced PPLs to get paid instruction then the pay for all FIs will drop instantly as the market will be flooded with all those PPLs with enough experience. Supply will exceed demand - market forces apply.

BEagle

21st Apr 2007, 05:13

It is appropriate theoretical knowledge which is needed, not 'commercial' knowledge.

The core attributes are appropriate theoretical knowledge, the ability to impart instruction, own flying skills and interpersonal skills.

Knowing all about the inter-tropical convergence zone or the number of stewardesses needed in a 747 are totally irrelevant to PPL instructing.

apruneuk

22nd Apr 2007, 23:14

The movement of the ITCZ has a direct bearing on our weather, in particular the movement of the Warm Sector Depressions (or Travelling Polar Front Depressions as they are also known) that dominate it. Their associated warm and cold fronts can be particularly hazardous to unwary VFR pilots.

BEagle

23rd Apr 2007, 05:39

Nope, they just need to know the typical hazards and characteristics of weather in the UK, not the theory behind it. Which, in any case, is largely waffle.... Although I despair at the Fischer-Price met charts pushed out these days - no isobars. Almost as bad as the junk on BBC-TV.

Do yoiu expect PPL holders to learn how crude oil becomes aviation gasoline?

RVR800

23rd Apr 2007, 10:41

The problem with not having proper examinations is that one can get pilots with improper knowledge.

The PPL whole theory thing is a bit of a lottery - it's not taught at some schools at all well - most of the schools dont teach theory properly - its all to do with money - its self teaching

There is little money for it - FIC courses are invoiced on hours airborne so no incentive to do much theory for them either

Its a bit like the average flying school where they just want you in the air - everything else is not that lucrative so its up to the students if they can be bothered to read about overhead joins, aeroplane performance, navigation, weather, engines etc... lot of very poor knowledge out there for some

Its easy to assume that people know stuff - ex RAF types underestimate their own knowledge base

QNH 1013

23rd Apr 2007, 11:03

"There is little money for it - FIC courses are invoiced on hours airborne so no incentive to do much theory for them either"
Well that certainly wasn't my experience. The theory was certainly not skimped or rushed on either my initial FI course, or the Aero and Instrument upgrades. All three were at different schools and I was very impressed with the tuition at them all. As far as I remember, the courses were charged as a fixed lump sum.
Are some schools running dodgy, corner-cutting FI courses?

S-Works

23rd Apr 2007, 11:04

I am a firm believer that ground school should be taught by a certified ground school instructor. AOPA do a certificate for this as an expample.

The level of theory knowledge relevant to PPL training held by most FI's is pretty poor. You onloy have to see candidates panicking on the FI course when given presentations to write.

In answer to Mikeo's question, what makes you think that a CPL holder is going to be any better as an Instructor than a PPL holder? What we are trying to push for is better qualified Instructors. The PPL arena has a massive wealth of knowledge and experiance on tap with people who are prepared to do an FI course but have no desire to drive a people tube or any other commercial work outside of PPL Instruction. Tapping this resource means we will be able to have some long term consistancy in PPL training.

I don't think there will be a flood of PPL's effecting the market balance, the FI rating still has to be worked for but it will draw committed PPL FI's in and go a good way towards removing the hours builders with little interest or commitment.

I can assure you that AOPA are pushing this very hard with EASA.

Say again s l o w l y

23rd Apr 2007, 13:38

Nope, I spend my time dreaming of Pamela Anderson or about having a student who knows how to use their feet without being prompted.

I do agree with having specialised ground school instructors. Most FI's simply don't have the time to teach ground school subjects and it would be better having a specialist rather than someone doing it as an "extra".

Solar

23rd Apr 2007, 13:43

mikeo
I think that you may be suffering from a quite common misconception that afflicts most of the younger generation these days in that having a piece of paper means that you can do the job. I find increasingly that people with bits of paper tend to have a good memory with a knack of passing exams.
I had the good fortune to be taught in in the "good old days" with most of my instruction having been carried out by a farmer/instructor who made every lesson fun and most of all a valuble learning experience.
I would seriously comtemplate doing a FI course (and I am not in the first flush as they say) assuming I can pass the medical and the CPL exams as I now have some spare time throughout the year.
Our club has experienced major difficulty in getting instructors ever since the introduction of the CPL requirement and not only that a major portion of the club income is derived from gift voucher flights which again requires the CPL.

Token Bird

23rd Apr 2007, 14:54

I think that you may be suffering from a quite common misconception that afflicts most of the younger generation these days in that having a piece of paper means that you can do the job

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? After all, the piece of paper does actually represent something, that is, that the person has done advanced training. We don't just pay 'X' amount of money and get presented with a piece of paper which says, 'you're a CPL, you're fab'. I think mikeo's point was more to do with the flight training side of the CPL, not the written exams.

When I was doing my FI course, there was another chap doing it who was a PPL and he seriously struggled with the course. I think getting PPLs teaching PPLs is akin to parents teaching their kids to drive! I come across a lot of PPLs when I do bi-annuals and to be honest, most of them would not stand a chance when it comes to teaching, even the more experienced ones!

Anyway, I don't think I'll bother reading this forum anymore because I'm finding it is filled with negativity. Coming on here and having to put up with ignorant people like bose-x insulting me and how I do my job is very disheartening when I take my job seriously, but am labelled a bad instructor simply because I am 'an hour-builder'.

So I think I'll leave all you narrow-minded people to talk wistfully about 'the good old days',

TB

S-Works

23rd Apr 2007, 15:00

Bye then. Thanks for the visit.

Say again s l o w l y

23rd Apr 2007, 15:16

I love a good well mannered debate...... It's a pity we never have any on here.

Bose, you keep saying that there is a wealth of talent and experience in the PPL world. I simply don't think that's true. Whilst holding a CPL doesn't guarantee quality, it is a lot better than the PPL. At least you have a certain level of competence.

There are PPL's out there who are extremely good and would make good FI's, but there are a far greater number who would be disasterous. Bad habits from years of flying outside a structured environment is but one of the issue that would need to be addressed.

I think the analogy about parents teaching their kid's to drive is inaccurate since they have never been through an instructors course unlike any FI.

I will bang on to the end of my days that the absolute last thing ths industry needs is a load of hobbyists FI's. What we need is more career FI's not a load of part timers and the PPL FI will do stuff all to address that.

S-Works

23rd Apr 2007, 15:19

You will be a long time waiting for an apology from me! What the **** gives you the right to abuse me and then think you are in the right. Why do you think your post was donked......
The comment goes both ways, god help your students if you are as volatile in person as you are in writing. Perhaps I have struck a nerve with you, guilty concience??
I am an Instructor, but believe that a big problem with the decline in GA is people using it as a step onto "better" things while not giving a toss about the dirty footprint they leave behind.
I made it quite clear that I do not think all hours builders are wasters, you have just taken it that way. I have done considerable research on the subject for the CAA and AOPA and trust me I am not alone in my views. This is one of the prime movers in making regulatory changes towards making the PPL enviornment less attractive to hours builders.
So feel free to rant away. But perhaps if you met me and took the faceless emotion out of our communication including adding your own view of the "tone" of my posting you would discover that I am both a pleasant person and that my views are actually quite balanced rather than based on emotion.
But if you are going to hold your breath waiting for an apology from me then please make sure you have a responsible person present........ ;)
I'd just like to say that you are a horrible person and I find it hard to believe that you are in fact 38 years old as it says in your profile, as most people would have got rid of their arrogance by your age.
I have to say, if you are an instructor, then I feel very sorry for your students. If the kind of tripe that you spout on PPRuNe resembles what you are like in real life then they will have a snowball's chance in hell of learning anything from you.
I will await your public apology on PPRuNe.

PPRuNe Towers

23rd Apr 2007, 15:24

Bose has been granted 10 days to concentrate on his most pressing Aopa work. While we feel humbled by his people skills it's both selfish and foolish to keep him all to ourselves.

Regards
Rob

essouira

23rd Apr 2007, 21:04

What is that goes on in people's dull lives that gets them so wound up by a forum on pprune ?????
To sum up -
Some instructors are hours-building .....
And some are career instructors .........
Ans some are good teachers and some are rubbish ......
And some are nice and some are "*****" ......
The fact that I am older doesn't mean that I am wiser and the fact that you are younger doesn't mean that you are more fun (or more gorgeous).
Can we get back to the original debate now ?
There does seem to be quite a lot of work around but it has not resulted in better pay or conditions for us instructors - does anyone think that there is a chance that one day we may start earning a decent wage ?

VFE

23rd Apr 2007, 22:09

There is most definately work available for qualified flying instructors - just depends whether you're lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time. Failing that, you'll find work (albeit part-time work) somewhere if you are prepared to look around and contact the flying schools by telephone or in person. Show your face around prior to commencing the FIC and you'll be more likely to succeed post-FIC in securing work. Worked for me.

Good luck!

VFE.

apruneuk

24th Apr 2007, 17:24

If flying schools offered realistic salaries to their full-time FIs then there wouldn't be a shortage of instructors - those that want a career in aviation and have an aptitude for teaching could choose to go the FI route instead of public transport.

Sadly, allowing PPL FIs will (in my opinion) only further undermine Ts and Cs and drive down salaries. I don't doubt that there are many PPL holders with experience who would make fine instructors, in which case I don't see the harm in them gaining CPL theoretical knowledge (I did it distance learning while working full-time). Indeed, had I not had that knowledge I would have struggled on the FIC. For me it was just a question of revising what I had studied before and then being shown how to present the relevant information to my students.

It is good to have a more in-depth understanding of the subjects that you teach than you actually need for the course in question. Inevitably a FI will sometimes come across a student who actually wants to know a bit more than what is necessary to gain a piece of paper that says they are a pilot.

No doubt surgeons would love to have only studied those areas of medicine relating to cutting people up but I bet they regularly draw on their bank of knowledge gained from studying general medicine. If a particular school has weak instructors whether PPL or CPL then that is up to the CFI to sort out. Inevitably some get into teaching for the wrong reasons but arguing that having a professional qualification is worse than having an amateur one is plainly ridiculous.

VFE

24th Apr 2007, 18:37

Having canvassed for an instructor job at rather a few flying schools (at the wrong time of year - autumn/winter!) it was plainy obvious that the majority of CFI's I met were quite happy, indeed many actively encouraged instructors whose aim was to move onto airline work. One said it adds marketing potential to have potential airline material working for the school and he was happy to play a part in a pilot's career.

Only one CFI expressed concern at employing an instructor whose aim it was to fly airline however he was only one from many I talked with. I should also add that at no point did I express an intention to find airline work following a period of instructing, on the contrary, they were all very forthcoming with their open arms attitude to the dreaded 'hours building' instructor. So it just goes to show what those closest to the pulse think about this tedious debate raised time and time again on this forum. Perhaps one day we can bring it to a close and not witness thread after thread disolve into the same doggy chasing tail charade? But again I digress...

It is without doubt a great time to be an instructor, there's plenty of work going if you search for it. The sun is shining and the birds are flapping away to the sound of the farmyard airgun - the job is absolutely enthralling, totally rewarding, challenging and exciting so get stuck in, enjoy yourself and contribute something positive to the wonderful world of general aviation. The smile on a new recruit's face after their first trial lesson is worth it alone. :ok:

VFE.

hotcloud

24th Apr 2007, 20:26

I have been a PPL instructor for 10 years now and thoroughly enjoy the work:). I consider myself a career part time instructor and have no wish to join the airlines. From my experience there are good and bad instructors from the pool of either career or hour building instructors. There has really been some very good and friendly hour building instructors who have made the student feel confident and special. The record keeping has been excellent and without a doubt the student has had excellent tuition, on the other hand there have been some hour builders that are arrogant and have belittled the student. I know because I have taken over some of their students and to my horror, have found the record keeping non existent. Some of my fellow career instructors are excellent, they are a rock and provide continuity and great care is taken with the record keeping. I must say though, I also find some career instructors arrogant, and if I were one of the students I would not be at ease in thier company. I consider myself rather humble, in that I have empathy for my students, I try to foster an atmosphere that is friendly, and yes fun, but at the same time inpart knowledge.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that a good instructor has the right attitude, relaxed friendly, but most of all operates with professionalism. I worked hard for my instructor rating and now have over 4000 hrs under my belt. Passing the CPL exams demonstrated that I had commitment and was serious about getting the rating. Yes it's an extra hurdle but I was prepared to do this whilst holding down a full time job, and believe me if I could live on a full time instructor wage I would be in like a shot. I have no doubt there will be some very good PPL instructors who would wish to teach without the commercial rating however it would be hardly fair to the instructors that have made the commitment by obtaining the commercial rating, and in my opinion would drive down the salary (market forces). However if a situation ever occured were there was enough work to go around, I would welcome the PPL instructor, the guys like me could still teach and receive a wage and the keen PPL instructor without the commercial rating could enjoy teaching for fun.;)

excrab

24th Apr 2007, 20:33

Just a few personal observations following on from some of the posts on here.

Firstly, why should PPL holders being allowed to instruct drive down terms and conditions for instructors. Historically the introduction of the BCPL and then the CPL requirement in the UK did nothing to improve Ts & Cs for most instructors, so why would the reintroduction of PPL holders instructing make them worse. They would still want to earn a decent salary, and if in the business for a career rather than just to log hours and move on would they not be less likely to accept low wages than an hours building frozen ATPL holder.

Secondly, I still fail to see (after 23 years of holding an instructors rating), what value a CPL or ATPL has over a PPL as the basic licence for an instructor - and I started out instructing with a PPL and now hold an ATPL. The sort of questions I have been asked by PPL holders and students over and above the requirements for the PPL have mainly been on subjects such as grass strips, PFA aircraft, VFR flying abroad, tailwheel conversions, aerobatics, air rallies, group flying - the list goes on but many of these things would be familiar to experienced PPL holders who might be interested in instructing, but are not touched upon in CPL/ATPL theory or on any integrated (f)ATPL course.

The main objections seems to be that those who hold a CPL think they are "better" pilots than those holding a PPL - but there is no reason that a properly conducted pre-entry skills test before the FIC course couldn't weed out anyone whose flying skills were not up to the required standard. And not having had to spend £30k - £50k on a CPL just might mean that a little more could be spent on a longer FIC course with a greater emphasis on teaching skills and less on learning to fly the aeroplane.

As far as the job market goes - it seems that the shortage at the moment is not of new FI(r) holders but experienced instructors able to teach the advanced PPL subjects (night/IMC/Aeros), as a lot of instructors coming into the industry are moving onto commercial / airline flying before they even upgrade to an unrestricted rating, let alone obtain any of the advanced ratings (except for a few going for multi or IR instructor to further their own careers). Re-introduction of PPL holding instructors being allowed to carry out renumerated instruction would reduce that tendency, especially if the hours gained instructing couldn't be counted towards the 1500 hours for the issue of an ATPL.

Say again s l o w l y

24th Apr 2007, 21:36

I have heard from many "hobby" FI's (mostly airline pilots it has to be said....) that they aren't fussed about being paid. As they have income from elsewhere and instruct as a bit of fun on the side.

There is of course space for part-time and non career FI's. Most bring a lot to the industry, but any PPL FI's should be able to be paid.

excrab, you say BCPL, CPL etc has done little for the wages of FI's? Well for the first time I've ever seen, the rates for FI's are slowly creeping into the realms of reality. You still have to look around, but there are jobs that pay more than just poverty wages. That has naff all to do with PPL FI's.

I take my guide for how things should be done from the helicopter world. They have always had PPL instructors, the difference being though, they have always been paid. So as a heli PPL FI you can earn a decent (ish) salary and guess what, you have a far higher level of experience overall.

My experience of Heli training is that in general it is of a much higher quality than fixed wing and the a/c are significantly less shabby. Yes, it's a lot more expensive, but I think the figures are simply more realistic than we have in the fixed wing world.

So unless the PPL-FI can be paid, we will simply be turning the clock back and destroying the PPL training industry all over again. Only, this time, it may be irrecoverable.

excrab

25th Apr 2007, 09:36

Say again slowly,

The requirement for instructors to hold a professional licence came in 1988 with the introduction of the BCPL (which for those not familiar with it was effectively a "frozen CPL", enabling holders to be paid for aerial work or limited public transport flying with less than 700 hrs). At the time it made no difference to salaries and I somehow doubt that after 19 years it is now doing so. I may be wrong (as I often am), but having talked to a couple of CFIs and club owners recently I suspect salaries are going up because of the shortage of experienced instructors. You're right, it has nothing to do with PPL instructors.

At no time did I mention unpaid PPL instructors. The instructor ratings which used to be attached to a PPL permitted the holder to be renumerated for aerial work consisting of instructing only, provided that both the instructor and student were members of the same flying club or group. If this rating was reintroduced, with some revision to the technical knowledge which could be pitched at a lower level than CPL/ATPL but higher than PPL (possibly similar to the old PPL/IR exam level) there is no reason that PPL holders couldn't be useful instructors, and there are many out there who would like to give something back to light aviation rather than using it as a stepping stone.

Whilst it is nice to think that CPL holders make better instructors, the accident statistics seem to prove otherwise. At the last renewal seminar I attended a presentation was given which included accident statistics for PPL holders now as opposed to the 1980s. There was an almost identical proportion of stall/spin, CFIT, landing, running out of fuel etc which would indicate that the fact that all instructors bar a few with grandfather rights now hold professional licences has made no difference at all to the product that flying schools are producing. This doesn't mean that PPL instructors would be better, just that they would probably be no worse.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Apr 2007, 09:58

A good FI is a good FI whether they hold a PPL or CPL. My argument is that you have a generally higher standard of candidate with someone who has jumped through the hoops. They certainly have demonstrated a higher level of commitment.

I do think that the level of training in general is pretty poor throughout the industry, but I think the solution is to have full time long term FI's earning a respectable salary, rather than having an influx of "new" FI's.

To me it smacks of a cheap fix and that long term, the issue of salary is more important.

Market forces are pushing up salaries, having a load of PPL FI's will end up stopping this and maybe even reversing this trend.

The current system is not very good, but this isn't the way to fix it.

lady in red

25th Apr 2007, 14:15

It has been a little while since I posted, but some of you may remember the proposals I put forward for the introduction of a dedicated Flying Instructor licence or qualification. This would not require the passing of CPL exams but would have its own specifically focussed essay-style pre-entry test to test the knowledge of the candidate and then focused subject exams specific to teaching and the psychology of learning, plus all the admin, legal and regulatory stuff to be studied for during the FI course. The course would be longer than the existing FI course to take account of the lack of CPL course but if someone had a CPL they would be credited with some hours. I also suggested certain other types of credits such as teaching experience or military FI credits.
I echo many of the posts on this Forum with concerns about producing a dedicated and professional bunch of career instructors and spend my life trying to turn the raw material currently provided into just those kind of people. As a provider to the industry of FI(R)s, I do find it disappointing that some of the great instructors I have trained then leave within a few months for the airlines simply for the salary. I know many instructors who would far rather stay as instructors than fly the anti-social hours but have to opt for the airlines in order to pay the bills.
I believe that there are many factors affecting the whole process at the moment and one of these is the total lack of financial support from the airline industry, which is after all the net beneficiary of the training equation. If the airlines had to pay a training levy every time they took a recruit out of the instructor market, then we would soon have a big enough pot to provide better salaries for the career instructors and to subsidise the training of the future airline pilots. I know that the airlines will say they haven't the money because it is all so cut-throat out there. But my answer would be - charge a proper price for the tickets and stop this nonsense of cheap fares.

VFE

25th Apr 2007, 18:08

Secondly, I still fail to see (after 23 years of holding an instructors rating), what value a CPL or ATPL has over a PPL as the basic licence for an instructor - and I started out instructing with a PPL and now hold an ATPL.

If nothing else it reminds you what it feels like to know nothing about something when, after all those years of instructing, you have kinda forgot what it feels like to know nothing. You might therefore empathise with the student just that little bit more? When (after the 4th flight of the day) that less-than-average student struggles to recall exactly where the fuel switch is located during checks, you might just think... "Ha!... I know that feeling!"... instead of just pointing and thinking "I wish I'd had me dinner!".

Poor example, I know, but you get the drift.....ish?

Okay then: It is all about embarking on a structured course of study and achieving. If you have never done that then how the hell can you preach the gospel to those who are learning? I played music at a professional level, I never took one music exam, although I might be a flying instructor I would never dream of assuming I could teach what I know about music after a 4 week course in teaching methods. Much less dive in and take work away from a music teacher who has studied music theory in great depth through sheer hard graft and personal sacrifice via a universally recognised authority, not via praxis, such was my own musical knowledge gained and one suspects the majority of potential instructors who only possess the PPL.

VFE.

excrab

25th Apr 2007, 20:06

VFE,

An interesting analogy - let's take it a little bit further. Imagine that you had learnt to play the piano for a hobby, and over, say, ten years you had improved your piano playing skills learning different disciplines (I'm not a pianist or musician of any sort but maybe a little concert pianistising, and some honkey-tonk and reggae and jazz and blues). You now thought you would like to help some other budding pianists to learn these things, but would like to earn some money for doing so. But now you were told that it didn't matter how good you were at playing the piano, you couldn't be paid as a piano teacher, but someone who hadn't even touched a keyboard until 18 months previously and had only played it for 170 hours and wasn't interested in teaching except that it would get them some more hours in their pianists log book would be allowed to, because they had done a concentrated groundschool course in the theory of piano construction, none of which your budding pianists had the slightest interest in.

When I started instructing I had about 600 hours total time which included all of the things I mentioned in my previous post (aeros, tailwheel, grass strips, PFA etc etc). In the 4000 hours of instructing which I then did before taking the CPL written exams and flight test I cannot remember a single PPL student asking me about polar stereographic charts or decca navigators or any of the arcane subjects covered in the CPL or ATPL written exams, however the PPL/IR studies were quite useful for a little extra depth teaching IMC ratings.

Whatever you say, I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot so has decided to do an instructor course would be any better at instructing when they started than I was. As I remember there is no teaching and learning section to the CPL so their teaching qualification and experience would only be that from the instructor course, ie the same as I had as a PPL instructor.

One thing I had failed to realise, however, is that a PPL course is about embarking on a structured course of study and achieving. I had always thought it was about helping people to achieve their ambitions and enjoy themselves whilst doing so - so maybe you're right and I have missed a point somewhere...

lady in red

25th Apr 2007, 20:56

The other thing that nobody has mentioned is that the guy or girl who does the fATPL is not actually very suitable to be a mentor of the prospective PPL student as he or she has not held a PPL and never done any of the fun things like aeros or tailwheel or landing on farmstrips, or fly-ins or crossed the channel for lunch and shopping in Le Touquet etc. Because they have done an integrated professionally focused course designed to teach them how to be an airline pilot, the element of fun and enjoyment is likely to be lacking together with spontaneity and imagination.
(Could this be the reason why so many people give up learning to fly these days or give up so soon after their licence - because they are not shown the fun things, nor what they can do in flying apart from drive a big steel tube full of punters drinking and swearing...)
I have to reiterate that I would like to see more experienced pilots becoming instructors who have flown lots of types and been to lots of places, tried out all types of aviation. In an ideal world the perfect instructor would have flown hundreds of hours through many seasons before starting to teach. Although I only had about 4-500 hours when I became an instructor 15 years ago I had already flown up to the Arctic circle and around Iceland and also through Europe, the Baltic republics and Scandinavia, started learning aerobatics and soloed two tailwheel types. I had also been hanggliding and in a helicopter, all of which (I like to think) gave me some worthwhile experience to offer back to my students. I have continued to add to my broad experience by flying 70 types to more than 350 landing sites and airfields, now teach aerobatics and helicopter PPL as well as the more usual ratings and FI course.
These days the prospective instructors seem to have done little more than the bare minimum and only ever flown a PA28 and the MEP variant on which they do their IR. It would be a better system if at least we reverted to the pre-JAR regime of a BCPL and nobody did their IR till they had sufficient hours. Then the prospective instructors could afford to do some fun flying instead and wait till later for the massive expenditure on a rating that useless to a PPL instructor and costs them a huge amount to maintain.

VFE

25th Apr 2007, 21:10

I concede Excrab and Lady in Red' points.

I think the question therefore falls to attitude. Agreed?

Perhaps tougher vetting at (and I use the word losely) "interview" stage *might* weed out those individuals to whom you refer.

I wouldn't know.... seriously.... I've worked at 3 schools now (albeit during just 10 months) but never met a sloppy one, and that's probably down to the fact I was too busy making sure I was doing my own job.

Agreed - I met many who were very interested in sending off their CV's to airlines but even so, them being the determined souls they were, they still upheld the ethos of good and proper flight instruction so maybe I haven't seen enough to know how much I don't yet know. It's possible I guess. What is your opinion because I'm foxed? Nobody I meet at the airfields on a daily basis expresses these views, you see.

VFE.

Say again s l o w l y

25th Apr 2007, 21:28

VFE your experience matches very closely with my own, and I've been teaching for over 9 years now at many different schools across the country.

I have met the occasional atrocious hour builder, but they have been in a massive minority. In fact I can only think of 2.

The "extras" mentioned such as tail wheel, grass strip, aero's etc. aren't something you average fATPL holder will know much about, but if a school takes them on and wants them to teach it, then common sense dictates that they should be trained.

When a new FI starts teaching, they aren't going to know it all and nor should they be expected to. No other job expects newly qualified inexperienced staff to be able to do everything without further training.

If you want to have an experienced and knowledgeable member of staff, they need on-going training (Continuous Professional Development). All other professions invest in their staff and it pays off long term. FI's don't even get paid properly in the first place, so what chance is there of a school actually paying for training for their FI's?

Again, if there were long term professional PPL FI's, then this may happen as schools are more likely to reap a reward long term.

How is any of this your average fATPL's fault? They are just trying to make a go of their career and if no-one is going to look after them, then why should they have any loyalty?

Of course they are going to run at the first chance of a properly paid job. I did and I don't feel guilty about it since I was being paid a pittance. I felt bad for my students and tried to ease the transition as much as possible, but I wasn't fussed about the school, even though I really enjoyed the job and it was a very nice place to work.

My goal was to get into an airline at the time and let's face it as a 21 year old fATPL, what did anyone expect? It's not as if the school didn't know that when they hired me.

VFE

25th Apr 2007, 21:48

Good points SAS,

The point being as instructors: we wanna see folks progress into those azure skies and experience the ultimate freedom. No politics up there, right?

VFE.

excrab

26th Apr 2007, 08:46

VFE and SAS,
All good points - I am not trying to criticise the newly qualified FI (r) - the fault lies in the system which was changed from one which had worked perfectly well since the 1930s just to attempt to bring us in to line with the rest of Europe, and in the airlines refusal to invest in training.
VFE is quite right - as a PPL holding instructor the flying club I worked for was quite happy to pay for the add on ratings because it gave them more flexibility to offer further training for PPL holders, and they knew that I was going to be with them for a considerable period of time as I had been a member for about seven years and they knew that I had no interest in being an airline pilot and wasn't qualified to be one anyway. He (or she) is also quite correct about tougther vetting - there is no reason that a PPL holder shouldn't be able to achieve the same standards of flying as a CPL holder prior to commencing an instructor course, however that could be done without having to spend £50k on an integrated course - even if you added the SEP CPL module to the start of the FIC course and charged £10k for the whole thing it would make the rating far more accessible than it is at the moment if there was no need to be involved with the CPL/ATPL ground school and CAA fees.
Lady in red is correct in her last paragraph - the old system where you needed 700hrs to be exempt the CPL approved course and could get your ATPL issued with 1500 hours as long as you had a multi-engine (not multi-crew) type rating (this was in the days before SEP/MEP for CPLs) meant that most instructors stayed in the business for longer and could progress further without massive expenditure. The only money I ever borrowed when I finally decided that I would have to find a commercial job to pay the mortgage was about £3k for the IR (I got the aircraft cheap through the club and a friend did the instructing).
Unfortunately we will never see a return to the old system as it didn't fit in with the JAR Brusscillian model. But I see no problem with paid PPL instructors. Doing it for nothing is a different thing altogether and I agree with you all that this is totally wrong, for the reasons everyone on here has already given.

Token Bird

29th Apr 2007, 14:40

The other thing that nobody has mentioned is that the guy or girl who does the fATPL is not actually very suitable to be a mentor of the prospective PPL student as he or she has not held a PPL

Hast thou not heard of modular flying? Not all of us can afford to do integrated courses!

I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot

The gloves come off, eh? I always planned being an instructor for a few years. In fact, I did my FI rating BEFORE my IR.

never done any of the fun things like aeros or tailwheel or landing on farmstrips, or fly-ins or crossed the channel for lunch and shopping in Le Touquet etc

Just nip across to the continent for a bit of shopping? Have you any idea what you sound like? So basically what you people are suggesting are that we should let a bunch of wealthy PPL holders teach for money, meanwhile you are begrudging 'us hour-builders' a wage within aviation, simply because we don't intend on doing the job forever. Amazing that some of you have the cheek to call us arrogant for thinking that as CPLs, we are better pilots. If the comments above are any indication of the type of people who would end up instructing if the rules did change, then god help us!

I was hoping that maybe this thread would become a bit more positive after the departure of bose-x, but clearly not. It's nice to know that my kind are hated by our fellow instructors! Lucky my students don't have such chips on their shoulders,

TB

Token Bird

29th Apr 2007, 14:52

however that could be done without having to spend £50k on an integrated course - even if you added the SEP CPL module to the start of the FIC course and charged £10k for the whole thing it would make the rating far more accessible than it is at the moment if there was no need to be involved with the CPL/ATPL ground school and CAA fees.

Since when did you need to do an integrated course to be an instructor? If all you want to do is instruct why would you bother with and MEP and an IR? You wouldn't, would you. As for adding the CPL to the beginning of the FI course, the only difference between that and the way it is done now is that you wouldn't be doing the CPL theory! So in fact you'd save about £2500, but your comment above seems to imply you're going to save tens of thousands!

I personally agree that the CPL theory is way over the top for people who purely want to instruct, so it seems we are pretty much in agreement that the system could be improved by dropping the theory requirement but keeping some sort of 'advanced flying' course akin to the CPL (but possibly without the instrument flying?) to bring potential PPL instructors' flying skills to a similar level to a CPL going into the FI rating.

By the way, polar stereographic charts are not part of the CPL syllabus, only the ATPL syllabus, so prospective instructors would not have to learn about them anyway. However, there is much in the CPL syllabus that is irrelevant, this was just a bad example for you to pick,

TB

lady in red

29th Apr 2007, 20:59

The point is, that nobody is saying that you need to do an integrated course to be an FI, but the graduates of such a course are finding that the airlines want them to have more hours than the bare minimum, so they then dream up the idea of becoming instructors...as I have said on previous threads, the truly determined instructor would not bother with an IR because he or she does not need it, nor would he or she bother with ATPL theory. But what we are seeing is those who have spent £70K at Oxford or Jerez, thinking they will get an immediate job with an airline, not actually achieving it. So we have a layer of fledgling wannabe airline pilots going for plan 'B', the FI course.

Funny some people's attitudes about lunch in Le Touquet - I have always found that it is practically the first thing most new PPLs want to do - to appease the wife who has put up with the new and expensive hobby for so many months - so they ask their instructor to do the cross channel check for them and take the wife for a nice lunch and a bit of (window) shopping...must have been there dozens of times...plus of course it is the cheapest hour building you can do as you can claim the fuel drawback to reduce the cost of the flying and the landing fees are very modest compared with most airfields in the south of England.

excrab

30th Apr 2007, 10:31

Token Bird,
I will concede the cost part, I have no figures available to hand for the cost of commercial training, CAA exam fees, CAA flight test fees, licence issue fees, hire of approved complex type for training and test etc, but I'm sure you are correct. The point is that a lot of PPL holders are put off by the amount of time required to reach the stage where they can even commence the FIC course.
However, please don't quote selectively from my posts - what I originally wrote was "I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot so has decided to do an instructor course" - as you always planned to instruct who are "your kind" which you feel to be hated. On the subject of selectivity, if you read what I wrote about the theory you will see that I said "arcane subjects covered in the CPL or ATPL written exams" Thus the polar stereographic chart was a perfectly valid example. I wasn't commenting on prospective instructors having to study them, but that having studied them had not made me any better as an instructor.
I don't think that anyone is talking about "rich PPL holders" here - although flying except at grass roots PFA / microlight level does tend to be the preserve of those who have a little more disposable income. For a PPL holder flying from an airfield such as Shoreham or Headcorn the cost of flying to Le Touqet for lunch is no more than that of flying from, for example, Wellesborne to Shobdon for a sunday lunch (excellent as they may be). And sadly many modular students (and I don't know who you are or how you built your hours so please don't get defensive about this) have built their hours by flying one type as cheaply as possibly over as short a calender time as possible, possibly not even in the UK) so still have little experience to offer the new PPL from the list of possible activities that Lady in Red and I listed.