PPL - Instructor

[garywoodrow]

hi, just a few quick questions, i tried searching but couldnt find the answer to this.

Is it possible to obtain a PPL, then an intstructor licence to only teach PPL? Also if you can, what would be the chances of gaining a job as an instructor with only a PPL and Instructor rating?

Regards,
Gary Woodrow

[Blinkz]

yes you can become an instructor on a PPL, however you cannot get a job doing it without a CPL.

[S-Works]

Actually you can......

[Canuck Spin]

(One of the things I'm aware of is that...) You certainly can gain your FI(R) and instruct with a PPL(A) only but you need to have completed your CPL (or ATPL) theory exams and have 150hrs PIC (as opposed to 100hrs PIC if holding a CPL)...anyone please do correct me if I'm wrong.

One of the things I'm not aware of and would be interested to know about (being in the position of always having wanted to instruct but struggling to finance a CPL AND an FI(R) right now)... do many clubs go on to use PPL instructors? How are they viewed in the general world? (I know that individual skills/abilities/person to person interaction/communication/enthusiasm etc. is more important than a general view but it still gives an idea!)

Also how do CPL FI(R)s feel about PPL FI(R)s coming in and instructing "for free". I certainly wouldn't want to put noses out of joint of already struggling CPL holding FIs as despite instructing not being a lucrative passage even holding a CPL the money is obviously important to them.

In short I'm totally enthusiastic about flying and would love to develop my own skills aswell as have the (totally awesome, in the true meaning of the word, in my opinion) task of imparting the skills and knowledge and enthusiasm to others...but like many people, I am lacking in funds! Is this a possible route to follow in the current climate?

Thanks, CS

[Blinkz]

Actually you can......

Well I was talking about for renumeration (which is how I define a job!), which you can't do without a CPL. As I understand it you can instruct but not be paid with a PPL?

[mazzy1026]

Am I wrong in saying there may be a method for you to be a PPL instructor and still get paid, coming up in the near future?

Heard a couple of rumours suggesting that a new license may be brought up :confused:

[Canuck Spin]

Am I wrong in saying there may be a method for you to be a PPL instructor and still get paid, coming up in the near future?

Heard a couple of rumours suggesting that a new license may be brought up

I wouldn't want to be guilty of misquoting BEagle but something seems to be happening Re: NPPL Mazzy... http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3288405#post3288405

[S-Works]

If you wanted to be technically correct and within the law a PPL can work as an FI and have any reward paid to a Ltd Co or umbrella co which then pays the FI. As long as the FI does not own the company they are not taking reward for the flight Instruction.

It's a funny old world....

[FormationFlyer]

Which it would seem is a direct contradiction with the ANO. Do you have some references which show this?

[Sleeve Wing]

"any reward paid to a Ltd Co or umbrella co which then pays the FI. As long as the FI does not own the company they are not taking reward for the flight Instruction."

Hmmmmm..........so what's he being paid for then, bose ?
Surely it doesn't matter whether it's the FTO or the Limited Company that pays him/her. He/she is still being paid for instructional services rendered as far as the CAA is concerned.

[S-Works]

The umbrella company pays them as a consultant.

I am not sure I agree with the concept but it is perfectly legal.

I know of a number of cases where this goes on.

[jamestkirk]

A place i worked at once had a PPL FI. Mainly did trial lessons. Not sure if thats the norm for this type of thing, I would assume so.

It may have been touched upon, but the important thing is that anyone wishing to instruct on a PPL must ask themselves if they are experienced and competant enough to teach the varying degrees of student ability.

I am not generalising and do not wish to start a debate on the subject. In my experience a CPL (probably IR) FI with say 500 hours is probably going to be a little more in tune for this type of flying than a PPL with the same amount of hours. People may dis-agree, thats fine, it's just a personal opinion.

I was once told by a nice old chap at enstone; "you have a CPL/IR so you must be good". I replied that 'no, it just makes mistakes that much more difficult to explain'.

[2close]

To expand on bose-x's statement, you could effectively be employed by a corporate body as a salaried Ablutions Hygiene Technician and as an aside to your main duties operate the company Learjet on your PPL / ME IR with appropriate TR, etc. to run the boss here, there and everywhere.

Similarly, you could be employed as an aircraft cleaner at the local Flying School and undertake some instruction 'on the side' when you haven't got any aircraft to clean. You're being paid as a cleaner not as a FI but you are undertaking the role of a FI.

Provided your salary is related only to your contracted duties and not to your flying, I do not believe there would be anything illegal in this.

This may all be legal as far as the word of law goes but you may be giving your insurers a massive cop out when it comes to submitting a claim for the C-152 broken by the student pilot on solo circuits under the supervision of a PPL FI when their policy clearly states that the FI must hold a CPL.


I wonder how many insurers would insure a FTO or RTF to 'employ' PPL FI's without loading the policy. For that matter, I wonder whether any training organisations are using uninsured PPL FI's on the weekend.

When someone is injured or worse as a result of an accident when training and the insurer has the cop out to avoid paying the six + figure claim, you can rest assured they will use it.............bye, bye school........as well as the personal claim against the FI who was operating uninsured (possibly unknowingly but that would not be a defence)....bye, bye house, car and everything else (s)he's worked hard for, for years.

There is no way I would work as a PPL FI without having personally seen the insurance policy with my own two eyes and I think I would even go so far as to write to the insurance company for written confirmation that I was personally covered.

[S-Works]

The very British track of hiding behind what the insurance might do!!

The insurance company make NO differentiation between a CPL and a PPL FI. They have undertaken the same course and passed the same test which is all they are interested in. Feel free to call the insurers (Haywards) as I did to ask the question.

I would also argue that a PPL FI with 500hrs and a CPL FI with 500hrs is any different from a skill standpoint. The CPL flight test is easy and just re proves that you can VFR navigate. The FI test is the real test of skill in this case.

If I was that concerned over the standard of a student that I thought they may crash then I would be sending them off with the CFI to validate my view.

I also know many schools that employ PPL Instructors. They just don't advertise it as they do not differentiate. It's only those who feel threatened that create an issue....

[2close]

Bose-X,

Nobody is hiding behind anything. I simply pointed out a few POSSIBILITIES that may arise from a failure to be compliant with an insurance policy. I do not know the Ts and Cs of everyone's insurance policy (or anyone's for that matter, apart from my own) hence the reason I did not make any absolute statements and used potential scenarios only.

If insurance companies are happy to insure PPL FIs all well and fine, that is their business based on their risk assessment, but I would not be so bold as to make a sweeping statement infering that ALL insurance companies will insure PPL FIs on the basis of one telephone call to one insurer....or is there only one aviation insurer in the UK?

But I do know that failure to comply with the conditions of an insurance policy will be seized upon by the insurers to avoid payment. That I would bet my mortgage on.

If the CPL Skill Test is easy and is just a test to re-prove you can VFR navigate what is the point in testing the other areas of the CPL Skills Test and why is the criteria more stringent than that required for the PPL? Out of interest, when and where did you do your CPL Skills Test and how many hours did you have at that point? I only ask because you are the first person I have ever come across who has described it as easy.

Why shouldn't CPL FIs be protective over the professional instructor domain? They have put a great amount of time, effort and money into achieving their qualifications. BTW, at this stage in time I am not one but I am working towards it.

That isn't to say that just because someone does hold a CPL it gives them carte blanche to claim he or she is a better pilot or instructor than a PPL holder - that is definitely not the case.

Instructing ability is a different kettle of fish altogether but I do have a little trouble understanding why someone who has gone to the trouble of taking the CPL theory exams and the (more expensive) FI course (and potentially proved himself to be a competent and capable instructor) doesn't then undertake the CPL course so he can be reimbursed for his efforts - within a few years the CPL would have paid for itself, even on a part-time basis. It is also a practical demonstration of his ability to reach a standard of flying utilising criteria higher than that required for the PPL.

Of course, there may be medical reasons why he can't hold a CPL and that is a different issue altogether?

Last question, those schools you know of that utilise CPL and PPL FI's, do they charge different hourly tuition rates?

In any case, enough points for discussion for now. Bon soir!

[S-Works]

Before you go off on one at me. I did point out that I am not sure I agree with it.

I did my CPL at Bonus Aviation, I took the test at 15 hrs (already had an IR) and passed first time. I had nearly 2000 hrs at the time but did not think the CPL test was in anyway taxing.

There are only 2 aircraft insurers in the UK who underwrite with the same syndicates at Lloyds. I have been around aviation long enough to know how it works. So before you have a go at me I would suggest perhaps you might want to learn a little more. It is a great tradition of these forums to hide behind what an Insurance company "might" say. When you ask them them can't believe these type of discussions go on!

The organizations that I know of who use PPL Instructors charge the same rate to the student regardless of whether the Instructor is a PPL or CPL. Why should they charge different rates? It's only you assuming that a CPL is worth more than a PPL, when in fact when it comes to Instruction both have demonstrated the exact same standard. Perhaps if you went and did the FI course with the exacting test standards and pre-assessment you would understand that ANYONE who passes it CPL or PPL has made the grade to teach. While my views on hour builders are well known I fully respect those that have passed the FI course.

[2close]

I'm not having a go at you and I am certainly not questioning your viewpoint. Perish the thought. There is enough childish sniping, cat scratching and back biting goes on in internet forums without me adding to it.

Two people with differing opinions can raise those opinions without resorting to such behaviour.

I was intrigued by your statement that the CPL Skills Test was 'easy' - I will find out in a few weeks time and I sincerely hope that I find it as easy as yourself although I do not have the benefit of an IR or 2000 hours. But first I have the FI to finish off (as a PPL) - wx prevented my test last Tuesday.

I didn't assume a CPL FI was worth more than a PPL FI - I had a valid reason for asking the question with had nothing to do with 'value' and you have answered it, which raises an interesting issue regarding charging. If an organisation charges £120 per hour for instruction with a CPL FI, £20 of which goes to the FI, yet also charges £120 with a PPL FI, none of which goes to the FI, it is clearly in the financial interests of the FTO to have unpaid PPL FIs instructing. Simple maths and bigger profits.

In that respect the introduction of PPL FIs is clearly advatageous to the FTO, apart from being potentially detrimental to career CPL FIs, and I could imagine the unscrupulous of those FTOs taking advantage of that situation. That's not to say that all would, just an observation that some could. That has nothing to do with CPL / PPL ability, simply finances.

As I thought I had made clear, I am also in agreement with you that CPL or PPL makes no difference to an ability to teach. You can have 1,000's of flying hours under your belt with all the ratings under the sun and have flown through 30W countless times but it does not mean that you will be a good instructor. Similarly, the guy who for some reason cannot hold a CPL and who has a couple of hundred PPL hours, having absorbed everything he had been taught and has diligently applied those teachings coupled with an ability to communicate and empathise may make an absolutely brilliant instructor.

As for insurers, again I'm not having a go at you and I am certainly not hiding behind any forum. I don't know how many aviation insurers there are in the UK - I never claimed that I did. What I did question was whether the insurers would be happy to insure PPL FIs and I stand by my statement that if I was a PPL FI I would not be content to blindly go off and instruct without first seeing the policy. 'A bloke on a forum' or 'my boss told me I was OK' would not hold any water. Having worked with insurance companies for several years at the sharp end, the really sharp end, of insurance claims I am pretty happy that I know the way they work, despite how amazed they may claim to be at the way people talk about them. Having saved them very substantial amounts of money I know for a fact the lengths they will go to and how pleased they are when you save them that money.

Right then, I am now going to go off and skulk under my stone, having been suitably chastised or I may go and open a beer instead....ah, f*** it, the beer won!:ok:

Happy days and let's stay chilled.

[cypilot77]

Personally i have an FAA CPL/IR. Can i get a JAA FI without going through the 14 atpl exams? Basically i want to teach only PPL and get paid. Can my FAA CPL allow me to teach JAA PPL and get paid? (In Europe)

[BEagle]

No.











.

[vic1]

Hi cypilot77,
I am in a similar situation like you. I have an ICAO ATPL. Can i instruct PPL after going through the FI directly, or is it that a PPL is mandatory prior to that? Do we get any credits in the route to getting a PPL and later a FI if you hold a non JAA license??? Who decides these???
BEagle's uni worded reply to your question is not understood. But would appreciate if it can be elaborated.
Thanks,
Vic

[S-Works]

At the moment to get a JAA FI rating you will have to at least past the 8 CPL exams. IF you want to get get paid you will need to pass the CPL test as well. You then do the full FI rating.

Your FAA CPL is worth nothing in the JAA world. You want to get paid in Europe you need a JAA CPL.

[orionsbelt]

I am becoming increasingly irritated with the concepts being discussed on this forum by some members and the approach being adopted by AOPA with regards to the alleged Instructor shortage and the use of PPL instructors.
The concept of a PPL instructor flying at weekends to train and support small non profit making flying groups / clubs is an excellent Idea and should be progressed. However with the caveats that the organisation is a small group / Club working for the good of aviation and its members and non profit making. In this manner the group members understand they are working with a Non professional Instructor who's prime objective is the love of flying and the benefit of the group. However he/she should be remunerated for his time as class / IMC ratings and medicals cost a lot of money to maintain.
Now on the other hand the large and not so large Flying schools who are in operation as a business, offering 'Trial Flight' and other forms of flying entertainment and with a primary objective of making money should only be staffed by Professional Pilots with a class 1 medical and a minimum of a CPL. The public coming through the door expect and deserve to be flown by somebody with a professional licence. Anything less and the business is conning the paying public.
The recent article in the June issue of the AOPA magazine angered me.
''Training group tackles Instructor shortage''. This article supports the Corporate AOPA members and is looking for short cuts to undermine the existing band of instructors who are the backbone of GA Training in the UK. At no time did the article mention methods of improving the pay and conditions of existing career instructors, Why not?????????. This is the main cause of any alleged shortage. Because on that note I suggest these organisation take a good look at themselves because if they are worth working for they would attract the right calibre of instructor and not just the hour builder who is off at the first opportunity. In the part of the UK I work in the good outfits have no staffing problems.
The use of PPL instructors in the Corporate operation is criminal abuse of the system.
It undermines the CPL instructor who has had to spend in the region of £20000+ to qualify and maintain licences.
What crazy ideas will you come up with next, PPL pilot assistants on schedule operations!!!!!!!!

[BEagle]

So such organisations should stop the 'trial lesson' pretence and become bona fide AOC-holding organisations offering joy rides. Little Lord 4 ring-Cessna pilot can then impress such punters to his heart's content quite legally.

Whereas it is most certainly intended that some PPL-level flight instruction will certainly be conducted by non-CPL holders in the future and that they will also be entitled to receive remuneration for this.

"The use of PPL instructors in the Corporate operation is criminal abuse of the system.
It undermines the CPL instructor who has had to spend in the region of £20000+ to qualify and maintain licences."

Utter nonsense. The ability to impart flight instruction in an airborne environment is the main requirement. Own flying skill, experience and spare capacity are also important of course, as are sound interpersonal skills. Whereas knowing how many stewardesses are required in a 747 is utterly irrelevant.

[gijoe]

Beags,

Any more info on a possible timescale for this?

[BEagle]

Nope, sorry.

The process started a week ago; it will be harmonised with EASA requirements, so may take a couple of years to achieve.

It is aimed at pilots of SEP Class aeroplanes, with the right qualities and experience to impart instruction. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect some to build hours at PPL level, then, if they are accepted onto FI courses, to earn some money as FIs before embarking on the CPL/IR route to people-tube jobs.

[gijoe]

Thanks :ok: